SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Starting pitching depth entering season
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 9:09:25 GMT -5
Not sure this deserve its own thread so I'll run with it here. I think a lot of people agree that starting pitching in some form or another is the teams biggest weakness. Most that do point to the lack of an Ace as the reason. The counter argument is there is a lot of depth. The depth of the rotation may also be the real weakness. 1-5 if healthy it's got great depth but a lack of a top end. The problem is there is little to no real depth behind those five guys and 3 of the 5 (Clay, Kelley and Masterson) are highly susceptible to injury.
This board is full of prospect lovers so most will probably jump to the AAA rotation and see Wright, Owens, Barnes, Johnson, Rodriguez and Escobar and argue otherwise. Maybe some will even include Workman. However, most of that group either isn't ready quite yet (Owens, johnson, Rodriguez) or isn't that good (Escobar, Workman) or is provably a reliever (Barnes, Workmam) or is a complete wildcard knuckleballer (Wright).
The lack of depth behind our rotation may be the teams undoing. Hopefully, the rotation stays healthy for at least the first couple months. And yes most teams lack a lot of depth but when the rotation is predicated upon having 5 mid rotation to better starters adding in a guy who is back end hurts more because you lack the higher end guys to balance it out. And 3/5 of this rotation has injury concerns.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 10, 2015 9:35:47 GMT -5
I don't know what teams have better depth outside the top 5. You're lucky to have any decent veterans in the minors and also lucky to have 3 highly regarded prospects in AAA. Plus Wright and Barnes. Who has anywhere close to that? What do you expect?
I mean if you're not a prospect lover, what are you instead? You want to sign James Shields and put him in AAA? Any depth worth having already has a major league contract or has to remain in the majors and can't stay stretched out. From there, you're onto the Aaron Cook's of the world. What possible moves besides upgrading the top 5 would you have suggested?
You're bitching about something that cannot possibly be better than it is.
I actually have little doubt that Johnson, Owens or Rodriguez could hold their own pretty damn soon. Especially when you take the best of the three after seeing what you have.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 10, 2015 10:05:03 GMT -5
Not sure this deserve its own thread so I'll run with it here. I think a lot of people agree that starting pitching in some form or another is the teams biggest weakness. Most that do point to the lack of an Ace as the reason. The counter argument is there is a lot of depth. The depth of the rotation may also be the real weakness. 1-5 if healthy it's got great depth but a lack of a top end. The problem is there is little to no real depth behind those five guys and 3 of the 5 (Clay, Kelley and Masterson) are highly susceptible to injury. This board is full of prospect lovers so most will probably jump to the AAA rotation and see Wright, Owens, Barnes, Johnson, Rodriguez and Escobar and argue otherwise. Maybe some will even include Workman. However, most of that group either isn't ready quite yet (Owens, johnson, Rodriguez) or isn't that good (Escobar, Workman) or is provably a reliever (Barnes, Workmam) or is a complete wildcard knuckleballer (Wright). The lack of depth behind our rotation may be the teams undoing. Hopefully, the rotation stays healthy for at least the first couple months. And yes most teams lack a lot of depth but when the rotation is predicated upon having 5 mid rotation to better starters adding in a guy who is back end hurts more because you lack the higher end guys to balance it out. And 3/5 of this rotation has injury concerns. I certainly share the concern over the recent injury history of Buchholz and Masterson (and the lack of innings from Kelly). But I'm not sure the rest of the points hold a lot of water, really. I mean, sure, if you have 5 #3s, it hurts more to lose the fifth starter in that group than losing the fifth starter in a typical rotation. But that's just if it's the fifth starter getting injured. If you have a rotation with two top-flight guys, then lesser guys, if you lose one of the top 2, you're utterly screwed. Depth is depth, and the idea around this kind of rotation is that you are spreading the risk out more, while still keeping some reward upside because these guys are generally young or have proven performance upside (Masterson and Buchholz). And, I know I like Wright more than most, but I think he's a better #6 starter than almost any other team has on standby. I also think saying that Barnes is "provably a reliever" is a vast overstatement. He may end up there, but I'm actually getting more optimistic about him, not less. His command looks better and better, and his breaking ball is very, very improved. Again, it's not the ideal rotation, but it was a creative way of dealing with what was a pretty empty rotation at the end of last year. One caveat I have, though, is that it makes the Lackey trade looks worse in retrospect (assuming he didn't force it somehow). Having him in the rotation this year instead of Kelly would be perfect for the way this team is constructed. But maybe Kelly puts it together ... still probably need another year to evaluate that trade.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 10:31:40 GMT -5
Whoa Jim settle down buddy. I am not bitching or complaining just making an observation. I'm not even say thing they should have done anything different this offseason. Every team has its weaknesses and this appears to be one for the Red Sox. At least early on. Of course you are comfortable with those guys stepping in and performing. You think every prospect is his ceiling.
Brian I think what your missing is if the Sox lose any of their guys they lose their depth advantage when adding a low level guy in whereas if another team loses any one of 3 or 4 guys for a stretch its not nearly as bad because they have the higher level players to balance out. It's not just about comparing 5th starters.
I'm encouraged by Barnes and Johnson and Owens and Rodriguez but it's overly optimistic to think they are ready to step into the rotation. Barnes maybe and Wright can do the knuckleball thing but it's risky.
Again when your rotation is predicated on having 5 mid tier guys - losing any of them has a higher probability of being more detrimental to you than another team whose rotation is built more traditionally. It's a risk that I haven't seen discussed. It's also precarious building such a rotation with 3 injury concerns.
Not a complaint.
.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 10, 2015 10:36:09 GMT -5
Worth its own thread, imo.
I think the present #6 starter is an interesting question. Would depend on when the player gets hurt, right? If, say, Kelly needs TJ tomorrow, who gets bumped up? Wright? Do you stretch Workman out? Escobar? Barnes?
I wouldn't say the club lacks depth, but would rather say the early-season spot starter isn't clear. With the present arms they have, I think the depth probably takes a month or two to solidify, at which point they could have the best rotation depth in baseball.
To make Brain Toast's point, see the Rangers, who will be replacing Yu Darvish with one of Chi Chi Gonzalez (who is emerging as a frontrunner for the spot), Nick Tepesch, Nick Martinez, and Anthony Ranaudo. Gonzalez is basically like Barnes with worse stuff but probably better pitchability maybe? But he's replacing a Cy candidate instead of Joe Kelly or Rick Porcello.
I'd personally take the Wright, Barnes, Workman, Escobar, Owens competition over that one.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 10:42:52 GMT -5
Yea, I mean it comes down to caring about what contenders can do rather than what just some other team can do. Not sure where Texas with Darvish fits in that. I don't think anyone really looked at them as a contender though...
And I agree about the early season part which is why I made mention of being healthy for the first couple months.
I just worry that they are in a spot where they may need more than one guy to step up and we will need them to be mid rotation-ish off the bat. That's a lot to expect of any of these guys.
Again Jim not a complaint just an observation of where things are today.
I do expect them to add a starter midseason if things are going well for the team
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 10, 2015 10:52:15 GMT -5
Brian I think what your missing is if the Sox lose any of their guys they lose their depth advantage when adding a low level guy in whereas if another team loses any one of 3 or 4 guys for a stretch its not nearly as bad because they have the higher level players to balance out. It's not just about comparing 5th starters. [...] Again when your rotation is predicated on having 5 mid tier guys - losing any of them has a higher probability of being more detrimental to you than another team whose rotation is built more traditionally. It's a risk that I haven't seen discussed. It's also precarious building such a rotation with 3 injury concerns. I just worry that they are in a spot where they may need more than one guy to step up and we will need them to be mid rotation-ish off the bat. That's a lot to expect of any of these guys. You've said this a couple times and I still don't understand why a rotation with five mid-tier guys requires better depth than a traditional 1-2-3-4-5 rotation, especially in light of brianthetaoist's post (whose point I'm going to restate). Yes, if a traditional 1-2-3-4-5 team loses their #5 pitcher, there's less of a dropoff. But if they lose their #1 pitcher, there's far more of a dropoff, and on average, the existing distribution of your rotation shouldn't really affect the importance of your depth starters.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 10, 2015 11:07:07 GMT -5
Here's a quick comparison of the depth starters of other AL contenders, drawn from Fangraphs' depth charts, along with their projected FIP/ERA (a 50/50 mix of Steamer and ZiPS) and my subjective judgement of whether those guys are better, worse, or comparable to the Red Sox guys: Red Sox: Steven Wright: 4.51 ERA, 4.57 FIP Matt Barnes: 3.93 ERA, 3.98 FIP Henry Owens: 4.18 ERA, 4.30 FIP Mariners: Taijuan Walker: 4.00 ERA, 4.02 FIP Erasmo Ramirez: 4.32 ERA, 4.34 FIP Verdict: better Yankees: Chris Capuano: 4.35 ERA, 4.25 FIP Bryan Mitchell: 5.19 ERA, 5.11 FIP Verdict: worse Blue Jays: Daniel Norris: 4.12 ERA, 4.18 FIP Marco Estrada: 4.11 ERA, 4.26 FIP Verdict: better Orioles: Ubaldo Jimenez: 4.22 ERA, 4.33 FIP Tim Berry: 4.94 ERA, 5.02 FIP Verdict: worse Angels: Andrew Heaney: 3.89 ERA, 3.98 FIP Nicholas Tropeano: 4.05 ERA, 3.94 FIP Verdict: better Tigers: Buck Farmer: 5.11 ERA, 4.87 FIP Drew VerHagen: 4.99 ERA, 4.87 FIP Verdict: worse Indians: Josh Tomlin: 4.21 ERA, 3.89 FIP Zack McAllister: 3.89 ERA, 3.62 FIP Verdict: better White Sox: Erik Johnson: 5.45 ERA, 5.19 FIP Carlos Rodon: 4.39 ERA, 4.72 FIP [note: this is probably a bad projection] Verdict: comparable Rangers: Nick Tepesch: 4.73 ERA, 4.68 FIP Nick Martinez: 5.16 ERA, 5.15 FIP Verdict: worse ...so it looks like the Red Sox are in the middle of the pack (four worse, one comparable, four better).
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Mar 10, 2015 11:07:34 GMT -5
I'd also argue against the reasoning that the 3 pitchers you mentioned aren't ready for the bigs. Maybe not ATM, but within a month I'd argue that Brian Johnson will be ready. Back in 2013 Spring Training, many expected Webster and De La Rosa to see a majority of Boston's spot starts. Yet it was Brandon Workman, with just 5 starts in AA going into the season, who was up by early July.
Workman and Johnson are similar prospects in the sense that both are/were low-ceiling, back-end starters. Difference here is that Johnson has more of a starter profile (4 pitches w/ good control), and had significantly more success and experience at the higher levels going into the season.
My guess is that Wright gets the spot start if needed within the first 2-3 weeks of the season. Beyond that, Johnson will be more than capable of filling in.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 10, 2015 11:08:33 GMT -5
Yea, I mean it comes down to caring about what contenders can do rather than what just some other team can do. Not sure where Texas with Darvish fits in that. I don't think anyone really looked at them as a contender though... And I agree about the early season part which is why I made mention of being healthy for the first couple months. I just worry that they are in a spot where they may need more than one guy to step up and we will need them to be mid rotation-ish off the bat. That's a lot to expect of any of these guys. Again Jim not a complaint just an observation of where things are today. I do expect them to add a starter midseason if things are going well for the team Who are these contenders with superior pitching depth though? Here are the rotation depth charts for the rest of the division, for example. Rays: Cobb, Archer, Smyly (shoulder tendinitis), Odorizzi, fifth starter competition between Alex Colome and Nathan Karns (Moore due back mid-season) Jays: Dickey, Stroman, Buehrle, Hutchison, Estrada, Norris, Sanchez Johan Santana Yankees: Tanaka, Pineda, Sabathia, Eovaldi, Capuano, Warren (Nova back mid-season) Orioles: Tillman, Chen, Norris, Gonzalez, Gausman, Jimenez So I mean, does any of those teams clearly have better rotation depth than the Sox five plus either Wright or Barnes? The Jays probably, but Chris freaking Capuano is presently in the Yankees rotation and Ubaldo Jimenez is a joke. Rays I'll go conservative and say it's comparable. EDIT: What jmei said - I'd say they have average present depth with above-average potential for that present depth to improve over the course of the season as one or two guys become ready.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 11:17:15 GMT -5
The second quote is completely different than what you're questioning. That has to do with the spotty health of 3 of the 5 starters.
The entire philosophy behind the Sox rotation or success of it is having number 3 type starters in spots 1-5. Common sense tells you if you lose any of them and have a drop off in those spots that advantage goes away. If another team loses it's Ace then yea sure that team is more screwed than if the sox lose any of their other starters. However, if that other team loses any of the other pitchers in the rotation (80%) probability) then the other team having that Ace or Aces (since a lot of these teams have multiple top of the rotation guys) more than out weighs things. I only care about real contenders for obvious reasons. We can agree to disagree but I put a higher weighted importance on the pitchers who I consider top of the rotation types.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 10, 2015 11:21:36 GMT -5
I'm probably too familiar with the Oakland team, but as I've mentioned before, if Johnson were in the Oakland system, he'd be preparing for his major league debut I believe. Beane ignores all of that stuff about "aces" and who slots where. He brings up guys like Parker and Anderson after minimal exposure to AAA, he's done that forever. He'd do backflips if he had Rodriquez in the system.
There is a dark side. His teams tend to burn through young pitchers. Anderson has had a lot of problems, and Parker was on the shelf all last year. I worry about Sonny Gray also. So I think there's an argument to be made for gradually ramping up the workload and the pressure on pitchers.
But all in all, the Sox are far from devoid of options, and I don't think the ones jmei listed above are necessarily even the best ones.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Mar 10, 2015 11:22:55 GMT -5
Assuming that Steven Wright doesn't have a terrible spring, I think the only near-certainty at this point is that he is the first starting pitcher called up. He is on the 40, he has experience at the major league level, and he is more or less a finished product (if that can ever be said for a Knuckler). They also need to see what Wright can do, and I think he'll get a chance to prove he belongs on the team. I think he is a pretty good option at #6.
If disaster strikes and more than one rotation member goes down soon with a long-term injury, perhaps Workman could be retained as starter depth instead of converted to relief.
Barnes and Escobar are also on the 40, but I see them being evaluated longer and/or consolidating gains at AAA. Even if Barnes is still looking great at the end of spring training, he will be given a month or two to show consistency and gain confidence before he is brought up. Not to mention that Escobar is still really young.
As for the next wave of Owens, Rodriquez, and Johnson, they will be later in the season call-ups (if at all), mostly because of roster construction and service time considerations.
It seems as if early season spot-starters and injury replacements are more about roster move calculus than bringing up the most talented pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Mar 10, 2015 11:24:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 10, 2015 11:47:43 GMT -5
The entire philosophy behind the Sox rotation or success of it is having number 3 type starters in spots 1-5. Common sense tells you if you lose any of them and have a drop off in those spots that advantage goes away. If another team loses it's Ace then yea sure that team is more screwed than if the sox lose any of their other starters. However, if that other team loses any of the other pitchers in the rotation (80%) probability) then the other team having that Ace or Aces (since a lot of these teams have multiple top of the rotation guys) more than out weighs things. Let's illustrate this with an example. Let's take one team with a rotation of a #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5. Let's take another one with five #3s. Let's assume a 20% chance that each starter gets injured. Let's assume that the sixth starter for each team is a #6 and that the downgrade from each tier is equal. Team 1: .20(1-6)+.20(2-6)+.20(3-6)+.20(4-6)+.20(5-6) = -3 Team 2: .20(3-6)+.20(3-6)+.20(3-6)+.20(3-6)+.20(3-6) = -3 There's the same dropoff either way. With the 1-2-3-4-5 team, if the #1/#2 get injured, there's more of a dropoff. If the #4/#5 get injured, there's less of a dropoff. Average it out and the dropoff is the same. Depth is not more important for a team with a rotation distribution like the Red Sox than for a team with a more standard rotation distribution.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 11:51:59 GMT -5
This isn't just about the depth, it's about the depth being more important to them than other contenders. That's obviously an opinion and subjective, but it's what I believe at this juncture and it's a concern, not a complaint. I agree that in a couple months if all goes right the minor league depth could be phenominal and I actually believe that some of the guys could be better than the current options so I'm hoping they take those steps.
I look at the 5 real contenders in the AL, besides the Sox, as the Angles, Orioles, White Sox, Tigers and Mariners. The Orioles I actually feel are in a similar position as the Red Sox.
Since Buchholz always misses time, I'll take him out to try to illustrate my point:
Porcello ........... ............. Sale Miley ............................ Samardzija Masterson ......................... Danks Kelly ............................... Noesi Wright ................................ Rondon
Verdict: White Sox
(removed Quintana who if on the Red Sox may be their best starter and if you put him back in and took out Samardzija then it's still better and taking out Sale and leaving the other two makes it probably comparable or possibly still leaning White sox.)
Porcello .......................... Richards Miley ...............................Weaver Masterson ............................. Shoemaker Kelly ................................. Heaney Wright ............................ Santiago
Verdict: Angels
(removed Wilson, but could really remove Weaver instead - as long as a healthy Richards is in the rotation you can swap anyone else out for Santiago/Heaney and clearly be in a better spot)
Porcello ............................ Price Miley ............................... Sanchez Masterson........................... Greene Kelly .................................. Simon Wright ................................. Farmer
Verdict: Tigers (removed Verlander - I mean who the heck knows with him anyways, but price and/or Sanchez would be the Sox best Starter and Verlaner would possibly be that or right behind Porcello, even sketchy Verlander... Green and Simon aren't really much different than Kelly...
Porcello................................. Hernandez Miley .................................Iwakuma Masterson................................. Happ Kelly .........................................Elias Wright................................... Walker
Verdict: Mariners Took out Paxton, but can really take out Iwakuma and put him in and I'd still rather have their rotation because of King Felix. If you take out King Felix and replace Im with Paxton then it becomes even, but that's them losing their Ace and still having it be at least even.
The Blue Jays I'm skipping because I don't consider them real contenders. I get the arguments, but they get injured and fall apart every year; their rotation is old or suspect or injury prone. The lineup is nice, but will it be healthy either?
Tampa isn't a contender either
The Yankees always seem to find away to stay around, but they aren't contenders in my eyes either. Tanaka's elbow will require TJS and CC is old.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 10, 2015 11:56:43 GMT -5
The more legitimate depth options you have, the more likely it is that someone will outperform their projections. We not only have a 6th and 7th starter, we also have about 5 more realistic options who have an upside.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 12:01:03 GMT -5
The more legitimate depth options you have, the more likely it is that someone will outperform their projections. We not only have a 6th and 7th starter, we also have about 5 more realistic options who have an upside. In theory you are right, but in practice does it work that way? Yes, having more guys performing in AAA will give you more choices, but then you have to choose. Then having those choices makes you less likely to stick with a guy if he doesn't perform right away. does this compound the issue or help the issue? Young starters will typically struggle early while they adjust. Do you let them adjust or stick with your original choice or turn to someone else? I'm not saying choices hurt; options are most certainly good. It just doesn't translate to easily finding the guy that will work in the major leagues. By the way, I'm extactic about the young arms in AAA. I really am. I love that they moved out the "dead weight" in front of them to open up the path. Yes, I considered Webster, Ruby and Ranaudo dead weight. Well not Ruby, but the other two.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 10, 2015 12:05:21 GMT -5
Yeah, this is something Hatfield mentioned, about 2012 having driven home the depth message. I'd add the 2014 outfield fiasco to that learning curve. This appears to be one more page torn from the playbook of the resident sports "genius". You can never have too many reserves to call on.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 10, 2015 12:07:58 GMT -5
... In theory you are right, but in practice does it work that way? Yes, having more guys performing in AAA will give you more choices, but then you have to choose. Then having those choices makes you less likely to stick with a guy if he doesn't perform right away. does this compound the issue or help the issue? Young starters will typically struggle early while they adjust. Do you let them adjust or stick with your original choice or turn to someone else? I'm not saying choices hurt; options are most certainly good. It just doesn't translate to easily finding the guy that will work in the major leagues. By the way, I'm extactic about the young arms in AAA. I really am. I love that they moved out the "dead weight" in front of them to open up the path. Yes, I considered Webster, Ruby and Ranaudo dead weight. Well not Ruby, but the other two. You're really over-thinking this, rjp...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 10, 2015 12:10:33 GMT -5
This isn't just about the depth, it's about the depth being more important to them than other contenders. That's obviously an opinion and subjective, but it's what I believe at this juncture and it's a concern, not a complaint. I agree that in a couple months if all goes right the minor league depth could be phenominal and I actually believe that some of the guys could be better than the current options so I'm hoping they take those steps. I look at the 5 real contenders in the AL, besides the Sox, as the Angles, Orioles, White Sox, Tigers and Mariners. The Orioles I actually feel are in a similar position as the Red Sox. [Remainder omitted for space reasons] I think it's fair point that the depth is more solid than great-- I agree that you can do better than Wright/Barnes and that Owens/et al. need more time. But I continue to not understand this idea that depth is more important for the Red Sox than they are for most teams. I mean, those rotations are already better than that of the Red Sox (except maybe the Angels, who I think are comparable now and would continue to be comparable under the scenario you drew up above). It shouldn't be much of a surprise that they continue to be better when you remove a starter.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 12:17:05 GMT -5
This isn't just about the depth, it's about the depth being more important to them than other contenders. That's obviously an opinion and subjective, but it's what I believe at this juncture and it's a concern, not a complaint. I agree that in a couple months if all goes right the minor league depth could be phenominal and I actually believe that some of the guys could be better than the current options so I'm hoping they take those steps. I look at the 5 real contenders in the AL, besides the Sox, as the Angles, Orioles, White Sox, Tigers and Mariners. The Orioles I actually feel are in a similar position as the Red Sox. [Remainder omitted for space reasons] I think it's fair point that the depth is more solid than great-- I agree that you can do better than Wright/Barnes and that Owens/et al. need more time. But I continue to not understand this idea that depth is more important for the Red Sox than they are for most teams. I mean, those rotations are already better than that of the Red Sox (except maybe the Angels, who I think are comparable now and would continue to be comparable under the scenario you drew up above). It shouldn't be much of a surprise that they continue to be better when you remove a starter. I think you hit on why it's more important to them. Their rotation isn't as good and it's built on it's depth therefore said depth is more important.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 12:17:40 GMT -5
... In theory you are right, but in practice does it work that way? Yes, having more guys performing in AAA will give you more choices, but then you have to choose. Then having those choices makes you less likely to stick with a guy if he doesn't perform right away. does this compound the issue or help the issue? Young starters will typically struggle early while they adjust. Do you let them adjust or stick with your original choice or turn to someone else? I'm not saying choices hurt; options are most certainly good. It just doesn't translate to easily finding the guy that will work in the major leagues. By the way, I'm extactic about the young arms in AAA. I really am. I love that they moved out the "dead weight" in front of them to open up the path. Yes, I considered Webster, Ruby and Ranaudo dead weight. Well not Ruby, but the other two. You're really over-thinking this, rjp... Ummmm yea Norm that's what we do here.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 10, 2015 13:14:22 GMT -5
Taking a step back away from the theoretical and back to the Red Sox specifically...
I think we all agree it's between Barnes and Wright for the #6 starter. If it's a long-term replacement situation, I think it would be Barnes - I simply think he's ahead of Wright already. There seems to be this sense that Barnes is still developing while Wright has missed out on a chance despite fantastic minor league numbers, but I don't really see that. Barnes was arguably better at Pawtucket in '14 than Wright. His K rate was better and HR rate much lower, resulting in a slightly better FIP - with the caveat that FIP tends to underrate knuckleball pitchers, as the pitch tends to induce softer contact and therefore a lower BABIP. Also, Barnes' season got off to a late start, but he was unquestionably throwing the best of anyone on that staff in August. He made exactly the kind improvements you want to see. He may not be a finished product, but he's at least as ready as anyone ever is when they get a shot.
I wouldn't be opposed to Wright, though. He's pitched well enough at Triple-A to earn a chance and I'd be happy to see him get it.
I don't see Workman as a starter at this point. He got a long look for someone who was already a bit fringy as a prospect, and in my opinion didn't do enough with it to get another, barring an improvement in stuff. He'll also be 27 in August. If they're going to do a reliever-to-starter conversion I'd rather see them try Robbie Ross, who has better stuff and is also younger.
Anyhow, if they need significant innings from someone beyond their #7 before midseason (when the lefties should be near enough to ready) then I think it's likely they go outside of the organization.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 10, 2015 13:55:12 GMT -5
I think we all owe Marcus Stroman an apology for jinxing him... ugh.
I take back what I said about the Blue Jays.
|
|
|