|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 24, 2013 13:51:18 GMT -5
As Mellen and other staff have pointed out, getting all of the repertoire under control will be the key to his ceiling. There's no doubt he has the skillset of a top of the rotation starter. The array of pitches starts with the easy-looking mid-90s heat with the sinking action, and amazingly, it only gets better from there. But those pitches are only as useful as his ability to spot them. He's not there yet. That's what can - potentially - take him to another level. That's in the future, maybe. For now he's one good-looking number five starter, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Apr 24, 2013 16:06:39 GMT -5
Webster might get the Sunday start as reported by various people on Twitter. Since he was sent down as part of the day-night double header transaction, he does not need to wait ten days.
|
|
|
Post by hughlangin on Apr 25, 2013 9:59:09 GMT -5
I think Alfredo Aceves just opened up the door for Webster as he pretty much just blew his shot at the rotation, and I doubt he is our 6th man anymore. Perhaps he gets a start if needed and is performing well in Pawtucket but I have to believe that if he looks good down there as a stater stretched out the Sox try to get something for him (or at least unload the salary). When the Sox need a 6th pitcher (and they will) then all things considered (Webster continues to look good withstanding) Webster is our guy. If we lose someone to some substantial time then his performance will really mean alot to this seasons outcome. I don't think I'd ever bet on a team's rotation being healthy all year round and if Webster rises to the challenge then......well it's just going to make that L.A. trade look even better. Pawtucket or Boston when this kid pitches I pay attention.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Apr 25, 2013 12:06:44 GMT -5
I think Alfredo Aceves just opened up the door for Webster as he pretty much just blew his shot at the rotation, and I doubt he is our 6th man anymore. Perhaps he gets a start if needed and is performing well in Pawtucket but I have to believe that if he looks good down there as a stater stretched out the Sox try to get something for him (or at least unload the salary). When the Sox need a 6th pitcher (and they will) then all things considered (Webster continues to look good withstanding) Webster is our guy. If we lose someone to some substantial time then his performance will really mean alot to this seasons outcome. I don't think I'd ever bet on a team's rotation being healthy all year round and if Webster rises to the challenge then......well it's just going to make that L.A. trade look even better. Pawtucket or Boston when this kid pitches I pay attention. Would the Sox look to Morales instead as the spot/6th stater and let Webster develop a bit more in Pawtucket?
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Apr 25, 2013 12:34:02 GMT -5
I'd have Morales in the bullpen and ready to make a spot start if the days the Sox needed a starter didn't match up with Webster
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 25, 2013 13:17:49 GMT -5
what's up with Lackey? he not starting Sunday now? The only issue I see with Webster starting Sunday is you're going to burn an option. Maybe they don't care because they expect to at some point this year anyways, but if he's called up later in the year and not sent down then no option is used. Perhaps they don't care because they just expect him to be one of those guys that the options don't come into play.
|
|
|
Post by hughlangin on Apr 25, 2013 13:36:16 GMT -5
I envision Webster coming back up and filling in the rotation in the event that 1 of the starting 5 severely underperform or more likely end up on the D.L. Theres a decent chance that happens to at least one guy at some point and someone moves into that 5th spot. I was speculating Webster, but I had forgotten about Morales as a 6th man. Perhaps Webster is more the guy if he continues his dominance in Pawtucket and a spot in the rotation opens up in July/August.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Apr 25, 2013 15:09:55 GMT -5
All signs point to Lackey starting on Sunday, Webster is an insurance policy if something goes wrong with a bullpen session for Lackey between now and Saturday.
RJP313jr: Unless I'm mistaken, the option for 2013 for Webster is already been used since he was called up and sent back down last week. The transaction log for the Sox lists it as "Webster optioned back to Pawtucket" so unless there's another loophole in the 26th man for double headers rule I don't think that plays into it for the rest of 2013
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 25, 2013 15:17:29 GMT -5
According to the ESPN article written by Joe McDonald, they did not use an option on the call up. Not that reporters have never been wrong...
"Per MLB rules, teams are allowed to add a 26th man to the roster for doubleheaders, so Webster was sent back to Pawtucket after the game, and the move does not count against the Sox's options on him."
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Apr 25, 2013 16:17:17 GMT -5
He was already 'optioned' to Pawtucket from Spring, so it's all moot anyway, right?
But really, who cares about options with Webster? He's a nearly ML-ready SP with 2 more option years left AFTER 2013. If he isn't ready for a full-time rotation spot by 2016, something went very very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Apr 25, 2013 16:20:20 GMT -5
"According to the ESPN article written by Joe McDonald, they did not use an option on the call up. Not that reporters have never been wrong..."
They optioned him in March. Pretty sure he used up his 20 days already?
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Apr 25, 2013 16:24:28 GMT -5
One more note on that, is that I think DeLa Rosa has three option years left, including this one. Given his inconsistency so far, he might normally profile as a pen arm. But given he managed to have Major League service in TWO different years for LAD, without burning an option, he'll have a full year to ramp up this year, and then another two years to show he can harnass his stuff as a SP.
The opposite being someone like Stolmy Pimentel or Drake Britton, who did/might run out of time and options to show they can start.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Huegel on Apr 25, 2013 16:38:18 GMT -5
"According to the ESPN article written by Joe McDonald, they did not use an option on the call up. Not that reporters have never been wrong..." They optioned him in March. Pretty sure he used up his 20 days already? Yeah, you're right. Mcdonald shows a lack of knowledge on the rule there. If you're on the 40-man and down in minors for more than 20 total days during a season, you burn that option year. Has nothing to do with the most recent call-up. You can find more info on that rule on the Wiki.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Apr 25, 2013 18:07:42 GMT -5
Thanks. I forgot that he was already on the 40 man to begin the season. I'm not concerned about his 3 options. If he hasn't been able to take command of a rotation spot given three years at AAA+ then the chances of it happening are fairly slim. It's the advantage of him getting to that level before having to get him on the 40.
RDLR is great as well with that. I feel like the Punto trade seemingly gets better every day
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 25, 2013 23:27:46 GMT -5
Ok, I think people are getting confused here.
What McDonald was talking about is the rule that after you option a player to the minors, he cannot be called back up for 10 days unless a player goes on the DL. However, when you call a player up to be the 26th active player in a doubleheader, apparently that doesn't count toward that rule.
He was not talking about burning an option. Webster has already burned it. That's not at issue. What was at issue was whether Webster was available to start on Sunday if Lackey can't go.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Huegel on Apr 26, 2013 9:42:03 GMT -5
Well, I'm sure that's what he meant, but the phrase "the move does not count against the Sox's options on him" is still misleading.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on May 4, 2013 1:03:35 GMT -5
Can someone please explain why the Dodgers included Webster in the Punto trade?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 4, 2013 10:44:29 GMT -5
Can someone please explain why the Dodgers included Webster in the Punto trade? I moved this post because it deserves at least an attempt at an answer. Here's the BP Annual's first few sentences on Webster: They go on to talk about Webster's pluses - considerable as we've all come to realize. It looks as if the final puzzle pieces are falling into place. He's gained very good control of his arsenal if the BB rate is any indication, and he may be getting more dominant as the game goes on, if last night was an example. I'd love to hear Mellen's take on this. While the above comment from BP seems to place the blame on the GM, he was only taking marching orders. I heard an interview on the MLB network with him. He was told to do what he did: get some names they could sell no matter what the cost. And so he did. I don't think the new owners had much of a feel for all the different parts you need to prepare for a season that lasts 162 games. And while they couldn't have planned for the Greinke fiasco, they left themselves very thin when they traded away their top two minor league starters (De La Rosa wasn't even that as they'd seen him pitch and dominate in the majors). I'm sure some of their minor league staff were sorry to lose a talent like Webster. All the early comments I dug up were just glowing about this kid's potential.He was moving very fast, according to one pitching coach. Fast enough that it's hard to tell what his ceiling is, even now. The credit goes to Cherrington here. I'd love to have been privy to those negotiations. Maybe he'll write a book someday. When he does, I hope there's a chapter on what a dominant pitcher Webster became. Edit: I'm scanning Chris Mellen's twitter feeds right now. Lots of stuff from last night, lots of insight. Edit2: Mellen mentions that he was able to keep his hard stuff closer to the edges of the plate, and that he shows better command, though it still "wasn't quite there". My take on that is that he could pitch in the majors right now - and he has - but that there would be times he'd have to be on a short leash with spotty command. I'd bet there would also be times when he would flat out dominate. That sort of trajectory, with increasingly finer command of the stuff, might eventually take him to the top of the Sox rotation.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 4, 2013 10:55:19 GMT -5
Can someone please explain why the Dodgers included Webster in the Punto trade? I'd say desperation to make a big splash and tap the Mexican market with a big star in Gonzalez. If you're desperate enough to take on Crawford's ridiculous contract and Beckett's fading star, then you'd be desperate enough to deal two kids with huge arms because the solace is that they held onto Zach Lee. This is Cherington's version of Dan Duquette's Varitek/Lowe fleecing of Seattle for Heathcliff Slocumb. Well, at least the Dodgers will get something out of Gonzalez, although they'll be overpaying for it (not that they care).
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 4, 2013 10:57:40 GMT -5
Gonzalez was the one player who at least had the potential to live up to that contract, and he's doing just that this year.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 4, 2013 11:01:00 GMT -5
Gonzalez was the one player who at least had the potential to live up to that contract, and he's doing just that this year. Can't disagree with that. I do question his ability to do so for the remainder of his long contract. I can say one thing. I spent a lot of 2012 wishing the Sox could deal Gonzalez back for Anthony Rizzo. Rizzo may never be what Gonzalez was/is (especially in his San Diego years), but I'd take Rizzo for a fraction of the cost of Gonzalez and use the money saved elsewhere on the team. Anyways, that's what I wished alot during the 2012 season - and I say this as a guy who hated losing Rizzo, but absolutely loved seeing the Sox deal for Gonzo for the 2011 season. I was just surprised at how much my opinion changed during that time.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 4, 2013 12:13:51 GMT -5
This link, borrowed from Will's twitter feed on the left, gives an idea of how good Webster's changeup is. While he gets two Ks on the slider, and one on the fastball, he fans 6 on the changeup. Watch and you'll see why. The arm action is so good you can convince yourself he's throwing the fastball, till you see what happens to the batters and how far in front or on top they are.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 4, 2013 12:38:33 GMT -5
Can someone please explain why the Dodgers included Webster in the Punto trade? I'd say desperation to make a big splash and tap the Mexican market with a big star in Gonzalez. If you're desperate enough to take on Crawford's ridiculous contract and Beckett's fading star, then you'd be desperate enough to deal two kids with huge arms because the solace is that they held onto Zach Lee. This is Cherington's version of Dan Duquette's Varitek/Lowe fleecing of Seattle for Heathcliff Slocumb. Well, at least the Dodgers will get something out of Gonzalez, although they'll be overpaying for it (not that they care). It's Ned Colletti. He never met a B+ prospect he wasn't itching to give away. Carlos Santana for Casey Blake?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 4, 2013 13:04:17 GMT -5
I'd say desperation to make a big splash and tap the Mexican market with a big star in Gonzalez. If you're desperate enough to take on Crawford's ridiculous contract and Beckett's fading star, then you'd be desperate enough to deal two kids with huge arms because the solace is that they held onto Zach Lee. This is Cherington's version of Dan Duquette's Varitek/Lowe fleecing of Seattle for Heathcliff Slocumb. Well, at least the Dodgers will get something out of Gonzalez, although they'll be overpaying for it (not that they care). It's Ned Colletti. He never met a B+ prospect he wasn't itching to give away. Carlos Santana for Casey Blake? He does have that rep, deservedly, Colletti was willing to follow those orders apparently. And while it may be hard to resist a 6' 9" entreaty from a larger-than-life icon, someone with max charisma, serious baseball facts should have been in order. Colletti does seem to lack some of that savvy. The projection's say Webster is too good to have been included in this trade, so Collett's rep lives on.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 4, 2013 18:16:46 GMT -5
The Dodgers obviously had money burning a hole in their pockets, about to sign a huge TV deal. Adrian was a tremendous resource to them in this market, Southern California in LA and including the San Diego area extending all the way to the Mexican border in Chula Vista ( his home town ). He was huge for local attendance, season ticket sales and TV revenue. I bet the revenues from AD alone could have driven that deal. The Dodgers owned their own parking lot, which is a major revenue stream for them as well.
And they had tons of pitching at that time, even enabling them to trade Harang for a song. something they regret now of course. Baseball history may well not judge this deal well but their financial guys are probably quite happy.
Last I looked Crawford was doing well for them also.
To me, Webster has Buchholz level stuff. If we give him the same time Buchholz needed to develop his command, we probably have a mega stud there. And if De La Rosa is given enough time I bet he is a major producer also. That was a huge trade for us. I don't think AD is even going to hit for the power he had in San Diego either, but the guy absolutely is still a great hitting talent.
|
|