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 moonstone2 on Mar 14, 2015 23:52:35 GMT -5
Come on man. Lester had 15 major league starts in 2006 an never would have pitched in the 2007 playoffs had Wakefield been healthy. Buccholz and Madterson had 25 starts between them in 2008. Buccholz was terrible and got demoted and Masterson ended up in the bullpen. Neither was part of the starting rotation come playoff time. The current crop of second tier starters has less than five major league starts combined, both by Stephen Wright. As far as playoff starts go, Lester is the only pitcher to start a playoff game for the Red Sox during the current run who had less than 20 career starts entering that season. And even he was an emergency starter. So no they do not trust young pitchers and they have shown that time and time again. If there is a long term injury to one of the pitchers they will make a trade. Of course Lester was an emergency starter-- remember, we're talking about contingency plans if one of the original five starters is hurt or ineffective. And while Buchholz and Masterson did not end the 2008 season in the playoff rotation, that's mainly because the guys ahead of them got healthy by October. The point is that they trusted those guys to pitch major stretches of the season in lieu of making a trade for a veteran fill-in. Your contention is that they would never trust an unproven starter in a pennant race, and I've provided three examples to the contrary. That's right you gave three examples and I blew all three apart. Instead of admitting you were wrong you doubled down. The assertion that the only reason Buccholz and Masterson weren't in the rotation down the stretch is because other guys got healthy is false and without basis. Lester had 15 career starts prior to 2007 and even he got only one playoff start. The Red Sox have ALWAYS trusted veterans down the stretch it's a simple fact. They won't be trusting Owens or Rodriguez come August unless they are out of it. That is their history and this time is no different.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Mar 14, 2015 23:57:26 GMT -5
The ultimate floor of a prospect especially a pitcher is always overestimated. The game of baseball is so competitive from both a mental and physical standpoint that it mandates that many talented pitchers will fail. In short there is no floor for a pitching prospect. They all have a material and under appreciated chance of failure. I don't think that the bust rate is equal for every pitcher but it's a lot closer than you think it is. Further, it's not just the ultimate bust rate that should be considered but the initial bust rate. A more talented pitcher like Owens maybe more likely to recover from a bad start, to have a good career, but that won't help in September. Regardless of what SP thought of Weiland at the time there were plenty of people who thought he could start in the majors. There was no indication that he would completely collapse as he did. To say that can't possibly happen to Henry Owens or Edwin Rodriguez is naieve. Noone is saying that Owens or Rodriguez can't bust (initially or ultimately), just that their odds of doing so are significantly lower than Weiland's odds were. For any reasonable distribution of probabilities, a higher median projection also means a lower bust rate, initial or otherwise, and Owens and Rodriguez are significantly better-projected prospects that Weiland was. I watched Owens pitch today. It seemed to me the fastball had more mph to it today than anytime I have seen it previously. But it looks to have flattened out without any late life. I know it is early in spring training, just something to look at in future starts. Rodriguez has lots of movement on his fastball and his secondary pitches did not look so bad for this early in camp, his stuff looks like real deal. A good year at Pawtucket and he has s great chance to be a starter in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Mar 15, 2015 0:01:14 GMT -5
Of course Lester was an emergency starter-- remember, we're talking about contingency plans if one of the original five starters is hurt or ineffective. And while Buchholz and Masterson did not end the 2008 season in the playoff rotation, that's mainly because the guys ahead of them got healthy by October. The point is that they trusted those guys to pitch major stretches of the season in lieu of making a trade for a veteran fill-in. Your contention is that they would never trust an unproven starter in a pennant race, and I've provided three examples to the contrary. That's right you gave three examples and I blew all three apart. Instead of admitting you were wrong you doubled down. The assertion that the only reason Buccholz and Masterson weren't in the rotation down the stretch is because other guys got healthy is false and without basis. Lester had 15 career starts prior to 2007 and even he got only one playoff start. The Red Sox have ALWAYS trusted veterans down the stretch it's a simple fact. They won't be trusting Owens or Rodriguez come August unless they are out of it. That is their history and this time is no different.Your conclusion is based off quite the generalization. I'd be willing to be that one of Owens or Rodriguez sees 5+ starts in the 2nd half of the season.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 15, 2015 0:12:54 GMT -5
That's right you gave three examples and I blew all three apart. Instead of admitting you were wrong you doubled down. The assertion that the only reason Buccholz and Masterson weren't in the rotation down the stretch is because other guys got healthy is false and without basis. Lester had 15 career starts prior to 2007 and even he got only one playoff start. The Red Sox have ALWAYS trusted veterans down the stretch it's a simple fact. They won't be trusting Owens or Rodriguez come August unless they are out of it. That is their history and this time is no different.Your conclusion is based off quite the generalization. I'd be willing to be that one of Owens or Rodriguez sees 5+ starts in the 2nd half of the season. [be Let's put it this way. Let's say on July 1st Masterson has a knee injury and they have no idea when or if he'll be back. The Sox can either shrug their shoulders and trust Owens or Rodriguez or make a trade. To be blunt, they are making a trade and anyone who thinks they aren't is nuts.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Mar 15, 2015 0:50:30 GMT -5
Your conclusion is based off quite the generalization. I'd be willing to be that one of Owens or Rodriguez sees 5+ starts in the 2nd half of the season. [be Let's put it this way. Let's say on July 1st Masterson has a knee injury and they have no idea when or if he'll be back. The Sox can either shrug their shoulders and trust Owens or Rodriguez or make a trade. To be blunt, they are making a trade and anyone who thinks they aren't is nuts. You're assuming that a trade deadline deal and Owens/Rodriguez getting starts are mutually exclusive. They're not. All 5 pitchers are subject to potential long-term injuries, granted Masterson, Miley, and Porcello have been extremely durable in recent years. If you're using July 1st, Buchholz had a 6.22 ERA & 5.10 FIP at that date last year. Both Buchholz and Masterson are coming off downright brutal seasons, so we're reliant on bouncebacks. Kelly had 41/32 K/BB...another bounceback we're relying on. The fact that Cherington didn't go out and get an ace w/ his plethora of prospects shows me that he trusts guys like Owens and Rodriguez. This depth is meant to withstand the wide range of results that Porcello/Buchholz/Masterson/Kelly/Miley will produce. If injuries happen at the start of the season, Wright or Barnes will probably get the spot start. But Owens and Rodriguez are thought of more highly than any other pitching prospect in the system. These two have higher ceilings than any other starter in the upper minors, so once a rotation slot is open, one of them will get an extended look.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 15, 2015 0:50:39 GMT -5
Your conclusion is based off quite the generalization. I'd be willing to be that one of Owens or Rodriguez sees 5+ starts in the 2nd half of the season. [be Let's put it this way. Let's say on July 1st Masterson has a knee injury and they have no idea when or if he'll be back. The Sox can either shrug their shoulders and trust Owens or Rodriguez or make a trade. To be blunt, they are making a trade and anyone who thinks they aren't is nuts. I'll go off the deep end here, if it's after mid June and the Sox are in the race and the PawSox starters are pitching like we think they will (particularly Owens/Rodriguez), I think it's more likely that they will make a trade of a starter for a prospect to clear a slot than it is that they will make a trade for an experienced starter, a la Michael Wacha in 2013. ADD: The above assumes the current rotation. LOL, same old, same old: Red Sox Stats ?@redsoxstats 40m40 minutes ago My last tweet on Hamels until he is traded to Texas: the Herald says in tomorrow's paper the price tag is Owens & Betts/Swihart lol.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 15, 2015 9:19:56 GMT -5
[be Let's put it this way. Let's say on July 1st Masterson has a knee injury and they have no idea when or if he'll be back. The Sox can either shrug their shoulders and trust Owens or Rodriguez or make a trade. To be blunt, they are making a trade and anyone who thinks they aren't is nuts. You're assuming that a trade deadline deal and Owens/Rodriguez getting starts are mutually exclusive. They're not. All 5 pitchers are subject to potential long-term injuries, granted Masterson, Miley, and Porcello have been extremely durable in recent years. If you're using July 1st, Buchholz had a 6.22 ERA & 5.10 FIP at that date last year. Both Buchholz and Masterson are coming off downright brutal seasons, so we're reliant on bouncebacks. Kelly had 41/32 K/BB...another bounceback we're relying on. The fact that Cherington didn't go out and get an ace w/ his plethora of prospects shows me that he trusts guys like Owens and Rodriguez. This depth is meant to withstand the wide range of results that Porcello/Buchholz/Masterson/Kelly/Miley will produce. If injuries happen at the start of the season, Wright or Barnes will probably get the spot start. But Owens and Rodriguez are thought of more highly than any other pitching prospect in the system. These two have higher ceilings than any other starter in the upper minors, so once a rotation slot is open, one of them will get an extended look. Owens and Rodriguez DO NOT have the highest ceilings of any pitcher in the upper minors. The reason they didn't trade for an ace had nothing to do with their trust in Owens and Rodriguez. They aren't paying a prohibitive price for any player regarding for their depth.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 15, 2015 9:39:52 GMT -5
So this whole thing about the Red Sox not trusting young pitchers down the stretch is foolish to take such a hardline stance on.
Is there evidence this MAY be true? Yes
Is there evidence this MAY NOT be true? yes
Is there definitive evidence either way? no
Furthermore do teams philosophies change and evolve over time? Yes
You can look at the Buchholz/Masterson situation as they trusted them for important second half starts so they trusted them or as they knew the vets would be back for the post season so they didn't have to trust them in the post season, but you can't use it to prove they do not trust young starters.
What seems to be true is the Red Sox, as Jmei pointed out, haven't ever opted to not "trust" a young pitcher who's proven them to be incorrect in their analysis. So perhaps they just haven't had the right scenario to go with the young pitcher over the veteran... Right scenario being a young starter they feel is good enough.
Not all young starters are created equally.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 15, 2015 9:42:07 GMT -5
Your conclusion is based off quite the generalization. I'd be willing to be that one of Owens or Rodriguez sees 5+ starts in the 2nd half of the season. [be Let's put it this way. Let's say on July 1st Masterson has a knee injury and they have no idea when or if he'll be back. The Sox can either shrug their shoulders and trust Owens or Rodriguez or make a trade. To be blunt, they are making a trade and anyone who thinks they aren't is nuts. You sure do love speaking in absolutes, but the world doesn't work that way. Obviously if they're down a starter they're going to be be compelled to make a trade, but if one of the young starters is looking really good (very possible) and the trade market is looking bad (almost certainly), they're going to at least give one of the young guys a chance before they go out and make a major trade. I understand there's not a lot of recent historical precedent for them going with young guys, but you're dealing with a sample size of like three guys, and you have to look at the specifics of each of their situations rather than just going "well, they were young, and the Red Sox didn't use them in the stretch run or the playoff rotation, so they'll never use young guys in those circumstances". Buchholz was shut down for health reasons in '07 and was handed a rotation spot in '08 and only lost it because he was awful. Lester was limited in '07 because he was coming off cancer treatment and was handed a rotation slot the next year. The Sox maybe liked Masterson more as a reliever than a starter but they certainly liked him, they just wanted Victor Martinez more. If you actually look at how the Red Sox treated these guys, there's nothing that leads me to conclude that Owens won't be pitching meaningful innings for this team come August 1st. Not to mention that everything we're talking about here happened under Theo/Francona. We can't make statements with absolute certainty about what this team is going to do based on stuff they did almost ten years ago. Times change.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 15, 2015 9:51:27 GMT -5
Owens and Rodriguez DO NOT have the highest ceilings of any pitcher in the upper minors. The reason they didn't trade for an ace had nothing to do with their trust in Owens and Rodriguez. They aren't paying a prohibitive price for any player regarding for their depth. Again you really make yourself look foolish with these type of absolutes. Of course BC considered his pitching depth when choosing where to allocate his resources this offseason; that's just basic GM competency. Was his pitching depth the primary factor in not signing Lester or bringing in Hamels? No, but it's clearly a factor. (Oh, and the Red Sox used Brandon Workman, not exactly a stud prospect, as a starter at a time when they were still plausibly defending a World Series title. But they don't trust young starters.)
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 15, 2015 9:52:25 GMT -5
Your conclusion is based off quite the generalization. I'd be willing to be that one of Owens or Rodriguez sees 5+ starts in the 2nd half of the season. [be Let's put it this way. Let's say on July 1st Masterson has a knee injury and they have no idea when or if he'll be back. The Sox can either shrug their shoulders and trust Owens or Rodriguez or make a trade. To be blunt, they are making a trade and anyone who thinks they aren't is nuts. What if the other four veterans are healthy pitching great and the young guys are doing the same thing in the minors and did well in any spot starts they received? Point being what Fenway just wrote, each situation has a circumstance that's more complicated than "if Masterson has a knee injury then this will happen."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 15, 2015 11:02:14 GMT -5
Yeah, my thoughts are along the same lines of the last few posts. I've already mentioned that they probably prefer a veteran league-average-or-better starter over Owens and Rodriguez if a rotation spot opens up midseason, but of course they would-- who wouldn't? But those guys are expensive to trade for at the trade deadline-- think the (2013) Peavy trade, which Eric has already mentioned was a pretty big haul, or the Garza-to-the-Rangers trade. It certainly seems extreme to continually asset that there's zero chance that they would trust a rookie pitcher down the stretch. The odds of that might not be very high, but it isn't zero.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Mar 15, 2015 11:48:56 GMT -5
I agree with the general sentiment that the front office is putting more trust into the current group of AAA prospect pitchers. Of course a trade is possible, but this is really one of the first years that our 25 man roster (or AAA rotation) doesn't include some type of veteran emergency starter (Capuano, Aceves, Aaron Cook, et al.). Our 6th guy at the moment truly is who they deem the best of Barnes, Wright, Owens, Johnson, Rodriguez, and Escobar. Don't think for one second that our front office is foolish enough to count on 30 starts from each of our current starters. They clearly expect our prospects to see some action (and probably fairly significant) this year.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 15, 2015 14:07:17 GMT -5
To be fair, today was the first time I saw Justin throw this year. I don't care about results in spring training but if that's his fastball the sox depth is not as deep as I hoped.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 15, 2015 17:37:17 GMT -5
I watched Owens pitch today. It seemed to me the fastball had more mph to it today than anytime I have seen it previously. But it looks to have flattened out without any late life. I know it is early in spring training, just something to look at in future starts. "Late life" on a fastball is of course a physical impossibility / optical illusion. But pitch/fx data has pretty much established that there is furthermore no correlation whatsoever between guys who are supposed to have or lack it, and actual vertical FB movement. And it is the vertical movement that people are almost always taking about in this "late life" / "flattened out" dichotomy, because that's what is perceived as missing bats. (Horizontal movement, i.e., armside run, is actually possible to gauge to some degree, but it's also perceived as leading to weak contact (sawed off or end of bat, depending on batter handedness) rather than swings and misses.) People perceive "late life" any time a hitter swings under a fastball, but there are many reasons that happens and actual fastball movement is not that high on the list. The incorrect swing decision is made very, very early in terms of the ball's path to the plate.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 15, 2015 21:00:33 GMT -5
Yeah, my thoughts are along the same lines of the last few posts. I've already mentioned that they probably prefer a veteran league-average-or-better starter over Owens and Rodriguez if a rotation spot opens up midseason, but of course they would-- who wouldn't? But those guys are expensive to trade for at the trade deadline-- think the (2013) Peavy trade, which Eric has already mentioned was a pretty big haul, or the Garza-to-the-Rangers trade. It certainly seems extreme to continually asset that there's zero chance that they would trust a rookie pitcher down the stretch. The odds of that might not be very high, but it isn't zero. There is absolutely a bias that Cheringtion has, and that will have a very major impact on any decision to augment the rotation mid-season. And that is a preference for better pitchers over less good ones. Now, it is also true that Cherington has shown an aversion to downside risk. It's very unclear that Wade Miley represents any improvement in a median projection versus four months of De La Rosa and two of whoever proves to be the best pitcher at Pawtucket, but it's arguably a big upgrade over, say, the 20th percentile projection. And as I noted previously, the Peavy trade was not because he represented an upgrade, in terms of median projection, over Workman and then the lesser of Dempster and Doubront (which surprisingly turned out to be the latter); it was because the projection at the time of the trade had a catastrophic downturn at perhaps the 5th percentile (at most), in a scenario where Buccholz doesn't return from his injury, Lester or Lackey gets hurt to boot, and Steven Wright, like Webster previously, is far below replacement level. So there's no inherent preference for veterans over rookies. I think the evidence is pretty clear that there is one for mitigating downside risk, and of course rookies tend to have more of that than veterans. If come June or July there's a kid in Pawtucket who has been consistent and whose stuff projects to get MLB hitters out just fine, that's going to make going with a rookie much more likely. And note that the kid who gets the first crack at any rotation hole doesn't necessarily have to be the one who has demonstrated a reliable high floor. There's a scenario where Johnson and/or Wright has been consistently very good, and Owens, Rodriguez, and/or Barnes has been better but erratic. In which case you give the best overall kid a shot, knowing that if he crashes and burns, you're confident that you have a low-risk but lower upside alternative.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 16, 2015 10:04:47 GMT -5
Yeah, my thoughts are along the same lines of the last few posts. I've already mentioned that they probably prefer a veteran league-average-or-better starter over Owens and Rodriguez if a rotation spot opens up midseason, but of course they would-- who wouldn't? But those guys are expensive to trade for at the trade deadline-- think the (2013) Peavy trade, which Eric has already mentioned was a pretty big haul, or the Garza-to-the-Rangers trade. It certainly seems extreme to continually asset that there's zero chance that they would trust a rookie pitcher down the stretch. The odds of that might not be very high, but it isn't zero. There is absolutely a bias that Cheringtion has, and that will have a very major impact on any decision to augment the rotation mid-season. And that is a preference for better pitchers over less good ones. Now, it is also true that Cherington has shown an aversion to downside risk. It's very unclear that Wade Miley represents any improvement in a median projection versus four months of De La Rosa and two of whoever proves to be the best pitcher at Pawtucket, but it's arguably a big upgrade over, say, the 20th percentile projection. And as I noted previously, the Peavy trade was not because he represented an upgrade, in terms of median projection, over Workman and then the lesser of Dempster and Doubront (which surprisingly turned out to be the latter); it was because the projection at the time of the trade had a catastrophic downturn at perhaps the 5th percentile (at most), in a scenario where Buccholz doesn't return from his injury, Lester or Lackey gets hurt to boot, and Steven Wright, like Webster previously, is far below replacement level. So there's no inherent preference for veterans over rookies. I think the evidence is pretty clear that there is one for mitigating downside risk, and of course rookies tend to have more of that than veterans. If come June or July there's a kid in Pawtucket who has been consistent and whose stuff projects to get MLB hitters out just fine, that's going to make going with a rookie much more likely. And note that the kid who gets the first crack at any rotation hole doesn't necessarily have to be the one who has demonstrated a reliable high floor. There's a scenario where Johnson and/or Wright has been consistently very good, and Owens, Rodriguez, and/or Barnes has been better but erratic. In which case you give the best overall kid a shot, knowing that if he crashes and burns, you're confident that you have a low-risk but lower upside alternative. Eric- I think that above you are stating my argument better than I did even if I don't totally agree with your conclusions. They have an aversion towards using young unproven starters down the stretch because they represent huge downside risk. You do a good job of explaining that with your Wade Miley example. Personally, I believe that given the Red Sox resources and expectations of their fan base, trading a better 80th percentile projection for an upgrade over a 20th percentile projection is a good strategy. The costs of a disaster are greater than the benefits of a surprise and young starters tend to have very fat tails. Many tend to underestimate how fat they are. To use an analogy, I think sometimes that you want the Red Sox to take a venture capital approach to their major league roster as opposed to a mutual fund approach. In my opinion, I don't think that's appropriate for the Red Sox, especially with their rotation. Given the current landscape, I think that there will be a veteran starting pitcher available at the deadline at a fair price or low price. The deals for starters over the past couple of years shows that often really good starters are being made available for less than what you might normally expect. I thought the Peavy deal was a fair price to pay. They solidified the rotation and protected themselves against further injury which might have forced multiple inexperienced and unproven pitchers into the rotation. The Red Sox have both the excess talent, and financial resources to acquire such a pitcher and I think if they need to replace one of the current five due to long-term injury. To answer posts regarding "speaking in absolutes", I believe in stating an opinion backing it up and getting on with it. I don't pussy foot around with maybes and contingencies, and I believe it serves the board better to write that way. As Jim Hightower once said, "there's nothing in the middle of the road, but yellow stripes and dead armadillos".
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Mar 16, 2015 12:21:49 GMT -5
"Late life" on a fastball is of course a physical impossibility / optical illusion. But pitch/fx data has pretty much established that there is furthermore no correlation whatsoever between guys who are supposed to have or lack it, and actual vertical FB movement. And it is the vertical movement that people are almost always taking about in this "late life" / "flattened out" dichotomy, because that's what is perceived as missing bats. (Horizontal movement, i.e., armside run, is actually possible to gauge to some degree, but it's also perceived as leading to weak contact (sawed off or end of bat, depending on batter handedness) rather than swings and misses.) People perceive "late life" any time a hitter swings under a fastball, but there are many reasons that happens and actual fastball movement is not that high on the list. The incorrect swing decision is made very, very early in terms of the ball's path to the plate. Eric, I was under the impression that "late life" wasn't meant to mean rise like a Jenny Finch pitch, but rather, that the fastball did not drop as much as expected in relation to a "typical" fastball. I seem to remember a pitch f/x analysis that sort-of backed this up, but my company blocks any and every website so I can't look for it now. Possibly The Hardball Times or BP from back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Mar 16, 2015 12:53:31 GMT -5
Alex Speier ?@alexspeier now Trainer going to see Kelly. Farrell signals immediately for bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 16, 2015 13:19:52 GMT -5
Alex Speier ?@alexspeier now Trainer going to see Kelly. Farrell signals immediately for bullpen. Ruben Amaro and Phillies fans start drooling. Cafardo starts typing.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 16, 2015 13:54:11 GMT -5
To answer posts regarding "speaking in absolutes", I believe in stating an opinion backing it up and getting on with it. I don't pussy foot around with maybes and contingencies, and I believe it serves the board better to write that way. As Jim Hightower once said, "there's nothing in the middle of the road, but yellow stripes and dead armadillos". This is all well and good, but you called everyone else nuts if they didn't think it was possible the Sox would roll with the rookies if Masterson got a knee injury. And occasionally in the middle of the road is a police officer telling you to slow down so you don't crash and burn.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Mar 16, 2015 14:09:48 GMT -5
Kelly leaving the game is obviously not good.
Hopefully Amaro asks for Owens + Swihart + Betts + YM, just so we can continually hear about Cole.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 16, 2015 14:58:59 GMT -5
Dave Cameron weighs in on Wright as the 6th starter. He makes the argument that Z-Contact% stabilizes pretty quickly, so Wright's 80% Z-Contact in 30ish innings pitches is enough to be meaningful. It is right near the top of the league. He also explores the positive effect a knuckle ball pitcher has on the relievers in the games he pitches as well as the following day's starter if he's not pitching the last game of the series. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/steven-wright-as-a-joe-kelly-alternative/Probably an article Eric will like.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Mar 16, 2015 15:49:12 GMT -5
It's an article I like. Here's hoping we have the next Wakefield on our roster.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 16, 2015 15:54:24 GMT -5
If Kelly is down for an extended period of time, I'd expect an OF traded to Nationals for SP (including more moving pieces) before I'd expect Swihart included for Hamels.
|
|
|