Sox Starting Pitching discussion in SoxProspects Discussion Forum

0 Points

Sox Starting Pitching discussion

Author	Comment
FenwayTheHardWay	Sox Starting Pitching discussion		Lead	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 3303 11/26/11 5:29 PM Veteran Member	Tags : None MaineSox wrote: DCRi wrote: To do what they need to do, and stay under the luxury tax, the Sox may have to trade one or more of the expensive players (Becket, Crawford, Youkilis, for example) for less expensive players, probably eating some salary in the process. This probably won't happen. I think it is more likely they pay some luxury tax. Or sign Buehrle/Jackson/Oswalt and fill the #5 SP, RF, CL, and DH internally. I'm not sure the Red Sox can fill the #6 spot internally, much less #5. Lester, Beckett, Buchholz... who? Weiland is a reliever, Doubront is a huge question mark, Wakefield is likely gone and/or done... some like Aceves in the rotation, I don't think he can survive in that roll... it looks to me like the Sox need to bring in a minimum of two MLB starters. "thats 4 dingers tonite for #rays off wakefield, who looks his age, only older" - Jon Heyman
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
MaineSox		#1	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 75 11/26/11 8:11 PM	FenwayTheHardWay wrote: I'm not sure the Red Sox can fill the #6 spot internally, much less #5. Lester, Beckett, Buchholz... who? Weiland is a reliever, Doubront is a huge question mark, Wakefield is likely gone and/or done... some like Aceves in the rotation, I don't think he can survive in that roll... it looks to me like the Sox need to bring in a minimum of two MLB starters. So go out and get a cheap project guy or two like the Yankees did last year and have them, Aceves, and Doubront compete for the 5th spot in the rotation. It's not the sexy option but you'd have Lester, Buchholz, and Beckett at the top plus one of Buehrle/Oswalt/Jackson as your #4, so even with a ? as your #5 you'd have a very good rotation. Plus, Dice-K might be back by mid-season anyway. ADD: I'm not saying that that's what I prefer (or what I necessarily think will happen), just that that is another option to add to the two DCRi proposed. Last Edited By: MaineSox 11/26/11 8:14 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
sarasoxer		#2	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 190 11/27/11 12:07 AM	MaineSox wrote: FenwayTheHardWay wrote: I'm not sure the Red Sox can fill the #6 spot internally, much less #5. Lester, Beckett, Buchholz... who? Weiland is a reliever, Doubront is a huge question mark, Wakefield is likely gone and/or done... some like Aceves in the rotation, I don't think he can survive in that roll... it looks to me like the Sox need to bring in a minimum of two MLB starters. So go out and get a cheap project guy or two like the Yankees did last year and have them, Aceves, and Doubront compete for the 5th spot in the rotation. It's not the sexy option but you'd have Lester, Buchholz, and Beckett at the top plus one of Buehrle/Oswalt/Jackson as your #4, so even with a ? as your #5 you'd have a very good rotation. Plus, Dice-K might be back by mid-season anyway. ADD: I'm not saying that that's what I prefer (or what I necessarily think will happen), just that that is another option to add to the two DCRi proposed. Dice-K might surprise as an under the radar guy. His control was best when he had good velocity. With a re-built arm, he might come back stronger (as some with TJ have). I wouldn't count out Tazawa either. He was throwing harder when he came back late this year (92- touching 94) and he has good off-speed stuff.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
MaineSox		#3	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 76 11/27/11 12:39 AM	sarasoxer wrote: MaineSox wrote: So go out and get a cheap project guy or two like the Yankees did last year and have them, Aceves, and Doubront compete for the 5th spot in the rotation. It's not the sexy option but you'd have Lester, Buchholz, and Beckett at the top plus one of Buehrle/Oswalt/Jackson as your #4, so even with a ? as your #5 you'd have a very good rotation. Plus, Dice-K might be back by mid-season anyway. ADD: I'm not saying that that's what I prefer (or what I necessarily think will happen), just that that is another option to add to the two DCRi proposed. Dice-K might surprise as an under the radar guy. His control was best when he had good velocity. With a re-built arm, he might come back stronger (as some with TJ have). I wouldn't count out Tazawa either. He was throwing harder when he came back late this year (92- touching 94) and he has good off-speed stuff. The last thing to return after TJ is control, so I can't imagine it'll be good for a guy with control problems before the surgery. And Tazawa has only thrown 50 some-odd innings since '09, so I doubt they give him a spot in the rotation next year (well, not the major league rotation anyway).
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
DCRi		#4	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 1656 11/27/11 9:43 AM Veteran Member	Most people seem to be assuming that Becket/Lester/Buchholz will give the Sox three top-notch starters, making it more feasible to take some chances with the other two slots. This seems to me to be a very risky assumption. We don't know if Buchholz will return to top form, or if he does, how long he will perform at that level. The track record isn't there to provide much confidence. Becket may be one of the exasperating pitchers the Sox have ever had. I've gotten a little tired of him, and, if I were in charge, I would try hard to trade him. Based on his record of the last several years, there simply is no reason to assume that he will win more than a dozen games. I have the highest hopes for Lester. He is a sensational pitcher when he is on, one of the best in the league. He has shown more consistency in the past couple of seasons. He could be on the verge of a Cy Young-type season. The risk is that he seems susceptible to down periods. He hasn't shown he can go all out for an entire season, without a period of breakdown. Even if he doesn't reach the next level, he is a keeper. My concern is that Lester may be the only one of the three the Sox really can count on. Thus, the starting pitcher problem could be much bigger than most assume. I think the Sox should not be trying to fill fourth and fifth slots, but second and third ones. Last Edited By: DCRi 11/27/11 9:45 AM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
sarasoxer		#5	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 191 11/27/11 11:48 AM	MaineSox wrote: sarasoxer wrote: MaineSox wrote: So go out and get a cheap project guy or two like the Yankees did last year and have them, Aceves, and Doubront compete for the 5th spot in the rotation. It's not the sexy option but you'd have Lester, Buchholz, and Beckett at the top plus one of Buehrle/Oswalt/Jackson as your #4, so even with a ? as your #5 you'd have a very good rotation. Plus, Dice-K might be back by mid-season anyway. ADD: I'm not saying that that's what I prefer (or what I necessarily think will happen), just that that is another option to add to the two DCRi proposed. Dice-K might surprise as an under the radar guy. His control was best when he had good velocity. With a re-built arm, he might come back stronger (as some with TJ have). I wouldn't count out Tazawa either. He was throwing harder when he came back late this year (92- touching 94) and he has good off-speed stuff. The last thing to return after TJ is control, so I can't imagine it'll be good for a guy with control problems before the surgery. And Tazawa has only thrown 50 some-odd innings since '09, so I doubt they give him a spot in the rotation next year (well, not the major league rotation anyway). True enough, but I link Dice-K's control issues in large part to confidence in his fastball. I am not saying he will be good but I will be interested in watching if his velocity is in the 93-95 range. Tazawa will be 6 more months post surgery and he too is a curiosity for me...not out of spring trainng but a few months into the mission.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
beasleyrockah		#6	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 290 11/27/11 4:07 PM	DCRi wrote: Most people seem to be assuming that Becket/Lester/Buchholz will give the Sox three top-notch starters, making it more feasible to take some chances with the other two slots. This seems to me to be a very risky assumption. We don't know if Buchholz will return to top form, or if he does, how long he will perform at that level. The track record isn't there to provide much confidence. Becket may be one of the exasperating pitchers the Sox have ever had. I've gotten a little tired of him, and, if I were in charge, I would try hard to trade him. Based on his record of the last several years, there simply is no reason to assume that he will win more than a dozen games. I have the highest hopes for Lester. He is a sensational pitcher when he is on, one of the best in the league. He has shown more consistency in the past couple of seasons. He could be on the verge of a Cy Young-type season. The risk is that he seems susceptible to down periods. He hasn't shown he can go all out for an entire season, without a period of breakdown. Even if he doesn't reach the next level, he is a keeper. My concern is that Lester may be the only one of the three the Sox really can count on. Thus, the starting pitcher problem could be much bigger than most assume. I think the Sox should not be trying to fill fourth and fifth slots, but second and third ones. This isn't an option. The Red Sox can't find four starters who are better than Beckett and Buchholz, especially with the wasted resources spent on Matsuzaka and Lackey. If Beckett and Buchholz can't give any value this year, the team is screwed and there is nothing they can do this offseason to fix it. I don't see any logical reason to assume these guys can't be very good pitchers next year. I also don't see how Lester escapes blame when he clearly had a down year last season, since your entire argument seems to be on recent performance (Buchholz injury last season, Beckett's September performance). Lester wasn't as good as Beckett last year. And please, don't talk about win totals. Do you really believe Beckett deserved to win 16 games in 06 and only 13 games this year? We have much better metrics, this isn't 1996.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
DCRi		#7	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 1657 11/27/11 5:00 PM Veteran Member	I don't buy the argument that wins don't count. The Sox can find pitchers who can win more than 12 games, and they need them. If the top three starting pitchers are not winning more than 12 games, the team is not doing well. Yes, it may not be the SP's fault if the team doesn't score runs for him. But this team scores runs, and will continue to do so. What happens when a team has an excess of starters who can't get past the sixth inning is that the bullpen implodes. The Sox had too many of these SPs this year. They have to make some changes. We can argue this all winter, and I hope I am wrong, but I will not be very optimistic about next year's team unless some major surgery is done to the pitching staff.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
beasleyrockah		#8	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 292 11/27/11 10:24 PM	DCRi wrote: I don't buy the argument that wins don't count. The Sox can find pitchers who can win more than 12 games, and they need them. If the top three starting pitchers are not winning more than 12 games, the team is not doing well. Yes, it may not be the SP's fault if the team doesn't score runs for him. But this team scores runs, and will continue to do so. What happens when a team has an excess of starters who can't get past the sixth inning is that the bullpen implodes. The Sox had too many of these SPs this year. They have to make some changes. We can argue this all winter, and I hope I am wrong, but I will not be very optimistic about next year's team unless some major surgery is done to the pitching staff. I think we can at least agree that wins can be deceiving, correct? Josh Beckett was clearly better this year than 2006, but he won more games in 2006. We can recognize Felix Hernandez should win more games than he does. If you care about a pitcher winning individual games, the better stat should be how his team did in each start, not just the ones when he received the decision. The Red Sox went 20-10 in games that Beckett started (for context, the Tigers went 25-9 in games Verlander started). Compare that to 16-15 in Jon Lester starts, barely better than John Lackey at 14-14. Your entire argument seemed to be based on recent results, despite the fact that Beckett is trending up (noting the lesser peripherals) while Lester is trending down. Personally, I think both are going to have very good seasons next year, I just don't understand your Beckett criticism when Lester didn't pitch as well. If you care about winning games for this club, with this offense, Josh Beckett did it better than any pitcher on this staff. The overall team results were the same if either Lester or Lackey pitched...that alone should be enough to make you think twice about wins, but if it doesn't, your argument seems curious. Last Edited By: beasleyrockah 11/27/11 10:27 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
pedroiayouk1520		#9	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 169 11/27/11 11:47 PM	DCRi wrote: I don't buy the argument that wins don't count. The Sox can find pitchers who can win more than 12 games, and they need them. If the top three starting pitchers are not winning more than 12 games, the team is not doing well. Yes, it may not be the SP's fault if the team doesn't score runs for him. But this team scores runs, and will continue to do so. What happens when a team has an excess of starters who can't get past the sixth inning is that the bullpen implodes. The Sox had too many of these SPs this year. They have to make some changes. We can argue this all winter, and I hope I am wrong, but I will not be very optimistic about next year's team unless some major surgery is done to the pitching staff. Beckett, Lester, and Buchholz, will in some order be the 1-3 guys next year. You simply have to go into the season assuming that they will pitch the way they are supposed to pitch.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Arquimedez Bozo		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12503 11/28/11 11:45 AM Chris Hatfield Executive Editor SoxProspects.com	Guys, I split the starting pitching discussion from the New CBA thread out into its own topic. DCRi, if the Sox can't just slot those three into the top three spots in the rotation how many pitchers in major league baseball CAN a club TRULY rely on? I think that you're kind of overestimating the state of starting pitching in Major League Baseball in general. The only two clubs I can think of that wouldn't kill to have a top three of Lester-Beckett-Buchholz are Philly (Doc-Lee-Hamels) and Tampa (Pick three from Price-Shields-Hellboy and the addition of Moore), with San Fran (Lincecum-Cain-Bumgarner) perhaps slipping in there. I'd say half the teams in baseball don't have a single pitcher at the level of Lester, Beckett, or Buchholz. No, you can't count on those guys to necessarily be Cy Young candidates the way you can with a Halladay or Sabathia, but that doesn't mean they're not a legitimately solid top three for a contending team. I think we kind of overestimate the whole "#4 pitcher," etc. label - as stated many times here, that's all relative - but I guarantee you the Sox are on the hunt for legit starting pitching options. I've said before - the first domino is Ortiz. After that, the Sox clearly need to acquire at least one more truly reliable starting pitcher, "#4" or otherwise, and at least two SP options. "I think the baby is sleeping right now." - Jonathan Singer Twitter: @ChrisHatfield/@SoxProspects / SoxProspects on Facebook
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Yirmiyahu		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3685 11/28/11 2:51 PM Forum Moderator	A lot of people have suggested using Aceves in one of the rotation spots, or even using Aceves & Weiland, and focusing attention elsewhere. But, in real life, you need at least 6 guys to make a 5-man rotation. IMO, you should start the season with a minimum of 6 proven starters, a swingman in the bullpen, and your usual minor league depth. I'm not prepared to call Aceves anything more than a swingman, or a 6th starter at best. Take 2009, for example. We had a rotation of Beckett/Lester/Matsuzaka/Penny/Wakefield. We had Masterson as a swingman in the bullpen. We had Smoltz rehabbing in the minors. We had top prospect Buchholz (already with 18 major league starts in the books) seasoning in the minors.... And yet we burned through all that depth. We had to sign Paul Byrd out of retirement to pitch 6 starts. And we had to use lesser minor league prospects (Tazawa and Bowden) for 5 starts.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Brendan98		#12	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 144 11/28/11 3:49 PM Veteran Member	Daniel Bard to the rotation as the #4 starter. Sign Oswalt as #5. Keep Aceves in the pen. Sign one of Heath Bell, Francisco Cordero, or Francisco Rodriguez to close, and another couple of guys with late inning experience (Frank Francisco/Jon Rauch/Mike Gonzalez) to set up with Jenks and Aceves. Hopefully 1 of Doubront, Weiland and Tazawa can develop into a useful big league pitcher as either rotation or bullpen depth. Rich Hill status? Convert Andrew Miller to bullpen? Rotation: Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Bard, Oswalt Bullpen: (Closing Bell, Cordero, or Rodriguez), Francisco, Gonzalez, Aceves, Jenks, Wheeler Depth: Doubront, Weiland, Tazawa
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Guidas		#13	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 2299 11/28/11 4:22 PM	I am amazed at the number of people who are advocating getting Heath Bell as a closer. As a set-up or 7th inning guy maybe, but as a closer I think his best days are far behind him. Specifically, his fastball velocity has declined 2-4 mph in the last three years, his success has greatly been bolstered by playing the bulk of his games in cavernous NL West parks and pitching against weak NL West line-ups, his K/9 took a precipitous dip last year and he was unusually lucky last year with BBIP. That and his GB/FB ratio has steadily moved from GB to FB. In a place like Fenway and against the AL East in general, this all looks like a recipe for disaster.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Brendan98		#14	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 145 11/28/11 4:48 PM Veteran Member	I would prefer giving Bell a 2 to 3 year deal than Madson a 4 or 5. Bell's strikeouts were down last year (which is something to consider), however his ERA, WHIP, and his save conversion rate were still very good, and in line with his career stats. He converted all 5 of his save opportunities in interleague play last year, without giving up a run. The only teams to knock Bell around a little last year were Arizona and the Mets, he was strong against all others, his ERA at PETCO was a little lower, however his strikeout rate and BAA was better on the road. I think he would be a better bet than Madson to handle Boston, and may be cheaper in $$ and years.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Yirmiyahu		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3687 11/28/11 6:03 PM Forum Moderator	Brendan98 wrote: I would prefer giving Bell a 2 to 3 year deal than Madson a 4 or 5. Bell's strikeouts were down last year (which is something to consider), however his ERA, WHIP, and his save conversion rate were still very good, and in line with his career stats. He converted all 5 of his save opportunities in interleague play last year, without giving up a run. The only teams to knock Bell around a little last year were Arizona and the Mets, he was strong against all others, his ERA at PETCO was a little lower, however his strikeout rate and BAA was better on the road. I think he would be a better bet than Madson to handle Boston, and may be cheaper in $$ and years. Heath Bell vs Ryan Madson? I'll take Bard, please. For what its worth, Bell actually has a better career K%, BB%, and GB/FB on the road. He's only a product of Petco if you think that reliever ERA is meaningful.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
buffs44444		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1908 11/28/11 7:45 PM	Yirmiyahu wrote: Heath Bell vs Ryan Madson? I'll take Bard, please. I'd take Bard closing next year regardless.....and then turn around and plow the savings into the rotation where it will be better spent. If a vet like Lidge falls into the Sox laps at the end of the winter that would be great, otherwise I'm fine with Bard closing and Jenks/Aceves setting up. Take the savings and get a Jackson, or a Darvish, or a Buehrle. Quality innings-eating starters is what this team needs, not an overpriced bullpen arm who's going to block a young kid who could do pretty damn near the same job for pennies on the dollar. Madness is like gravity....all you need is a little push.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Steve of Charlotte		#17	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 511 11/28/11 8:31 PM	Buffs44444 is right, we need (badly) a starter who will "eat" innings more than anything else. I've been advocating here for awhile to make the rotation the primary focus. One of the reasons I liked Mike Maddux was the philosphy of making their starters go longer. All I want for Christmas is 4 guys who will give us 190 to 225 innings. Shields gave the Rays 249!!! Wow. I have to believe that the front office is working really hard on trades and free agents....and not wasting any more time on Epstein's compensation and a new manager (that should have been done).
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
MickeyHolliday	opinions are like....	#18	[url]	[-]
Rookie Posts: 1 11/28/11 8:35 PM	My plan to fix the Sox: 1) start stretching out Bard now. Give him and Weiland the lion's share of the starts early on in Spring Traning, see how they do... One of them will have to break camp with the big club as a starter, imo... My money's on weiland. He's shown flashes of competency, bordering on goodness (not greatness, mind you)... but I also think Bard has the best hook in the system... we need a guy with "out" pitches. 2) Matt Barnes - Fast track this guy. Start him at Pawtucket. Let's find out rtfn whether or not this guy can handle it. He's pitched to some very good NCAA hitters, and spent time in the World Baseball championship (or whatever that was).. Let's see if he can rise to the challenge. He's 22, so starting him at Salem don't make a lot of sense to me. 3) Adios, Michael Bowden.... If for no other reason (and there are plenty of reasons), the very thought of a pitcher admitting in an interview "...I haven't thrown a curveball in 2 years..."... Ya think the hitters at the MLB level didn't read that? Nice guy, but never gonna be "the man"... This love affair with cutters and splits makes me wonder what we're trying to accomplish with our young pitchers. ONE pitcher has success throwing this regimen of pitches, and that's Rivera. Bowden, you're no Rivera. Learn a hook, or hit the road. 4) Brentz and Hassan split time in Pawtucket. We can fill that RF spot with a righty, who can platoon with either Kalish or Reddick, until one emerges. My eye is on Hassan, who has shown true development and plate discipline. But, Brentz really stepped up the power last year, and he could surprise, imo. 5) lowrie starts at SS. I am not a believer in the "injury-prone" label. He's a legit talent, and a switch hitter. Remember when Pedey came up? nobody wanted to stick with him, either. I think Lowrie's injury last year was flukey.... Better coaching and on-field leadership should eliminate these costly collisions (a-la Ells & Lowrie). What to do wtih Scutaro? Not sure. Depth for now. And lest we forget, Xander Bogaerts should be knocking at the door in a couple years. What a season! 6) Erik Bedard - we paid a steep price for him, though a couple of the guys we sent west for him may have been lost to rule 5 anyway. But that doesn't discount the cost. we should at least entertain the thought of trying to keep him, if for no other reason than a possible trade mid-season to a team needing pitching. 7) Employ the "hook" a lot sooner this year. One of the big raps I had against Francona was his loyalty to the starters. If you're not doing the job in the 2nd inning, you're out. it's gotta be demoralizing for the offense to be down 5-6 runs by the time the manager makes his liesurely stroll to the mound.. this has GOT to change... 8) I'd consider letting Ortiz walk. He's too much a liability, particularly now that there's talk of playing intra-league all year long. This is a liability we can't afford. We can/should rotate DH among the bench players, with Lav or Salty getting the most AB's at DH. Or possibly Youk, with Middlebrooks breaking camp as the 3B. And in my dream situation, ONE of the AB's for DH next year should go to Ryan Westmoreland, if he continues to improve. He's earned it. 9) Catcher - The "rumor mill" about Lav's defensive liabilities seems to be more than a tad exxagerated. He seems to be a star, albeit a budding star. At ST this spring, it should be an open competition. I like Salty, he's improved immensely, but Lav appears to be that once-in-a-while star you just can't ignore. 10) Bunting - everyone needs to be able to lay down a bunt, if asked to do so. That's one thing I used to love about Coco Crisp... One of the best bunters we've had in a while... That's about it for my suggestions... The only other thing, SIGN JACOBY ELLSBURY! I don't see the Yanks pursuing him, but there's no way we shouldn't reach out to this guy. And, if we employ some of the moves I mentioned above, the money we save could easily be enough for Ells & Boras. Make this deal in spring training. Make it a priority. Get it done. any comments?
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
BosSportsFan		#19	[url]	[-]
Rookie Posts: 70 11/28/11 10:37 PM	In all these discussions about the Sox pitching next year, over the various off-season threads, why is there very little to no mention of Bedard as a "cost effective", "low risk", etc, etc, option for a #r or #t starter?
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
jamesdunne24		#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11 11/28/11 11:29 PM James Dunne Staff Writer SoxProspects.com	MickeyHolliday wrote: My plan to fix the Sox: 7) Employ the "hook" a lot sooner this year. One of the big raps I had against Francona was his loyalty to the starters. If you're not doing the job in the 2nd inning, you're out. it's gotta be demoralizing for the offense to be down 5-6 runs by the time the manager makes his liesurely stroll to the mound.. this has GOT to change... any comments? I disagree with quite a bit of what you posted, but you're entitled to your opinion. This point, however, is flat out wrong. Red Sox starting pitchers threw the second fewest innings in the American League. Before you come back with "because they were so bad!" they were 9th in the AL in starter ERA. How would putting more of a burden on the bullpen have helped anything? Aceves was second on the team in innings in September, pitching exclusively out of the bullpen, and Bard really struggled in the last couple months.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

SoxProspects.com

SoxProspects Links

Sox Starting Pitching discussion

Sox Starting Pitching discussion