ROCKET LANDS IN THE BRONX

[TheKilo]

It's a projection.

 

BTW: Some years two wins means the difference between the playoffs and the couch.

 

Could be. It's not likely, and that's why you don't throw $30 million around like that.

[CrespoBlows]

It's a projection.

 

BTW: Some years two wins means the difference between the playoffs and the couch.

 

$15 million per win. Seriously $15 million per win.

 

You can keep saying that, but there's no way in hell does a baseball team does that.

[See Red]

I wasn't joking about the meds comment. I really think you must be on meds.

Would he be the only one? Chamberlain's Lakers had as much if not more talent than Celtics and Knicks teams that beat his teams. Hell, the Knicks beat them without a center in game 7.

 

The Lakers teams had all three of those players at the ends of their careers... outside of their primes. In his first year with the Lakers they lost in Game 7 of the Finals by two points... Wilt missed the last 7 minutes of the game with an injury. He plays those last 7 minutes and there's a good shot of them winning. He missed almost the entire next year, they won the title the next year, and the final year of his career, the Knicks definetely had a center. You might've heard of him... Willis Reed? And this wasn't the series that he played injured.

 

But I digress... the argument is not only off-topic, it's ridiculous.

 

I brought up Pedro earlier to remind you that what you get from a player is not always worth what you pay. No player has ever been, or will ever be, worth the money Clemens will be getting. If he averages the same amount of pitchers per start this year as he did last year... the Yankees will be paying him about $9,000 for every pitch he throws.

 

If Clemens pulls his hammy in his second start is he worth the money? It's not any less likely to happen then him making that two game difference between us making or missing the postseason.

[a700hitter]

Holy s***. Do you actually think people are doubting that?

Although you are too much of moron to answer the question directly, it seems fairly clear that you think that Clemens is worth it if he outperforms our # 5 starter and the difference knocks us out the playoffs. This is good progress.

 

It's been verified.

 

Spending $10 to $15 million per win isn't a good business decision.

 

Maybe if you realized that this isn't 1957, you'd began to realize it, and that the game of baseball has evolved.

You make $8/hour, you jerk. You probably can't be trusted with bills larger than a $20 bill, but you are going to make conclusions about the financial soundness of business decisions by businesses worth billions of dollars. What an arrogant little twit. I am not even going so far as to opining about the soundness of the financial decision. As I have said much earlier, none of us on these boards know enough about the finances of the Red Sox or any baseball team to judge the financial soundness of their deals. Major league baseball doesn't open its books for anyone. The Union has been trying to get a look at their books for years, but somehow you know what the union doesn't. Neither of us are in a position to judge the financial soundness of this deal. I have said from the beginning that it is a good baseball decision by the Yankees, and you and your GEn Xers have given absolutely no verifiable evidence to the contrary. In case you haven't realized it, you should be reminded that the Yankees are a business, and their owners like to make money. I am sure they are pretty fair judges of financial soundness.

[CrespoBlows]

Although you are too much of moron to answer the question directly, it seems fairly clear that you think that Clemens is worth it if he outperforms our # 5 starter and the difference knocks us out the playoffs. This is good progress.

 

You make $8/hour, you jerk. You probably can't be trusted with bills larger than a $20 bill, but you are going to make conclusions about the financial soundness of business decisions by businesses worth billions of dollars. What an arrogant little twit. I am not even going so far as to opining about the soundness of the financial decision. As I have said much earlier, none of us on these boards know enough about the finances of the Red Sox or any baseball team to judge the financial soundness of their deals. Major league baseball doesn't open its books for anyone. The Union has been trying to get a look at their books for years, but somehow you know what the union doesn't. Neither of us are in a position to judge the financial soundness of this deal. I have said from the beginning that it is a good baseball decision by the Yankees, and you and your GEn Xers have given absolutely no verifiable evidence to the contrary. In case you haven't realized it, you should be reminded that the Yankees are a business, and their owners like to make money. I am sure they are pretty fair judges of financial soundness.

 

 

Totally under your skin.

 

I win. f*** you.

[TheKilo]

You make $8/hour, you jerk. You probably can't be trusted with bills larger than a $20 bill, but you are going to make conclusions about the financial soundness of business decisions by businesses worth billions of dollars. What an arrogant little twit. I am not even going so far as to opining about the soundness of the financial decision. As I have said much earlier, none of us on these boards know enough about the finances of the Red Sox or any baseball team to judge the financial soundness of their deals. Major league baseball doesn't open its books for anyone. The Union has been trying to get a look at their books for years, but somehow you know what the union doesn't. Neither of us are in a position to judge the financial soundness of this deal. I have said from the beginning that it is a good baseball decision by the Yankees, and you and your GEn Xers have given absolutely no verifiable evidence to the contrary. In case you haven't realized it, you should be reminded that the Yankees are a business, and their owners like to make money. I am sure they are pretty fair judges of financial soundness.

 

You still haven't acknowledged any of my posts.

[Gom]

Keep in mind, this is why you sell used cars and don't scout ball players. I grew up in the DC area, and I watched a boatload of O's games. They really aren't comparable. Mussina has/had less zip on the fastball and no power breaking pitches. The only similarity is that they have enough quality in their secondary pitches to pitch backwards.

 

Speaking of his talent, he has every bit of the talent Mussina did back then, and he has an ability to dominate games that Mike never had. Now, that is just his talent. To translate it to the field, what he needs to do to see the results is eliminate the Mr Hyde inning. That is what's killing his numbers right now.

 

I really hope you think you got the better guy in Clemens, and I hope you continue to discount him as an asset for this team this year. That way the sting will be all the greater when he figures it out, and he's close. We aren't talking about somebody that needs to put four or five things together before it happens. It's just one missing ingredient, the ability to shrug it off and get the next guy. He'll get it.

 

Selling used cars...I have to admit that was funny. There may be hope for you just yet.

 

The fact that you really think that Mussina in his prime isn't as good as Matsuzaka is funny. Now realize, I am not counting his Yankee years, just the years he has had with the O's.

 

On what planet do you live on, ORS? Mike Mussina is a border-line Hall of Famer. This guy you are talking about is your fourth best pitcher at this point, behind an aging Schilling, a resurgent Beckett, and a timeless Wakefield. In fact, when healthy, I think Lester is a better pitcher than this guy.

 

Realize that one of two things happen with Matsuzaka. Either he figures it out, and he is no rookie, or the rest of the league figures him out. You have a 50-50 shot here. Personally, I think he is a quality starter, in the class of a Pettitte, but so far, he is no Beckett or Wang. Those guys are the unqualified aces of their respective teams. His control isn't nearly as good as advertised, his velocity is not as good as advertised, but he has what I call moxie, and this guy can win even without his best stuff. Like I said, a poor man's Mussina.

 

Do any of you, ever think that Matsuzaka will ever have a season, lets say where he goes 19-9 with a 3.21 ERA, lets say 187 hits in 221.2 IP?

 

Guess what? That's Mussina's FOURTH best season. 1995. In other words, Moose had three seasons with better numbers, for people who are confused, like ORS. This is not a love of my team's players, this is just pure objective analysis, something you aren't remotely capable of doing. Go back to sleep.

 

In his prime, Matsuzaka couldn't hold Mussina's jock. Actually, come to think of it, it's no different between us. You couldn't hold mine either.

 

Now I am waiting for your snappy comeback that has no basis in logic. Still waiting...and while you are at it....

 

Why don't you go on believing another press clipping?

 

You guys actually think this guy makes any sense? Pathetic.

[a700hitter]

The Lakers teams had all three of those players at the ends of their careers... outside of their primes.

In 69-70 West led the league in scoring with a 31 point average. He was in his prime. Baylor was in his last year' date=' but he still averaged 24 points. The following year they added Gail Goodrich who played another 10 years, so he was in his prime with Chamberlain.

In his first year with the Lakers they lost in Game 7 of the Finals by two points... Wilt missed the last 7 minutes of the game with an injury. He plays those last 7 minutes and there's a good shot of them winning.

But he didn't play those 7 minutes or game 7 and he was thought to be a quitter by his team as well as the opposition.

He missed almost the entire next year' date=' they won the title the next year, and the final year of his career, the Knicks definetely had a center. You might've heard of him... Willis Reed? And this wasn't the series that he played injured.[/quote']The Knicks and the Lakers played in the Finals three times. In the first one Reed missed game six and was numbed with novacaine in his hip in game 7 and he played very little, but a lame Reed was too much for Chamberlain and the Knicks won. The next time they played the Lakers did indeed win the championship, and the Knicks did indeed have a Center. Perhaps you heard of him. His name was Jerry Lucas. Reed missed almost the entire season and all of the playoffs. When Reed returned on gimpy knees the following year they played for the third time and the Knicks routed the lakers in 5 games. Do you enjoy being wrong? I am enjoying it.

But I digress... the argument is not only off-topic' date=' it's ridiculous.[/quote']It's ridiculous to be as consistently wrong as you have been.

[a700hitter]

 

Totally under your skin.

 

I win. f*** you.

Yes, clearly you are under my skin. You must be very tired. You had better get some sleep. After all, doing nothing requires a good night's rest.

[a700hitter]

You still haven't acknowledged any of my posts.

Copy and paste them into a PM, and I'll get to them as my time allows.

[TheKilo]

Of course he would. But that's an extreme hypothetical.

 

If Lester goes undefeated in the postseason and beats Clemens on his way to doing so, is it a good move by the FO to not spend $30 mil on Clemens?

 

Besides you take the $12-15 you could have spent on Clemens, the $9 million that Lowell won't command, and the $9 million from Clement and throw all of that at ARod in the offseason.

 

Respond here.

[TheKilo]

Could be. It's not likely' date=' and that's why you don't throw $30 million around like that.[/quote']

 

And here.

[CrespoBlows]

Yes' date=' clearly you are under my skin. You must be very tired. You had better get some sleep. After all, doing nothing requires a good night's rest.[/quote']

 

:joke:

 

and I'll get to them as my time allows.

 

Meeting with Chris Hansen running overtime?

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by TheKilo

Of course he would. But that's an extreme hypothetical.

 

If Lester goes undefeated in the postseason and beats Clemens on his way to doing so, is it a good move by the FO to not spend $30 mil on Clemens?

 

Besides you take the $12-15 you could have spent on Clemens, the $9 million that Lowell won't command, and the $9 million from Clement and throw all of that at ARod in the offseason.

I didn't think you were serious about Lester going undefeated. Are you serious? Do you seriously think that is as realistic as Clemens outperforming Tavarez and Lester?

 

Do you really think that the Boston Red Sox management is squirreling away the money they saved on Clemens this year to put towards signing anyone next year? Is it in a piggy bank?

 

I'll address this post, if you tell me that you sincerely think you have seriously addressed an issue.

[a700hitter]

:joke:

 

 

 

Meeting with Chris Hansen running overtime?

Wow, your posts are down to gibberish. I have had fun pummeling you. Thanks. It has been very cathartic.

[CrespoBlows]

I didn't think you were serious about Lester going undefeated. Are you serious? Do you seriously think that is as realistic as Clemens outperforming Tavarez and Lester?

 

Why not? It's a hypothetical. That's what the whole basis of your theory. What if this? What if that?

 

 

 

Do you really think that the Boston Red Sox management is squirreling away the money they saved on Clemens this year to put towards signing anyone next year? Is it in a piggy bank?

 

:joke:

 

The luxury tax threshold goes up every year. If they seriously planned on spending $10,000,000, they will spend that money. They didn't seriously plan on spending $30,000,000 on a 45 year old pitcher who averaged less than 6 innings a start last year.

 

I still can't believe this. You seriously think that Roger Clemens is worth a $30,000,000 investment. I don't care if you're a welfare whore, or Bill Gates, that's not a good move.

 

I can't stress this enough. Roger Clemens averaged under 6 innings a start last year. He's acknowledged that he cannot pitch a full season, because the stress of it would kill him. That inspires confidence in you? Do you remember in 2005, when he began to break down in September?

 

There's a serious risk you're taking with Roger Clemens. I'd give $30,000,000 million for a full year of Johan Santana, but for four months of Roger Clemens? No way in hell.

 

You're not getting the Roger Clemens who won a Cy Young in 2004, you're getting a 5-6 inning pitcher.

 

Reality is going to strike Yankee fans when Roger Clemens hands the ball to Luis Vizcanio in the 6th inning of a close game.

[CrespoBlows]

Wow' date=' your posts are down to gibberish. I have had fun pummeling you. Thanks. It has been very cathartic.[/quote']

 

 

How do you manage to be that far in denial? This trait is almost admirable.

[TheKilo]

I didn't think you were serious about Lester going undefeated. Are you serious? Do you seriously think that is as realistic as Clemens outperforming Tavarez and Lester?

 

Do you really think that the Boston Red Sox management is squirreling away the money they saved on Clemens this year to put towards signing anyone next year? Is it in a piggy bank?

 

I'll address this post, if you tell me that you sincerely think you have seriously addressed an issue.

 

 

I assumed you would understand the post because we were both talking in extreme hypotheticals.

 

So answer my question since I already said that it would be worth the investment if his two wins over a replacement player were enough to get us into the playoffs.

 

So answer mine. If Lester outperforms Clemens in the playoffs, will you think it was wise for the Sox to not drop $30 million?

 

Let me ask you another question. How much would you have spent for four months of a 45 year old pitcher who can't get out of the 6th inning. i don't want hypotheticals, I don't want comparisons to Tavarez or Lester (or Damon), I want a dollar figure. How much would you have spent on Clemens?

[a700hitter]

Why not? It's a hypothetical. That's what the whole basis of your theory. What if this? What if that?

How is my theory based on a hypothetical? I have said it is a good baseball move without condition. I have been asking you and a few of the other meatheads' date=' who are experts in baseball finances, whether he would be worth it if he helped his team to the playoffs. I have no reservations about this move whether his team makes or does not make the playoffs. That's my position. I'll state it again later after you get lost in your own ideas about my theories. My postion has been consistent. Getting Clemens is a good move by the Yankees, and it would have been a good move by the Red Sox if they had signed him. I have posed my hypotheticals to you to better understand how your financial analysis would be applied to certain circumstances. It is easier to understand a theory when it can be illustrated in the context of a number of different factual scenarios. Instead of demonstrating this infallible analytical method using these hypotheticals, you and others have erroneously concluded that I am drawing parallels or posing hypothetical theories. I am not, and you guys can not seem to explain how this so called financial cost analysis is affected by factors other than basic statistics. Your theory is clear to me for what it is.

can't stress this enough. Roger Clemens averaged under 6 innings a start last year. He's acknowledged that he cannot pitch a full season, because the stress of it would kill him. That inspires confidence in you? Do you remember in 2005, when he began to break down in September?

 

There's a serious risk you're taking with Roger Clemens. I'd give $30,000,000 million for a full year of Johan Santana, but for four months of Roger Clemens? No way in hell.

 

You're not getting the Roger Clemens who won a Cy Young in 2004, you're getting a 5-6 inning pitcher.

I hope Clemens sucks, but I would rather face Tavarez or Lester in a big game than Clemens, and they are paying him for the big games.

[a700hitter]

I assumed you would understand the post because we were both talking in extreme hypotheticals.

 

So answer my question since I already said that it would be worth the investment if his two wins over a replacement player were enough to get us into the playoffs.

 

So answer mine. If Lester outperforms Clemens in the playoffs, will you think it was wise for the Sox to not drop $30 million?

Obviously, the Red Sox would have made the wise choice in those circumstances, but your hypothetical is quite a bit more remote. Most bookies would lay heavy odds against that happening.

 

Let me ask you another question. How much would you have spent for four months of a 45 year old pitcher who can't get out of the 6th inning. i don't want hypotheticals' date=' I don't want comparisons to Tavarez or Lester (or Damon), I want a dollar figure. How much would you have spent on Clemens?[/quote']My honest answer is that I don't know. I have no knowledge of the Red Sox financial statement. My opinion has been based on whether it was a good baseball move, not on the finances. I have said this repeatedly. That being said, I don't see any explanation for dropping their offer by $4 million since last year except to convey that they were never serious about acquiring him.

[TheKilo]

Obviously' date=' the Red Sox would have made the wise choice in those circumstances, but your hypothetical is quite a bit more remote. Most bookies would lay heavy odds against that happening.[/quote']

 

I'd like to think both scenarios are fairly unlikely. Extremely unlikely even. However, only one of us was using these tidbits as the crux of their argument.

 

My honest answer is that I don't know. I have no knowledge of the Red Sox financial statement. My opinion has been based on whether it was a good baseball move, not on the finances. I have said this repeatedly. That being said, I don't see any explanation for dropping their offer by $4 million since last year except to convey that they were never serious about acquiring him.

 

The Yankees, given the state of their pitching staff, had the best chance to land him. That and the fact that they were apparently willing to spend $30 million on a pitcher who is breaking down. He's cheated age for a while, but there's a freason he only pitches four months a year right now.

 

 

This whole argument is based in hypotheticals. IF Clemens pitches well, it's a good move by the Yankees. There is just reason to have extreme doubt that a guy switching to a superior offensive league and who can't pitch more than 6 innings will be successful. There's just reason to have extreme doubt that he will not perform in the ALE. There's just reason to have extreme doubt that he will be worth such a steep monetary investment, especially with the luxury tax.

 

Yes, after this offseason the Red Sox can't cry poverty, but none of the moves have the risk this one does, IMO.

[CrespoBlows]

My honest answer is that I don't know. I have no knowledge of the Red Sox financial statement. My opinion has been based on whether it was a good baseball move, not on the finances. I have said this repeatedly.

 

That way of thinking is really short-sighted. To correctly judge a move, you have to look at everything involved.

 

Baseball is a business, stuff like dollars tend to go into that equation.

 

I'm also curious why you went beserk when we brought up the finances of the Red Sox. All we did was question a contract value. I mean, you did the same thing with J.D. Drew:

 

In a couple of years his contract will almost be over and we will still have to suffer through 3 more years of Drew.

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7668

 

You aren't very consistent.

 

That being said, I don't see any explanation for dropping their offer by $4 million since last year except to convey that they were never serious about acquiring him.

 

They were told to make an offer then and there. That figure was easily subject to change.

 

Oh, and when since $18 million isn't a serious offer?

[a700hitter]

I'd like to think both scenarios are fairly unlikely. Extremely unlikely even. However' date=' only one of us was using these tidbits as the crux of their argument.[/quote']It wasn't the crux of my argument. I wanted an explanation of the cost-benefit analysis that was being put forth.

The Yankees' date=' given the state of their pitching staff, had the best chance to land him. That and the fact that they were apparently willing to spend $30 million on a pitcher who is breaking down. He's cheated age for a while, but there's a freason he only pitches four months a year right now.[/quote']I agree the Yankees were motivated to do the deal because they have been playing so poorly, but I think the lack of motivation by the Red Sox was a mistake. I am not convinced that our pitching won't need help as the season goes on.

This whole argument is based in hypotheticals. IF Clemens pitches well' date=' it's a good move by the Yankees. There is just reason to have extreme doubt that a guy switching to a superior offensive league and who can't pitch more than 6 innings will be successful. There's just reason to have extreme doubt that he will not perform in the ALE. There's just reason to have extreme doubt that he will be worth such a steep monetary investment, especially with the luxury tax.[/quote']I agree that we don't know how well he will do, but I am fairly confident that he is a significant upgrade over Tavarez.

Yes' date=' after this offseason the Red Sox can't cry poverty, but none of the moves have the risk this one does, IMO.[/quote']Drew for 5 years?

[a700hitter]

That way of thinking is really short-sighted. To correctly judge a move, you have to look at everything involved.

 

Baseball is a business, stuff like dollars tend to go into that equation.

Dude, you are a knowledgeable and passionate Red Sox fan, and even though we seldom see eye to eye, I always enjoy the exchanges. Have a good night.

[ARod2212]

For example, Player A is a free agent in CF. He is a .283/.393/.498. hitter. He is worth approximately worth 9 wins over the average player. He happens to command an average salary of $14 million. You already have Player B in CF. He is a .268/.374/.395, he is worth about 4 wins, but wants $7 million.

 

Is it worth the upgrade?

 

4 wins is a 4 game difference. You expect to win the AL East by more than 4 games? If not, it is worth the investment. Clemens is a huge factor, and will likely be the turning point people point to for the Yankees.

[Mr Crunchy]

i hope clemens can close and bat 3rd for them as well as pitch every 5th game into the late innings

unfortunetly ny will learn what every team that had raja learned

when you need this texas faggot the most his trick

(1)shoulder

(2)hammy

(3) groin

will act up and he will be shelved until his next start

 

he wont be effective in the al east,

[ORS]

Do any of you, ever think that Matsuzaka will ever have a season, lets say where he goes 19-9 with a 3.21 ERA, lets say 187 hits in 221.2 IP?

 

Guess what? That's Mussina's FOURTH best season. 1995. In other words, Moose had three seasons with better numbers, for people who are confused, like ORS. This is not a love of my team's players, this is just pure objective analysis, something you aren't remotely capable of doing.... Now I am waiting for your snappy comeback that has no basis in logic. Still waiting...and while you are at it....

[table=Mussina '95 vs. Dice '07]Name| H9 | HR9 | BB9 | K9

Moose|7.59|0.97|2.03|6.42

Dice|8.28|0.47|3.55|9.24[/table]

 

The big negative for Dice is the BB/9. But, like I said, the thing holding him back is the Mr Hyde inning which is characterized by an inordinate amount of walks. He doesn't struggle with command unless he gets upset by the ump, a lot like Moose himself only worse. Again, I've said it is the one thing holding him back. Of his 15 BB this year, 9 have come in 3 innings. That is the corner he must turn. If he can, there's no doubt he can put a seasonal line better than Moose did in '95. Moose pitched to a 3.87 FIP in '95 with those rates. Dice's is 3.26 right now. No doubt in my mind he can do it at all. It will take some maturation and a little luck, like Moose was that year, but dismissing it as not possible shows your complete lack of statistical analysis skills. Objective enough for you?

 

And this doesn't address the change in scope of the discussion. You started this out saying he doesn't have the talent. That's wrong, the talent is there, but it won't be seen in the results until he gets beyond the one flaw he's shown. Of course, you can't see the difference in talent and performance. They are related, but there isn't a perfect correlation between the two. Look at Felix Hernandez last year. Immense talent, but not very good performance. For the other side of it consider Aaron Small from '05. Not much talent, but insane performance for you guys.

 

In his prime, Matsuzaka couldn't hold Mussina's jock. Actually, come to think of it, it's no different between us. You couldn't hold mine either.

No matter how sweetly you ask, I'm not touching your jock. Seek gratification elsewhere, you butt monkey.

 

Why don't you go on believing another press clipping?

Check my posts re: Matsuzaka. I never bought into the hype and was skeptical of how he'd perform until I saw him. I like what I see minus the headcase issue, but I'm pretty confident he can overcome that.

 

You guys actually think this guy makes any sense? Pathetic.

I think this is commonly found among mental patients. The rest of the world just doesn't get their brilliance. Might want to think about admitting yourself so you can find an audience that actually thinks you have a clue.

[TheKilo]

It wasn't the crux of my argument. I wanted an explanation of the cost-benefit analysis that was being put forth.

 

You asked me numerous times if Clemens was the difference between the playoffs and the couch, the two wins over Igawa, was worth $26 million dollars. You asked me this numerous times trying to convince me that spending that much money on Clemens was worth it.

 

I agree the Yankees were motivated to do the deal because they have been playing so poorly, but I think the lack of motivation by the Red Sox was a mistake. I am not convinced that our pitching won't need help as the season goes on.

 

While this may be a legitimate concern, I go back to the thinking that Jon Lester at the league minimum is a smarter investment than Clemens at $26 million. A young Jon Lester should be able to put up comparable (READ: NOT EQUAL) numbers to a 45 year old Clemens.

 

I agree that we don't know how well he will do, but I am fairly confident that he is a significant upgrade over Tavarez.

 

Is "fairly confident" worth $26 million?

 

Drew for 5 years?

 

Yes. In a market where Gary Matthews, Jr. can get 5/50, Drew can certainly get 5/70. Besides, Drew will play in about 120 more games than Clemens will.

[jacksonianmarch]

Well, my take on this is pretty f-in psyched, but I'll be realistic. We arent adding a lights out ace who can go 8 a night of 10K type performance. No, he is a guy who we can count on to keep us in the games and give us 6 quality innings per night. And when the guy he is replacing is Kei Igawa, that is huge. Igawa was an absolute drain on the pitching staff because he could give you 6 innings of good work or 2 innings and put you down by double digits. Add to that what the kids will get out of Roger and it is a major league bonus. Guys like Halladay, Schilling, and Oswalt rave over what Roger brings to the table and having young talent like Hughes and the rest around him will be a great learning experience.

 

Now what it does do is stabilize the stormy seas in the rotation. You figure, right now, we have a rotation of

 

Wang

Mussina

Pettitte

Rasner

DeSalvo

 

Very top heavy, and with Rasner and DeSalvo you will have hit or miss performances. But in 3 weeks, Roger will be replacing DeSalvo and in 4, Hughes should be back replacing Rasner. That is a rotation of

 

Wang

Mussina

Pettitte

Clemens

Hughes

 

And that is filthy. As for the bullpen, we dont NEED a closer. I know you guys are getting a lot of laughs out of Mo having a rough start, but it he is following the mold of 2005 almost to a T. Except that season, Mo started out rough right out of the gate, whereas Mo waited until the 3rd week of the season to have his little meltdown. As far as his stuff, Beltre hit a 96mph cutter that was up in the zone and had lots of movement. That was a tough pitch, tip the cap. Prior to last nights game, Mo had 3 scoreless appearances prior to it, and last night's appearance was a one hit knockout. Dont go thanking God for Mo's decline. He'll be just fine. If you want to predict his demise, wait until you see the cutter slipping into the high 80s. That is when he will be done.

[TheKilo]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/col/raissman/index.html

 

And lol @ not needing a closer.