Daniel Bard is not, and will not be, a starting pitcher.

[User Name]

This is true' date=' and a good point. However, at this point, I don't think 2011 version of Daniel Bard is as much apples and oranges as the 2007 version of Daniel Bard. All the warts he had as a SP in 2007 were there when he starting pitching in relief. Given the refinement shown in his ability to pitch, it's probably worth it to see if he can crack the rotation. If he can't, he can always go back to the BP.[/quote']

 

A good point as well.

 

The Sox are likely to bring a starter who can provide innings either way, so having a competition between Aceves and Bard for the 5th spot may be the most beneficial thing for the ballclub.

 

Whichever one proves to be more effective and have better stamina can go with the role, or back to the bullpen.

[Dojji]

This is true' date=' and a good point. However, at this point, I think 2011 version of Daniel Bard is apples and oranges to the 2007 version of Daniel Bard. All the warts he had as a SP in 2007 were there when he starting pitching in relief. Given the refinement shown in his ability to pitch, it's probably worth it to see if he can crack the rotation. If he can't, he can always go back to the BP.[/quote']

 

The fact remains ORS that Bard has no proven ability to start games at the pro level, much less the major league level. Since he's providing more than acceptable value right where it is I find it incredible that someone would decide it would be a good idea to screw with that.

 

Every possible simple of Bard as a pitcher at any level of pro ball is a negative one. Meanwhile his sample as a big league relief pitcher is pretty freaking sweet. I just see no real need to rock the boat here, since I don't see the indicators in minor league performance, repertoire, command or usage patterns that leads me to believe this kid can stretch it out. Even Paps is a better candidate from that standpoint.

 

If people want to use the example of CJ Wilson, I offer Justin Duchscherer as a counterexample. Do you really want to risk this kid's arm and livelihood that way? Especially when there's a viable alternative?

[Dojji]

Woah, talk about hyperbole.

 

Also, Masterson still lacks a quality changeup. He's good, but i don't think he's 2011 good without a reliable pitch to get lefties out.

 

The fact that he could put up a 2011 without a quality change-up goes to my point about that sinker of his. It is a ridiculous pitch. Halladay has a better overall arsenal, but I dunno if there's a pitcher in the league who can do the power sinker thing better than Masterson does it.

[jacksonianmarch]

The fact that he could put up a 2011 without a quality change-up goes to my point about that sinker of his. It is a ridiculous pitch. Halladay has a better overall arsenal' date=' but I dunno if there's a pitcher in the league who can do the power sinker thing better than Masterson does it.[/quote']

 

Wang pre-injury was better.

[Dojji]

He threw harder. That's not the same thing as being better. Masterson misses bats better with his fastball than Wang ever did.

[ORS]

The fact remains ORS that Bard has no proven ability to start games at the pro level' date=' much less the major league level[/b'].

Nobody is disputing this fact. The dispute is about whether or not the pitcher he was 5 years ago is conclusive evidence against his ability to perform as a starter now. In my view, it isn't. And, in my view, there's little risk of "ruining" him as a reliever if they do try it. This is why I support trying it. If it doesn't work, it's very easy to go back to the bullpen.

[Dojji]

And that dispute is IMHO meaningless because the underlying fact that there's no proof that Bard ever had the ability to be a professional starter.

 

This is not a situation where "there's no evidence that he can't do it" is a sufficient reason to let him try, because of the risk involved.

[User Name]

You're kinda setting the record for logical fallacies in a day.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

You're kinda setting the record for logical fallacies in a day.

 

[a700hitter]

And that dispute is IMHO meaningless because the underlying fact that there's no proof that Bard ever had the ability to be a professional starter.

 

This is not a situation where "there's no evidence that he can't do it" is a sufficient reason to let him try, because of the risk involved.

Huh?:dunno:

[Dojji]

Huh?:dunno:

 

I don't believe my position is either unclear, or particularly controversial.

 

Daniel Bard is not proven in any sense of the word as a starter. Other players who have converted successfully to starting pitchers have at least some experience as a successful, for example in the minors. Other players who have failed to successfully convert to starting pitchers also had far more depth of experience in the minors than Bard.

 

Furthermore, in light of the fact that we've never really stretched him out in 4-5 years now, Daniel Bard we've seen in the majors really suggest to you that he would thrive if you tripled his innings? This is a kid that has never pitched more than 75 innings a year. You want to push him to literally more than twice that, possibly as much as three times that, and tell me there's minimal risk involved. I call BS.

[iortiz]

IMO We need at least to fill the 4th spot with a healthy, proved and solid SP (+- 4.0 ERA). Then, if we don't bring a SP who fills the 5th spot as well, give the 5th spot to Aceves and occasionally give some starts to Bard and see how could it work. I wouldn't risk two starting spots with Bard (5th) and Aceves (4th).

[Elktonnick]

I don't believe my position is either unclear, or particularly controversial.

 

Daniel Bard is not proven in any sense of the word as a starter. Other players who have converted successfully to starting pitchers have at least some experience as a successful, for example in the minors. Other players who have failed to successfully convert to starting pitchers also had far more depth of experience in the minors than Bard.

 

Furthermore, in light of the fact that we've never really stretched him out in 4-5 years now, Daniel Bard we've seen in the majors really suggest to you that he would thrive if you tripled his innings? This is a kid that has never pitched more than 75 innings a year. You want to push him to literally more than twice that, possibly as much as three times that, and tell me there's minimal risk involved. I call BS.

 

It all depends on who the pitching coach and what other options there are vis a vis the entire pitching staff i.e. starter,s relievers and closer. Under the right circumstances the sox would try to stretch Bard out to see if he could start. Too many sports writers are raising this a possibility. They aren't writing this out of thin air. A reasonable observer must conclude that the FO is considering this option. Time will tell.

[ORS]

And that dispute is IMHO meaningless because the underlying fact that there's no proof that Bard ever had the ability to be a professional starter.

 

This is not a situation where "there's no evidence that he can't do it" is a sufficient reason to let him try, because of the risk involved.

The dispute is about the relevancy of what he did 5 years ago in the minor leagues, your "proof", as it pertains to right now. Do you not get this? You just told me that the piece of fruit hanging from the tree is an apple. I agreed and said we should make it into some apple pie, because it looks ripe. Now you are saying we shouldn't make it into apple pie because it wasn't an apple pie at some point in the past. Stop derailing the discussion over a past that has little bearing on the future (because you can't compare Bard of 5 years ago to Bard now....he's grown as a pitcher).

 

Risk, what risk? The injury risk is minimal. Effectiveness? If he can't make it as a starter, he goes back to the bullpen. Are you suggesting that he loses his effectiveness as a reliever as well? That seems overly cautious.

[User Name]

IMO We need at least to fill the 4th spot with a healthy' date=' proved and solid SP (+- 4.0 ERA). Then, if we don't bring a SP who fills the 5th spot as well, give the 5th spot to Aceves and occasionally give some starts to Bard and see how could it work. I wouldn't risk two starting spots with Bard (5th) and Aceves (4th).[/quote']

 

This is not how it works. That's how you risk screwing the kid's arm up. At the beginning of the season he must have a clear role either as a starter or reliever. That's what what ST is for.

[Laser Show]

This is not how it works. That's how you risk screwing the kid's arm up. At the beginning of the season he must have a clear role either as a starter or reliever. That's what what ST is for.

 

Yep. If Bard is going to be stretched to start in 2012, he needs to start like, today. The later they tell him, the more risk of injury, ineffectiveness, and/or fatigue there is.

 

I'd rather see Aceves starting though.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

This is not how it works. That's how you risk screwing the kid's arm up. At the beginning of the season he must have a clear role either as a starter or reliever. That's what what ST is for.

 

Good point. You're a great poster. I see you're new around here and hope you stick around.

 

Another thing is I don't want another April lineup frenzy. We came into the season clueless as s*** as of where to put players. I know Francona's gone but whoever takes over hopefully doesn't do the same.

[seabeachfred]

Good point. You're a great poster. I see you're new around here and hope you stick around.

 

Another thing is I don't want another April lineup frenzy. We came into the season clueless as s*** as of where to put players. I know Francona's gone but whoever takes over hopefully doesn't do the same.

 

And you proved your mettle with your reply Sox Fan For Life. This past season we had a real clusterf@@k with the bungling FrancoMa unable to settle on a lineup even after a month of Spring Training. Fortunately fumbling Francona is gone and I think any new manager should be an improvement in the dugout, but this talk about making Bard a starter just seems to zoom over my head. I just can't understand it. This guy seems to hit the wall after about 80 or so innings, so how the hell can we expect him to make such a switch effectively. Please tell if you know. It is almost like trying to take from Peter to pay Paul. We have Aceves and Bard as pretty good relievers in a bullpen where they are needed. Unless we sign two good firemen to augment our bullpen we cannot afford to even let Aceves start, let along Bard. Since we've been batting this around for the past few weeks, I have to believe these same thoughts have been buzzing around the Red Sox front office. All I hope is that we get that solid starting pitcher we need and the two bullpen helpers so if we decide to make Alfredo a starter we have cover in the bullpen.

 

And, yes, resign Papelbon or be damn sure we sign a good closer and not a questionable one like Rodney or Broxton.