Forget Oswalt Welcome Ohlendorf

[FredLynn]

Panning for gold and finding a nugget in a pile of dung.

 

That sounds like fun Bellhorn! I can't wait to start panning, though the stench of the dung heap will probably make me stop panning sooner rather than later.

If "pans out" means having an ERA of 5.5 or so, then sure, one of them will probably pan out. Maybe two of them in fact. If "pans out" means being an acceptable #5 SP, well, after all, it IS a dung heap.

[redsoxfan3]

6:14pm: The contract will pay Ohlendorf $900K in the big leagues, reports WEEI.com's Alex Speier. Speier also confirmed that Ohlendorf has a minor league option remaining. The Red Sox control the right-hander for another four seasons.

[User Name]

That sounds like fun Bellhorn! I can't wait to start panning, though the stench of the dung heap will probably make me stop panning sooner rather than later.

If "pans out" means having an ERA of 5.5 or so, then sure, one of them will probably pan out. Maybe two of them in fact. If "pans out" means being an acceptable #5 SP, well, after all, it IS a dung heap.

 

Funny, because the average ERA of MLB #5 starters is probably not very far from that number.

 

What is acceptable? A #5 that pitches like a #3?

[jacksonianmarch]

Funny, because the average ERA of MLB #5 starters is probably not very far from that number.

 

What is acceptable? A #5 that pitches like a #3?

 

That is what every team wants and I think a lot of people are crazy when they think a #5 starter is a guy who can throw 200IP and have an ERA in the low 4's. That's a #2 or 3, not a #5. #5's rarely go 6 innings and typically have ERA's north of 5.50

[User Name]

That is what every team wants and I think a lot of people are crazy when they think a #5 starter is a guy who can throw 200IP and have an ERA in the low 4's. That's a #2 or 3' date=' not a #5. #5's rarely go 6 innings and typically have ERA's north of 5.50[/quote']

 

It's the same thing with "depth". It's ridiculous to think you're going to build pitching depth with healthy guys who could be occupying rotation spots on other teams.

[jacksonianmarch]

It's the same thing with "depth". It's ridiculous to think you're going to build pitching depth with healthy guys who could be occupying rotation spots on other teams.

 

exactly. Your 6-10 are guys who are either under team control as prospects or guys off the trash heap. A good GM consistently finds under the radar guys who fill out those spots and excel. Theo didnt have that quality. He always needed the perfect storm of health for his teams to excel, and they havent had that of late. I think what a lot of sox fans are concerned about, though, is the back end of the rotation in the 4 and 5 spots. That isnt depth, that's a position of need that is currently a big questionmark.

[User Name]

It's more about a steady #4 spot than the #5 spot. In my opinion.

[FredLynn]

Funny, because the average ERA of MLB #5 starters is probably not very far from that number.

 

What is acceptable? A #5 that pitches like a #3?

 

I would be happy with a #5 guy who has an ERA of just under 5 and is consistent.

[jacksonianmarch]

It's more about a steady #4 spot than the #5 spot. In my opinion.

 

Well, if you are looking at the AL as a whole, a #5 starter is a guy who doesnt go deep in games and gives poor performances. If you look at the contenders, though, most of them have a rotation that goes 5 deep, even if the #5 guy gives you 6IP per start and an ERA of 5. And, you have some ???s in the #3 spot as well with Buchholz and his health. Cherington is really hedging his bets on the top 3 being healthy and if one of them goes down, then that #4 spot suddenly elevates to the #3 and the chain moves on. That's the issue. You have legit ???s from 3 on down

[redsoxbeatz]

whatever!

[Spudboy]

It's more about a steady #4 spot than the #5 spot. In my opinion.

 

Exactly. Few teams have a number five that performs like number three.

[User Name]

Well' date=' if you are looking at the AL as a whole, a #5 starter is a guy who doesnt go deep in games and gives poor performances. If you look at the contenders, though, most of them have a rotation that goes 5 deep, even if the #5 guy gives you 6IP per start and an ERA of 5. And, you have some ???s in the #3 spot as well with Buchholz and his health. Cherington is really hedging his bets on the top 3 being healthy and if one of them goes down, then that #4 spot suddenly elevates to the #3 and the chain moves on. That's the issue. You have legit ???s from 3 on down[/quote']

 

If Bard is healthy, him being a viable #4 is not an unreasonable idea. He is being given a shot in the rotation for a reason.

 

Also, give me these teams that have 5-deep rotations without shitloads of question marks at least in the 5 spot.

[Palodios]

If Bard is healthy, him being a viable #4 is not an unreasonable idea. He is being given a shot in the rotation for a reason.

 

Also, give me these teams that have 5-deep rotations without shitloads of question marks at least in the 5 spot.

 

Rays, Texas, Cardinals, Braves, Giants, Yankees all have pretty amazing rotations.

[User Name]

Rays' date=' Texas, Cardinals, Braves, Giants, Yankees all have pretty amazing rotations.[/quote']

 

I didn't ask about whether or not they have good rotations, they all do. They all, however, have their own question marks.

 

Guys like Ryan Vogelsong, Vance Worley, Matt Moore, Adam Wainwright, Michael Pineda, Hiroki Kuroda, Neftali Feliz, all have health, performance or legitimacy question marks.

[Spudboy]

Yeah, five deep rotations are unusual. Historically (as in the 46 years I've been watching the game) , the number five has been more of a "filler".

[seabeachfred]

Yes' date=' that is when he started using the term low risk/high reward acquisition. That drives me crazy. Jason Johnson was high risk whenever he took the mound. Low cost -- maybe, but not low risk. We lost 5 of his 6 starts. He was the worst starter by W-L in the history of baseball. I used to call him The Ultimate Loser. You bring back some painful memories.[/quote']

 

Oh yes 700, Muggah has a long memory too and we have discussed this together on two other boards, but apparently that is well known here as well. Can you imagine if two of our key starters went on the shelf and we were forced to use "Short Order" Cook, "Deutschland" Justin Germano or Carlos "Hi Ho" Silva in our rotation. Hell, if might even make the turd Jason Johnson and Lenny DiNardo look good in comparison....well almost. That low risk/high reward nonsense worked pretty well in 2009 with Brad Pennyless and John Smelltz, didn't it? Let's pray for good health and a good coming out party for Dan Bard and Alfredo Aceves. Let's pray hard or we may get hit with the ghost of seasons past.

[seabeachfred]

Panning for gold and finding a nugget in a pile of dung.

 

I'm sitting here LMFAO Bob. What an answer. My muscles are sore, my eyes are tearing, my back feels tight and I'm busting up inside. Hell of an answer my friend.

 

Well you got your answer Pumpsie. And now that Bob fished out that nugget there more dung for that heap you were talking about earlier. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[seabeachfred]

 

Gee, that ought to make me sleep well tonight. :o:o:o:o:o:o

[Muggah]

Selective memory at its best.

 

The 2006 Red Sox team had Beckett, Schilling, Clement, Wakefield and Wells as its front five with Lester and the others as depth.

 

Let's not make stuff up.

 

So what are you saying? That Jason Johnson, Kyle Snyder, DiNardo and that cast of losers were never in our rotation back in 06? Is that what you're saying? Jesus lord what an apologist.

[Muggah]

Yes' date=' that is when he started using the term low risk/high reward acquisition. That drives me crazy. Jason Johnson was high risk whenever he took the mound. Low cost -- maybe, but not low risk. We lost 5 of his 6 starts. He was the worst starter by W-L in the history of baseball. I used to call him The Ultimate Loser. You bring back some painful memories.[/quote']

 

They sure are painful memories, 700. Memories we'd just as soon not relive if we can help it. But with Clay's back and Beckett's well documented history of tanking years even-numbered years we might well be looking at another go-around with that carousel of stiffs a'la 06.

[mvp 78]

Fred, if 2 key starters went down on any team it would be trouble.

 

The problem isn't bringing in depth SP. The problem is that they don't have young arms in AA or AAA that are ready to contribute. If the farm system was better, these signings would mean nothing. If they can get 1 adequate SP out of the bunch, it's a win.

[BSN07]

With a good FB and sinker could he end up being a decent BP option?

[BSN07]

I think everone is having flash backs to when it was Pedro and after him was the garbage fill ins This isn't the case now. They don't have one good SP and hoping the garbage manages to take up the 4 other spots. They have a #1 and 2 guys that are probably #2-3 that can pitch like #1's for stretches and an unknown with high upside. Unless the rotation become a mash unit most of the guys won't see any substantial time. Most of them are just ST cannon fodder.

[a700hitter]

Fred, if 2 key starters went down on any team it would be trouble.

 

The problem isn't bringing in depth SP. The problem is that they don't have young arms in AA or AAA that are ready to contribute. If the farm system was better, these signings would mean nothing. If they can get 1 adequate SP out of the bunch, it's a win.

Losing 2 starters for the Sox would be catastrophic for another reason beyond the lack of depth on the farm. Let's not forget thet we only have 3 starters. We don't know what we will get from the two converted relievers- Bard and Aceves. Thinking that we have a full rotation at this point is unrealistic.

[a700hitter]

With a good FB and sinker could he end up being a decent BP option?

With a bum shoulder and his 8+ ERA he is more likely to be out of baseball before the end of the season.

[a700hitter]

I think everone is having flash backs to when it was Pedro and after him was the garbage fill ins This isn't the case now. They don't have one good SP and hoping the garbage manages to take up the 4 other spots. They have a #1 and 2 guys that are probably #2-3 that can pitch like #1's for stretches and an unknown with high upside. Unless the rotation become a mash unit most of the guys won't see any substantial time. Most of them are just ST cannon fodder.

Who would you pencil in as the 5th starter?

[mvp 78]

Losing 2 starters for the Sox would be catastrophic for another reason beyond the lack of depth on the farm. Let's not forget thet we only have 3 starters. We don't know what we will get from the two converted relievers- Bard and Aceves. Thinking that we have a full rotation at this point is unrealistic.

 

It would be catastrophic for any rotation.

[a700hitter]

It would be catastrophic for any rotation.

But losing just 1 starter would likely be catastrophic for the Sox since we only have 3 starters.

[Muggah]

I think everone is having flash backs to when it was Pedro and after him was the garbage fill ins This isn't the case now. They don't have one good SP and hoping the garbage manages to take up the 4 other spots. They have a #1 and 2 guys that are probably #2-3 that can pitch like #1's for stretches and an unknown with high upside. Unless the rotation become a mash unit most of the guys won't see any substantial time. Most of them are just ST cannon fodder.

 

It's that old adage about someone trying to convince you that ten dirty old pennies is the equivalent of a shiny new dime. Which would you rather have? That's all they've done here. Some are buying into it--most aren't.

[Muggah]

Losing 2 starters for the Sox would be catastrophic for another reason beyond the lack of depth on the farm. Let's not forget thet we only have 3 starters. We don't know what we will get from the two converted relievers- Bard and Aceves. Thinking that we have a full rotation at this point is unrealistic.

 

And how many innings do you think we get out of Bard as a SP? Aceves?