Bard to Rotation a Mistake?

[ORS]

That's a reasonable and well thought out idea. I think they should hire you to give Cherington some advice. They should make a move. And I think they will' date=' eventually. And this is not sarcastic at all. I think you are the first person on here to propose making a move for the pen that doesnt involve moving Bard back to the pen.[/quote']

Others have too. Just yesterday a700 was advocating for Mike Gonzalez, not a totally unrealistic option.

[Station 13]

As soon as Bailey went down, Bard should be their guy for closing. Now they are possibly without a solution there for years to come and closers market are so bad I don't even want to think about it.

[Dojji]

I could stand Mike Gonzalez. Gotta worry about a soft tosser though when hitters start catching up to them.

[Dojji]

As soon as Bailey went down' date=' Bard should be their guy for closing. Now they are possibly without a solution there for years to come and closers market are so bad I don't even want to think about it.[/quote']

 

Stop it. Years to come? Please. The closer's role is not THAT hard to fill as long as your expectations are reasonable.

[a700hitter]

I could stand Mike Gonzalez. Gotta worry about a soft tosser though when hitters start catching up to them.

I don't remember him being a soft tosser.

[Station 13]

Mike Gonzalez is junk.

[Station 13]

Stop it. Years to come? Please. The closer's role is not THAT hard to fill as long as your expectations are reasonable.

 

Closers come and go, and expensive at the same time.

 

Nature of relievers, extremely combustible.

I feel Bard could be a force behind the bullpen for years. It's was a perfect opportunity following Bailey injury to insert him in the role.

 

You see how difficult it is to piece together a bullpen. It's has to be blown up regularly. And going closers to closers is destine for failures.

[Dojji]

I don't remember him being a soft tosser.

 

I might be misremembering, but I never got the impression that Mike Gonzalez threw that hard.

[Dojji]

Closers come and go, and expensive at the same time.

 

Nature of relievers, extremely combustible.

I feel Bard could be a force behind the bullpen for years. It's was a perfect opportunity following Bailey injury to insert him in the role.

 

You see how difficult it is to piece together a bullpen. It's has to be blown up regularly. And going closers to closers is destine for failures.

 

The flaw in your thinking is that Bard has expressed no desire to close.

 

Almost as bad as a guy who has no ability to do the job, is the guy who hates it. I don't want anyone pitching for us in clutch situations when if they don't actually want to be out there.

[a700hitter]

I might be misremembering' date=' but I never got the impression that Mike Gonzalez threw that hard.[/quote']For a lefty reliever, I thought his velocity was decent. In his earlier years, I thought he threw pretty hard.

[a700hitter]

The flaw in your thinking is that Bard has expressed no desire to close.

 

Almost as bad as a guy who has no ability to do the job, is the guy who hates it. I don't want anyone pitching for us in clutch situations when if they don't actually want to be out there.

The guy wants to start. The Sox committed to giving him a chance. I think he's in the rotation until he pitches himself out of it.

[SCM33]

As soon as Bailey went down' date=' Bard should be their guy for closing. Now they are possibly without a solution there for years to come and closers market are so bad I don't even want to think about it.[/quote']

 

The problem was not Bard in the rotation, or Bailey as closer.

 

The problem was that they did not sign enough quality arms. LL himself said on radio yesterday (98.5) that the biggest problem with the team last year was that they ran out of arms.

 

So if that is his admission, you think they would have gone out and fixed it right? Bard to the rotation was their plan from day 1. They knew from day 1 that Papelbon and Bard were going to be removed from their bullpen. The problem is who they replaced them with. They replaced them with unproven and injury riddled pitchers. You get what you pay for.

[Dojji]

The guy wants to start. The Sox committed to giving him a chance. I think he's in the rotation until he pitches himself out of it.

 

And why does he want to start?

 

Because he doesn't want to close. It's as plain on the nose on your face. If he was in any way fine with being a closer, he wouldn't have made this fuss about starting. Closers get paid, especially good ones.

 

If he was OK with closing, he'd have just taken closer money, which is more than competitive with what the kid's probably going to make as a SP unless things break REALLY well for him.

 

If he pitches his way out of the rotation, I really doubt that means that he will be the closer. It will depend rather heavily on why he's not in the rotation anymore.

[jacksonianmarch]

Great closers make above average starter money. From a fiscal perspective, starting will always be more lucrative

[ORS]

The problem was not Bard in the rotation, or Bailey as closer.

 

The problem was that they did not sign enough quality arms. LL himself said on radio yesterday (98.5) that the biggest problem with the team last year was that they ran out of arms.

 

So if that is his admission, you think they would have gone out and fixed it right? Bard to the rotation was their plan from day 1. They knew from day 1 that Papelbon and Bard were going to be removed from their bullpen. The problem is who they replaced them with. They replaced them with unproven and injury riddled pitchers. You get what you pay for.

Didn't hear LL's comment directly, but in the context of last year I would assume the "not enough arms" comment concerned the rotation. The bullpen wasn't the issue last year. And, they replaced the back end of the bullpen with plausible replacements. Yes, one of those guys has injury history. Now we need to see what their contingency plan for an injury is. If it is nothing, you are right, it is short-sighted.

[jacksonianmarch]

I am surprised they left their contingencies to chance after seeing 2 seasons in a row go to s*** due to injury.

[a700hitter]

The problem was not Bard in the rotation, or Bailey as closer.

 

The problem was that they did not sign enough quality arms. LL himself said on radio yesterday (98.5) that the biggest problem with the team last year was that they ran out of arms.

 

So if that is his admission, you think they would have gone out and fixed it right? Bard to the rotation was their plan from day 1. They knew from day 1 that Papelbon and Bard were going to be removed from their bullpen. The problem is who they replaced them with. They replaced them with unproven and injury riddled pitchers. You get what you pay for.

Bingo. There is no getting around that. The pitching crapped out at the end of last year. It was as if all their tires went flat. Buchholz coming back was not going to fix the whole mess. The rotation had two empty spots. They tried to fill them internally, which really is hard to understand, because if we had the solutions in-house, why weren't they tapped down the stretch in 2011? New blood was needed. None was obtained. Some relics were brought in to shore up leaks if they happened, but they never addressed the big holes. They have put themselves in a position where they have very little margin for injury or under performance. Right out of the gate, the only big piece that they acquired (Bailey) goes down basically for the season leaving us with no margin for further injury or under performance. Is it likely that neither of those things will happen? Answers to that may vary.

[jacksonianmarch]

I have a feeling the sox are priming the pump for a run at a big FA arm this offseason. I could be wrong, but DiceK and Papi come off the book and Lackey's AAV goes down due to the option floating out there. It wont be Cain and I am pretty sure it won't be Hamels, but there are other solid options out there to shore up the #4 spot

[Dojji]

I don't think we should blindly presume Bard will fail as a starter.

 

I don't hold out a ton of hope mind, but this gospel dogma that Bard is ultimately not going to hack it really surprises me, even though I opposed the move to the rotation in the first place.

[a700hitter]

Didn't hear LL's comment directly' date=' but in the context of last year I would assume the "not enough arms" comment concerned the rotation. The bullpen wasn't the issue last year. [b']And, they replaced the back end of the bullpen with plausible replacements. [/b] Yes, one of those guys has injury history. Now we need to see what their contingency plan for an injury is. If it is nothing, you are right, it is short-sighted.

I disagree with this. There is no way that Bailey and Melancon would replace Bard and Papelbon. Those guys shortened the games to 7 innings. They were as shutdown a duo as any in the game. With Bard's ability to go 2 innings on a occasion, a lot of games were shortened to 6 innings. As for the contingency plan for Bailey's injury, if there is one, I think it will develop on the fly. I don't think there is any plan right now.

[Dojji]

He said "plausible" not "identical." Both Bailey and Melancon were good enough to be competent in their roles. They don't have to be as good as Papelbon and Bard were.

[SCM33]

He said "plausible" not "identical." Both Bailey and Melancon were good enough to be competent in their roles. They don't have to be as good as Papelbon and Bard were.

 

No, but they should have added other arms to make up the difference. Now not only is the competent closer out injured (shocker, after missing 100 games over the last 2 years) but the rest of the pen looks very weak. It was a penny pinching move that on the surface, has already failed. At this point.....they have replaced Papelbon and Bard with Melancon.

[ORS]

I disagree with this. There is no way that Bailey and Melancon would replace Bard and Papelbon. Those guys shortened the games to 7 innings. They were as shutdown a duo as any in the game. With Bard's ability to go 2 innings on a occasion' date=' a lot of games were shortened to 6 innings. As for the contingency plan for Bailey's injury, if there is one, I think it will develop on the fly. I don't think there is any plan right now.[/quote']

"No way", really, that strong? Based on what?

 

Just a quick look at FIP because that incorporates all that fun stuff like K/BB/HR rates......

 

Papelbon 2.58

Bailey 2.74

 

Bard 2.88

Melancon 3.28

 

It's not possible? I think you're overstating it.

[a700hitter]

He said "plausible" not "identical." Both Bailey and Melancon were good enough to be competent in their roles. They don't have to be as good as Papelbon and Bard were.

I could buy Melancon as a plausible 6th or 7th inning guy, but after seeing his stuff I am not seeing him as even a plausible 8th inning guy. What does "plausible" mean in this context anyway. I want reliability in my 8th and 9th inning guys. He has questionable stuff and he has had a good half of one season, so I don't know if that equates to reliable. Plausible to me means possible. Possible is not good enough for me when I hand a guy the ball in the 8th.

[FredLynn]

No' date=' but they should have added other arms to make up the difference. Now not only is the competent closer out injured (shocker, after missing 100 games over the last 2 years) but the rest of the pen looks very weak. It was a penny pinching move that on the surface, has already failed. At this point.....they have replaced Papelbon and Bard with Melancon.[/quote']

 

SCM, you are repeating what I said after you called it "going crazy". I agree with you 100%: they replaced Bard and Paps with Melancon. Not exactly an even swap. I blame Cherington for that, as, seemingly, you did as well when you noted that Bailey has missed 100 games in two years. That should have been a deal killer. IMO Bard should have been the closer we take our chances with Cook or Padilla as #5 SP.

[a700hitter]

"No way", really, that strong? Based on what?

 

Just a quick look at FIP because that incorporates all that fun stuff like K/BB/HR rates......

 

Papelbon 2.58

Bailey 2.74

 

Brad 2.88

Melancon 3.28

 

It's not possible? I think you're overstating it.

I really don't think much of Melancon at all. His stuff is underwhelming. I am not closing the book on him, because I always thought that Foulke's stuff was under whelming, but he had great command and a great out pitch (his changeup) that batters could never identify. Maybe he will be a similar pitcher. Bailey is pretty good when healthy, but IMO not a Papelbon or bard.

[ORS]

I could buy Melancon as a plausible 6th or 7th inning guy' date=' but after seeing his stuff I am not seeing him as even a plausible 8th inning guy. What does "plausible" mean in this context anyway. I want reliability in my 8th and 9th inning guys. He has questionable stuff and he has had a good half of one season, so I don't know if that equates to reliable. Plausible to me means possible. Possible is not good enough for me when I hand a guy the ball in the 8th.[/quote']

He has 112 MLB innings pitched to Bard's 174. We aren't talking about a lot of data for either. The game is loaded with relievers who are successful without blow-you-away stuff.

[SCM33]

SCM' date=' you are repeating what I said after you called it "going crazy". I agree with you 100%: they replaced Bard and Paps with Melancon. Not exactly an even swap. I blame Cherington for that, as, seemingly, you did as well when you noted that Bailey has missed 100 games in two years. That should have been a deal killer. IMO Bard should have been the closer we take our chances with Cook or Padilla as #5 SP.[/quote']

 

Bard was going to be in the rotation regardless. Thats the FO's plan. Thats been the plan from day 1 regardless of whether or not you agree with it. The problem was not replacing him in the bullpen.

[a700hitter]

He has 112 MLB innings pitched to Bard's 174. We aren't talking about a lot of data for either. The game is loaded with relievers who are successful without blow-you-away stuff.

It would have been nice if they acquired one with a reliable track record. Melancon had one good half of one season. He would have been a nice under the radar acquisition to handle the 7th inning but not as the first option for the 8th inning.

[ORS]

I really don't think much of Melancon at all. His stuff is underwhelming. I am not closing the book on him' date=' because I always thought that Foulke's stuff was under whelming, but he had great command and a great out pitch (his changeup) that batters could never identify. Maybe he will be a similar pitcher. Bailey is pretty good when healthy, but IMO not a Papelbon or bard.[/quote']

Pretty good? I think he's a better reliever than Bard and on par with good Papelbon, because while Papelbon's FB is better, Bailey has more consistent secondary pitches he can mix in.