2022 Starting Rotation Thread

[Bellhorn04]

Whitlock and Houck should both be in the rotation.

[jacksonianmarch]

Whitlock and Houck should both be in the rotation.

 

They’re making that clearer and clearer by the start

[notin]

If you say so.

 

So you don’t think being one of the last 4 teams standing means you were a top 4 team? What exactly does? Are we only measuring by starter payroll now? I guess we can ditch that whole post-season thing…

[Bellhorn04]

Honestly, I’m wondering if Pivetta might be the odd man out. He has looked awful. Cannot locate in and out of the zone and finds himself giving up too many homers

 

He could easily find himself swapped to the pen. He had a good year last year, but his contract status and patchy pedigree makes him fungible.

[Bellhorn04]

So you don’t think being one of the last 4 teams standing means you were a top 4 team? What exactly does? Are we only measuring by starter payroll now? I guess we can ditch that whole post-season thing…

 

moon believes you have to be one of the top teams on paper at the start of the year. He just has a different philosophy.

[moonslav59]

moon believes you have to be one of the top teams on paper at the start of the year. He just has a different philosophy.

 

2013 and 2021 proved that is not true, but I do think you have a much better chance of being a top 3-4 contender, if you have a stronger rotation.

 

Also, you can add pieces during the season- like Eovaldi and Pearce in 2018, to put you over the top, so no, you don't have to be one of the best to start the season.

 

[moonslav59]

So you don’t think being one of the last 4 teams standing means you were a top 4 team? What exactly does? Are we only measuring by starter payroll now? I guess we can ditch that whole post-season thing…

 

No, I don't think we were a top 4 team, last year, at any point, even the end. For one thing, the Dodgers played the Giants, the two best teams, before the NLCS.

 

Adding Schwarber and the fine play by additions like Iggy, Shaw and, at times, the pen additions helped get us closer, but I still think TBR, TOR, NYY, CWS and HOU were better than us, last year- just in the AL.

 

Although I do not think the playoffs are a total crapshoot, like many fans do, there is some luck involved on who advances.

 

Having a better team increases your odds of winning, and do not have some unique point of view or philosophy, as Bellhorn thinks I have, to think having a strong rotation greatly improves your odds. The whole "on paper" thing is not something I quite understand. Framber Valdez was not a recognized ace, last year, but he looked like one to us. I fully understand, we could have a solid rotation, by the end of the year without making any flashy, glitzy or under the radar rotation additions, but I'd feel a lot more confident, if we had some more known solid starters, so if that means "on paper," I'm not sure that makes me all that "different" from the way many fans feel about their team's chances.

 

It's not like history is working against my idea.

 

We had Pedro and added Schiiling> ring

 

We had Schilling and added Beckett> ring

 

We had Lester and added Lackey> ring

 

We had Price and added Sale> ring.

 

These are not coincidences. Does this "ring" the bell?

 

We had Eovaldi and added Pivetta.

 

Or, we had Sale and added Eovaldi.

 

Maybe, it does, but I think we need to do better to have a strong chance at winning, this year. Can Houck and or Whitlock fill that role? Possibly. I'm not writing off this year. Plus, maybe Sale does fill that role. Hell, maybe Paxton does. It's not like our rotation is hopeless.

 

I just wish it was better.

 

 

 

[notin]

2013 and 2021 proved that is not true, but I do think you have a much better chance of being a top 3-4 contender, if you have a stronger rotation.

 

Also, you can add pieces during the season- like Eovaldi and Pearce in 2018, to put you over the top, so no, you don't have to be one of the best to start the season.

 

 

 

“Having a better chance” at being a top 3-4 team shouldn’t be more satisfying than actually being one.

[notin]

No, I don't think we were a top 4 team, last year, at any point, even the end. For one thing, the Dodgers played the Giants, the two best teams, before the NLCS.

 

Adding Schwarber and the fine play by additions like Iggy, Shaw and, at times, the pen additions helped get us closer, but I still think TBR, TOR, NYY, CWS and HOU were better than us, last year- just in the AL.

 

Although I do not think the playoffs are a total crapshoot, like many fans do, there is some luck involved on who advances.

 

Having a better team increases your odds of winning, and do not have some unique point of view or philosophy, as Bellhorn thinks I have, to think having a strong rotation greatly improves your odds. The whole "on paper" thing is not something I quite understand. Framber Valdez was not a recognized ace, last year, but he looked like one to us. I fully understand, we could have a solid rotation, by the end of the year without making any flashy, glitzy or under the radar rotation additions, but I'd feel a lot more confident, if we had some more known solid starters, so if that means "on paper," I'm not sure that makes me all that "different" from the way many fans feel about their team's chances.

 

It's not like history is working against my idea.

 

We had Pedro and added Schiiling> ring

 

We had Schilling and added Beckett> ring

 

We had Lester and added Lackey> ring

 

We had Price and added Sale> ring.

 

These are not coincidences. Does this "ring" the bell?

 

We had Eovaldi and added Pivetta.

 

Or, we had Sale and added Eovaldi.

 

Maybe, it does, but I think we need to do better to have a strong chance at winning, this year. Can Houck and or Whitlock fill that role? Possibly. I'm not writing off this year. Plus, maybe Sale does fill that role. Hell, maybe Paxton does. It's not like our rotation is hopeless.

 

I just wish it was better.

 

 

 

 

We were one of the last 4 teams standing. Would you prefer a better ESPN power ranking in the pre-season coupled with an earlier exit from the postseason?

[Nick]

You promise to now not bitch about the pen?

 

(BTW, I wanted Whitlock starting and Houck closing, but once Sale went down, again, the writing was on the wall.)

 

Maybe I'm old school.

 

IF I OWN A MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM, I THINK I HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO TROT OUT A LEGIT STARTER EVERY GAME. I NOT ONLY OWE IT TO THE PAYING PUBLIC, I OWE IT TO THE POSITION PLAYERS. THEY SHOULD NEVER FEEL "OH GREAT, WE'LL HAVE SCORE 6 RUNS TO WIN THIS GAME"

 

What good is to have the best closer if we can't use him because we're playing from behind all the time?

 

Soooooo, this Tyler Danish guy shows up AND does the job. I think that's pretty much how the relievers roll. It really is a crap shoot sometimes. I will not complain about our pen. It feels like it's a deeper pen than in the past. I think Bloom has done a good job.

[Nick]

They’re making that clearer and clearer by the start

 

And I thought our manager was lot smarter than your manager.

[notin]

No, I don't think we were a top 4 team, last year, at any point, even the end. For one thing, the Dodgers played the Giants, the two best teams, before the NLCS.

 

Adding Schwarber and the fine play by additions like Iggy, Shaw and, at times, the pen additions helped get us closer, but I still think TBR, TOR, NYY, CWS and HOU were better than us, last year- just in the AL.

 

Although I do not think the playoffs are a total crapshoot, like many fans do, there is some luck involved on who advances.

 

Having a better team increases your odds of winning, and do not have some unique point of view or philosophy, as Bellhorn thinks I have, to think having a strong rotation greatly improves your odds. The whole "on paper" thing is not something I quite understand. Framber Valdez was not a recognized ace, last year, but he looked like one to us. I fully understand, we could have a solid rotation, by the end of the year without making any flashy, glitzy or under the radar rotation additions, but I'd feel a lot more confident, if we had some more known solid starters, so if that means "on paper," I'm not sure that makes me all that "different" from the way many fans feel about their team's chances.

 

It's not like history is working against my idea.

 

We had Pedro and added Schiiling> ring

 

We had Schilling and added Beckett> ring

 

We had Lester and added Lackey> ring

 

We had Price and added Sale> ring.

 

These are not coincidences. Does this "ring" the bell?

 

We had Eovaldi and added Pivetta.

 

Or, we had Sale and added Eovaldi.

 

Maybe, it does, but I think we need to do better to have a strong chance at winning, this year. Can Houck and or Whitlock fill that role? Possibly. I'm not writing off this year. Plus, maybe Sale does fill that role. Hell, maybe Paxton does. It's not like our rotation is hopeless.

 

I just wish it was better.

 

 

 

 

And you’re moving the goal posts.

 

You’re original notion was Bloom needs to spend money on starters. That he has never spent $10mill on a starter.

 

Then for evidence, you list some pitchers with chamionships, 7 in total - and only one of them was acquired by spending. And two of them are still being paid heavily by Boston to either stay at home or pitch for another team.

 

THIS is why free agent starting pitching is bad. Even when it does work - which is rare - it still causes huge payroll roadblocks that all but shut the team down.

 

As much as I’d rather see the shutdown pen that Houck and Whitlock were capable of providing, id rather see both in the rotation than watch the Sox spend heavily on ERod or Robbie Ray or, God forbid, Trevor Bauer. Even Steve Matz, whom Bloom was reportedly interested in, is off to a questionable start.

 

Baseball fans live with the philosophy that good starting pitching is everything and it’s the only way to win. And despite repeated evidence to the contrary, the myth remains strong…

[Bellhorn04]

Also, you can add pieces during the season- like Eovaldi and Pearce in 2018, to put you over the top, so no, you don't have to be one of the best to start the season.

 

Not very well expressed, because we were one of the best to start the 2018 season.

[Bellhorn04]

And I thought our manager was lot smarter than your manager.

 

LOL wut?

 

I hope you're not implying that Cora is dumb because Whitlock hasn't been officially anointed as a starter yet.

[notin]

Maybe I'm old school.

 

IF I OWN A MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM, I THINK I HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO TROT OUT A LEGIT STARTER EVERY GAME. I NOT ONLY OWE IT TO THE PAYING PUBLIC, I OWE IT TO THE POSITION PLAYERS. THEY SHOULD NEVER FEEL "OH GREAT, WE'LL HAVE SCORE 6 RUNS TO WIN THIS GAME"

 

What good is to have the best closer if we can't use him because we're playing from behind all the time?

 

Soooooo, this Tyler Danish guy shows up AND does the job. I think that's pretty much how the relievers roll. It really is a crap shoot sometimes. I will not complain about our pen. It feels like it's a deeper pen than in the past. I think Bloom has done a good job.

 

So the Sox have a “fiduciary responsibility”?

 

Whitlock is officially an investment for that team. It might not be in their or his best interest to just throw him into the rotation right now. He’s already had one TJ; the goal isn’t to see how many he can have…

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe I'm old school.

 

IF I OWN A MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM, I THINK I HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO TROT OUT A LEGIT STARTER EVERY GAME.

 

The Rays trotted out an "opener" again last night, and it seemed to work.

[notin]

The Rays trotted out an "opener" again last night, and it seemed to work.

 

Per Nick, they were ripping off their customers. Both of them…

[moonslav59]

“Having a better chance” at being a top 3-4 team shouldn’t be more satisfying than actually being one.

 

Where did I ever come close to saying or implying that?

 

If you think planning should involve or plan on good luck, don't count me in on that idea.

[moonslav59]

Maybe I'm old school.

 

IF I OWN A MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM, I THINK I HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO TROT OUT A LEGIT STARTER EVERY GAME. I NOT ONLY OWE IT TO THE PAYING PUBLIC, I OWE IT TO THE POSITION PLAYERS. THEY SHOULD NEVER FEEL "OH GREAT, WE'LL HAVE SCORE 6 RUNS TO WIN THIS GAME"

 

What good is to have the best closer if we can't use him because we're playing from behind all the time?

 

Soooooo, this Tyler Danish guy shows up AND does the job. I think that's pretty much how the relievers roll. It really is a crap shoot sometimes. I will not complain about our pen. It feels like it's a deeper pen than in the past. I think Bloom has done a good job.

 

Okay.

 

Look, I'd prefer better starters than better pens, but we need a legit closer, too.

[moonslav59]

Not very well expressed, because we were one of the best to start the 2018 season.

 

IMO, we were a top 2 contender at the start of 2018, and one reason was we had Sale AND Price, plus some other starters who looked pretty good. (We also had a closer, who underperformed from ST'ing expectations, but the rotation carried us. (Other pen pieces stepped up, when needed, too.)

 

Nate and Pearce put us over the top, or one might say, were "icing on the cake."

[moonslav59]

And you’re moving the goal posts.

 

You’re original notion was Bloom needs to spend money on starters. That he has never spent $10mill on a starter.

 

Wrong. I said I'd rather spend more than $10M on a starter than get 3 for $20M.

 

I also said I did not think any starters this year, were worth the big plunge, and trading for one made more sense.

 

I have also showed how trading for starters has worked way better for us than FA signings.

 

The rest of your post was based on a faulty idea of what my position is.

[notin]

Where did I ever come close to saying or implying that?

 

If you think planning should involve or plan on good luck, don't count me in on that idea.

 

Well in post 817, there was this whole thing about how all these “better” teams didn’t go as far, but were still better.

 

Heck post 809 was a response to my proposal that finishing in the top 3-4 makes a team a top 3-4 contender, which was greeted in post 809 with “If you say so.”

[Bellhorn04]

IMO, we were a top 2 contender at the start of 2018, and one reason was we had Sale AND Price, plus some other starters who looked pretty good. (We also had a closer, who underperformed from ST'ing expectations, but the rotation carried us. (Other pen pieces stepped up, when needed, too.)

 

Nate and Pearce put us over the top, or one might say, were "icing on the cake."

 

What you said was

 

Also, you can add pieces during the season- like Eovaldi and Pearce in 2018, to put you over the top, so no, you don't have to be one of the best to start the season.

 

The last part makes no sense in the context of your argument.

[notin]

And you’re moving the goal posts.

 

You’re original notion was Bloom needs to spend money on starters. That he has never spent $10mill on a starter.

 

Wrong. I said I'd rather spend more than $10M on a starter than get 3 for $20M.

 

I also said I did not think any starters this year, were worth the big plunge, and trading for one made more sense.

 

I have also showed how trading for starters has worked way better for us than FA signings.

 

The rest of your post was based on a faulty idea of what my position is.

 

 

But at what point does this become “spending for the sake of spending”?

 

Advocating for these $10-15 mill pitchers leaves the choices as pitchers recovering from TJ and pitchers who peak at 2-2.5 fWAR but will require 4-5 year deals and in the end are not necessarily all that much better than Rich Hill. Maybe you were unimpressed with the Jon Gray/Steve Matz type guys on the market this year. But next year it will still be “same talent different names.”

 

(I get you didn’t cap the request at $15mill, but at some point not far above it, we’re talking about contracts that require long term commitments and more often than not, hinder more than they help. So I needed a number.)

 

I’m not saying these types of pitchers are useless and unwanted. They’re absolutely useful most of the time. But they’re not always essential and sometimes easily replaced.

 

And let’s face it, no fan anywhere has ever bemoaned “this team really needs an innings eater with a 4.5ish ERA.”

 

But hey, that’s what $10-15 mill gets these days.

[dgalehouse]

Eovaldi and Pearce were good late season acquisitions. Definitely were assets. ( Eovaldi still is ) But the 2018 Red Sox were clearly the class of baseball. Dominant from wire to wire. One of the best teams you are ever going to see.

[vegasbob]

Isn't the core of the answer to the Red Sox starting pitching ( vs. budget) the ultimate failure to draft and develop , within 3-4 years, starters capable of being a #2-#4 inning eater who is on a club controlled pre-arb/arb basis? Who was the last one , Buch/ Lester(?), maybe you can count Erod in a small stretch.

 

Better yet, who is the next one to come up through this system ? Whitlock was a NYY gift , much appreciated. Houck is a candidate if they can ever figure out which role he should be in , and if he can go more than 4 innings.

 

Don't strain yourself trying to figure out how they got to this position. Basically a 15-20 year failure to develop reliable arms .

[notin]

Isn't the core of the answer to the Red Sox starting pitching ( vs. budget) the ultimate failure to draft and develop , within 3-4 years, starters capable of being a #2-#4 inning eater who is on a club controlled pre-arb/arb basis? Who was the last one , Buch/ Lester(?), maybe you can count Erod in a small stretch.

 

Better yet, who is the next one to come up through this system ? Whitlock was a NYY gift , much appreciated. Houck is a candidate if they can ever figure out which role he should be in , and if he can go more than 4 innings.

 

Don't strain yourself trying to figure out how they got to this position. Basically a 15-20 year failure to develop reliable arms .

 

 

1. So you still think pitching is the problem?

2. At any point do you acknowledge the 4 WS titles in that 15-20 year stretch?

[Nick]

The Rays trotted out an "opener" again last night, and it seemed to work.

 

Against our weak bats, every starter in the league is a legit.

[Bellhorn04]

Against our weak bats, every starter in the league is a legit.

 

Maybe so. But we all know the Rays have done well with their openers and bullpen games. It is what it is. The game has changed.

[Nick]

LOL wut?

 

I hope you're not implying that Cora is dumb because Whitlock hasn't been officially anointed as a starter yet.

 

What is he waiting on? Ask yourself one question Do you think the Rays, Yankees and the Jays prefer Whitlock starting or coming out of bullpen.