RobZombie

For me...I just didn't think he'd be all that good as a starter. No I can't say it with certainty...I just think its highly unlikely that he would be elite. If you don't think that his chances of being a great starter are all that great, then the putting him back in the rotation becomes more obvious. I agree that he's a special reliever and that Tito should be more careful with him especially given his past shoulder issues. But I don't think trading an elite closer for an average starter to protect the kid from the manager is wise either.

One Red Seat....first off I only started to call you a childish fanboy when you started hurling insults at me. You seem unable to politely disagree with others. Its "you don't have a clue" and "you don't know baseball". Its pretty clear from all of your posts that you yell at people who disagree with you and question their intelligence. Its as if you are a child who starts to cry because someone told you your beloved Papelbon really isn't as good as you think he is. His split maybe a plus pitch but if he's not throwing in the mid 90s it loses effectiveness. His curve? That's certainly not a plus pitch today and at 26 its unlikely it will be. Unfortunatlely what you saw doesn't jive with the facts. The fact is that Papelbon was throwing 95 for the first few innings or so, but as the game wore on, he wasn't throwing in the mid 90s anymore. Those are the facts, and all the insults in the world won't change it. You've made it clear that you aren't open to any argument that shows unequivicoly that Papelbon would be an average starting pitcher. You've made it clear that you will attack anyone who dares to tell you that the emporor has no clothes. Its really irrelevant to you that he happens to be parading before you naked. So go off with your Red Sox hat and memories of being a supposed former Marine and believe all you want that the Sox are wasting a real chance at the next Schilling. The facts are against you. If you want to try to bully the messenger that's your problem. Why does it seem that others seem to be able to debate the point politely and you cannot? Perhaps you are taking this stuff a little too seriously. And to think we had a person like you defending our country. No wonder we are losing the war!

Lets take your argument point by point. #1 So noted. #2 I wouldn't take 8 scoreless spring innings as any evidence that Piniero could do the job. Lets remember this is spring training and later in games you face a lot of guys who aren't going to sniff the majors. From what I've heard and read Piniero is defintely improving, but no way I trust him to even be a serviceable closer based on 8 scoreless innings against the weak sisters of the poor. And plus, I really think the chances that Papelbon will be an elite starter are a long-shot at best. I'm not willing to flush the season down the toilet so the Sox can take a hail mary. I'd also note that from a statistical standpoint, Baseball Prospectus doesn't think that he's likely to be a great starter either. #3 I think is a definte consideration. Though according to the team the shoulder is stronger than it ever was before. Its entirely possible that Paps eventually blows out his shoulder because he's a reliever. But I think the chances of that happening in a short amount of time are much less than the chance of him becoming an elite starter. The reason for him going to the pen is two fold. First he's a great closer and the Sox clearly need a guy who can do that. And second, he's unlikely to be a great starter. Though I do thank you for being more polite and peppering your argument with actual opinions and not bombs.

Mr. Cruchy I don't follow your logic here. Because Papelbon was great as a set up guy and as a closer and Schilling was once 26, Papelbon has a chance to become Schilling? As I've said from a performance standpoint his average game score as a starter in the majors wasn't any evidence that he can be a good starter.

First off I DID watch Papelbon's starts that year. I did not attend the games in person with a radar gun pointed charting every pitch. Did you? If not it is you that posting fabricated information. That as I have heard is the fatal flaw to any argument. Gammons information IS NOT based souly on his performance this spring. Scaffolds reported similar information on this site earlier this year before spring training ever got under way. In fact as you may remember he got into a fight with Kushi and swore at him. That leads me to believe that Gammons was reporting on Papelbon not just from spring training but from starts throughout his pro-career. I don't think its a coincidence that this appeared on the radio when Scaffolds reported the same thing. Hence I am NOT ignoring an entire year when he was closing. This has been a problem thorughout his pro career and it would prevent him from becoming a great pitcher if the problem were to persist. I notice that you once again insulted me, by calling my post "rabble". It is my contention that you do this because you KNOW you have lost the argument. All that's left is personal attacks. You tell me that because I have a source for this information and you do not it can't be true. Yet unless you charted his velocity thorughout the game, I would wonder how it is that you KNOW that Papelbon maintained his velocity throughout the games he started? The simple answer is you don't....because you weren't charting pitches you were watching the game on TV.

First off Papelbon isn't all that young. He's already 26. We aren't talking about some 19 year old kid whom we hope will be able to gain endurace as he grows. Secondly as a starter in 05 he really didn't pitch all that well. He had an average game score in the low 50s. That's pretty mediocre. No nothing is for certain, but after two years as a starter, Papelbon according to several scouts, was throwing in the high 80s after a few innings. How in the world is time going to change this? He's going to have to triple his innings as a starter. If anything, the problem would exacerbate as the season wore on. In my opinion, Papelbon, if he started would most likely be an average guy with an ERA in the mid to high 4's. That's not something that I'm willing to give up an elite closer for. I'm sorry if this upsets most Red Sox fans, but it seems to me that Papelbon's chances of becoming one of the best starting pitchers in baseball are quite slim.

One Red Seat: Suffice to say you are completely wrong about Papelbon....I think its obvious that you really don't know as much about baseball as you say you do. I am aware that I had a momentary lapse on Johan Santanna's first name, credit it to lack of sleep and old age. But I don't think that detracts from my original argument. I personally believe that the chances that Jonathan Papelbon would ever become an elite starter are slim. I didn't make up the idea that Papelbon doesn't maintain his velocity. I received the info from a pretty reliable source. Again, my source for this information was a Peter Gammons radio interview on Mike and Mike in the morning, the day after it was announced that Papelbon would return to the pen. According to Gammons, "several scouts tell me that around the 4th inning his velocity would go from 94 to about 88." I don't think I was dreaming either because Scaffolds mentioned the very same thing on another board. I'm not a scout and I wasn't charting his velocity nor do I have a log of his velocity, but I'd say that if Gammons says that several scouts told him something, its as good as actual fact. Even if you think "I don't know baseball" and "I don't have a clue". I think its pretty obvious that Peter Gammons HAS a clue, and either he or the people he is interviewing, DO know baseball. Your argument is that there is a significant chance that with time Papelbon would build up his endurance. I think the chances of this happening are quite slim. He was starter for two years and he was still not maintaining his velocity. If two years aren't enough for him to build this endurance how is three going to help? Compounding this, is that he's coming off a shoulder injury, AND would have to increase his innnings pitched by a large amount. If anything his enducrance would probably get WORSE as time went on. Sure stranger things have happened, but I think the odds of him becoming an elite starter are quite long. He sure as heck would have trouble getting guys out throwing 88. As far as your insults of me...and denying that they are insults...I think that stating that "I don't have a clue"...and that "I don't know baseball", is childish. Again just my opinion. There are certain posters on message boards that like to question the accumen or knowledge of the person they are debating with when they are losing an argument. Its pretty clear to me that when you state things like this, its because you are losing the argument. You didn't attack my ideas, you attacked me personally, and to me that's extremely unclassy and childish. No I am not in favor of throwing away 2007 because of the small chance that Papelbon might become one of the best pitchers in the league. I'll take the 80+% chance that he's one of the best closers in the league. I look forward to your response....which I am sure will basically deny that the Gammons interview ever occured, and that I don't know baseball because I had a temporary brain cramp on the first name of the best pitcher in baseball.

I for one am not too worried about Wakefield breaking down. Remember knuckleballers are always more durable. Schilling didn't break down till the end of the season last year. Plus they all seem healthy today which wasn't the case at this time last year. I agree that it does hurt their starting pitching depth, depending on how/if Lester recovers. But to me getting a mediocre starter is much easier than getting a good closer. The main thing that hurt the team last year is that not only did their depth get whacked, but they didn't have a dominant starter either. No starter had an ERA lower than the high 3's. This year they have Matsusaka and hopefully an improving Beckett that should help immensely.

And my argument is that he has many hurdles that to overcome before he can even think about doing that. Hurdles that he probably wouldn't be able to overcome right away and may not ever be able to. This is a team that spent $140M and has a chance to win the pennant. There is no time for science experiments. Whatever your take, the people who are on the opposite side from you aren't stupid, and know baseball just as well as you do, and in some cases maybe better. So lets stop calling people who think that that Papelbon won't be an elite starter dunderheads kapeesh?

"ulio Santana? I'm arguing about baseball with a guy that thinks Julio Santana is an elite pitcher (is he even a pitcher)? Thanks for making it easy. You don't know baseball, so I won't waste any more of my own time." Its quite annoying when people love certain players so much that facts won't stand in their way. Instead of responding with actual arguments, they trot out the old and tired "you don't know baseball"/ "you don't have a clue" line. To anyone who questions their assertions. As you noticed kind sir, I haven't done this to you. That you chose to focus on one trivial misspelling then used it to throw bombs as opposed to defending your argument tells me one thing. You don't have anything real to respond with the argument so you trot out tired insults. Its a cool tactic, one that's quite often used by three year olds. I don't enjoy arguing with three year olds. Yes its true, no matter how many times you insult me it won't turn Jonathan Papelbon into an elite starter. The facts are that he probably wouldn't be one, at least not right away. And Red Seat, you know darn well which Santana I was referring to, but chose not to debate the point. If the way you debate points is by trying to tell us that you are smarter than anyone who disagrees with you then I am quite glad that you have chosen to take your ball and go home. Red Sox fans like that are annoying as hell.

Mr. Red Seat. I am going to tell you once again that calling people stupid won't make Jonathan Papelbon into the pitcher that you think he is. If the jump from Papeblon to Tavarez is "HUGE", its because Tavarez absolutely sucks (which he might), not because Papelbon has a chance to jump out and become an elite starter because he doesn't.

He might never be dominant, but he will be well above average. Dominant would be 20+ and sub 3. I think Lester is more than capable of 15+ and mid-3. I like John Lester's chances but lets be realistic here. John Lester has never had any sustained success above AA. Plus he's coming off a serious illness that really tuckers you out for a year or so. He's a good guy to gamble on, but penciling him in to be well above average is a bit much. As far as the original post goes. Did they get good players who are better than the players they replaced? Yes. Did they pay too much and sign Lugo, Drew, and possibly Matsusaka for too long? Maybe. I think an argument can be made that when you have the resources and fan base that the Sox have, you have to overpay to improve your team.

First off, I am highly skeptical that Hansen will ever be that franchise closer. Yes that's why he was drafted, but he's a long way off from being that dominant guy that he was billed as. He's not there yet. He may never get there. I am hopeful, but its certainly no sure thing. Second, I'm not to sure that Papelbon would do that well as a starter. His peripheral statistics in his last full season starting were strong but not outstanding. He clearly can be dominant as a closer and has show better peripherals than he had as a starter at any level. I am hopeful that some of the Sox young arms step forward, but I think that in a year we are going to be sitting here with Papelbon as the best option to be the closer once again.

Joel Piniero's problem is that he needs to change his arm slot to be able to throw hard enough to be a good closer. Throwing with a new arm slot when you've been throwing a different way your entire life isn't easy but it can be done. It was done with Bryce Cox and changed him from an extra guy to the belle of the CWS. He may become comfortable with his new arm slot by the end of spring training, but he does have three more weeks.

Scaffolds while I respect your opinion you are absolutely wrong on this issue. The fact is that #3-#4 starters do make that kind of money. You also have to guarantee them for several years. Is Schilling better than Gill Meche? How about Jason Marquis? Schilling is also still even at age 41 likely a better pitcher than Tim Wakefield. If it came down to a choice between the two of them, I'd prefer Schilling. Its not even close. Plus no one knows how Lester will recover from cancer if at all. If you sign Schilling, you don't have to force Lester in case he's not exactly brining it at the end of the year. If the Red Sox don't resign Schilling, the risk having to guarantee several years to a player who is at best Schilling's equal. You also don't want to force feed Buchholtz to the majors in 08.

Lenny Dinardo was injured all last year so what he did probably isn't an indication of how good he is. He can be deceptive at times and might make a good swing guy, or long man. I think the odds are against him being consistently effective as a starter but the A's have had success with such guys in the past, like Kirk Saarloos. Dinardo also has two options left I think.

I'd have to say that Richard Lentz belongs on that list, especially ahead of guys like Hottovoy, Natale, and maybe Engel and Lara who really don't have much of a chance to be anything more than backups.

The biggest thing that having Curt back for 08 does is take pressure off Buchholtz and Lester.

Lester and Hansen aren't prospects anymore, so they don't help any rankings. Pedroia is still a prospect. Law just give higher due to players who have a reasonable chance to be an impact player. The Red Sox really don't have any. At the fringes you could argue Buchholtz has a chance but he hardly has any experience above A ball. Ellsberry looks like he maybe a good player though not an impact or elite player. The Royals don't have as many prospects as the Red Sox do, but their top three is heads and tails above anything the Red Sox have.

To me the love for Youkilis amazes me as well. Its as if there is a stats mafia working for him. And they want to use their stats not all the stats. Yes its true that Youkilis had the third best win-shares on the team, but how many of those were for in the second half? Youkilis's stats were not good enough to be an every day player in the second half. A deep drop in a first year player's stats in the second half of the year is a major red flag. Youkilis's love interests will continue to tell us that Youkilis was injured in the second half. If he was so injured that he lost 20% of his value then why was he even playing? Youkilis is the third rail of Red Sox discussions. They point out that Youkilis' ability to walk made him a valuable player. If you point out that his OBP was under .350 in the second half they cover their ears and scream that they don't care and that Youkilis will morph back into a .290 15-20 HR player, despite showing no second half ability to do this.

I was curious about this. "which is necessary for him as their family is prone to loose joints" They are? Where did you hear this?