moonslav59

Fair enough, but we did have 4 guys with 27 or more starts, so we did have one of the two things we've had every ring year: health or pretty a solid rotation. The two guys with less than 27 starts, Buch and Peavy did well enough. That was the season with the most starts fro our 7th or lower starter, so I can agree, that ring season does not really fit the mold I presented. (I still like those starters better than the one's we have now, do you?)

Funny.

Okay, all pitchers are "ifs," but if you think the 2018 rotation had bigger or more ifs than this one, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

4 ifs is more than many non ring rotations had in years past. I'm not saying it can't happen, especially if Whitlock & Houck stay starting, but if they do, our pen will suffer.

Sounds about right. I'm on the over 50% line, right now.

The 4 ring seasons all were marked by 1 or two things: a solid rotation and pretty good health from the rotation (as measured by GS'd.) This is not to say we always win when we have good healthy starters, but when we do win, we always do: 2004: (only 5 starts from below our 5th starter) GS Pitcher ERA+ 33 Pedro 124 33 Lowe 89 (did well in PO's) 32 Schilling 148 30 Wakefield 99 29 Arroyo 120 2007: (only 11 starts below our 6th man- Lester) 32 DiceK 108 31 Wake 100 30 Beckett 145 24 Schilling 123 23 Tavarez 92 11 Lester 104 7 Gabbard 128 2013: (added Peavy at the deadline) 33 Lester 110 29 Lackey 117 29 Dempster 90 27 Doubront 95 16 Buchholz 237 10 Peavy 102 (18 starts by 5 guys) 2018 (added Eovaldi that summer) 33 Porcello 103 30 Price 123 27 Sale 209 23 ERod 116 13 Johnson 106 11 Eovaldi 133 11 Pomeranz 73 8 Velazquez 139 4 Wright 165 2 by 2 guys combined 2022 after 10% of the season: 3 Houck 141 3 Eovaldi 110 3 Wacha 215 3 Hill 84 3 Pivetta 41 1 Whitlock 615 While some of these ERA+ numbers look very good, does anyone really think this rotation will come close to matching the 4 WS ring teams?

I'm certainly not hoping it happens, but it is in the back of my mind, after this lack-luster start of the season, and Sale's return timeline largely unknown. If and when the time comes, I'll talk about it then. I still have faith in this club making a nice run to make the playoffs and maybe advance a round or two.

I guess that's an option, if we keep playing like this, but I'm not ready to talk about that, right now.

For him to carry us, like he did for part of 2021. We may be out of it by then. Maybe someone else needs to step it up to carry us to July.

Kike's two best months, career, are July and August. Can we wait that long? Singing to the choir on our catching position needing an upgrade. I wanted Fitzy on the 28 man roster opening day. I hope he's called up, soon. I don't think we DFA Arroyo: trade, maybe. Teams will want him. I agree on Shaw and Arauz needing to go. The Dalbec-Casas choice might be forced earlier than we wanted. I'll leave that one to management.

Still some impressive K:BB numbers by some... 22:0 Walter (17 IP) 23:2 Pannone (19.2 IP) 24:4 Bello (15.1) 13:1 Bautista (10) 16:3 Padron-Artilles (15) 13:3 Van Belle (15) 18:6 Murphy (14) 18:7 Gonzalez (11)

I'm not a big Manaea fan, but I like one year of him more than Hill or Wacha or Paxton. I don't think Yorke equaled what the A's ended up settling on. I'd prefer trading for someone better, but who knows the cost.

The return of JD?

Again, I'd have traded for someone like Manaea, but yes, in general, I think the odds are better on $11-20M pitchers than $5-10M guys. Apparently, the GMs that give those contracts agree. That's not to say every starter who signed for over $10M I wish we'd have signed. I'm on record saying I did not like this year's class, exept for some of the older guys on shorter term deals. My point is, I can't see us being top favorites by counting on guys like Richards, Perez, Wacha, Hill and Paxton, every year. It worked out okay, last season, but we are pushing our luck, IMO.

I'm glad you finally answered. OK, maybe right on the CWS, but I said 3-4th best in MLB. I'm not the one who brought up season records, but how does finishing 3rd in the division support your position we were top 3-4 in MLB? My opinion? I don't think the team who wins the final 7 game series of the year is necessarily the best. I think the Dodgers and Giants were the best teams in MLB, last year- maybe not for a couple weeks in October, but yes, the best teams in MLB. I think the Astros, a team that has made the ALCS, five straight years were better than us. The Rays were better. At best we were 5th, but certainly the Brewers, Yanks and yes, the CWS and Braves could have been ranked equal or higher than us. Wins are part of it. Run differential. WAR. Playoffs. A lot goes into who I think was the best, but it's not all about the winner of the World Series. I respect your opinion, and I'm sure many agree with you, but I still don't think we were a top 4 team, last year. Schwarber and some over-the-head play by Iggy, Shaw and a guy named Kike, who some want to platoon now, got us closer, but I'd be hard pressed to call us #5 in 2021.

Or, had we gotten good SP'ers, we'd have had a decent pen with Houck and Whitlock at 1-2.

I hope this season doesn't quickly turn into one where we end up caring about the farm more than the big club. There sure is a lot to be excited about, and at every level on the farm. Will some of the very promising prospects be promoted earlier than expected?

The D was a big part of one of those 2 loses, but a homer is a homer, even if the game should have been over.

Why not answer? Do you really think the Sox were a top 4 team, last year? How about top 3? Do you really think the Braves were the best? Does good luck make a good team a top 4 team? Does a playoff structure that forces the 2 best teams in MLB to play each other before the League Championship series affect who we might think is top 4?

Jacko, many good and even some great starters struggle after 2 times through the line-up. Teams can win with a lot of starters like that, and a strong pen helps- something I'm pretty sure we don't have, now that Houck and Whitlock are starters- Whitlock maybe temporarily.

You don't think $15-20M gets you better than $5-10? Again, though, I thought trading for a solid SP'er was the way to go, this winter, so it was not really my position, this winter. It's not like I forgot what the Price contract did to us, among other deals, but counting on us to build a solid rotation from only the system and $5-10M starters is a long shot. At some point, I feel like we'll need to trade some promising prospects for one or at least pay over $10M for a FA starter, if Bloom can't bring himself to deal for one. I'm not saying it has to be a $30M deal. The Eovaldi deal worked pretty well. Look, I hope I'm dead wrong. I hope Wacha, Hill and Paxton lead us to the promise land, or at least a couple have a big part in a long run, this year, but I think we are fighting the odds that most teams around the 8th to 12th highest contender status is in, right now. If you are a believer in the crapshoot playoff philosophy, then that helps. I'm not. I don't think my position is all that extreme.

That was addressed to the point about we need to be a top 4 team "on paper" before the year starts. I never said or implied that, but being good on paper by the end of the year does improve your odds. Yes, the 2018 team was top 4 before we added Eovaldi and Pearce, but that doesn't take away from the point that having a stronger rotation is important to become a top 3-4 contender and have better odds at winning a ring.

If you think last year's team was a top 4 team in MLB, I still say, "if you say so." I don't think we were. (Of course, how far we went does not help my position on the playoffs are largely not a crapshoot.)

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.

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."