Tyler Pelland to Bull Pen

[Triples]

From Chattanooga Times: 5/31/07

...Lookouts opening-day starter Tyler Pelland has been moved to the bullpen and replaced in the rotation by Justin Mallett. Pelland has made five starts, going 1-2 with a 3.33 ERA and allowing opponents to hit .280.
"We've put Tyler in the bullpen, because he has increased in velocity with his fastball," pitching coach Grant Jackson said. "We also needed another left-hander in the bullpen."....

During the game the Lookouts announcer commented that the move was intended to get Pelland moving more quickly to the big leagues.

[JaxRed]

Interesting. That should make some people happy here. The interesting thing about Pelland, is that he could go 5 innings and be almost unhittable, and then have a disaster inning where everything went wrong. Many times caused by his own errors.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in pen. I assume he'll be a short inning guy.

[TRF]

I really wanted him to work out as a starter. With his conversion to the bullpen, he's likely a Red sometime next year, maybe as a Sept. callup.

Oh well, a power LH in the pen isn't a bad thing. I wonder if he'll end up doing some closing if Medlock gets promoted to AAA.

[Kc61]

Somebody running the Reds has apparently decided that they lack power bullpen arms. Suddenly, after putting together a soft tossing bullpen this spring, the Reds have within one week:

Traded for McBeth
Cut Cormier
Advanced Salmon to majors
Moved Pelland to the pen.

[New Fever]

Wayne Krivsky was at last start on the 25th where he went 6 1/3 innings and gave up 1 run. He must have saw something to think that he could help the pen very soon.

[M2]

Interesting. That should make some people happy here.

Yep. Right here. Happy guy.

Pelland's stuff and profile have been screaming "reliever" for years, glad the franchise finally noticed. He was going nowhere as a starter, but he could be a quality LH reliever.

Though the upside of having kept him in the rotation this long is it forced him to work on all his pitches, pay more attention to his mechanics (relievers can afford to be sloppy in that department if they're effective) and build his stamina. He's 23 now and, if the conversion works out, perhaps he can get himself into the bullpen mix sometime in 2008.

[M2]

Somebody running the Reds has apparently decided that they lack power bullpen arms. Suddenly, after putting together a soft tossing bullpen this spring, the Reds have within one week:

Traded for McBeth
Cut Cormier
Advanced Salmon to majors
Moved Pelland to the pen.

Very good points. He's seemingly got muscle on his mind.

[Patrick Bateman]

Good move. It has become obvious for a while now that Pelland's future was in the bullpen.

He simply doesn't have the type of arsenal to make it as a starter since at times he really only has 2 at least average offerings. In the bullpne, he should be able to get away with this better.

As a reliever, he should have a very good fastball in the 92-94 MPH range while also having 2 usable pitches (curveball and a 2-seamer) which should allow him to be successful and give him a chance of helping th Reds at some point in the not too distant future.

If Peland can begin to improve upon his control, he has some very nice potential as a 3rd guy out of the pen. If not, he should still have a future as more of a middle guy, or at least a LOOGY.

[LoganBuck]

What kind of comp would Pelland the reliever have?

[Sea Ray]

From Chattanooga Times: 5/31/07


5/31/07???

I have no problem with moving him to the 'pen. God knows this prganization needs bullpenners. I wish him luck...

[medford]

Was Justin Mallett the kid that sat out last season w/ Drug problems/suspension? I liked him when he was at the Dragons. While not an overwhelming prospect, he seemed to have a great changeup, and his bio seemed to indicate that he was a late bloomer, as he got cut from his high school team his senior year (transferred to a new school after his junior season and didn't make the team) He was drafted after a stint in Juco ball.

I always thought he had the makeup to be a long -inning relief kind of pitcher, at best in the majors, but he always but up strong numbers from Dayton thru his first stint in AA.

[Triples]

Ooops, 5/1/07


5/31/07???

I have no problem with moving him to the 'pen. God knows this prganization needs bullpenners. I wish him luck...

[Superdude]

I wonder how hard he'll throw from the pen. He was supposedly sitting 92-93 as a starter. Applause to WayneK for nice timing on this move. Pelland had a fair shake, unlike a certain player we all know "cough" Medlock "cough", but it's become pretty obvious Pelland's future as a starter is pretty minimal unless something clicks. I'm excited to watch him make the switch.

[Topcat]

Great move and I like Pellands chances as a future MLB reliever than as a MLB Starter:thumbup:

[OnBaseMachine]

Good move. This improves Pelland's ceiling and advances his ETA for reaching the majors to sometime in 2008. It's always nice to have a power lefty reliever.

[camisadelgolf]

We sure are waiting a long time to see how big of a bust the Scott Williamson trade was.

[mth123]

Like this move. I think Pelland could move quickly.

The big league bullpen is iffy, but the youth in the system looks good for the future. Hopefully this means no more deadline deals for soft tossing vets. The Reds should look within for pen help from here on out. Plenty to choose from. Counting the young major leaguers there are 8 decent young arms to rotate in and out to see who steps forward. Coffey is already established.

Coffey
Salmon
Coutlangus (L)
Bray (L)
Pelland (L)
Medlock
Burton
McBeth

This doesn't include other minor league starters who could go to the pen or younger guys like Roenicke, Asadoorian and Lutz (1 Bad outing on 4/27 skews his numbers) who look pretty strong right now.

[TRF]

We sure are waiting a long time to see how big of a bust the Scott Williamson trade was.

It's not a bust as long as these guys (Dumatrait and Williamson) are in the system and producing. We could see Dumatrait this year. In fact, I'd almost bet on it. Pelland we'll likely see in 2008, or he could be traded.

It's not a bust. yet.

[lollipopcurve]

We sure are waiting a long time to see how big of a bust the Scott Williamson trade was.

Willamson since the trade:

2003: Boston -- 20 innings, 6.20 ERA
2004: Boston -- 28 innings, 1.26 ERA
2005: Cubs -- 14 innings, 5.65 ERA
2006: Cubs -- 28 innings, 5.08 ERA & Padres -- 11 innings, 7.36 ERA
2007: Orioles -- 5 innings, 1.80 ERA and currently on the DL

[flyer85]

For the Reds to have success at the major league level they need to remove Weathers and Stanton from the back of the pen. It seems the candidates for potential replacement are lining. You would think at least a couple will work out.

[flyer85]

We sure are waiting a long time to see how big of a bust the Scott Williamson trade was.the trading of Willy never bothered me one bit. He has always been an injury waiting to happen. Could the return have been better? We'll never know but I wouldn't mind seeing Dumatrait get a shot when they finally can't stand anymore of Milton.

[M2]

It's not a bust as long as these guys (Dumatrait and Williamson) are in the system and producing. We could see Dumatrait this year. In fact, I'd almost bet on it. Pelland we'll likely see in 2008, or he could be traded.

It's not a bust. yet.

I disagree. It was a bust years ago. You don't trade your closer, the guy with the best pedigree of any pitcher you've developed in 20 years, during a pennant chase for two guys who, four years later, haven't tasted the majors and call it anything but a bust.

Time to market counts and the Reds blew it on the Williamson trade. We're still waiting to see if Dumatrait can be a #5 starter and Pelland, maybe, will have some sort of major league future as a reliever (something that wasn't even on the radar for him as a starter). These two guys could have been had umpteen times for minor league returns if the Reds had wanted them. Trading your closer for them in what was a seller's market is an example of extreme overpayment.

So, while I now have some hope that Pelland can help the franchise at some point in the future it doesn't make the deal which brought him into the fold look any better in my eyes.

[camisadelgolf]

Of course it's possible the trade won't be a bust for the Reds, but for the reasons M2 pointed out, it probably will be.

[TRF]

I disagree. It was a bust years ago. You don't trade your closer, the guy with the best pedigree of any pitcher you've developed in 20 years, during a pennant chase for two guys who, four years later, haven't tasted the majors and call it anything but a bust.

Time to market counts and the Reds blew it on the Williamson trade. We're still waiting to see if Dumatrait can be a #5 starter and Pelland, maybe, will have some sort of major league future as a reliever (something that wasn't even on the radar for him as a starter). These two guys could have been had umpteen times for minor league returns if the Reds had wanted them. Trading your closer for them in what was a seller's market is an example of extreme overpayment.

So, while I now have some hope that Pelland can help the franchise at some point in the future it doesn't make the deal which brought him into the fold look any better in my eyes.

I guess it depends on how well Dumatrait and Pelland perform at the major league level, or what they can fetch in a trade. I think Dumatrait has probably #3 maybe #2 starter upside. He just hasn't been quite healthy enough to show it. He seems fully healthy now.

Pelland is a disappointment to me, but if he can be a hammer lefty in the pen, I'm ok with that. Should the Reds have gotten more? Yes, but IMO they got more for Scott Williamson than the Reds got for three players last summer.

[Doc. Scott]

I guess it depends on how well Dumatrait and Pelland perform at the major league level, or what they can fetch in a trade. I think Dumatrait has probably #3 maybe #2 starter upside. He just hasn't been quite healthy enough to show it. He seems fully healthy now.

Pelland is a disappointment to me, but if he can be a hammer lefty in the pen, I'm ok with that. Should the Reds have gotten more? Yes, but IMO they got more for Scott Williamson than the Reds got for three players last summer.


Pelland making the major leagues at all would be maybe a 15-20% chance if you go back to when the Reds got him (as a teenager fresh out of rookie ball and one year removed from high school).

[lollipopcurve]

I think if people look back at Williamson's performance since the trade they'll see the Reds lost almost nothing. In my opinion, it's safe to assume the market for him at the time was affected by concerns over his very high injury risk -- a risk noted by several people here -- so that even though the Reds took $1million from the Red Sox along with Dumatrait and Pelland, assuming there was a bona fide talent haul to be had for Williamson is more stretch of the imagination than fact.

In my book, at least the team got some talent for a guy who was likely to, and indeed did, fall prey to repeated arm problems. The Reds have a good chance to get something out of Dumatrait and/or Pelland. How much remains to be seen, but you have to compare that to what a parade of 4 teams has gotten out of Williamson: he has never gone more than 28 innings for a team in any year since he was traded, with 2 stints/33 innings of good pitching and 4 stints/73 innings of bad to the tune of an ERA around 6.

Why folks are still pulling their hair out over this one, I don't know.

[TRF]

Pelland making the major leagues at all would be maybe a 15-20% chance if you go back to when the Reds got him (as a teenager fresh out of rookie ball and one year removed from high school).


What are his percentages now? As a AA reliever at age 22? or is it 23?

[M2]

I think if people look back at Williamson's performance since the trade they'll see the Reds lost almost nothing.

He was a high octane major league closer on the day he was traded and with a sub-3.00 career ERA. What the Reds lost was getting anyone remotely close to being useful for him and no amount of ex post facto excusifying will change that.

[mth123]

He was a high octane major league closer on the day he was traded and with a sub-3.00 career ERA. What the Reds lost was getting anyone remotely close to being useful for him and no amount of ex post facto excusifying will change that.

Not sure. I understand the logic, but he was a guy with a fairly well accepted expiration date. He still shows flashes and then breaks down. I don't think anyone was going to give a lot for him.

[M2]

Not sure. I understand the logic, but he was a guy with a fairly well accepted expiration date.

He had 21 saves on the day he got traded. His career ERA was 2.93. His career K/9 was 10.61. You've got to get something for a guy like that. If a trade partner was going to play the "well, he may not be healthy forever" game with him, the appropriate response was "no one will be, do you want the guy right now or not?"

As it turned out, he struggled with the Red Sox initially, mostly due to emotional distress over almost losing a child, but he almost pitched the team into the World Series during the playoffs.

Starting with Denny Neagle the Reds made a habit of trading away good to useful players for nothing or for the absolute minimum or for the kids who were going to take half a decade to pan out if ever. Scott Williamson had more trade value than Jose Guillen, who got dealt in the same week. There's no comparison between the two deals. Had the Reds cashed in Williamson (and Aaron Boone) for talents who'd right now be featured on the team alongside Aaron Harang (e.g. Adrian Gonzalez traded in July 2003 for a closer) we'd be trying to estimate the date on which the club would clinch the division. And that is the very definition of opportunity lost.

[camisadelgolf]

There are two ways to judge a trade: You can judge it based on how much productions you got out of it, or you can judge it on how much possible value you could've gotten out of it. In other words, productions-wise, the Williamson trade will probably look good for the Reds at some point, seeing as how Williamson hasn't done much since the trade. However, value-wise, people were very surprised that the Reds weren't able to receive more than a left-handed teenager with no control and an injury-prone minor leaguer. So let's say we're all correct and call it even?:beerme: