PDA

View Full Version : Bailey to Louisville...



Matt700wlw
03-26-2008, 03:34 PM
Fay's blog:

The Reds optioned Homer Bailey to Triple-A Louisville. No great surprise. Rotation will be what we've been saying:

Aaron Harang
Bronson Arroyo
Johnny Cueto
Josh Fogg
Edinson Volquez

Kc61
03-26-2008, 03:36 PM
At this pace the Reds will get down to 25 men by Memorial Day.

Joseph
03-26-2008, 03:39 PM
I still don't quite understand how/why Fogg deserves to be 4th over EV.

fearofpopvol1
03-26-2008, 03:40 PM
I still don't quite understand how/why Fogg deserves to be 4th over EV.

In case the kids falter, the bullpen doesn't get overused on back to back days. It's kind of a lame strategy because the odds of Fogg faltering are equally as high (if not higher).

BRM
03-26-2008, 03:41 PM
I still don't quite understand how/why Fogg deserves to be 4th over EV.

Soft-tosser between two hard-throwers maybe?

westofyou
03-26-2008, 03:41 PM
I still don't quite understand how/why Fogg deserves to be 4th over EV.

Break the rookies up, for now.

RedsManRick
03-26-2008, 03:42 PM
I still don't quite understand how/why Fogg deserves to be 4th over EV.

I don't understand why Cueto is 3 and Volquez is 5 given their ages and experience levels.

Fogg is splitting them up to get maximum advantage of keeping lineups off balance of the difference in type of stuff (finesse vs power).

Far East
03-26-2008, 03:43 PM
I still don't quite understand how/why Fogg deserves to be 4th over EV.
It might be designed to give Valentine a day off between the two Spanish speaking kids.

Joseph
03-26-2008, 03:44 PM
At least there are plenty of theories :)

Highlifeman21
03-26-2008, 03:46 PM
I'm hoping Homer Bailey gets it figured out @ Louisville in 2008, so the Reds will be a better team in 2009.

Screwball
03-26-2008, 03:49 PM
I'm hoping Homer Bailey gets it figured out @ Louisville in 2008, so the Reds will be a better team in 2009.

The rotation could be devastating in '09 if he does.

Joseph
03-26-2008, 03:50 PM
I'm hoping Homer Bailey gets it figured out @ Louisville in 2008, so the Reds will be a better team in 2009.

I hope he gets it figure out in 08 so we will be a better team in 08. Why wait til next year if he gets straight sooner?

Highlifeman21
03-26-2008, 03:53 PM
The rotation could be devastating in '09 if he does.

That's what I'm counting on.

The Reds v. 2008 isn't a .500 team, let alone a playoff team, with or without Bailey.

The Reds v. 2009, however, should be NL Central pennant winners with a Rotation of Arroyo/Bailey/Cueto/Harang/Volquez.


If the Reds thought that having Bailey and Bruce on the 25 man in 2008 would put us in the playoffs, they'd both be here on Opening Day.

They'll both spend Opening Day in Louisville.



Only 370+ days until the Reds' NL Central pennant winning season begins.

remdog
03-26-2008, 03:56 PM
I'd like to see Cueto and Volquez flip flopped as well.

Rem

WMR
03-26-2008, 03:59 PM
To have Volquez 5th and Cueto 3rd is simply idiotic. If anyone should be the 5th starter between those two, it is an absolute no-brainer for it to be Cueto.

puca
03-26-2008, 03:59 PM
In case the kids falter, the bullpen doesn't get overused on back to back days. It's kind of a lame strategy because the odds of Fogg faltering are equally as high (if not higher).

Fogg is pretty much guaranteed only to go 5 innings. I believe he has averaged only 5 1/3 innings per start in his career. He is no bullpen saver.

gm
03-26-2008, 04:02 PM
I still don't quite understand how/why Fogg deserves to be 4th over EV.

EV is the only starter who has (recent) experience in the bullpen. The #5 starter will typically get skipped a few times in April due to rainouts and off-days. EV is the best option for long relief in between those hypothetical skipped starts

jojo
03-26-2008, 04:07 PM
I don't understand why Cueto is 3 and Volquez is 5 given their ages and experience levels.

Fogg is splitting them up to get maximum advantage of keeping lineups off balance of the difference in type of stuff (finesse vs power).

Ya.

IslandRed
03-26-2008, 04:09 PM
EV is the only starter who has (recent) experience in the bullpen. The #5 starter will typically get skipped a few times in April due to rainouts and off-days. EV is the best option for long relief in between those hypothetical skipped starts

As long as all five are pitching decently, I wouldn't be surprised if off days are just that -- an extra rest day. No rule that says the #5 guy has to be skipped. It's frequently the case, but I think it has as much to do with the historical ineptitude of #5 starters as it does with the notion of "keeping everyone on schedule."

flyer85
03-26-2008, 04:12 PM
no reason to skip Volquez. I could see skipping Cueto to limit his innings. The injury nexus has to be a concern with his age.

pedro
03-26-2008, 04:14 PM
I still don't quite understand how/why Fogg deserves to be 4th over EV.

I think it makes sense in that Volquez has more value out of the pen when his spot is skipped than Fogg does. Also I think that it makes sense to put Volquez #5 rather than Cueto b/c bouncing back and forth between the pen and the rotation is potentially more stressful than merely being in the rotation.

WMR
03-26-2008, 04:18 PM
You really think they plan to use Volquez out of the pen when he skips a start? I think that would be horrible mismanagement.

M2
03-26-2008, 04:20 PM
I think it makes sense in that Volquez has more value out of the pen when his spot is skipped than Fogg does. Also I think that it makes sense to put Volquez #5 rather than Cueto b/c bouncing back and forth between the pen and the rotation is potentially more stressful than merely being in the rotation.

Agreed.

Also, who bloody cares? Over the course of the season it doesn't make a bit of difference where you got slotted in the rotation at the start of the season. You'll get your work if you're in any of the five slots.

RedLegSuperStar
03-26-2008, 04:22 PM
I just wonder how they are going to make room for Patterson, Cueto, and Bako unless they deem Ross able to play through the pain giving Valentin majority of the starts and optioning Capellen back.

Reds1
03-26-2008, 04:22 PM
Shouldn't Volquez pitch 3rd and Cueto 5th? I'm just going by experience and who pitched better in the spring. Volquez did better on both.

Fogg in between to give Valentine a break?

pedro
03-26-2008, 04:22 PM
You really think they plan to use Volquez out of the pen when he skips a start? I think that would be horrible mismanagement.

yes, that's generally what teams do when a guy is #5 in the rotation.

at least if the #5 is an arm like Volquez.

I don't think it's mismanagement at all.

fearofpopvol1
03-26-2008, 04:23 PM
Agreed.

Also, who bloody cares? Over the course of the season it doesn't make a bit of difference where you got slotted in the rotation at the start of the season. You'll get your work if you're in any of the five slots.

I think the concern is that Cueto is younger and has already logged a lot of innings when you factor in last season and winter ball. The #3 pitcher will see more innings than the 5 guy as it is easier to limit innings from #5.

WMR
03-26-2008, 04:27 PM
yes, that's generally what teams do when a guy is #5 in the rotation.

at least if the #5 is an arm like Volquez.

I don't think it's mismanagement at all.

It seems if Volquez is to reach his potential as a TOR-type arm, jerking him back and forth between the bullpen and starting rotation is a bad idea.

BCubb2003
03-26-2008, 04:28 PM
No. 1 starter: Your best pitcher.

No. 2 starter: Your next best pitcher.

No. 5 starter: Pitcher with the most issues, moving back and forth from the bullpen, whose start you'd most like to skip.

No. 3 and 4 starters: The others.

M2
03-26-2008, 04:29 PM
I think the concern is that Cueto is younger and has already logged a lot of innings when you factor in last season and winter ball. The #3 pitcher will see more innings than the 5 guy as it is easier to limit innings from #5.

I hate to break this to people, but limiting innings goes out the window the second these kids take a major league starting gig.

The absolutely most anybody can hope for is the kids be kept on strict pitch counts. Yet, if they pitch well, you'd be expect them to start every fifth day and to stay in the game as long as that pitch count allows.

#3, #5, innings are going to happen.

WMR
03-26-2008, 04:29 PM
No. 1 starter: Your best pitcher.

No. 2 starter: Your next best pitcher.

No. 5 starter: Pitcher with the most issues, moving back and forth from the bullpen, whose start you'd most like to skip.

No. 3 and 4 starters: The others.

Under that diagnosis, it should be Fogg, no question.

pedro
03-26-2008, 04:34 PM
It seems if Volquez is to reach his potential as a TOR-type arm, jerking him back and forth between the bullpen and starting rotation is a bad idea.

I swear the over-reaction to every little thing the Reds do is beyond ridiculous.

This is a role that many rookie pitchers have been given over the years. It is neither odd nor is it "jerking" him around.

Highlifeman21
03-26-2008, 04:37 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if you saw Volquez, Cueto and Fogg both bounce back and forth between the rotation and the pen the entire year.

And there's nothing wrong with it.

2008 is an audition for 2009. Call it a dress rehearsal, if you will. If you think Dusty was able to assess the talent level of the Reds over ST, you're sadly mistaken. It'll take him all of 2008 to figure out who he wants to use for 2009.

And there's nothing wrong with it.

membengal
03-26-2008, 04:38 PM
I agree pedro, but I also see their point, in that Cueto is also a rookie pitcher and might perhaps benefit from the usage out of the 5th spot. Or, it could be bad for him. Who knows? I am just looking forward to seeing them pitch.

dougdirt
03-26-2008, 04:47 PM
I hate to break this to people, but limiting innings goes out the window the second these kids take a major league starting gig.

Not for smart teams its not....

OnBaseMachine
03-26-2008, 04:47 PM
We knew it was coming the only question was when. Sending Homer Bailey to Louisville is best for Homer and the organization. No question the kid has the stuff to be a top notch pitcher in the major league but he's just not ready right now. There's nothing wrong with that - he's 21 years old, he's got plenty of time to put it together. Let him spend a whole year in Louisville to continue to refine his secondary pitches and improve his command. If he shows considerable progress then maybe call him up in September and give him four or five starts to get ready for 2009. With Cueto and Volquez in the rotation there is no need to rush Homer anymore. He's said all the right things this spring...he's willing to learn and adjust.

My prediction is he goes to Louisville and dominates after starting slow and by the end of the year he shows why he is ranked as one of the top 10 prospects in all of baseball.

KoryMac5
03-26-2008, 04:51 PM
I was also thinking along the same lines as Pedro mentioned. I think the Reds may use Volquez in the pen at some point this year if Burton continues to struggle and Coffey reverts to 2007. Having him pitch out of the 5 spot instead of Cueto makes it a possibility, that may change depending on how the season progresses.

Cyclone792
03-26-2008, 04:52 PM
I'm not too concerned with the order, though there is some merit to splitting up Volquez and Cueto to ensure the bullpen doesn't wear itself out over two straight games.

In actuality, I'd possibly start the season like this:

Harang
Volquez
Arroyo
Fogg
Cueto

Arroyo and Fogg would split up Volquez and Cueto going through the rotation, then Harang would split up Cueto and Volquez as the rotation flips back around.

But things will change with the order soon enough anyway once the season begins. Someone's liable to get skipped at some point for one reason or another, and off days will allow the Reds to switch things up a bit if they opt to do so.

Reds1
03-26-2008, 04:52 PM
Shouldn't Volquez pitch 3rd and Cueto 5th? I'm just going by experience and who pitched better in the spring. Volquez did better on both.

Fogg in between to give Valentine a break?


I didn't get an option on #3 and #5. I was curious the thoughts. thanks

reds44
03-26-2008, 04:54 PM
As long as they do not plan on skipping Volquez with off days, it really doesn't mean much what the order is. They just don't want the kids pitching back to back.

M2
03-26-2008, 04:56 PM
Not for smart teams its not....

Name one team that has put a kid in the rotation and sought to limit his innings.

reds44
03-26-2008, 04:56 PM
Shouldn't Volquez pitch 3rd and Cueto 5th? I'm just going by experience and who pitched better in the spring. Volquez did better on both.

Fogg in between to give Valentine a break?
Volquez would be fine with Javy as a catcher, his english is probably better then majority of the latin players (including Javy) on the team. Cueto's the one who needs Javy.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 05:00 PM
Name one team that has put a kid in the rotation and sought to limit his innings.

Clay Buchholz

M2
03-26-2008, 05:08 PM
Clay Buchholtz

In what alternate fantasy universe did this happen? He came up for some spot work last season and that's what he got. At no point in time was he considered a fixed member of the Red Sox rotation.

This year he's the nominal #5 starter on the team and I'll guarantee you that if he pitches well no one's going to be limiting his innings.

Reds1
03-26-2008, 05:16 PM
Volquez would be fine with Javy as a catcher, his english is probably better then majority of the latin players (including Javy) on the team. Cueto's the one who needs Javy.

I was just wondering why Volquez not in the 3 slot over Cueto? Volquez has more experience and has pitched better this spring!

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 05:18 PM
In what alternate fantasy universe did this happen? He came up for some spot work last season and that's what he got. At no point in time was he considered a fixed member of the Red Sox rotation.

This year he's the nominal #5 starter on the team and I'll guarantee you that if he pitches well no one's going to be limiting his innings.

He threw a no-hitter! He was clearly one of their five best pitchers but they stashed him away to control his innings!

gm
03-26-2008, 05:18 PM
As long as all five are pitching decently, I wouldn't be surprised if off days are just that -- an extra rest day. No rule that says the #5 guy has to be skipped. It's frequently the case, but I think it has as much to do with the historical ineptitude of #5 starters as it does with the notion of "keeping everyone on schedule."

Think about what you're saying, here...don't you want Harang pitching as much as possible? Aaron will get 33+ starts as long as he remains healthy

Highlifeman21
03-26-2008, 05:26 PM
He threw a no-hitter! He was clearly one of their five best pitchers but they stashed him away to control his innings!

I respectfully disagree that he was clearly one of their five best pitchers.

dougdirt
03-26-2008, 05:26 PM
In what alternate fantasy universe did this happen? He came up for some spot work last season and that's what he got. At no point in time was he considered a fixed member of the Red Sox rotation.

This year he's the nominal #5 starter on the team and I'll guarantee you that if he pitches well no one's going to be limiting his innings.

The part where they told him he was shut down for the year to limit his innings because he had reached the limit they set for him prior to the season.

dougdirt
03-26-2008, 05:30 PM
I respectfully disagree that he was clearly one of their five best pitchers.

I respectfully disagree with you. He was certainly better than Julian Taveras who got 23 starts for the Red Sox last year. He is better than Jon Lester. That left you with Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka and Wakefield. Buccholz was probably a better option than Wakefield too.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 05:30 PM
I respectfully disagree that he was clearly one of their five best pitchers.

Okay, I'll give you Beckett and Schilling (for the playoffs), but after that I don't think any of their other starters were CLEARLY more dominant than Buchholz...

M2
03-26-2008, 05:35 PM
He threw a no-hitter! He was clearly one of their five best pitchers but they stashed him away to control his innings!

Bobo Holloman threw a no-hitter too. It happens.

And Buchholz was not clearly one of the Red Sox top five starters. They had Beckett, Schilling, Matsuzaka, Wakefield and Lester. Buchholz was brought in to fill a temporary hole, which he did quite well, and then the team got its rotation set for the playoffs (with Buchholz left off the roster).

Beyond that, you're actually arguing my point (though you happen to be wrong about the particulars). What you're saying is a team wanted to control a young pitcher's innings, so it didn't make him a regular member of the rotation. Sure, that happens. Yet once you're in, you pitch. And if you pitch well then you're looking at 30+ starts no matter what arbitrary rotation slot you've been handed.

M2
03-26-2008, 05:39 PM
The part where they told him he was shut down for the year to limit his innings because he had reached the limit they set for him prior to the season.

They had five other starters in the rotation (you forgot Lester). He came up for a cup of coffee and got exactly that. At no point during last season would anyone in the Red Sox organization have told you that Buchholz was a member of the rotation and there's no pretending otherwise.

dougdirt
03-26-2008, 05:40 PM
What you're saying is a team wanted to control a young pitcher's innings, so it didn't make him a regular member of the rotation. Sure, that happens. Yet once you're in, you pitch. And if you pitch well then you're looking at 30+ starts no matter what arbitrary rotation slot you've been handed.
And smart teams should certainly monitor a young pitchers innings and if need be, cut them off for the season.

westofyou
03-26-2008, 05:41 PM
Bobo Holloman threw a no-hitter too. It happens.

Mike Warren too

dougdirt
03-26-2008, 05:41 PM
They had five other starters in the rotation (you forgot Lester). He came up for a cup of coffee and got exactly that. At no point during last season would anyone in the Red Sox organization have told you that Buchholz was a member of the rotation and there's no pretending otherwise.

No, but he likely would have been on the playoff roster and pitched more in September had he not reached his innings threshold. Instead, the Red Sox chose to protect his arm in favor of lesser pitchers.

Highlifeman21
03-26-2008, 05:42 PM
I respectfully disagree with you. He was certainly better than Julian Taveras who got 23 starts for the Red Sox last year. He is better than Jon Lester. That left you with Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka and Wakefield. Buccholz was probably a better option than Wakefield too.

Buchholz certainly has/had the most upside between him, Taveras and Lester, but Taveras was a BOR innings eater, and Lester was deemed more ready than Buchholz.

I have no problem with how the Red Sox handled Buchholz last year, and I have a feeling Buchholz didn't have a problem with it either.

M2
03-26-2008, 05:43 PM
And smart teams should certainly monitor a young pitchers innings and if need be, cut them off for the season.

They do that ... with minor leaguers.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 05:45 PM
Bobo Holloman threw a no-hitter too. It happens.

And Buchholz was not clearly one of the Red Sox top five starters. They had Beckett, Schilling, Matsuzaka, Wakefield and Lester. Buchholz was brought in to fill a temporary hole, which he did quite well, and then the team got its rotation set for the playoffs (with Buchholz left off the roster).

Beyond that, you're actually arguing my point (though you happen to be wrong about the particulars). What you're saying is a team wanted to control a young pitcher's innings, so it didn't make him a regular member of the rotation. Sure, that happens. Yet once you're in, you pitch. And if you pitch well then you're looking at 30+ starts no matter what arbitrary rotation slot you've been handed.

Was Bob Holloman arguably the top pitching prospect in baseball? Honestly, IDK and I don't feel like looking it up.

Dice-K was struggling, Wakefield is simply an innings-eater, and Lester was another young arm with less upside...

You are correct that Buchholz is not a good fit for your original question, it was just the first name that jumped in my head. It appears to me that you feel Cueto should be the #5 so he can be skipped in the rotation, rather than merely trying to control his innings on a per start basis...

Highlifeman21
03-26-2008, 05:46 PM
Okay, I'll give you Beckett and Schilling (for the playoffs), but after that I don't think any of their other starters were CLEARLY more dominant than Buchholz...

I think Buchholz dominated in his limited opportunities b/c there was no book on him. You can really only take AAA scouting reports and video with a grain of salt.

Buchholz is now showing why he'll be at the BOR for the Red Sox this year. They'll need him to produce, but there's more pressure on Beckett, Wakefield and Matsuzaka to carry that staff. If the Red Sox were counting on Buchholz to step in and be their #3, then I would think their might be a small cause for alarm, since he's still probably at least a full year away from realizing his full potential.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 05:47 PM
I think Buchholz dominated in his limited opportunities b/c there was no book on him. You can really only take AAA scouting reports and video with a grain of salt.

And that couldn't have carried into the postseason because...

reds44
03-26-2008, 05:50 PM
Mike Warren too
Bud Smith.

Highlifeman21
03-26-2008, 05:50 PM
And that couldn't have carried into the postseason because...

b/c they shut Buchholz down for the season b/c he'd reached his IP limit that was set at the beginning of the year

I give Theo credit. He watched his young stud throw a no-no, and then stuck to his guns and said "no mas". Anyone else would have been tempted to add him to the playoff roster and attempt to ride the hot hand. Theo basically said "you're done for the year kid, see you in ST".

plus, would you have counted on your young, unproven stud in a 3-4 man rotation in the postseason? That's not recipe for success, IMO.

M2
03-26-2008, 05:53 PM
No, but he likely would have been on the playoff roster and pitched more in September had he not reached his innings threshold. Instead, the Red Sox chose to protect his arm in favor of lesser pitchers.

You mean the lesser pitchers to whom they gave playoff starts?

The playoff rotation was Beckett, Schilling, Matsuzaka and Wakefield, with Lester as the #5 option (one they used when Wakefield got injured). At no juncture was Buchholz ever in the team's playoff plans. He was a prospect pitcher on a team with a fixed rotation.

Now, if the Red Sox had the need (they didn't) and thought Buchholz was ready to fill that need (they didn't), then you might have something to point to instead of the cup of coffee you're trying to pretend is a Starbuck's franchise.

OnBaseMachine
03-26-2008, 05:53 PM
Mike Warren too

Bud Smith.

oops Reds44 beat me to it.

M2
03-26-2008, 05:54 PM
And that couldn't have carried into the postseason because...

The Red Sox didn't need him.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 05:56 PM
The Red Sox didn't need him.

I'm not saying that they needed him. I'm saying that he would have been in their playoff rotation if Theo hadn't set him on an innings-limit...

Highlifeman21
03-26-2008, 05:56 PM
The Red Sox didn't need him.

This year, however, is a different story completely.

M2
03-26-2008, 05:57 PM
It appears to me that you feel Cueto should be the #5 so he can be skipped in the rotation, rather than merely trying to control his innings on a per start basis...

Then I suggest you go back and read again.

My point is it doesn't matter more than the weight of a fart where in the rotation he is because there is no slot in which he'll have his innings limited. Limiting his innings went out the door the second he made the rotation.

M2
03-26-2008, 05:58 PM
I'm not saying that they needed him. I'm saying that he would have been in their playoff rotation if Theo hadn't set him on an innings-limit...

That's just incredibly wrong and based on nothing but delusion on your part. They weren't dumping any one of the vets or Lester for Buchholz no matter what his innings situation was.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 06:00 PM
Then I suggest you go back and read again.

My point is it doesn't matter more than the weight of a fart where in the rotation he is because there is no slot in which he'll have his innings limited. Limiting his innings went out the door the second he made the rotation.

OK, whatever spot, you would like to see him skipped?

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 06:01 PM
That's just incredibly wrong and based on nothing but delusion on your part. They weren't dumping any one of the vets or Lester for Buchholz no matter what his innings situation was.

In your 2007 playoff rotation you're going to start Tim Wakefield or Jon Lester over Buchholz?

M2
03-26-2008, 06:02 PM
OK, whatever spot, you would like to see him skipped?

You really aren't having a good reading comprehension run in this thread.

M2
03-26-2008, 06:03 PM
In your 2007 playoff rotation you're going to start Tim Wakefield or Jon Lester over Buchholz?

Me? Wasn't my call. The Red Sox are the ones who choose that, apparently it was a good idea.

Highlifeman21
03-26-2008, 06:03 PM
I'm not saying that they needed him. I'm saying that he would have been in their playoff rotation if Theo hadn't set him on an innings-limit...

Myth.

The only reason he came up at the end of the year was for an emergency start. He had 2 more starts, and a relief appearance after that emergency start on 8/17/07. Buchholz was sent down before the end of the season.

Remove his no-no, and he wasn't lights out, and most certainly wouldn't have been kept up to stay on the playoff roster.

Regardless of IP limit, Buchholz was only in the Red Sox playoff if injury required him to stay on the roster. Teammates healed, he hit his IP limit, he was sent back down. But again, had there been no IP limit, he honestly wouldn't have stayed up.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 06:04 PM
You really aren't having a good reading comprehension run in this thread.

what keeps skipping a starter from working?

M2
03-26-2008, 06:06 PM
Regardless of IP limit, Buchholz was only in the Red Sox playoff if injury required him to stay on the roster. Teammates healed, he hit his IP limit, he was sent back down. But again, had there been no IP limit, he honestly wouldn't have stayed up.

Exactly.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 06:07 PM
Remove his no-no, and he wasn't lights out, and most certainly wouldn't have been kept up to stay on the playoff roster.

Then you have pretty tough standards for a guy that would rather have Tim Wakefield in your playoff rotation...

jojo
03-26-2008, 06:18 PM
The Mariners limited Felix's innings in '06 and made him skip some starts to ensure he'd wouldn't log more than 200.

M2
03-26-2008, 06:20 PM
Then you have pretty tough standards for a guy that would rather have Tim Wakefield in your playoff rotation...

Newsflash, Tim Wakefield's currently slated ahead of Buchholz in the Red Sox rotation and Buchholz will need to pitch well this year to take a playoff spot from Wakefield. The Red Sox seem to think Wakefield's a good pitcher, which is why he's back for a 14th season with the club.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 06:21 PM
Newsflash, Tim Wakefield's currently slated ahead of Buchholz in the Red Sox rotation and Buchholz will need to pitch well this year to take a playoff spot from Wakefield. The Red Sox seem to think Wakefield's a good pitcher, which is why he's back for a 14th season with the club.

Newsflash, It's to limit his innings!

jojo
03-26-2008, 06:40 PM
September 3rd, 2007 (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/09/03/attempting_to_play_by_the_rules_on_buchholz/):


"There are some guidelines that have been in place about his innings through player development, which makes sense," said Francona. "For us to ignore that now that he gets here and throws a no-hitter wouldn't be smart. Saying that, we're trying to win.

"Theo and I were talking about it [Saturday] night and we finally came to the conclusion, 'You know what, let's go home and talk about this tomorrow,' because everybody was on Cloud 9 [Saturday] night, and that's not a good way to make judgments.

"But we do need to be practical about his usage because it's still development and we'll see. I really don't know the answer to that right now."

The over/under on Buchholz's innings is 180 this season assuming he's healthy (Boston's inning limits are top secret). If the BoSox allow him to top 200, i'll split the drink FCB buys (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1547778&postcount=61) me (if Cueto hits 96mph at GABP) among every ORG member.

M2
03-26-2008, 06:48 PM
The Mariners limited Felix's innings in '06 and made him skip some starts to ensure he'd wouldn't log more than 200.

True, they backed him slightly for two starts in September (seven and then eight days), which did probably cost him one start. They also yanked him quick in his last two starts.

My takes:

1. He still started 31 games and threw 191 IP. That was good for 27th in the AL in IP that season and the Mariners team lead.

2. It seems to me what the Mariners did was opportunity driven, not planned. They were out of the running so they decided to take it a little easier on the kid in September. That's sensible, but if they were in the playoff hunt I'll guarantee you gets that extra start. In fact, the Mariners rode him hard last September with the following pitch counts:

114
110
113
110
106
106

3. I debate whether the extra start and maybe 10 IP (counting the two early pulls) would have caused any ill effects. Don't get me wrong, I'd lean toward caution given the choice, but that's a pittance of protection.

4. Pitch counts and not a random innings barrier would seem to be the determinant for most of Hernandez's usage in 2006.

jojo
03-26-2008, 06:57 PM
True, they backed him slightly for two starts in September (seven and then eight days), which did probably cost him one start. They also yanked him quick in his last two starts.

My takes:

1. He still started 31 games and threw 191 IP. That was good for 27th in the AL in IP that season and the Mariners team lead.

2. It seems to me what the Mariners did was opportunity driven, not planned. They were out of the running so they decided to take it a little easier on the kid in September. That's sensible, but if they were in the playoff hunt I'll guarantee you gets that extra start. In fact, the Mariners rode him hard last September with the following pitch counts:

114
110
113
110
106
106

3. I debate whether the extra start and maybe 10 IP (counting the two early pulls) would have caused any ill effects. Don't get me wrong, I'd lean toward caution given the choice, but that's a pittance of protection.

4. Pitch counts and not a random innings barrier would seem to be the determinant for most of Hernandez's usage in 2006.

The Ms planned to limit Felix to under 200 IP in 2006 from the get go.

May 16th, 2006:


Felix hasnít stopped growing yet and he hasnít matured into his body yet. We came up with this equation because the people in the front office, especially (general manager) Bill Bavasi, met with doctors and people that know a lot about the body to make sure we can keep him healthy.

Obviously it's arguable whether they would've had the discipline to stick to their guns in September had they been playing for something. Their intentions were public however.

M2
03-26-2008, 06:59 PM
The over/under on Buchholz's innings is 180 this season assuming he's healthy (Boston's inning limits are top secret). If the BoSox allow him to top 200, i'll split the drink FCB buys (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1547778&postcount=61) me (if Cueto hits 96mph at GABP) among every ORG member.

That's an easy wager to make given that the Red Sox are on record as being the least entralled team on the planet with young pitching, even their own (good to have, bad to count on it). They don't want young pitchers to compile tons of innings for competitive reasons.

Rumors around here also have the Red Sox looking to find another arm and send Buchholz to the minors for at least the first half of the year because they don't think he's quite ready yet.

M2
03-26-2008, 07:06 PM
Obviously it's arguable whether they would've had the discipline to stick to their guns in September had they been playing for something. Their intentions were public however.

I think last year's usage of the kid down the stretch indicates those words should be treated with the same level of disregard as "I'll call you, baby" and "the check's in the mail."

jojo
03-26-2008, 07:09 PM
That's an easy wager to make given that the Red Sox are on record as being the least entralled team on the planet with young pitching, even their own (good to have, bad to count on it). They don't want young pitchers to compile tons of innings for competitive reasons.

Rumors around here also have the Red Sox looking to find another arm and send Buchholz to the minors for at least the first half of the year because they don't think he's quite ready yet.

They didn't seem to be age adverse to a 22 yo Lester. They didn't mind thrusting Papelbon into a high leverage role either. Boston has made no secret that inning limits are a significant component of their developmental program for arms. Their cutting edge program for Papelbon's usage suggest they count innings less because of trust issues and more for health concerns.

jojo
03-26-2008, 07:10 PM
I think last year's usage of the kid down the stretch indicates those words should be treated with the same level of disregard as "I'll call you, baby" and "the check's in the mail."

The Ms didn't place an innings limit on Felix last season.

Highlifeman21
03-26-2008, 07:11 PM
Then you have pretty tough standards for a guy that would rather have Tim Wakefield in your playoff rotation...

Wakefield's a very valuable pitcher in today's MLB era. He's the quintessential rubber arm, who can actually pitch a 'lil bit. What increases Wakefield's value is that he saves, protects, and rests bullpens. Last season, at the ripe age of 40, Wakefield pitched 189 IP in 31 GS. Anytime you're averaging over 6 IP per GS, you're increasing your value to your team, b/c they know that everytime you get the ball, at worst you're looking at 3 IP from the bullpen. Since the 2005 season, Wakefield's given the Red Sox 554.1 IP over 87 starts, which works out to a handy 'lil average IP per start of more than 6.1. Again, saving the bullpen. With our bullpen, we should be so lucky to have such a commodity on our club.

So, how does this translate to the playoffs? In the playoffs, you don't want to have to go to the well (bullpen) too many times, for fear guys won't recover, will be consistently tired, and hamper your club's chances to advance. If you have a Wakefield in your rotation, he'll eat up quality innings, which translates to less bullpen usage, which translates to rested arms for when the other starters are on the mound. It's a win-win. And, should Wakefield get knocked around in the playoffs, you can leave him in and still save the pen, knowing full well that Wakefield is a consumate professional that won't let a bad start impact his next start. Do you think you can honestly assume the same from a young kid?

M2
03-26-2008, 07:18 PM
Newsflash, It's to limit his innings!

Yeah, they also plan on limiting his innings by sending him to AAA and giving his rotation slot to Bart Colon if Colon's arm proves willing.

Big Klu
03-26-2008, 07:18 PM
Players still in camp:

Pitchers (17)
25 David Weathers
29 Mike Stanton
31 Matt Belisle
33 Josh Fogg
36 Edinson Volquez
39 Aaron Harang
41 Jeremy Affeldt
45 Bill Bray
48 Francisco Cordero
50 Kent Mercker
51 Jared Burton
52 Jim Brower
56 Todd Coffey
61 Bronson Arroyo
77 Johnny Cueto
84 Mike Lincoln
-- Jose Capallan

Catchers (3)
9 Paul Bako
17 Javier Valentin
26 David Ross

Infielders (11)
2 Alex Gonzalez
4 Brandon Phillips
7 Juan Castro
15 Jerry Hairston, Jr.
19 Joey Votto
21 Scott Hatteberg
27 Jeff Keppinger
28 Edwin Encarnacion
46 Andy Phillips
54 Jolbert Cabrera
60 Andy Green

Outfielders (5)
3 Ken Griffey, Jr.
6 Ryan Freel
23 Corey Patterson
30 Norris Hopper
44 Adam Dunn

M2
03-26-2008, 07:35 PM
They didn't seem to be age adverse to a 22 yo Lester. They didn't mind thrusting Papelbon into a high leverage role either. Boston has made no secret that inning limits are a significant component of their developmental program for arms. Their cutting edge program for Papelbon's usage suggest they count innings less because of trust issues and more for health concerns.

The Red Sox have an innings elevator for developing pitchers in their minors, that's no secret. What they've never had is an ensconced member of the major league rotation get dropped because he reached his ceiling. That probably never will happen because they're way too smart to put themselves in that sort of bind - if you can't handle the workload, you don't get the job.

BTW, that goes for 29 other teams ... which is my point here. I don't care where Cueto and Volquez get slotted in the rotation. If they pitch well it will means 30+ starts and 180+ IP. Rotation = work.

As for young arms and the Red Sox, take a look at who's been pitching for that franchise over the past five years. It's almost impossible to have fewer innings handed over to prospects. They're extremely picky about giving innings to unproven kids and you've almost got to be a Jon Papelbon to merit the gig.

deltachi8
03-26-2008, 08:21 PM
I swear the over-reaction to every little thing the Reds do is beyond ridiculous.

This is a role that many rookie pitchers have been given over the years. It is neither odd nor is it "jerking" him around.

well said. spot on. and other sayings of agreement.

jojo
03-26-2008, 08:27 PM
wigged out browser....

jojo
03-26-2008, 08:37 PM
The Red Sox have an innings elevator for developing pitchers in their minors, that's no secret. What they've never had is an ensconced member of the major league rotation get dropped because he reached his ceiling. That probably never will happen because they're way too smart to put themselves in that sort of bind - if you can't handle the workload, you don't get the job.

BTW, that goes for 29 other teams ... which is my point here. I don't care where Cueto and Volquez get slotted in the rotation. If they pitch well it will means 30+ starts and 180+ IP. Rotation = work.

As for young arms and the Red Sox, take a look at who's been pitching for that franchise over the past five years. It's almost impossible to have fewer innings handed over to prospects. They're extremely picky about giving innings to unproven kids and you've almost got to be a Jon Papelbon to merit the gig.

Since Epstein took over in Nov of 2002, how many legitimate starting prospects (or even young guns period) have the BoSox developed into major leaguers (or near major leaguers) and then passed on because of trust issues? The ones that have developed are playing significant roles for them.

Maybe Anibal Sanchez could be one guy but he was a huge risk due to health issues (he may never pitch a full season for Florida) and it's not like Beckett was an old fart or that the deal wasn't a key to the BoSox winning a WS. Cla Meredith has went on to be a good pen arm but it's not like he was an elite bullpen prospect.

blumj
03-26-2008, 08:52 PM
It's no secret that the Red Sox are careful with their young pitchers, and pay attention to innings limits. Buchholz was moved into the bullpen last season specifically to save some of his innings for the playoffs. But he wasn't shut down because of his innings limit, he never reached it. He was shut down as a precaution to prevent injury because he'd failed actual shoulder strength tests.

M2
03-26-2008, 09:22 PM
Since Epstein took over in Nov of 2002, how many legitimate starting prospects (or even young guns period) have the BoSox developed into major leaguers (or near major leaguers) and then passed on because of trust issues? The ones that have developed are playing significant roles for them.

Maybe Anibal Sanchez could be one guy but he was a huge risk due to health issues (he may never pitch a full season for Florida) and it's not like Beckett was an old fart or that the deal wasn't a key to the BoSox winning a WS. Cla Meredith has went on to be a good pen arm but it's not like he was an elite bullpen prospect.

True, the Sox haven't been swimming in upscale pitching prospects, but part of the reason you don't see more kids pitching for the Sox is the team doesn't leave any jobs for them to do. Abe Alvarez would have been exposed in the majors rather than AAA in a lot of organizations.

The Red Sox also haven't gone shopping for young arms during Theo's tenure. Here's a team with an annual goal of winning a World Series and adding young arms just hasn't been part of the plan. If the Sox thought that cheap, young arms were the way to win, you can be sure they'd be looking to import more of them.

What they want is Josh Beckett when the team that drafted him can no longer afford him.

OnBaseMachine
03-26-2008, 11:04 PM
Bailey cut from Reds camp
Cueto, Volquez, Fogg appear to have spots in rotation
By Mark Sheldon / MLB.com

DUNEDIN, Fla. -- The car hauler took players' vehicles north on Wednesday. Likewise, the club's belongings headed out on a tractor-trailer.

But at some point this week, 10 players will have to get on a phone to reroute their stuff, saying, "Dude, where's my car?"

Cincinnati has 35 healthy players remaining in camp -- 10 away from the 25-man roster limit needed before Monday's opener. The one cut made on Wednesday was not a shocker, with starting pitcher Homer Bailey optioned to Triple-A Louisville.

"I told him, 'Go down there, and when you come back, I hope you're here to stay for a long, long time,' " manager Dusty Baker said. "He has the stuff to win."

Bailey was 1-3 with a 5.21 ERA in six starts this spring. He allowed 11 earned runs, 24 hits and 16 walks, and struck out 11 over his 19 innings.

The 21-year-old went into camp with a chance at one of three open rotation spots, but he struggled with his command and often ran up high pitch counts in his outings.

"It wasn't really wildness as much as it was near-control," Baker said. "That shows you how near he is to the big leagues. We had a nice long conversation. You saw how long we stuck with him -- big-time. He was heavily in consideration."

Young pitchers Johnny Cueto and Edinson Volquez and veteran Josh Fogg appear to have beaten out Bailey for a place in the starting five. The rotation order is expected to be Aaron Harang, Bronson Arroyo, Cueto, Fogg and Volquez.

Behind the scenes, more roster jockeying continues. Baker didn't rule out any maneuvers, such as a trade that could help pare some players off the roster.

"Anything is possible at this time," he said. "Everybody is still looking to better themselves in different areas and positions. You still look to see who comes across the waiver wires."

One conundrum is what the Reds might do with reliever Mike Stanton, who is owed $3.5 million for next season, including a 2009 option buyout. Stanton, who already passed through waivers without being claimed, hasn't pitched poorly in camp, but he struggled mightily last season.

The Philadelphia Daily News reported on Wednesday that the Phillies are seeking a left-handed reliever like Stanton and were dangling corner infielder Wes Helms as a potential return. In terms of salary, it wouldn't be a big difference. Helms is owed $2.9 million, including his 2009 option buyout.

On Tuesday night, Baker, general manager Wayne Krivsky and special assistant Walt Jocketty were among those huddled into roster discussions. Still, the meeting yielded only the Bailey cut and no other developments.

"We did a lot of crossing and mixing and matching of the names," Baker said. "And the names are still the same. It's a tough time to make the club if you're on the bubble. It's a tough time to make these decisions. And it's a tough time to get a job if you don't make it, because everybody has the same roster problems you have.

"I'd like to be more fair about things. If you're going to let a guy go, let him go earlier than this so he can get a chance to get a job. A lot of times, it doesn't work out like that."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080326&content_id=2459749&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

Team Clark
03-26-2008, 11:21 PM
Soft-tosser between two hard-throwers maybe?


Break the rookies up, for now.

Yes and Yes.

Matt700wlw
03-26-2008, 11:24 PM
Yes and Yes.

Yes to the yeses.

KoryMac5
03-26-2008, 11:47 PM
Are we back to the point of the thread yet?

KoryMac5
03-26-2008, 11:53 PM
Gotta love this quote from Dusty on Homer:


"It wasn't really wildness as much as it was near-control,"

You just can't make this stuff up.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2008, 11:54 PM
He's starting to sound like Yogi...

SteelSD
03-27-2008, 12:34 AM
Gotta love this quote from Dusty on Homer:


"It wasn't really wildness as much as it was near-control,"

You just can't make this stuff up.

Corey Patterson's BB rate issues are more about his near-walking than anything else.

Baker's issue is that he never really has an on-deck circle for his thoughts.

pedro
03-27-2008, 01:19 AM
Baker's issue is that he never really has an on-deck circle for his thoughts.

Now that's funny.

Jpup
03-27-2008, 02:05 AM
How is Volquez going to pitch in the pen when the Reds only have 2 off days the entire month of April, 3 in May, & 2 in June? :confused:

klw
03-27-2008, 06:42 AM
I hope this wean't mentioned earleier but just because the paper writes the names 1-5 doesn't mean the plan is necessarily to skip the 5th guy with the April off days. With the first off day coming on the day after opening day it would be just as easy to skip th 3 guy and move 2 back a day. (124512345 or 123512345) No need to skip 5 to keep 1 on normal rotation. Next off day isn't for about two weeks and woould fall around the date of start for 4 or 5. Could decide after first round or two of starts whether to skip someone and whom at that point. As JPup says there are only 2 off days in April, so barring inclement weather this is not a month that necessarily means the 5 guy will be skipped at all. Could go 1_2341523415123_152. This would mean Fogg gets skipped for the 2nd off day and you have Harang Volquez, and Arroyo on normal rest for the series in Wrigley after the second off day.

RFS62
03-27-2008, 10:28 AM
The Reds did a terrible disservice to Homer last summer when they brought him up to much fanfare.

Up until then, they were measured and logical in their approach to his development. They said and did all the right things.

Then, suddenly, they lost their minds. It's as if they were consumed with the idea that he could inject some life in the faltering season, and put some fans in the seats.

And the results were predictable. Back to the minors to work on the things you were supposed to be perfecting before the sudden call up.

Now, they're saying and doing all the right things again with Homer. He's 21 years old. All discussions about Homer should start and end with that fact.

flyer85
03-27-2008, 10:38 AM
The Reds did a terrible disservice to Homer last summer when they brought him up to much fanfare.
.he wasn't ready then and he isn't ready now. Not a shock as he is only 21 years old. He just need some to to refine his stuff and command. T

KronoRed
03-27-2008, 02:20 PM
It would be interesting to see what would be happening if Cueto and Volquez hadn't set the world on fire in ST, would they have taken Homer north because they needed the hot young starter to tell everyone about.

Hmm.

Nugget
03-27-2008, 02:39 PM
I think you would have seen Affeldt and Beslisle in the rotation if Cueto and Volquez weren't ready. For whatever reason the REDS thought that out of the four young'uns they would be ready some time in 2008 or 2009 - if not this year then they would gaffer tape with Affeldt, Beslisle and Fogg.

reds44
03-27-2008, 02:41 PM
Bud Smith.

oops Reds44 beat me to it.
YEAH HOW DO YOU LIKE IT NOW?

:p:

OnBaseMachine
03-27-2008, 02:45 PM
YEAH HOW DO YOU LIKE IT NOW?

:p:

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. ;)

gm
03-27-2008, 03:01 PM
It would be interesting to see what would be happening if Cueto and Volquez hadn't set the world on fire in ST, would they have taken Homer north because they needed the hot young starter to tell everyone about.

Hmm.

I was thinking the same thing. In year's past, Homer's spring might've been "good enough" especially given the injury to Belisle. OTOH, they might've let Afeldt twist in the wind as a SP before rushing Bailey. Nice to have the depth, hope the new kids don't hit the wall at some point

Jpup
03-28-2008, 01:42 AM
How is Volquez going to pitch in the pen when the Reds only have 2 off days the entire month of April, 3 in May, & 2 in June? :confused:

anyone? yes, I just quoted myself.:)

*BaseClogger*
03-28-2008, 01:44 AM
How is Volquez going to pitch in the pen when the Reds only have 2 off days the entire month of April, 3 in May, & 2 in June? :confused:

Dusty's going to pitch him three times a week? :p:

Seriously, I think you are right that we won't be seeing any starters skipped in April...