ORG Weekly Discussion #2 - The Starting Rotation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneinthBrame

I have been very pessimistic about the rotation and the Reds development.

---

That's very hard to believe based on your "sunshine and lollypop" approach to date.

You may be confusing yourself with someone else perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

Once the franchise fully committed to the rebuild following in July of 2015, a rather sound plan for assembling the rotation was in place: Iglesias, Bailey and DeSclafani manning 3/5 of the rotation with one of the above, likely Iglesias, manning the top spot, with, among others, the three pitchers acquired from KC in the Cueto deal fighting it out for the final two spots in the rotation.

Then, we all know what transpired after the '15 season with no discernible Plan "B" in place once Bailey never fully recovered (and that's the understatement of the year), Iglesias moved to the pen (understandable, given injury/durablility concerns), and DeSclafani sidelined for the duration of last season.

Most everyone has already expounded (no need to elaborate) upon the reasoning(s) as to why it's basically been a disaster assembling a viable rotation post-Cueto, et all, though Straily certainly worked out -- and was subsequently, wisely flipped for Castillo -- and Mahle has been a much-needed bright spot. Moving forward, though, I cannot envision a playoff-caliber rotation assembled in time to realistically compete before 2021 without the organization resorting to a mode of operation in which they've been hesitant to deploy.....The churning of their own prospects within the time confines of the rebuild.

---

Unfortunately there is never any guaranty that a rebuild will work, whether quickly or at all. Especially rebuilding a pitching staff.

Sometimes you have to just keep rebuilding until enough pieces are in place such that you safely perhaps supplement the rebuild with a few trades.

I don't think the Reds are anywhere close to trying to add a few costly pitchers and thinking they are in contention mode. You need to have a least 3 viable starters to do that IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

That's very hard to believe based on your "sunshine and lollypop" approach to date.

You may be confusing yourself with someone else perhaps?

---

sarcasm I like it

With one day remaining in the weekly discussion, this is a gentle plea to all readers to go through and "like" posts that you felt were quality contributions to this discussion.

Thank you!

PP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

With one day remaining in the weekly discussion, this is a gentle plea to all readers to go through and "like" posts that you felt were quality contributions to this discussion.

Thank you!

PP

---

I'm frankly stunned I have only two likes.

Raisor won't be pleased when he returns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

With one day remaining in the weekly discussion, this is a gentle plea to all readers to go through and "like" posts that you felt were quality contributions to this discussion.

Thank you!

PP

---

I've liked on this post.

My take. They are still bad and still doing nothing about it.

The main issue with the rotation is that there is not a single guy that you can expect a consistent performance from. One start a guy might look great, and then his next, he is getting blown up. The goal has to be to bring in a guy who is at least consistently solid ERA in the 3s type of guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

The main issue with the rotation is that there is not a single guy that you can expect a consistent performance from. One start a guy might look great, and then his next, he is getting blown up. The goal has to be to bring in a guy who is at least consistently solid ERA in the 3s type of guy.

---

The inconsistency is to be expected from young pitching. Which makes your point about bringing in a vet who can provide consistency that much more salient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WrongVerb

The inconsistency is to be expected from young pitching. Which makes your point about bringing in a vet who can provide consistency that much more salient.

---

I really don't want a middle of the road vet either. A solid number 2....cue all the jokes...would be at least the goal.

Congratulations to Patrick Bateman for the following post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

My overall frustration boils down to one over-arching problem:

Rotation spots are consistently being handed to players that have not demonstrated that there is a high likelihood that they will succeed.

This goes beyond the prospect element, but also, for veteran players. Pitchers are claiming rotation spots despite in most cases there being mounds of evidence that they will not succeed. I get that with many prospects there are no guarantees, and that patience is required when they are first stepping into the big leagues. But in the case of each of the following, these players either had poor results as a starters in the minors, or had a very short period of success in the upper minors:

-Finnegan (consistently ultra high walk rates as a starter throughout minors)
-Romano (K rate under 6 in AAA)
-Stepheneson (poor command issues)
-Garrett (pedestrian AAA numbers)
-Castillo (17 starts above A ball)
-Rookie Davis (pedestrian numbers at AAA)

These stories didn't feel like they had actually done enough to lay claim to a full time MLB rotation slot, and if anything only acts to start players' time clocks earlier during developmental seasons. As far as veteran players go, rotation spots have been saved and handed for each of Bailey, Finnegan, Desclafani, and Arroyo despite there being significant injuries and/or very poor prior year performances at play.

Overall - the method of handing these key roster spots to not just unknowns, but players that have actually demonstrated a high likelihood of failure has created the trainwreck that has been the Reds rotation the past few years. Not only that, but it has fostered an environment where the major league roster is simply an extension of the minor league system as a type of "training grounds" for prospects, and a rehabilitation community for recovering starting pitchers. Failure is not only an option, but seemingly an expectation in this scenario. I believe the Reds need to get to a point where there is a clear division between the minor leagues and the major league roster. These 5 rotation spots need to be coveted and earned with demonstrated performance where there is a reasonable likelihood and expectation of success. Failure results in loss of role, no debate about it. The bullpen can be used as a place for failed starters to earn back their roles, and work the kinks out when performance is not achieved (perhaps Bailey would have been more open to this if there was a track record of this option being pursued and created accountability and some level of success).

Now - that is easier said than done. There aren't always 5 magical starters that are out there that can be filled in these spots at a rate affordable to the Reds. But even if its stop gaps like Feldman, or educated investments such as Mikolas that are pursued, it could go a long way to at least stabilizing parts of the rotation, letting players develop at appropriate levels, poor performing players being pushed into less important roles, fostering increased competition where rotation spots actually need to be earned with strong performance, and eliminating the "next man up" mantra of the current MLB rotation.

---

A Reds Hat with a link to this post has been added to your signature as a trophy! Already a repeat winner...

I will post the next discussion topic later today. Thank you to all participants!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

I really don't want a middle of the road vet either. A solid number 2....cue all the jokes...would be at least the goal.

---

I've been saying the same thing for years now.