A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": [QUOTE]It should be a Sox decision where the player plays...not a players decision.  A player should play wherever for the good of the team.  Hell, all the pitchers want to be starters or closers.  Actually, with Bard's past history in starts, it surprises me a change was even considered.  Besides, like mentioned earlier, I don't think he has enough pitches in his arsenal to fool hitters for any length of time. Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE] This isn't little league or the Third Reich, Amp. Saying he "failed" as a starter in the minors, so he shouldn't be given another opportunity is very close minded. It's a win/win for both. If he shows nothing as a starter, then he goes back to the pen, with a clear head. If he has success, he has the stuff to be a top of the rotation type impact pitcher...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": This isn't little league or the Third Reich, Amp. Saying he "failed" as a starter in the minors, so he shouldn't be given another opportunity is very close minded. It's a win/win for both. If he shows nothing as a starter, then he goes back to the pen, with a clear head. If he has success, he has the stuff to be a top of the rotation type impact pitcher...
    Posted by jasko2248[/QUOTE]

    Like I said, I don't think he has the arsenal to survive starting.  He minor league starting record was terrible.  As far as your 'Third Reich' comment, I'd  prefer an organization with structure.  Otherwise, why have a manager at all?  Let's let all the players decide where they want to play?  I don't think so.  Besides, Francona's loose ship eventually failed.  Structure and decision making is needed, my friend. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Like I said, I don't think he has the arsenal to survive starting.  He minor league starting record was terrible.  As far as your 'Third Reich' comment, I'd  prefer an organization with structure.  Otherwise, why have a manager at all?  Let's let all the players decide where they want to play?  I don't think so.  Besides, Francona's loose ship eventually failed.  Structure and decision making is needed, my friend.  Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE] No offense, Amp, but whether or not you feel he has the arsenal is irrelevant. Are you aware that his changeup has improved to the point where they feel its a viable third pitch and his fastball is sinking enough now where its significantly improved since his days in the minors? I'm all for "structure," but this isn't a case where some cement head is demanding a position change. It's a well liked young kid who asked for an opportunity, yet made it clear he'd do whatever was best for the team. This isn't Casey Stengel, circa 1955, anymore. Francona's "loose ship" had a very successful run for a long time.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Two different situations, two different makeups and I'm guessing two different conversations, which none of us are privy to. The Sox didn't have another young closer option as they do now. It's been mentioned that some in Sox organization question whether he has mental makeup to be a closer, whereas that was never a question with Paps...

    Easy to say in hindsight, but I'm not sure anyone was so sure of Papelbon's impendingcloser  success at the time. Many on this site thought he'd be a better starter and said "give him what he wants".

    if it fails, they move him back to the bullpen. 

    Good idea... in theory, but the plan could fail miserably.

    This is a spring training experiment. They aren't giving him a "season" to develop as a starter, he needs to show something this spring, but again, he asked, they agree he deserves opportunity, and he will get it. Maybe they tried to talk him into staying in pen and he made his case to be a starter. Who knows, but it's not a "Sox decision" to do this.

    So, he looks good in spring as a starter, he begins the year as a starter, and then starts to falter after 3-4 innings in june...then what? Are you so sure he can transition back to set-up real smoothly? He may... he may not.

    I kind of envisioned the Sox going to Bard and saying, "what do you think of becomming a starter?" And, he said "Yeah, that's what I want." Are his motives financial or for the team's best interest? ZYou are right, "who knows?"
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": Just to clarify, my point was that all over this board people are posting "I'd keep Bard in the pen," when in fact, that's not a realistic option for the organization to consider without completely alienating a player with one of the best young arms in the game.
    Posted by jasko2248[/QUOTE]

    "completely alienating"? 

    I see no evidence that Bard demanded to be a starter or is even strongly insisting or asking to be one. From what I heard, he just said he prefered to start and would like to be given a chance. He's a 4th year player. It's his first arb year. I seriously doubt that he'd pout if they said they changed their mind and won't give him a ST shot at the rotation..

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : "completely alienating"?  I see no evidence that Bard demanded to be a starter or is even strongly insisting or asking to be one. From what I heard, he just said he prefered to start and would like to be given a chance. He's a 4th year player. It's his first arb year. I seriously doubt that he'd pout if they said they changed their mind and won't give him a ST shot at the rotation.. Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE] We'll agree to disagree. He made it clear that he would do what's best for the team, but if they had said "no," when there is minimal risk in saying "yes," I'm guessing he'd be pretty ripped. If his motives weren't at least partially "financially motivated," then I'd question whether or not he was human.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Like I said, I don't think he has the arsenal to survive starting.  He minor league starting record was terrible.  As far as your 'Third Reich' comment, I'd  prefer an organization with structure.  Otherwise, why have a manager at all?  Let's let all the players decide where they want to play?  I don't think so.  Besides, Francona's loose ship eventually failed.  Structure and decision making is needed, my friend.  Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE] By the way, Amp, are you aware that Tito had been living in a seaport hotel near the Bank of America Pavilion from May through September, while going through a nasty separation from his wife of 25 years, and that they have 4 kids together? We, as fans, often forget the "human factor" when it comes to athletes, myself included....
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": No offense, Amp, but whether or not you feel he has the arsenal is irrelevant. Are you aware that his changeup has improved to the point where they feel its a viable third pitch and his fastball is sinking enough now where its significantly improved since his days in the minors? I'm all for "structure," but this isn't a case where some cement head is demanding a position change. It's a well liked young kid who asked for an opportunity, yet made it clear he'd do whatever was best for the team. This isn't Casey Stengel, circa 1955, anymore. Francona's "loose ship" had a very successful run for a long time.
    Posted by jasko2248[/QUOTE]

    My only concern really is for the improvement of the team.  An 'experiment' can have disastrous results with losers all around.

    Very few have made the transition successfully from starter to closer and back etc.  The two I think of off hand are Eck and Smoltz...both HOF'ers.  I have my doubts that bard is of that calibre.

    Don't misunderstand me.  If it works, I'll be thrilled to death.  I just have my doubts.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'm not falting him for wanting more money, but just pointing out that his desire to start might not be for reasons that he feels confident he can be a great starter. 

    I also think there is more than "minimal risk" in stretching him out in ST, then moving him back to short relief. It's not always a simple and easy transition. Plus, his confidence could be shattered if he fails, or he could become upset if he is doing pretty good, but not good enough by management's standars, of they just want Dice-K to start in june and tell bard, "sorry". It might make it worse to move him then than to never move him at all. There is lots of gray area in moving him, but very little in keeping him as the top set-up man and back-up closer if bailey has another injury.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : My only concern really is for the improvement of the team.  An 'experiment' can have disastrous results with losers all around. Very few have made the transition successfully from starter to closer and back etc.  The two I think of off hand are Eck and Smoltz...both HOF'ers.  I have my doubts that bard is of that calibre. Don't misunderstand me.  If it works, I'll be thrilled to death.  I just have my doubts. Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE] I have my doubts as well, Amp, and I don't think this is a out of left field type experiment. Is love to see more pitchers "stretched out." By the way, some might say Bard has better "raw materials" to work with than both Eck & Smoltz ;)
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": [QUOTE]I'm not falting him for wanting more money, but just pointing out that his desire to start might not be for reasons that he feels confident he can be a great starter.  I also think there is more than "minimal risk" in stretching him out in ST, then moving him back to short relief. It's not always a simple and easy transition. Plus, his confidence could be shattered if he fails, or he could become upset if he is doing pretty good, but not good enough by management's standars, of they just want Dice-K to start in june and tell bard, "sorry". It might make it worse to move him then than to never move him at all. There is lots of gray area in moving him, but very l in keeping him as the top set-up man and back-up closer if bailey has another injury. Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE] Good points, Moon, but again, I'll agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure Bard feels he can get the job done in the rotation, especially after watching what they trotted out there last year. It's not always an easy transition back to the bullpen, but its not like they are trying a starter as a closer and if that fails, the guy isn't stretched out enough to go back to the rotation. I just think the risks of saying "no" outweigh the risks of saying "yes," psychologically, while the reward has the potential to be much greater.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : My only concern really is for the improvement of the team.  An 'experiment' can have disastrous results with losers all around. Very few have made the transition successfully from starter to closer and back etc.  The two I think of off hand are Eck and Smoltz...both HOF'ers.  I have my doubts that bard is of that calibre. Don't misunderstand me.  If it works, I'll be thrilled to death.  I just have my doubts.
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    I suspect there are a great deal of starter-to-closer transitions....but they mostly happen in the minor leagues after pitchers fail in starting roles.  There are few in the majors because starters are more valuable than relievers.  Re Eck and Smoltz, Eck hadn't been a dominant starter for about 8 years when he was converted to a reliever, and Smoltz' conversion was related to his health following TJ surgery.

    If Bard can start effectively I definitely want him starting....and I think there's little risk in trying.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Two other recent examples of pitchers who have been late-inning relievers for a few years and then converted to starters: C. J. Wilson and Brandon Morrow. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    No reason for my belief, but I think only one of Bard/Aceves will become a starter.  With all these low cost options signed for ST, I think one of them will make it along with someone who was already here like Doubie.  I am optimistic that someone will emerge like Aceves did last year--remember what a great find he was.  I am also excited about the possibilites and potential of the new coaches and the fresh look they might bring.  Sometimes in teaching a kid just needs to have a teacher "see something" in him, and I think this holds true for people in general.  Several of these guys who have not caught on yet might just respond to new staff.  I liked Tito and am not dissing him now, but I also think Bi-Valve is an excellent X's and O's guy and a saavy psychologist who might affect some positive change in some players.  Now that it's happened, I think a new look is positive and was probably needed.  Wasn't Tito here eight years?  How many coaches last that long...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I


    'Bi-Valve'...I like that!...LOL
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": [QUOTE]Two other recent examples of pitchers who have been late-inning relievers for a few years and then converted to starters: C. J. Wilson and Brandon Morrow.  Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE] Two solid examples, but of course everyone likes to cite Joba, but I'm pretty sure that the fact that he is a complete blockhead hasn't exactly helped his career...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Amp, I like it too.  I also like Bo-Vine which I think is better name-wise but not symbolic of his ferret/weasel/quick personna.  I like these monnikers and Moon's "Doubie," which I have adopted and sends me into uncontrolled giggles.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Any day you can roll a Doubie out on the mound is a good day I suppose.Wink
    You'd think his stuff would really put hitters in a funk and if he does ever get lit up you can bring in a harder thrower to smoke the opposition.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    You mean some "...bovine perspiration on your upper lip area..."


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Lowe and Smoltz were able to go in different directions. I think Bard is not of that ilk, but until I see him throw 5 innings in a game, there's no real telling how good or bad he could be. Papelbon started as a starter first for Sox, people probably don't even remember that's how he got brought up with the team. Threw a terrific game v. Angels as a starter (5 or 6 IP) as a rookie. Bard must feel he is capable. I think he had some mental letdowns as a reliever, especially, and sadly in some really big late-season games. Yet, he went long stretches where he was absolutely dominating and one of the best set-up guys in the game. He throws extremely hard and he's got a few pitches to be a starter. I'm all for it at this point.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The very worst thing for Sox is Bard gets put back into the bullpen. Is that really a bad thing? Sounds like a win-win for Sox if he becomes successful as a starter.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": Good points, Moon, but again, I'll agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure Bard feels he can get the job done in the rotation, especially after watching what they trotted out there last year. It's not always an easy transition back to the bullpen, but its not like they are trying a starter as a closer and if that fails, the guy isn't stretched out enough to go back to the rotation. I just think the risks of saying "no" outweigh the risks of saying "yes," psychologically, while the reward has the potential to be much greater.
    Posted by jasko2248[/QUOTE]

    I didn't mean to imply he wasn't confident, or that he won't succeed. I understand the risk of "saying no" as the current staff is constructed is not a pretty choice either, but I do not think Ben has to be done just yet. If we could get a quality 3rd starter type before ST, I'd choose to scrap the Bard as starter experiment. If not, I can see the merit in the choice, but am highly skeptical of the ressults. I also think it is not a good idea to move both Bard and Aceves to the rotation, and my gut tells me that if I had to choose just one, it would be Aceves not Bard. An interesting scenario could unfold if Bard starts well in ST, but so do 5-6 other pitchers known to be starters their whole careers

    We know Bard is a fantastic asset as a set-up man. There's a chance he could decline even in that role in 2012, but if I had to bet, I'd say he has a better chance of succeeding as a relief pitcher than a starter in 2012. A also realize the payoff is bigger if he succeeds as a starter than if he continues success as a reliever. 140-160 IP of a sharp Bard as a starter trumps 60-80 as a sharp relief pitcher.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from AL34. Show AL34's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The way its going now is that unless Cherrington does something big to pick up a pitcher or two (Garza Trade- Oswalt signing) this 2012 is reminding me of 2009 and could be over before it started.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    It has everything to do with Valentine. Can he manage the 7th,8th,9th innings well enough to help the Sox win games. This 2012 team can't be like the Francona era, on auto-pilot, due to the talent. BV is going to have to stretch his better starting pitchers more so than Francona did. And the team is going to have to figure out not to burn out relievers. The coddling of SPs has been a league-wide problem, but there is no rule that says Lester can't start throwing more 8 inning outings if he is capable, same with a Clay, same with a Beckett. Those are the games that save bullpens for when the team really needs the bullpen, right now every 4th and 5th start.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Any day you can roll a Doubie out on the mound is a good day I suppose.Wink
    You'd think his stuff would really put hitters in a funk and if he does ever get lit up you can bring in a harder thrower to smoke the opposition.

    ...But what if the hard thrower gets bonged all over the joint

    What if "Mellow-cone" spills the bong juice in clubhouse? Who is going to get rid of that God-awful smell? Beatle Bailey as he's singing Across the Universe?

    What if we play at AZ in the WS, and some cop at the gate asks Aceves for his papers and he whips out some Zig-Zags?

    I just think if Doubie gets lit up, it will make the whole Beckett Beer & Chicken deal be quickly forgotten. If Doubie goes into the 9th and is almost burnt out, will he start sniffing the rosin bag? And,who is going to be his roach clip? We need to know these things! We can't start the season without some serious answers and options. Are the risks too great to just wake up and roll the dice and think Doubie will be just clay in Buch's hands, lest we watch some new lackey go up in smoke as we sit around drinking Beck's Beer preaching the morales of fat Albers? 

    I think not!

    I fogot...what were we talking about again?

    Ohhhhhhh man!






     

Share