I'm not worried about who the 6th starter is in 2013. Nor should you be.

 

I'm worried about the 2nd starter in that group. You have a lot of faith in Stewart and Humber. Too much.

I'm worried about the 2nd starter in that group. You have a lot of faith in Stewart and Humber. Too much.

If that happens to actually be the 2013 rotation, it's total price tag will be $11 million. Counting what we paid to Edwin Jackson, this team spent ~$46 million on its starting rotation this year.

 

I hear Cole Hamels and John Danks will be available that offseason.

If that happens to actually be the 2013 rotation, it's total price tag will be $11 million. Counting what we paid to Edwin Jackson, this team spent ~$46 million on its starting rotation this year.

 

I hear Cole Hamels and John Danks will be available that offseason.

 

I don't like your plan. Too massive a gamble.

 

C'mon Marty.

 

You want to trade Santos and make who the closer?

 

Everyone knows, from year to year, every closer is basically a gamble, by definition...unless it's Mo Rivera, Nathan, Hoffman in their primes, Valverde this year.

 

You could have the perfect rotation, the offense clicking 100% and the team might still come up short because of the bullpen consistently imploding like it did during our 4-18 stretch.

 

Without Thornton, Sale and Santos (and even Frasor), that bullpen suddenly becomes the team's biggest weakness, especially when Crain reverts back to his average performance trendline during his time in Minnesota and not how well he's pitched (for the most part) in 2010 and 2011.

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by caulfield12

I'm worried about the 2nd starter in that group. You have a lot of faith in Stewart and Humber. Too much.

 

Buehrle will still be here in 2013, IMO, possibly his final year with the team.

 

Buehrle will still be here in 2013, IMO, possibly his final year with the team.

 

 

I wouldn't be shocked if he signed a 2 year deal with a player or mutual option for a 3rd year.

C'mon Marty.

 

You want to trade Santos and make who the closer?

 

Everyone knows, from year to year, every closer is basically a gamble, by definition...unless it's Mo Rivera, Nathan, Hoffman in their primes, Valverde this year.

 

You could have the perfect rotation, the offense clicking 100% and the team might still come up short because of the bullpen consistently imploding like it did during our 4-18 stretch.

 

Without Thornton, Sale and Santos (and even Frasor), that bullpen suddenly becomes the team's biggest weakness, especially when Crain reverts back to his average performance trendline during his time in Minnesota and not how well he's pitched (for the most part) in 2010 and 2011.

 

How do you do anything but enter a long rebuilding project starting in 2013 when the projected rotation is Sale, Floyd, Humber, Stewart.

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by Marty34

It's dangerous to think Humber and Stewart are great options.

 

Are they just Kyle Davies clones as we enter an era where we are the new Royals?

 

No offense to them. They've been great, but they could open next season throwing BP. They have no track record of greatness.

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by greg775

It's dangerous to think Humber and Stewart are great options.

 

Are they just Kyle Davies clones as we enter an era where we are the new Royals?

 

No offense to them. They've been great, but they could open next season throwing BP. They have no track record of greatness.

 

hahaha, so track records only matter when it suits your argument?

It's dangerous to think Humber and Stewart are great options.

 

Are they just Kyle Davies clones as we enter an era where we are the new Royals?

 

No offense to them. They've been great, but they could open next season throwing BP. They have no track record of greatness.

 

It's dangerous to think Humber and Stewart are great options.

 

Are they just Kyle Davies clones as we enter an era where we are the new Royals?

 

No offense to them. They've been great, but they could open next season throwing BP. They have no track record of greatness.

 

Ozzie's track record of greatness is above all!

hahaha, so track records only matter when it suits your argument?

 

You aren't at all concerned that the 2 would be average?

By that argument, we shouldn't trade Santos, Thornton, Ramirez, Danks, Quentin, etc., because they have an established "track record of success," and by definition, no prospects ever would.

 

Or we should not expect Beckham/Dunn/Rios to turn around because of their past 18-24 months of play.

 

We can't predict automatic failure for Humber/Stewart/Sale without accounting for their possible corollary, success.

 

Nobody would have predicted in 1999/2000 that Mark Buehrle would end up with the greater career than any one of a number of about 10 other Sox pitching prospects of that time period when we were the BA #1 rated system.

You aren't at all concerned that the 2 would be average?

 

 

There was the expectation by many that DeAza and Flowers wouldn't even be average, and they've certainly surprised for at least a month...although Flowers is seemingly "regressing to mean" now.

The projected 2013 rotation is not something any of us should be comfortable with. If action isn't taken this offseason to strengthen it, the assets to fix it will have diminished significantly by the 2012 offseason.

Ozzie's track record of greatness is above all!

One shall not question the track record of Ozzie. It is a track record that, if questioned, would cause a rift in the space-time continium resulting in veteran baseball players having career-low seasons.

The projected 2013 rotation is not something any of us should be comfortable with. If action isn't taken this offseason to strengthen it, the assets to fix it will have diminished significantly by the 2012 offseason.

 

This is bafflingly stupid.

 

So much can change over the course of one year.

 

Hell, Peavy could return to full form, we could resign Danks or Buehrle, etc.

 

The Yankees must be sweating bullets about their 2013 rotation.

This is bafflingly stupid.

 

So much can change over the course of one year.

 

Hell, Peavy could return to full form, we could resign Danks or Buehrle, etc.

 

The Yankees must be sweating bullets about their 2013 rotation.

 

You must be the type that never plans for the future.

You must be the type that never plans for the future.

 

No I do, but I plan on what job I'll have in a few years, not for the zombie apocalypse.

 

The 2013 rotation has a good pitcher written in, a lefty with insane stuff, and two question marks who show potential.

 

My guess is Buehrle will be there as well. And whoever we get for Danks.

You must be the type that never plans for the future.

 

Sez the fan of the manager who refused to play kids over vets...

Well, you're likely going to have to clear more payroll than just Danks to resign Buehrle. Aside from the bad contracts, the 2013 rotation is the biggest issue facing this team.

Well, you're likely going to have to clear more payroll than just Danks to resign Buehrle. Aside from the bad contracts, the 2013 rotation is the biggest issue facing this team.

 

Nah, that's the 2012 and 2013 offenses.

Sez the fan of the manager who refused to play kids over vets...

 

I'm a fan of this manager? News to me.

 

Nah, that's the 2012 and 2013 offenses.

 

Disagree, but either way '13 is shaping up bad.

Nah, that's the 2012 and 2013 offenses.

 

Led by Rios and Dunn.