Why the Sox should acquire injury-prone starting pitchers.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 16, 2011 3:04 PM EST

It's no secret to any of us that our starting pitching is the biggest concern facing us this offseason, but with a crazy free-agent pitching class coming forward next year with the likes of Cain, Danks, Liriano, and Grienke all eligible for Free Agency, we don't want to lock up starters like Edwin Jackson for multiple years. Signing bad pitchers to one year deals doesn't make much sense either, this is the Boston Red Sox we're talking about, we're perennial playoff contenders and having two subpar pitchers in our rotation, again, is not a good idea if we don't want to miss the playoffs for a third straight year.

The answer then comes in the form of pitchers like Rich Harden, pitchers with above-average stuff who will come cheap because they can only be counted on for roughly 80 innings of work. If the Sox sign players like Harden or Ben Sheets, or Brandon Webb, they can come to Boston for Erik Bedard-like prices. From there, a few things could happen, the pitcher could have a relatively injury-free year, which is a win-win for both the player and the Sox. The Sox get a good pitcher for over 150 innings, and the pitcher gets a chance at a big contract the next year, like Adrian Beltre in 2010. The pitcher could get hurt early in the year, in which case we start a guy like (cringe) Andrew Miller, but we're only paying this injured pitcher about 5 million, oh well. The pitcher could pitch about half the year and then hit the DL, leaving us in prime position to run out and grab a John Danks before he goes to free agency, this would give us an extended negotiating window to try and bring him back the next year.

After looking at the risks and the potential rewards, I think an injury prone pitcher is the way to go in 2012.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I've learned never to pin all your hopes

on the trade deadline.

by revived0103 on Dec 16, 2011 3:39 PM EST reply actions

I wouldn't either

We do have some backup in Doubront/Tazawa/Miller.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 16, 2011 3:43 PM EST up reply actions

You surely aren't considering

Miller as part of your plan.

by revived0103 on Dec 16, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions

He's on the team

I might as well.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 16, 2011 4:06 PM EST up reply actions

He's going to AAA or the bullpen.

by revived0103 on Dec 16, 2011 5:44 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, as an emergency backup starter.

that’s how he fits in my plan.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 16, 2011 5:53 PM EST up reply actions

Starter by committee ?

I read your post on closer by committee , why not try the same thing with starters ? We have Doubront , Tazawa , Miller , Aceves and Bowden on the roster . Why not just start the guy that matches up the best against certain line-ups ? If he flops early , throw in the next guy in long relief . You never know , a young stud might emerge , and earn a steady rotation spot . Look at how long the Tampa Rays have been contending , without a steady 5 man rotation . It seems like every year they bring up 2 or3 young arms , and seem to always come up with a new , young starter . They give the young arms a real chance to show what they have . They never seem to go after established starters with trades or FA , they let the young guys play . It works out for them , because when one guy leaves , they bring up another new guy .

by EldonD on Dec 16, 2011 5:28 PM EST reply actions

Lots of pitchers

Have preferred starting to relieving due to relieving due to the sense of some sort of plan. If they did this, it would have no rotation— sometimes they may rest for 5 days, other times for 8. I have the feeling that this would really mess up some of our pitchers.

Check out my blog at http://conor-soxrox.blogspot.com

by Conor Duffy on Dec 16, 2011 6:11 PM EST up reply actions

We always have starter by committee,

because of injuries. It’s not as glamorous as it sounds, and it doesn’t sound glamorous.

by revived0103 on Dec 16, 2011 6:37 PM EST up reply actions

Dont know if this would work but 100% agree

about using the kids, but doing so while playing to their strengths, not putting them into roles where they will fail (Weiland and Bowden, for example, in one inning of dominant relief instead of being left on the mound for a public stoning … taking one for the team). Because they were often poorly used or brought up to early they aren’t deemed ready, but they are, and they are at least as good as FA or trades we might get. This applies, I think, to Bowden, Doubront, Tazawa, (Weiland), maybe Wilson. The Sox tend to look at them as “depth” and look
elsewhere for “experienced pitchers” (read someone elses prospects who were used properly and succeeded) whereas the Rays would figure a way to integrate them effectively into the rotation and pen, and manage to get

the most from their skill set to win games.

by GerryT on Dec 17, 2011 1:33 AM EST up reply actions

Or the Padres, who would establish them as relief arms, then trade them for the pieces they do need.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 17, 2011 1:46 AM EST up reply actions

It’s not like everyone can develop pitching the way the Rays do. They have some excellent scouts,and have had good luck with DP’s

by Robert57 on Dec 19, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions

Edwin Jackson..

…had a better year last year than Grienke, Liriano and Danks

I’m jus sayin…

by Dale Sams on Dec 17, 2011 9:56 AM EST reply actions

First, I don't want Liriano

he’s just an example of an available pitcher. I also trust Greinke and Danks a hell of a lot more than Jackson.

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 17, 2011 12:19 PM EST up reply actions

It's a shame about Liriano, he really could have been a special player but after his TJ we'll never know.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 17, 2011 12:55 PM EST up reply actions

I was a little surprised to see..

..that Jackson had a better year than those three actually. I had done a little cursory research on the upcoming FA class a couple weeks ago and was underwhelmed. I still am for the most part.

I don’t think Jackson is even on the Sox’s radar for whatever reason.

by Dale Sams on Dec 17, 2011 1:07 PM EST up reply actions

Except for Cain natch.

by Dale Sams on Dec 17, 2011 1:08 PM EST up reply actions

Injured Pitchers

I see the point, but Sheets and Webb would have to be signed to minor League contracts.Neither has pitched in two or three years. I agree that Edwin Jackson would be a waste. If you are saving up for next years crop,I would think that only Cain would be worth an investment. That’s why I would have loved C.J.Wilson. You would have Lester and Wilson from the left side,with B@B from the right. Healthy, this is a quality starting 4. For the 5th starter, you merge three effective relievers in to one starter, like you mentioned.This combinaton of offense and pitching would give the Sox the best chance of making the W.S. If there had been some way to back end the contract,it would have been good.

by Robert57 on Dec 19, 2011 10:04 AM EST reply actions