Red Mosquito

cutuphalfdead wrote:Love Porcello, still need an ace.

I like all 3 of the guys they got, but I like them as 3-4 starters. They don't even have a #2, let alone a #1. Right now, I don't see them finishing above 4th place.

these three pitchers would appear to set up the infield (looking at you bogaerts) for a lot of ground balls.

not a bad rotation, but not a great one.

I don't like wade. I'd rather rubby.

Sign Lester...... oh wait......

cutuphalfdead wrote:I don't like wade. I'd rather rubby.

I've always seen rubby as a set up man down the road, so while I like him, I have no issue trading him for a legit starter.

I have no problem with any of these moves individually, but the strategy as a whole is retarded. Unless of course, they aren't done.

Im going to post this one last time. for the sake of nostalgia.

Spoiler: show

Whenever Youkilis would charge the mound his teammates would just stand there and watch him get pounded. It happened that time and when he charged shields.

numbers wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Love Porcello, still need an ace.

I like all 3 of the guys they got, but I like them as 3-4 starters. They don't even have a #2, let alone a #1. Right now, I don't see them finishing above 4th place.

I think Porcello will be a solid #2 in 2015. Porcello, Kelly and Miley are all still young enough that the best could still be ahead for them. The biggest issue I would have with the current rotation is that they're banking hard on big bounceback seasons from both Buchholz and Masterson.

I actually like the idea of making sure the rotation has 5 solid starters rather than focusing on one ace and building from there. When you have a lineup like Boston's, all you need is an average start every night to stand a good chance of winning a ton of games.

philpritchard wrote:I actually like the idea of making sure the rotation has 5 solid starters rather than focusing on one ace and building from there. When you have a lineup like Boston's, all you need is an average start every night to stand a good chance of winning a ton of games.

What's frustrating though is there's really no reason why we don't have both.

They are basically counting on all 5 of them to have career years, or at least match the best year to date.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

philpritchard wrote:I actually like the idea of making sure the rotation has 5 solid starters rather than focusing on one ace and building from there. When you have a lineup like Boston's, all you need is an average start every night to stand a good chance of winning a ton of games.

What's frustrating though is there's really no reason why we don't have both.

Understandable.

Keep in mind, though, that there are still a few big names available and a lot of time before the season starts.

Yes, the Giants won the WS when their ace put the team on his back. BUT-other than Bumgarner, the postseason was effectively aceless. Teams had a lot of success either without a typical 'ace' or at least without an effective 'ace.' Boston has itself a nice rotation there, IMO.

You guys are overvaluing Porcello a bit. I like the guy, but he's a 4.

@SkitchP wrote:You guys are overvaluing Porcello a bit. I like the guy, but he's a 4.

He's over 9 fWAR the last three years, which puts him in the top 30 in the league, right around guys like Samardzija and Cueto and Latos, less than one WAR behind Bumgarner.

In a normal rotation, I think he's a solid guy to have in the 2-3 spot. Most teams don't have a bunch of guys like Scherzer and Verlander and Price and Fister to stack in front of him.

Numbers and Chud....

What would you guys give up for Hamels? Something like Hamels for Swihart, Cecchini and Ranaudo gets it done I think. I have read the Phils love Cecchini and Ranaudo grew up like an hour outside Philly. Good fit for both teams.

I think Hamels ends up in Boston. If he does a top 4 rotation of Hamels, Porcello, Masteron, Miley is pretty solid and stated above yes lots of ground balls.

philpritchard wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:You guys are overvaluing Porcello a bit. I like the guy, but he's a 4.

He's over 9 fWAR the last three years, which puts him in the top 30 in the league, right around guys like Samardzija and Cueto and Latos, less than one WAR behind Bumgarner.

In a normal rotation, I think he's a solid guy to have in the 2-3 spot. Most teams don't have a bunch of guys like Scherzer and Verlander and Price and Fister to stack in front of him.

WAR is cumulative though.. So in his case a lot and of his value comes purely from his durability, which is not going to be perfect forever

Porcello has improved each year the last 2-3 years. He is still young (26 in a few weeks) and I use to kind of think he was overrated but I might be wrong. I don't see why he can't get to a 220 IP, 1.1 WHIP, 3.25 ERA caliber guy the next few years. Good trade for both teams there.

The Red Sox really fucked up that negotiation with Lester. You have a proven lefty who can pitch in the playoffs and survive in the AL East and you fail to get a deal done prior to free agency? That shit $70 mil offer they tossed his way probably made up his mind. Best of luck to him. Beats cancer, wins the WS, and now he's wicked, wicked rich. Funny to see Theo stick it to Larry.

BigRedLedbetter wrote:Porcello has improved each year the last 2-3 years. He is still young (26 in a few weeks) and I use to kind of think he was overrated but I might be wrong. I don't see why he can't get to a 220 IP, 1.1 WHIP, 3.25 ERA caliber guy the next few years. Good trade for both teams there.

The thing with Porcello locally was people either thought was an under the radar supremely underrated Cy Young in wait, or an awful pitcher that should be cut. I fell pretty much in the middle. I think Phil is probably right though. I view him as a 4 or 5 purely because of how spoiled we've been here.

@SkitchP wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:You guys are overvaluing Porcello a bit. I like the guy, but he's a 4.

He's over 9 fWAR the last three years, which puts him in the top 30 in the league, right around guys like Samardzija and Cueto and Latos, less than one WAR behind Bumgarner.

In a normal rotation, I think he's a solid guy to have in the 2-3 spot. Most teams don't have a bunch of guys like Scherzer and Verlander and Price and Fister to stack in front of him.

WAR is cumulative though.. So in his case a lot and of his value comes purely from his durability, which is not going to be perfect forever

Oh absolutely. But that's why I didn't label him a #1 even though he's in the top 30. There are less durable guys who are better than he is, but there's value to being a good pitcher who can be counted on to throw a lot of innings.

On a somewhat related note, I remember discussions a few years ago about whether Porcello or Romero was better. Heh.