Neal Cotts

[GoSox05]

id like to see him be the setup man for bobby jenks the next few years.

 

 

hes gotta cut that mullet thing hes grown again though.

[CWSGuy406]

I think he'd be foolish to try to start again unless some team forced him to.

 

Lefty starters are nice to have, yes, but think about what you see in almost every game.  How many teams are there out there with 2 out of 3 hitters who bat lefty somewhere in their lineup?

 

Every single team out there needs at least 1 quality left handed reliever...probably 2 if they genuinely want to compete.  And especially after watching the Yankees and Red Sox this year...the price for quality relief pitching is about to go way up.

 

Good relievers come and go. They're dime a dozen.

 

If Neal has enough control to start, then you start him. Why limit his value as a reliever? IF he can handle the transition to being a starter again, and be effective at doing it (starting) -- then you have to start him.

 

Of course, if he proves that his control is too wild to start, and that he can't maintain that zip on his fastball for six-seven innings, then of course just leave him in the bullpen.

[bjm676]

Why mess with a good thing? He'll be a valuable reliever out of the pen for years. Then again, Buehrle started off in the pen and look at him now.

[AddisonStSox]

Talk about sending the lamb to the slaughter.

 

I'll never forget that Cotts' start in New York. You can point to that one, single game as an event that stunted Neal's growth for an additional year and a half.

[Jordan4life_2007]

As I've said before, Garland and Cotts have taught me to exhibit more patience when it comes to younger players, especially young pitchers.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Why mess with a good thing?  He'll be a valuable reliever out of the pen for years.  Then again, Buehrle started off in the pen and look at him now.

 

 

It wouldn't hurt to give him another try as a starter. If he proves he can't handle it, send him back to the pen. And I'm not talking about experimenting with that this year. Just so were clear.

[SoxFan1]

It wouldn't hurt to give him another try as a starter.  If he proves he can't handle it,  send him back to the pen.  And I'm not talking about experimenting with that this year.  Just so were clear.

Why next year either? Or the year after that? He has been asboultely tremendous. I agree with rv23, don't fix it if it aint broke and Cotts sure as s*** aint broke.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Why next year either? Or the year after that? He has been asboultely tremendous. I agree with rv23, don't fix it if it aint broke and Cotts sure as s*** aint broke.

 

 

Why put a ceiling on how good a pitcher he can be? He was projected to be a starter. He was a starter his entire minor league career. As somebody mentioned, it's much easier to go out and find quality relievers than it is to find quality starters.

[Balta1701]

Why put a ceiling on how good a pitcher he can be?  He was projected to be a starter.  He was a starter his entire minor league career.  As somebody mentioned,  it's much easier to go out and find quality relievers than it is to find quality starters.

Actually, I'd say it's easier to find average to good starters than it is to find great relievers.

 

Neal has an ERA of 2.08 right now. Do you think he'd have an ERA that low as a starter? In the AL if he did, he'd win the Cy Young award. In other words...numbers as a reliever probably don't translate too well to starting. Hitters face you more than once, you get more tired, etc.

 

Neal Cotts can be a great left-handed relief pitcher. But I don't think he can be a great left-handed starter. He might be able to be a good left-handed starter (ERA ~ 4) but I don't think he could be a great one.

[Wedge]

We have all of our starters locked up for next year (Garland will still be ours after arbitration) so I don't see a need to try-out Cotts as a starter, particularly when you consider just how disasterously his past attempts in that role have been. Didn't he start up in Montreal last season? Was he not very ineffective after that start? He's got good confidence in his role right now, so leave him there.

[Balta1701]

We have all of our starters locked up for next year (Garland will still be ours after arbitration) so I don't see a need to try-out Cotts as a starter, particularly when you consider just how disasterously his past attempts in that role have been.  Didn't he start up in Montreal last season?  Was he not very ineffective after that start?  He's got good confidence in his role right now, so leave him there.

JR and KW will be smart enough use the fact that JG is arbitration-eligible to sign him to at least a 3 year deal.

[SoxFan1]

We've seen how he has done in extended stints as a reliever or his brief period as a starter. In my opinion, he should stick to his guns and stay as a reliever.

[DBAHO]

I suppose like I said earlier, it'll depend if Neal even gets an oppurtunity to be a starter with us. Mark, Freddy and Jon are going to stick around probably for a long time (think at least 5 years). That leaves 2 spots open in the future. McCarthy should grab one (when he's ready). The other spot could go to an incoming free agent, or someone else in our system like Gio Gonzalez, Dan Haigwood, Tyler Lumsden etc.

 

Of course relievers can fluctuate so much over seasons, so it's not a guarantee Neal's gonna pitch like this forever. But if he keeps dominating as a reliever, I'd probably leave him there, considering how important and how hard it is to find a good lefty reliever.

[CWSGuy406]

Actually, I'd say it's easier to find average to good starters than it is to find great relievers.

 

Neal has an ERA of 2.08 right now.  Do you think he'd have an ERA that low as a starter?  In the AL if he did, he'd win the Cy Young award.  In other words...numbers as a reliever probably don't translate too well to starting.  Hitters face you more than once, you get more tired, etc.

 

Neal Cotts can be a great left-handed relief pitcher.  But I don't think he can be a great left-handed starter.  He might be able to be a good left-handed starter (ERA ~ 4) but I don't think he could be a great one.

 

So what? Even a GREAT reliever only impacts at most what, 80 innings of a season? A starter, OTOH pitches at least double that of a reliever.

 

Like Jordan said, you're limiting his ceiling by putting him in the reliever spot. We tried Cotts as a starter when his mechanics were off and he wasn't his normal self. Now he is -- he's back to his high K, semi high BB self.

 

If he fails, you can always fall back on him being a good reliever, but you're limiting his potential by keeping him in the 'pen.

[YASNY]

If Cotts wants a shot at starting next year, I think he's earned it. Some don't want him to start because he's been so effective as a reliever. Would you want him to start if his ERA was 5.65?

[DBAHO]

If Cotts wants a shot at starting next year, I think he's earned it.  Some don't want him to start because he's been so effective as a reliever.  Would you want him to start if his ERA was 5.65?

I don't think that's even going to be an issue next year considering we have 5 starters under contract (assuming Garland gets re-signed even thiugh he's due for arbi.).

 

In 2007, however, that situation may arise. It kind of reminds me of the Danny Haren situation. He was mainly in the Cards pen, gets traded to Oakland, and now he's a good starter.