White Sox vs. Tigers 9/22/13

[Quin]

I'd move Santiago to the bullpen. We could use a nasty lefty reliever for an inning or two.

 

That would be a terrible, terrible move.

 

I'd want to throw out in an ideal world a rotation of Sale - Q - Santiago - Johnson - Rienzo next year, but that means trading Danks which will be difficult. But one of Q/Danks/Santiago will be gone next year.

[ILMOU]

While that rotation makes sense, just so I say it, Rienzo would need to be traded in that case, because I would hate to see someone stuck into the bullpen and wasted for 2 years because we're too scared to make a trade.

 

I won't mind seeing Rienzo in the longman/spot starter role, at least at the start of next year. From a pitching standpoint, imo, the key to this offseason is whether Danks can gain a few ticks back in velocity. If he does, he'll likely return to a #3 quality SP, and may become "tradeable" if we're not contending at midseason. And it might even be wise to trade him if we ARE contending, depending on what's coming along in the minors, and how Andre performs in his role.

 

If he doesn't regain velocity, I don't honestly think he'll be one of our best 5, and will have a hard time getting off the "meatball express" he's been on this year. If that happens, the contract will definitely be a bit of an albatross, but I'm optimistic for his improvement.

 

Either way, I think it would be premature to trade Rienzo until we've had a look at Chris Bassitt - "The Hound" (you heard it here first) figures to be the next man up. I want six guys we can trust, given the propensity of SP injuries.

 

The other key to the pitching offseason is Hector's refinement of secondary offerings, or lack thereof.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Stan Bahnsen

[Balta1701]

I won't mind seeing Rienzo in the longman/spot starter role, at least at the start of next year. From a pitching standpoint, imo. the key to this offseason is whether Danks can gain a few ticks back in velocity. If he does, he'll likely return to a #3 quality SP, and may become "tradeable" if we're not contending at midseason. And it might even be wise to trade him if we ARE contending, depending on what's coming along in the minors, and how Andre performs in his role.

Keep in mind why I hate this so much. We've tried it repeatedly and it keeps not working.

 

We stuck Sale in the bullpen in 2011 and in 2012, when we really needed him, his arm flared up in April (nearly pushing him back to the bullpen permanently), his ERA went from 2.19 in the first half to 4.03 in the second half, and they were forced to skip starts regularly because his arm wasn't conditioned for it (putting more stress on the rest of the rotation).

 

Then we did the same thing with Santiago. He didn't pick up any extra velocity, he had one good month out of the pen this year but was overall not extremely effective out of the bullpen (3.93 ERA, 1.47 WHIP) and when moved to the rotation, we suddenly found...OMG he's poorly conditioned to be a starter, he's wearing out at the end of the season, and he hasn't developed his offspeed stuff as much as we'd hoped he would.

 

You put Rienzo out there, the end result is going to be...he's not conditioned to be a starter and he won't develop his offspeed stuff as much as he should. You'll set him back a full season or more.

 

Either put him in AAA or trade him. Every time we do this the result is completely predictable.

 

Putting a guy in the bullpen came darn close to ruining Chris Sale as a starter. Remember that. Where would we be if they hadn't listened to Sale in 2012 when his elbow was hurting and put him back in the pen?

[Marty34]

Keep in mind why I hate this so much. We've tried it repeatedly and it keeps not working.

 

We stuck Sale in the bullpen in 2011 and in 2012, when we really needed him, his arm flared up in April (nearly pushing him back to the bullpen permanently), his ERA went from 2.19 in the first half to 4.03 in the second half, and they were forced to skip starts regularly because his arm wasn't conditioned for it (putting more stress on the rest of the rotation).

 

Then we did the same thing with Santiago. He didn't pick up any extra velocity, he had one good month out of the pen this year but was overall not extremely effective out of the bullpen (3.93 ERA, 1.47 WHIP) and when moved to the rotation, we suddenly found...OMG he's poorly conditioned to be a starter, he's wearing out at the end of the season, and he hasn't developed his offspeed stuff as much as we'd hoped he would.

 

You put Rienzo out there, the end result is going to be...he's not conditioned to be a starter and he won't develop his offspeed stuff as much as he should. You'll set him back a full season or more.

 

Either put him in AAA or trade him. Every time we do this the result is completely predictable.

 

With a back-of-the-rotation type prospect like Rienzo, I think the best place for him to develop is the pen. If he shows very good or better success leave him there and change his rle. Otherwise, let him develop while being the long man.

[Balta1701]

With a back-of-the-rotation type prospect like Rienzo, I think the best place for him to develop is the pen. If he shows very good or better success leave him there and change his rle. Otherwise, let him develop while being the long man.

What about his stuff makes you think "Back of the rotation starter"? Fastball was a plus pitch in the low 90's, solid breaking ball already developed, needs some work on his other fastball pitches (work which, of course, he will not get out of the bullpen since he'd just be throwing the fastball and the curve).

 

 

[Marty34]

What about his stuff makes you think "Back of the rotation starter"? Fastball was a plus pitch in the low 90's, solid breaking ball already developed, needs some work on his other fastball pitches (work which, of course, he will not get out of the bullpen since he'd just be throwing the fastball and the curve).

 

His age and his minor league career tell me he's a back-of-the-rotation prospect. You obviously disagree.

[Balta1701]

His age and his minor league career tell me he's a back-of-the-rotation prospect. You obviously disagree.

A guy getting called up a month after his 25th birthday is a very normal schedule.

[southsider2k5]

Quintana and Santiago won't be teammates next year. Need to move one (preferably Santiago) to get offense.

 

Agreed. Santiago may have stuff, but I am not sure if he has make up.

[Marty34]

A guy getting called up a month after his 25th birthday is a very normal schedule.

 

A very normal schedule for what? A back-of-the-rotation starter.

[Balta1701]

A very normal schedule for what? A back-of-the-rotation starter.

For an average player, for example, a mid-rotation starter.

[Marty34]

For an average player, for example, a mid-rotation starter.

 

fair enough.

[ILMOU]

Keep in mind why I hate this so much. We've tried it repeatedly and it keeps not working.

 

We stuck Sale in the bullpen in 2011 and in 2012, when we really needed him, his arm flared up in April (nearly pushing him back to the bullpen permanently), his ERA went from 2.19 in the first half to 4.03 in the second half, and they were forced to skip starts regularly because his arm wasn't conditioned for it (putting more stress on the rest of the rotation).

 

Then we did the same thing with Santiago. He didn't pick up any extra velocity, he had one good month out of the pen this year but was overall not extremely effective out of the bullpen (3.93 ERA, 1.47 WHIP) and when moved to the rotation, we suddenly found...OMG he's poorly conditioned to be a starter, he's wearing out at the end of the season, and he hasn't developed his offspeed stuff as much as we'd hoped he would.

 

You put Rienzo out there, the end result is going to be...he's not conditioned to be a starter and he won't develop his offspeed stuff as much as he should. You'll set him back a full season or more.

 

Either put him in AAA or trade him. Every time we do this the result is completely predictable.

 

Frankly, Sale's flare up last year was the most overblown event of the year - more a PR debacle and misplaced caution, imo. He was back dominating as a starter within a week and hasn't had a hiccup in 370+ innings since. His dropoff in the second half was to be expected for a pitcher building innings for the first time at the MLB level. I have no issues with how he's been handled.

 

Agreed that Hector hasn't been handled ideally (rather "jerked-around" actually), and no surprises with his late-season dropoff.

 

Rienzo has pitched ~165 innings this year and has the offseason to refine his stuff. He'll be able to fill whatever role we need of him.

[ILMOU]

With a back-of-the-rotation type prospect like Rienzo, I think the best place for him to develop is the pen. If he shows very good or better success leave him there and change his rle. Otherwise, let him develop while being the long man.

 

I can't disagree with this.

 

Really, though, for me the point is moot: If he's one of our 5 best out of ST next year, he's a starter, otherwise he's the longman/spot guy. Higher ceiling guys than Rienzo are in the pipeline. Nothing left to prove in AAA, and I'd rather he be spending his time with Coop.

 

Just a prediction, but Balta's gonna hate how we handle Tyler Danish in a couple of years - I think it will be much like how we handled Sale. He'll fly through the system, but will be deemed too young/slight by the braintrust to be given a starter's load initially. Look for him in the pen by mid-late '15 as a 20y.o.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Stan Bahnsen

[elrockinMT]

We are obviously expecting that the young pitchers we mention are deemed ready for the majors. One or two may end up at AAA and that takes care of that for a year. But, we have several lefties so one may get traded and I think it will be Santiago or John Danks

[Jake]

You don't trade Q or Santiago to make room for Rienzo. You trade to get an equally proficient offensive player because you know you have a competent pitcher to replace Q/Santiago, but don't have a competent hitter at virtually any position.

[greg775]

That would be a terrible, terrible move.

 

I'd want to throw out in an ideal world a rotation of Sale - Q - Santiago - Johnson - Rienzo next year, but that means trading Danks which will be difficult. But one of Q/Danks/Santiago will be gone next year.

 

I'm not going by advanced stats, just the eye test, and want to say that I don't understand why many of you are so high on Santiago. I think Q is a much much much better starting pitching prospect. I'm sick of us trotting stiffs out there in the lefthanded relief role and why not just make Santiago an EFFECTIVE lefty reliever the rest of his career? The Royals switched on Hochevar and he helped that team a lot. Why don't we do that with Santiago. I believe Q has earned the starting slot but Hector could be a bullpen guy for years to come. If we are ever going to start contending again, we'll need some lefty relievers that can, uh, get people out.

Edited September 23, 2013 by greg775

[Rowand44]

You don't trade Q or Santiago to make room for Rienzo. You trade to get an equally proficient offensive player because you know you have a competent pitcher to replace Q/Santiago, but don't have a competent hitter at virtually any position.

Yes, this.

[Jake]

I'm not going by advanced stats, just the eye test, and want to say that I don't understand why many of you are so high on Santiago. I think Q is a much much much better starting pitching prospect. I'm sick of us trotting stiffs out there in the lefthanded relief role and why not just make Santiago an EFFECTIVE lefty reliever the rest of his career? The Royals switched on Hochevar and he helped that team a lot. Why don't we do that with Santiago. I believe Q has earned the starting slot but Hector could be a bullpen guy for years to come. If we are ever going to start contending again, we'll need some lefty relievers that can, uh, get people out.

 

Hector does not profile to be a good lefty reliever.

 

First of all, he has a significantly higher walk rate as a reliever than as a starter. He has remarked that he simply struggles getting loose on short notice.

 

Secondly, Hector's weakness is getting lefties out. As a reliever, we would be bringing him in against lefties. He has struggled to make his curveball into a usable pitch and this is what would make him a left-handed reliever.

 

Beyond that, he's been successful as a starter. He's not super consistent and has some things to work on, but he is very talented and is just not a guy you give up on. He has top of the rotation potential. We see him get by with a fastball alone at at times; imagine if he starts to really utilize his offspeed arsenal as he gets more experience and a full season as a starter?

 

And Luke Hochevar was a dreadful starter. He threw almost 700 innings in which his best season was a 4.68 ERA. He just wasn't very good and proved it over a very long time period. If we give Hector four seasons as a starter and he struggles to keep his ERA below 5, I'll be all for shoving him in the bullpen.

[Quin]

I'm not going by advanced stats, just the eye test, and want to say that I don't understand why many of you are so high on Santiago. I think Q is a much much much better starting pitching prospect. I'm sick of us trotting stiffs out there in the lefthanded relief role and why not just make Santiago an EFFECTIVE lefty reliever the rest of his career? The Royals switched on Hochevar and he helped that team a lot. Why don't we do that with Santiago. I believe Q has earned the starting slot but Hector could be a bullpen guy for years to come. If we are ever going to start contending again, we'll need some lefty relievers that can, uh, get people out.

 

1) NEITHER OF THEM ARE PROSPECTS. WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS. THEY ARE JUST AS MUCH PROSPECTS AS SALE IS.

 

2) Yes, let's model the Royals, quality franchise.

 

 

Hector does not profile to be a good lefty reliever.

 

First of all, he has a significantly higher walk rate as a reliever than as a starter. He has remarked that he simply struggles getting loose on short notice.

 

Secondly, Hector's weakness is getting lefties out. As a reliever, we would be bringing him in against lefties. He has struggled to make his curveball into a usable pitch and this is what would make him a left-handed reliever.

 

Beyond that, he's been successful as a starter. He's not super consistent and has some things to work on, but he is very talented and is just not a guy you give up on. He has top of the rotation potential. We see him get by with a fastball alone at at times; imagine if he starts to really utilize his offspeed arsenal as he gets more experience and a full season as a starter?

 

And Luke Hochevar was a dreadful starter. He threw almost 700 innings in which his best season was a 4.68 ERA. He just wasn't very good and proved it over a very long time period. If we give Hector four seasons as a starter and he struggles to keep his ERA below 5, I'll be all for shoving him in the bullpen.

 

Logic is wasted.

[2nd_city_saint787]

I'm not going by advanced stats, just the eye test, and want to say that I don't understand why many of you are so high on Santiago. I think Q is a much much much better starting pitching prospect. I'm sick of us trotting stiffs out there in the lefthanded relief role and why not just make Santiago an EFFECTIVE lefty reliever the rest of his career? The Royals switched on Hochevar and he helped that team a lot. Why don't we do that with Santiago. I believe Q has earned the starting slot but Hector could be a bullpen guy for years to come. If we are ever going to start contending again, we'll need some lefty relievers that can, uh, get people out.

 

Remember, this is kind of(i say kind of because he was dicked around a bit early) Hectors 1st year as a full time starter in the big. He's Just 25 years old. Take a look at the first year comparisons between he and Q....

 

Q- 3.76 era 1.35 Whip .275 BAA

 

Hector(as a starter)- 3.47 era 1.38 whip .242 BAA

 

Qs 2nd year(this year) he improved to 3.49/1.24/.249

 

People being high on him is legit, and there is a legit chance he becomes more efficient in year 2 like Q did this year.

 

And like Jake said, Hochevar was forced into the bullpen role.

Edited September 23, 2013 by scs787

[greg775]

1) NEITHER OF THEM ARE PROSPECTS. WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS. THEY ARE JUST AS MUCH PROSPECTS AS SALE IS.

 

2) Yes, let's model the Royals, quality franchise.

 

Logic is wasted.

 

I knew somebody would say something about the Royals. I just want our bullpen to be better and I personally see a candidate for excellence in Santiago. If he's wild coming out of the pen like the other post suggested, then obviously that's a huge problem. Walks are killers. So if he has trouble getting ready on short notice, fine, I'm mistaken. I just want a GOOD BULLPEN and I thought Santiago was an in house candidate since we have a ton of starters and a ton of lefty starters.

 

As far as prospects, I should change it to "young pitchers" so you won't get mad. I always thought a prospect was a young player. My definition differs from yours.

[2nd_city_saint787]

I knew somebody would say something about the Royals. I just want our bullpen to be better and I personally see a candidate for excellence in Santiago. If he's wild coming out of the pen like the other post suggested, then obviously that's a huge problem. Walks are killers. So if he has trouble getting ready on short notice, fine, I'm mistaken. I just want a GOOD BULLPEN and I thought Santiago was an in house candidate since we have a ton of starters and a ton of lefty starters.

 

As far as prospects, I should change it to "young pitchers" so you won't get mad. I always thought a prospect was a young player. My definition differs from yours.

 

An excellent starter>an excellent reliever.

 

[Quin]

I knew somebody would say something about the Royals. I just want our bullpen to be better and I personally see a candidate for excellence in Santiago. If he's wild coming out of the pen like the other post suggested, then obviously that's a huge problem. Walks are killers. So if he has trouble getting ready on short notice, fine, I'm mistaken. I just want a GOOD BULLPEN and I thought Santiago was an in house candidate since we have a ton of starters and a ton of lefty starters.

 

As far as prospects, I should change it to "young pitchers" so you won't get mad. I always thought a prospect was a young player. My definition differs from yours.

 

Ok, fair enough on the prospects point, but then that makes Sale and Trout prospects.

 

Prospect just basically means they aren't at the major league level yet other than maybe a cup of coffee here or there.

 

Yeah, I made the Royals comment because they blew their #1 pick and he was a terrible starter for years. Much different than this unheralded guy who came up through the minors as a starter and excelled there before getting jerked around as long relief then closer then starter. Give him time to transition into a starter again.

[Chicago White Sox]

An average starter>an excellent reliever.

Fixed this for you.

[southsider2k5]

You don't trade Q or Santiago to make room for Rienzo. You trade to get an equally proficient offensive player because you know you have a competent pitcher to replace Q/Santiago, but don't have a competent hitter at virtually any position.

 

That is implicit for anyone who talks about trading pitching.