Free Agent Pitcher Options
by anaheim angels on Mar 28, 2009 11:14 AM PDT
Email
PrintWith seemingly all of our pitchers on the DL, here are the options still available on the free agent list in no particular order...
Odalis Perez- A career 95 ERA+ pitcher, with a 101 ERA+ last year in 160 innings for the Nationals. Hes not a frontline starter, but he could be a decent 4th or 5th starter. Also, he is very cheap (possibly 1 M for one year or possibly less).
Mark Mulder- Hasn't pitched 100 innings in a season for a few years, and hasn't been very good lately. Pass
Ryan Drese- One good year for Texas, but hasnt pitched since 2006, and hasn't been very good when he has been able to make it to the mound.
Pedro Martinez- If he is finally healthy, he could be very good, but durability is an issue as well as performance (excluding WBC) as his last good season was in 2005. Definitely an option though, and he would likely be up to speed quickly due to the WBC.
Orlando Hernandez- Didn't pitch last year, but in 2007 had a 115 ERA+ in 147 innings. His age however, could mean he doesn't see the field much. Possibly worth a look into, but unlikely.
Mark Redman- Last time he had an ERA+ of 90 was 2004. Ouch, and pass.
Jon Lieber- Was used last year as a reliever by the Cubs, but he did put up an ERA+ of 110. His last season of 160+ innings was 2006, but since 1996, his career low ERA+ is 96. While his FIP last year suggests regression, he is still definitely worth looking into.
Brian Lawerence- Was once promising, but has only pitched one year in the Majors sine 2005. Hes durable, but he isn't very good (5.55 ERA in 80+ innings for the Braves AAA affiliate in 08).
Kenny Rogers- Very interesting here. From 2002-2007 his lowest ERA+ was 99, but last year that number dipped to 78. One one hand he could be the veteran pitcher who has a breakout year to lead the staff (ala Tigers circa 2006), while on the other hand he could continue on last years suckfest and and drag the whole team down with his personality. Possibly worth a shot, if the money is right.
Chuck James- While he had a bad year for the Braves in 2008, this 27 year old lefty might still be worth a shot. In 2007 James pitched 160 innings of 100 ERA+ baseball, and in 06 120 innings of 118 ERA+. While his FIPs are very high, and his low ERA (and high ERA+) seem to be due to his abnormally low BABIP, among his top 10 comparable on baseball-reference.com include Edinson Volquez, Sean Marshall, Jon Danks and Rich Hill. Very well could be worth a minor league deal and see if he produces after a change in scenery.
Scott Elarton- Hasn't been good since 2000. Pass.
Estaban Loaiza- Loaiza's last good season was in 2005 with the Nats. Has pitched a grand total of 64 innings the last two years combined, where he wasn't very good for many of them. Pass.
Steve Traschel- A Oxnard native and CSULB alum, pitched 40 horrific innings for Baltimore last year. He has never really been great, but has a handful of good years, along with many serviceable ones (2004, '06, and '07 most recently). He is worth a look into, although a minor league deal at best.
And Finally, to the Byrd Man
Paul Byrd- His number one comparable on bb-r is Jon Garland. Byrd will have an ERA+ between 93-103 next year and will pitch over 160 innings. He also possesses a great personality and is a fan favorite. If he doesn't retire, the Angels should definitely approach him.
To sum up: The noteworthy starters that are still free agents are: Odalis Perez, Pedro, Jon Lieber, Kenny Rogers, Chuck James, Traschel and Byrd.
Kenny Rogers, Pedro and Byrd seem to be the most expensive, while we could get Lieber, James, and or Traschel for minor league deals. Odalis Perez could also come cheap, but most likely will need a major league deal. The pen's in your court Ninja, do as you will.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
92 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ninja won't make a move on any of these guys.
Someone commented on the last post about our pitching situation that he will at least wait to see the severity of the injuries to Erv and Lack before making a move.
I agree and if I might add, we wont go swimming through the FA market. We got a log jam in the infield and outfield and some prospects kicking around AAA that could be starters on most major league teams. Which means if we do get another starter, I would expect we would wheel and deal for some quality pitching.
Although don’t expect Peavy. SD wants too much.
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Mar 28, 2009 11:51 AM PDT reply actions
Agree
If we’re doing a month of the Moseley-Adenhart-Loux shuffle, it’s not worth giving up anything of value — including money — for a has-been.
It’s interesting that Jon Weisman, who usually doesn’t indulge himself this way, was talking about enjoying the Angels’ pitching rotation injuries. The Dodgers could easily be in just this kind of a situation presently, what with their limited options at the major league level. They’re also talking about giving a major league rotation spot to a guy who hasn’t pitched over ~150 innings at any level (James McDonald).
Witty .sig goes here.
If its
Saunders-Weaver and Moseley-Adenhart-Loux-Ortega for the remaining three spots, id much prefer to sign a competent pitcher for peanuts, then let the others duke it out for the two spots
That'll only happen if that one prospect is the second coming of Christ and redemption for mankind can only be achieved by smacking many balls out of the yard.
-The Limey
by anaheim angels on Mar 28, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
In that case
Who do you take off the 40 man to accomodate one of these washed up wastes of space because you’re worried about the first month of the season?
thats the problem
If you put a player on the DL, does that open a spot in the 40 man? Also it wouldnt just be for just the first month, but possibly longer depending on injuries, general sucktitude, or said player performing very well. A signing could also follow a trade. Im not saying go out and and get all of them immediately, im just presenting the options that we have, and if the proper oppurtunity arises, we will be prepared going forward in whether or not to sign someone.
That'll only happen if that one prospect is the second coming of Christ and redemption for mankind can only be achieved by smacking many balls out of the yard.
-The Limey
by anaheim angels on Mar 29, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
only
if the player goes on the 60 day DL, in which case we’d absolutely have to go outside the organization for help.
we have another option actually
If we ship out GMJ for a PTBNL that would open up a spot to sign a pitcher
That'll only happen if that one prospect is the second coming of Christ and redemption for mankind can only be achieved by smacking many balls out of the yard.
-The Limey
by anaheim angels on Mar 29, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Two things
1) “Bitter” and “Jon” not in the same sentence.
2) If the rotation does collapse, it’ll be in the second half, assuming no injuries in the first half. And Randy Wolf is nothing if not a second-half collapse waiting to happen.
Witty .sig goes here.
I meant Jon's readers
Jon is pretty good-natured about not blowing a gasket over the Blue Follies… UNLIKE that other dodger’s blogger i read on occasion ;0)
theres nothing wrong about signing one or more people to minor league deals
worth less than 400k. One of them could turn out into a great bargain
That'll only happen if that one prospect is the second coming of Christ and redemption for mankind can only be achieved by smacking many balls out of the yard.
-The Limey
by anaheim angels on Mar 28, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
i'd like Paul Byrd back.......
but thats just me………or Pedro…..because he’s on my fantasy team.
A person who performs good Karma (deeds) is always held in high esteem
12/19/08 - Thank you KLJ for coming into my life.
by norcaliangelsfan on Mar 28, 2009 12:15 PM PDT reply actions
A resounding HELL NO to all of these options. Give me Loux, Moseley or Adenhart in place of any of these has-beens and wash-outs.
Blogging is FUN!
by Downing Rules on Mar 28, 2009 5:54 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Here Here
Not to mention that all three of our guys on the DL will be back within the month. There is absolutely no point in signing an old, over-the-hill starter to fill a spot for a month.
Pedro please
I would like for the Angels to try and get the guy – even though he is past his prime, he is a guy that is a place filler for Santana and Lackey.
Although I’m just thinking out loud, I can also see the Athletics picking him up for $3 million [plus incentives] and him actually making a difference in an A’s rotation that is thin right now.
So basically
our backups are just as good if not better than most of these. I feel pretty good now.
Give the young guns a chance...if they suck wellll...
Well, if you look at it from the other side
We’re gonna have three guys in the rotation that are at around the above pitchers’ levels for a month of the season. Ouch.
Sign Pedro!
replacement level analysis
Pedro
Here’s the thing. Maybe Pedro can’t pitch 200 innings, or even 175. But assuming things go as the Angels are hoping (Lackey back in May, and Santana not far behind), the Angels don’t need to pick up someone to make 33 starts; they need someone who can make about 12-15. If Pedro is physically capable of doing that, I am confident that he would be league average or better because, well, he’s Pedro Martinez. Half of Pedro is likely better than Loux, and quite possibly still better than Adenhart.
Pedro redux
Maybe Pedro can’t pitch 200 innings, or even 175. But assuming things go as the Angels are hoping (Lackey back in May, and Santana not far behind), the Angels don’t need to pick up someone to make 33 starts; they need someone who can make about 12-15.
I guess you missed the part about Escobar returning sometime in May or June.
Assuming Lackey and Santana are up and running by that time, then we have no need to pay $5M for Pedro to start a few games in the early weeks of the season. And unless you really haven’t been paying attention to the team in the last several weeks, Moseley is pitching better than he ever has, due to finally recovering from elbow surgery in 2007. Thus far, he’s appeared in 20 innings over 5 starts, shown an ERA of 3.15 and a K:BB ratio of 3:1 (15:5). That may be weak sauce for the guy you call an ace, but pretty damn good for a #3-5.
I believe I heard on yesterday's broadcast that Escobar is currently on pace yo join the rotation in April.
Anyone else hear Terry Smith make that statement?
I'd prefer they waited until May at least
The “game” he pitched the other day was against AA-level players and he was limited to 40 pitches.
I am unaware of any pain felt in the next day, but I would prefer the team baby him and make sure he is up to the level of MLB hitters and 80-100 pitch games. If he is able to complete this season his contribution might be considered the most crucial of all.
by George Kaplan on Mar 29, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Scioscia has already said that they don't plan on forcing the issue.
He’ll pitch when they think he’s ready. If they think he’ll be ready in late April, then so be it.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Moseley
Lots of guys look good in spring training but, once the season starts, not so much. I look at it this way. If Lackey and Santana are already injured, there’s a decent chance that they’ll have to miss a few more starts as the season progresses. The next time that Jered Weaver and Joe Saunders don’t miss a single start will be the first. Frankly, I don’t see any reason to think that Shane Loux is anything more than what he was back when he was with the Tigers. If he’s healthy (and of course, it’s an if), Pedro is much better than Loux, and probably also better than Moseley and Adenhart.
You make assumptions about the health of Lackey, Santana and Escobar that I’m just not willing to make: that all three will fully recover early in the year. I’m not as optimistic. Santana has a tear in his Tommy John ligament, which could obviously tear more and require surgery, keeping him out for 12 months or so.
Thanks Anaheim
I guess that about sums it up. Not a lot out there.
However, if we have one more injury? Might be wise to sign one of these boys on the cheap just for insurance.
Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.
Agreed
If it doesnt displace someone on the 40-man, one of those pitchers could potentially be our version of Kyle Lohse, which would be absolutely awesome
That'll only happen if that one prospect is the second coming of Christ and redemption for mankind can only be achieved by smacking many balls out of the yard.
-The Limey
by anaheim angels on Mar 29, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I was in the "Sign Pedro" group
But with the decent performance of Moseley and Adenhart this spring, I don’t think he’s needed because I doubt he’s much of an upgrade over what the Angels have in-house.
With the depth the Angels have in the infield, they’d probably be better off dealing for another starter (if one is needed) who’ll better better than any of the free agents on that list.
I was uncool before uncool was cool.
Exactly.
If one of these injuries turns out to be more serious than first thought, which like it or not could very well happen, then I think something more than just a patch job like Pedro will be called for. We know the Ninja has the stones to do it, too.
I love this blog to death
but I wish to hell that the remaining Moseley sympathizers would stop pretending that the man is anything but a monumental waste of perfectly good oxygen.
Watching him pitch is like watching batting practice. Except in batting practice, people tend to miss at least one out of every 100 pitches.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 12:25 AM PDT reply actions
I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to hope that he pitches more like he did in 2007
where he had a 4.21 ERA in 8 spot starts, as opposed to his disastrous 2008. Certainly the Angels seem to think he’s capable of doing so, and the early indicators this spring have been good.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Moseley
I wish the haters would acknowledge reality.
Moseley was hurt in 2008, and pitched like it.
The results in Spring Training have been much closer to the guy the team traded for in the first place.
I don’t have a problem with his being the #3 through #5, while Lackey, Santana and Escobar get healthy. There is simply no reason to push a panic button with Moseley pitching as well as he has this Spring, and we’re talking about a matter of weeks (not months) before some of these guys return.
by George Kaplan on Mar 31, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
I take very little in Spring Training as being terribly meaningful
I’d rather be wrong and him do well, than be right and watch him fail…but above BOTH options, I’d rather never see him get the chance to prove me right, because I think it damn near inevitable.
He pitched poorly in 2008 because he was injured. The problem is, he wasn’t good in 2007, either. And his minor league track record speaks for itself. He hasn’t had an ERA there below 4.62 since AA ball…in 2004. And the career-long WHIP problems ain’t going away, either. He’s bad news. I would greatly prefer any number of other options.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
We're talking about 6-8 weeks
Not an entire season. All this silliness about signing Pedro and everything else obscures the point that by June 1 we should see Lackey-Santana-Escobar-Saunders-Weaver; Moseley is just to get us to that point. He has shown enough that he is a suitable replacement if one of them is delayed in returning or suffers a setback.
We can surely endure that length of time without resorting to all kinds of unneeded, desperate measures.
by George Kaplan on Mar 31, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
If Pedro is coming in on a small, essentially risk-free contract
which is all that he’s in a position to demand anyway, then it’s not exactly ‘desperate.’ It’s called shoring up a weakness and taking a risk assessment of the team.
I know it’s only 6-8 weeks, potentially, but when 3 out of 5 of your current starters (probably the 1-3 in terms of quality, too) are injured to open the season, I think it’s foolish to pretend that none of them have a good chance of relapsing.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Have you actually looked at his starts after April of last year
He was coming off of Ulnar Nerve Transplant Surgery, in other words he had a nerve moved from around his elbow to the top of his forearm. Having taken care of someone who had this surgery and helping them with their rehab I can say the fact that Moseley was able to get into any kind of pitching shape impressed me personal.
On top of that, after his 1st 4 starts in April he had some good starts for a RELIEVER starting:
His last 6 starts of last year
4/26/08 @ Tigers 5 IP 3 runs 5k’s 2bb
7/13/08 @ A’s 5.1 IP 2 runs 4K’s 1bb
9/05/08 @ WSox 1.1 4 runs 0k’s 2bb
9/10/08 NYY 5 IP 2 runs 6k’s 3bb
9/20/08 @ Rangers 5 IP 3 runs 3k’s 1bb
9/25/08 @ Mariners 5 IP 2 runs 3k’s 1bb
I’ll take these numbers from a 5th starter. I think if he is used as a starter he will be able to go deeper into games
Again
for a reliever filling in, those are not bad numbers. If he was a full time starter last year I would agree with you. You need to look at his numbers in context to the situation.
I accept no world in which baseball has become so watered down
that a 5.40 ERA is considered acceptable in any context.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm a little rusty on math, what with the lack of school and all
But I think there are some numbers there between 1 and 5.40.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Apr 1, 2009 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Your just rusty
I’m using the new “Financial” math.
As a spot starter, IMHO, he did a good job. I also believe given the opportunity, he will show he can be a 4th or 5th starter
Well, if I'm rusty in math
*YOU’RE rusty with YOUR english. ;)
We’ll agree to disagree. :-D
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Apr 1, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Nice grammathematics!
Blogging is FUN!
by Downing Rules on Apr 2, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Pedro
If Pedro is coming in on a small, essentially risk-free contract…
That’s why he isn’t viable for the Angels. He wouldn’t sign for small money, since he already priced himself comparably to Smoltz ($5M base + $5M in incentives). He will most likely sit and wait until some team needs an mid-season injection due to unforeseen injury.
I can’t imagine why he’d sign for (what would be for him) peanuts when a bigger, pro-rata payday is most likely due from another club as the season progresses. It isn’t like he’s destitute, after all—he made $53M in his last 4 year deal.
by George Kaplan on Mar 31, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm confused.
You don’t like 4.21 ERA… what do you expect Pedro to do what, again? Moving over to the harder league, after missing spring training, having put up a 5.26 ERA in 2008, another year older at 37, do you REALLY think he’s going to do that much better than Moseley? Because I have serious doubts on that score.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Add to that
I had the pleasure of watching Adenhart thoroughly confuse the Cubs at Hohokam Park today. 6.2 IP, 5 K, 1 BB, 8 H, 2 ER. This is his 4th great start in a row. We can argue day and night about how much these games mean, but if he was getting hammered we’d all worry.
I think he’s turned a corner in his maturity. Never mind Moseley—Adenhart might be the one we agonize over sending down to SLC when the staff is back to full strength. After the disappointment (his and ours) in 2008, he may finally be ready for prime time.
by George Kaplan on Mar 31, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
"thoroughly confuse"
There is nothing “thoroughly confusing” about allowing 9 men to reach base over 6.2IP. He had a pretty good outing.
Disagree
The Cubs are too good a lineup not to take advantage of those opportunities unless Adenhart was scattering the hits. He was.
Again, we’re not talking about an ace right now, but a bottom of the rotation pitcher. He more than fulfilled that job requirement, a happy surprise given the deer-in-the-headlights way he dealt with his first opportunity in the pros.
by George Kaplan on Apr 1, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Pedro was just a name to toss out
this is far less about him than it is about my utter confusion with people thinking Moseley is even remotely acceptable. If he puts up a 4.21 ERA, cool, I’ll be happy.
But I have exactly ZERO confidence that he’ll do so. And his track record in the minors for the last 4-5 years, and his track record at the major league level save ONE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE show very little reason to expect that 4.21. You be the optimist (that’s seriously absolutely fine), I’ll be the pessimist (rather, in this case, the realist).
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Fair enough, but I'll point out that there are two pitchers I've heard similar things said about in the past.
1. Joe Saunders
2. Ervin Santana
~Till the Halo burns out...
Saunders and Santana had 4 - 5 shaky years in the minors?
;)
Although, I disagree with the Moseley hate, comparing Moseley to Santana & Saunders is a big stretch. They were guys who showed HUGE upside. Mose has been a “meh” and now is spackle to a hole in the collective 5-man rotation drywall.
Blogging is FUN!
by Downing Rules on Mar 31, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Nah, Saunders and Santana both had several shaky major league seasons
and most of the “realists” were telling me I was nuts to believe they’d ever be anything more than back of the rotation guys.
I don’t expect Moseley to be either of those guys. I DO think he can do a fair Garland impression over 6-8 starts, and that’s all we need out of him.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Moseley never had at any point in his minor league career
anywhere near the projected upside that someone like Santana did…not by anyone of any reputation. There’s a difference between whisperings by antagonistic bloggers about Santana’s future, and what any decent scout or other professional talent evaluator has to say.
Basically your argument seems to be “people exist who thought Santana would suck, so if people also exist who think Moseley will suck, it’s not a big deal.” It doesn’t make sense.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Other professional talent evaluators
like this guy?
“I thought he was great,” Angels manager Mike Scioscia said. "He had one three-ball count in the first inning, and I think one other one. When he has command [and is] hitting his spots, he’s going to get outs. He had a low pitch count, changed speeds well. We’ve seen it before from him.
“His stuff plays very nicely in the big leagues. That command and ability to repeat pitches and pitch ahead in the count is something a lot of young pitchers [Moseley is 27] search for. Dustin’s made great strides. It’s going to be important not only to pitch in the big leagues, but to stay in the big leagues.”
No one’s asking Moseley to be Santana. No one’s saying he has Santana’s upside. What I AM saying is I’ve heard “I’m just being a realist” about our guys before. You want to call me an optimist? Fine. I am. You want to be the pessimist? That’s fine too. But don’t claim the title of REALIST until the professionals agree with you.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Scioscia always is saying guys he plans to give a roll to suck
Please. Scioscia is a terrible example.
WTF?
Play Wood already. Willits sucks.
Really?
When’s the last time he was wrong about a player’s talent level?
~Till the Halo burns out...
Gary Matthews Junior when he benched him in favor of Juan
last year. Though trashed would be putting it harshly.
But yeah, Mike doesn’t have a whole lot bad to say about guys who are on his team. But the trick is what he does and doesn’t say. He doesn’t say, “I’m confident we’ll outscore the rest of the league this season.” He says “This guy could hit .300 in his sleep,” about Kendrick, not Aybar.
Mike praises those parts of a players game which can be praised and leaves out what can’t. But if he says a guy is capable of pitching well at the big league level, then it is nearly certain that guy IS capable of pitching well at the big league level.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Yet I'm sure if you asked him right now
he’d give you some rubbish about Gary looking healthy and having a good spring, so maybe he’ll get some at-bats, blah blah blah…even though we all know he’s garbage.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Or...
he might actually be a decent 4th outfielder whose major problem is that he’s being PAID to be a star.
~Till the Halo burns out...
You're talking to the wrong person on that
since I’m a Matthews defender, but also acknowledge that I’m probably also delusional for it.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions
You're the one who said he was garbage.
Pick a side and stick with it. :-P
~Till the Halo burns out...
My 'we all know he's garbage' comment
wasn’t so much what I what I personally think, so much as perception vs. Mike’s statements.
However, my defense of Gary is more on a ‘cut him some slack’ level than on a ’he’s good enough to play every day’ level.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Be realistic dude. Scioscia is a crappy example
“well I think Dustin has mediocre stuff and does not have the ability to pitch deep into games like we need him to” – Mike Scioscia
You are never going to see that quote. I could find you ten where he says Aybar is going to be an amazing offensive player.
Come on man that is weak.
Play Wood already. Willits sucks.
"I could find you ten where he says Aybar is going to be an amazing offensive player."
Go right ahead. I’ll wait.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Just yesterday
Angels manager Mike Scioscia was praising Aybar just this morning in his daily briefing with reporters — though he wouldn’t bite when I asked if Aybar’s outstanding play this spring had allowed him to seize sole possession of the shortstop position heading into the season.
"I would say his performance matches his confidence," Scioscia said of Aybar. "He plays at a very high pace and he really had a terrific season for us last year. I think we’re seeing that confidence this spring.
"This guy is going to be a dynamic offensive player too and we’re excited by what we’re seeing this spring.
http://fromthedugout.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/30/two-to-get-for-wings-but-defense-shining/19569/
Play Wood already. Willits sucks.
The point is he does not trash his players
He is upbeat regarding his personell. Do I blame him? No. He should be.
I just do not think his opinion on a player that is going to be on the roster to start the season is going to be a fair evaluation. Nor should it it be construed as coming from a talent evaluator.
Play Wood already. Willits sucks.
MY point is that while he keeps his comments up-beat
those comments, about a player’s ability or lack there-of, are rarely wrong, nor does he make those comments if he doesn’t feel them true. Your Aybar quote is a perfect example. He doesn’t say anything that isn’t true, though it definitely has a positive spin. But he also doesn’t come out and say anything like “we feel Aybar could definitely step into the leadoff role at some point this season.”
He’s actually very deliberate in his comments, and that’s part of why I like his interviews. Bottom line is if Mike DIDN’T feel Moseley was up for it, the Angels would have done something about it.
~Till the Halo burns out...
While you wait
Find me one scouting report that hints he has comparable stuff to Santana or Saunders.
I guess I will die waiting
Play Wood already. Willits sucks.
You'd have to tell me why that's relevant,
since no one is saying Moseley will become either of those two guys.
~Till the Halo burns out...
No, I compared what people said about them regarding their
expected performance based on past MLB seasons vs the actual outcome. Moseley’s role is different from that expected of Saunders and Santana. His ability to FILL that role is not different, at least in my opinion.
~Till the Halo burns out...
So wait
because Mike Scioscia (nevermind the bias, and the fact that he’s not going to shit on his own player) said that Moseley did a good job not getting bad counts too many times in a spring game is not within a million freakin’ MILES of the hype Santana has received in terms of projected upside for YEARS AND YEARS from any number of talent scouts.
The two players are just not comparable. Again, the gist of your argument seems to be “People said Santana would suck, and he didn’t, therefore the people that say Moseley would suck also must be wrong.”
There is NOTHING in the last 5 years of Moseley’s track record to suggest he will be a good 5th starter for a club. Since 2004, at every level of baseball, he has put up numbers somewhere between bad and AWFUL with consistency.
I know you’re not saying he’ll be Santana for us, but it’s grasping at extremely thin straws to suggest that a couple kind words from a player’s manager are anywhere near the same thing as the prospect hype that players like Santana received.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
"NOTHING" besides his completely acceptable 2007
campaign, and the confidence that Scioscia apparently has for him after watching him pitch this spring.
“Hype” has little to do with it. You asked for what a professional was saying, RIGHT NOW, about Moseley’s ability to pitch. I gave you one. Your turn. Give me a professional or scout who says, right now, that Moseley has absolutely no ability to cover our starting needs for a month, and that therefore we need to pick up someone who can.
~Till the Halo burns out...
You gave me a quote from the man's manager
a man who, publicly, has little choice other than to not rip the shit out of this guy.
As of this moment, right now, Moseley is the man because our current alternatives suck. Knowing that, Mike has absolutely no reason in the entire world to say anything BUT that Moseley is a good option.
If you think a quote from a man with no other options at pitcher, and no reason to say bad thing to the PUBLIC (whom he is trying to sell good news about his team to), saying basically “Moseley did a good job not being shitty today” (because he wasn’t exactly glowing about it) counts as meaningful, fine. But considering all of that context AND considering it was in reference to spring training competition, I’ll just have to disagree…and laugh.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Except that it's my opinion that if Moseley were as horrid as you believe
Mike would have made a move by now. Just like when they pulled the trigger for Shea Hillenbrand after Rivera went down. It might not be a good option, but faced with a problem where he believes outside talent is required, we know Mike is not above making a move.
If Moseley were having all kinds of command issues and had been getting lit up all spring, do you really believe for one moment Mike would still be standing there saying “I think he did great?” Because I find that hard to swallow. Scioscia would probably says something more along these lines:
“We were hoping that Moseley would be ready for the next level, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. So we’re going to have to go over our options and figure something out.”
But he hasn’t had to say that, because Dustin has had a pretty good spring so far, and he’s shown command of his pitches as well as the ability to stay ahead in the count. You claim this is illusory, but Scioscia seems to believe otherwise.
And I’m still waiting for a “professional” who believes Moseley is incapable of starting in the big leagues for a month.
~Till the Halo burns out...
That's a bullshit argument
of course there’s no readily available expert quote on the topic, because no one really gives two shits enough to address his current situation…but you won’t find any scouting reports that glow about him either, Mike’s comments not withstanding.
The thing is, he didn’t get lit up this spring. While that’s better than if he HAD been lit up, it’s still all, invariably, meaningless. The number of people who do well in spring training and then suck in the majors, or do horribly during spring training, and then are fine (which is actually quite a few of the biggest stars every year), is way too high to read anything into this.
As is, he had a decent spring, and has created an absolutely false sense of security about how well he can do. Mike’s quotes are based entirely off of spring training games (and, again, aren’t ‘good’ reviews so much as they’re not negative…basically "he didn’t suck). So while he has good things to say about the spring, he, like anyone else, can have absolutely no certainty it will carry into the regular season.
In my case, that confidence is less than zero.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think there's any "security"
just the sense that he may very well have the ability to do what we want him to do. And sure you’re never going to KNOW until the regular season starts, but without the luxury of a crystal ball or a track record significantly longer than the one he’s got, spring training is what we have.
I’m not sure how you’re getting “he didn’t suck” out of “I thought he was great” and “his stuff plays very nicely in the big leagues.” The second one especially, combined with the last part, “Dustin’s made great strides. It’s going to be important not only to pitch in the big leagues, but to stay in the big leagues,” seems to me to indicate a certain confidence in his ability to be a big league pitcher.
Now me? I could care less if Moseley is for real in the sense that he sticks in the big leagues. What I am confident of is that he’s got as good a shot as anybody on that free agent list of pulling us through those 6-8 starts. To say that he is totally incapable of doing so, and further, that anyone who believes otherwise is being unrealistic, is simply incorrect and not supportable by the facts as we know them.
Finally, I don’t really care if you think it’s a bullshit argument. If you want to claim the mantle of “realism,” you’ll have to do better than, essentially, “he sucked last year, and I’m disregarding all evidence that he could be better this season until he proves otherwise.” Because THAT claim of “realism” is the same as the one made against both Santana and Saunders, whether you choose to recognize it or not.
~Till the Halo burns out...
This is far less about Pedro to me
and far more about Moseley being an absolute vile piece of shit option for our rotation.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions
That's unbelievably crass
Moseley being an absolute vile piece of shit option for our rotation.
by George Kaplan on Mar 31, 2009 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I've been mincing words on him for too long
sorry for the language if it offends, but I don’t think I was previously making it clear enough that this is merely a matter of him being ‘mediocre’ or ‘probably not good enough for the rotation,’ but rather a matter of me thinking he is…well, what I just said.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions
are you NEW around here?
that’s the way this fellow talks all the time.
Blogging is FUN!
by Downing Rules on Mar 31, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions
:(
I still <3 u, though.
Please don’t take anything I say personally, you’re an awesome dude.
Unless that avatar is any indication and you actually like the Rams…in which case you’re less awesome, and more pitiable.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 31, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions
You speak crassly...
and I have accepted that. I don’t get offended by your statements, after the first 5 or so, I’ve certainly numbed. Remember, we are friends now? ;)
Hey, thanks, BTW, for Sehorn…he was a pretty awesome DB for the Rams! UGH.
Blogging is FUN!
by Downing Rules on Apr 1, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Anytime
Hey if you want anymore of our leftovers, you’re more than welcome to take R.W. McQuarters, too.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Apr 1, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth...
While it might be fun for some to bash players for their on-field performance last season and ignore the changes and progress their play has shown this Spring, the fact remains that the two best, most consistent starting arms this Spring have belonged to Adenhart and Moseley. Moseley led on just about all leading stats until Adenhart’s start Tuesday.
Now since Adenhart didn’t do well in his short stint last year, I assume it is fashionable to call him “vile shit” and insist he go nowhere near the rotation either. After all, there is never any possibility that a player can develop, mature or overcome physical injury to improve.
Here are the top 4 in the Opening Day rotation, with Lackey thrown in for comparison’s sake, since he will most likely return first. After seeing the results from the most recent starts, in games where the starters aren’t so freely substituted in the lineups, both these young men have done very well.
I look forward to seeing a rotation of Lackey-Santana-Escobar-Saunders-Weaver, but until then, I am very comfortable knowing we have Moseley and Adenhart filling in, instead of some some mook like Daniel Cabrera or Sidney Ponson. When our starting 5 is in place, Adenhart will return to SLC and Moseley to the bullpen, but in the meantime we have the horses to get us through the first 6 to 8 weeks of the season.
by George Kaplan on Apr 1, 2009 4:02 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree about Mose...
he was hurt a good portion of last year (mainly at the start). Down the stretch, yeah, his numbers aren’t great, but he “kept them in the ballgame,” which, YES, is all you can ask of a number 5 starter.
Blogging is FUN!
by Downing Rules on Apr 1, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Halos Heaven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
