AL East Notes: Rays, Yankees, Danks, Red Sox

Here's a look at some items out of the only division to produce three 90-win teams in 2011…

59 Responses to AL East Notes: Rays, Yankees, Danks, Red Sox Leave a Reply

  1. jjs91 4 years ago

    Where would these warm bodies fit?

    • What I would like to know as well…



      Warm Bodies?  Why not promote from within…it’s cheaper.  If we sign someone like Kuroda I suppose that means that either Hughes or Garcia moves to the pen.  I really want to see what Hughes can do this year if he shows up in shape at Spring Training.

      • and they also have Phelps, Warren and Mitchell close to the majors and Banuelos could be ready very soon. The Yankees have a lot of pitching depth.

      •  I think when they say “warm bodies” they mean NRIs with the possibility of some upside, such as maybe Jon Garland, Brad Penny or Zach Duke.

    • melonis_rex 4 years ago

      Depth. You know, if Burnett and Garcia do poorly and the minor leaguers aren’t ready, which is a pretty real possibility. And garbage time in the pen, which always happens.

      • jjs91 4 years ago

         Seems odd that a team that was borderline top ten in every pitching category would go out of its way looking for warm bodies, when they have the depth already.

        • 0bsessions 4 years ago

          They were borderline top ten relying on a rookie, a surgically repaired Bartolo Colon and a complete aberration to Garcia’s last six seasons. The Yankees are more than welcome to come in and hope lightning strikes twice and they manage to get career years out of two pitchers on the wrong side of their mid-thirties two seasons in a row, but if they want to remain in the playoff mix, they probably shouldn’t press their luck.

          They have depth in the sense that they have a lot of warm bodies, but when you’re relying so heavily on guys who amount to warm bodies, you want to go with as many warm bodies as possible.

  2. Gio Gonzalez wasn’t signed.

  3. Jab 4 years ago

    To: Bob McClure

    Replacing good bullpen pieces with inferior ones may aid in the growth of the replacements, but it will not make the bullpen better – logically, it will be worse.

    • andrewyf 4 years ago

      Looks like the new Boston pitching coach is off to a great start!

      • Lars Chunks 4 years ago

        What’s he suppose to say?  “I think it will make the bullpen worse?”  

        • andrewyf 4 years ago

          Uh, nothing? If what you’re saying is completely untrue, why say it? I mean, it’s even worse if he actually believes what he’s saying. Hoo boy, Boston is in for another reeeeallly long season.

    • slider32 4 years ago

      Cherrington has alot of work to do with this team, moving Bard and Ace to starting postions is a big gamble. I would think that you increase pitchers gradually when moving them to starters. I think this move really hurts their pen. Pitching is what cost them last year, with the collapse and so far they are worse in that department.

      • Lars Chunks 4 years ago

        I don’t see how they’re all that much worse than last season.  They lost Papelbon, but they brought in Melancon and have Buchholz coming back healthy.  Plus they don’t have to deal with Lackey, Wakefield, and Matsuzaka.

      • melonis_rex 4 years ago

        STARTING pitching hurt the Red Sox last year. Their bullpen was fine. A shutdown bullpen can’t really make up for problems in the rotation.

        All Bard and Aceves have to do is to be half-decent 5th starters to make the move worth-it. And, if they can’t do that, they can always be put back in the bullpen to bolster it. 

        Still though: why aren’t the Red Sox in on Oswalt, since he can be pried on a 1 year deal?

        • YanksFanSince78 4 years ago

          But if all they need from them is for them to be half-decent then why not keep them in the pen and sign a 5th starter type? I just don’t see the risk (injury, weakening the pen) being worth the reasonable reward (a more likely #4 or #5 starter performance).

          Why are the Sox acting like a small market team when they can easily sign serviceable back end types like Colon, Saunders, Kazmir or etc? Sign one of them to firm things up and keep the bullpen strong. It’s already up in the air if Melncon can replace Paps. Why disrupt the roles of Bard and Aceves?

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            Because of the point I made a few minutes ago: warm bodies are warm bodies.

            The floor for Bard and Aceves will likely be “back of the rotation” guys. The ceiling for a lot of those other guys is said “back of the rotation” guys.

          • YanksFanSince78 4 years ago

            That’s absurd. Please share with me the reasons why anyone should expect Bard to be a  #2 or #3? 

            People throw around terms like a #5 but that’s truly relative. A back end guy can be a solid pitcher with a 4.50 FIP who gives you 6 IP each time out or it can be a 5.00 FIP or worse guy who has you in the hole by the 4 inning.

            Now neither of Bard or Aceves figures to be that bad, BUT WE DON’T KNOW. What you DO know is that they are assets in the bullpen.

            If this were the Rays or Pirates we were talking about then  would say that maybe making the move would be the best way to allocate resources. However, we’re talking about a team with $$$$$ and a strong front of rotation with Lester, Beckett and Buchholz. To move two assets in a pen that just lost Paps and is bringing in a capable but yet untested Melancon to fill back of rotation needs is a poor decision for a team like the Red Sox. There are simpler and less risky ways to fill the #4 or #5 spot.

            I certainly understand concerns regarding the lux tax but it’s still worth a small hit to bring in guys for a couple of million rather than using Bard, and to a lesser extent, Aceves in the roll of back end rotation guys.

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            Absurd? Really?

            Daniel Bard generated 1.8 WAR in 2011. He was one of the league’s best relievers (He was ninth in WAR for all MLB relievers)
            Wade Davis generated 0.8 WAR in 2011. He was one of the league’s worst starters (Ninth worst for all MLB starters with over 150IP).

            Despite being one of the ten worst starters in the MLB, Wade Davis managed to generate half of Bard’s, one of the game’s ten best relievers, value by sheer virtue of being a starter.

            Starting pitchers who generated more WAR than Bard: Livan Hernandez, Paul Maholm, Jeremy Guthrie.

            One can assume that the odds are good that Bard will be a better starter than any of those three. Noting that this would be the third year in a row they’ve hit the luxury tax, bringing in a starter is going to cost 140% of their salary.

            It weakens the bullpen, but Bard’s potential value in the rotation far exceeds his potential value in the bullpen. If he doesn’t hack it, you put him back in the bullpen, if he excels, you’ve got a great front four to ride on. Replacing a reliever is a lot easier than filling a starter role.

          • YanksFanSince78 4 years ago

            Missing my point. Mariano is the best closer in the last decade. However, he was a horrible starting pitcher. What would you rather have, a great relief pitcher or a bad starter? What’s the main reason why a poor starter can make a better reliever? To act like Bard’s success as a starter is a no brainer makes no sense and it’s based off of “want” rather than anything factual.

            using WAR to compare a reliever to a starter is pointless and I’m shocked that someone of your intelligence would bother. Would YOU trade Bard for Livian Hernandez? Why not? Livian has more WAR. 

            Bottom line, unless that bullpen arm is going to be substantially better than a #4 or #5 on the market then you are better off bringing someone in.

            But you know what? I’m a Yankee fan so please….have at it. (no nastiness intended). :)

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            And you’re missing the huge grey area here. Not all pitchers are Mariano Rivera and it’s not going to be a necessary either/or proposition of bad starter or good reliever with no middle ground. Simply put, there is no history one way or the other as to whether Bard will or will not be a successful starter at the major league level. Right now, we need a starter more than we need a reliever, so the sensible thing is to give him the chance to start. If he can provide us with 3 WAR as a starter, he’s a much better fit for the rotation. If he bombs, you put him back in the bullpen.

            Considering the significant wear and tear being a reliever puts on your arm, moving him back to a reliever after a few starts will be a lot easier than stretching him out after a month or two of relief duty would be.

            It may not work out, but considering their current rotation questions, trying him out isn’t a bad idea.

          • YanksFanSince78 4 years ago

            It’s cool. We can disagree. I would love to see how it works out.

            “If he can provide us with 3 WAR as a starter, he’s a much better fit for the rotation. If he bombs, you put him back in the bullpen”.

            John Danks had a 3.1 FIP. So basically he has to perform up to that level for this to work. Meanwhile, how many starts do you give this experiment? How much money do you spend to improve the bullpen or are you confident in Melancon and Jenks to replace Bard and Paps?

    • start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

      That’s simplistic logic that doesn’t take into account all variables. If Bard and Aceves can provide 200 innings then it’ll take more pressure off the bullpen than a pitcher who can’t thus the inferior pieces in the pen appear less often.

      • YanksFanSince78 4 years ago

        As a Yankee fan I love this thinking. As a baseball fan…wtf? 

        Why anyone would expect Bard or Aceves would be good for 200 IP in 2012 boggles my mind. What about their recent history suggests that? You have a relief pitcher who has never thrown more than 75 IP in a season and another in Aceves who might be more suited to the starter role but hasn’t thrown more than 150 IP since his 1st year in the majors which was 4 years ago. Add in the fact that he’s had back problems and you might be making things worse.

        • 0bsessions 4 years ago

          I’m reasonably sure he’s implying that if they combine for 200 IP, which is likely.

          Most indications are that the Sox are probably going to aim for another starter, which would make Bardceves the fifth starter (Probably start the season with Bard in the rotation and throw Aceves’ rubber arm out there periodically to give Bard more rest).

          If Bard can give you close to 150 IP of above average starting, he’s more valuable than 60 innings in the back of the rotation.

    • MaineSox 4 years ago

      What Zack said.  He was really stating a belief that being stretch out as starters for the spring can actually make them better pitchers if and when they return to the ‘pen.  And since it is most likely that only one will end up in the rotation (if either really do), it will make the other a better relief pitcher.

  4. slider32 4 years ago

    Cashman is looking for an upgrade at the #2 spot, if he finds one short term he will make the move. If not he goes with what they have. CC is the only lock, Nova, and Hughes have had limited success but both have had one good year. Burnett has great stuff but is basically a .500 pitcher, Freddie is a steady #5. I think the Yanks think Banuelos and Betances are still a year away. This rotation needs 6 starters because all of the pitchers behind CC can either be good or could have a bad year. Noesi is a good young obtion but I think Cashman would like to have someone with experience behind CC.

  5. Kiran Raul 4 years ago

    Aj Brunett fastball has dropped significantly, only 92.7 average which is still good.
    He uses his curve and change much more than before. I think he is more a 3/4 pitcher now, i hope he proves me wrong.

    Yanks need a number 2 starter, after CC there’s a bunch of guys that could be good, but still not sure.

  6. Johnny S. 4 years ago

    What about taking a shot on a guy like Paul Maholm , he pitched steady on the Pirates, with some steady offence support he could be a easy 2 slot guy, and if AJ bounces back, all the better

    • “he could be a easy 2 slot guy” 

      seriously? He a back of the rotation starter for every team but the Pirates.

      • The real truth about Maholm.  He is not a #2 type pitcher but could easily be a #3 pitcher for most teams.  I have folowed his career since he is on my fantasy team.  The problem with the pirates he was thrown out as a innings eater type pitcher which caused a tired arm.  the guy is a 6 inning pitcher and would do well with a strong bullpen type of team.  The pirates abused him throwing him out there to pitch injured and tired.  On a solid team he could bring you 15 wins with a ERA hovering around 4.  Nothing to get excited about but a quality starter.

  7. joeybw 4 years ago

    Rizzo (1B), Pena (DH….even though he can still field, he has the best pop on the market not named Fielder) and Bailey for closer. Thank you and have a good day.

    • Snoochies8 4 years ago

      what about a trade of bailey and suzuki to the rays? what would you guys reasonably be willing to give up?

  8. Bartolo Colon was a “warm body”? It took science to resurrect him…

  9. joeybw 4 years ago

    If the 3 moves I wanted happen, does it make us a playoff pick for once instead of a “shock”?

    SP: Price, Shields, Hellickson, Moore, Neimann/Davis/Cobb
    RP: Bailey(CL), Farnsworth, Peralta, McGee, Gomes, Howell, Badenhop

    1. Jennings LF
    2. Upton CF (playing for a contract)
    3. Longoria 3B
    4. Pena DH
    5. Zobrist 2B
    6. Joyce RF
    7. Rizzo 1B
    8. Rodriguez SS
    9. Molina C

    Our weak spot might be the bench

    Lobaton/Chirnos, Brignac, Fuld and hopefully Guyer, not another season of Elliot Johnson please.

    • kdawg89 4 years ago

      I like it..only addition/subtraction would be signing Pudge Rodriguez and giving Chirinos another year at AAA to learn the position. Plus it would give us a little more depth at catcher as well as DH. He apparently wants to come to the Rays because he’ll see more AB’s as opposed to the Mets who are also interested, and he believes the Rays will contend for post season. I think he needs like 154 hits for 3,000…..

    • Lineup
      1. Jennings LF
      2. Joyce RF
      3. Upton CF (playing for a contract)
      4. Longoria 3B
      5. Zobrist 2B
      6. Pena DH
      7. Rizzo 1B
      8. Rodriguez SS
      9. Molina C  that makes since

    • 0bsessions 4 years ago

      At this point, the Rays’ coaching staff gets the benefit of the doubt and they go into the season as a playoff contender with or without a move. That said, the roster will be a mish mash concoction of various spare parts again and that’s something you can’t absolutely count on competing.

      Personally, I’d peg their status as the same as last year: fringe playoff candidate that will be heavily reliant on what the Sox and Yankees do. If one of them falters, they’ve got a good chance, if not, I don’t see them getting in on the merits of their roster alone.

  10. Guest 4 years ago

    is it me or did chicago go wayyyy overboard on danks?

    • joeybw 4 years ago

      Yes, I think he was overpaid and it further hurt any chance the Rays had of giving Price a long term deal. Everyone, including Mr. Price knows he’s more talented than Danks. Oh well, if we keep him year to year, we still got him for 4 more years!

      • Guest 4 years ago

        oh no doubt price is gonna get his…..think he will probably end up with more than wilson im sure

    • melonis_rex 4 years ago

      He’s good enough for that deal. He’d get more in free agency, easily. 

      • Guest 4 years ago

        ok…but i have a little trouble believing that danks is worth more than jackson…….im probably gonna get murdered for that comment but tell me how im wrong

  11. 5_tool_MiLB_fool 4 years ago

    I say the rays and angels swap mark trumbo for wade davis

    • joeybw 4 years ago

      I’d do it. Leaves us with 7 MLB ready SP’s(with Archer almost ready also) and a power 1B to hit behind Longo.

    • LAAUSC 4 years ago

      No thanks…….

      • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

        you’re right, angels would have to throw another prospect in

        • LAAUSC 4 years ago

          Angels are going to give Trumbo and his big stick every opportunity to play 3B, DH, play the corner outfield postions and give time off to Puljos at first base….. they have plenty of options for a 5th starter without giving away their young big bat…..

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            Because a guy who OPS’ed under .800 more often than not in the minors is a guy that you make sure is on the field regardless of potential defensive loss.

            Trumbo’s got a ton of power, granted, but selling high (And no, I’m not saying Davis is selling high) on him may be a better option. You know who else had a ton of power but also couldn’t draw a walk to save his life? Wily Mo Pena.

    • Guest 4 years ago

      that trade would be epic for both sides

  12. Jab 4 years ago

    If the plan is for them to pitch as starters in ST but start the season in the pen then this is not a “transition to the rotation.” It is simply alternative training for the bullpen.

  13. CaseyBlakeDeWitt 4 years ago

    You should give Mr. Boras a call and tell him some things, or rather, show him a certain picture.

  14. joeybw 4 years ago

    See, I’m interested in Fielder signing also. Scott Boras wont move on anyone else until he gets Fielder signed and I like some Boras guys like Pena and Damon as well as maybe talk extensions (although Boras doesn’t like extensions) with 1 of his clients (he represents Hellickson and Jennings)

  15. joeybw 4 years ago

    Damon, Pena both work, maybe even Joyce at DH and Guyer in RF are all fine. I want that young 1B like Trumbo or Rizzo and Andrew Bailey because he’s 1) Awesome 2) Otherwise, he might go to Boston.

Leave a Reply