A Gem!
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Prev: Catching position
Next: wow !
From: tom dunne on 13 May 2010 13:47 On May 13, 1:05 pm, HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Well, i think if we have shot at the postseason come september, and > its possible this year, then all of that long-term thinking has to be > scrapped. But otherwise, yes, dont rack up the innings on those guys > if the club aint gonna win anyway. You'd risk Leake's and Chapman's arms for one shot at a division title? I don't think I'd want to set the team up for another decade of suck just to face Roy Halladay twice in a five game series. A winning season would be great, but I'd be happier with a winning franchise.
From: David Short on 13 May 2010 14:42 On 5/13/2010 12:02 PM, JustTom wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 10:36:17 -0400, David Short > <David.No.Short.(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: > >> On 5/13/2010 9:50 AM, JustTom wrote: >>> I guess one of the things to keep an eye on is how many innings Leake >>> has under his belt by then. I'm pretty sure I've read that he's >>> going to be limited to around 150-165 this year (Chapman as well). >>> It's going to be a tough sell shutting him down if we're still hanging >>> around in August/September. >> >> I've written that should be a goal for the reds, but I don't think I've >> EVER seen anybody with the club say something like that. If I'm wrong >> and somebody has a quote from a club official acknowledging that >> limiting Leake and Chapmans innings pitches would be a good thing for >> the franchise long term....please share the quote with me. >> >> It would represent a real sea-change in the way they operate. >> > > Leake > http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/05/02/leake-problem/ > > Chapman > http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/03/17/3-chapman-questions-for-jocketty/ > > They both tap dance around a specific number now, but I swear when > spring training broke I saw an article somewhere with the specific > 150-165 number for Leake and they said they'd be similar with > Chapman, but I can't find the article now. > Thanks to both RJA and JustTom. I'm honestly surprised. dfs
From: David Short on 13 May 2010 14:43 On 5/13/2010 1:47 PM, tom dunne wrote: > On May 13, 1:05 pm, HTP<tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Well, i think if we have shot at the postseason come september, and >> its possible this year, then all of that long-term thinking has to be >> scrapped. But otherwise, yes, dont rack up the innings on those guys >> if the club aint gonna win anyway. > > You'd risk Leake's and Chapman's arms for one shot at a division > title? I don't think I'd want to set the team up for another decade > of suck just to face Roy Halladay twice in a five game series. A > winning season would be great, but I'd be happier with a winning > franchise. .....I don't know Tom. I would think about it. I understand your thinking. I'm sure the reds would go for it. dfs
From: RJA on 13 May 2010 15:43 On May 13, 2:42 pm, David Short <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: > On 5/13/2010 12:02 PM, JustTom wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 10:36:17 -0400, David Short > > <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: > > >> On 5/13/2010 9:50 AM, JustTom wrote: > >>> I guess one of the things to keep an eye on is how many innings Leake > >>> has under his belt by then. I'm pretty sure I've read that he's > >>> going to be limited to around 150-165 this year (Chapman as well). > >>> It's going to be a tough sell shutting him down if we're still hanging > >>> around in August/September. > > >> I've written that should be a goal for the reds, but I don't think I've > >> EVER seen anybody with the club say something like that. If I'm wrong > >> and somebody has a quote from a club official acknowledging that > >> limiting Leake and Chapmans innings pitches would be a good thing for > >> the franchise long term....please share the quote with me. > > >> It would represent a real sea-change in the way they operate. > > > Leake > >http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/05/02/leake-problem/ > > > Chapman > >http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/03/17/3-chapman-questions-for-j... > > > They both tap dance around a specific number now, but I swear when > > spring training broke I saw an article somewhere with the specific > > 150-165 number for Leake and they said they'd be similar with > > Chapman, but I can't find the article now. > > Thanks to both RJA and JustTom. > I'm honestly surprised. > > dfs- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The thing is, how do you pull this off? You can't let him pitch to a certain number of innings and then bring in another guy who has been pitching all year as well, like Chapman or Wood. Their counts need to be watched as well. It seems that at some point, they're going to need to skip some of his starts to stretch him to the end of the year.
From: JustTom on 13 May 2010 16:10
On Thu, 13 May 2010 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT), RJA <agentvaughn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >The thing is, how do you pull this off? You can't let him pitch to a >certain number of innings and then bring in another guy who has been >pitching all year as well, like Chapman or Wood. Their counts need to >be watched as well. It seems that at some point, they're going to >need to skip some of his starts to stretch him to the end of the year. Earlier in the year, I broached the subject of perhaps going to a 6 man rotation with Chapman and Leake swapping starts and longer relief roles in between to kind of limit their innings. Janish could always pitch garbage time if needed. No one replied probably because it's a bit of a stretch, but it's a pretty unique set of circumstances that puts us in this position. It's not often that you sign a defector and a draft pick who are both ready to contribute almost immediately, but only for a limited time, so a little creativity might be called for. Or, I guess you could always consider dangling somebody like Alonso or others for another starter after the break if we're still in it. |