Peralta and the bullpen situation

by daveyork on Feb 26, 2008 10:02 AM EST Comment 56 comments

How great is it to read stories about what is happening on the field than off? Bob Dutton's article on Joel Peralta was good.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/royals/story/505439.html

I am thinking about these things. What are your thoughts on:

I was surprised to see Peralta had more innings as a KC reliever than anyone in last 15 years with 87 2/3 last year. Only Guerrier from Twins had more.
What is the danger of Peralta having arm trouble this season with that kind of a workload?
Peralta is the kind of underrated bullpen type that every winning team has and needs. Takes the ball, doesn't complain about his role, and provides leadership for others. Is Peralta a lock for the 2008 pen even though he has an option left?
The bullpen depth in KC has me optimistic - I believe the locks are Soria, Mahay, Yabuta, Gobble, Bale and Peralta. If KC goes with 11 man staff, that leaves everyone else out including Leo Nunez (out of options) who could be a stud in a 1-2 inning role. How will KC use its depth in the pen?

0 recs | Comment 56 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Peralta

I love Peralta. I think he absolutely has to be a lock. He is tough against righties, and has proven himself to be a solid reliever two seasons in a row now. I don't get why it is suggested by Dutton a demotion is very possible for him.

He also seems to be a big goofball, from the clips I've see on Royals Insider.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 26, 2008 10:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Goofball

Everytime I see Peralta I always picture him in that clip where he was mic'd up and messing with Jimmy Gobble making turkey sounds at him while he was warming up before a game.

BELIEVE!! 162 WINS IN '08!!

by Shooter on Feb 26, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I also seem to recall

Someone posting his myspace page here and it was littered with pics of scantily dressed women.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 26, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All indications thus far

Is that the Royals will go with a 12 man staff, which leaves 7 men in the bullpen. I think it will look like this:

Soria
Mahay
Yabuta
Peralta
Gobble
Nunez (out of options)
Bale

"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Feb 26, 2008 10:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agree

that is pretty much the setup for the bullpen, unless Gobble gets traded, which could be a possibility. I think this will be just as good if not better than last years unit. Peralta's workload is very high, but I think they wouldn't use him that much if they felt that he couldn't handle it. I really want to see Nunez in a setup role, he could be nasty for 1-2 innings.

by lordbyronk on Feb 26, 2008 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree on Nunez

Future closer material?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 26, 2008 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nunez has the fastball and the moxie

But he doesn't throw Zumaya-like gas, and he would need to develop a nasty secondary out pitch to be a long-term closer candidate.

Right now his secondary pitches are average at best.

Intriguing thought though. If McClure can work with him on developing an out-pitch slider or new pitch such as a cutter or splitter I think Nunez could definitely be an effective closer.

"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Feb 26, 2008 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget....

He can hit too!

Waiting for the Royals to appear on ESPN everynight!

by MooseTacos25 on Feb 26, 2008 10:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I thought Trey or Dayton said

they were planning to have Hochevar begin the year in the bullpen.

Maybe Nunez or Bale becomes the fifth starter, then?

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Feb 26, 2008 11:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I thought it was

Hochevar could begin the year in the pen if he makes the team at all.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 26, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All this depth...

...sure makes the signing of Mahay seem completely unnecessary.

Lee

by Lee on Feb 26, 2008 11:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pitching depth is never unnecessary

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 26, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

but not if signing a veteran forces the team to potentially lose a younger, more promising player.
Especially if said team already has several players who could feel the need signed veteran fills.

Lee

by Lee on Feb 26, 2008 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True

If they end up trading Nunez for someone who isn't as good as he is and doesn't have his kind of ceiling, then I'll agree that the Mahay signing was a mistake. I just don't think that will happen. If they end up trading De La Rosa, then I have no problem with that. Mahay is much better than De La Rosa.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 26, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So is Ryan Braun expendable?

Maybe the White Sox can be tricked into trading someone useful for him. Kenny Williams LOVES our bullpen castoffs.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Feb 26, 2008 1:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Is he out of options?

If he has options I'd stash him in Omaha until the inevitable pitcher injury. It would be much better to call him up in a pinch than Todd Smellemeyer.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 26, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Braun still has options

by Gopherballs on Feb 26, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Braun and Musser

Good pitchers to have in Omaha when someone goes on the DL. In years past, they would be two of the better pitchers in a Royals bullpen. Depth is a beautiful thing.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 26, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow that is disturbing.

Musser has looked decent, but Braun has been absolutely terrible at the ML level. Yet, I still hold out this hope that he'll somehow find a groove and start powering guys out. He's averaged a K an inning and has a 3:1 K:BB ratio at Omaha last year. I think the guy could become another Peralta. Hopefully, he'll get a lot of work in with McClure.

And I'm going out and saying it right now: If John Bale makes the team and Nunez doesn't pass through waivers, DM has made a pretty crappy error in judgement. Nunez, as a non-starter last year, logged 14 1/3 innings and had a 16:2 K:BB ratio. He didn't walk anyone in 10 1/3 innings in September. That is what a potentially dominant reliever looks like. If Bale is retained because he is on a one year money deal and Nunez is stuck on waivers, I'm gonna be pissed.

My hopes for the pen:

CL: Soria
SU: Mahay/Yabuta
MR: Peralta, Nunez, Yobble
LR: Bale/Ducky

First up: Musser
Next up: Braun, even though he has been terrible, I hold out this strange hope that he'll just turn it around.
After that: Ducky the magnificent

by ajblobaum on Feb 26, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Disturbing?

I agreed with most of that post...but not the title. It seemed like a non sequitur.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 26, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What I found disturbing

was that in the Baird era, Musser and Braun likely would have been in the bullpen along with the Doug Henrys and Todd Wellemeyers of the world. It is nice to have a couple of guys at AAA who has posted a sub-4.5 bullpen ERA at the MLB level, as well as a guy who has been lights out in the minors while struggling in the majors. We seem to have had a lot of the latter, but not much of the former in the past.

by ajblobaum on Feb 26, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha

I'm definitely with you on that.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 26, 2008 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm definitely with you on Nunez

Unless he can net us something overwhelming or very, very good, we need to hang onto him. His violent delivery reminds me of pitchers like Denny Bautista and Ambiorix Burgos, who struggled mightily with control despite good stuff/fastball. However, Nunez demonstrated excellent control (and command) in 2007, and should be considered a closer candidate once/if Soria departs for the rotation.

I was a bit disappointed to see Nunez get "traded" for Bradley last summer. I think he's easily the most underrated Royal in the bullpen, by the fans and front office alike.

Become a member of Royals Nation!

by Royals Nation on Feb 26, 2008 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nunez's delivery

There might be reason for concern about injury risk because of that delivery and his small frame. You mentioned that he reminds you of Burgos...and Burgos is going to miss this season after Tommy John surgery.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 26, 2008 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

food for thought

Johan Santana's #2 on the similarity table is Leo Nunez.

http://baseball.bornbybits.com/plots/Johan_Santana.html

Don't know if that means anything, and I have no idea what methodology they use to arrive at their numbers, but it's certainly more positive than negative.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Feb 27, 2008 8:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And his top 3 comps at BP are

Steve Ridzik
Joe Presko
Kazuhito Tadano

If you've never heard of those guys, there's a reason for that.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 27, 2008 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You probably have heard of Tadano

just not from his pitching.

by Gopherballs on Feb 27, 2008 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

who hasn't heard of steve ridzik?

I remember my grandfather telling me stories about how Ridzik single handedly led the Phillies to a historic 77-77 record in 1955.

Those were the 11 finest innings Philadelphia may have ever seen, with Ridzik nearly posting the team low ERA at 2.45 (just being edged out by the team's closer.)

And Joe Presko?

Why, I created my ATM pincode based on his BB/K
ratio in 1954. (41/36, btw.)

Speaking of the finest 11 innings ever pitched, Presko's 11 in 1957 were the finest the Tigers may have ever seen, posting a team low ERA at 1.64 and leading Detroit to a historic 78-76 record.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Feb 28, 2008 3:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This will work itself out

after all, we haven't had our normal plethora of pitching injuries hit us yet.

And, if everybody does manage to stay healthy, there's always the "mild strain" or "tired arm" that seems to crop up whenever you need it

: )

by loyal2s dad on Feb 26, 2008 3:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Totally agree

Let's not forget the "strained groin" and "tightness in the forearm." They are two of my favorites. It is early in ST and someone will go down once games start.

Braun, Duckworth and Musser could make several rosters out of ST but it won't be in KC. They'll provide bullpen depth. A couple of other guys who could fill a role in the bullpen are Kyle Davies and Carlos Rosa. In 2008, Davies seemed to have those starts that for first 3 innings - no problems. Then, the wheels came off. Rosa has been impressing KC brass in ST and could be a surprise in the middle of the year.

Just don't see KC using Hochevar in the middle relief role with the amount of passable pitchers in the organization. Even Dusty Hughes or Matt Wright could fill a 12 man on the staff role.

I look for a trade near the end of ST with out of options guys like Huber or Costa and one of our pitchers for minor league depth. Don't think that Gobble and a Huber/Shealy/Costa type will fetch a big league regular. KC has plenty of bench types with German, Gathright, Callaspo, Maier, TPJ and Gload. KC could use more position player depth in minors - it is a shortage that goes through entire system.

by daveyork on Feb 26, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I really think Hochevar will go to Omaha

I think it will be a combination of the numbers game (I think they really want to give De La Rosa another shot) and the fact that he still has some things to work on. So he goes down to Omaha until some SP goes on the DL or one of the 4/5 starters proves he stinks in the first month or two.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 26, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

On the other hand,

John Buck was raving about Hochevar's stuff today in an article I read somewhere.

Just another spring training fluff piece, or, dare we hope, a harbinger of a meteoric rookie campaign for Luke? (We can hope, can't we?)

by loyal2s dad on Feb 26, 2008 5:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It could happen

If Hochevar is really putting things together with reliable stuff and command, then he could change the script. Put him on the roster and trade De La Rosa for some kind of pitching prospect.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 26, 2008 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mid season callup is my prediction

I believer that Hochevar will be a midseason callup probably in May or June. Know lots of people are down on Hochevar but it was his first full in 2007 and wasn't able to use his full arsenal of pitches. Hochevar is a hard worker and learns quickly. He'll be solid in the rotation by the end of the season. Meche, Greinke, Bannister and Hochevar is stong.

by daveyork on Feb 26, 2008 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hard not to be excited about the future rotation

Meche
Greinke
Bannister
Hochevar
Soria

With Cortes, Pimental, Rosa and others providing potentially meaningful depth.

This really shows that the Royals shouldn't be in the market for a free agent starting pitcher next offseason.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 26, 2008 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I probably don't disagree with you.

I agree 100%. It could also allow us to take a bat at a position higher in the draft.

by KC Chris on Feb 26, 2008 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DLR

What are the odds we can get anything for DLR? His MLB ERA is terrible, and he's out of options.

I would bet we try to slip him through waivers. I can't see there being that much interest in him. If we lose him, oh well.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 27, 2008 11:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Waivers

There will probably be multiple playes that the Royals put on waivers to see who clears. But the waiver process isn't that a player gets put on waivers and then if he's claimed, he's gone. If you put a player on waivers and some team puts a claim in on the player, you can take him off waivers and not give the player up. Often, this is done to see which team(s) are interested in the player and then you work out a trade for the player with one of those teams.

De La Rosa has some value because he's a lefty with good stuff who certainly isn't over the hill. I could see a lot of teams being interested him as a lefty reliever who still has some SP possibility. But, right now he's a marginal major leaguer without options, so we'd get a marginal player back in return. Frankly, I like his odds of making the roster as the fifth starter. If he doesn't work out in that role, then he can move to the bullpen, with one of the relievers taking his place in the rotation (perhaps Bale, Nunez or Hochevar if he starts the season in the pen). And then De La Rosa fails in the bullpen, he can be DFA'd (waived, traded, released or outrighted to the minors if he can clear waivers).

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 27, 2008 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There are two kinds of waivers

Revocable, which most players are put on in August to facilitate trades, and irrevocable, which I believe is what you have to put players on to demote them to the minors if they are out of options. So if we place him on waivers, and someone claims him, I'm quite certain we'd lose him.

DLR isn't over the hill, but he has a pretty good record of failure in MLB and he's not young enough that he's likely to improve. He's 27, the age where most pitchers have either figured it out or not.

My guess is he probably makes the team as a fifth starter, flames out and then is demoted to Omaha, clearing waivers. But if he fails to make this team, I have no problem with that. To paraphrase Bob McClure, we're not here to teach guys how to throw strikes. We've moved past the era of waiting for guys to figure things out. He's had his chance and its time to move on, we have too many other good pitching prospects to get a look at.

I think I see DLR the way you see Huber ;)

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 27, 2008 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DFA

If the Royals are looking to get rid of some players that are out of options late in spring training, I'm sure they will DFA them. Then the Royals would have 10 days to trade, waive or release them. Waiver, in that context, is revocable. If someone puts in a claim on one of those waived players, the Royals would work out a trade with the claiming team.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 27, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well regardless

It comes down to my original point, the Royals essentially have three options:

(1) Put DLR on the roster, even though he hasn't shown much of an ability to throw strikes and get guys out in a significant amount of MLB innings

(2) Trade DLR, for which I can't see much interest in anyone giving up much of anything of value for such a player

(3) Expose DLR to waivers. If someone claims him, we can either let them have him or retract him, upon which we'd have to keep him on our roster (see point 1) or if there is no interest, we can ship him to Omaha to work things out.

I guess I see #1 as being the most likely scenario, but I'll be surprised if he's still on the roster by Memorial Day

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 27, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Waivers

If the team does not trade DLR before the 25-man roster deadline, the team would have to DFA him to get him off the 25-man and 40-man rosters. Then as noted above, the team has 10 days to trade him, pass him through waivers, or release him (which is unlikely, because if he makes it through waivers, DLR could not reject an assignment to the minors, as it would be his first). The Royals, however, cannot directly add him back to the 25-man roster. If the Royals cannot trade him before the end of the 10 days, either the team claiming him with the highest waiver priority gets him, or if no team claims him, the Royals can outright him to the minors.

by Gopherballs on Feb 28, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It also comes down to

the fact that the Royals handed Brett Tomko a 3 million dollar guaranteed deal to be the #4 starter, effectively shutting one of DLR, Hudson (a long shot even before the DL notification), Davies, and maybe Bale out of a rotation spot. The addition of Maroth made the likelihood even more slim that DLR isn't stuck on waivers.

In my mind, this is yet another indictment of Moore's roster management. We have a guy who will make 1/3 of what Tomko makes, is left handed, and has had a 9 start stretch that was better than anything Tomko put up last year.

Giving Maroth an NRI at least makes some sense, in hoping he can get some of his mediocrity back. Giving Tomko 3 million for 5 starts of average pitching and then getting lit up in the next 4 seems to be a waste of scant resources and a roster spot.

by ajblobaum on Feb 27, 2008 3:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Can't disagree more

Thank god Moore made it less likely that two of those guys would make the rotation. I'd much rather have Tomko in the rotation than two of those guys. Tomko's recent history (you have to look beyond just 2007) and his peripherals point to a pitcher with a better chance to have an ERA around 5 than any of the other pitchers you mentioned. For what it's worth, I think every major projection system backs me up on that.

If you're saying that the downside of the Tomko signing is that maybe De La Rosa won't make the team if he's not pitching well in spring training, then I don't see that as much of a loss. But if DLR is pitching well in spring training, then I think he'll definitely make the team. I don't want Hudson, Davies or Bale anywhere near the rotation. I don't know why anyone would.

And, if Tomko flames out in the rotation, it's not the end of the world. He can go the bullpen and be easily replaced in the rotation.

We have a guy who will make 1/3 of what Tomko makes, is left handed, and has had a 9 start stretch that was better than anything Tomko put up last year.

You have to look beyond simply a 9-start stretch for DLR and you have to look beyond simply 2007 for Tomko or any player. I think Tomko is better than De La Rosa, but if DLR is actually pitching well, there is definitely room on the roster for him.

The addition of Maroth made the likelihood even more slim that DLR isn't stuck on waivers.

Are you saying that Maroth's minor league contract makes it more likely or less likely that we'll end up dumping De La Rosa? In reality, his NRI, and Nomo's and Tsao's has absolutely no effect on De La Rosa's position on the club. None whatsoever.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 27, 2008 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree whole-heartedly on Tomko, DLR, etc.

But I am curious why are you so down on Bale as a 5th starter considering the other alternatives?

Moving to the rotation of course will bring his numbers down somewhat, and he is not a long-term solution, but he could project as a decent short-term starter who could post a 4.75-5.00 FIP until Hochevar is ready or someone else better comes along. Bale throws left-handed, mixes in four pitches for strikes (including a change to keep right-handed hitters off balance), showed no platoon split, gets ground balls with his sinker (43.4% GB%), showed strong peripherals (9.5 K/9, 3.8 BB/9, K/BB 2.47, 2.78 FIP), and is generally liked by the various projection systems.

by Gopherballs on Feb 28, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I think Bale is a much better option for the rotation than Tomko.

Tomko, with his good stuff, might be a more effective reliever.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bale

But I am curious why are you so down on Bale as a 5th starter considering the other alternatives?

I'm not entirely down on him, but he is mostly an unknown quantity. It is hard for me to rely on a sample size of 40 IP. That is a very small statistical set which makes it hard for me or any projection system to draw good conclusions. His MLB career doesn't offer a much larger statistical sample and much of it is from several years ago. Of course we have his Japanese numbers, but it's hard to say how they translate to MLB.

What I saw was a good fastball and some iffy secondary pitches. That looks like the profile of a good reliever, not a starter. I think his K/9 would drop significantly as a starting pitcher. Bale, might do well as a starter, or at least well enough. I'm just not optimistic about him.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 28, 2008 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, that's a fair assessment

For what it is worth, BP transaled his last two NPL seasons as:

2005 53.1 IP (0 GS), 4.26 ERA, 9.2 K/9, 3.0 BB/9
2006 43 IP (5 GS), 4.20 ERA, 7.5 K/9, 3.1 BB/9

Of course, with Hochevar having gone all spring without allowing even one baserunner, I think we should forget about Bale and pencil Hochevar in for the April 2 start at Comerica.

by Gopherballs on Feb 28, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True!

We should start thinking about locking Hochevar up to a long-term deal!

But seriously, the fact that Bale is an unknown, doesn't that already give him a leg up on de la Rosa, who largely is known? He's been given a substantial amount of MLB time, and hasn't shown much ability. I'd give Bale a spot over DLR at this point.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It depends on your goal

If the Royals only goal for 2008 was maximizing the win total, then you might be right. But the Royals are still rebuilding. While wins are important, that isn't all this season is about. This is not going to be playoff year for the Royals, so some of this season is going to be about auditioning and developing young players. Maybe guys like Bale and Gload will give the Royals 1 or 2 more wins this eason...maybe. But I'd still rather give significant playing time to guys like De La Rosa and Shealy in the hopes that they can realize some of their potential. For those two players, this is their decision year. Either they show something or they are gone. So we have to play them. They still have potential to be decent major league players. They can only realize that potential if they play.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 28, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If contending next year is the goal

Bale will still be around, as he is under team control for another four years. And at this point, he appears more likely to help the 2009 Royals than DLR.

If Bale proves himself an adequate starter this year, the Royals could keep him in the rotation next year in order to prevent the team from (a) making a big mistake in signing next year's version of Carlos Silva, (b) spending $3 million on next year's version of Tomko, or (c) rushing Cortes into the rotation.

DLR already has 41 major league starts and 274 innings, and given so little that he has shown, I have no problem writing him out of the rotation equation.

by Gopherballs on Feb 28, 2008 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bale, etc.

Bale will still be around, as he is under team control for another four years.

Actually, Bale was a free agent signing with some service time under his belt, so I think he'll be a free agent after 2008.

And at this point, he appears more likely to help the 2009 Royals than DLR.

And DLR needs some more playing time this year to see for sure if that is the case. It makes no sense to just give up DLR's talent. I don't know if he necessarily needs starts, but he needs innings to show if he can succeed in some role.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 28, 2008 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bale's MLB service time is 2.016

He is not eligible for free agency until afer the 2011 season. Whether he signed as a free agent is irrelevant (just ask Carlos Pena).

by Gopherballs on Feb 28, 2008 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps

But regardless of how long we control Bale, I don't think that means that he should necessarily start and DLR necessarily should not. Actually, I think both of them should get some time in the rotation and in the bullpen. We still don't know how good either of them is, so they should both get a good look because they could both be a part of the Royals future.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 28, 2008 9:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When do you pull the plug on DLR?

He's pitched 274 innings, 178 as a Royal. His ERA is 5.85. His K-BB is 196-159. At what point are you convinced he just isn't good enough to retire MLB hitters, at least as a starter?

I think we know how good DLR is at this point. Its not all that good. I'm all for giving him another shot, since its not like we have five solid starters. But I am very pessimistic he'll figure it out, and he should be on a very short leash.

I'd be much more optimistic on Bale.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2008 10:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd give DLR one more season

I'm not saying 30 starts, but I'd give him significant innings as a starter and/or reliever if there is possibly room for him on the 25-man roster. I don't think we know how good DLR is at all. He started out very good last year, then fell off, then got injured (actually, it is hard to say when he started having physical problems).

It's not like the Royals are chock full of good, young, talented pitchers. We need to give guys like DLR and Davies some kind of shot and not just dump them. We need to see this year (a non-contending year) if they can turn it around. So, give them a look, give them some starts and give them some relief innings to see, finally, what we have in them.

What's the harm? One or two fewer wins? Slowing the development of John Bale? First, at Bale's age, he's not developing anymore. He is what he is. Second, after 40 IP last year, Bale shouldn't be starting for a full season anyway. It would overstress his arm. There is room in this rotation for Bale, Tomko, DLR, and others to get some starts (especially if someone spends some time on the DL).

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 28, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs