Pirates lefty Francisco Liriano will miss his scheduled start tonight against the Tigers due to hamstring trouble, as Bill Brink of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette notes. The cause of Liriano’s hamstring issue isn’t yet known. Starting in his place will be Ryan Vogelsong, who lost in a three-way battle with Juan Nicasio and Jeff Locke for the Bucs’ last two rotation jobs coming out of camp. Here’s more from the NL Central.
- Reds lefty Brandon Finnegan is looking more and more like a starter, Jeff Sullivan of FanGraphs argues. Finnegan is developing confidence in his secondary pitches, throwing his changeup almost twice as frequently this season than he did as a starter in 2015. He’s also showing better command of the pitch. Sullivan goes so far as to compare Finnegan to Liriano. If Finnegan develops as a starter, the Reds will be that much closer to getting their money’s worth from last summer’s Johnny Cueto trade.
- Cardinals manager Mike Matheny has been candid in the past about tailoring his usage of closer Trevor Rosenthal to the save statistic, as Derrick Goold of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch writes. “There are personal statistics that help drive personal achievement as far as salaries go,” Matheny explained last season. “For us to be completely oblivious to that, I think is a mistake as well. Then you start having some friction.” Saves can, indeed, drive salaries, particularly for a player like Rosenthal who’s in the midst of his arbitration seasons. But managing with a closer’s saves total in mind might not be the best way to preserve the closer’s arm and his availability. One potential fix, Goold suggests, might be to somehow redefine the statistic to award saves for getting key outs. Such a fix might prevent teams from doing what the Cardinals did Sunday, when Rosenthal pitched the last out of the eighth inning and then threw 26 pitches in the ninth even after the Cardinals scored five runs.
Fiinegan’s success is not the key to “getting our money’s worth” for the Cueto. trade. Cody Reed is our #2 pitching prospect and drew rave reviews this spring, he’s the one with the most potential of becoming a superstar. Of course, if 2, or all 3 of the pitchers from the trade (John Lamb is the 3rd) can establish themselves as at least #3-4 starters in the Majors, this could truly look like a steal for the Reds.
I wouldn’t really call it a “steal.” That implies that the Royals have up way too much in comparison to what they received. Just looking at names on paper, it might appear that way, but you can’t discount the fact that they won the World Series with Cueto playing a BIG role. No matter how good those 3 pitchers end up being, that trade is still a big win for the Royals side and a move they will not regret.
They could have won the World Series win without him though
They also could’ve lost it or not even made it there… There’s no way of knowing what would’ve happened if they didn’t make the trade.
The fact is, they made the trade and won the World Series with Cueto playing a big role. Despite everyone’s love for prospects, the point of this game is still to win the World Series, which this move undeniably helped them do. Nobody on the Royals side is regretting that trade if they have a brain.
In fairness, they didn’t say Finnegan was ‘key’, they basically said that he’s offering the most immediate returns while Lamb is on the DL and Reed is in the minors. Finnegan, Lamb, and Reed all have the potential to help the Reds for years… but only the first two have reached the majors so far. Lamb put up an impressive strikeout rate last year, but is so far Finnegan is distinguishing himself through two starts.
It might not be a regrettable deal for the Royals, but trading a rental player (Cueto) for three guys who may be long term members of the rotation sure looks like a steal from the Reds’ perspective. The Reds had lots of RHP prospects and had trouble with finding lefty starters for years, and here they got 3 in the same deal. Lamb in particular draws some skepticism, but he’s shown a lot to like with his huge strikeout rate. Maybe the deal worked out very well for both the Reds and Royals, but it was nevertheless a great deal for the Reds.
That’s fair from the Reds perspective. From the outside looking in, I think at worst (on the Royals side), it’s a win-win. Afterall, the point of playing this game is to win the World Series, which this move absolutely helped them accomplish.
The trade was a no brainer from the Reds point of view from the start. I mean who would desire to keep a pitcher in the last part of his last contractual season when the team was going no where? Of course you’d much rather have legitimate high upside prospects.
Yep, no brainer, but I think the deal was still a lot more than many Reds fans expected. I think many expected one useful MLB starting pitcher in the deal… not two, and certainly not three. I think a lot of Reds fans were pessimistic about getting a no-brainer offer like that, even for Cueto. Despite smaller trades of Latos and Simon (good deals for lesser known guys like DeSclafani and Suarez) Cueto was the first major chip to move.
rosenthal got one out to finish the 8th on sunday. then the cardinals scored a bunch of runs, and rosenthal went out to pitch the 9th to complete his save in a 7(?) run game.. ended up loading the bases and giving up a run, threw 30 pitches and may well have been unavailable monday. that’s bad managing and a bad justification to boot.
Of course it’s not ideal, but Matheny isn’t wrong that that save is important for an arbitration closer like Rosenthal. Until arbitration stops paying closers disproportionately to other relievers (and other players in general, for whatever reason), then these situations will continue
I saw Finnegan pitch Monday night at Wrigley. He looked pretty impressive. The Reds may have gained more value from the trade than anyone could have expected.
He also needs to pitch to stay fresh. It’s April and everyone’s still getting stretched out. Didn’t Maness close out one of those ATL games? His arm’s not being abused. He also had no save opp’s in Pittsburgh. Relax.
It may be time to revisit the “save”. The reliever who comes into the game with runners on 1st and 2nd in the 7th inning, with his team up 3-2, and 1 out and gets the next two batters, has effectively “saved” the game, especially if there is no threat in the 8th. But, the “closer” who comes into the game to start the 9th, gets 3 outs, gets the “save”. A reliever can get a “blown save” in the 7th inning, but not a save. With all the stats out there today, maybe “Team Saves”, which could go with “Team Holds”, which may be a better indication of a team’s bullpen effectiveness. I think managers would be more inclined to then think like their early 70s counterparts, who would use a Gossage, or Mike Marshall, for example, for multiple innings, to truly “save” the game. Of course, the flip-side argument would be, pitchers have such defined roles (i.e. set-up, middle relief, closer, LOOGY) that this would have to be blown-up and done away with. Just random thoughts from an old baseball guy
I think that your example fits the criteria of and the best representation of the high leverage situations is a ‘hold’.
Maybe more emphasis and value should be put on hold instead of save?