Add new comment

.

Grumpy sez,

The only justification for keeping E ram down is protecting his elbow with a light start for the season. Remember he was on the DL last year. Number one predictor of pitcher health (or lack thereof)? IIRC, injury or time on DL in the prior year. Maybe they want to have him available for a playoff push? Or may the the plan is to trade him? Those are the only scenarios that make any sense.

.

Dr. D is preaching to the choir here.  We realize that much.

And let's get one thing straight:  if the local blogs have the M's ear on anything -- such as Brandon League's pitch selection -- they most certainly do not have the M's ear on decisions like this one.  If Jack Zduriencik doesn't have time to let Ted Simmons and Pete Vuckovich talk him into a given rotation -- and he doesn't -- he doesn't have the time to let blogs talk him into anything.  

Zduriencik gets opinions from literally 100 different directions, and he might or might not weight Eric Wedge's preferences heavily.  Then, standing behind Wedge, you have Zduriencik's bosses, you have the HOF'ers on his staff, you have literally a dozen sabermetricians, etc.  Everybody can afford to be clear about that:  no matter how much Zduriencik thought (or didn't think) of Jeff Sullivan or us or anybody, guys like Zduriencik just don't direct much attention to opinions ... that Zduriencik didn't specifically ask for.

.............

We are sitting in the bleachers, cracking peanuts and talking baseball.  

But we ain't bleacher bums, exactly.  With the level of interest and literacy that we have in our hobby, we're more like astronomy grad students sitting in the lounge discussing a moon walk.

Therefore, when one of the astronauts hops off the landing ladder and says "one small step for man" versus "one small step for a man," we've got a conversation at least as interesting as the conversation about Homer Simpson's show last night.

.............

It would one thing if Jon Garland were at the front of the line because of any of the following:

• Erasmo and Maurer were fragile
• Garland had been Rich Harden or Erik Bedard at some previous point
• There were not 5-6 scintillating blue-chip SP prospects in the high minors
• etc

But what Baker relays is this:  TIE GOES TO THE VETERAN.  JON GARLAND HAS DONE IT BEFORE, SO THE ROOKIES HAVE TO CLEARLY OUTPITCH HIM TO TAKE HIS JOB AWAY.

That's what the Times is relaying.  Garland has done it before.  Garland has done it before.

THAT is what is going on in this chess position.  That is the key to cutting through the baloney and figuring out the real guts of the matter.  You know Garland can do it; you don't know the kids can.  Creed will retain his title, if neither man can get off the canvas.

.............

One more clarification.  You do realize what is the Skip-O-Vision translation of that?  That Ramirez and/or Maurer would have to clearly outpitch Garland?

The translation of that little gem is:  Garland has to look quite worrisome to the ballplayers watching him, and/or the kids have to amaze the ballplayers watching them, on a Michael Pineda level.

Garland isn't there even trying to pitch his best.  He's just there "working on things."  He's done it before, you understand.  If he makes a few mistakes, well, that's just spring training.

Ramirez, to date, has a line of 6 ip 4 h 0 r 0 er 1 bb 5 k.  I suppose we wanted 17 strikeouts there?  No, what that particular concept means is that Garland's in there unless he disappoints.  When you say "tie goes to the veteran," what you mean is --- > "anything other than a reeking embarrassment goes to the veteran."

............

The suggestion that Erasmo Ramirez is an unknown, that's one of the few things the Times has said lately that Dr. D finds truly annoying.  If you can't tell who Erasmo Ramirez is at this point, it calls into question your ability to identify the IDEAL young starter when you finally see him.  And it ain't like SSI hasn't pointed out the shape of the beak, and the color of the feathers under the wing.

............

Tie goes to the veteran.  Will that apply next season, too?  Do you think that there will be a Jon Garland available in March 2014?  2015?  

If your logic is valid this season, why wouldn't it be valid next season?  You're going to know that Chris Capuano or somebody has done it before.  When do you get the kids in there?  Later, when the M's are winning?

It's nice to know that I still care about baseball.  I was kind of starting to wonder.  But it's nice to know that I can still get angry about it.

.