Re: Question for Red Socks fans
- From: "Fred Burton" <fburton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:49:46 -0500
Dano wrote in message ...
"humbleaptience" <humblepatience@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
I'm a yankee fan, but my roommate is a Red Sox fan (we are located in
I got into an arguement with him yesterday. He claimed
A) Papelbon has gotten the medical OK to be a closer
I think a better way to put it is that they haven't said that he CAN'T
B) The Red Sox think he would be more useful as a starter so they
aren't converting him
Yeah, I don't think that premise is unreasonable. I think they also think
it will be easier to monitor and protect arguably, their most valuable
WTF? Then why would they have made him a closer in the first place?
Secondly, Mariano Rivera is the MVP of the yankees and having a good
closer in the playoffs is CRUCIAL. Papelbon had a comparable year to
Mo last year, and it's assumed he can continue that production if he
was still a closer. He was basically like "star closer, big whoop".
No offense, but to even ask that question, means you weren't paying much
attention. You're a Yankee fan, so I'm not surprised. It is not uncommon
logic at all that a top notch starter is more valuable and harder to come
than a top notch closer. I'm not sure I flat out agree, but it is hardlyan
outlandish or insupportable position to take.
I don't disagree that a "top notch" starter is probably more valuable than
a "top notch" closer. But that said, should a #4 or #5 starter ever be
of as a "top notch" starter? And if that's the case, maybe the question
be "Is a decent #4 or #5 starter more valuable than a 'top notch' closer?"
also, while "top notch" starters may indeed be harder to find than top notch
is the same statement true about decent #4 or #5 pitchers?
Put it another way...
Let's look at the 2004 Red Sox.
I think that it's easy to say that the 2004 Schilling or Pedro were more
the 2004 Foulke. But was the 2004 Bronson Arroyo (for example) more
than the 2004 Foulke?