Cashner being moved to the bullpen and may be called up

[inari]

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the "all other practices" you mention are precisely the ones that forward-thinking organizations like the Rays and Red Sox (you know, the clubs folks are clamoring for the Cubs to emulate) are rejecting as flawed and outdated.

 

Who are all these top prospect SP that the Rays and Red Sox moved to the pen without having innings as a starter? Price and.....

Dude quit while you're behind already. You sound like Dusty with this "that's how they've always done it" logic.

 

Why don't you address the previous post he made?

 

Because they proove him wrong.

[davearm2]

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the "all other practices" you mention are precisely the ones that forward-thinking organizations like the Rays and Red Sox (you know, the clubs folks are clamoring for the Cubs to emulate) are rejecting as flawed and outdated.

 

Who are all these top prospect SP that the Rays and Red Sox moved to the pen without having innings as a starter? Price and.....

Dude quit while you're behind already. You sound like Dusty with this "that's how they've always done it" logic.

 

Why don't you address the previous post he made?

What post was that?

 

He asked for guys that were starters in the minors, broke into the bigleagues as relievers, and then ultimately settled in as starters. Such a list has already been provided.

 

The larger point I was making is that normally dextermorgan and many others here are clamoring for the Cubs to eschew conventional wisdom and be more progressive in their thinking (embrace OBP, ignore pitchers' ERA and W-L, and so on). Two examples commonly cited are the Rays and Red Sox. Those clubs have broken the mold, so to speak, and have been very successful.

 

So why are we clinging to conventional wisdom and standard practice in this instance? It's inherently contradictory.

[CubColtPacer]

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the "all other practices" you mention are precisely the ones that forward-thinking organizations like the Rays and Red Sox (you know, the clubs folks are clamoring for the Cubs to emulate) are rejecting as flawed and outdated.

 

Who are all these top prospect SP that the Rays and Red Sox moved to the pen without having innings as a starter? Price and.....

Dude quit while you're behind already. You sound like Dusty with this "that's how they've always done it" logic.

 

Why don't you address the previous post he made?

What post was that?

 

He asked for guys that were starters in the minors, broke into the bigleagues as relievers, and then ultimately settled in as starters. Such a list has already been provided.

 

The larger point I was making is that normally dextermorgan and many others here are clamoring for the Cubs to eschew conventional wisdom and be more progressive in their thinking (embrace OBP, ignore pitchers' ERA and W-L, and so on). Two examples commonly cited are the Rays and Red Sox. Those clubs have broken the mold, so to speak, and have been very successful.

 

So why are we clinging to conventional wisdom and standard practice in this instance? It's inherently contradictory.

 

If Cashner throws 40 innings in the pen this year, how many innings would you be willing to let him pitch next year? Is there a max pitching limit you think he should stay under?

[davearm2]

What post was that?

 

He asked for guys that were starters in the minors, broke into the bigleagues as relievers, and then ultimately settled in as starters. Such a list has already been provided.

 

The larger point I was making is that normally dextermorgan and many others here are clamoring for the Cubs to eschew conventional wisdom and be more progressive in their thinking (embrace OBP, ignore pitchers' ERA and W-L, and so on). Two examples commonly cited are the Rays and Red Sox. Those clubs have broken the mold, so to speak, and have been very successful.

 

So why are we clinging to conventional wisdom and standard practice in this instance? It's inherently contradictory.

 

If Cashner throws 40 innings in the pen this year, how many innings would you be willing to let him pitch next year? Is there a max pitching limit you think he should stay under?

Of course. You have to be smart about ramping up his innings. I totally get that. So maybe next year he throws only 150 IP, and not 180. I can live with that.

[Tracer Bullet]

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the "all other practices" you mention are precisely the ones that forward-thinking organizations like the Rays and Red Sox (you know, the clubs folks are clamoring for the Cubs to emulate) are rejecting as flawed and outdated.

 

Who are all these top prospect SP that the Rays and Red Sox moved to the pen without having innings as a starter? Price and.....

Dude quit while you're behind already. You sound like Dusty with this "that's how they've always done it" logic.

 

Why don't you address the previous post he made?

What post was that?

 

He asked for guys that were starters in the minors, broke into the bigleagues as relievers, and then ultimately settled in as starters. Such a list has already been provided.

 

He asked for starters that the Sox and Rays brought up to the majors as relievers. You identified Price and no one else. You seem to be ignoring the question b/c you made up the claim that the Sox and Rays (as "forward-thinking" organizations) have adopted this strategy. (doing something once doesn't seem to be adopting a strategy)

[biittner77]

Of course. You have to be smart about ramping up his innings. I totally get that. So maybe next year he throws only 150 IP, and not 180. I can live with that.

 

So you're OK with increasing his workload from about 95 innings to 150? That seems like a pretty big jump.

[CubColtPacer]

Of course. You have to be smart about ramping up his innings. I totally get that. So maybe next year he throws only 150 IP, and not 180. I can live with that.

 

So you're OK with increasing his workload from about 95 innings to 150? That seems like a pretty big jump.

 

It's not really that bad. 150 is not a lot of innings overall. If Cashner's max was 95, I'd be more worried, but with his 120 last year he should be able to do 150 next year even with going to the bullpen. Other pitchers have made similar sorts of jumps.

 

I think the big question becomes then, why now and why Cashner? The bullpen has been pitching better lately. It's about to get another decent to good pitcher when somebody leaves the rotation next week. Stevens has pitched just fine in his two outings so far and he'd likely be the one sent down for Cashner. If the Cubs felt they needed more help, they already had Jackson waiting in the AAA bullpen.

 

So why the sudden reversal to want Cashner in the majors? How is that better than the other options especially when Cashner could have had his innings he needed by being called up into the bullpen around the All-Star break? They are sacrificing 30 potential innings next year to get 10-15 innings this year. That's an awfully hard choice to make when he's not even going to be the primary setup man.

 

Putting him in the bullpen this year was almost inevitable to keep his innings down and it will have benefits to him of being able to see major league hitters who will challenge him more. That's not a problem. It's just too early.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think the big question becomes then, why now and why Cashner? The bullpen has been pitching better lately. It's about to get another decent to good pitcher when somebody leaves the rotation next week. Stevens has pitched just fine in his two outings so far and he'd likely be the one sent down for Cashner. If the Cubs felt they needed more help, they already had Jackson waiting in the AAA bullpen.

 

So why the sudden reversal to want Cashner in the majors? How is that better than the other options especially when Cashner could have had his innings he needed by being called up into the bullpen around the All-Star break? They are sacrificing 30 potential innings next year to get 10-15 innings this year. That's an awfully hard choice to make when he's not even going to be the primary setup man.

 

Putting him in the bullpen this year was almost inevitable to keep his innings down and it will have benefits to him of being able to see major league hitters who will challenge him more. That's not a problem. It's just too early.

 

Yeah, this is my line of thinking with this. I'm not opposed to the idea of Cashner in the bullpen at some point, but the timing as it's playing out right now just doesn't make much sense and seems very shortsighted.

[soapy]

CCP sums it up well, I think. It's bizarre to do this suddenly with Cashner considering the recent success of the bullpen and the fact that they just did this with Jackson who pitched just as well as they could hope out of the pen. Why now flip-flop he and Cashner when Cashner needs the starter work far more than Jackson and Jackson pitched great from the pen?

[davearm2]

Of course. You have to be smart about ramping up his innings. I totally get that. So maybe next year he throws only 150 IP, and not 180. I can live with that.

 

So you're OK with increasing his workload from about 95 innings to 150? That seems like a pretty big jump.

 

It's not really that bad. 150 is not a lot of innings overall. If Cashner's max was 95, I'd be more worried, but with his 120 last year he should be able to do 150 next year even with going to the bullpen. Other pitchers have made similar sorts of jumps.

 

I think the big question becomes then, why now and why Cashner? The bullpen has been pitching better lately. It's about to get another decent to good pitcher when somebody leaves the rotation next week. Stevens has pitched just fine in his two outings so far and he'd likely be the one sent down for Cashner. If the Cubs felt they needed more help, they already had Jackson waiting in the AAA bullpen.

 

So why the sudden reversal to want Cashner in the majors? How is that better than the other options especially when Cashner could have had his innings he needed by being called up into the bullpen around the All-Star break? They are sacrificing 30 potential innings next year to get 10-15 innings this year. That's an awfully hard choice to make when he's not even going to be the primary setup man.

 

Putting him in the bullpen this year was almost inevitable to keep his innings down and it will have benefits to him of being able to see major league hitters who will challenge him more. That's not a problem. It's just too early.

I can certainly get onboard with the notion that there should be other guys ahead of Cashner in the line to the MLB bullpen. I'll listen to that argument.

 

The notion that Cashner's development into a MLB starter is going to be sidetracked by a move to the bullpen now is what I have an issue with.

[soapy]

The notion that Cashner's development into a MLB starter is going to be sidetracked by a move to the bullpen now is what I have an issue with.

 

But why? His situation is clearly different than those you (or others) listed earlier. They guy barely has any experience as a starter and needs to get the innings. If he ends up in the bullpen for the rest of this season, they are limiting how much they can get from him next season, no? It's not like the Cubs are a dominant set-up man away from contending this year. Even one believes they are, (as you said) there are plenty of other options.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think the big question becomes then, why now and why Cashner? The bullpen has been pitching better lately. It's about to get another decent to good pitcher when somebody leaves the rotation next week. Stevens has pitched just fine in his two outings so far and he'd likely be the one sent down for Cashner. If the Cubs felt they needed more help, they already had Jackson waiting in the AAA bullpen.

 

So why the sudden reversal to want Cashner in the majors?

 

I don't really think it's a sudden reversal. They've been saying they weren't going to move him, but that doesn't ensure they meant it. The bullpen hasn't been that good. Marmol and Marshall have solidified things when starters go 7 innings. But Grabow still sucks. And they went out and signed a completely worthless Howry. I'm not sure how the bullpen is any more solidified now. And there's no way of knowing how the next guy is going to do. The bullpen has been a question from day one and remains so. Cashner has been an obvious candidate to fill a role from day one. The Cubs were probably just looking for the right time. Now he's go a fair amount of 2010 inning, almost of which have been dominant. They need to win to save jobs, it's almost June and the team is still under .500. I'm not confused about the timing at all. It's been the obvious move. What I don't get is the supposed test of letting them relieve for a couple weeks in AAA and then sending them back to the rotation.

[soapy]

I think the bullpen would be far better if Lou used the right guys. Russell has been great and Stevens has a good shot to be pretty solid.

[jersey cubs fan]

The notion that Cashner's development into a MLB starter is going to be sidetracked by a move to the bullpen now is what I have an issue with.

 

But why? His situation is clearly different than those you (or others) listed earlier. They guy barely has any experience as a starter and needs to get the innings. If he ends up in the bullpen for the rest of this season, they are limiting how much they can get from him next season, no? It's not like the Cubs are a dominant set-up man away from contending this year. Even one believes they are, (as you said) there are plenty of other options.

 

It's definitely going to be affected. What the longterm effect is going to be is questionable. If sidetracked means ruined, than no, it's probably not. But if it means it's going to be more difficult for him to ever turn into a 100+ pitch ~7 inning pitcher, and at the very least take longer to get there, than I have no idea how somebody can question that. He's not an established starting pitcher who is taking a minor detour.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think the bullpen would be far better if Lou used the right guys. Russell has been great and Stevens has a good shot to be pretty solid.

 

Okay, but he's Lou and that's not going to happen.

[CUBZ99]

CCP sums it up well, I think. It's bizarre to do this suddenly with Cashner considering the recent success of the bullpen and the fact that they just did this with Jackson who pitched just as well as they could hope out of the pen. Why now flip-flop he and Cashner when Cashner needs the starter work far more than Jackson and Jackson pitched great from the pen?

 

Based on past actions, it is probably not much more than ineptitude.

 

But it could be that Jackson and/or Cashner were sore or experiencing pain and that Cubs want to play it safe.

 

Could be that the organization is going to reward Cashner for being lights out, and feel that he is ready to pitch in Chicago, but they don't have a spot. Based on his numbers this year, it is hard to justify keeping him in Iowa beyond this year anyhow.

 

Could be posturing for a trade for a seasoned set up person. Maybe by moving Cashner to the Iowa pen for a week, they don't appear as desperate as they really are.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think the big question becomes then, why now and why Cashner? The bullpen has been pitching better lately. It's about to get another decent to good pitcher when somebody leaves the rotation next week. Stevens has pitched just fine in his two outings so far and he'd likely be the one sent down for Cashner. If the Cubs felt they needed more help, they already had Jackson waiting in the AAA bullpen.

 

So why the sudden reversal to want Cashner in the majors?

 

I don't really think it's a sudden reversal. They've been saying they weren't going to move him, but that doesn't ensure they meant it. The bullpen hasn't been that good. Marmol and Marshall have solidified things when starters go 7 innings. But Grabow still sucks. And they went out and signed a completely worthless Howry. I'm not sure how the bullpen is any more solidified now. And there's no way of knowing how the next guy is going to do. The bullpen has been a question from day one and remains so. Cashner has been an obvious candidate to fill a role from day one. The Cubs were probably just looking for the right time. Now he's go a fair amount of 2010 inning, almost of which have been dominant. They need to win to save jobs, it's almost June and the team is still under .500. I'm not confused about the timing at all. It's been the obvious move. What I don't get is the supposed test of letting them relieve for a couple weeks in AAA and then sending them back to the rotation.

 

Russell and Stevens have shown themselves to be very capable. I'm not saying they're locks to lights out, but the bullpen is clearly not as precarious as it was earlier in the season. Yes, you still have the x-factor of Lou, but we're stuck with that until the end of the season.

[soapy]

I think the bullpen would be far better if Lou used the right guys. Russell has been great and Stevens has a good shot to be pretty solid.

 

Okay, but he's Lou and that's not going to happen.

 

Then replace the guy making the mistakes instead of (potentially) setting back one of your top prospects.

 

I know, I know, it's not going to happen.

[Guest]

very shortsighted.

 

The very definition of the entire Hendry regime.

[jersey cubs fan]

Russell and Stevens have shown themselves to be very capable. I'm not saying they're locks to lights out, but the bullpen is clearly not as precarious as it was earlier in the season. Yes, you still have the x-factor of Lou, but we're stuck with that until the end of the season.

 

Stevens has been up for 10 days and has 2 innings, I'm not sure how much more stable he's made the bullpen. If anything, the really long outings by a few starters has stabilized things. But with Grabow and Howry right in the middle of things, instability remains.

[davearm2]

The notion that Cashner's development into a MLB starter is going to be sidetracked by a move to the bullpen now is what I have an issue with.

 

But why? His situation is clearly different than those you (or others) listed earlier. They guy barely has any experience as a starter and needs to get the innings. If he ends up in the bullpen for the rest of this season, they are limiting how much they can get from him next season, no? It's not like the Cubs are a dominant set-up man away from contending this year. Even one believes they are, (as you said) there are plenty of other options.

Yes they're limiting what they can get from him next year.

 

If the tradeoff is 30 or 40 fewer IP next year in exchange for MLB experience this year, and a boost to the current team's bullpen, I'm willing to make that trade. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this team is still focused on winning this year (regardless of how realistic folks here might consider that).

 

Now that presumes that Cashner's the best candidate to provide that bullpen boost, which I think is easy to argue against.

[illiniguy]

very shortsighted.

 

The very definition of the entire Hendry regime.

The guy had the best job in the world gm for like years with no boss over you.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I think the bullpen would be far better if Lou used the right guys. Russell has been great and Stevens has a good shot to be pretty solid.

 

The only real problem with the pen has been Grabow, and Lous insistance on putting him in key situations, although he seems to have learned hos lesson for the most part. Basically what we end up with is a 7 million dollar loogy who cant get lefties out. Bergm Caridad, and Z had all been brutal at times, but Russels been pretty good, as has Stevens so far in a small sample size.

[TruffleShuffle]

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the "all other practices" you mention are precisely the ones that forward-thinking organizations like the Rays and Red Sox (you know, the clubs folks are clamoring for the Cubs to emulate) are rejecting as flawed and outdated.

 

Who are all these top prospect SP that the Rays and Red Sox moved to the pen without having innings as a starter? Price and.....

Dude quit while you're behind already. You sound like Dusty with this "that's how they've always done it" logic.

 

i didn't know it was possible to be so willfully ignorant and smug at the same time.

[cubfan]

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the "all other practices" you mention are precisely the ones that forward-thinking organizations like the Rays and Red Sox (you know, the clubs folks are clamoring for the Cubs to emulate) are rejecting as flawed and outdated.

 

Who are all these top prospect SP that the Rays and Red Sox moved to the pen without having innings as a starter? Price and.....

Dude quit while you're behind already. You sound like Dusty with this "that's how they've always done it" logic.

 

i didn't know it was possible to be so willfully ignorant and smug at the same time.

 

I remember thinking that the Redsox broke a few of their starting pitchers into the bigs in the bullpen. I at least remember some announcers talking about it several years ago. I thought either Lester or Buchholz started off in the pen but they didn't. I must be thinking of Papelbons but he never went back to the rotation.