rp0806

Benitez and Rhodes shared that role, although IIRC Benitez was brought in almost solely in the 8th inning to protect leads, whereas Rhodes had a broader role -- i.e., 8th inning setup guy, long man, extra innings, etc. Rhodes' ability to pitch multiple innings gave Johnson the option of using him in a variety of situations.

Right...I'd be happy to trade him at this point for a guy like Abreu, but it's not going to happen. I don't think he'd have to be used in the 70s-80s "relief ace" role -- i.e., 110-120 innings a la stewart, Gossage, Sutter, etc. -- to be pretty valuable to the team. 90-100 high quality, high leverage IP (like Shields) would be pretty great. Like Tony said, turning a lead over to Bedard in the 7th or 8th and then Ray in the 9th could really help the team. That being said, I wish more teams would experiment with bullpen roles a bit more and try letting the top relievers throw a few more innings. I think teams have gotten locked into the Tony LaRussa bullpen approach of LOOGYs, one inning setup guys, and one inning closers. Some closers can pitch more than one inning at a time, so why not take advantage of that. The problem is that buy using 3-4 relievers in a game and not allowing your top guys to pitch more than an inning or so, you're letting your 3rd, 4th, and 5th best relievers to pitch a lot. I'm not saying the current closer model is bad, but there's no reason every team has to follow the same approach.

I can't argue with that. (literally)

True...I guess what I meant to say is that people shouldn't look at a move to the bullpen as necessarily a demotion for Bedard. I was on the fence re trading him this offseason. I had high expectations for him this year, but would have been thrilled if they'd traded him for Dunn or the equivalent.

Exactly...I don't want people to think I'm advocating "giving up" on Bedard or something. I just think that, given his talent, he could be incredibly valuable in that role.

This is simply a discussion I was having with 1970. If you find it pointless, why did you get involved?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I said in my post above that he has a very good K rate. No one disagrees with that.

Good lord...talk about picking nits. We're just trying to find the right adjective to use to describe Bedard's K rate. I think it's fair to say that it's not "fantastic" right now, b/c that's a term I'd use for a guy like Santana. Do you disagree?

Ok, "pretty darn good" is probably accurate. By "not fantastic" I just meant that he's not in the J. Santana class.

I'm not sure I see much reason to break up this year or even last year. The numbers that matter to me are these: 354 IP, 383 H, 33 HR, 159 BB, 297 K, 1.53 WHIP, .275 BAA, and 4.60 ERA. Obviously he doesn't have that many IP at the major league level, but 350 IP is still a pretty big sample, esp. given that he's already 27. What I see is a guy with a good but not fantastic K rate, a lousy BB rate, a good HR rate, and a high BAA. I think this reflects what we all know -- that he's got good stuff and can strike batters out and keep the ball out of the park, but has trouble keeping runners off base. Can he turn it around and become an above average starter? Sure. But at this point it isn't likely IMO. And my gut tells me he can be an outstanding setup guy. With other starters coming up through the pipeline, maybe that would be a better role for BEdard. The Orioles need to be bold and creative. This is one way to do it.

This gets back to the issue of giving the young players an opportunity. Loewen is exactly the kind of guy I'd like to see in the rotation -- the Orioles aren't going anywhere this year, so let him get some experience at the ML level while working with Mazzone. But, again, Bedard isn't that young, and I'd like to see what he could do in the bullpen. Maybe he wouldn't be successful in that role, but I have a feeling that he could really dominate in 2 inning stints. Even though he didn't pitch much in the minors, the reality is that pitchers rarely become above average starters after they turn 27. Also, I'm all for trading RLo, Hawkins, Javy, Tejada, Mora, Gibbons, and any other vets with any value. Let's say the Orioles made the trade I proposed recently -- Tejada and Mora/Gibbons for Cabrera, Aybar, Morales/Kotchman, Santana, and J. Rivera -- and traded Javy, Rlo, and Hawkins for low level prospects. The rotation by the end of the year could be Cabrera, Santana, Benson, Loewen, and Penn, with a bullpen of Ray, Bedard, Britton, Rleal, Williams, and Birkins. Lineup would be: C Hernandez 1b Gibbons 2b Roberts SS Aybar 3B Cabrera RF Markakis CF Patterson LF Rivera (with Reimold maybe getting a cup of coffee) DH Morales/Kotchman

Also, SG -- I honestly don't understand your position on this issue. You've said in other threads that you think he's the second coming of Ted Lilly...if that's the case and the orioles have other young starters who might be just as good or better than Bedard in 2007 and beyond, why not try Bedard in this role? If it's just a question of trading him, we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't think he has much value at this point.

I agree with this. I'm fine with giving him a few more starts, esp. since they don't have any great options to take his place, but once Penn comes back the Orioles should seriously consider moving Bedard if he's still struggling. I absolutely agree with the notion that the orioles aren't going anywhere and should just let the younger guys play, but here's the thing: Bedard isn't that young anymore. He's had a fair amount of time to develop into a good starter, and it hasn't happened. And since the Orioles aren't going anywhere, why not try experimenting with Bedard in the setup man/Arthur Rhodes role? As I said earlier, 90-100 innings of outstanding pitching in high leverage situations could be a lot more valuable than 175 innings of average to below average pitching as a starter, esp. when he's only going 6 innings per start, forcing the team to rely on the bullpen more. Good management is all about recognizing a person's strengths and weaknesses and putting them in a position where they can succeed. Earl Weaver was great at that (e.g., recognizing that Belanger's great defense outweighed his horrible offense, creating successful platoons, etc.). I also agree with Tony that there isn't much point in speculating about Mazzone and his relationship with Bedard. It's entirely possible that there's a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, but that doesn't mean we can't analyze the situation from the outside. I'm certainly entitled to comment on the situation in Iraq even though I'm not actually over there. Outside opinions of a situation can complement those from insiders. Thank you.

To be fair, it's only been 8 innings. I seriously doubt Julio will have an ERA under 4.00 by the end of the season.

Exactly. A guy like Shields can be a tremendous asset for a team. Bedard and Ray could be the Orioles version of Rivera and Wettland/Gordon and Rivera/Shields and KRod/Krod and Percival/etc. I've been as high on Bedard as anyone, but I have serious doubts that he'll ever be able to get into the 7th and 8th innings (let along 9th) on a consistent basis. As a result, he's not likely to ever give us more than 160-180 IP per year. 90-100 higher quality innings out of the bullpen in higher leverage situations might be a lot more valuable than 160-180 IP as a starter.