Unproven pitchers

[Sports Guy]

Many of talked about how they don't want Loewen and Penn in the rotation next year, along with DCab.

Mackus made a comment about how that is essentially 3 rookies in the rotation.

Well, look at the Angels...They are in the race with 2 real rookies in the rotation right now..Saunders and Weaver.

The Tigers have Verlander and Zumaya, although Zumaya is in the BP which helps but he is a big key for them.

End of the day, i do not see how them being inexperienced should keep us from having these guys in the rotation together...If a contender can do it, certainly a team striving for 500 can.

[NJOriolesFan]

Many of talked about how they don't want Loewen and Penn in the rotation next year, along with DCab.

Mackus made a comment about how that is essentially 3 rookies in the rotation.

Well, look at the Angels...They are in the race with 2 real rookies in the rotation right now..Saunders and Weaver.

The Tigers have Verlander and Zumaya, although Zumaya is in the BP which helps but he is a big key for them.

End of the day, i do not see how them being inexperienced should keep us from having these guys in the rotation together...If a contender can do it, certainly a team striving for 500 can.

Also, the Mets have had 23 starts combined from Maine, Bannister, Soler and Pelfrey.

The Yankees had Wang in the rotation last year.

It's not ideal, but I would want Penn and Loewen in there since they appear to be "ready". I would still try to move Benson, sign Smoltz and hold onto RLo but only in the bullpen as a long reliever or SPOT starter. No team can go all year with only 5 starters. It just doesn't happen. It would be good to put R.Lo and Hale or Burress as long men.

[MP]

This question is preying on the short memories. Loewen is coming off his 1 hitter and Cabrera looked solid. As of now, it seems very plausible that we could battle with these guys.

But you should have asked this question after any # of Loewen's previous starts when he gave up 4 or 5 runs. Or after Cabrera had a classic meltdown with walks and wild pitches, and his trademark 4 run inning. After those games, it feels somewhat hopeless.

The bottom line is that this is a "long term" question, and should be asked and answered only after all the facts are in.

This is also why we need to get Penn up here. Let's see what he have to work with in building our 07 rotation.

[DrungoHazewood]

The '89 Orioles got 100 starts from pitchers 25 or younger, plus 14 from Dave Johnson (a 27-year-old rookie).

I have no problem with a rotation that includes Cabrera, Loewen, and Penn.

[AgentOrange]

The '89 Orioles got 100 starts from pitchers 25 or younger, plus 14 from Dave Johnson (a 27-year-old rookie).

I have no problem with a rotation that includes Cabrera, Loewen, and Penn.

So in other words, you say...

Why Not?!

[NJOriolesFan]

NJ, you don't seem to realize that the Braves have an 8 Million option on Smoltz for 2007.

Oh. Ok. I thought it was a mutual option. Doesn't pay tolisten to the radio stations or read newspapers sometimes.

[DrungoHazewood]

The 1964 Orioles won 97 games and got 132 of 163 starts from pitchers aged 26 or younger. They got 56 starts, over 1/3 of the schedule, from pitchers 21 or younger.

[srock]

As of now 2007 is:

Bedard

Benson

Loewen

Cabrera

Penn

R Lopez

Britton

Burkins

T. Williams/Rleal/Whoever

Hawkins

Ray

2B Roberts S

RF Markakis L

3B Mora R

SS Tejada R

1B Gibbons L

C Hernandez R

DH Conine R

CF Patterson L

LF Fahey

Want

FA Addition (priority 1)

Bedard

Benson

Loewen

Cabrera/Penn

R Lopez/ (Cabrera/Penn)

Britton

Burkins

T. Williams/Rleal/Whoever/or Nobody at all

Hawkins

Ray

2B Roberts S

RF Markakis L

SS Tejada R

1B FA Power hitter (priority 3 only because Gibbons can play 1b)

DH Gibbons L

3B Mora R

C Hernandez R

LF Platoon (priority 2)

CF Patterson L

Bench:

Fahey

Conine (assuming PA clause kicks in)

Half the platoon.

Widger

This means we need to sign the best SP available.

Secure the guys for the platoon in LF as discussed in other posts.

Attempt to sign/trade for a power hitter who can play 1B or DH. This one allows for some creativity with the platoon depending what is available.

Can this win the pennant? Doubt it. But it is huge step forward and realistic.

Bench looks better too.

EDIT: Oh yeah, why this is relevant in this thread. Adding one more starter and keeping Benson makes this rotation rely only on two slots for 3 young starters plus RLo as a 4th backup. This mitigates alot of risk in the pitching staff.

[MP]

The 1964 Orioles won 97 games and got 132 of 163 starts from pitchers aged 26 or younger. They got 56 starts, over 1/3 of the schedule, from pitchers 21 or younger.

I don't think anyone's saying that it can't be done, but there's no reason to assume it will be successful.

[davearm]

Many of talked about how they don't want Loewen and Penn in the rotation next year, along with DCab.

Mackus made a comment about how that is essentially 3 rookies in the rotation.

Well, look at the Angels...They are in the race with 2 real rookies in the rotation right now..Saunders and Weaver.

The Tigers have Verlander and Zumaya, although Zumaya is in the BP which helps but he is a big key for them.

End of the day, i do not see how them being inexperienced should keep us from having these guys in the rotation together...If a contender can do it, certainly a team striving for 500 can.

FWIW, my fellow Cub fans are having this exact same debate these days.

Believe it or not, the *oldest* starter in the Cubs' rotation right now is our old buddy Rich Hill, at 26. And he'll be the oldest next year too, unless a veteran or two is signed or traded for.

Personally, I hold out very little hope that the Cubs will be in the running for the 2007 postseason if they go into the year with their inventory of available starters being Zambrano, Prior, Marshall, Marmol, Hill, Guzman, Mateo, Williams, and whoever else might burst onto the scene from the minors. They'd have to add a Zito or a Schmidt to stand a reasonable chance. I'd hold the exact same view of next year's the O's too.

Now that said, if the goal was to reach .500 in 2007, and build toward a contending team in 2008 and beyond (like it seems to be with the O's), I'd be totally onboard with running out the youngsters and passing on the free agents. Young pitching is the most valuable commodity in the game, but it does take quite a while to develop it.

[AgentOrange]

FWIW, my fellow Cub fans are having this exact same debate these days.

Believe it or not, the *oldest* starter in the Cubs' rotation right now is our old buddy Rich Hill, at 26. And he'll be the oldest next year too, unless a veteran or two is signed or traded for.

Personally, I hold out very little hope that the Cubs will be in the running for the 2007 postseason if they go into the year with their inventory of available starters being Zambrano, Prior, Marshall, Marmol, Hill, Guzman, Mateo, Williams, and whoever else might burst onto the scene from the minors. They'd have to add a Zito or a Schmidt to stand a reasonable chance. I'd hold the exact same view of next year's the O's too.

Now that said, if the goal was to reach .500 in 2007, and build toward a contending team in 2008 and beyond (like it seems to be with the O's), I'd be totally onboard with running out the youngsters and passing on the free agents. Young pitching is the most valuable commodity in the game, but it does take quite a while to develop it.

Now is that because of how bad you guys are this year that you feel this way? Or is it because most of your pitchers are a little too young for your liking?

[Sports Guy]

FWIW, my fellow Cub fans are having this exact same debate these days.

Believe it or not, the *oldest* starter in the Cubs' rotation right now is our old buddy Rich Hill, at 26. And he'll be the oldest next year too, unless a veteran or two is signed or traded for.

Personally, I hold out very little hope that the Cubs will be in the running for the 2007 postseason if they go into the year with their inventory of available starters being Zambrano, Prior, Marshall, Marmol, Hill, Guzman, Mateo, Williams, and whoever else might burst onto the scene from the minors. They'd have to add a Zito or a Schmidt to stand a reasonable chance. I'd hold the exact same view of next year's the O's too.

Now that said, if the goal was to reach .500 in 2007, and build toward a contending team in 2008 and beyond (like it seems to be with the O's), I'd be totally onboard with running out the youngsters and passing on the free agents. Young pitching is the most valuable commodity in the game, but it does take quite a while to develop it.

Well, if Prior can come back and stay healthy all year, Zambrano and Prior are better than any 1-2 in the NL. So, it depends on them.

The thing the Cubs would be missing would be that other guy, like a Benson, to be solid and eat innings.

But the Cubs, despite being pathetic(again) this year, are still closer to contending than the Orioles because of the division and the pathetic NL.

The Orioles need to go with the young 4 of Penn, Bedard, Loewen and DCab next year...Now, the question to me is, who is the other pitcher? Personally, i want it to be Schmidt and trade Benson but if we were to sign a Schmidt, i don't want to see one of Loewen or Penn pushed to the pen.

[NewMarketSean]

What are our other options? Signing free agents? Yeah -- that goes over well.

I expect 2007 to be another throw away year in order to get ready for 2008. If the O's can make something happen in 2007 with their inexperienced rotation, that will be a plus.

[Sports Guy]

Slight difference. Zambrano is a given. Prior can't be counted on to be healthy. Hill could be good but he's only had two good starts. None of those other guys are as highly regarded as Loewen, Cabrera, & Penn. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yea and even Hill is not in the category of Penn or Loewen because of age...But Hill could be a good one if he can throw strikes.

[davearm]

Now is that because of how bad you guys are this year that you feel this way? Or is it because most of your pitchers are a little too young for your liking?

I feel this way because the 2006 Tigers, 1989 Orioles, and 1964 Orioles are by far the exception to the rule.

Sure it's possible you could run out a 5-man rotation filled with several first- and second-year players, have them do as well or better than you had hoped, and have your team enjoy a great season.

It's just not very likely to turn out that way.