GrayRod or Hall up next?

[interloper]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Shades of what was done with Hall last season.

 

Yeah like what is the upside here?

You don't accomplish getting him back on track, you don't get the extra year, you're going to have to send him right back down after saying you don't want him to be up and down, and he's probably going to get shellacked because he hasn't figured out his command.

Edited April 5, 2023 by interloper

[Spy Fox]

I’m not sure whether all this was the right handling of the situation or not, but I think the logic behind it all is a lot simpler than folks will try to make it out to be. 
 

They’re trying to win games with the players they have. They decided based on what they saw that Grayson was, for now, their 6th best starting option. Now needing to cover a start, on a day he’s due to pitch, they think he’s better than their other options so they’re giving him a shot. What happens next will depend on how he does and how long Bradish is out. 

[maybenxtyr]

Well, they made a liar out of me. I can't say that this makes a whole lot of sense.

[eddie83]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

I think this is a very stupid idea.

I don’t know. What options did they have? Pen arm and Voth? 

[interloper]

2 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I don’t know. What options did they have? Pen arm and Voth? 

Sure. That's about as good a chance as this version of Grayson gives you. And it undermines the whole reason you optioned him in the first place. Classic yo-yo. Bradish will be back and Grayson will go right back down.

Edited April 5, 2023 by interloper

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, interloper said:

Sure. That's about as good a chance as this version of Grayson gives you. And it undermines the whole reason you optioned him in the first place.

The only way it makes sense is if he the problem was some mechanical flaw and they fixed it.  The resulting bullpen session he just had was just so impressive they moved his timetable up.

 

It's possible right?

[interloper]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

The only way it makes sense is if he the problem was some mechanical flaw and they fixed it.  The resulting bullpen session he just had was just so impressive they moved his timetable up.

 

It's possible right?

It's possible. But to me he's been the same iffy pitcher since last last season, and I'm not expecting anything different tomorrow.

I hope I'm dead wrong obviously.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

I’m not sure whether all this was the right handling of the situation or not, but I think the logic behind it all is a lot simpler than folks will try to make it out to be. 
 

They’re trying to win games with the players they have. They decided based on what they saw that Grayson was, for now, their 6th best starting option. Now needing to cover a start, on a day he’s due to pitch, they think he’s better than their other options so they’re giving him a shot. What happens next will depend on how he does and how long Bradish is out. 

If they didn't think he was ready to start the season in the majors I think it's pretty foolish for them to risk whatever it is they were worried about for one start in the first week of April.

If the only reason they sent him down was because, at that moment, he wasn't the most likely to get a win the first week of the season than they are taking an overly myopic view of the season.

[Sports Guy]

Might just be for this start unless he is really good.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Sports Guy

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Might just be for this start unless he is really good.

Sure, they could Hall him.

Would make as much sense.

[eddie83]

11 minutes ago, interloper said:

Sure. That's about as good a chance as this version of Grayson gives you. And it undermines the whole reason you optioned him in the first place. Classic yo-yo. Bradish will be back and Grayson will go right back down.

They think he is their best option for this game. I wouldn’t read too much into it. 

[Spy Fox]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If they didn't think he was ready to start the season in the majors I think it's pretty foolish for them to risk whatever it is they were worried about for one start in the first week of April.

If the only reason they sent him down was because, at that moment, he wasn't the most likely to get a win the first week of the season than they are taking an overly myopic view of the season.

I'd change the second statement to, they felt at that moment he wasn't one of the 5 most likely to get wins in general until proven otherwise by improvement. And then it doesn't feel too myopic to me. But if he was the 6th most likely to get wins in general, and now they need another starter, I don't see it as too foolish to bring him up either. 

I also think it's a little overly simplistic to say they sent him down to work on stuff. They sent him down because he didn't make the team, and working on stuff is the way to get to where he needs to be to make the team. But if a starting spot opens up and he's the next best option? He can "work on stuff up here" as many people were clamoring for. I also think they would have called him up if, say, a rotation member pulled a muscle in their final ST start.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Spy Fox said:

I'd change the second statement to, they felt at that moment he wasn't one of the 5 most likely to get wins in general until proven otherwise by improvement. And then it doesn't feel too myopic to me. But if he was the 6th most likely to get wins in general, and now they need another starter, I don't see it as too foolish to bring him up either. 

I also think it's a little overly simplistic to say they sent him down to work on stuff. They sent him down because he didn't make the team, and working on stuff is the way to get to where he needs to be to make the team. But if a starting spot opens up and he's the next best option? He can "work on stuff up here" as many people were clamoring for. I also think they would have called him up if, say, a rotation member pulled a muscle in their final ST start.  

I think if you have a top 1 or 2 pitching prospect in the minors and he was ready to come up last season it is indeed myopic to send him down because you think he'll hurt your chances of a win or two in April.  You have to take a longer view than that.  If he is called up now all they accomplished was to eliminate any chance of getting a draft pick.

[Aristotelian]

3 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

I'd change the second statement to, they felt at that moment he wasn't one of the 5 most likely to get wins in general until proven otherwise by improvement. And then it doesn't feel too myopic to me. But if he was the 6th most likely to get wins in general, and now they need another starter, I don't see it as too foolish to bring him up either. 

I also think it's a little overly simplistic to say they sent him down to work on stuff. They sent him down because he didn't make the team, and working on stuff is the way to get to where he needs to be to make the team. But if a starting spot opens up and he's the next best option? He can "work on stuff up here" as many people were clamoring for. I also think they would have called him up if, say, a rotation member pulled a muscle in their final ST start.  

Fanbase wants the organization to be aggressive with prospects until they are a actually aggressive with prospects.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

Fanbase wants the organization to be aggressive with prospects until they are a actually aggressive with prospects.

I want them to be aggressive, I don't want them to be chaotic.