Jump to content

Who should start Th May 2nd vs the Yankees? Bradish or Irvin?


Who should start game 4 of the Yankees on Thursday May 2nd?  

42 members have voted

  1. 1. Bradish or Irvin?



Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Not really when Irvin has turned in two gems and we don’t know what we would get with Bradish. 
 

It’s okay to ride the hot Suárez train but not the hot Irvin locomotive. 

Exactly. Hopefully one day our ace figures out to get into the 7th inning, like Irvin.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I’m guessing Ramirez DFA for Means and Akin optioned for Means. I could also see us going with a 6 man rotation for a turn or two. I don’t know if Burnes would be down for that. 

Hyde already shut the 6 man thing down last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, interloper said:

Yeah I get it. I think they might try a 6 man rotation for a bit honestly. Means long relief? Who knows. Gonna be interesting. 

Hyde's generally made negative noises about that concept in the past, I believe.

Corbin Burnes is here 1-year only to keep taking regular season turns up to 33 until the best possible playoff situation is earned, and whatever the baseball gods have in mind after that.    I don't think Sigbot is going to cannibalize any of its Burnes in a hot race for a SP6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bradish is arguably our best starter if he is anything close to what he showed last year. Irvin has been great the last two times out, but I’d take my chances with a (seemingly) healthy Bradish over Irvin any day of the week. 

You can argue that Bradish should be eased in, but I don’t think they’re worried about that for a guy that pitched in meaningful games last year and started game 1 of the playoffs. And while NYY are a solid offensive team, it’s not like they’re ATL, LAD, TEX, or us. With a guy like him, if he’s actually ready, he should pitch. 

Edited by LGOrioles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LGOrioles said:

Bradish is arguably our best starter if he is anything close to what he showed last year. Irvin has been great the last two times out, but I’d take my chances with a (seemingly) healthy Bradish over Irvin any day of the week. 

You can argue that Bradish should be eased in, but I don’t think they’re worried about that for a guy that pitched in meaningful games last year and started game 1 of the playoffs. And while NYY are a solid offensive team, it’s not like they’re ATL, LAD, TEX, or us. With a guy like him, if he’s actually ready, he should pitch. 

I think for me, Irvin has the hot hand and Bradish is just coming back. I would rather have Irvin ride it out until the wheels come off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Irvin is going to be better than Bradish going forward, I do think they are pushing Bradish back pretty fast and there will be some rust. He's had 3 rehab starts and I know he threw 77 pitches in the last game, but ML hitters are a different beast. I wouldn't be shocked if they start Bradish, and if he gets rocked early they bring in Irvin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2024 at 9:31 AM, RZNJ said:

I like Webb and his changeup but even if he survives this he probably won’t survive both Cionel Perez and Tyler Wells coming back.

After the Yankee series I like Jacob Webb a lot.  😁

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
    • What if they don’t want to be extended?
    • I don't want the O's to lose much, but I do want there to be a massive streaming deal with Amazon or some other company the O's are left out of.  This blackout nonsense is bullsh!t. 🤬
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...