Bedard to the bullpen?

[Tony-OH]

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.

Another excellent post and thoughts. I was not aginst trading Bedard this winter for several reasons. However, the possibility of his working with Mazzone was so intriguing that I started to lean against it. Now that he's not improved, and if anything he's regressed, a new role might be best.

But, SG and others make a good point that right now is not the best time to move him due to no other candidate is available to take his place. I also see the point of folks who would rather give him the rest of the year before making a determination. Since the O's are going no where, that has some merits as well.

However, when Penn is ready and if Bedard is still struggling, moving him to the bullpen could be the best for everyone.

Imagine being able to turn over a close game to Bedard in the 7th inning, let him pitch for two innings and turn it over to Ray. We've then shortened the game to six innings, just like the Yankees have done for all those years and the same way the Orioles of '96-'97 did with Rhodes and Myers.

[The Rick]

Imagine being able to turn over a close game to Bedard in the 7th inning, let him pitch for two innings and turn it over to Ray. We've then shortened the game to six innings, just like the Yankees have done for all those years and the same way the Orioles of '96-'97 did with Rhodes and Myers.

But with how wish-washy the organization seems to be on said moves how do we know it would stay that way. For instance, Rodrigo's move to the bullpen turned out to be great, he owned opposition in relief, but then they brought him back in the rotation.

If they put Bedard in the bullpen and he started doing good who's to say that the management and FO won't think that he "figured things out" and move him back in the rotation. Of course the success, or lack thereof of our new rotation would have a say in that as well, but it's just a thought. I like what you said, and in a perfect world that would be the optimum situation for Bedard, as far as fans are concerned. I just worry about the FO promising him his job back if he tears it up in the BP.

The worse part of this, naturally, is that none of us have a crystal ball. I personally think that he'd do great in the role Tony described, but what if he does implode? What if his attitude gets the best of him from such a demotion, then SG and others will rightfully be very upset that we pretty much wasted a hot commodity and could get nothing from him while he had value. It's really a coin flip, because baseball's funny like that.

[SilentMajority]

At the risk of getting yelled at:rolleyes: , count me in the group believing that Bedard should be traded for an impact bat, either on his own or as part of a package. It's time to sell while his value is still relatively high. If he can't bring an impact bat in a trade, then I'd be open to all possibilites, including a switch to the 'pen, although I'd like to point out that it's been said Bedard has some attitude issues, so I wonder how he'd take a "demotion" to the 'pen. He may just go in the tank, which would be counterproductive to say the least.

Now, to address all this petty bickering...without naming names...in all the time I've been reading this board and others, OH seemed to always have intelligent and civil discussion, and didn't have the flaming and boorishness, or at least it was kept to a minimum as compared to other boards like MLB, ESPN, and The Sun. Please, don't let that change. That's all I have to say on that.

[The Rick]

At the risk of getting yelled at:rolleyes: , count me in the group believing that Bedard should be traded for an impact bat, either on his own or as part of a package. It's time to sell while his value is still relatively high. If he can't bring an impact bat in a trade, then I'd be open to all possibilites, including a switch to the 'pen, although I'd like to point out that it's been said Bedard has some attitude issues, so I wonder how he'd take a "demotion" to the 'pen. He may just go in the tank, which would be counterproductive to say the least.

If he could get us an IMPACT bat then I would have to lean towards trading him. I just don't believe he could get us an IMPACT bat though. Could he get us a really good prospect or two, yes. But we all know how that works. So basically what i'm saying is if we could get a proven, but young impact bat for Bedard then i'd trade him. If all's we can get is young players with promising potential, but that have not proven anything at the ML level then i'd try him in the BP.

[SilentMajority]

If he could get us an IMPACT bat then I would have to lean towards trading him. I just don't believe he could get us an IMPACT bat though. Could he get us a really good prospect or two, yes. But we all know how that works. So basically what i'm saying is if we could get a proven, but young impact bat for Bedard then i'd trade him. If all's we can get is young players with promising potential, but that have not proven anything at the ML level then i'd try him in the BP.

Fair enough, I know there was talk of Bedard/Dunn or Bedard/Abreu over the winter, but I'd agree that Cincy or Philly wouldn't make those deals now, or even if they would've really made them over the winter. But they might make that deal now for Bedard with some other prospects thrown in, especially the Phils, who want to shed Abreu's salary. Either Abreu or Dunn would fill a gaping hole on this ballclub.

I dunno, but I think it's time for the FO to at least make some calls.

[Why Not?]

There is one point that shouldn't get lost in this discussion -- the value of having a really good long man. The Oriole teams of 1979-85 had Sammy Stewart in that role, and Arthur Rhodes filled it admirably from 1996-99.

If a guy like Bedard could be used like Stewart was, it would be worth a shot. But that would mean a real revolutionary change in bullpen usage. I don't recall reliever kicking in 120 innings in recent history (though I could be wrong). Even with his struggles, I'd hate to relegate Bedard to 75-85 innings a year.

[Frobby]

Imagine being able to turn over a close game to Bedard in the 7th inning, let him pitch for two innings and turn it over to Ray. We've then shortened the game to six innings, just like the Yankees have done for all those years and the same way the Orioles of '96-'97 did with Rhodes and Myers.

Uh, Tony....wasn't Armando Benitez usually in there for the 8th? That's how I remember it, especially in '97.

[rp0806]

If he could get us an IMPACT bat then I would have to lean towards trading him. I just don't believe he could get us an IMPACT bat though. Could he get us a really good prospect or two, yes. But we all know how that works. So basically what i'm saying is if we could get a proven, but young impact bat for Bedard then i'd trade him. If all's we can get is young players with promising potential, but that have not proven anything at the ML level then i'd try him in the BP.

Right...I'd be happy to trade him at this point for a guy like Abreu, but it's not going to happen.

If a guy like Bedard could be used like Stewart was, it would be worth a shot. But that would mean a real revolutionary change in bullpen usage. I don't recall reliever kicking in 120 innings in recent history (though I could be wrong). Even with his struggles, I'd hate to relegate Bedard to 75-85 innings a year.

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.

[rp0806]

Uh, Tony....wasn't Armando Benitez usually in there for the 8th? That's how I remember it, especially in '97.

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.

[Tony-OH]

Uh, Tony....wasn't Armando Benitez usually in there for the 8th? That's how I remember it, especially in '97.

Yep, I certainly remember Benitez being in there as well. Obviously the Rhodes/Myers combo was not going to happen everyday.

[AgentOrange]

B

U

M

P

[SilentMajority]

Sell high.

[Sports Guy]

The strikeouts are going back up....Very encouraging sign.

[Sports Guy]

Exactly.

22 of 89 batters (24.7%) he's faced this month have either struck out or hit a pop up. Any pitcher who maintains a rate like that has a pretty darn good shot at success. He's also cut down on his walks from last month (12.2% down to 9%). Add all that up and he's on his way. The only thing he has to do now is cut down on the number of line drives he allows (13 to 89 batters).

How do they determine the line drive stat? Someone watch every game? Does that include hard line drives and soft line drives??

[Sports Guy]

Yes, any idea why? IMO, it's simply because he's moving the ball around more and not as infatuated with the outside corner as before. I"m confused a little though. Seems like his curve is not the weapon it used to be. Not as hard or sharp as it was in the past. All of the Orioles pitchers seem to be more inclined to throw a high fastball slighlty above the zone on a two strike count. That pitch to Reyes was a good pitcher's pitch although it should have been in. Most players K on that pitch but Reyes is kind of a free swinger.

Yea, it has basically been that way since his second start back from rehab last year(his first start was good).