I agree that it's very hard to compare eras And yes, I understand that today's 80 pitches at 99 mph starters are mostly different from 1960s 150 pitches at 85 mph starters. But I still think my point has value. And that is that routine is less likely to cause or contribute to injury than non routine. Lance is probably not ever going to be a 200 inning pitcher, and maybe not even a 160 inning pitcher But I think a season of 4 days off then 5 days off then 6 days off then 4 days off is much more likely to contribute to an injury than a season where he has 4 days off and only 4 days off constantly.
Taking your premise as true, then a routine of 5 days off, consistently, is even better. Solves both of our concerns. Or what about 6 days off? Schedule is roughly 26-27 weeks, so a guy pitching every week sounds like a fair number. There's nothing sacrosanct about 4 days.
I agree. I think both 4 or 5 will work, but 4 has some advantages over 5. 4 days off means a team must have at least 5 starters to account for long stretches without off days. 5 days off requires at least 6 starters. That's all well and good when everyone is healthy but the point is to commit to the routine regardless. 4 day system: Framber, Javier, McCullers, Garcia. Urquidy. If one gets injured - Brown 5 day system: those 6 but if one gets injured then Bielak? Murray? France? Whitley? It's hard for a team to find tye depth to commit to a strict 6 man rotation and not move to a 5 man if one starter gets hurt. Also in the playoffs most teams would rather stick with fewer starters. Going from 5 starters to 3-4 is less adjustment than going from 6 to 3-4.
I feel like we're going round and round so I plan on this being my last comment on the topic. The Astros have 6 good starters. Brown is ready to start. He's their top prospect. They should start him. Not keep him in the pen, or AAA. Let's see what he can do given the chance for meaningful innings in the bigs. Also, your plan overburdens each of those other starters. The extra innings contribute to injury, worst case. Or less bad case, arms that are overworked by the time you need them, most. You've got 6 good, young starters. Everyone except Valdez should have an innings cap. Keep the burden low on everyone and profit from their being healthy and fresh enough to pitch meaningful postseason minutes. Don't burn them out by August or September.
I know they are an unrelated gas company, but it is such a terrible name to have on a jersey given Oxycontin's contribution to the Opioid crisis.
As for Brown I agree that he should be in the rotation. I would use Framber, Javier, McCullers, and Brown as starters every 5 days and Urquidy as the 5th starter whenever there is 5 games without a day off. Garcia becomes the long man, piggy backing on any starter who is getting high in innings or sliding into the rotation if someone is hurt. I think Garcia is more versatile than Urquidy. Urquidy's value is in going 6 innings while Garcia can be better in 3-4 inning outings.
My guess is they get Javier for $55M/6yrs plus a $18M 7th year team option, plus $1.5M/yr in inning and awards incentives so $55M guaranteed with potential for $85M if he reaches all incentives and options.
From what @Nook has said, Tucker, Framber, and Javier all will be difficult signings. I will understand if none are signed I will be happy if one is signed I will be thrilled if two are signed. I will try to wake myself if all three are signed.
I’m fine with Valdez not getting extended. He’s old and those guys age in dog years. I would respectfully offer him 6/90 or something like that (that’s valuing his last 3 arb years at 30M and then a 3/60 extension at what- agent 32-34). That’s a nod to what he’s done for you and a chance for him to secure generational money while acknowledging his old age and likely dim prospects for pitching well beyond his age 32/33 years when extreme ground ballers fall apart. Order of extension should be: Javier, Tucker, Altuve, Bregman, Brown, Peña, Abreu, Framber
I want to say it'd be unlikely since it seems Crane himself negotiated with JV's camp directly, but considering his approach, I wonder if Dana was GM earlier whether Verlander could have been retained.
I can see what you're saying about Framber. To me he projects a little like how Keuchel did - I can definitely see him start bottoming out once he gets into his 30s.
I don't see it. Keuchel never had Framber's talent. Keuchel was a mediocre pitcher until the nerd cave got ahold of him. He was a product of being ahead of the curve. Very ordinary once other teams caught up to his usage and positioning. Framber's "stuff" everyone acknowledges is top of the charts. I see Framber pitching very effectively well into his late 30s with as little injury risk as any pitcher has.
They are the main client our company does work for. Small chance I get any tickets from them but you never know.
