I don't think the "failed starter" label is particularly useful. Haven't the majority of bullpen arms in the entire Major Leagues spend time in the minors as starters?
(I mean it's pretty much expected - you acquire the best arms, who are often starters in HS/College, then you see how they develop.)
Yeah, which pretty much seems like the route most good relievers take to the bigs. Sure, they’ve tried with guys like Hansen and Feltman, which didn’t work, but that’s not the norm.
Sox have guys who would be good relievers but several of them are currently starting, to see if they can be good starters.
Don’t think it’s any more complex than that; the Sox have had challenges developing cost-controlled pitchers, in general, for awhile.
Yeah, I think we're in violent agreement here.
I maintain the issue is not with development -- the Red Sox have promoted several pitchers in just the last couple of years who are excellent. The two best starting pitchers on the staff, Crawford and Bello, by the numbers, are Red Sox developed.
The issue has been that the outside signings - Kluber, Paxton, and Sale - have been mediocre or disastrous, and the others -- Houck and Whitlock in particular -- have been struck by injuries, freak and not freak. That's an entire starting pitching corps that hasn't been effective or able to stay on the mound.
You're being deliberately obtuse, which is why a lot of folks stopped posting here. I'm old and cranky and have zero tolerance for dicks.
Of course, a guy can always learn how to throw a new pitch, or modify his delivery to not tip pitches, etc. The whole theme of this thread, however, is considering development to be the result of a deliberate organizational methodology that understands that as much as 40% of IPs are going to be from bullpen guys and that old paradigms like "converting failed starters," or acquiring established relievers from other teams are no longer practical in modern MLB procedures.
Acquiring pitchers from other organizations through the Rule 5 draft or other means and fixing them up is absolutely not impractical, and in fact it is a staple of excellent organizations. The Tampa Bay Rays, who are first in the division, have done it with several of our very own pitchers (Diekman and Sherriff). As a matter of fact, not a single member of their relief corps was "developed" internally, as you've defined it. Baltimore has exactly one pitcher, as far as I can tell, in their relief corps who was developed as you've defined it, and he was a failed starter. The Red Sox best relievers (Jansen, Martin, Wink, and Bernardino) were acquired by external means, and Whitlock and Houck, who were excellent relievers, were acquired externally. In fact, because of the way the Rule 5 draft is constructed now, it's actually
necessary to get good at identifying flotsam and jetsam from other organizations that might become useful. Whitlock is an excellent example of this. So is Bernardino.
So I'm not sure how we can say that this method of acquiring pitchers externally, is "no longer practical."
Also, I'm sorry, I know you're a dope... but calling me a dick and telling me my deliberate obtuseness is why no one posts here anymore strikes me as completely unfair. I'm not the one strutting around callling people dicks, and I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I'm disagreeing with your premises, and if you can't handle that, then what are we even doing here? This is the second time in a month I've disagreed with a dope and basically been threatened to stop posting, and it's honestly pretty tiresome. And I know from dm-ing with others that they feel the same way.
