Red Sox Rotation 2014 and Beyond

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,613
Row 14
Right now the rotation is penciled in as:
 
Lester
Buchholz
Lackey
Peavy
Doubront
 
Dempster
 
Workman
Webster
De La Rosa
 
Ranuado
Ely
Wright
 
That is probably how the Red Sox start their Spring.  Possibly Barnes comes up as a NRI as well.
 
I wouldn't look to trade a starter until during Spring Training because you normally have one injury coming out of the gate.  I can also see Workman and De La Rosa eventually moving into bullpen spots.
 
Dempster and Peavy are out of contract next year as is Lester (who I believe they will extend)
 
That has 2015 looking like:
 
Lester
Buchholz
Lackey
Doubront
Webster
 
Ranuado
Barnes
Wright
 
Owens
 
I assume De La Rosa, Workman, and Hinojosa will end up bullpen arms.  Workman could be a swingman. Workman has three option years left and De Las Rosa has two so they might bounce a bit more between SP and RP.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,126
Santa Monica
Minor quibble, but I deal Dempster as soon as we get a team willing to take on his salary and maybe get some AAAA CF depth back for him.  I'd like his salary relief to see if there are any 'buy low' free agent candidates in Feb/March.
 
I'd rather see Workman as our #6 starter and working at Pawtucket till that eventual call is made.  Since this relates to the pen, I see the pen as Koji, Mujica, Tazawa, Breslow, Badenhop, Miller and a 7th man that pitches multiple innings in a blowout and keeps rest of the pen fresh, best of: Britton, De La Rosa, Wilson.
 
Ely had TJ surgery last season, not sure he'll be ready till mid-season.
 
Wright doesn't inspire much confidence in me after that Houston experience last year, but he sticks around till Owens is ready to move up.
Pawtucket rotation of Workman, Webster, Renaudo, Barnes, Wright. 
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
benhogan said:
 
 
Wright doesn't inspire much confidence in me after that Houston experience last year, but he sticks around till Owens is ready to move up.
Pawtucket rotation of Workman, Webster, Renaudo, Barnes, Wright. 
 
It's pretty rare for the twelfth man on your SP depth chart to inspire much confidence. 
 

dcb46

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 15, 2002
867
benhogan said:
Minor quibble, but I deal Dempster as soon as we get a team willing to take on his salary and maybe get some AAAA CF depth back for him.  I'd like his salary relief to see if there are any 'buy low' free agent candidates in Feb/March.
 
 
Respectfully disagreeing...
 
I think it is unlikely any team gives significant salary relief by taking Dempster, which is a suggestion I think several posters have made.  If we want to free up the roster spot, we will need to subsidize him heavily.  If we want value in a return player (as opposed to taking back another bad salary) the subsidy will need to be even larger.  It's no state secret that Dempster is the quintessential replacement level pitcher, with the small advantage of being relatively durable.  You can find his equal for far less than $13M or whatever it is.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
dcb46 said:
Respectfully disagreeing...
 
I think it is unlikely any team gives significant salary relief by taking Dempster, which is a suggestion I think several posters have made.  If we want to free up the roster spot, we will need to subsidize him heavily.  If we want value in a return player (as opposed to taking back another bad salary) the subsidy will need to be even larger.  It's no state secret that Dempster is the quintessential replacement level pitcher, with the small advantage of being relatively durable.  You can find his equal for far less than $13M or whatever it is.
While I don't really disagree with the notion that we'll have to subsidize a trade, I'd say he's safely above replacement level. fWAR, ERA-, xFIP all put him as a #4 last year, and a year removed from putting up #2 numbers. Even at his 2013 AL East numbers, there are a lot of teams who could use that. I would think there's at least one NL team coveting his services, hoping he can replicate what he did in his last season with the Cubs.
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,316
Do you really think any team views him as a #2? He may have been the first half of 2012, but when he was traded to the Rangers his ERA was above 5 and his WHIP was 1.4
 
Dempster is a pitcher that an NL team would probably want, but we would have to pay a lot of the freight. 
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
NDame616 said:
Do you really think any team views him as a #2? He may have been the first half of 2012, but when he was traded to the Rangers his ERA was above 5 and his WHIP was 1.4
 
Dempster is a pitcher that an NL team would probably want, but we would have to pay a lot of the freight.
If he's viewed as a #3 pitcher in the NL , isn't that worth ~10-12m for most NL teams? If that's the case why do the Sox have to subsidize him if they just give him away? In other words, if Dempster was a FA you don't think he could get a one year contract at 12m?
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
NDame616 said:
Do you really think any team views him as a #2? He may have been the first half of 2012, but when he was traded to the Rangers his ERA was above 5 and his WHIP was 1.4
 
Dempster is a pitcher that an NL team would probably want, but we would have to pay a lot of the freight.
Nope. But I also don't think the Red Sox thought he was a #2 when they signed him for 2/26 last year, also having seen his couple months in Texas. A decent, durable starting pitcher is a pretty useful commodity - that's how he got here in the first place. $13 mil is an overpay, sure, but to say he's a replacement level player we'd have to give away is a little too much. Granted, I hope he's not on the 2014 roster...
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Yes it's hard to make an argument that you'd clearly rather have Scott Feldman than Ryan Dempster in 2014.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,126
Santa Monica
dcb46 said:
 
Respectfully disagreeing...
 
I think it is unlikely any team gives significant salary relief by taking Dempster, which is a suggestion I think several posters have made.  If we want to free up the roster spot, we will need to subsidize him heavily.  If we want value in a return player (as opposed to taking back another bad salary) the subsidy will need to be even larger.  It's no state secret that Dempster is the quintessential replacement level pitcher, with the small advantage of being relatively durable.  You can find his equal for far less than $13M or whatever it is.
I'm not really sure what kind of players we could obtain for Dempster or how much salary relief we can get. But Dempster is better then replacement level, he got beat up pitching at Fenway in the AL, it happens. He could be a solid #4 and good clubhouse presence on a NL team.
 
My point to TomRicardo was I would not limit ourselves and wait around till spring to deal Dempster, as soon as a team would be willing to take on 75-100% of Dempster's salary he's gone.  My feeling is Workman is a superior starting option for the #6 spot to Dempster. Workman, with options remaining, can be stretched out at AAA as a starter and be ready in a moments notice for the call up.
 

swingin val

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,162
Minneapolis
Rudy Pemberton said:
Dempster's value is almost completely in his ability to pitch a lot of innings. His rate starts last year were terrible; one of the worst BB and HR rates in the league, a bad combination. He was actually fairly lucky too; he was generally only better than guys who didn't stick in rotations all year (similar to a Phil Hughes, actually). I'm sure a team would give up a B prospect if the Sox ate $5-$6M, but let's not pretend that Dempster has been good in the AL (and at his age, one wonders how long his durability will remain an asset).
Phil Hughes just signed a 2 year deal worth 24 million. I imagine Dempster on a one year deal at simliar money is more attractive to anyone that would have been in on Hughes. I think the Sox would have zero difficulty dumping Dempster on someone without having to eat any money. The return would be negligible, obviously.
 

Paradigm

juju all over his tits
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
5,954
Touche?
At this point, I think Barnes, Ranado, or Webster will be able to contribute as much to the rotation as Dempster. All three can be expected to have growing pains, but that just balances against Dempster's mediocrity. Any of them could put up a 4.5-5 ERA. If the Sox could get any kind of player value back for Dempster in a trade, I say go for it. But it's still pretty unlikely. He's attractive because he's on a one-year deal, but that's the same reason why no team is going to give up significant value for him.
 
If the Angels aren't going to put Tyler Skaggs in the rotation right away, they might be a trade option. Maybe the Rockies, Reds, Royals or Brewers could use him as a fifth starter. But nobody's going to give up a great prospect for him -- maybe a relief prospect. In fact, maybe you just go into it trying to trade Dempster for a more cost-controlled reliever. 
 

Puffy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,263
Town
It may take some time for the market for Dempster to develop, if at all.  There are handfuls of free agent starters out there right now - obviously Garza, Jimenez, Burnett, but also guys like Capuano, Maholm, Hammel, E. Santana, and then other guys like Harang, Arroyo, Bedard, and Jerome Williams.  I could see Dempster hanging around during spring training waiting for an injury to crop up somewhere (in Boston or elsewhere) to get a starting shot.  I don't really see any real urgency to deal him soon, unless the $$ is really hanging up the Sox from doing something else.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
dcb46 said:
 
Respectfully disagreeing...
 
I think it is unlikely any team gives significant salary relief by taking Dempster, which is a suggestion I think several posters have made.  If we want to free up the roster spot, we will need to subsidize him heavily.  If we want value in a return player (as opposed to taking back another bad salary) the subsidy will need to be even larger.  It's no state secret that Dempster is the quintessential replacement level pitcher, with the small advantage of being relatively durable.  You can find his equal for far less than $13M or whatever it is.
 
I think you are under-rating the value of his production. His 2013 season was really bad, but his 2012 was worth close to $20 million at current prices on a one year deal. Projections expect him to be about average next year, which is pretty much exactly what he is getting paid like. I don't think the Red Sox can expect to get any value back, and it's possible they'll have to eat a couple million to move him, but they should be able to get someone to take on pretty much all of his contract because he's likely to be worth that much, has a real chance to be better than that, and it's a one year deal so there is a lot less downside than paying a FA who projects a little bit better next year 4/52 or whatever it'll take to sign such a player in the current market.
 
I mean, look at the list Puffy posted. The only pitcher on there after the first 3 that there is a real case for as more desirable than Dempster is Santana. For the rest of them, they were as bad, or close last year, and their good seasons are much further in the past than Dempster's, or never existed in the first place. There really isn't much pitching worth buying on the market right now.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Puffy said:
It may take some time for the market for Dempster to develop, if at all.  There are handfuls of free agent starters out there right now - obviously Garza, Jimenez, Burnett, but also guys like Capuano, Maholm, Hammel, E. Santana, and then other guys like Harang, Arroyo, Bedard, and Jerome Williams.  I could see Dempster hanging around during spring training waiting for an injury to crop up somewhere (in Boston or elsewhere) to get a starting shot.  I don't really see any real urgency to deal him soon, unless the $$ is really hanging up the Sox from doing something else.
 
By the end of spring training some contender or quasi contender will have a pitcher suffer a multiple month long or season ending injury.  (Perhaps even the Sox.)
 
***
Also, ye pitching gurus, which of our AAA arms do you think might make a jump into the starting rotation?  
 
While Dempster might be our sixth starter, there's quite a bit of drop off after him.  I mean, it's one thing to list Webster and De La Rosa as "depth" - but if "depth" isn't effective, it's not really "depth," is it?   Neither impressed me last year, plus it's not like they set the AAA world afire and stumbled when coming up to MLB.  Perhaps one or both will put it together this year, but the lack of a track record from AAA pitchers (Workman the notable exception), coupled with the injury risk inherent in Peavy and Buchholz is an excellent reason to hold onto Dempster.  (Unless we get a truly amazing trade offer tomorrow.)
 
Don't forget, we traded for Peavy because we didn't have anyone capable of immediately stepping in.  If we get rid of Dempster now, an injury means we'd end up trading for a Dempster type. 
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
Rovin Romine said:
 
By the end of spring training some contender or quasi contender will have a pitcher suffer a multiple month long or season ending injury.  (Perhaps even the Sox.)
 
***
Also, ye pitching gurus, which of our AAA arms do you think might make a jump into the starting rotation?  
 
While Dempster might be our sixth starter, there's quite a bit of drop off after him.  I mean, it's one thing to list Webster and De La Rosa as "depth" - but if "depth" isn't effective, it's not really "depth," is it?   Neither impressed me last year, plus it's not like they set the AAA world afire and stumbled when coming up to MLB.  Perhaps one or both will put it together this year, but the lack of a track record from AAA pitchers (Workman the notable exception), coupled with the injury risk inherent in Peavy and Buchholz is an excellent reason to hold onto Dempster.  (Unless we get a truly amazing trade offer tomorrow.)
 
Don't forget, we traded for Peavy because we didn't have anyone capable of immediately stepping in.  If we get rid of Dempster now, an injury means we'd end up trading for a Dempster type. 
They traded for Peavy because Buchholz was hurt and they didn't really trust Dempster at that point, so they only had 3 starters they were comfortable with for the playoffs. With Peavy and Buchholz healthy, they have 5 such starters. One injury still leaves them with 4 trustworthy starters. Thus, one injury would not lead to a trade for another starter. It would lead to Webster, Ranaudo, Barnes, or Workman getting a few regular season starts. (That is not an ordered listing.)
 

JMDurron

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,127
JakeRae said:
They traded for Peavy because Buchholz was hurt and they didn't really trust Dempster at that point, so they only had 3 starters they were comfortable with for the playoffs. With Peavy and Buchholz healthy, they have 5 such starters. One injury still leaves them with 4 trustworthy starters. Thus, one injury would not lead to a trade for another starter. It would lead to Webster, Ranaudo, Barnes, or Workman getting a few regular season starts. (That is not an ordered listing.)
 
You are basing your conclusion that Buchholz is healthy on what, exactly?  His blazing stuff in the World Series?  
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
JMDurron said:
You are basing your conclusion that Buchholz is healthy on what, exactly?  His blazing stuff in the World Series?
Rest .. Plus the rumoured Sox interest in trading a starter. It's rather unlikely they would be looking to unload Peavster if they had any major worries about Buchholz.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
swingin val said:
Phil Hughes just signed a 2 year deal worth 24 million. I imagine Dempster on a one year deal at simliar money is more attractive to anyone that would have been in on Hughes. I think the Sox would have zero difficulty dumping Dempster on someone without having to eat any money. The return would be negligible, obviously.
 
Hughes got a 3/24 deal, so his AAV is significantly less than Dempster's next year. Of course, thats balanced by the fact that he's a longer commitment and more total dollars.
 
I think Dempster is comfortably above replacement level, but also pretty unlikely to be a #2 or #3 level starter. Seems like he is a bit overpaid, but not drastically.  Probably fair to assume you could give him away on a 10M deal. If you want to get lottery ticket prospect or two, it would probably take paying closer to half his salary.
 
Just depends which teams are interested, if you like any of their prospects, and if that team would prefer to save money on Dempster or keep those prospects.  The amount of the subsidy over the baseline (what I estimate to be 3M) will essentially just be buying prospects from another team.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Dempster or as I called him more often than not last year because of his general shittiness  Dumpster probably will be sold off to a team after the starting pitching market moves at least a little bit. Mr. Tanaka is currently holding it up completely. 
 
The Red Sox will probably have to choose between eating some money for a fungible depth piece or just offloading the salary for some lottery ticket thats lost his luster or comes with significant questions. 
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Rest .. Plus the rumoured Sox interest in trading a starter. It's rather unlikely they would be looking to unload Peavster if they had any major worries about Buchholz.
 
Honest question: have there been such rumors? We've talked a lot on this board about them trading a starter, but I haven't seen it written elsewhere that the FO has been seeking to do so.
 

jhogan88

New Member
Apr 19, 2012
111
Santa Barbara
Pitchers always seem to get injured or have down years and we fortunately have a surplus of starters. A Dempster trade would likely result in the Sox eating a big chunk of his salary while also throwing in a prospect of WMB. A 6 man rotation would also compensate nicely for the fatigue associated with the deep playoff run in 2013. Why not run out a 6 man rotation to begin the year and adjust back to a 5 man rotation in the event of injury or ineffectiveness? A 6 man rotation may also maximize the value of Buchholz and Dubront.
 
Lester
Lackey
Buchholz (injury prone as it is)
Doubront (effectiveness decreases as total IP increases)
Peavy (still injury questions)
Dempster (not an ideal candidate to get 130+ innings but does eat innings effectively)
 
Workman as long relief.
 
I would love for one of you to talk me out of a 6 man rotation.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,613
Row 14
jhogan88 said:
Pitchers always seem to get injured or have down years and we fortunately have a surplus of starters. A Dempster trade would likely result in the Sox eating a big chunk of his salary while also throwing in a prospect of WMB. A 6 man rotation would also compensate nicely for the fatigue associated with the deep playoff run in 2013. Why not run out a 6 man rotation to begin the year and adjust back to a 5 man rotation in the event of injury or ineffectiveness? A 6 man rotation may also maximize the value of Buchholz and Dubront.
 
Lester
Lackey
Buchholz (injury prone as it is)
Doubront (effectiveness decreases as total IP increases)
Peavy (still injury questions)
Dempster (not an ideal candidate to get 130+ innings but does eat innings effectively)
 
Workman as long relief.
 
I would love for one of you to talk me out of a 6 man rotation.
 
I have a Jhunch88 that the isn't a chance the Red Sox work with a bullpen that short with the pitchers you just mentioned. 
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
jhogan88 said:
Pitchers always seem to get injured or have down years and we fortunately have a surplus of starters. A Dempster trade would likely result in the Sox eating a big chunk of his salary while also throwing in a prospect of WMB. A 6 man rotation would also compensate nicely for the fatigue associated with the deep playoff run in 2013. Why not run out a 6 man rotation to begin the year and adjust back to a 5 man rotation in the event of injury or ineffectiveness? A 6 man rotation may also maximize the value of Buchholz and Dubront.
 
Lester
Lackey
Buchholz (injury prone as it is)
Doubront (effectiveness decreases as total IP increases)
Peavy (still injury questions)
Dempster (not an ideal candidate to get 130+ innings but does eat innings effectively)
 
Workman as long relief.
 
I would love for one of you to talk me out of a 6 man rotation.
So you want a 6 man bullpen one of which is Workman in long relief?
 

jhogan88

New Member
Apr 19, 2012
111
Santa Barbara
keninten said:
So you want a 6 man bullpen one of which is Workman in long relief?
 
Bullpen would be:
 
Workman
Breslow
Miller
Britton
Wilson
Mujica
Tazawa
Koji
 
Maybe make a trade for another arm. It's a theoretical Jhunch and I wouldn't have a 6 man rotation for more than a month or so. Appreciate the quick rebuttals!
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
jhogan88 said:
 
Bullpen would be:
 
Workman
Breslow
Miller
Britton
Wilson
Mujica
Tazawa
Koji
 
Maybe make a trade for another arm. It's a theoretical Jhunch and I wouldn't have a 6 man rotation for more than a month or so. Appreciate the quick rebuttals!
That leaves you a 2 man bench. I haven`t looked at the schedule but usually you don`t need your 5th starter as much in April. They only have 2 off days in April, the 14th and 28th.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
In order to trade Dempster - a good and perfectly healthy starter on a one-year contract - the Red Sox would "likely...eat a big chunk of his salary..." and "throw in a prospect," specifically Middlebrooks?
 
I've been admonished to be nice so I will just say that I think jhogan88 is vastly underrating the value of both of these players.
 

jhogan88

New Member
Apr 19, 2012
111
Santa Barbara
snowmanny said:
In order to trade Dempster - a good and perfectly healthy starter on a one-year contract - the Red Sox would "likely...eat a big chunk of his salary..." and "throw in a prospect," specifically Middlebrooks?
 
I've been admonished to be nice so I will just say that I think jhogan88 is vastly underrating the value of both of these players.
 
Personally I would prefer to retain both. I was simply throwing out a hypothetical. 
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,677
Maine
jhogan88 said:
 
Bullpen would be:
 
Workman
Breslow
Miller
Britton
Wilson
Mujica
Tazawa
Koji
 
Maybe make a trade for another arm. It's a theoretical Jhunch and I wouldn't have a 6 man rotation for more than a month or so. Appreciate the quick rebuttals!
 
I hope a couple of those relievers also can handle playing LF or 2B or catch, because the bench is awfully short with a 6-man rotation and a 8-man bullpen.
 

Puffy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,263
Town
John Lackey discussed his contract situation in an article published today by Rob Bradford. I thought it was worth a read, putting to bed some of the concerns about how Lackey may deal with playing for a league minimum salary in 2015.  Money quotes: 
 
“It’s different,” he said of the clause. “There will be some things I have to think about, for sure. It is what it is right now. I haven’t even thought about it. I’m worried about this year.
“But it’s different, for sure. It’s going to be different.”
“I haven’t even gotten to that point of thinking that far ahead. We’ll play this year out and see what happens,” Lackey said. “I’m not worried about the money. I’ve made plenty of that.”
 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,677
Maine
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Jake Peavy cut his non-throwing hand, severing a tendon in one of his fingers.  He will likely not be available by opening day, which eases the rotation "squeeze" even further.  Never enough starting pitching. Never enough starting pitching.  Never enough starting...
 
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20140304&content_id=68669130&notebook_id=68696652&vkey=notebook_bos&c_id=bos
 
There's nothing in the article that says he "likely will not be available by opening day".  They said it's still too early to know one way or the other, but they obviously have options if he can't be ready.  If the only issue is whether or not he can put on his glove, I can't see this setting him back too far.  If he can't put a glove on, he's really only prevented from participating in live games, and even that may only be for another week or so.  He can still throw bullpens, he can likely still throw live BP or simulated games if necessary.  They don't need a fifth starter until the sixth game of the season, so it's not as though he needs to be on the same schedule as, say, Lester.  And even Lester is getting his first live action in today.  Peavy isn't too far behind, preparation-wise.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
There's nothing in the article that says he "likely will not be available by opening day".  They said it's still too early to know one way or the other, but they obviously have options if he can't be ready.  If the only issue is whether or not he can put on his glove, I can't see this setting him back too far.  If he can't put a glove on, he's really only prevented from participating in live games, and even that may only be for another week or so.  He can still throw bullpens, he can likely still throw live BP or simulated games if necessary.  They don't need a fifth starter until the sixth game of the season, so it's not as though he needs to be on the same schedule as, say, Lester.  And even Lester is getting his first live action in today.  Peavy isn't too far behind, preparation-wise.
 
I was extrapolating based on the report that he's not able to wear a glove yet.  If he's throwing in a game in a week, he can probably make the 5th start of the year, but if it's longer than that, it seems unlikely he'll be able to get the work in against live hitters that would be necessary for him to be ready by then.  And with the depth the team has, they should probably be cautious with Peavy until he is fully healed.  If they were confident in his ability to get back on the mound in a week, why not mention a timetable that they are aiming for rather than giving no timetable at all?  Managers typically say so if they have an idea of when someone is going to be ready again.  Or, at least, they mention when they hope a player will be ready.
 
And all of this is assuming no setbacks in his recovery.  If this was just a tearing of the skin and muscle, I wouldn't even think it worth mentioning, but a cut tendon is significant.  It's not in his throwing hand, granted, but this is more than a typical cut and may impact his ability to flex his finger or grip things.  It may require some physical therapy as well.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
I was extrapolating based on the report that he's not able to wear a glove yet.  If he's throwing in a game in a week, he can probably make the 5th start of the year, but if it's longer than that, it seems unlikely he'll be able to get the work in against live hitters that would be necessary for him to be ready by then.  And with the depth the team has, they should probably be cautious with Peavy until he is fully healed.  If they were confident in his ability to get back on the mound in a week, why not mention a timetable that they are aiming for rather than giving no timetable at all?  Managers typically say so if they have an idea of when someone is going to be ready again.  Or, at least, they mention when they hope a player will be ready.
 
And all of this is assuming no setbacks in his recovery.  If this was just a tearing of the skin and muscle, I wouldn't even think it worth mentioning, but a cut tendon is significant.  It's not in his throwing hand, granted, but this is more than a typical cut and may impact his ability to flex his finger or grip things.  It may require some physical therapy as well.
 
Since he got stitches (and reported to the Sox he had a knife wound on one of his fingers), it's a fair assumption that a doctor looked at the finger and decided surgery wasn't necessary to repair any of the damage. 
 
From the articles on this injury, it seems they're mostly worried about infection (they just don't want him sweating into the wound/opening the stitches if he catches a ball with his glove.) 
 
I can't imagine that it would affect Peavy's game all that much once it closed up, theoretical loss of mobility or no.   I also can't imagine that this causes him to miss any significant time this season. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Rovin Romine said:
 
Since he got stitches (and reported to the Sox he had a knife wound on one of his fingers), it's a fair assumption that a doctor looked at the finger and decided surgery wasn't necessary to repair any of the damage. 
 
From the articles on this injury, it seems they're mostly worried about infection (they just don't want him sweating into the wound/opening the stitches if he catches a ball with his glove.) 
 
I can't imagine that it would affect Peavy's game all that much once it closed up, theoretical loss of mobility or no.   I also can't imagine that this causes him to miss any significant time this season. 
 
Rob Bradford says he did damage a tendon and the nerve.
 
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/03/04/red-sox-notes-jake-peavy-damaged-tendon-nerves-in-finger-but-has-started-throwing-david-ross-sidelined-by-foot-issue/
 


FORT MYERS, Fla. — Jake Peavy told WEEI.com prior to playing catch Tuesday morning that the fishing knife that led to a laceration of his left index finger actually cut through a tendon, resulted in some nerve damage and required surgery (along with stitches).
 
There are also quotes from Farrell describing the knife as almost going through his finger.
 
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/03/04/red-sox-notes-jake-peavy-damaged-tendon-nerves-in-finger-but-has-started-throwing-david-ross-sidelined-by-foot-issue/
 


"This was a freak one. And honestly, he avoided some serious injury with what took place. He cut himself with a fishing knife. He was at home when it took place, he was trying to cut through something and when it gave way, almost cut through his left index finger."