What's a Sean O'Sullivan?
- Thread starter Darnell's Son
- Start date
From the linked article:
So since this ins't opening day, he is filling his role, one or two starts.
Last edited:
I see where that quote is coming from. I don't really understand why this is happening.
Considering the Sox could have given the start to Owens (one last time), or called-up Elias or Johnson or Cuevas (SP already on the 40-man) to make the start, or left the starters on the shelf (and hand the game over to JF's 8-man bullpen), or even activated Kelly or Rodriguez early (and on a limited pitch count), it is quite odd that O'Sullivan gets the ball today. There are no less than seven other options, and O'Sullivan isn't terribly compelling aside from the Bannister angle.
Really, between this and the equally head-scratching add of Cuevas last month, I'm starting to form an idea about why DDski's pens sucked in Detroit.
Perhaps, in order to add unneeded mediocrity to the 40-man, it's usually necessary to subtract another player. In this case, O'Sullivan got on by simply shifting Panda to the 60-day, so there's no net loss of talent. But the next step up the fungibility ladder from paper DL moves is mediocre minor-league pitchers.
Like Escobar, for example, who's pitched okay in the PCL since Arizona grabbed him off waivers.
But if you're losing a few of these maybe-still-a-little-upside-remaining guys from the system for absolutely nothing, you end up with a system depleted of the guys who may yet -- even only if reliever volatility breaks right -- catch lightning in a bottle for a few months or years. And losing organizational depth this way is compounded yet again when arms like Logan Allen are thrown in to acquire a stud like Kimbrel.
On a year-over-year basis, moves like this should add up. And what's left is a thin system at a position known for extreme volatility.
I'll have to do some additional research when I'm not at work, to look into whether this is just a hunch, or is a hunch with some substance to it. I know Theo lost Breslow to Oakland the same way, and Ben lost Miguel Gonzalez to the Orioles, so it's not just DDski.
Still, it might be interesting to see whether there's any trend to suggest DDski is more profligate with his non-elite organizational pitching depth.
Considering the Sox could have given the start to Owens (one last time), or called-up Elias or Johnson or Cuevas (SP already on the 40-man) to make the start, or left the starters on the shelf (and hand the game over to JF's 8-man bullpen), or even activated Kelly or Rodriguez early (and on a limited pitch count), it is quite odd that O'Sullivan gets the ball today. There are no less than seven other options, and O'Sullivan isn't terribly compelling aside from the Bannister angle.
Really, between this and the equally head-scratching add of Cuevas last month, I'm starting to form an idea about why DDski's pens sucked in Detroit.
Perhaps, in order to add unneeded mediocrity to the 40-man, it's usually necessary to subtract another player. In this case, O'Sullivan got on by simply shifting Panda to the 60-day, so there's no net loss of talent. But the next step up the fungibility ladder from paper DL moves is mediocre minor-league pitchers.
Like Escobar, for example, who's pitched okay in the PCL since Arizona grabbed him off waivers.
But if you're losing a few of these maybe-still-a-little-upside-remaining guys from the system for absolutely nothing, you end up with a system depleted of the guys who may yet -- even only if reliever volatility breaks right -- catch lightning in a bottle for a few months or years. And losing organizational depth this way is compounded yet again when arms like Logan Allen are thrown in to acquire a stud like Kimbrel.
On a year-over-year basis, moves like this should add up. And what's left is a thin system at a position known for extreme volatility.
I'll have to do some additional research when I'm not at work, to look into whether this is just a hunch, or is a hunch with some substance to it. I know Theo lost Breslow to Oakland the same way, and Ben lost Miguel Gonzalez to the Orioles, so it's not just DDski.
Still, it might be interesting to see whether there's any trend to suggest DDski is more profligate with his non-elite organizational pitching depth.
That's an interesting theory, and I think there's a lot of truth to it.
But I don't think that applies to O'Sullivan. His career is the epitome of a replacement-level starting pitcher -- which, by definition, there's no need to stockpile. Unless the team thinks he can be developed into something more, he's just a spare part. And if he doesn't, he could be outrighted tomorrow and no one would blink an eye.
But I don't think that applies to O'Sullivan. His career is the epitome of a replacement-level starting pitcher -- which, by definition, there's no need to stockpile. Unless the team thinks he can be developed into something more, he's just a spare part. And if he doesn't, he could be outrighted tomorrow and no one would blink an eye.
I'm not sure I agree with most of those options. Owens looked terrible, and sending him out there again to get shelled after throwing up 80 mph meatballs does not seem to be a good use of a prospect. At the very least, it does nothing for his confidence.
I also hate the idea of activating Kelly or especially Ed Rod early. Sounds like a recipe to lose a valuable starter for the season sometime around the All Star break.
And you don't want to hand the game over to the pen unnecessarily. We're not in sudden double header while nursing a rash of last minute injuries situation here.
O'Sullivan is be definition a fungible starter, the guy you may as well put out there for a game like this. At the end of the day, it's unlikely to matter whether O'Sullivan or Cuevas gets DFA'd sometime later this season.
I would think the players noted above were all deemed fungible anyway. Some of them turned out to have a couple of seasons of better than replacement value; that seems more like a mistaken evaluation than a result of mishandling the 40-man roster.
The problem with the Ben operated Redsox was the stockpiling of mediocre players and refusing to let any of the depth go. If you are worried about losing an Edwin Escobar to the detriment of putting the best possible team out there... that's why you finish in the basement.
Are you seriously arguing that putting Cuevas in the pen for 2 days was "putting the best possible team out there" in April?
Somewhat predictably for a guy with rather limited stuff, he pitched only 2 1/3 innings and helped put a game out of reach by giving up a 1.375 OPS against. The 40-man roster already held Light, Owens, Elias, and Johnson in reserve at AAA as major-league depth options. Any of them could have done that. And Noe Ramirez, who was also recalled to give the Red Sox an 8-man bullpen. Not to mention Escobar himself, who was on the 40-man and available for recall.
Is that the argument you're trying to make?
Because that's what Escobar was DFA'd for.
Perhaps it's because Cherington held onto his mediocre minor-league talent that the MLB club didn't have to acquire a starting LF, CF, 3B, C, or SP5 before this season started. I've bashed Cherington for his talent evaluation of MLB free agents and trade targets, but he managed the organizational assets terrifically. So did Theo.
I'm making the argument that you don't alter your decision making just to save Edwin Escobar. Nor do you worry about just DFAing O'Sullivan when the time comes.
I also like how Christian Vazquez and JBJ were considered mediocre minor league talents.
And all you did was just name a bunch of guys who would be lit up like a dumpster fire. They were not better options and losing Escobar isn't something you lose sleep over.
I also like how Christian Vazquez and JBJ were considered mediocre minor league talents.
And all you did was just name a bunch of guys who would be lit up like a dumpster fire. They were not better options and losing Escobar isn't something you lose sleep over.
it's happening because E-Rod needs a bit more time and Owens lost his chance walking the house in all his starts.
Hopefully he can be OK for 2 starts. I believe Manaea for the A's isn't that good, so let's do our job on that side of the ball please.
Hopefully he can be OK for 2 starts. I believe Manaea for the A's isn't that good, so let's do our job on that side of the ball please.
FWIW, Johnson pitched pretty poorly in AAA last night. 7 innings, 9 hits, 5 ER, 3BB, 4K. He hasn't shown that he's the answer, either this year.
Owens pitched seven scoreless earlier today, though, in an odd 10:30 AM start. 5 walks is not ideal, though...
Edwin Escobar has 9K's against 4 BB's in 15 innings at AAA this season. 5 of those strikeouts came in a single 3 inning appearance. Otherwise, he's been the definition of meh, even in the PCL. So I'm not sure why it matters that he ended up being DFA'd.
Interesting. Sounds like Bannister might be have been among those who thought O'Sullivan should get this opportunity. Given Bannister's success in turning Rich Hill around, I can see giving him a shot. I'm kind of fascinated by Bannister's role in the organization. If he turn a scrap heap guy into something useful every so often, that's a pretty valuable person to have around.
Last edited:
Vazquez was absolutely considered a mediocre minor league talent before he was added to the 40-man roster after 2012. He had just capped his regular season with a cool .205/.280/.260 SSS showing in Portland before hitting .257/.395/.429 in a surprise AFL showing. All-glove, no-bat catchers are littered throughout professional baseball. But the minor league evaluators took a chance to protect him from the Rule-5 draft, because of his defense.
JBJ was absolutely considered a mediocre minor league talent after his disastrous 2014 showing in MLB. I won't even bother quoting stats, they were so bad. He looked to all the world like his ceiling was lifelong AAAA guy when he couldn't even hit in Pawtucket at the end of that season. But the Sox kept him around instead of sending him to DDski's Tigers, because of his defense.
Pitchers don't have defense.
So while it's really easy to say one shouldn't worry about DFAing mediocre minor league talent such as O'Sullivan or Escobar, you run the risk of DFAing exactly the pitcher you need later. Like Breslow, for example: 47 IP of 1.91 ERA in 2008 would have helped that team a lot more than Timlin or Aardsma or Hansen...or Corey, who was kept instead, to give the team 6 IP of 10.50 ERA ball. And it sure would have been nice to have just one more reliable reliever in Game 2 vs Tampa, too.
But Breslow didn't throw hard even then. He was considered no great loss, just like Corey was a few weeks later. And it's true, a career of 6.7 WAR as a reliever doesn't make Breslow one of the greats, just one of the usefuls.
Still, a lack of useful arms is exactly what plagued DDski's bullpens with the Tigers; thus, it's an interesting question to me. And one I think worthy of some additional research.
The minors are a numbers game, aside from the top prospects. But no prospect is a top prospect as a relief pitcher. And mistakes will certainly be made by everyone. But even if Escobar never amounts to anything useful, taking him off the roster for Cuevas -- also the definition of "meh" -- for his 2 1/3 IP, is a head-scratcher.
As is calling up O'Sullivan.
Because, unless the Bannister connection really has made a material difference from what he was outside of San Diego to what he is now -- and it might well be -- there's no real difference between handing him the ball, or Owens, or Elias, or Cuevas, or Johnson. None of them look to be any more or less useful than any other, at this moment in time.
So smart money seems to me, to hold onto as many as possible and keep as many of them around to see what each might become, given more time.
While people can disagree, calling up O'Sullivan is no head scratcher. Of all the potential starters for tonight's one-game major league stint, he is performing the best and it isn;t really close. A "head-scratcher" to me, means there's no basis in reality to make the decision. And my snese is that the others are seen as having more long-term MLB prospects, so there's no good reason to bring them up for 1 game while they're pitching the way they are.
"This moment in time" is sort of the key here. At this moment in time, the other guys are much seem more likely to do poorly. All have 15 or more walks in 30 innings pitched or fewer. The Sox major league defense is pretty good, and the team seemed pretty tired of Owens's non-strike-throwing, as it doesn't lead to success the way it does at AAA.
O'Sullivan is pitching best at this moment in time. It's that simple, IMO.
This is really interesting, but I've been thinking in this kind of player development and roster management issue in connection about Travis Shaw.
The Sox have had a great farm system for awhile now. There have been ups and downs, but we've drafted and developed all sorts of players. There are farm systems (ahem, CWS) that haven't drafted and developed as many good MLB regulars as we've *traded* in the last decade — Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie, Moss, Murphy, Masterson — although high-profile hits in Sale and Gio Gonzalez cure a lot of ills.
But other teams with productive farm systems, and here I'm thinking of your St. Louis Cardinals, who manage to reliably produce not only the sort of good regulars who show up on prospect rankings, but also a long tail of good but less-heralded complementary players — your Matt Adamses, Tommy Phams, Stephen Piscotties — from whom they're reliably able to assemble quality depth and fill out a roster.
I guess what I'm saying is that Shaw is an example of us producing that sort of player. When Allen Craig's foot and life fell apart, the Cardinals had Matt Adams, who has mostly been pretty good for them. When Sandoval's shoulder and waistline exploded, we had Shaw. This seems like a promising development to me.
The Sox have had a great farm system for awhile now. There have been ups and downs, but we've drafted and developed all sorts of players. There are farm systems (ahem, CWS) that haven't drafted and developed as many good MLB regulars as we've *traded* in the last decade — Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie, Moss, Murphy, Masterson — although high-profile hits in Sale and Gio Gonzalez cure a lot of ills.
But other teams with productive farm systems, and here I'm thinking of your St. Louis Cardinals, who manage to reliably produce not only the sort of good regulars who show up on prospect rankings, but also a long tail of good but less-heralded complementary players — your Matt Adamses, Tommy Phams, Stephen Piscotties — from whom they're reliably able to assemble quality depth and fill out a roster.
I guess what I'm saying is that Shaw is an example of us producing that sort of player. When Allen Craig's foot and life fell apart, the Cardinals had Matt Adams, who has mostly been pretty good for them. When Sandoval's shoulder and waistline exploded, we had Shaw. This seems like a promising development to me.
By the time Vazquez was added, he had the reputation of being a catching genius. His 2nd year in Greenville put him on the map. He was a legit prospect. And one awful year isn't a reason to sell low or ditch JBJ considering his track record and pedigree. Agree to disagree I guess. Travis Shaw fits your argument far better, but he's a guy you probably could have snuck through waivers before last year anyway.
Plus, if Escobar goes on to have a good 3 year stretch in 2019-2022, so what? It's like crying over Brandon Moss. Most scouts think if he does have a major league career, it's as a lefty specialist and that his stuff doesn't translate well to the majors. If you think he'd be capable of helping this year, ok. But I don't.
And on topic: O'Sullivan 33ip, 32k 5bb. Elias 21ip 18k 17bb. Johnson 28ip 25k 17bb, Owens we've seen. Cuevas 31.2ip 24k 15bb.
Why wouldn't you just go with O'Sullivan? You don't even lose anyone in this case, and if you need the roster spot later, you can just cut him if he sucks as bad as you think he does. Right now, he is pitching light years better than the other 4 choices.
Plus, if Escobar goes on to have a good 3 year stretch in 2019-2022, so what? It's like crying over Brandon Moss. Most scouts think if he does have a major league career, it's as a lefty specialist and that his stuff doesn't translate well to the majors. If you think he'd be capable of helping this year, ok. But I don't.
And on topic: O'Sullivan 33ip, 32k 5bb. Elias 21ip 18k 17bb. Johnson 28ip 25k 17bb, Owens we've seen. Cuevas 31.2ip 24k 15bb.
Why wouldn't you just go with O'Sullivan? You don't even lose anyone in this case, and if you need the roster spot later, you can just cut him if he sucks as bad as you think he does. Right now, he is pitching light years better than the other 4 choices.
Last edited:
See, it's this kind of short-term vs. long-term thinking that is so perplexing. Moss was, at least, an intriguing lottery ticket necessary to complete a complex three-way deadline deal. There's a cost, but also a corresponding benefit.
Meanwhile, the mediocre bullpen guys I'm talking about have much less upside, and but even this modest upside gets discarded for no long-term gain. Just the casualty of the roster crunch.
What was it about adding Cuevas as the 8th man in the bullpen, that justified giving up that potential for a good 3-year stretch from a lefty specialist? Why not just call up Escobar to pitch those 7 outs?
What can the Sox honestly hope for O'Sullivan to do tonight, that Elias -- who has a far superior MLB track record -- couldn't do in one GS? Bring the luck of the Irish?
One possibility is that they want to see how O'Sullivan's new approach plays at the major-league level. If he's genuinely changed his pitching style at Bannister's behest, and his pitching has been much more effective in the minors since he changed, they may want to see if it's just chance, or if it's only a minor-league effect, or if there's something genuinely new there. I doubt they would put huge stock in that, but if they only moderately preferred Elias otherwise, that might be enough to tip it to 55% O'Sullivan.
Edit: I guess that was in a different thread:
Last edited:
We already have a superior lefty specialist in Layne, and plenty of people here have been clamoring to send him back down for lack of use. What good is another, and who will give you anything for Escobar (nobody, or they would have traded rather than releasing him)? Meanwhile, Cuevas had put up a really good line at Pawtucket to finish last year; regardless of what his pedigree was as a prospect, that's exactly the kind of pitcher I think you want to expose to MLB hitters to get a better idea of what you might have. Isn't there a long term gain in knowing that?
To your other point, Elias has looked terrible regardless of prior history, O'Sullivan has looked decent and he's a noted reclamation project to begin with. The whole reason we got him is that he's looked terrible and we thought we could turn him into something useful without giving anything up to get him. What better place to start testing that notion than a start against a bad A's team when all our better options are still rehabbing from DL stints?
Now this I completely agree with, if the intent were to expose him to MLB hitters over 3-4+ starts. One start is of questionable value for a credible assessment -- and I admitted in my first post that adding O'Sullivan doesn't cost the Sox anything at all -- but I guess I just don't see the point because it's only the one start. The variability bars for luck are just so extreme, and that doesn't even account for nerves.
But then again, Rodriguez was only supposed to be up for one start last May, too. Maybe O'Sullivan will surprise me, though he doesn't have EdRo's mid-90's fastball.
With Rich Hill as my witness, Bannister might just be a junkballer-whisperer.
Pitchers get hurt, even lefty specialists.
If Layne gets hurt, and with Escobar a waiver loss, the Sox need either to forego having a lefty specialist, to convert one of their AAA starters, to promote Jerez before he's ready, to add one of Ysla/Wright/Scott onto the 40-man and DFA someone else, or to acquire one by giving up assets. Even if those assets seem minimal at first, someone like Hernandez ended up a pretty good get for Doubront, while BROCKHOLT! has become the poster-child for throw-in lottery ticket winners.
I know Escobar doesn't seem like a great loss. And he probably won't ever be one. It's cool, I'm mostly just remarking on the very different style of roster management Dombrowski seems to have from Cherington's hoarding tendencies.
I think this is a very significant part of the answer. Farrell pulled him after just 63 pitches against the White Sox, with nobody on base and the team ahead by two runs -- a decision that meant he needed six innings from the bullpen in a winning position. Once that move was made, how can you give him the next start? You've basically surrendered. I think Farrell recognized that the inability to throw strikes was possibly starting to become as much mental as physical and he wasn't going to be able to pitch his way out of it. Better to send him down, where an inability to throw strikes doesn't cascade as much and where, apparently, Owens doesn't give in and start throwing get me over pitches. (Just as a comparison, Owens threw 7 scoreless today for the Pawsox, despite giving up 5 BB.) Owens is 23 and the good news about his problem is that the plate is the same size in the minors as in the majors, so get him down there before you crush him. I remember back in 2014, when we kept trotting Webster out there looking like he was going to shit his pants in late August and early September, even after it was clear that he was just not going to pitch his way out of. To his credit, he actually ended with a game or two on a high note, but by the middle of September it was clear he was not going to be a key piece in the future. There is still that hope with Owens, and once Farrell pulled him in that White Sox game, you simply couldn't come back 5 days later and say, "ok, let's see if you've figured it out yet."
Edit: Pawsox.
Last edited:
To get that potentially good 3 year stretch, you need to waste a spot on your 40 man roster for 2-3 years in the mean time. It's not a free roll.
It may be a little early to judge whether Dombrowski's really that different in terms of cutting guys. By around this time last year, Cherington had DFA'd Drake Britton (claimed), Anthony Varvarro (claimed) and Edward Mujica (traded). In 2016, Dombrowski's DFA'd Roman Mendez(outrighted), Garin Cecchini(traded) and Edwin Escobar(claimed). Cherington's DFAs aren't all super comparable to Escobar, but it's interesting to compare.
Dombrowski's clearly more willing to trade away minor leaguers, but I'm not sure we have enough of a sample size to draw many conclusions about other types of roster moves.
Last edited:
As adding O'Sullivan to the 40-man was free after Sandoval's injury, I'm not even sure why this is a thread. Maybe Escobar will be better than Cuevas; maybe not. The working assumption is that the Sox decided "maybe not" and moved on. Again, to me, that's a player evaluation issue, not a roster misuse issue.
Back on topic: can't complain too much. He got hit a bit, but 0 walks was good to see. And another night off for the bullpen.
Back on topic: can't complain too much. He got hit a bit, but 0 walks was good to see. And another night off for the bullpen.
Overall, much as I always want to cheer for the underdog, I wasn't blown away by O'Sullivan last night. Throwing mainly fastballs and sliders, he got hit quite a bit though he wiggled out of taking much damage from it. He kept away from right-handers, but had a lot of pitches down the center of the plate to lefties, and didn't miss a lot of bats:
His fastball velocity was just OK, and dropped detectably over his outing, even though he only threw 90 pitches.
Mean fastball speed:
1: 92.5
2: 92.3
3: 92.1
4: 91.7
5: 91.6
6: 91.4
Velocity vs inning (I know the legend is screwy, I don't have time to fix it, you can figure it out; also, PITCHf/x is confusing his curve and slider here, and I don't have time to correct that either):
On the plus side, 6 innings, no walks, and a win. On the negative, 12 hits, 4 runs, and none of his pitches looked particularly impressive to me. He was worth looking at, the outcome was fine, but unless the scouts saw more than I did, I'm assuming he'll head back to Pawtucket and mostly stay there this season.
His fastball velocity was just OK, and dropped detectably over his outing, even though he only threw 90 pitches.
Mean fastball speed:
1: 92.5
2: 92.3
3: 92.1
4: 91.7
5: 91.6
6: 91.4
Velocity vs inning (I know the legend is screwy, I don't have time to fix it, you can figure it out; also, PITCHf/x is confusing his curve and slider here, and I don't have time to correct that either):
On the plus side, 6 innings, no walks, and a win. On the negative, 12 hits, 4 runs, and none of his pitches looked particularly impressive to me. He was worth looking at, the outcome was fine, but unless the scouts saw more than I did, I'm assuming he'll head back to Pawtucket and mostly stay there this season.
The defense also did him few favors (other than the play at home), with a few balls I thought outfielders could have charged, along with one facepalm-worthy error that the official scorer was very generous on, and a "wild pitch" that Vazquez almost certainly corrals. He got a lot of ground balls and a few found holes that might not have with just slightly better luck. His BABIP yesterday was .467 (!). I think he looked better than his line suggests - he was keeping the ball down, and locating in the zone.
If he gets another start against a shitty team, I won't be too upset.
If he gets another start against a shitty team, I won't be too upset.
Thanks for the analysis; seems like a fair assessment. It was really nice to see the six innings and 0 BB from the back of our rotation for once. I don't really mind another start or two if Edro's not 100% yet. I'd much rather be conservative with his health if we have a passable guy like this to slot in for a bit.
Does anybody know if Bannister is based with one of the clubs, or more of an outside consultant? Curious about when and where he works with his projects.
Does anybody know if Bannister is based with one of the clubs, or more of an outside consultant? Curious about when and where he works with his projects.
Given he's currently the #5 starter, and likely slated to be the #7 before long, we'll take it. His fastball was still several mph faster than that of Henry Owens, whom I assume we will not see in Fenway until the September roster expansion.
Ultimately, you are probably right about his future. And he probably doesn't have the same success against a better team. But the control isn't nothing. (If I counted right, he did not have a single 3-ball count.)
The ending line is a little deceiving. If this is a close game, I think he's pulled after the first two hits of the 6th. And certainly after Coughlan's double. 7H 0BB in 5IP is pretty solid JAG work.
As I said in the game thread, this is a nice reinforcement to Farrell's message to Owens (and Johnson, Elias and Cuevas): throw strikes.
Yes, that's fair, and he was getting hit because he was being aggressive, which is not a bad idea when you're up three runs within 2 minutes. He's not a fifth starter, but he may be a realistic 6th or 7th.
He gave up 11 line drives on 26 balls in play according to b-ref. The gamelog only shows 2 hits on 9 grounders which is about average. I don't think his BABIP should be that surprising.
Maybe he pitches different if he doesn't have a big lead. I'd rather not find out.
I thought he was a bit fortunate that only 2 of the 12 hits that he gave up were extra base hits. The way he was throwing, some elevation and those balls could be a bit more trouble. It was pretty clear to folks in the game thread that the second and third time through, when the As figure out he wasn't going to walk anyone, that he could get squared up. We don't know what he might look like if he tried to get swings and misses out of the zone or wasn't worried about pitch count. The problem is that he apparently gets fatigued quickly. Except for his last game of the year, the Phillies seemed to pull him pretty consistently last year between 80 and 90 pitches, and it looks like maybe that's where he turned into a pumpkin last night. So the choice seems to be to let him pitch to contact and hope you score runs for him, or be prepared to use lots of bullpen. The offense made the choice easy last night.
as iayork suggested, that's pretty much a dictionary description of the flaws inherent in a 6th-7th starter.
I want to argue that if the game was 4-0 instead of 11-0 that Farrell would have had the bullpen ready sooner in the 6th inning. But all the discussion of line drives is spot-on, O'Sullivan was quite lucky in how many of those balls were right at someone.
He got done what the team needed, and hopefully he'll be one of those "who is this O'Sullivan whose 2016 World Series Ring is up for auction" guys down the road.
He got done what the team needed, and hopefully he'll be one of those "who is this O'Sullivan whose 2016 World Series Ring is up for auction" guys down the road.
That seems unwise to me. I would really like to know how much of it is wanting Rodriguez to have another rehab start and how much of it is wanting to see O'Sullivan again with the big club.
I read (can't recall where) that Rodriguez couldn't break 90 mph his last rehab start. I'm guessing there's no way the Red Sox throw him out there until he shows he has a fastball.
I'm concerned he'll become an upper body pitcher instead of a leg pitcher...whatever that means. It can't be comfortable throwing a major league pitch on an injured/rehabilitating knee.
I'm concerned he'll become an upper body pitcher instead of a leg pitcher...whatever that means. It can't be comfortable throwing a major league pitch on an injured/rehabilitating knee.
How could it be anything other than Rodriguez isn't ready? And if that's the case, how is it unwise?
Nice piece on Bannister's role with the team. Jen McCaffrey is doing some nice work beyond her usual beat reporting stuff at MassLive.
I don't think anyone was super impressed with O'Sullivan's start, other than performing better than low expectations. Hopefully a second start doesn't mean that Rodriguez is having trouble with his rehab. The rest of the AAA staff isn't looking so hot thus far. Owens is having trouble throwing strikes, Johnson is still recovering and getting hit around a little, and Elias just walked 7 guys in 5 IP. There's talent there, but no one's really stepping up yet. I usually think Kelly should be in the bullpen, but given what we've seen thus far he's probably the best option if Rodriguez needs more time and O'Sullivan doesn't do better.
Last edited:
I expect he will pass thru waivers and be back at McCoy if the Sox need him to eat innings there.
Lord I hope not.
I'd rather see Hembree, Barnes, and Ross each go for 2 IP in a bullpen game.
With a DFA they have 10 days to figure out what to do with him, and he can be recalled within that period I think. So if neither Kelly nor Rodriguez looks ready, and they felt O'Sullivan was the best option for the 26th, the could recind the DFA on the 24th.