Odds are we'll have a decent rotation pretty quickly

[Dtwncbad]

36 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Can't deny their upside and potential, but you can't ignore the durability issues at this point. 

We all have opinions so I don't say thus to say I am right.  I am just being honest that my personal problem with the 38 starting pitchers the Angels have is specifically a lack of upside and potential.

What I see overwhelmingly is a ton of depth for the back half of a rotation.

How many of these really, honestly can you see as a #1 or #2 ?

Richards when healthy and then?

 

[totdprods]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

We all have opinions so I don't say thus to say I am right.  I am just being honest that my personal problem with the 38 starting pitchers the Angels have is specifically a lack of upside and potential.

What I see overwhelmingly is a ton of depth for the back half of a rotation.

How many of these really, honestly can you see as a #1 or #2 ?

Richards when healthy and then?

 

Richards, Skaggs, and Meyer all have that ceiling, and Shoemaker has shown flashes of being a #2 lite.

[UndertheHalo]

4 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Richards, Skaggs, and Meyer all have that ceiling, and Shoemaker has shown flashes of being a #2 lite.

Let's forget Heaney.  He probably has the best chance to be both healthy and good. 

[well_red]

If you really think the "odds are we'll have a decent rotation pretty quickly" then I don't think you've been paying attention.

[UndertheHalo]

9 minutes ago, well_red said:

If you really think the "odds are we'll have a decent rotation pretty quickly" then I don't think you've been paying attention.

Compelling argument. 

The sum of the parts suggest that we'll be able to get 5 starters together that aren't terrible.  Presumably Heaney and Shoemaker should be able to return and be regular contributors for us.  I don't see any reason to imagine that Ramirez won't be a fine bottom of the rotation type.  Of all the others, I imagine 1 or 2 of them at least should be able to pitch for us.  I said that I felt that they needed to acquire a higher end type pitcher from outside the organization.  All together this seems "decent" to me.  I didn't claim that we were gonna have all stars 1-5.  

 

[Dick B Back]

On 7/25/2017 at 8:23 AM, Dtwncbad said:

I don't want a decent pitching staff.  I want a good pitching staff.

The team needs a bona fide horse at the top.

I think we used to have one but I think he got old after too many years of chicken and beer.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

On 7/25/2017 at 11:22 AM, UndertheHalo said:

Let's forget Heaney.  He probably has the best chance to be both healthy and good. 

Heaney threw 4 SO innings in the AZL Wednesday. Should be ready in a couple more starts.

[Angelsjunky]

Yes, I agree there's reason to be optimistic, even if we write off the team's best pitcher, Garret Richards. Heaney is progressing nicely, Meyer seems to be reaching his potential as a mid-rotation starter, Bridwell is if not exciting, a solid #4-5 type, and we can hope that at least one or two of Skaggs, Shoemaker, and Tropeano can contribute. And then there's tons of depth, some solid mid-rotation candidates not far from the majors, with some higher end prospects a few years away.

[totdprods]

On 7/25/2017 at 1:22 PM, UndertheHalo said:

Let's forget Heaney.  He probably has the best chance to be both healthy and good. 

I always thought Heaney had a bit less upside than the Richards, Meyer, Skaggs types, all of whom had legit #1/#2 stuff. Heaney always struck me as having a ceiling of a very good #3 type. 

Of all the Angels, I've actually barely seen Heaney pitch so he's a bit of a mystery to me still. Was on a tour the summer he pitched and only caught maybe a start or two, so I'm just going off what I recall reading about him. 

[Angelsjunky]

I think that's right, @totdprods. Richards upside was a return to 2014 form, which is "#1.5" level - just shy of true ace, but better than a #2. Skaggs seemed to have #2 potential, but I think we have to adjust that downward somewhat, based on the last couple years. Meyer? Who knows. I know he has some nasty stuff, but I don't think he'll ever curb his walks enough to be more than a #3 - one start pitching like an ace, the next not so much. I think some wanted Heaney to be a #1-2 type, but to me his true potential is more #3, or maybe #2.5 if we want to be optimistic. Shoemaker was never thought to be anything more than a #5, but then he had that brilliant 2014 performance. Expectations were readjusted after he came back down to earth in 2015, but then he confused us all in 2016, pitching part of the year like 2015, part of it like 2014. Now he's back to mediocrity, and now injury, so who knows what to expect.