Schilling Possibly Out for the Season

Johan, who?

6 man rotation, what?

by cooper7d7 on Feb 7, 2008 3:08 PM EST reply actions

or

Well, I guess they will need to resort to sticking Buchholz in there, and saving about $150,000,000 or so. Not really a bad deal.

Losing Schilling hurts, but I'd say the team is still in decent shape.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Feb 7, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

Sure Clay slides into the 5 spot, but then Lester is the 4 and Wake is your #3 starter? So 2 "rookies" and a 40+ year old behind Dice-K who could just as easily regress as impress in his 2nd year. This probably will all work out, but IMHO, this rotation is shaky at this point.

by cooper7d7 on Feb 7, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

Wakefield

Wakefield's hardly a 40 year-old in the normal sense of the term. He throws a knuckleball, so he's basically rubber-armed. I don't see any reason why he can't be league average as usual.

http://www.chop-n-change.com

by alexwithclass on Feb 7, 2008 5:20 PM EST up reply actions

rubber armed.

but bad back.

it's still a pretty good rotation, but it clearly got a lot iffier without Schilling. it's really fairly close to the Yankee Rotation now. (though the front end is still better upside)

by RollingWave on Feb 8, 2008 11:54 PM EST up reply actions

I wouldn't call it shaky,

but it's certainly not where it was last year. Still, Buchholz deserves to be in the rotation anyways and you could do a lot worse than Lester as your #5, and there are plenty of other starting pitchers out there with a whole lot more questions than Matsuzaka. I put Boston's chance at having a problematic rotation at very low. And even if it is at times, the bullpen is very deep too. Also, you can rely on Epstein to fix anything that needs fixing.

by elrey34 on Feb 9, 2008 4:04 AM EST up reply actions

Void

And now the Sox and Schilling cant agree on sirgery or rehab and are looking into voiding the deal....wow so much for harmony in RedSox Land

Could Coco get moved for an inurance SP?

Batting practice tomorrow you be there....I have Pop, everyday

by laxtonto on Feb 7, 2008 3:22 PM EST reply actions

insurance SP

maybe a co-pay. in this market for pitching, i don't think coco's going to bring back much of an arm. sticking masterson or somebody in there would probably be just as good, granting that pitching depth never hurt anyone.

by wily mo on Feb 7, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions

Blanton

I'm not trying to imply that the A's would have any use whatsoever for Coco, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a rumor about them getting involved in discussions about Blanton if this Schilling business gets varified.

by ajake57 on Feb 7, 2008 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

I pointed this out in the Blanton thread,

How about, say, Lowrie and Oscar Tejada? Two MI's for the A's, and that's what they need.

by demondeaconbaseball on Feb 7, 2008 4:25 PM EST up reply actions

Not sure what the Tejeda appeal is

but Lowrie's a good start. Lowrie plus a pitching prospect seems more likely to me.

I would definitely like to see the A's get ahold of Lowrie. Give him a season to see whether he sticks at shortstop. If he does, kick Crosby to the curb and resign Ellis.

by PaulThomas @ Minor League Ball on Feb 7, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions

Cuz

he's only 17 and has tools coming out of his ears...

Anyone on the A's expecting to get two or more major league ready or established players for Blanton is going to be disappointed.

by AucklandGM on Feb 7, 2008 6:16 PM EST up reply actions

17 year old Latin players

with "tools coming out of their ears" are a dime a dozen as far as I can tell.

Of course the A's aren't looking for two "major league ready or established" players for Blanton. They don't need major league ready anyway; it's not like the team's going to compete next year.

Lowrie, Justin Masterson (who projects as a Blanton-type guy) and a low-level dude like Tejeda seems like a fair offer.

It may not be an offer Boston needs to make, though. I don't really see what the crisis situation is. They already had six starters.

by PaulThomas @ Minor League Ball on Feb 7, 2008 8:06 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, six starters

Two of which are rookies, one in his second year in the US, one 40 year old, and Josh Beckett. That rotation sounds to me like it could use either more stability or a backup starter. Blanton would fill that role well (well, he'd probably bump Wake to the pen...)

by demondeaconbaseball on Feb 7, 2008 8:17 PM EST up reply actions

They still have Julian Tavarez

He's not anyone's idea of earth-shattering, but he's not awful either. Certainly good enough to hold the fort while the rookies get their feet wet.

by PaulThomas @ Minor League Ball on Feb 7, 2008 8:37 PM EST up reply actions

Hold the fort maybe

But I'd be wary of doing that if I'm trying to get into the playoffs, let alone a World Series.

It wouldn't hurt the Sox to check on what it would take to get Blanton, and it might help guarantee the AL East.

by demondeaconbaseball on Feb 8, 2008 7:52 AM EST up reply actions

Yea,,,

I like that package of guys for Blanton. Lowrie, Masterson, and Tejeda. Although there has been talk of Masterson ending up in the bullpen, that sinker is dominating.

by deadboy on Feb 8, 2008 12:30 AM EST up reply actions

"dime a dozen"

Oh really? Name them.

by elrey34 on Feb 9, 2008 4:04 AM EST up reply actions

Why not

just jettison Crosby now and see if Lowrie can play SS in the bigs? If he can't, you're probably getting rid of Ellis next year anyway, if not during the season.

by ajake57 on Feb 7, 2008 10:31 PM EST up reply actions

Good

Screw the sox

by TexasHeat on Feb 7, 2008 3:59 PM EST reply actions

OH NOE!!!!

They lost a 41 year old pitcher with a 4 ERA?!!!

The season is LOST!

They got on with Tavarez as the #5 starter last year, they can get on with Lester and Buchholz as #4 and #5 if Schilling is truly done.

by Galt on Feb 7, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions

Why...

does everyone consider Lester to be the #4 and Buccholz to be the #5. I would think Clay moves up possible to the #3 spot (depending on ST results) and Wakefield is the #4 and Lester #5.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Feb 7, 2008 5:04 PM EST up reply actions

yeah

In terms of ability, that's how I'd rank them at this point. In reality, there really isn't a difference between 3-4-5 in a modern rotation, because the #5 isn't skipped anymore (at least, not in Boston).

Giving Wakefield #3 is probably more symbolic than anything.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Feb 7, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions

well

I didn't really mean that to be "respectively".

But Lester will probably start as the #4 just because he's played more in the majors, and it would take the pressure of Buchholz. I would imagine that when people talk about who is the #4, they mean who will pitch after Wakefield initially, not necessarily who will be their 4th best pitcher.

I agree that Buchholz is better than Lester.

by Galt on Feb 7, 2008 7:07 PM EST up reply actions

Agree

Boxkutter, I agree. I see the rotation with Wake as #4 or #5 with Buchholz at 3 and Lester at 4.

Lester pitched well after his come back last year, Buchholz has the stuff to go this year. They may put Wake between the vets (Beckett and Dice K), but I dont see them throwing Lester and Buchholz back to back, in the front end or tail end of any series.

Beckett
Dice K
Buchholz
Wake
Lester

by ChrisRef19 on Feb 7, 2008 7:19 PM EST up reply actions

Disagree

I think you'll see Buchy as the #5 because that will allow the Sox to skip him occasionally. I think they are more concerned with his innings than any of the other guys...

by Dfarth on Feb 7, 2008 7:56 PM EST up reply actions

Right on

Thanks for the intelligent feedback.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Feb 7, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions

sign lohse

but then again clay could up an era a run better than him easily.

by Bravesin07 on Feb 7, 2008 4:08 PM EST reply actions

How long before BOSTON enters the Blanton talks?

Please don't let the Reds get Blanton, please!

Paul Householder, Gary Redus, Tommy Lawless, Duane Walker ... prospects rawk!

by design28 on Feb 7, 2008 4:10 PM EST reply actions

I never wish for an injury

but I will make an exception for Schilling.

by nyy601 on Feb 7, 2008 4:36 PM EST reply actions

lol

+1, Hopefully he stops running his mouth on his blog once his career is over.

by colinadam on Feb 7, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions

Understand your point...

but isn't it nice to have an athlete say what they feel and think instead of just spitting out the same old tiresome cliches over and over? You may not agree with everything Schilling says, I know I don't, but I think he is pretty refreshing as a player. Besides, I think he gets a raw deal with what he writes because I am about positive ESPN has hired someone whose only job is to read Schilling's blog and put a newsworthy spin on anything in it.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Feb 7, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions

Schill is a good guy

I have always like his candid demeanor and he comes across as a man of similar ideals to myself. If this is it for him I will remember him in a good light.

My first mistake was assuming you knew what I was talking about.

by Shamus on Feb 7, 2008 5:19 PM EST up reply actions

Opinions

Schilling is one helluva pitcher, and I respect his ability and performance on the field. However, simply because he's a high-er profile MLB player doesn't mean we have to give a crap about what he says, and I certainly don't. He makes the mistake thinking that we all listen to him; who is going to say to themselves, "Well Self, I'm not sure who to vote for - the Presidential candidate Schilling supported or the one he didn't. I'll vote for the one that he endorsed, if that candidate is good enough for Schilling, they're good enough for me." Sheesh.

I'll listen when he talks ball, but what the hell does a guy getting paid that much money know about the real world? He loves the limelight just as much as a guy like Jose Lima before he sucked.

And yes, yes, I know that nobody cares what I say.

I'm proud to have seen #756

by Azantor on Feb 8, 2008 2:08 AM EST up reply actions

Re:

It seems to me that there is no difference between Schilling and the hundreds of other celebrities, singers, actors, etc. that share their worthless political views - except of course the side of the aisle that they sit on.

I'm curious - do you think the same thing about Tom Cruise, Susan Sarandon, Johnny Depp, John Mayer, Oprah, the Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Michael Douglas, Jane Fonda, Tim Robbins, etc.?

I, for one, don't give a crap about any of their political views.

by Dfarth on Feb 8, 2008 6:18 PM EST up reply actions

It's not the political views that bother me.

I mean, half of the American population are conservatives. He's not much different in that regard. I just can't stand his holier-than-thou attitude, and it seems like his intentions of speaking up are so he can be seen as some sort of prophet to boost his ego.

But on the other hand, I do somewhat agree with the poster above saying that at least he doesn't just give the usual canned quotes. And Schill is pretty quirky and likable in that sense.

by elrey34 on Feb 9, 2008 4:17 AM EST up reply actions

Santana

Not to rub it in but this really makes the Mets timing on the Santana deal that much more.... lucky? If Boston was in this position last week, there's no way Red Sox don't put up a better package than the Mets.

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 7, 2008 4:53 PM EST reply actions

not true at all!

schilling is not the anchor to this rotation!

beckett and matsuzaka are!!!

schilling was a nice complimentary starter as a 3/4 guy!

curt schilling is not the be all end all for the sox!

by wildthang on Feb 7, 2008 5:00 PM EST up reply actions

bang

!

!!!

!

by jpahk on Feb 7, 2008 7:21 PM EST up reply actions

Buchholz

He'll likely be as good or better than Schilling at this point anyway. I don't know what people are freaking out about.

Another thing I don't get is this irrational loathing of Schilling. The guys speaks his mind completely and honestly and that makes him a jackass? Is it because people don't agree with his political views, or what? Or just bitter NY fans?

by AucklandGM on Feb 7, 2008 6:20 PM EST reply actions

unless he's talking to Congress

Remember before he met with Congress he was vocal about nailing whoever cheated with steroids. Then he got before Congress and he clammed up.

I respect his abilities. But I do not admire his honesty or character after this incident.

by schpee on Feb 7, 2008 6:38 PM EST up reply actions

Huh?

I think you're confusing Schilling with McGwire. Schilling was there for a completely different reason than Palmeiro, Sosa, Conseco, and McGwire. Where exactly did he "clam up"?

by AucklandGM on Feb 7, 2008 7:34 PM EST up reply actions

not quite

I remember it clearly. He had a big frickin mouth before appearing in front of Congress. Then he said nothing when he got there. Where? There. Read what I wrote.

by schpee on Feb 7, 2008 10:23 PM EST up reply actions

here

4:18 p.m.
Rep. Waxman takes over questioning. Palmeiro says he had never seen the use of steroids in the clubhouse. Schilling admitted that when he was previously asked to comment on how wide-ranging the steroid problem was he "grossly overstated" it. "I think at the time it was a very hot situation and we were all being asked to comment on it."

by schpee on Feb 7, 2008 10:31 PM EST up reply actions

Thomas

Who exactly did Thomas accuse? Accusing people before Congress with no hard evidence whatsoever is classless.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 8, 2008 11:25 AM EST up reply actions

Thomas a leader?

Was it Frank that lead the White Sox' refusal to submit urine samples during the "rangefinder" test, thus triggering the automatic implementation of real testing?

by cooper7d7 on Feb 8, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions

Ummmmmmmm.....

That was what they were trying to do. They WANTED the real testing. They refused to submit samples on purpose to get it to happen. In other words, it was a good thing and, if Thomas led, more power to him.

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 8, 2008 12:18 PM EST up reply actions

Criticizing?

I apologize(?) if my question came across as a criticism of Thomas. I was looking for clarification of his involvement in this action.

by cooper7d7 on Feb 8, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions

Way to pat yourself on the back...

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 8, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions

Thomas

I'm not denying Schilling has a big mouth, but what exactly did Thomas say to Mitchell or to Congress that makes him so special? From what I've seen, Thomas didn't finger a single player in the Mitchell report. What'd he do, call up Mitchell and say "Hey, George, steroids are a problem." No shit Sherlock!

Schilling has always had a big mouth, he's always been outspoken. The criticism didn't start coming in the same volume until it was "Schilling the Red Sox" rather than "Schilling the Diamondback". This is less about Schilling and more about having a player on the Sox to hate.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 8, 2008 1:34 PM EST up reply actions

Actually

Isn't the speculation (FWIW) that Thomas did in fact name names to former Sen. Mitchell?

by Yakker on Feb 8, 2008 9:10 PM EST up reply actions

If they are in trouble in spring training

they can always sign Freddy Garcia in May.

by jahs34 on Feb 7, 2008 8:31 PM EST reply actions

Garcia

Actually, I heard he had a setback and he could miss the entire season. Just a rumor, no facts to back that up.

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 8, 2008 9:44 AM EST up reply actions

Out till all star game

he will not go under the knife, but he is out till after the all star game. Like many other old pitchers he will be an end of the season and a play off hero once more. Letting the young arms earn there hipe and pay.

by jwjc11 on Feb 7, 2008 11:10 PM EST reply actions

Schilling

Had Thermal Capsular Shrinkage back in his Phillies days. I'm pretty sure he also had a labrum issue at that time. When he had TCS it was cutting edge technology, I think he was the first MLB pitcher to have it ("Schilling" Surgery? lol)

He was a lot younger then, I would side with the Red Sox on this one unless there is definitive evidence that the labrum is the issue (can't really tell without exploration, the arthrogram misses it usually). I would not chance shoulder surgery on a 41 year old pitcher with the mileage he has on him.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Feb 8, 2008 12:14 AM EST reply actions

Physical

How did Schilling pass his physical when he signed his latest contract? THis injury just came out of nowhere?

by fartballs on Feb 8, 2008 1:42 PM EST reply actions

Is anyone actually surprised?

I saw this coming from a mile away. He obviously had shoulder issues last season, and with his age and all.

In Homer Bailey we trust.

by justin007000 on Feb 8, 2008 3:08 PM EST reply actions

Nope

Surprised, no. Pissed that he'd sign a contract with a bad shoulder? yes.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 8, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

you're just pissed....

....because he's a Red Sock ;)

http://www.minorleagueball.com/comments/2008/2/7/144426/6629/50#50

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 8, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions

Uhm

Duh!

Way to go Cap'n Obvious!

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 8, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

pretty smug

for someone who missed all the subtlety to what i just said

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 8, 2008 6:15 PM EST up reply actions

if he's truly out for the season

can his BLOG be turned off as well?

Schilling gone for the season with his BLOG too would be the best possible baseball scenario to start the season.

Oh and the Red Sox to take his ass to court over his condition and signing the contract. I would love to start the season off that way.

by So Cal Bob on Feb 8, 2008 4:50 PM EST reply actions

re:

I can see where people think he's loud and obnoxious, but I don't understand the blog hate. In order to see his blog, you have to actually type in the address and voluntarily read it, unless I am missing something. I guess I'm just not sure how his blog is antagonizing anyone who doesn't want to read it.

Personally, I like the idea of athletes voicing their honest opinions, rather than the same tired "I'd like to thank God / One day at a time" stuff. I'm in the minority, I suppose.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Feb 8, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions

So...

Because Schilling is a celebrity, he doesn't have the right to free speech? He can't sign up for a blog like any Joe Blow who wanders into a library and uses the public computer for half an hour? Where are the complaints about all the other players who have blogs?

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 8, 2008 5:32 PM EST up reply actions

of course he can

I don't want to hear his shit any more. You even wrote above he talks too much.

That was my point. Shut the F*** up and go away. No more interviews or blogs or what ever media he wants to let his pea brain spew his crap. He's just a blowhard.

by So Cal Bob on Feb 8, 2008 6:44 PM EST up reply actions

I think you're confused

You're saying "of course he can" which I presume means he can still have his blog.
Then you say "No more interviews or blogs"
So which is it? Can he have a blog, in which he exercises his right to free speech, or not?
Perhaps you're the one who's "pea-brained".

He does talk too much, but if he wants to post on his blog, I have no problem whatsoever with that. I don't even have that much of a problem with him shooting his mouth off as much as he does, he's entitled to his opinion and entitled to express it. The media is responsible for beating us over the head with his opinions.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 8, 2008 6:51 PM EST up reply actions

nice

typical dick move by you resorting to name-calling. If that makes you sleep better at night, good for you.

Of course he has a right to free speech, hence the "of course he can" reply.

The "STFU," "no blogs," "no interviews," and "go away" comments are my personal belief. As you so eloquently wrote he is entitled to his opinion and so am I. Fact remains, I do not want to hear him anymore. His 5 minutes of fame are done. I do not want the media reporting on anything he has to say.

What is so freaking hard about understanding that? Take off your Red Sox lid and quit trying to back the guy to the death. Can't you see there are numerous people feeling his act is tired and old. I'm not the only one in this thread with that opinion. You even admitted as much in previous threads.

by So Cal Bob on Feb 8, 2008 7:03 PM EST up reply actions

ha!

Aren't you the one who started out by calling Schilling a pea brain? Or is that different since he's not here to argue with you? I guess you only insult people that aren't around to defend themselves.
I do want to hear less of Schilling, but I place the blame where the blame belongs, with the media for saturating us and constantly going to him for more, not with Schilling for having an opinion.
If you really don't want to hear him anymore.. don't read his blog and don't read articles about him!

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 8, 2008 9:03 PM EST up reply actions