Cousineau on Sowers

[Steve Buffum]

Quick comment: although I agree that SOWERS would be better-suited to facing major-league hitters, the INDIANS would be better-suited to winning those games. In other years, player development was the primary goal with the playoffs a possibly nice reward: with a .600 record, the priorities are now reversed. Whatever gives us the best chance to win games is the action to take, and if players develop during that, that is a nice secondary effect.

In other words, giving Sowers the starts until Westbrook returns is the obvious course: after that, I want the five starters that give us the greatest probability of winnings games in the rotation. Right now, that list does not contain Jeremy Sowers. (Or, arguably, Jake Westbrook, but I think it's pretty obvious who would get the call if the choice is Westbrook v. Sowers.)

[Mr. MacPhisto]

In other words, giving Sowers the starts until Westbrook returns is the obvious course: after that, I want the five starters that give us the greatest probability of winnings games in the rotation. Right now, that list does not contain Jeremy Sowers. (Or, arguably, Jake Westbrook, but I think it's pretty obvious who would get the call if the choice is Westbrook v. Sowers.)

I don't know. It may be the obvious course, but if it really is about winning then Adam Miller may need to be prepared. If Sowers continues to give up eight or more runs per outing then we need to look somewhere else.

[Steve Buffum]

I don't know. It may be the obvious course, but if it really is about winning then Adam Miller may need to be prepared. If Sowers continues to give up eight or more runs per outing then we need to look somewhere else.

I knew Miller's name would come up. And as radical as it sounds, I will say it out loud:

I would be more confident with Cliff Lee or Paul Byrd on the mound against major-league hitters than Adam Miller.

You may be able to convince me otherwise. It's not all that important to me. But we've been through the "when is a surplus really a surplus" argument, and I think we'd have to agree that May 15 is not that date. You can send Sowers (or Carmona) down and lose exactly zero starters: you can't bring Miller up and have either Sowers or Carmona in the rotation without losing a starting pitcher. Ergo, don't do it in May.

Talk to me in July, I might agree. But for now, Miller is off the table.

[paulcousineau]

I think with Sowers it's not necessarily player development as he's still pitching the same way he did last year. There's no HUGE drop-off in MPH or complete failure in one part of his approach. That's why I think he's better off if given the chance to rectify himself in Cleveland. If he can't, that's on him.

I agree that Miller is off the table and am basically asserting that Sowers has earned his way to not catch the express train to Buffalo (is there one?) after a few clunkers. The growing sentiment locally (admittedly, by the reactionaries that boil my blood) that this was simply the logical move is what led me to the piece.

If it continues and he's stringed together some atrocities (multiple 8-run games certainly would fall under that heading) when Jake is ready, I'm fine with sending him down.

Remember, however, that with all of the makeups coming up, a 6-man rotation is entirely feasible to keep the rotation fresh. Having a steady Sowers at that point (they have 23 straight days with games, then 20 straight days with games), especially since he retains an option is vital to the success of this team.