Why not Stauffer as our "new" starting pitcher?

by SanDiegoJosh on Jul 30, 2010 1:05 PM PDT

The Padres need another starting pitcher to eat innings down the stretch as Correia struggles and Latos approaches his innings limit...

All the talk about this pitcher is regarding what prospects we will give up, how much we will have to pay him for the rest of the year, and if he is under contract for next year. Meanwhile we have a starting pitcher (Tim Stauffer) sitting in our own bullpen that has a ridiculous ERA and has barely pitched this year because of a non-baseball injury.

I really need help in understanding why we would give up prospects or waste money for a middle-of-the-road starting pitcher like Lilly, Westbrook, or Maholm when we have a guy already that will give us similar results (or better) and not cost a thing.

And I'm not buying the "we like him in the long-man role for the bullpen" excuse. By definition, that means he is only playing in games in which the Padres are getting blown out and have little or no chance of winning. I think Stauffer could be used in a much better way than that.

Someone smarter than me please explain.

This FanPost was written by a member of the Gaslamp Ball community and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Gaslamp Ball managers or SB Nation.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Oh..

And I, for one, actually think Stauffer would be BETTER than those aforementioned pitchers

by SanDiegoJosh on Jul 30, 2010 1:11 PM PDT reply actions

Yeah Stauffer is under used

I agree with Josh I don’t see the point in getting a guy like Maholm or Westbrook when we could just use Stauffer or bring up Luebke. I am not sure there are any pitchers out there that would be worth obtaining with Nolasco off the block.

I don’t think we are getting the value out of Stauffer that we could. From the bullpen he’s only been used twice all year to pitch 2 or more innings with the game on the line, once against the rockies in May and that game against the braves a week ago.

If they really want to keep Stauffer in that role why not bring up Luebke? Try him, if it doesn’t work then Stauffer starting a few is a solid back up plan.

by Antonio Olivares on Jul 30, 2010 5:46 PM PDT reply actions

Great question

The reason is to have depth and insurance against injury. But I’m with you. (Both of you.) They Already have depth and insurance against injury.

They didn’t have enough for the infield, which is the only thing which makes the Tejada move acceptable (or justifiable). Giving up anything for one of those guys you mentioned isn’t — at least not in my opinion….

Plus, we’ve got to go 5 weeks until the rosters expand. Tejada’s addition means we had to send Cunningham down, which already stinks…. When Adams comes off the DL, we have to (probably — depending on what happens the rest of today and tomorrow) send Frieri down, which totally stinks….

And when Eckstein comes off the DL hopefully on August 5th, they’ll have to move someone else down (or cut him or put him on the DL); that, especially if it’s one of those last two, should be Stairs; they want him come September, so, as I’ve said elsewhere, I think it should be the DL….

My point is that if they give up a prospect or two for Westbrook or Maholm, etc. (and don’t give up a guy on the 25-man roster), then they’ll need to create space for that SP, which means someone else would have to go, which would also stink (EVEN if it’s Mujica).

Too much mucking around: they haven’t stopped playing good ball AT ALL; they’re NOT fading, and they’re now a season-high 20 games over .500.

I Love Eckstein, but they even have a better record with him out of the line-up (surprisingly) than with him.

I can accept the Tejada move because of what I already said, but, please, NO to Milton Bradley either — unless it’s off of waivers closer to September; and not because I have anything against him, but because he won’t help (much or enough), and there’s no need to try to “fix” what ’ain’t’ broke(n)…. I’d rather have Cunningham than Bradley, and now we don’t even have room for Cunningham….

Oh, and, as you say, we already HAVE Stauffer. AND, as Antonio, says we also have Luebke.

Look at Oswalt’s first start in a Philly uniform against the Nationals; or Haren’s first affort for the Angels. And these guys are way better than the SPs we’re looking at. No, no, and no.

by jctess on Jul 30, 2010 6:07 PM PDT reply actions

I'm questioning the fact that Latos' innings are going to be limited at this point.

"There are two great tragedies in life: One is not getting what one wants; the other is getting it."

"I like to consider the padres' team as a microcosm, or symbolic representation of my daily endeavor towards inner salvation." — Mysterious Cloaked Padre Fan

by podpeople on Jul 30, 2010 11:51 PM PDT reply actions

You have a large signature

"Get your hopes up. That's what hopes are for by the way, to get up. You don't get your hopes down, you get your hopes up." -Jeffrey Tambor

by Ketchup on Jul 31, 2010 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions

I was thinking about adding a few more, just to annoy those that are easily annoyed.

"There are two great tragedies in life: One is not getting what one wants; the other is getting it."

"I like to consider the padres' team as a microcosm, or symbolic representation of my daily endeavor towards inner salvation." — Mysterious Cloaked Padre Fan

by podpeople on Jul 31, 2010 2:40 AM PDT up reply actions