Are we maybe a bit too obsessed about how long our starting rotation goes in games?

I'm not saying that it should be ignored or that it would be wise to do something to get another arm in there that can pitch well as well as chew up innings to keep the pen options flexible.

It just seems like this has been a point every time how good the Royals are has been discussed.
We have an unreal stable of very reliable middle relief and door slamming pitchers in our pen. Who is used with any regularity that makes you nervous if they are called upon?
My only concern is making sure that they aren't gassed come September and October.

That said, Greinke leads all of baseball for games pitched and going at least 7 innings, with 10.
There's just not nearly as many guys chalking up extended appearances.

Besides, we went against the grain in how we handle our bullpen with huge success. Why try forcing the issue when our roster is uniquely built to succeed in spite of unorthodox methods.

I'm more interested in finding a legit arm that can dominate for 5 or 6 every time out, than I am about finding somebody who can just keep you in the game if the offense is clicking and go 7 or 8 innings.

Maybe I'm wrong, and this is some red flag for down the stretch?

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/07...06280255e5.jpg

Bruce Chen, come on down!!

I expressed similar sentiments a few days ago when discussing Duffy for Cueto. Cueto may be more reliable to go an extra inning or so, but with our pen, it doesn't really matter because we want teams to face our bullpen. That was why I didn't think losing Duffy was worth the very minimal gain. That trade stuff seems to all be a moot point though since Duffy has come back strong. But the bullpen point remains.

I tend to agree with you, yesterday being a perfect example of how a bullpen can make up for a starting pitcher who doesn't pitch deep into a game. Our bullpen beat the Pirates' ace.



.

Welp, MLB just had their competitive balance lottery and we completely lost out.

15 teams were eligible for 12 picks (6 after round 1 and 6 after round 2) Even though we went to the World Series, the Royals were still assigned with somewhat-decent odds to get something due to market size but our number didn't get picked.

Rigged!

Didn't the same thing happen last year? We were eligible in each round and got neither a first or second. WTF?

The Cardinals were also one of the 3 teams eligible that lost out, so at least there's that. Maybe the computers hate Missouri.

The Cards got a pick last year, IIRC.

We were significantly penalized for making it to the world series, but according to the stories, we still had roughly a 4% chance of getting the best lottery pick. So, 4% for the 1st, with those odds going up each time, with 12 chances, I figure we were at least 2/3 to get something.

Royals maybe taking a look at Haren (Marlins) and Parra (Brewers) according to Yahoo Sports.

I would think that these are backup plans for our backup plan if the market goes nuts and it becomes a bidding war?

I read that some teams aren't interested due to clubhouse issues

I get Parra, but I'd think Haren would be in the 10-20 range of pitchers we'd consider, and probably isn't worth giving up anything tbh. I don't think he improves what we currently have, other than adding depth.

Would find it hard to see the Royals, especially, be willing to risk disrupting the clubhouse chemistry.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ned Yost confirms that Jason Vargas will need surgery. Also says John Lamb was not in consideration to start on Sunday. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Royals?src=hash">#Royals</a></p>&mdash; Josh Vernier (@JoshVernier610) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshVernier610/status/623969906891948034">July 22, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>