mikeyjay21:What is this? An "I told you so"?
No just updating. I didn't say I was right you are wrong. I didn't say the results are in. I said the early results are in. Things can easily change although McClung might not get the chance to stick in the starting rotation. That doesn''t mean that Burns can't fall on his face.
mikeyjay21:
My point was always that it made sense to give McClung the first shot at the open rotation spot. I don't care what's happened in his first two starts; the fact of the matter was he successfully made the move last year, and I didn't think it'd be smart to try a revolving door of untested AAA pitchers that scouts aren't high on just because they're having a good year in Nashville.
And again I think you are making to much of the jump between AAA and the majors and not enough of the jump from reliever to starter midseason. Mike Burns, the ultimate example of the untested AAA pitchers that scouts aren't high on having a good year in Nashville, is performing admirably as the starter.
mikeyjay21: Now I'm fine with trying something else. But I don't know why you felt the need to call me out here. I still think your method of finding a "fix" to the rotation would've been more reckless than the reasonable one that Macha and the oganization eventually took.
I am just keeping the discussion open. The fact of the matter is over the first 2 starts the more reckless approach has 12.1 innings and a 4.36 ERA and the more reasonable approach has a 12+ ERA in 4 innings or less per start. So you can label them any way you want but the fact of the matter is the reckless approach is soon to have 2 people in the starting rotation while the reasonable approach is failing miserably.