OK, so the scout we had quoted yesterday wondering out loud about trading Zack Greinke and Joakim Soria turned into, among other things, a discussion about whether Soria should be turned into a starter.
Everyone has their own opinions on this, but let me tell you why mine has evolved from a hard yes, to a yeah-give-him-some-starts-in-August-or-September-because-you-can-always-move-him-back to a Miguel Olivo Hell No*.
* There is a chance, of course, that Olivo will be back. As much beef as he has with the way he was used this season and with his manager, if the Royals offer to bring him back as the starting catcher for the $2.7 million mutual option, he'll be back.
First, I understand the other arguments. I understand that 200 innings is much more valuable than 70, leverage be damned, and I also understand that having one of the best closers in baseball doesn't do much good if you can only use him four times in 25 days, like the Royals did during one stretch of August.
I also understand the nothing-to-lose approach of giving Soria a few starts in September or spring training, when there's no risk and you can always move him back to closer.
But I also understand that the Royals have had one of the worst runs* of late-inning relievers in all of baseball since Jeff Montgomery retired, and they walked butt-backwards into one of the best few closers in the world, and it would be an arrogant and inappropriate and unnecessary challenge of the fates to mess with what they've got.
* I'm not running the numbers, but I lived here, and I believe that to be true.
And I understand that none of that is why I think they should keep Soria out of the rotation.
I have two reasons. Let's start with the more tangible: Soria's makeup and stuff demand that he be the closer.
The makeup is easy enough to recognize. The guy is ice cold, no matter the situation, and even though the Royals haven't played a meaningful game in Soria's time here, it's easy to imagine him with the ball in a Game 7, facing Morneau or Teixeira or someone like that and going strike one, at the knees, just like always.
The stuff part is probably worth more discussion. Yes, he has four pitches* and that would typically drive him to the rotation, but look a little closer.
* John Buck, of course, says Soria has at least a few others he hasn't used in a game, only in bullpen sessions, so who the heck knows.
He throws in the low 90s, and you'd have to expect his velocity to go down a little bit when he's throwing 110 pitches per outing instead of 12.
Because he doesn't have the one dominant pitch -- the Mariano cutter or Trevor Hoffman changeup or K-Rod celebration, for instance -- Soria is able to pretty effectively mix in all four pitches during save opportunities.
Maybe he doesn't use all four of them in any particular outing, but it's a nice safety net to have when you know if this pitch isn't working, he's got that pitch, and if that pitch isn't working, he's got the other pitch, and so on.
And then there's this: I can't find one scout who believes that Soria would be a legitimate No. 1, ace starter.
Even Louie Medina, the highly-respected scout who discovered* Soria in Mexico, says Soria would have only an outside shot at developing into a No. 2, tops.
* You gotta love Louie. I have this picture in my head of Louie showing up to work three hours late everyday, in the same clothes he wore the night before, and then playing Tetris all day, like Peter in Office Space.
When somebody tries to call him out on it, he just says, "Um, you know that All-Star closer? Yeah, I found him for you. IN THE EFFING RULE 5 DRAFT!!! Now go get me more coffee."
That's the picture in my head, anyway. But that's not Louie's style, or the culture of scouting. He works as hard as anybody, and when you ask him about finding Soria, he always says something like, "Oh, right place, right time. Any scout who saw what I saw would've made the same recommendation."
So we need to get this picture out of our heads that Soria would be anything close to as dominant as a starter as he is as a reliever. This is not a question of, Would you rather have Mariano or Johan Santana? This is more like a question of, Would you rather have Mariano or Jason Marquis?
Now, the second reason I've changed my mind is more relevant to the crowd who wants to give Soria a low-risk shot at the rotation either at the end of a season or in spring training.
And this is where I start to think back on Ambiorix Burgos and Andrew Sisco and Denny Bautista and Mike MacDougal (post-2003 version) and Jeremy Affeldt and all the other failed closers of Royals past.
Even if you don't believe in the dangers of tempting the baseball gods, it's not hard to see how moving Soria to the rotation could cause more problems than solve.
Right now, Soria is The Mexicutioner, the no-emotion, ice-cold killer who comes in and throws strikes at the knees and puts the fear of embarassment into guys who've seen professional, major league hitters fall down trying to hit that 68-mph eephus/curveball.
Put him in the rotation and watch him morph into Jeff Suppan, and some of that shine is off your new toy. Maybe Soria's mindset changes once he's given up seven runs in four innings. Maybe an opposing hitter's fear subsides after he's doubled off the wall.
And once that happens, if you decide to move him back to being the closer, there's no guarantee you'll have what you had.
Being a dominant closer is a delicate enough proposition. Lots of guys (Bobby Thigpen?) have been lights out for a year or two, but then quickly lost it (this is actually a supporting reason to trade Soria while his value is high).
Nobody roots for the poor guy who doubles down his lottery winnings on a game of blackjack.
There's no need to increase that risk more than you have to by turning him back into a starter. You have one of the best closers in all of baseball. You should do everything you can to keep it that way.
If Pena can get 3 outs pitching in a ballgame I would think almost anyone could do it. On Joe's website someone suggested we make Pena the closer and start Soria. :)