PDA

View Full Version : wunsch out of a job?


jeremyb1
02-16-2003, 01:06 PM
from joe cowley in the southtown:
Kelly Wunsch, LHP

The thought is that a healthy Wunsch is a shoe-in for a spot in the crowded bullpen, but not so fast, says Manuel.

"I'd have to say no," Manuel responded when asked if Wunsch is guaranteed a job as one of the Sox relievers. "There are a few young lefties that have pretty much dominated on the last two levels they pitched at."

Those two lefties are Arnie Munoz and David Sanders.

The 20-year-old Munoz was 6-0 with a 2.61 ERA with Double-A Birmingham in 2002. He continued to sparkle during winter ball, being named both the best pitcher and MVP of the Dominican League.

Sanders had a solid minor league season and then pitched lights-out in the Arizona Fall League.

"Those two will be battling Kelly Wunsch and Mike Porzio for spots in the bullpen," Manuel said. "It will be interesting to see what (Munoz and Sanders) have."

my inclination is that glover, koch, marte, white, and gordon are all guaranteed spots. if wunsch is the one pitcher designated to fight for his job against munoz, sanders, almonte, ginter, and stewart, he may have a pretty hard time holding onto his job unless he's lights out in spring training.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
from joe cowley in the southtown:


my inclination is that glover, koch, marte, white, and gordon are all guaranteed spots. if wunsch is the one pitcher designated to fight for his job against munoz, sanders, almonte, ginter, and stewart, he may have a pretty hard time holding onto his job unless he's lights out in spring training.

Glover? I wouldnt guarantee him a job on ANY team.

jeremyb1
02-16-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Glover? I wouldnt guarantee him a job on ANY team.

glover is young, has good stuff, and a career era of 3.43 in 65.2 innings including a 1.21 era in relief last season. i don't see how he could be out of a job if he's healthy.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
glover is young, has good stuff, and a career era of 3.43 in 65.2 innings including a 1.21 era in relief last season. i don't see how he could be out of a job if he's healthy.

I know how.........lack of talent?

jeremyb1
02-16-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I know how.........lack of talent?

and what is that based on? your own personal observations? you'll have to become a major league scout before i toss aside statistics and believe the exact opposite based on your own personal opinion.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
and what is that based on? your own personal observations? you'll have to become a major league scout before i toss aside statistics and believe the exact opposite based on your own personal opinion.

LOL, stick with those stats.....they'll get ya nowhere.

jeremyb1
02-16-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
LOL, stick with those stats.....they'll get ya nowhere.

yeah. they're definately lying to me telling me things such as: pedro martinez was a good pitcher last season, so was mark buehrle, frank thomas didn't hit all that well last season...if only i had someone like you to explain to me how all those things are false...

voodoochile
02-16-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
and what is that based on? your own personal observations? you'll have to become a major league scout before i toss aside statistics and believe the exact opposite based on your own personal opinion.

In addition, he looked darn good pitching short relief last year. If you want to go strictly off of appearances, Glover looked pretty darn good with a solid fastball.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
yeah. they're definately lying to me telling me things such as: pedro martinez was a good pitcher last season, so was mark buehrle, frank thomas didn't hit all that well last season...if only i had someone like you to explain to me how all those things are false...


LOL, kids.........watch a baseball game or two and then maybe someday you can say youre not a follower. Followers never win. Looking at stats to judge talent is just another way to say, "I cant think on my own."

soxguy
02-16-2003, 01:35 PM
i do have to say that last year at least proved glover was not a starter. His bullpen numbers are good and he is young and healthy, what that translates to on this team....we'll have to wait and see. As for kelly w. I don't believe he is that special of a pitcher( left handed specialist) and if one of the younger lefties pitches better in spring then bye bye kelly.

jeremyb1
02-16-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
In addition, he looked darn good pitching short relief last year. If you want to go strictly off of appearances, Glover looked pretty darn good with a solid fastball.

yeah. that too. his fastball probably isn't even his best pitch, his curve is. however, his fastball is outstanding in relief, i've seen the gun on tv hit 97 before when he's been pitching out of the pen. as a reliever he only needs his two most dominant pitches - his curve and his fastball - and he's just completely dominant. taking glover out of relief was the biggest mistake the sox could've ever made last season.

soxguy
02-16-2003, 01:42 PM
stats are important when looking at a guys PAST. However considering that kelly w. has already had an arm injury, has funky mechanics, and was NEVER dominant, i'm not willing to say he has a spot locked at all in this bullpen. In fact it seems and I dont have the "stats" in front of me, but his could be a bit skewed because he only faces a batter or two and is pulled, due to the bs about lefty righty matchups. If he was left in longer he may have horrible stats, because other than his delivery he can't fool players with his stuff, so the more he is seen the less effective he is.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by soxguy
i do have to say that last year at least proved glover was not a starter. His bullpen numbers are good and he is young and healthy, what that translates to on this team....we'll have to wait and see. As for kelly w. I don't believe he is that special of a pitcher( left handed specialist) and if one of the younger lefties pitches better in spring then bye bye kelly.

Gary Glover is dog doo doo.....hopefully one of the young guys can take his job.

WhiteSoxWinner
02-16-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by soxguy
i do have to say that last year at least proved glover was not a starter. His bullpen numbers are good and he is young and healthy, what that translates to on this team....we'll have to wait and see. As for kelly w. I don't believe he is that special of a pitcher( left handed specialist) and if one of the younger lefties pitches better in spring then bye bye kelly.

I completely agree; I have seen Glover pitch quite a few times, and I think he could be a Mike Stanton type of guy. A great middle reliever that comes through for a 2-3 innings if the starter gets pulled in the 5th.

jeremyb1
02-16-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Gary Glover is dog doo doo.....hopefully one of the young guys can take his job.

you're not a "folower" you "think for yourself". fine. if that's the case and we should all be thinking for ourselves why should anyone believe glover is bad just because you say so and for no other reason? you haven't offered a single reason glover is a bad pitcher in this thread except for the fact that you say he is.

maybe you don't like the fact that i refered to stats but those are reasons i think glover is a good reliever. i also refered to his youth, pitches in his arsenal, the difference between his pitching as a reliever and a starter, and various other factors.

here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. give me one reason he's not a good relief pitcher.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
you're not a "folower" you "think for yourself". fine. if that's the case and we should all be thinking for ourselves why should anyone believe glover is bad just because you say so and for no other reason? you haven't offered a single reason glover is a bad pitcher in this thread except for the fact that you say he is.

maybe you don't like the fact that i refered to stats but those are reasons i think glover is a good reliever. i also refered to his youth, pitches in his arsenal, the difference between his pitching as a reliever and a starter, and various other factors.

here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. give me one reason he's not a good relief pitcher.

I already gave you a reason, are you blind? As far as thinking on your own, you cant. You have no baseball knowledge. Its obvious. You cant add anything to any conversation but stats. Any fool can go to a book or the internet and look up stats. I dont have any problem with anyone thinking Glover is good, as long as they dont supplement that opinion with lame ass stats. Watch a few baseball games. Get your OWN opinion.

guillen4life13
02-16-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I already gave you a reason, are you blind? As far as thinking on your own, you cant. You have no baseball knowledge. Its obvious. You cant add anything to any conversation but stats. Any fool can go to a book or the internet and look up stats. I dont have any problem with anyone thinking Glover is good, as long as they dont supplement that opinion with lame ass stats. Watch a few baseball games. Get your OWN opinion.

Look, you're saying all of this stuff but you have not backed it up with ANYTHING! If you want to say something, and act as though it's the gospel, and badmouth what we say, the least you can do is have some factual evidence, not just an opinion. Your opinion, like mine, is not fact, and no one will listen to what you say until you back your opinion up with FACTS. STATS ARE FACTS (at least almost always, they are). I agree that one shouldn't base their opinion purely on stats, but one should use the facts to aid in the forming of an opinion. Pretty much, going by the logic I'm getting out of you, you would believe that Magglio Ordonez sucks, and when we present stats to show otherwise, you would try to make the argument that the stats show nothing, and because you say he sucks he automatically sucks. Back yourself up!

And anyways, talent can be interpreted in many different ways. Talent is the amount of natural ability+the work you put in to developing the ability (in my opinion). You could be the most naturally able pitcher in the world, but if you don't work at it, and someone who is the least naturally able pitcher works harder than anyone in the world, the one who works harder will be better.

guillen4life13
02-16-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I already gave you a reason, are you blind? As far as thinking on your own, you cant. You have no baseball knowledge. Its obvious. You cant add anything to any conversation but stats. Any fool can go to a book or the internet and look up stats. I dont have any problem with anyone thinking Glover is good, as long as they dont supplement that opinion with lame ass stats. Watch a few baseball games. Get your OWN opinion.

I believe we've seen quite a few ballgames, and most of us have quite a bit of baseball knowledge. You have added nothing but badmouthing "lame ass stats." Look at yourself. At least stats have substance. You have provided no substance whatsoever to your judgement. We have our own opinions: we think that Glover is a good relief pitcher. Just because the majority agrees does not mean that it's not our own opinion. Jeez!

Huisj
02-16-2003, 03:58 PM
hey guys, scott ruffcorn was great. he had a ton of talent. wow, the scouts loved this guy. so what if his stats sucked bigtime, everyone knew he had talent.

jeff leifer is the best left handed hitter on the planet. he has so much talent and power. even though his stats were terrible, he's talented enough we should have kept him.

ok, so what's my point? well, talent is great, and scouts need to look at that. but big talent doesn't always equal performance. there are lots of great players out there who were'nt thought of as big talented prospects at one point but just are really good ball players. BMR, your crap about never looking at stats to see if someone is good or not is dumb. you gotta look at both. good stats can sometimes show talent, sometimes not. but good talent can sometimes turn into good performance, and sometimes not. and how much of an expert are you that you just know completely that glover is terrible? the fact that he is on the sox and has been a productive pitcher shows that maybe he has the ability to be a quality major league pitcher.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
Look, you're saying all of this stuff but you have not backed it up with ANYTHING! If you want to say something, and act as though it's the gospel, and badmouth what we say, the least you can do is have some factual evidence, not just an opinion. Your opinion, like mine, is not fact, and no one will listen to what you say until you back your opinion up with FACTS. STATS ARE FACTS (at least almost always, they are). I agree that one shouldn't base their opinion purely on stats, but one should use the facts to aid in the forming of an opinion. Pretty much, going by the logic I'm getting out of you, you would believe that Magglio Ordonez sucks, and when we present stats to show otherwise, you would try to make the argument that the stats show nothing, and because you say he sucks he automatically sucks. Back yourself up!

And anyways, talent can be interpreted in many different ways. Talent is the amount of natural ability+the work you put in to developing the ability (in my opinion). You could be the most naturally able pitcher in the world, but if you don't work at it, and someone who is the least naturally able pitcher works harder than anyone in the world, the one who works harder will be better.


You need one of these.... :gulp:

MarkEdward
02-16-2003, 04:08 PM
I don't see why Wunsch shouldn't make the team as our number one LOOGY. He's held lefties to a .564 OPS in his three years in the majors. He's cheap and efficient, albeit a little injury prone. He's not a bullpen ace, but he gets the job done.

I keep repeating myself, but I want Munoz and Sanders in Charlotte this year, especially Sanders.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
I believe we've seen quite a few ballgames, and most of us have quite a bit of baseball knowledge. You have added nothing but badmouthing "lame ass stats." Look at yourself. At least stats have substance. You have provided no substance whatsoever to your judgement. We have our own opinions: we think that Glover is a good relief pitcher. Just because the majority agrees does not mean that it's not our own opinion. Jeez!

UMMMM again, please read what i write okay? Everyone has an opinon. I respect your opinion as long as you have WATCHED Glover pitch. Jeremy, OBVIOUSLY, does not watch baseball. Ive gathered this OPINION from the fact that all he ever does is quote stats. Doing that says to me "I dont watch games, I cant think on my own".

hose
02-16-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
glover is young, has good stuff, and a career era of 3.43 in 65.2 innings including a 1.21 era in relief last season. i don't see how he could be out of a job if he's healthy.


Glover did a very good job last year in relief . I think he is more valuable in the middle relief role going 2 inning max.

Gary seemed to get hit hard in starts last year when the batters came up the second or third time around.

OEO Magglio
02-16-2003, 04:36 PM
Glover is great when he's in the bullpen, we all know he isn't a starter. But if Flash gets hurt this year which is almost a given then I think you have to make Glover the righty setup man, Glover is just a great pitcher when he's pitching out of the pen.

Daver
02-16-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by hose


Gary seemed to get hit hard in his starts last year when the batters came up the second time around.

Interesting debate.

While I do not agree with BMR's assesment of Gary Glover,I can see his point,but I agree that Glover can be an effective pitcher out of the bullpen.

Glover is essentially a three pitch pitcher that does not have a dominating pitch,and his control is not pinpoint enough to make him good enough to go through a line up more than once the way a Glavine or Buehrle can,but that does not rule him out of being effective for a short term releif pitcher.


But then again what the hell do I know? ©

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by daver
Interesting debate.

While I do not agree with BMR's assesment of Gary Glover,I can see his point,but I agree that Glover can be an effective pitcher out of the bullpen.

Glover is essentially a three pitch pitcher that does not have a dominating pitch,and his control is not pinpoint enough to make him good enough to go through a line up more than once the way a Glavine or Buehrle can,but that does not rule him out of being effective for a short term releif pitcher.


But then again what the hell do I know? ©

Let me clarify. Glover is going to stay in the majors. He is okay for a middle relief pitcher. However, the worst pitchers always are the middle guys . In addition, i would prefer to put a young guy, with more talent there, to develop. If Glover makes the team, i am not saying he can not do a decent job as a middle reliever. I just prefer to put a young guy with TALENT there.

Daver
02-16-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Let me clarify. Glover is going to stay in the majors. He is okay for a middle relief pitcher. However, the worst pitchers always are the middle guys . In addition, i would prefer to put a young guy, with more talent there, to develop. If Glover makes the team, i am not saying he can not do a decent job as a middle reliever. I just prefer to put a young guy with TALENT there.

So you would rather rush a Dave Sanders or an Arnaldo Munoz type to the roster,even if they are not ready,to replace a guy that has proven he can get the job done at the MLB level?

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by daver
So you would rather rush a Dave Sanders or an Arnaldo Munoz type to the roster,even if they are not ready,to replace a guy that has proven he can get the job done at the MLB level?

No. Earlier I had said that I hope one of them is ready, if not, i do not have a problem with Glover being a middle reliever. However, my intial reaction was due to someone saying Glover had a spot on the roster locked.

Daver
02-16-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
No. Earlier I had said that I hope one of them is ready, if not, i do not have a problem with Glover being a middle reliever. However, my intial reaction was due to someone saying Glover had a spot on the roster locked.

So Glover has gone from being dog doo doo to a serviceable bullpen pitcher,all in one thread.

At this point I would tend to agree that Glover has a roster spot locked unless Sanders,Stewart,or Munoz has a lights out ST.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by daver
So Glover has gone from being dog doo doo to a serviceable bullpen pitcher,all in one thread.

At this point I would tend to agree that Glover has a roster spot locked unless Sanders,Stewart,or Munoz has a lights out ST.

He is dog doo doo. However, those pitcher can get by with getting 2 or 3 hitters out a game. I would rather have a vet who is dog doo doo, than a rook who is dog doo doo, in that role. I am hoping one of the young guys come through. In short, I think Glover sucks, but would be okay in a middle relief role. I hope that makes sense.

Daver
02-16-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
He is dog doo doo. However, those pitcher can get by with getting 2 or 3 hitters out a game. I would rather have a vet who is dog doo doo, than a rook who is dog doo doo, in that role. I am hoping one of the young guys come through. In short, I think Glover sucks, but would be okay in a middle relief role. I hope that makes sense.

I guess it kinda makes sense,in a convoluted way,but it prompts a question,what criteria are you using to evaluate pitching talent?

Juan Pizarro
02-16-2003, 05:36 PM
maybe billy beane can takw wunsch and reunite the submariner crew with chad bradford.

forgive the e.e. cummings style. am holding 10-month-old.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by daver
I guess it kinda makes sense,in a convoluted way,but it prompts a question,what criteria are you using to evaluate pitching talent?

Stuff, past history, upside and mental toughness.......in that order.

jeremyb1
02-16-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Stuff, past history, upside and mental toughness.......in that order.

i've "never watched baseball before" yet i somehow still manage to give more reasons i think glover is a good pitcher unrelated to stats than you did. i talked about the speed of glovers fastball in the pen, his curveball, his effectiveness in short stints - all completely unrelated to stats. you still haven't given a single reason he's a bad pitcher other than that you say so which doesn't count.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i've "never watched baseball before" yet i somehow still manage to give more reasons i think glover is a good pitcher unrelated to stats than you did. i talked about the speed of glovers fastball in the pen, his curveball, his effectiveness in short stints - all completely unrelated to stats. you still haven't given a single reason he's a bad pitcher other than that you say so which doesn't count.

Oh but it does count. I prove my baseball knowledge, year in, year out, and i have the cash to prove it. I feel no need to "prove" things with words. Its pointless.

Daver
02-16-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Stuff, past history, upside and mental toughness.......in that order.

So you give no consideration to form,mechanics,or pitch quality.

No wonder we never agree on pitching discussions.

duke of dorwood
02-16-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I know how.........lack of talent?

I question the fight in him. Maybe thats from his roles being changed by the day. I dont think he'll be with us at the start of the season.

duke of dorwood
02-16-2003, 06:45 PM
Plus I dont think the manager likes to go to him for some reason.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by daver
So you give no consideration to form,mechanics,or pitch quality.

No wonder we never agree on pitching discussions.

Hmmmm, sorry Daver, but i believe those things would fall under either talent or mental toughness. They are all accounted for....

Daver
02-16-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Hmmmm, sorry Daver, but i believe those things would fall under either talent or mental toughness. They are all accounted for....

We'll agree to disagree on that...........

lighttowerpower1
02-16-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
hey guys, scott ruffcorn was great. he had a ton of talent. wow, the scouts loved this guy. so what if his stats sucked bigtime, everyone knew he had talent.

Good Point

Originally posted by Huisj

jeff leifer is the best left handed hitter on the planet. he has so much talent and power. even though his stats were terrible, he's talented enough we should have kept him.


That might be a slight exaggeration

Daver
02-16-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by lighttowerpower1



That might be a slight exaggeration

Slight?

Huisj
02-16-2003, 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Huisj

jeff leifer is the best left handed hitter on the planet. he has so much talent and power. even though his stats were terrible, he's talented enough we should have kept him.




That might be a slight exaggeration

ok, i forgot the teal on the liefer part. but there have been a lot of people on this board who for a long time said jeff leifer was the answer for left handed power, and that we should even trade thomas or konerko to make room for him to play.

hold2dibber
02-17-2003, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I dont have any problem with anyone thinking Glover is good, as long as they dont supplement that opinion with lame ass stats. Watch a few baseball games. Get your OWN opinion.

So you think stats have NO relevance at all? Only opinions formed based solely on watching player play matter, but opinions formed based upon observation supplemented by "lame ass stats" don't count? That is perhaps the most irrational and absurd thing I've ever seen posted on this board. If Glover has a 3.45 career ERA that FACT adds absolutely nothing to the discussion? If you compare him with, for example, a pitcher who has a 6.15 ERA, your argument, taken to its logicial conclusion, is that these "lame ass" stats mean nothing, and tell us NOTHING about the comparative effectiveness or ability of these players?

gosox41
02-17-2003, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I already gave you a reason, are you blind? As far as thinking on your own, you cant. You have no baseball knowledge. Its obvious. You cant add anything to any conversation but stats. Any fool can go to a book or the internet and look up stats. I dont have any problem with anyone thinking Glover is good, as long as they dont supplement that opinion with lame ass stats. Watch a few baseball games. Get your OWN opinion.


Gotta love arguing with BMR. It's hard to dispute his main argument: Because I said so, you just don't understand. My dog is capable of deeper thinking.

Mammoo
02-17-2003, 10:33 AM
The lanky lefty is good for an appearance against a select left-handed batter and out he goes!

Anything else and he's ineffective.

Iwritecode
02-17-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I already gave you a reason, are you blind? As far as thinking on your own, you cant. You have no baseball knowledge. Its obvious. You cant add anything to any conversation but stats. Any fool can go to a book or the internet and look up stats. I dont have any problem with anyone thinking Glover is good, as long as they dont supplement that opinion with lame ass stats. Watch a few baseball games. Get your OWN opinion.

BMR is definitely back. It's like he never left...


:)

Hangar18
02-17-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Gary Glover is dog doo doo.....hopefully one of the young guys can take his job.

Hey BMR, were you one of the people involved in another thread with an argument about torn Labrums etc etc?

One thing Ive learned here, is you cant just make a statement without providing somewhat credible evidence. To say "hes doo doo" and thats it? Ive had many "arguments" w Cub Fans along those same lines. hard to have discussions like that when people end up calling each other names.

Glover, wasnt that great as a starting pitcher. He was used out of "position", however, he was EXCELLENT coming out of the bullpen, but if he gets outpitched by the younger guys, hey, why not. To say he was doo doo, really doestn do him or you Justice.

doctor30th
02-17-2003, 04:49 PM
Back to wunsch, I like what he said in the sun times today.

''When you have competition, it makes everybody better, and if you're a White Sox fan, you gotta really like it,'' Wunsch said. ''It's not just a courtesy competition. It's not fluff. It's real competition.''

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-sox172.html

gogosoxgogo
02-17-2003, 05:10 PM
I big time disagree for anyone who says Glover is out of a job. When he used out of the bullpen, he is extremely effective. I've said this for a while, Glover is not a starter. Just because he has the stamina to start, that doesn't mean that he should. When he pitches in a setup or middle relief role, Glover is extremely effective. I'm basing this both on stats and on what I've seen of him. He will be a great addition to our setup 'team'.

On the original topic, Wunsch is extremely effective against lefties. He always has been, even last year when he slumped a little. His problem is no stamina and nill effectiveness against righties. I expect the same from him this year. He's very nice to have when you need to get a big lefty out (Barry Bonds who we face this year), but not too important otherwise. If someone like Almonte or Munoz has a big spring, I wouldn't be surprised if they overcome Wunsch's spot.

baggio202
02-17-2003, 05:47 PM
as far as glover goes...he reminds me a lot of kevin bierne...big breaking curve ball..decent fastball..not much else....thats not to say glover wont have a sucessful career unlike bierne..but so far im not really sold on him...i know his numbers are much better out of the pen but ill need a full year of him pitching out of the pen and putting up good numbers in that role before i become a believer...but i dont ever seen him rising above the role of a middle reliever...

as for wunsch..the big thing to me is when jerry said we were only going with 11 pitchers that put kelly in jeapordy...if munoz can get lefties out at the same rate kelly can then he is a bigger asset because he can pitch to righties too and go 2 maybe 3 innings when needed...i like kelly a lot , but i like him a lot more on a 12 man staff :(: