First off, I'm on the fence when it comes to the debate (if there is one) on whether Joakim Soria should start or close. Do you want 200 innings or 75 innings? 32 games or 70 games? Both sides in the debate (if there is one) have sound reasons and both are probably right. However, Jeffrey Flanagan comes off a condescending ass in making his argument to leave Soria alone. (He actually quotes himself at the top of his blog so maybe that should have been a warning sign regarding his pompous personality.)
Do people not remember how no lead used to be safe? I mean NO LEAD USED TO BE SAFE! At some point, though, Soria’s magic as a closer has been taken for granted by some people, who obviously think anyone can do that job. Make Soria a starter and throw any stiff you can find to close out games, their argument goes. Apparently we should just forget that Soria is 22 of 23 as a closer.
Ok guy calm down a bit. Nobody has forgotten that Soria is 22/23 but I think people see the four plus pitches in his repertoire and they see what Ramirez & Mahay have done and come to the conclusion that the team would be better with Soria in the rotation. And I like how he calls Ramirez & Mahay stiffs, their ERA's are 2.68 and 2.13. Clearly they suck. But his argument that Soria should keep closing because KC hasn't had a good closer since Monty is weak at best, why not move Alex Gordon to shortstop because we haven't had a good long term SS since Patek? He misses the point entirely, the best reason to not move him is because KC has five pretty good starters right now and the status quo is working. However should Davies falter well then you have Rosa in Omaha to turn to or make the move and let Soria have a few starts.
The thing is we don't know what would happen and certainly giving Soria a dozen starts in the second half isn't going to cost us the division. But it would answer a few questions going forward into next season.