Most people seem to think that Towers is just in some sort of slump that he's going to get out of, I even heard Mike Wilner say that on the radio.

Why?  It's not like he's been good for four years and now he's struggling a bit.  In my opinion, he had one good year, perhaps his career year, just like Hinske did.

His career ERA is 4.71 and his career WHIP is 1.37, and that's including the good year that he had last year.  He just isn't as good as the numbers he put up last year would indicate.  I don't think he's as bad as he's been so far this season, but I also don't think anyone should expect him to have a 3.71 ERA in the Majors ever again.  

They let Lilly keep pitching through his horrible start last year, and his was probably worse than bush's, though his record may not have been as bad thanks to timely hitting.  After 5 starts last year his ERA was 10.41.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?statsId=6223&year=2005

...Because, Leigh, the track records of the other pitchers (besides Halladay) suggest that they would turn it around and/or had the stuff to turn it around (including Halladay).  Towers never had the track record nor stuff.  His 2005 is certainly starting to seem like an abberation.  And he still gave up 237 hits in 208 innings.

If Towers actually had options it is obvious he'd be down at Syracuse right now circa Doc in 2000.  His mental lapses finally extended to his fielding in yesterday's 1st.  A contending team cannot have someone every 5 days whom the opposition is smacking their lips to face.

What is there to be gained by sending a pitcher down? I've never really understood this thinking that a team can send a pitcher down and hope that somehow they rediscover themselves. If anything, I'd want struggling pitchers to stay with the team in a role that doesn't hurt our chances to win ballgames, for the sole purpose that they would have the benefit of working with Brad Arnsberg. In this situation, I see little benefit that someone like Towers would have by being sent down if it was even possible.

I'm not pressing the panic button on the 2006 pitching just yet, but should Towers continue to crash and burn, what are the out-of-organization options that might be possibilities? I recall JP having some interest in John Thompson...

What is there to be gained by sending a pitcher down?

Well for starters pitching AAA is a little less stressful ... so that gives the pitcher a change to work on some things without thousands of people writing what they think of his every move. The media in Toronto can be harsh at times, not too mention it sends a message for guys that regardless of how long they've been here to never get too comfortable, b/c this is a results hungry business.

slight deficiencies

Coming into 2006 in 557 major league innings Towers has struck out 4.46 per 9.  That is a pretty glaring deficiency. 

Towers had everything come together in 2005, his walk and home run rates were below his career averages, while his strikeout rate was above his career average.  It is worth noting that even though his ERA was solid he did still manage to give up 237 hits in 208 innings.  I've been down on Towers since he got to Toronto, he needs to walk too fine a line to be effective for my taste.  Even I don't expect him to keep pitching as badly as he has but if he ever puts together another 200 inning 120 ERA+ season I'd be shocked.

What is there to be gained by sending a pitcher down?

In the case of Towers it would keep the Jays from surrendering a half dozen runs by the fourth inning every fifth day. 

If anything, I'd want struggling pitchers to stay with the team in a role that doesn't hurt our chances to win ballgames,

Managers don't want pitchers that they can't use in games.  Teams seem to think that they NEED 12 pitchers.  No manager can keep two pitchers around he can't use in a game with the level of offense we are seeing in early 2006.

I see little benefit that someone like Towers would have by being sent down if it was even possible.

He would probably gain nothing.  Towers is a stark example of the difference between the minors and the majors.  In the majors his HR rate doubles from .75 to 1.50 and he loses 2 strikeouts per 9 from 6.5 to 4.5.  That's the difference between being effective and being yet another contract mistake by Riccardi.

This team is built to win now.  The minor league system is one of the worst in baseball.  If this team doesn't win in 2006 or 2007 then it's going to be time for a complete teardown.  If Jason Frasor can't get people out then it's back to Syracuse while the big team holds auditions until it can find someone that can.  If Josh Towers is going to pitch like this all season then he'll be sitting in the bullpen waiting for a blowout situation that Pete Walker is unavailable for. 

I would argue the Hinske long term deal at the time was the correct move.... Looking at the contract at the present time, I would have to say it was a mistake by JP.

See, to some of us this makes absolutely no sense. Either a move is a good move, or it is a bad move. JP only made the decision to sign Hinske once - How can he have been both correct and incorrect? If you want to say that signing Hinske was a good idea at the time but it has worked out badly, I totally agree. That's a whole different thing than saying it was a mistake.

Signing Wells was a good move that has worked out well. The Pirates letting Shelton go in the Rule 5 draft was a bad move that worked out badly for them. The Twins signing Tony Batista was a bad move that, thus far, has worked out pretty well for them.