but I’d be surprised to see Cahill.

And if they do, it’s a really, really bad thing because that means either a whole bunch of guys failed or a whole bunch of guys got hurt.

While I think those guys could pitch in the majors now and be replacement level, I don’t think if they come up in June they’ll actually be better than 5th starters. And I don’t think whoever the 5th starter is will be worse (or at least worse enough that starting the Anderson/Cahill clock will be worth it).

as the other three guys

I’d bet that one of these four sees a few starts this year.

I don’t know if they’d be content to bounce Outman back and forth between starting and relieving assuming he doesn’t make the rotation out of Spring Training. I’d think that if you make him a reliever for this season, then you just commit to that course and not use him for spot starts. Braden on the other hand is a natural swingman who you already feel comfortable using as a fifth starter or in the pen.

Gio has to have a good ST to make the rotation. hmm, the more I think about it, the less surprised I’d be to see Simmons get some starts this year.

As for the Projected Six current rotation candidates, I think there’s another important consideration for Beane, beyond the three that you listed:

It’s possible that he and his staff think that none of those guys will benefit from additional AAA time. In other words, he knows a few of them will struggle at times – Eveland, Gallagher, Gio – but that they need to have those struggles on the big club to get better.

Duke is a lock, obviously. And between Braden, Gallagher, and Eveland, none of them have anything to gain in AAA. I’d say that’s the 1-4, even though lots of people keep penciling in Braden at #5 or #6.

There could be some argument that Gio and Outman could use some more AAA time, but you could also argue that they’ve had enough.

So, even if a veteran starter would slightly improve the rotation, part of the logic could be, “I’ve got enough guys that I really want to see getting opportunities here. They’ll either sink or swim, long-term…but they’ve gained all that they can in the minors at this point. Either they’ll prove they can be MLB starters in ‘09, or they aren’t MLB starters, period.”

The only way he can find that out is to give them opportunities. 2009 is still a youth evaluation year, after all. It’s competitive, but it’s also evaluative at the same time.

One or two of them could break out, overachieve, and be traded if there’s a logjam in a year, just like Beane did with Greg Smith.

Oakland is a wonderful place to audition young pitchers, put a great defense behind them in a great pitcher’s park, watch them succeed and trade them while they have attractive contracts.

Anderson, Cahill, and Mazzaro: the list of starters who have succeeded in the AL at age 22 in the last decade is pretty darn short. 2010 is more realistic IMO. That extra development time for a young man can make a big difference.

And once they’ve proven they’re ready it’ll be time to trade “durable innings-eater” Dana Eveland – consecutive 200 IP seasons with a ~4.00 ERA under his belt – for prospects just as he’s about to get expensive, continuing the cycle.

(The Letterman principle: if it was almost funny once, it’ll be even funnier beaten into the ground.)

unless it’s an emergency call-up. Rushing these guys will do nothing to help.

Someone give me chocolate, stat.