If you go with a rotation of Gallardo, Fiers, say Estrada and a mix of Rogers, Thornburg, Peralta and Burgos, your chances of making the playoffs are greatly diminished because it's unlikely you'll find two rookies who can have great success in the rotation. It's not that these guys couldn't do the job - but it's unlikely. Again, I'm not saying they couldn't succeed - I'm saying that history is against them. There are always exceptions to rules. But to think you will be the exception to the rule is foolish planning. I should also stress that adding a veteran arm would be important if the team is serious about making the playoffs. If management sees 2013 as a 'retooling' year and doesn't think the playoffs are realistic, then all bets are off. The reason you're playing with fire with two rookies in the rotation is that the majority of these guys will likely fail as a starting pitcher. All of these guys we talk about are prospects with question marks. None are elite prospects - the kind of guys in the top 30 or even 50 in prospect rankings. Next year, only Thornburg will probably be in the top 100. That aside, let's just give any pitcher we have the benefit of the doubt and say they are top 100 material. Then go back and look at the pitchers who have been in the Top 100 lists of Baseball America (we could use other lists, but this one is easy and comprehensive). http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/all-time.html If you go back and look at the names of the top 100 guys over the years, you'll find that roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of the pitchers make it as decent starters in their career. I did not go in and look up every single player for 10 or 15 years, but just picked a few years and went through the list of guys and said 'fail' and 'succeed'. I ignored players I knew were relievers to start with. Again, the determination was whether they succeeded as a starting pitcher. That meant a guy like Jason Grilli - who is now an excellent reliever for Pittsburgh - is listed as a 'failure'. The simple matter is that pitchers fail more than not. Injuries are so common. Other guys just can't make the transition. For every Cole Hamals there are three or four others - guys like Ben Hendrickson, Seth McClung, Mike Jones, Manny Parra, Will Inman, Nick Neugebauer. Breaking in a starting pitcher into the majors is a risk. Many of the 'successes' struggled early. That's why it's helpful if the team can have the other rotation spots filled. There will likely be growing pains with a rookie. If we want to be in the playoffs, we want to minimize that to one spot - not two. I don't think anyone advocates adding Kevin Millwood for three years. But if you can find a decent player - Anibal Sanchez or Edwin Jackson, for example, for a decent rate and no more than three years, you consider it. Those guys aren't without warts, but they bring a predictable commodity to the rotation that is valuable. Perhaps others will look at these lists and come to some other determination. But I think history shows that far more often than not, highly ranked pitchers will fail at becoming starters in the majors. Many will become successful relievers. But the success rate as starters is not promising. Therefore, I think it's a poor plan to load up 2/5 of the rotation with such players. Finally, injuries almost always strike teams. Narveson missed all but two starts. Marcum has missed 1/3 of the season. So, as some have pointed out, it never hurts to have more pitching.