Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:34 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:25 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1067
Barrys Dopers wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
rellimie wrote:
So, Garrett Jones is a below average fielder, 31 years old, lifetime hitter of about 250/320/460/780 averages about 20 home runs per year. For the most part he is a platoon player but is having a career year at the age of 31 of 275/320/512/832

Before I say this I just want to say I love Garrett Jones.

BUT

Would you trade him this off season and get max value?

I'd listen to offers and trade him if I got a good one, but I'd have no problem with going to arbitration if I didn't.

Hanrahan is the one who I really hope they trade.


Gotta deal Hammer, he's in his last year in 2013 and will command about $7 million. I also would look to move Garrett at peak value, Gaby can give us similar production and we have 5 OF's for 3 spots.


I don't think Sanchez could hit .280 with 25+ homers. I would however trade Jones if we could package him up with Hanrahan for a SS or C.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:46 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5388
PirateParrot wrote:
I agree NS...the bullpen proved to be paper thin by year's end. I'm not against trading Hanrahan, because he is erratic and in the last year of his contract. But they have nobody for that role. Grilli has really showed his age the second half. He hasn't been awful but his velocity on most nights the second half have made him very hittable. Remember, in theory the Pirates should be looking at contending next year so you can trade these guys off, but you better have quality replacements for them.


Exactly. There is no young Evan Meek waiting in the wings.

Best case replacement scenario is Bryan Morris, but has he even thrown innings in the Bigs this year???

Couldn't agree more about Lester.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
Barrys Dopers wrote:
.713 ops vs RH isn't exactly "can't hit" territory. You could platoon Snider at 1B some (if Tabata hits) or use Matt Curry who will be at AAA to start the year. Or you could trade Jones for a corner bat.

.596 OPS vs RH this season is deep into "can't hit" territory, and getting a .713 OPS from your first baseman is absolutely horrific.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
NSMaster56 wrote:
I know they're totally replaceable and all and not worth top dollar, but...

If the Bus trade Hammer, who takes over as closer?

Anybody. Who was Hanrahan before they went and got him? A hard throwing stiff who had already blown two shots at being a closer and was carrying a lifetime ERA of 4.77. They've got much tougher holes to fill than closer before they need to start worrying about who's going to throw 60 innings next year.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
NSMaster56 wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
I agree NS...the bullpen proved to be paper thin by year's end. I'm not against trading Hanrahan, because he is erratic and in the last year of his contract. But they have nobody for that role. Grilli has really showed his age the second half. He hasn't been awful but his velocity on most nights the second half have made him very hittable. Remember, in theory the Pirates should be looking at contending next year so you can trade these guys off, but you better have quality replacements for them.


Exactly. There is no young Evan Meek waiting in the wings.

Best case replacement scenario is Bryan Morris, but has he even thrown innings in the Bigs this year???

Couldn't agree more about Lester.

Saw him in the game a couple of nights ago ripping off a slider with good movement at 90 mph. I think that Hughes could also handle the job. Or Justin Wilson. Possibly Leroux as well.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:12 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5388
sisyphus wrote:
Or Justin Wilson.


Isn't it fairly unconventional to have a L closer?

Plus, hasn't JW thrown like 0 pitches in the Bigs so far during this meltdown?

You'd think that they'd be 'grooming' a closer now if Hammer were to be moved...

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2078
sisyphus wrote:
NSMaster56 wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
I agree NS...the bullpen proved to be paper thin by year's end. I'm not against trading Hanrahan, because he is erratic and in the last year of his contract. But they have nobody for that role. Grilli has really showed his age the second half. He hasn't been awful but his velocity on most nights the second half have made him very hittable. Remember, in theory the Pirates should be looking at contending next year so you can trade these guys off, but you better have quality replacements for them.


Exactly. There is no young Evan Meek waiting in the wings.

Best case replacement scenario is Bryan Morris, but has he even thrown innings in the Bigs this year???

Couldn't agree more about Lester.

Saw him in the game a couple of nights ago ripping off a slider with good movement at 90 mph. I think that Hughes could also handle the job. Or Justin Wilson. Possibly Leroux as well.

Hughes, Wilson, Leroux....no way. Not saying trading Hanrahan is a bad idea. However if they view themselves as contenders, and I would hope they do, having a competent closer is important. Also not sure you get decent value in return for him. Not hard for others to see his erratic pitching.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:16 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1067
NSMaster56 wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
Or Justin Wilson.


Isn't it fairly unconventional to have a L closer?

Plus, hasn't JW thrown like 0 pitches in the Bigs so far during this meltdown?

You'd think that they'd be 'grooming' a closer now if Hammer were to be moved...


I don't think that they think that far ahead. Tony Sanchez saw zero pitches this fall and it's obvious Barajas is done.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:17 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:28 pm
Posts: 217
Closers are a dime a dozen.

I would deal the Hammer in a heart beat if someone would give an every day starter for him.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:13 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:27 am
Posts: 1349
Location: Eastern Shore
fuzzy159 wrote:
Closers are a dime a dozen.

I would deal the Hammer in a heart beat if someone would give an every day starter for him.

But bullpens are not. We let Lincoln go, and despite Grilli's 13 pitch, 3 strikeout inning last night, he's not pitched as well the past two months, either. I'd hate to see him go for a Wandy-type starter. A true #2, maybe.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:43 am 
Online
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3515
Location: Economy, PA
The Pirates need to add offense. So while I would listen to offers for Jones, and any player for that matter, the net result of their off-season moves has to be more offense, not less.

Of course they need starting pitching too, and presumably don't have much room in their budget for free agents, so I'm not expecting any big increase in talent for next year.

They have to get more out of what they already have.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:06 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:42 pm
Posts: 869
val wrote:
fuzzy159 wrote:
Closers are a dime a dozen.

I would deal the Hammer in a heart beat if someone would give an every day starter for him.

But bullpens are not. We let Lincoln go, and despite Grilli's 13 pitch, 3 strikeout inning last night, he's not pitched as well the past two months, either. I'd hate to see him go for a Wandy-type starter. A true #2, maybe.


People need to get off this brad Lincoln thing. He is a 28 year old career middle reliever who was having a career year and the Pirates took the opportunity to flip a position that is easy to replace for young guy who can potentially make a longer impact. As soon as Lincoln went against tougher teams look what has happened to him, his ERA with the Jays 5.96. He had a dominating half of a season.....he was playing above his talent.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:21 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1067
rellimie wrote:
val wrote:
fuzzy159 wrote:
Closers are a dime a dozen.

I would deal the Hammer in a heart beat if someone would give an every day starter for him.

But bullpens are not. We let Lincoln go, and despite Grilli's 13 pitch, 3 strikeout inning last night, he's not pitched as well the past two months, either. I'd hate to see him go for a Wandy-type starter. A true #2, maybe.


People need to get off this brad Lincoln thing. He is a 28 year old career middle reliever who was having a career year and the Pirates took the opportunity to flip a position that is easy to replace for young guy who can potentially make a longer impact. As soon as Lincoln went against tougher teams look what has happened to him, his ERA with the Jays 5.96. He had a dominating half of a season.....he was playing above his talent.


Same could be said for Burnett though....that division is crap....the pitchers are throwing in launching pads.....look at Burnetts season he had once he left that division....what are most starting pitchers ERA's in that division? I am sure releivers ERA's are just as elevated. Not trying to jump in and say Lincoln was a reason for anything that went on this season, but to look at his numbers for Toronto aren't really fair either.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
NSMaster56 wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
Or Justin Wilson.


Isn't it fairly unconventional to have a L closer?

Having a closer at all is a fairly asinine convention, but if you're going to have a closer, pick somebody who can get hitters out, whatever side he throws from.

Quote:
Plus, hasn't JW thrown like 0 pitches in the Bigs so far during this meltdown?

You'd think that they'd be 'grooming' a closer now if Hammer were to be moved...

You groom a closer by giving him the ball in the ninth and saying, "Go get 'em, tiger."

Even if they really want to trade Hanrahan, there's no guarantee that they'll get a good offer, so why shake things up now.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
PirateParrot wrote:
Hughes, Wilson, Leroux....no way. Not saying trading Hanrahan is a bad idea. However if they view themselves as contenders, and I would hope they do, having a competent closer is important. Also not sure you get decent value in return for him. Not hard for others to see his erratic pitching.

We're never going to agree on the importance of closers. To me, you send out your best pitcher when the game is on the line, whatever inning it might be. I don't believe that there is some mystical power that makes it harder to get out the six, seven and eight hitters in the ninth than it was to get the third, fourth and fifth hitters in the eighth.

I think it's pretty clear that Hughes has both the talent and the attitude you want from a closer, and Morris definitely has the stuff.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:27 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5388
sisyphus wrote:
NSMaster56 wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
Or Justin Wilson.


Isn't it fairly unconventional to have a L closer?

Having a closer at all is a fairly asinine convention, but if you're going to have a closer, pick somebody who can get hitters out, whatever side he throws from.


Oh, I agree with that entirely. However, it's probably just unlikely that the Pirates 'go against the grain' and do something based upon reason.

It's a copycat league and until someone else does it, I can't see the Bucs starting the trend.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2078
sisyphus wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
Hughes, Wilson, Leroux....no way. Not saying trading Hanrahan is a bad idea. However if they view themselves as contenders, and I would hope they do, having a competent closer is important. Also not sure you get decent value in return for him. Not hard for others to see his erratic pitching.

We're never going to agree on the importance of closers. To me, you send out your best pitcher when the game is on the line, whatever inning it might be. I don't believe that there is some mystical power that makes it harder to get out the six, seven and eight hitters in the ninth than it was to get the third, fourth and fifth hitters in the eighth.

I think it's pretty clear that Hughes has both the talent and the attitude you want from a closer, and Morris definitely has the stuff.

I agree about closers, but unfortunately it's the era we are in. I should have said they need good pitchers in the back end of the pen.

You may be right about Morris, but we haven't seen it at the MLB level. Hughes is good where he is at. Maybe next year the manager won't pitch him every game. He does have the attitude, I'll give you that.

Anyway...I think(unless they get lucky) they get very little in return for Hanrahan.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
Hughes with a timely save last night. The bullpen will look much different next year as Resop may be the only vet retained. Grilli is a free agent and I can't see extending him at the kind of price he will command. Hanrahan needs to be traded or he walks for nothing after 2013, there really is no argument. The $7 million he will cost can be used elsewhere.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
NSMaster56 wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
Or Justin Wilson.


Isn't it fairly unconventional to have a L closer?

Plus, hasn't JW thrown like 0 pitches in the Bigs so far during this meltdown?

You'd think that they'd be 'grooming' a closer now if Hammer were to be moved...

Were you laughing as much as I was when Hughes came in to get the save last night? Maybe Hurdle took you up on your suggestion that he should be grooming a closer :D

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Garrett Jones
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
NSMaster56 wrote:

Oh, I agree with that entirely. However, it's probably just unlikely that the Pirates 'go against the grain' and do something based upon reason.

It's a copycat league and until someone else does it, I can't see the Bucs starting the trend.

Really? I see all kinds of evidence that the Pirates are willing to buck convention. They basically ignore the opponent's running game, for one thing. The no triples experiment. They're heavy emphasis on defense from shortstop and behind the plate. I think it's pretty clear that they're willing to take an unpopular position if they believe that they will gain an advantage by doing so.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], StarlingArcher, TheShark and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits