Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:54 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4983
Location: Washington, DC
For those who care (and judging by the amount of people who discuss his work on here, that's a lot of you), here's DK's take on the Hanrahan trade:

So there's no ambiguity or distortion, my initial impression of Joel Hanrahan trade. It's clearly a salary dump and, in that context, the GM did OK. Melancon has pitched better in recent past than in 2012. Could be setup guy. Rest look like spare parts, but time will tell on Sands. Bottom line: This was case of prioritizing cash elsewhere, notably $17M for coming year on .211/.311/.403 Martin, on 5-plus ERA Liriano, on REHABBING Morton. Smarter decisions there, and Hanrahan could stay. Yes, $7M a lot for closer, but back-end bullpen a known strength. Now uncertain. Trades, signings don't happen in vacuums.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6155
Location: Keystone State
J_C_Steel wrote:
I have no problem with Melancon. I think he'll be a good addition to the bullpen. I doubt he puts up better numbers than Hanrahan in 2013, but he's cheaper and the Bucs control him for four more years. Makes sense.

My problem with this trade is the inclusion of Brock Holt. He's a lefty bat who can just plain hit. He's 24 years old. He's not very good defensively, but he can hold up at second base pretty well and he could get a spot start here and there at short. And the bat is good. Keith Law agreed with this, noting that Brock Holt is likely the best prospect included in the trade. I don't like that the Pirates dumped him and brought in a lesser and older player in De Jesus, who plays better defense but isn't as fast and doesn't hit nearly as well.

Oh, and I've seen a decent amount of Jerry Sands. He was on my fantasy baseball team and I followed him pretty closely when he played for the Dodgers. Even watched a goodly number of Dodgers games. His swing is loooooooong. When he connects, great. But he's very susceptible to off-speed stuff away and good fastballs up. I don't see him (and most scouts don't see him) as an every day position player. Also, his defense is bad.

Finally, I really hope this doesn't mean the Pirates are going to trade Garrett Jones. He's the Pirates' most consistent left-handed hitter, and the team needs him against right-handed starters. Unless people here believe that Travis Snider is going to become a consistently good hitter (which seems a long shot to me), then the Pirates need to hold on to Jones for 2013.


Holt is expendable unless Neil Walker doesn't sign. I expect he will.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4983
Location: Washington, DC
bucco boy wrote:
Holt is expendable unless Neil Walker doesn't sign. I expect he will.


Expendable? Yes. To be thrown away for Ivan De Jesus? I don't think so. Keith Law thinks Holt is the best prospect involved in this deal. And I'd rather have a lefty-hitting utility infielder who can hit than an all-glove utility infielder who can't.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6155
Location: Keystone State
J_C_Steel wrote:
bucco boy wrote:
Holt is expendable unless Neil Walker doesn't sign. I expect he will.


Expendable? Yes. To be thrown away for Ivan De Jesus? I don't think so. Keith Law thinks Holt is the best prospect involved in this deal. And I'd rather have a lefty-hitting utility infielder who can hit than an all-glove utility infielder who can't.


To say he was throw in for DeJesus is simplifying it a little too much. It was a six-player deal. Just because they were the last two mentioned doesn't meant they were traded for each other.

I think most people concede that Holt is a more of a prospect than DeJesus, but the gap is very narrow.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
J_C_Steel wrote:
For those who care (and judging by the amount of people who discuss his work on here, that's a lot of you), here's DK's take on the Hanrahan trade:

So there's no ambiguity or distortion, my initial impression of Joel Hanrahan trade. It's clearly a salary dump and, in that context, the GM did OK. Melancon has pitched better in recent past than in 2012. Could be setup guy. Rest look like spare parts, but time will tell on Sands. Bottom line: This was case of prioritizing cash elsewhere, notably $17M for coming year on .211/.311/.403 Martin, on 5-plus ERA Liriano, on REHABBING Morton. Smarter decisions there, and Hanrahan could stay. Yes, $7M a lot for closer, but back-end bullpen a known strength. Now uncertain. Trades, signings don't happen in vacuums.


His judgement or evaluation means nothing these days, even when Dejan is trying to be fair to NH he comes off sounding like a douche. Sorry JC, I know you like him, heck, I used to like him a ton, I just wish he could utilize his very talented mind in a far better way.

On another note, I realize that the FO has been having difficulty developing talent, I realize we are at 20 yrs and counting, but I also realize that we have had two summers in a row now where games meant something. And I don't know where you were in 1988-1992 but it took a few years for the Bucs to develop into a winner even when they had Bonds, Bonilla, and Van Slyke on the roster. What I have seen from the last two years is a team moving in a positive direction, I don't really care about the 20 yrs and counting, I care about watching this team develop and grow together. If Dejan wants to dwell on all the negatives, what will he say when we do reach the playoffs? And are there going to be any of us left to even care?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
For those who care (and judging by the amount of people who discuss his work on here, that's a lot of you), here's DK's take on the Hanrahan trade:

So there's no ambiguity or distortion, my initial impression of Joel Hanrahan trade. It's clearly a salary dump and, in that context, the GM did OK. Melancon has pitched better in recent past than in 2012. Could be setup guy. Rest look like spare parts, but time will tell on Sands. Bottom line: This was case of prioritizing cash elsewhere, notably $17M for coming year on .211/.311/.403 Martin, on 5-plus ERA Liriano, on REHABBING Morton. Smarter decisions there, and Hanrahan could stay. Yes, $7M a lot for closer, but back-end bullpen a known strength. Now uncertain. Trades, signings don't happen in vacuums.

Of course DK thinks it's a salary dump. When you approach a Pirates trade with a bias against the Pirates, you see every trade of an established player as a salary dump.

Meanwhile, nearly every other reputable publication talking about this trade views it as a win for the Pirates. See a few examples below:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.ph ... ld-a-team/
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... leid=19256
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/artic ... l-pirates/

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 4881
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
Willton wrote:
Of course DK thinks it's a salary dump. When you approach a Pirates trade with a bias against the Pirates, you see every trade of an established player as a salary dump.


So do the Pirates make this exact same trade if Hammer were due $500,000 this season? If not, it's a salary dump.

_________________
#7 Baylor Bears (3-0) at Iowa State Cyclones (1-2)
Jack Trice Stadium
September 27, 2014
7:00 PM CST
FOX


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
IA Pirate wrote:
Willton wrote:
Of course DK thinks it's a salary dump. When you approach a Pirates trade with a bias against the Pirates, you see every trade of an established player as a salary dump.


So do the Pirates make this exact same trade if Hammer were due $500,000 this season? If not, it's a salary dump.

A salary dump implies getting very little in return for offloading salary. For example, the Aramis Ramirez trade was a salary dump. Likewise, the AJ Burnett trade was a salary dump (by the Yankees). Considering what we received in return, the Hammer trade is not a salary dump.

Do the Pirates make the exact same trade if Hammer were due $500k? Maybe. Hammer's value peaked last season and could very well fall lower than it was last season. Perhaps they would have kept him if he were not making 10% of the Pirates' payroll, but the fact of the matter is that the package received in return is commensurate with, if not better than, the value Hammer had this offseason. That fact alone disqualifies this trade as a salary dump.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Last edited by Willton on Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 4881
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
Willton wrote:
A salary dump implies getting very little in return for off-loading salary. For example, the Aramis Ramirez trade was a salary dump. Likewise, the AJ Burnett trade was a salary dump (by the Yankees). Considering what we received in return, the Hammer trade is not a salary dump.


So you don't make the trade if all salaries are the same, correct?

_________________
#7 Baylor Bears (3-0) at Iowa State Cyclones (1-2)
Jack Trice Stadium
September 27, 2014
7:00 PM CST
FOX


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
IA Pirate wrote:
Willton wrote:
A salary dump implies getting very little in return for off-loading salary. For example, the Aramis Ramirez trade was a salary dump. Likewise, the AJ Burnett trade was a salary dump (by the Yankees). Considering what we received in return, the Hammer trade is not a salary dump.


So you don't make the trade if all salaries are the same, correct?

No, I'd still make the trade. Lost in all this is the fact that Hanrahan had only one year of control left. So even if he was making league minimum this year, he was going to be a free agent the next year. And the pieces we got in return, namely Melancon, are attractive.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:51 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3600
Location: Economy, PA
The Pirates decided to spend their money on a free agent catcher and a free agent pitcher, rather than spend it on Hanarahan. Call it a salary dump if you want, but the fact is they decided to spend their money elsewhere. The payroll has gone up significantly since last year, which is opposite of what you see when teams are dumping salary.

I am surprised at the level of vindictiveness and negativity from the media. From Collier, Perrotto, and some douchebag on channell 11, the comments about this trade have shown a high level of ignorance and negativity.

I expect that from fans, but people who make their living in sports are obligated to remain informed and somewhat objective, and instead I'm seeing hatred and bias that crosses the line into being unprofessional.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5206
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
bucco boy wrote:
Holt is expendable unless Neil Walker doesn't sign. I expect he will.


Expendable? Yes. To be thrown away for Ivan De Jesus? I don't think so. Keith Law thinks Holt is the best prospect involved in this deal. And I'd rather have a lefty-hitting utility infielder who can hit than an all-glove utility infielder who can't.

He wasn't thrown away on Dejesus. He was traded along with Hanrahan for four players.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2157
Willton wrote:
IA Pirate wrote:
Willton wrote:
A salary dump implies getting very little in return for off-loading salary. For example, the Aramis Ramirez trade was a salary dump. Likewise, the AJ Burnett trade was a salary dump (by the Yankees). Considering what we received in return, the Hammer trade is not a salary dump.


So you don't make the trade if all salaries are the same, correct?

No, I'd still make the trade. Lost in all this is the fact that Hanrahan had only one year of control left. So even if he was making league minimum this year, he was going to be a free agent the next year. And the pieces we got in return, namely Melancon, are attractive.

C'mon Wilton...no you don't. If Hanrahan was making that low of a salary you'd be salivating to keep him hoping he returns to 2010-11 form.

I think DK was very fair for the record. No bias. He stated that every team reaches a payroll threshold. The Pirates chose to spend on Martin and Liriano. So in essence they were dumping Hanrahan's salary to stay within the owner's threshold. And they DID get very little in return. I'm happy they got Melancon because it makes the trade marginally palatable. But to read these threads you'd think we just acquired a young Mariano Rivera. We get him for 4 years...big deal. NH has shown one of his few successes in forming a bullpen each year. What if we get the Boston Melancon...then do you want him in your control for 4 years?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6155
Location: Keystone State
PirateParrot wrote:
We get him for 4 years...big deal.


It is a big deal if he ends up being a quality pitcher.

Look, Hanrahan could stink or be very good for one year. Melancon could stink or be very good for four years. With Hammer, you get him one more year - good or bad. With Melancon, if he does stink, you can let him go, but if he is good, you get three more years. I am not sure why you don't see the difference and the advantage that the Pirates did gain in that swap.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:37 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5557
Ralphie wrote:
The Pirates decided to spend their money on a free agent catcher and a free agent pitcher, rather than spend it on Hanarahan. Call it a salary dump if you want, but the fact is they decided to spend their money elsewhere. The payroll has gone up significantly since last year, which is opposite of what you see when teams are dumping salary.


Very true.

The Pirates have made pretty efficient use of their spare change this offseason.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2157
bucco boy wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
We get him for 4 years...big deal.


It is a big deal if he ends up being a quality pitcher.

Look, Hanrahan could stink or be very good for one year. Melancon could stink or be very good for four years. With Hammer, you get him one more year - good or bad. With Melancon, if he does stink, you can let him go, but if he is good, you get three more years. I am not sure why you don't see the difference and the advantage that the Pirates did gain in that swap.

Because its Mark Melancon. Huntington finds guys like him every year so it really doesn't matter to me how many years of control we have him for. I want the guy who makes us better next year. And hey, maybe that will be Melancon.

Everyone, including me, is trying to find reasons this trade will benefit the Pirates. Hammer was very shaky last year but excellent the two years before. Same for Melancon. Yet most are assuming Hammer will continue downward and most think Melancon will bounce back. But if everything is equal I'd rather have Hammer for one more year and hope he helps us become a contender. If that means losing out on three years of control of Cy Young Melancon then so be it. The bullpen always gets filled out fairly well and fairly easily with similar type guys.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
PirateParrot wrote:
Willton wrote:
No, I'd still make the trade. Lost in all this is the fact that Hanrahan had only one year of control left. So even if he was making league minimum this year, he was going to be a free agent the next year. And the pieces we got in return, namely Melancon, are attractive.

C'mon Wilton...no you don't. If Hanrahan was making that low of a salary you'd be salivating to keep him hoping he returns to 2010-11 form.

And then what? Watch him leave via free agency? Trade him at the deadline for table scraps? You saw what last year's trade deadline deals were for established players in their walk year. What could the Pirates have possibly gotten for a 2011-level Hanrahan in his walk year that was better than what they got here?

PirateParrot wrote:
I think DK was very fair for the record. No bias. He stated that every team reaches a payroll threshold. The Pirates chose to spend on Martin and Liriano. So in essence they were dumping Hanrahan's salary to stay within the owner's threshold. And they DID get very little in return. I'm happy they got Melancon because it makes the trade marginally palatable. But to read these threads you'd think we just acquired a young Mariano Rivera. We get him for 4 years...big deal. NH has shown one of his few successes in forming a bullpen each year. What if we get the Boston Melancon...then do you want him in your control for 4 years?

In case you are not aware, Melancon is very similar to what Hanrahan was back in 2009. Both throw hard; both have sharp breaking pitches; both are/were in their mid-twenties when traded; both had down years as a result of bad luck and poor fielding defense on their previous teams.

If you want to call Melancon, a 1B prospect in Sands, and two lottery tickets "very little in return," fine. I disagree, but fine. But then again, Hanrahan was not very much to give up in the first place; otherwise the inclusion of Brock Holt in the deal does not make much sense.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:08 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
Make no mistake about it, this was a salary dump. They signed Martin and Liriano and needed to shed some payroll so they dealt Hanrahan once Grilli re-signed with the Bucs. They figure they dealt from a strength since the bullpen is strong.
My problem is two-fold. The organization's refusal to spend money for a playoff run and the front office's insane attraction to quantity over quality. The Bucs got a serviceable arm, two guys who have "potential" and a minor league pitcher who couldn't hit water if he fell out of a rowboat...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 4881
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
I laugh whenever I see someone write how poor last season was for Hanrahan. He had a 2.72 ERA with 36 saves. In other words...he got the job done in All-Star fashion. I don't care what other metrics are used or if he walked the bases loaded before he got the save. He's been one of the best in the game for two years.

_________________
#7 Baylor Bears (3-0) at Iowa State Cyclones (1-2)
Jack Trice Stadium
September 27, 2014
7:00 PM CST
FOX


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan reportedly going to Red Sox
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
IA Pirate wrote:
I laugh whenever I see someone write how poor last season was for Hanrahan. He had a 2.72 ERA with 36 saves. In other words...he got the job done in All-Star fashion. I don't care what other metrics are used or if he walked the bases loaded before he got the save. He's been one of the best in the game for two years.

MLB GMs care about what the other metrics say about Hanrahan. They care very little about how many saves he recorded. Perhaps that's the part that you're missing.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], StarlingArcher and 7 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