Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:54 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10516
I was NOT thrilled at initial reports, where the Pirates get Jerry Sands as the key player in the deal.

Now that the Pirates get Sands, Pimental, Dejesus, and Melancon in return for Hanrahan and Holt, I like the trade a lot more. The deal is close. It's not a matter of the Pirates ripping off the Red Sox, or vice versa. Here is why I think the deal makes sense:

  • Hanrahan is gone after this year, unless the Pirates offer him FA dollars. Way too much money for a closer, where the team has a lot of very hard throwers and closers-to-be candidates on the roster. (Look at the stats I posted for top closers in 2012, and the very significant number who were not even thought of as closers at the start of the year.)
  • In comparison, Melancon is a Pirate for the next 3 seasons.
  • Melancon successfully closed for the Astros in 2011.
  • Melancon struggled mightily, righted the ship, and was dominant in September of 2012.
  • Melancon deals gas, but with a much lower BB rate than Hanrahan. (Not saying he is better than Hanrahan, just bringing up a viable point on the deal.)
  • Sands gives the Pirates a potential R-handed power bat.
  • That is needed, since the majority of the Buccos power now comes from the L side (Alvarez, Jones, Walker [better as L-handed hitter]).
  • Sands is a Pirates, if productive, until 2018.
  • Pimental ... ehh, a flyer. He deals in the upper 90's, and reportedly has a plus change-up. That is not common for right-handed power arms. (He sounds a bit like that guy the Pirates got from the Cubs in the Gorzellany deal, the righty who has great stuff but blew out his arm 8 minutes after becoming a Pirate.)
  • Dejesus ... a glove guy, not a viable starter given the bat. But as a defensive player, pinch-runner? Sure, what the heck.

So pretty decent return for 1 year of Joel Hanrahan and a decent hitting/iffy fielding middle infield prospect like Holt.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:06 pm
Posts: 3263
Location: Westmoreland County Pennsylvania
Bucfan wrote:
I was NOT thrilled at initial reports, where the Pirates get Jerry Sands as the key player in the deal.

Now that the Pirates get Sands, Pimental, Dejesus, and Melancon in return for Hanrahan and Holt, I like the trade a lot more. The deal is close. It's not a matter of the Pirates ripping off the Red Sox, or vice versa. Here is why I think the deal makes sense:

  • Hanrahan is gone after this year, unless the Pirates offer him FA dollars. Way too much money for a closer, where the team has a lot of very hard throwers and closers-to-be candidates on the roster. (Look at the stats I posted for top closers in 2012, and the very significant number who were not even thought of as closers at the start of the year.)
  • In comparison, Melancon is a Pirate for the next 3 seasons.
  • Melancon successfully closed for the Astros in 2011.
  • Melancon struggled mightily, righted the ship, and was dominant in September of 2012.
  • Melancon deals gas, but with a much lower BB rate than Hanrahan. (Not saying he is better than Hanrahan, just bringing up a viable point on the deal.)
  • Sands gives the Pirates a potential R-handed power bat.
  • That is needed, since the majority of the Buccos power now comes from the L side (Alvarez, Jones, Walker [better as L-handed hitter]).
  • Sands is a Pirates, if productive, until 2018.
  • Pimental ... ehh, a flyer. He deals in the upper 90's, and reportedly has a plus change-up. That is not common for right-handed power arms. (He sounds a bit like that guy the Pirates got from the Cubs in the Gorzellany deal, the righty who has great stuff but blew out his arm 8 minutes after becoming a Pirate.)
  • Dejesus ... a glove guy, not a viable starter given the bat. But as a defensive player, pinch-runner? Sure, what the heck.

So pretty decent return for 1 year of Joel Hanrahan and a decent hitting/iffy fielding middle infield prospect like Holt.


All valid points Bucfan. Here are some comments on Jerry Sands by NH:

Sands, who also plays first base, made a solid debut with the Dodgers in 2011 and was acquired by Boston in the October completion of the midseason blockbuster between the teams that involved Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford and Josh Beckett.

Sands, 25, could very well be viewed as the long-range key to the trade from the Pirates' perspective. The 6-foot-4, 225-pound right-handed hitter has produced 119 home runs in 469 Minor League games, and he drove in 26 runs during a 61-game big league baptismal in 2011.

"Jerry Sands has impressed our scouts with his well-rounded tools package, highlighted by his ability to command the strike zone as a hitter and drive the ball for extra-base hit potential," Pittsburgh general manager Neal Huntington said upon announcement of the deal. "Additionally, his defensive versatility will increase his opportunity to contribute to [us] in the near term as well as in the years to come."


Potential is one thing and real productive contribution is another. I guess time will tell. With me though, when talking about the Pirates, it seems to always be "time will tell" with many of these Pirate "acquisitions".

Then again, what kind of player or players with tremendous upside could have been obtained for Hanrahan at this point?

_________________
Image...You can observe a lot by just watching. -Yogi Berra


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10516
bassoondirector wrote:
Potential is one thing and real productive contribution is another. I guess time will tell. With me though, when talking about the Pirates, it seems to always be "time will tell" with many of these Pirate "acquisitions".

True, true - but that is a key reason why adding Melancon to the pen is a big part of the trade.

The way I look at it, Melancon-for-Hanrahan straight up favors the Red Sox, but not nearly as much as we might think initially. Specifically, Hanrahan's troubling walk rate in 2012, and Melancon's very sold peripherals suggesting that the 2012 ERA was an aberration (inflated by a horrid April), plus Hanrahan's FA status, plus Melancon's 3 additional years of "control," plus Melancon's success as a closer in the NL Central in 2011, plus Melancon's significant velocity at the end of 2012 make me intrigued.

The "time will tell" part of the deal is less so for a player who has done the job in the major leagues in the recent past, like Melancon and, to a lesser extent, Sands.

bassoondirector wrote:
Then again, what kind of player or players with tremendous upside could have been obtained for Hanrahan at this point?

That is a key issue here. One year rental for a closer = somewhat limited value. I like Hanrahan, and if he can throw strikes with that 97 mph fastball and killer slider, he is a good pitcher.

But one year of Hanrahan for 3 years of Melancon, 6 years of Sands, and the lottery chances with a starting pitcher who deals in the mid to upper-90's with a very good change, slider combination like Pimental is a solid return.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4777
Location: Pittsburgh
I see Holt for Dejesus as pretty much a wash. Holt may hit a little better, but that's counterbalanced by the fact that he's less of a shortstop than Dejesus. I don't see much of a future in MLB for either.

That means we got Melancon a pretty good lottery ticket, and a real longshot lottery ticket for 60 innings of Hanrahan. That sounds pretty close to even to me, or maybe tilted just a bit towards the Bucs, with a chance that it could turn into a real steal.

However it turns out, at least I won't have to look at that stupid beard any more.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10516
sisyphus wrote:
I see Holt for Dejesus as pretty much a wash. Holt may hit a little better, but that's counterbalanced by the fact that he's less of a shortstop than Dejesus. I don't see much of a future in MLB for either.

If Dejesus and Holt had a kid together, and the kid could combine Holt's hitting and Dejesus' fielding and base running, we might have something.

sisyphus wrote:
That means we got Melancon a pretty good lottery ticket, and a real longshot lottery ticket for 60 innings of Hanrahan. That sounds pretty close to even to me, or maybe tilted just a bit towards the Bucs, with a chance that it could turn into a real steal.

That is my view. A close deal right now, since I think Melancon is going to be good for several seasons vs. 1 for Hanrahan, but if either Pimental or Sands pans out (preferably, the hitter - 162 games > 75 games), then the deal favors the Pirates pretty solidly.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6063
Location: Keystone State
Keith Law is critical of the trade (big surprise), but not for the players the Pirates got. The Pirates should have traded Hanrahan last offseason. I actually agree with his point for once. The rest of his analysis is behind the pay wall so who knows what he says.

I like the the trade because I think Hammer is done. I didn't like control last year and with a guy who had control problems in the past, you have to think they will continue. Like many said on here and I will echo the sentiment. If Hammer has good control, he is a very good pitcher. Also, I wouldn't be shocked to see Melancon outperform him.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2064
bucco boy wrote:
Keith Law is critical of the trade (big surprise), but not for the players the Pirates got. The Pirates should have traded Hanrahan last offseason. I actually agree with his point for once. The rest of his analysis is behind the pay wall so who knows what he says.

I like the the trade because I think Hammer is done. I didn't like control last year and with a guy who had control problems in the past, you have to think they will continue. Like many said on here and I will echo the sentiment. If Hammer has good control, he is a very good pitcher. Also, I wouldn't be shocked to see Melancon outperform him.

I like Law. Tells it like it is, which rubs some the wrong way. The rest of his analysis was basically this:
1. Hanrahan compounded the Pirates error in not trading him last year by stinking last season.
2. Melancon will benefit by going to NL Central. Said lefties kill him because he has a lousy change up and no life or movement on his four seamer. He is a middle reliever miscast as a closer. Expects him to improve this season.
3. Sands is a bench guy at best.
4. Was surprised Holt was included. Thinks a weaker team should give him consistent AB's at second to see if he can be above replacement level.

Essentially said the opposite of Bucfan. Thinks Boston got the wildcard in Hammer. If he returns to 2010-11 form they will have a great closer for this year. He really didn't rave about Boston making this deal other than they didn't give up anything to get him.

My two cents:Not sure why we were so interested in Sands. Melancon makes this an OK trade. I liked Hammer so I'm a bit biased, but he was gone in a year anyway...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:43 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5365
Bucfan wrote:
[*]Pimental ... (He sounds a bit like that guy the Pirates got from the Cubs in the Gorzellany deal, the righty who has great stuff but blew out his arm 8 minutes after becoming a Pirate.)


Kevin Hart?

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:55 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5365
It's hard not to be a tad skeptical any time a former Astro is acquired.

When that former Astro is also a former Yankee (among the most overrated MiL players), it's harder not to be even more skeptical.

That said, Bucfan is right that, considering the circumstances, the return for Hanrahan is fair.

Could be better, could be worse.

We'll see as the year(s) go along.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10516
PirateParrot wrote:
Essentially said the opposite of Bucfan.

Well, then, he is OBVIOUSLY wrong.

PirateParrot wrote:
Thinks Boston got the wildcard in Hammer. If he returns to 2010-11 form they will have a great closer for this year.

Not sure how he deems that a wildcard. I presume Hanrahan does well in his role as a closer, for one seson.

If he does not, then the trade is lousy for Boston.

I see the wildcard as Sands (if he hits for power and gets on base like he has in the minors, he is a 3 to 4 WAR player - far more than Hanrahan could offer) and Pimental (potential SP'er with plus fastball, at worst a bullpen arm (which is what Hanrahan is right now).


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:15 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2064
Bucfan wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
Essentially said the opposite of Bucfan.

Well, then, he is OBVIOUSLY wrong.

PirateParrot wrote:
Thinks Boston got the wildcard in Hammer. If he returns to 2010-11 form they will have a great closer for this year.

Not sure how he deems that a wildcard. I presume Hanrahan does well in his role as a closer, for one seson.

If he does not, then the trade is lousy for Boston.

I see the wildcard as Sands (if he hits for power and gets on base like he has in the minors, he is a 3 to 4 WAR player - far more than Hanrahan could offer) and Pimental (potential SP'er with plus fastball, at worst a bullpen arm (which is what Hanrahan is right now).

I think he was referring to if Hammer pitches like he did in 2010-11 then the trade gets upgraded from Boston's perspective. If he pitches like he did last year then it's pretty much a wash.

Sands, to me, is a real WILD card. I just don't like what I read on him. Don't see him really being a major leaguer...certainly not an every day guy. Hopefully we catch lightning in a bottle with him. We could use that for a change!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:02 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10516
PirateParrot wrote:
Sands, to me, is a real WILD card. I just don't like what I read on him. Don't see him really being a major leaguer...certainly not an every day guy.

I read last year that Sands re-worked his approach after being sent back down and hit really well the 2nd half.

His splits (first vs. second half) for 2012:

1st Half: 271 AB's, .258/.345/.450, 12 HR's, 54 RBI's, 37 BB, 68 K's (ratio of 0.54 BB for every K)
2nd Half: 181 AB's, .354/.422/.635, 14 HR's, 53 RBI's, 22 BB's, 38 K's (ratio of 0.58 BB for every K)

First half OPS .795, 2nd half 1.038.

http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.js ... pid=543742


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:06 pm
Posts: 3263
Location: Westmoreland County Pennsylvania
Bucfan wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
Sands, to me, is a real WILD card. I just don't like what I read on him. Don't see him really being a major leaguer...certainly not an every day guy.

I read last year that Sands re-worked his approach after being sent back down and hit really well the 2nd half.

His splits (first vs. second half) for 2012:

1st Half: 271 AB's, .258/.345/.450, 12 HR's, 54 RBI's, 37 BB, 68 K's (ratio of 0.54 BB for every K)
2nd Half: 181 AB's, .354/.422/.635, 14 HR's, 53 RBI's, 22 BB's, 38 K's (ratio of 0.58 BB for every K)

First half OPS .795, 2nd half 1.038.

http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.js ... pid=543742


What's really bothersome here is that the guy that really matters (Neal Huntington), feels that he HAS the "potential" to be a quality MLB player...quote:

"Jerry Sands has impressed our scouts with his well-rounded tools package, highlighted by his ability to command the strike zone as a hitter and drive the ball for extra-base hit potential," Pittsburgh general manager Neal Huntington said upon announcement of the deal. "Additionally, his defensive versatility will increase his opportunity to contribute to [us] in the near term as well as in the years to come."

Here we go again....I guess "time will tell". :roll:

Does anyone here believe that running a baseball team is really like playing roulette in Las Vegas?

Could it be that NH is the problem? Could it be that our Scouts are the problem? All of the above? None of the above? Who knows..... :?

_________________
Image...You can observe a lot by just watching. -Yogi Berra


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:30 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
Not a fan of this deal in any way, shape or form. This is nothing more than a salary dump and that's what bothers me most about this trade.
Sands, Pimentel and DeJesus are all fringe players that will likely become classic AAAA players. I will admit that Melancon could be very useful. He didn't pitch well in New York and Boston, but was was impressive in Houston. This tells me that he's a better pitcher when the lights aren't that bright.
Hate giving up Hanrahan for next to nothing.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
House of Poe wrote:
Not a fan of this deal in any way, shape or form. This is nothing more than a salary dump and that's what bothers me most about this trade.
Sands, Pimentel and DeJesus are all fringe players that will likely become classic AAAA players. I will admit that Melancon could be very useful. He didn't pitch well in New York and Boston, but was was impressive in Houston. This tells me that he's a better pitcher when the lights aren't that bright.
Hate giving up Hanrahan for next to nothing.


One correction to Bucfan's 1st post, I believe we get Melancon for 4 years, not 3. He has 2 years and 98 days of service time.

4 years of Melancon alone is worth 1 year of Joel. Melancon is very nearly the same caliber pitcher that Joel is. Trade some velocity for some better control.

The other issue is Sands, why is everyone ignoring his wRC+ of 108 in over 200 MLB ab's in 2011? He has already shown he can be a MLB average hitter in the bigs. We don't need to fret over translating his PCL numbers.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:04 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
With all due respect, it takes more than 221 AB's (198 in 2011 and 23 in 2012) to be a "proven big leaguer"...
For the record, I wouldn't be thrilled with a .244 average, which is where Sands currently sits...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
House of Poe wrote:
With all due respect, it takes more than 221 AB's (198 in 2011 and 23 in 2012) to be a "proven big leaguer"...
For the record, I wouldn't be thrilled with a .244 average, which is where Sands currently sits...


Batting average is irrelevant. 200 ab's isn't exactly a ton, but its a lot more than just a prospect that we have to guess about.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:41 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
Barrys Dopers wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
With all due respect, it takes more than 221 AB's (198 in 2011 and 23 in 2012) to be a "proven big leaguer"...
For the record, I wouldn't be thrilled with a .244 average, which is where Sands currently sits...


Batting average is irrelevant. 200 ab's isn't exactly a ton, but its a lot more than just a prospect that we have to guess about.


Batting average is irrelevant...oh you new age baseball fans with your copy of the Bible err I mean Moneyball and your 18x24" poster of Brian Kenney.. thanks for the chuckle...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
House of Poe wrote:
With all due respect, it takes more than 221 AB's (198 in 2011 and 23 in 2012) to be a "proven big leaguer"...
For the record, I wouldn't be thrilled with a .244 average, which is where Sands currently sits...

If Sands were a "proven big leaguer", he would not have been received in return for Hanrahan. And 251 plate appearances is nothing to scoff at.

As for Sands's MLB batting average, there's more to hitting than just batting average. Last I checked, Adam Dunn had a career batting average below that of Sands.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
House of Poe wrote:
Barrys Dopers wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
With all due respect, it takes more than 221 AB's (198 in 2011 and 23 in 2012) to be a "proven big leaguer"...
For the record, I wouldn't be thrilled with a .244 average, which is where Sands currently sits...


Batting average is irrelevant. 200 ab's isn't exactly a ton, but its a lot more than just a prospect that we have to guess about.


Batting average is irrelevant...oh you new age baseball fans with your copy of the Bible err I mean Moneyball and your 18x24" poster of Brian Kenney.. thanks for the chuckle...

If you can't handle advanced baseball metrics, just say so.

_________________
"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  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 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