Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:20 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:45 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
PirateParrot wrote:

Made it clear? You were one of the people who thought bringing in Pedro was a great idea because, and I'm paraphrasing, our young pitchers who he would block all suck. Now you say you don't want rental guys blocking the young players. Well what the hell do you think bringing in Pedro would do to our young pitchers who we need to find out about???
Thus I made the reference to you having a crystal ball. My point is how can you say that our young pitchers have already shown they are not worth the time but apparently position players like Moss, Laroche, etc. have not. You say it in your post above. "We can't be dismissive of any bum..." I ask you...how can you already say that the guys we got from the Yankees are bums. Maybe Karstens has pitched enough to lead you to say that but the others??? I would counter that Andy Laroche has looked like the biggest bum of anyone. Are we done with him too?

MY point is that this is the perfect year to find out about as many young guys as you can. You agree except that you apparently have already dismissed most, if not all, of our young pitchers as "bums" so why not bring in Pedro. No rental players except for guys you've deemed bums. Oh, and I'll go back and forth as long as you want....


Sorry, but this is the 3rd time now that youve essentially posted the same idea. I responded the first two times, but I honestly dont know what to add when you simply provide a recap of your points (and mine) rather than offer new ones.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Steve1118 wrote:
The "thin" part has been much more prevalant than the "thick" part over the past sixteen years.

As far as the light at the end of the tunnel, show me, don't tell me.


I don't understand the "show me" part. I would assume you will not believe in the direction that the current Pirates front office is taking until they are holding the WS trophy? What more do you need to see that indicates that the Pirates are trying to build a winner?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2076
Kingston wrote:
[Sorry, but this is the 3rd time now that youve essentially posted the same idea. I responded the first two times, but I honestly dont know what to add when you simply provide a recap of your points (and mine) rather than offer new ones.


Okay, let me simplify...why or how have you already come to the conclusion that the young pitchers are not worth the effort?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:43 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
PirateParrot wrote:
Kingston wrote:
[Sorry, but this is the 3rd time now that youve essentially posted the same idea. I responded the first two times, but I honestly dont know what to add when you simply provide a recap of your points (and mine) rather than offer new ones.


Okay, let me simplify...why or how have you already come to the conclusion that the young pitchers are not worth the effort?


Okay, I will go thru this one last time.

You may recall, the primary reason i urged a Pedro signing had to do with me believing it would be alot of fun. Future Hall of Famer, one of the greatest pitchers of his generation. To see him in a Bucs uniform would simply be a kick. Mike called it the Bill Vecck approach. Not a bad way to label it. And I went on to say that if he can stay healthy, and with his old mentors (Kerrigan) help, we might actually witness a last few moments of glory in PNC, which again, Id really enjoy. And in a "phone it in" season, why not?

But the issue is, this seemingly contradicts my other belief that we should look to the future and not bring in older players who would take playing time away from any prospects who might be an integral part of our future.

Now, just because youre young or a minor leaguer doesnt mean youre a prospect. Its my belief that the guys fighting for the 5 slot in the rotation are not nearly compelling enough that their loss of playing time in any way jeopardizes our future. Can I state it conclusively? No. As you like to point out, no one has a crystal ball. But given available evidence, it is not unreasonable for fans to have certain expectations for certain players... and my expectations for these guys in no way diminishes my enthusiasm for a singular, unusual event like a Pedro Martinez signing.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:48 am
Posts: 391
PirateParrot wrote:
Kingston wrote:
[Sorry, but this is the 3rd time now that youve essentially posted the same idea. I responded the first two times, but I honestly dont know what to add when you simply provide a recap of your points (and mine) rather than offer new ones.


Okay, let me simplify...why or how have you already come to the conclusion that the young pitchers are not worth the effort?


I've asked before and I've never gotten a good answer, although Wilton gave a half assed attempt, how much more of Zach Duke do you feel you need to see?

_________________
"What other businesses do you expect to lose money for your entertainment?"-- UPPMB


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
omgardd wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
Kingston wrote:
[Sorry, but this is the 3rd time now that youve essentially posted the same idea. I responded the first two times, but I honestly dont know what to add when you simply provide a recap of your points (and mine) rather than offer new ones.


Okay, let me simplify...why or how have you already come to the conclusion that the young pitchers are not worth the effort?


I've asked before and I've never gotten a good answer, although Wilton gave a half assed attempt, how much more of Zach Duke do you feel you need to see?

.... until what?

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2076
omgardd wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
Kingston wrote:
[Sorry, but this is the 3rd time now that youve essentially posted the same idea. I responded the first two times, but I honestly dont know what to add when you simply provide a recap of your points (and mine) rather than offer new ones.


Okay, let me simplify...why or how have you already come to the conclusion that the young pitchers are not worth the effort?


I've asked before and I've never gotten a good answer, although Wilton gave a half assed attempt, how much more of Zach Duke do you feel you need to see?


I'm not a big Duke fan. I thought he threw really good BP last year. However, they did say he is in excellent shape and his arm strength is better. And if my choice is Zach Duke, who may find it again, or Pedro Martinez, who probably isn't going to find it again and even if he does so what, then give me Zach Duke. Point is if Duke finds his groove again he could help the Bucs when they will need it. Pedro can't and won't. And I can't believe a "true" Pirate fan, as everyone here has been arguing lately, really wants to sign someone who will have no benefit just because it would be "a lot of fun".


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:45 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
PirateParrot wrote:

I'm not a big Duke fan. I thought he threw really good BP last year. However, they did say he is in excellent shape and his arm strength is better. And if my choice is Zach Duke, who may find it again, or Pedro Martinez, who probably isn't going to find it again and even if he does so what, then give me Zach Duke. Point is if Duke finds his groove again he could help the Bucs when they will need it. Pedro can't and won't. And I can't believe a "true" Pirate fan, as everyone here has been arguing lately, really wants to sign someone who will have no benefit just because it would be "a lot of fun".


Right. What sort of baseball fan would actually want to sign a guy it would be alot of fun to watch during a 65 Win season. Dont know what I was thinking...

BTW, you might have noticed, I went out of my way to specify I was talking about guys trying to become our 5th starter. I dont believe Duke is part of that debate. But if you want my opinion of Duke, separate from any Pedro discussion, I agree with Willton that alot of teams would have him as their 5th starter. But I suggest that speaks more to the state of 5th starters around the league and less to Dukes long term value as we try to construct a contender.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:27 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
omgardd wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
Kingston wrote:
[Sorry, but this is the 3rd time now that youve essentially posted the same idea. I responded the first two times, but I honestly dont know what to add when you simply provide a recap of your points (and mine) rather than offer new ones.


Okay, let me simplify...why or how have you already come to the conclusion that the young pitchers are not worth the effort?


I've asked before and I've never gotten a good answer, although Wilton gave a half assed attempt, how much more of Zach Duke do you feel you need to see?


Duke pitches to contact, so his K rate will never be impressive. His success is dependent on the defense behind him. Even with the Pirates abysmal defense last year, he posted a 4.8 ERA. Obviously, his WHIP suffered. That's damn near #4 starter material on most teams. A solid defense behind him most likely results in an ERA below 4.5.

Combine that with the news that he supposedly looks better this spring than he has in a while and I see no reason to think he couldn't be a serviceable pitcher, probably better than Martinez.

So, what have you seen, oh infalliable baseball god omgaard, to suggest he is horrible?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:42 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
Duke's fine for the 2009 Pirates. But if he somehow disappeared between now and 2011, it would be no great loss. I also think that 230 hits allowed in 185 innings cant be blamed primarily on the defense.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:49 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Kingston wrote:
Duke's fine for the 2009 Pirates. But if he somehow disappeared between now and 2011, it would be no great loss. I also think that 230 hits allowed in 185 innings cant be blamed primarily on the defense.


Oh, I don't think he would be a great loss, but I think he is a perfect #4 starter for us this year.

As for the hits allowed...his BABIP was .327 last year (9th highest in the league!). Assume his BABIP was league average and how many hits does he give up? I'm too lazy to figure it out.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:57 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
BBF wrote:
Kingston wrote:
Duke's fine for the 2009 Pirates. But if he somehow disappeared between now and 2011, it would be no great loss. I also think that 230 hits allowed in 185 innings cant be blamed primarily on the defense.


Oh, I don't think he would be a great loss, but I think he is a perfect #4 starter for us this year.

As for the hits allowed...his BABIP was .327 last year (9th highest in the league!). Assume his BABIP was league average and how many hits does he give up? I'm too lazy to figure it out.


BBF, heres another one of those moments where I happily confess to my own ignorance; what constitutes a Ball In Play anyway? Does it have to be playable? Do gappers qualify? I dunno.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:46 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Kingston wrote:
BBF wrote:
Kingston wrote:
Duke's fine for the 2009 Pirates. But if he somehow disappeared between now and 2011, it would be no great loss. I also think that 230 hits allowed in 185 innings cant be blamed primarily on the defense.


Oh, I don't think he would be a great loss, but I think he is a perfect #4 starter for us this year.

As for the hits allowed...his BABIP was .327 last year (9th highest in the league!). Assume his BABIP was league average and how many hits does he give up? I'm too lazy to figure it out.


BBF, heres another one of those moments where I happily confess to my own ignorance; what constitutes a Ball In Play anyway? Does it have to be playable? Do gappers qualify? I dunno.

A ball in play is a ball that, after being hit, falls into an area of the field where it can be played. This includes any ball that is hit into fair territory and any ball that is caught for an out before it lands. It does not include homeruns or foul balls, as those balls are not playable by a fielder.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:31 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:48 am
Posts: 391
BBF wrote:

So, what have you seen, oh infalliable baseball god omgaard, to suggest he is horrible?


Glad you asked, and thanks for the softball. To answer your question, I've seen him pitch in the years 2006, 2007, and 2008. To virtually no success.

Here you go:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/s ... yerId=6219

_________________
"What other businesses do you expect to lose money for your entertainment?"-- UPPMB


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:26 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
omgardd wrote:
BBF wrote:

So, what have you seen, oh infalliable baseball god omgaard, to suggest he is horrible?


Glad you asked, and thanks for the softball. To answer your question, I've seen him pitch in the years 2006, 2007, and 2008. To virtually no success.

Here you go:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/s ... yerId=6219

If you think that a seasonal ERA of 4.82 (2008) or 4.43 (2006) is not worthy of a rotation spot, then you clearly are living in the Dead Ball Era. Duke is certainly not the star pitcher he was perceived to be in 2005, but that does not mean that he can't hold down a spot in a big league rotation, especially if he pitches in front of a fielding defense that is at least average. The guy is a left-handed version of Jeff Suppan, and that's perfectly adequate for a spot in the Bucs' rotation.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:48 am
Posts: 391
The point is this, opposing teams are hitting .304, .359, .302 against Duke the past three seasons. I don't want him in my rotation even if we didn't sign Pedro. Truth be told, I don't know anything about Daniel McCutchen. I know that if Ohlendorf was so can't miss he wouldn't have been traded twice already, and from what I've seen, with my god of baseball eyes, he looks very very ordinary. I know that aside from one spectacular game, against a team that had no scouting on him, Karstens was below average last year.

If he can be had reasonably, I'd take Pedro Martinez at the end of his career over Ohlendorf and Karstens and definitely over Duke, not just for what he could do for Ian Snell and for the fanbase, but for the fact that he's probably STILL better than the back end of our rotation.

_________________
"What other businesses do you expect to lose money for your entertainment?"-- UPPMB


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4083
Location: Zelienople, PA
Tell me again, how many times Bay was traded?

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Tell me again, how many times Bay was traded?

ZM

Counting Boston, I believe it's 4 times now.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2076
Kingston wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:

I'm not a big Duke fan. I thought he threw really good BP last year. However, they did say he is in excellent shape and his arm strength is better. And if my choice is Zach Duke, who may find it again, or Pedro Martinez, who probably isn't going to find it again and even if he does so what, then give me Zach Duke. Point is if Duke finds his groove again he could help the Bucs when they will need it. Pedro can't and won't. And I can't believe a "true" Pirate fan, as everyone here has been arguing lately, really wants to sign someone who will have no benefit just because it would be "a lot of fun".


Right. What sort of baseball fan would actually want to sign a guy it would be alot of fun to watch during a 65 Win season. Dont know what I was thinking...

BTW, you might have noticed, I went out of my way to specify I was talking about guys trying to become our 5th starter. I dont believe Duke is part of that debate. But if you want my opinion of Duke, separate from any Pedro discussion, I agree with Willton that alot of teams would have him as their 5th starter. But I suggest that speaks more to the state of 5th starters around the league and less to Dukes long term value as we try to construct a contender.


Look, Pedro Martinez wouldn't have the same effect as Ralph Kiner did. Ralph Kiner was hitting 500 foot blasts that captured the imagination of fans from a poor team. Pedro would pitch every fifth day and I don't think he is going to pitch too many games that people are going to be dying to see. He is a five inning pitcher at best anymore. I guess I just don't buy into the fact that people would line up to see this guy. And not to mention if he pitches like he did I don't think you'd be having too much fun watching it.

And as for your other argument, I for one don't want him blocking ANY of the other young guys. He serves no purpose for the future of this team.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: STICKS AND STONES
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:13 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
PirateParrot wrote:
Kingston wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:

I'm not a big Duke fan. I thought he threw really good BP last year. However, they did say he is in excellent shape and his arm strength is better. And if my choice is Zach Duke, who may find it again, or Pedro Martinez, who probably isn't going to find it again and even if he does so what, then give me Zach Duke. Point is if Duke finds his groove again he could help the Bucs when they will need it. Pedro can't and won't. And I can't believe a "true" Pirate fan, as everyone here has been arguing lately, really wants to sign someone who will have no benefit just because it would be "a lot of fun".


Right. What sort of baseball fan would actually want to sign a guy it would be alot of fun to watch during a 65 Win season. Dont know what I was thinking...

BTW, you might have noticed, I went out of my way to specify I was talking about guys trying to become our 5th starter. I dont believe Duke is part of that debate. But if you want my opinion of Duke, separate from any Pedro discussion, I agree with Willton that alot of teams would have him as their 5th starter. But I suggest that speaks more to the state of 5th starters around the league and less to Dukes long term value as we try to construct a contender.


Look, Pedro Martinez wouldn't have the same effect as Ralph Kiner did. Ralph Kiner was hitting 500 foot blasts that captured the imagination of fans from a poor team. Pedro would pitch every fifth day and I don't think he is going to pitch too many games that people are going to be dying to see. He is a five inning pitcher at best anymore. I guess I just don't buy into the fact that people would line up to see this guy. And not to mention if he pitches like he did I don't think you'd be having too much fun watching it.

And as for your other argument, I for one don't want him blocking ANY of the other young guys. He serves no purpose for the future of this team
.


If the intention is to eventually field a rotation of mediocre starting pitchers, youre right.


Last edited by Kingston on Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 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], Clevelandsux, Google [Bot], JollyRoger, rks 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