I know someone else posed this question in another thread, but I figured I would dedicate a thread to it. I did this because I think this is an awful frigging idea. So much so that i didnt even raise an opinion when the rumor first surfaced because i thought the idea ridiculous. Chris Capuano is a bottom of the rotation starter and an average and expensive one at that. Either Hanrahan has no value in the industry or this rumor is completely bunk or NH is as overmatched as some folks believe. I am all for trading the Hammer if the deal is right, but his deal ain't.

There has to be another piece. If there is also a legitimate prospect involved; I'd be ok with it. I would prefer a couple high-upside guys, over an average player with one year left, but who knows what's available.

You just don't get a lot for closers on the last year of their deal and making a lot of money in arbitration. The time to trade Hanrahan was last season. I understand why they didn't do it but once you rolled over to the last year of his contract and a 7 million dollar price tag things change quite a bit.

Pay Hanny.

Capuano is another word for mediocrity.

Toss Dee Gordon into the conversation and then we can talk. I still think we match up well with Detroit. Plus, they are in win now mode and have been for the last season or two.

juniorkrzy wrote: Toss Dee Gordon into the conversation and then we can talk. I still think we match up well with Detroit. Plus, they are in win now mode and have been for the last season or two.

I haven't taken a detailed look at Detroit's 40 man roster and minor league system.  But I agree that the Tigers would certainly be a logical landing spot for Hanrahan.  Re: Capuano, I have a higher opinion of him than some here---provided, of course, that he is healthy, which with him is often not the case.  Therefore I would want at least a passable prospect in the deal, rather than Capuano alone.  But as katoy notes, Hanrahan is a closer who might give you 80 innings and he is in the last year of his deal to boot (or will be once he signs).  Capuano, being a starting pitcher and a decent one when he is in one piece, is really about all you could expect to get for Hanrahan straight up.  Perhaps an expanded, two-for-two deal could be considered? Maybe Hanrahan and Presley for Capuano and a couple of better than average prospects?  Basically you rent Capuano for a year, with the "real" return being the two prospects.  I suggest Presley because Kemp is coming off an injury and I don't think the Dodgers have a strong in house candidate for fourth outfielder at the moment.  Presley could give them some insurance against a slow comeback by Kemp from injury, and meanwhile he would make a strong fourth outfielder, and of course they get Hanrahan.  We get Capuano and two projectable prospects.

Capuano is a free agent after 2013.  The only reason to do this deal would be if you thought you could win in 2013 - and if that was the case, you wouldn't want to trade your closer.  It doesn't make much sense to me.  I'd keep Hanrahan unless we can get 1-2 prospects that can start in the majors within the next 1-2 years.

A full season of Capuano has more value to a team than a full season of Hanrahan.

That said I wouldn't do the deal straight up. I would want more. Hanrahan would net more value at the trade deadline as that is when teams really overpay for relievers. Closers get hurt all the time and lose the position outright very often. I would cross my fingers and hope that Hanrahan can stay healthy and be effective and move him during the season no matter what our team record is.

I would wait on Capuano till the Dodgers sign Zach Greinke and need to clear a rotation spot. You could probably get him for Alex Presley at that time because the Dodgers need a reserve outfielder capable of playing all three spots and he acts as insurance in case Carl Crawford has a setback.

Detroit keeps saying they're going to give a AA rookie the closing job this year. I find that hard to believe considering the problems they had with closers in the playoffs last season. I would wait to see if they sign Anibal Sanchez. At that point they would have 6 starters and I would see if they would do Hanrahan for Smyly straight up.

Agreed.

---------------------------------------------
--- Sangue wrote:

Capuano is a free agent after 2013.  The only reason to do this deal would be if you thought you could win in 2013 - and if that was the case, you wouldn't want to trade your closer.  It doesn't make much sense to me.  I'd keep Hanrahan unless we can get 1-2 prospects that can start in the majors within the next 1-2 years.

---------------------------------------------

That deal straight up would be fing awful imho!

Is Capuano, who is a career .500 pitcher with a 4+ ERA really more valuable than Hanny right now for the Pirates? If the Pirates were a team looking to win 60-70 games then I would say yes. However, the 2013 Pirates should be a team looking to win 82-87 games and a good closer will be more important than a 4th or 5th pitcher who will put up average numbers at best.

Yep. And given how many draft picks and other resources this organization has spent on starting pitching over the past several years, if we still need to acquire mediocre backend starters just to fill a rotation, we have more fundamental problems.

---------------------------------------------
--- vinnybravo wrote:

Is Capuano, who is a career .500 pitcher with a 4+ ERA really more valuable than Hanny right now for the Pirates? If the Pirates were a team looking to win 60-70 games then I would say yes. However, the 2013 Pirates should be a team looking to win 82-87 games and a good closer will be more important than a 4th or 5th pitcher who will put up average numbers at best.

---------------------------------------------

Is 200 innings of Chris Capuano at a 3.72 ERA better than 60 innings of Joel Hanrahan with a 2.72 ERA? The answer is a slam dunk yes.

Hanrahan wasn't very good last year. The difference between his 2011 and 2012 season was night and day even though he still posted a good ERA.

But Capuano had his career best ERA of 3.72 last year at age 32. The rest of his career has been extremely inconsistent and riddled with injuries. I would want far more for a proven closer. Too much risk and not enough upside IMO.

There is the same amount of risk. Both players are on one year deals. Capuano and Hanrahan both have tha ability to blow their arms out. Capuano has actually been very durable over his career when he hasn't had a year with Tommy John surgery. He led the NL in starts last year and is a pretty safe bet for 200 innings next year. Honestly I don't see much difference between Capuano and Wandy Rodriguez.

I'm talking about a value for value trade it is fair. I wouldn't do it because I don't think you need to give up that much to get Capuano since the Dodgers are likely going to back themselves into a corner of having to many starting pitchers and won't have the leverage.

katoy2j wrote: Is 200 innings of Chris Capuano at a 3.72 ERA better than 60 innings of Joel Hanrahan with a 2.72 ERA? The answer is a slam dunk yes.

Hanrahan wasn't very good last year. The difference between his 2011 and 2012 season was night and day even though he still posted a good ERA.

He was helped out by playing in a huge ball park. If you look at his stats away from LA they were not that good. Add to that he is horrible in PNC and even worse against St Louis and he is not worth it at all.