Posted: 10/11/2012 12:17 PM
Posted: 10/11/2012 12:37 PM
Posted: 10/11/2012 1:19 PM
Last edited 10/11/2012 1:23 PM by williamjpellas
Posted: 10/11/2012 1:56 PM
williamjpellas wrote: That leaves Jeff Locke as the sixth man.Just a few weeks ago, to quote your own post, Locke was "going to have a better career than Paul Maholm". Quite a drop from there to sixth man in the rotation for the Pirates.
Posted: 10/11/2012 2:08 PM
Last edited 10/11/2012 2:08 PM by williamjpellas
Posted: 10/11/2012 2:36 PM
Posted: 10/11/2012 2:45 PM
Posted: 10/11/2012 3:46 PM
Posted: 10/11/2012 7:31 PM
Posted: 10/11/2012 7:49 PM
Last edited 10/11/2012 8:10 PM by katoy2j
Posted: 10/11/2012 10:59 PM
Last edited 10/11/2012 11:02 PM by williamjpellas
Posted: 10/12/2012 12:45 AM
Last edited 10/12/2012 12:56 AM by katoy2j
Posted: 10/12/2012 5:04 AM
Not getting into the Locke/Maholm debate because frankly I don't care. I don't think either are any good in terms of being top of the rotation guys. As 5th starters, ok fine.
As for Hanrahan, I would definitely trade him to fill a hole whether it is a legit SP in return, a legit corner OF in return or a SS in return. I would take one of those positions for Hanrahan in a heartbeat. I am talking a mostly proven guy in return. It can't be a Travis Snyder type return. Not saying Snyder won't pan out, simply that his future is currently all based on projections and potential.
The return for Hanrahan has to be someone who has shown success in the big leagues for a year or two already.
Posted: 10/12/2012 6:45 AM
If the Pirates trade Huntington, I'll reserve judgement on the decision based on the compensation. I'd like to get atleast 1 solid bat in a deal if they do trade him. Our best hitting prospects are about 2 years away while our pitchers are about 3-12 months away (time frame based on the start of the 2013 season). Me, (with repect to trading Hanrahan to Detroit), I'd be ok with it if we could get Avisail Garcia in return... I'd throw in Snider if they'd give us Smyly too.Otherwise, I'm fine with paying Hanrahan $7M. With no respectable replacement available, I'd rather keep him around than hope someone else can do the job. We would see how much Hanrahan would be worth if the Pirates are 9-14 next April with 5 combined blown saves by his replacements.
Posted: 10/12/2012 7:28 AM
williamjpellas wrote: Let me be more specific: Locke does not have a major league out pitch. Everything I've read about him by various scouts---to summarize---says that he throws four average-to-below-average pitches. He throws them for strikes, which means he gets more mileage out of his stuff than most similar pitchers, so that's good. But again: he doesn't have a go to pitch that can be relied upon to get most major league hitters out on a consistent basis. He just doesn't have that and that's all there is to it. Why did Locke have pretty good---not great, but pretty good---K numbers in the minors? Because he threw more different kinds of pitches than most other pitchers and he threw them for strikes. In short: he had a more mature approach to pitching than most minor league hurlers. Again, that's all well and good, but it doesn't translate particularly well to the big leagues unless at least one of those pitches is a "plus" pitch by major league standards. That, in my opinion, is the whole problem with Locke, and why in what is admittedly a small sample to this point, he nevertheless has been pretty brutal for the most part. A glimmer of hope might be that his 2012 major league action shows a K/9 rate that is close to his work in the upper minors, as you've pointed out, katoy. But too many home runs given up and an ERA of around 6.00 are both indicators that he's got a long way to go and that he may never get there. Look, he's a guy who has nothing left to prove in the minors. I get that. So, it's time to maximize him as an asset. That's the thing when you graduate guys from the minors. If you can't use them in Pittsburgh, then trade them to other teams in exchange for guys you can use in Pittsburgh. But whether they deal him or play him, he and other players from his "graduating class" (ie, Wilson and McPherson, as well as Irwin and hopefully Sanchez) need to either force their way onto the 25 man roster as definitive upgrades over other players, or they need to be traded for players who are upgrades.
Posted: 10/12/2012 8:03 AM
Posted: 10/12/2012 8:47 AM
Posted: 10/12/2012 8:56 AM
williamjpellas wrote: Basically william, what katoy is telling you is that we have many quality MLB starters -- including Locke and McPherson and Cole and Taillon. If fact, we have so many quality starters that they can't all fit in the rotation (even a quality #4 like Locke).As such, why we'd trade a valuable trading chip like Hanrahan for yet another starting pitcher is a mystery. We apparently already have more than enough of them.
Posted: 10/12/2012 11:09 AM
katoy2j wrote: I don't think Hanrahan has much trade value. He's going to make 7.5 million a year away from free agency.
I don't think Hanrahan has much trade value. He's going to make 7.5 million a year away from free agency.
Posted: 10/12/2012 11:47 AM
Last edited 10/12/2012 11:49 AM by katoy2j
Copyright © 2013
and Scout.com. All rights reserved. This website is an unofficial independent source of news and information, and is not affiliated with any school, team, or league.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2012 Microsoft|