|
Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 12:17 PM
Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
Ok I think that the most likely scenario is that Joel Hanrahan has thrown his last pitch as a Pirate. At a 7-7.5 million likely arbitration figure it just doesn't make any sense for the Pirates to keep him around. For the contribution he gives you at those dollars you can buy an everyday player. Pittsburgh is a low pressure environment so finding an effective reliever who would want to come here and close in order to bounce back shouldn't be hard at all and can be done at a third of the price or less.
My question is where do you think Hanrahan gets traded to and what does he bring back?
I'm going to say he goes to Detroit for Drew Smyly and Brenny Paulino. Smyly becomes another option to pitch in the rotation and has the swing and miss stuff to be a very good starter. He pitched to a 3.99 ERA in about 100 innings this year and it looks like Detroit will try to bring back Anibal Sanchez next year which would give them 5 starters under contract. What they really lack though is a strong closer and Valverde will be a free agent after this season.
Smyly is a lefty and I think would excel at PNC park. I would feel really good about a rotation that goes Burnett, Rodriguez, McDonald, Smyly and McPherson. That leaves Jeff Locke as the sixth man. Gerritt Cole will likely bump out the least effective starter in June. PNC park really favours left handed pitchers so we should try and put as many good ones in the rotation as we can.
This type of deal also while shoring up the rotation will also leave a lot of money to go after hitting in free agency or trade. Not only do you let Hanrahan's salary go but by acquiring Smyly who has over a half seasons work in the majors you can also non tender or try to trade Jeff Karstens and spend that money elsewhere.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 12:37 PM
Re: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
On another thread, you said that the goal was for an $80-85 million payroll. We'll never get there if we keep trading away guys because they are perceived as too expensive.
$7.5 million isn't too expensive for an above average closer.
If we are going to be competitive next year, we need an above average closer. There was a time when we didn't really need a closer, since we weren't winning anyway. Hopefully that time has passed. We have nobody else on the roster with experience in closing major league games, and signing one would cost as much or more than Hanrahan gets paid. Are we really going to leave the 9th inning in the hands of Jared Hughes or Bryan Morris? I hope not.
And given how much money and draft picks this organization has invested in starting pitching, if we really need to trade for more of them then that reflects a major failure from top to bottom. If absolutely necessary, though, we should be able to get somebody better than Smyly, who is still unproven (100 innings isn't that much).
I would only trade Hanrahan if we could get a legitimate power hitting first baseman or corner outfielder for him. Those are, imo, our areas of greatest need.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 1:19 PM
Re: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
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.
Last edited 10/11/2012 1:23 PM by williamjpellas
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 1:56 PM
Re: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
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. Paul Maholm has a career 4.26 ERA. The fact that Maholm pitched so much is more of an indication that the Pirates were a bad team for most of his tenure here. Where Locke fits isn't really a factor. If he's the 6th guy on the team next year it's because he's the sixth best starter. If Maholm was on the 2013 team that contained a rotation of Burnett, Rodriguez, McDonald, Smyly and McPherson there is a very good chance he would be the 6th starter as well. Here is how the career ERA's rank on the pitchers Kyle McPherson - 2.73 ERA Drew Smyly - 3.99 ERA Wandy Rodriguez - 4.03 ERA AJ Burnett - 4.05 ERA James McDonald - 4.10 ERA All those numbers are better than Maholm's so he wouldn't start on a team that had this rotation either. Locke would lose his spot in the rotation because Smyly is a better pitcher plain and simple. I don't evaluate being a better pitcher by the number of games someone starts. If Wandy Rodriguez was on a team that had Justin Verlander, Felix Hernandez, Clayton Kershaw, Jared Weaver and C.C. Sabathia starting in the rotation and he had to be the 6th guy it doesn't mean he's dropped in terms of his ability as a pitcher it simply means you have 5 guys better than him. I'm pretty sure in my posts on the future of Jeff Locke I mentioned it would most likely be him that gets removed from the rotation when Gerrit Cole is ready so I had projected him to not last the season in the rotation. That doesn't mean because he will struggle but more of an indication that a star level prospect will take his spot. McPherson is better than Locke and Smyly would be better than Locke so Locke would lose his spot. It isn't rocket science. I believe Locke will get the chance to earn a rotation spot with McPherson. I just believe McPherson would win. Eventually Locke would find his way into the rotation because no staff stays healthy for an entire season. Considering Taillon and Cole will likely play a role on this team next year and both are projected to be top of the rotation starters it will be hard for Locke to keep his rotation spot with the Pirates. He's a number 4 type of starter though. It isn't a knock against him though. The projected rotation will simply have two players in Cole and Taillon with a number 1 ranking. Two guys in Burnett and Rodriguez who are number 2 type pitchers and a guy in McDonald who would rank as a number 3 right now. If you only have 5 starters there isn't much you can do. Likely Locke will get 75-100 innings the next couple of years bouncing up from AAA to the majors. Based on his rate stats he's going to post in the 3.75-4.00 ERA range. That will put him in the 3-4 range as a starter. What will probably happen is a year or two down the line Locke gets included in a deal to acquire a player in trade on a team that needs help in the rotation. You certainly aren't building a team around Jeff Locke by any means. The general ineptitude of the Pirates in the Littlefield era however was the main reason why some considered Maholm a building block. Not because he had any reason to do so. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 2:08 PM
Re: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
Pure spin doctoring. You're busted, and you know it, so you try to obfuscate. The fact is that Locke has always been your boy during the entire time he's been in the Pirates system. You love him purely because he fits your sabremetric preconceptions of what objectively good performance "looks like". You completely ignored the consistent verdict of scouts who actually watched him play, which was, good control, advanced approach to pitching relative to the level at which he was playing, but no true hammer, no "out pitch" or even true "plus pitches".
Now, Locke might still be able to fashion some sort of career for himself, but he will never be as good as Paul Maholm was or is. Maholm, despite pitching on one leg while battling numerous nagging injuries and while playing most of his career for utterly dreadful teams, still has a career 4.26 ERA. He also put together a string of the most consecutive quality starts by any Pirates pitcher since Doug Drabek's Cy Young season. I am 100% confident that Locke will never remotely approach that kind of excellence.
Last edited 10/11/2012 2:08 PM by williamjpellas
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 2:36 PM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
Anyway, I'll get back to the thread topic. I don't see the gaping holes on the roster anymore, unless McKenry's season was just a product of a hot streak of 300 AB's or legit. I would be targeting SS, C, SP having, a 7 mil CP doesn't make sense for anyone. Besides, Hanrahan gets fatter every time I see him and its starting to tick me off. Jog a little will ya, cut your hair and shave that ridiculous beard while your at it.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 2:45 PM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
Dude I really don't get it. Because I say that Locke isn't good enough to start on a rotation that features Burnett, Rdoriguez, McDonald, Smyly and McPherson that is spin doctoring? Smyly isn't even on the team. Of the best starters we have right now going into next season I have Locke on that list.
You being 100% confident on things doesn't really sway me one way or the other. I believe we did this with Charlie Morton before.
As for Maholm. I really don't care what his injury history is, his bulldog mentality all the other old school stuff you want spit out, he has heart, yada, yada, yada. Since he has been a full time rotation pitcher his first 5 years starting at the age of 24 have yielded these results.
24 - 4.76 ERA
25 - 5.02 ERA
26 - 3.71 ERA
27 - 4.44 ERA
28 - 5.10 ERA
Do I think Locke can beat that? You bet I do. I wouldn't really feel all that great for the Pirates chances of winning though unless he significantly destroys those numbers because they aren't very good. Locke has 50 pro innings here. This year his starts were actually quite encouraging. He's not even close to a finish project but the difference between 2011 and 2012 are quite drastic. He simply needs a little fine tuning as most of the damage done was on the long ball this year.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 3:46 PM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
As usual, if Locke or any other player I don't particularly care for proves me wrong or otherwise exceeds expectations, terrific. That is good for the team and a rising tide floats all boats and all that.
You will note, however, that I did not say one word about the "old school". I used Maholm's career ERA and consecutive quality starts streak to buttress my argument. You are the one accusing me of being---presumably---unable to see how great Locke is because of my presumably irrational loyalty to the blinkered idiocy of The Old School. We've been all over Charlie Morton many times, and as I've said repeatedly, 1) his becoming even a serviceable starting pitcher was the darndest thing I've ever seen any player do, ever, and 2) my being more or less wrong about Morton does not have anything to do whatsoever with your ongoing and persistent obfuscation and dishonesty. I'll give you credit here for finally coming out and saying you believe Locke can, or will, be better than Maholm when Locke is at a similar stage in his career. Again, if he can do that, wonderful. I don't think he will, and I believe that both McPherson and Wilson will have better major league careers.
You are also the one who told us all that Matt Hague would have a lengthy major league career as a platoon bat, and that Jordy Mercer is a starting major league shortstop. Those two and other players were cited by you as evidence that Huntington's draft-and-developing is actually working for any players outside of the no-brainer, top-of-the-first-round types. Allow me to disagree: Hague is a four-A guy and Mercer a fringe utilityman. I think Brock Holt has more upside than either of them, and Holt himself is no better than a serviceable utilityman.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 7:31 PM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
The system strength for the most part comes from getting FA relief pitchers and grooming through the system. It has been one of the few bright spots over the years and they have done a great job with it. Hanrahan can be expendable based on my beliefs in this. Put that money toward a bat or save it for the international prospects.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 7:49 PM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
I don't really care about Maholm's quality start streak. On his first five years he was borderline awful. He might of been the best of what we had but that doesn't make him good because of that. If Locke pitches the way Maholm did he won't get five years in the majors. The Pirates will have plenty of options capable of putting up stronger ERA's.
I never said Matt Hague would be a platoon bat. He has reverse platoon splits in that he hits righties better than lefties which makes him useless in a platoon. He can be a bench bat but the problem is that doesn't play when you already have a platoon first baseman. It didn't make sense for him to open the season in the majors to split time with Garrett Jones because they both excel at the same thing even though they bat opposite hands. He pretty much only made the team because he was the best player in Spring training. He's not really a fit here on this team and I would bet he gets non-tendered since you have Jones and Sanchez in the majors and Curry coming up to AAA. You're likely right though that Hague will end up as a AAAA guy. The season he put up repeating AAA was awful and likely cost him any chance of a major league career because he's at the age now where putting up strong seasons in the minors isn't going to get any recognition now.
Mercer I believe will be a starting shortstop. His defense is that good. I question whether it will be with the Pirates though and I hope he doesn't get the Pedro Ciriaco treatment. I think his fate on the 40 man roster will depend on what happens with Hurdle. He played Josh Harrison at short over Mercer so if Hurdle comes back I don't see how you can bring back Mercer. I would be extremely disappointed though because he's certainly a top 30 shortstop as I believe his bat can be league average and his defense has looked excellent. I was very disappointed he didn't get a longer look this season.
I have always said I think Locke would be better than Maholm. I think McPherson will be better than Locke. I think Wilson has no chance of being better than Locke better than Locke because Wilson just won't cut it as a starter because his control isn't good enough. It's slightly better as a reliever and his velocity is up in that role as well so I expect he will be a excellent high leverage reliever. I hate the idea of using him as a LOOGY however as it's very difficult to expect a guy that has started his entire career to transition to that role. I believe that he and Morris should be used as two inning relievers.
If you would like to save this you can. I believe Jeff Locke will be better than a 4.26 ERA pitcher once his career is over. I don't know where this Jeff Locke doesn't have an out pitch is from. He's had a very healthy strikeout rate at every level (8.3 K/9 in the minors) and a 8.9 K/9 in the majors this season. That would of led all starters on our team.
Last edited 10/11/2012 8:10 PM by katoy2j
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 10:59 PM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
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.
Last edited 10/11/2012 11:02 PM by williamjpellas
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2012 12:45 AM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
His HR rate is quite an aberration. If you look at his minor league numbers it's not like he was a homer prone pitcher. He likely just made a mistake with a pitch a few times. Some of that is on Locke and some of that is on the catchers who are likely unfamiliar with him because I think he threw 2 innings in Spring training with the big league camp they have to learn at the major league level. I know what is coming next. Well he is in the major leagues and major league hitters are going to make him pay for his mistakes. Here are the guys who hit home runs off him this year. Brett Wallace Josh Vitters Anthony Recker Joe Mather Anthony Rizzo Jed Lowrie Other than Lowrie and Mather all the other guys spent a lot of the season in the minors. It wasn't Alfonso Soriano, Starlin Castro, David Wright, Matt Kemp, Justin Upton and Chipper Jones hitting the homers. It was mistakes by Locke and not a matter of him being over matched. As for Locke and scouting reports I just did some goggling quickly www.scoutingbook.com/players/p2337The latest from a long line of lefthanders grown on the Atlanta farm, willowy Jeff Locke's 94mph fastball is a definite plus pitch, with late movement that he can command at will. His curve ball is also well under control and projects as a second plus pitch. www.baseballamerica.com/today/...11/2611137.htmlThat one lists Jeff Locke as the best changeup in the system. It's also written by Dejean Kovacevic who I believe to be an absolute idiot though so I'm not putting much stock in it. players.piratesprospects.com/2...jeff-locke.htmlHe has a good curve and developing change, or a good change and decent curve, depending on whose scouting report you’re looking at That was just a few that I hit on. To say that he has no plus pitches is wrong. He's had a plus 8.0 K/9 range throughout his career which is very good. He was never considered old for his level. To be honest I think the only reason you have issues with him and Charlie Morton are because they were traded for Nate McLouth. You had all kinds of issues with Morton and his personality and this stuff on Locke is completely not true. Is he Justin Verlander? No he isn't but he has a lot of talent. I consider the words good and plus to be above the word average. So as for only having average pitches I don't really buy it. Even at the major league level when he allows hit which he will do because he is a groundball pitcher they don't seem to be rockets. The homers I think are an aberration and time will tell on that. The majority of hits allowed have been singles. I took AJ Burnett as an example and he allows about 1 double every 6.7 innings and 1 triple every 100 innings. Locke allowed 1 double every 11.6 innings and did not allow a triple. His issues were more the big innings. I'll take my chances with that type of pitcher because given his low HR rate in the minors he's a guy that you're going to have to consistently have to have 3 hit innings to get runs in most of the time. The real only issue with Locke is that his velocity seems to decrease later on in the season. That isn't uncommon though for young pitchers building up their arms in the minors. Especially since he sort of plateaued with innings instead of a year by year increase. Between 2008-2010 he had 127-144 innings pitched and in 2011-2012 he had about 170 innings each year. That isn't a huge increase over 5 years which probably explains why his velocity tends to drop at the end of the year.
Last edited 10/12/2012 12:56 AM by katoy2j
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2012 5:04 AM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
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.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2012 6:45 AM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
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. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2012 7:28 AM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
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. 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. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2012 8:03 AM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
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.
I have had many of the same thoughts, but I suppose it will all come out in the wash one way or another. If these guys are as awesome as katoy believes they are, then we're headed for multiple playoff appearances over the next few seasons. If not, not. I am not a believer in Locke and I doubt very much that his fastball reaches "94 MPH with late movement", and he is old enough now that there is probably not much chance that his raw stuff has much room for growth. I think in all likelihood he is what he is. Anyway, we'll see. I'm tired of this discussion.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2012 8:47 AM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
I think Hanrahan will be a Texas Ranger or a Cincinnati Red. I doubt we get anything for him - probably a few minor leaguers with borderline potential. The Pirates will be desperate not to go to arbitration with Joel. The other teams will know this - and the Pirates will take the best low ball offer they get.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2012 8:56 AM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
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.
I don't think Hanrahan has much trade value. He's going to make 7.5 million a year away from free agency. A comparable pitcher in Huston Street at the same salary and a year away from free agency was traded for minor leaguer Nick Schmidt. At this point in time Hanrahan has lost a lot of his trade value as the closer you are to free agency the less you will get back in trade. There is no chance of getting an impact hitter now. The best bet is to get a player blocked on another team or that the other team has been frustrated with. Smyly is a good example as would be Brandon Belt in San Francisco. You can never have enough pitching. Cole and Taillon aren't here yet so if you can acquire a 23 year old pitcher like Smyly that can strike batters out and has pitched well in the majors I'm of the belief you do it. If you have to move guys into the bullpen down the line so be it. There is no shortage of teams that can use quality starting pitchers. Remember that while Cole and Taillon will be here soon players like AJ Burnett and Wandy Rodriguez won't be here much longer. If Locke doesn't start this year in the rotation because we had Smyly then he would have an opportunity the following year when Burnett leaves. Pitchers also always get hurt. I'm not of the belief you need to have veteran proven pitchers. The entire A's staff is pretty much made up of rookies and they did alright. You trade Hanrahan for the best return you can get. If it's a pitcher you deal with it. If it's a catcher, second baseman, etc. Just like in a draft you take the best player available. Closers are the worst use of resources on a team. I don't think the team would have much tangible difference with Hanrahan or Bryan Morris closing out games. Just remember how useless the closer role is. You come into a game with a 1-3 run lead and simply need to get 3 outs. What would be a likely ERA for Morris? 3.50 perhaps? Joel Hanrahan had 4 blown saves last year. Casey Jansen a guy who had no closing experience before and age 30 was put into the role as closer because of injury had 3 blown saves. Relief pitchers in general are extremely volatile. It's not like Hanrahan is Mariano Rivera. His peripherals this year took a nosedive and he's very fortunate that his season isn't worse than it really was. His home run rate was a career worst 1.2 HR/9 and his 5.4 BB/9 rate was well above his career average of 4.3 BB/9 and well above what he posted in 2011 of 2.1 BB/9 Conditioning could be a factor or it could simply be wild variance that is common among relief pitchers. Either way I want no part of it. I'm of the belief you can easily find a pitcher to come in and get 3 outs with a 3 run lead for a much cheaper cost. To spend 15% of your payroll on a guy to do that and will pitch 60 innings is a horrible waste of resources. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2012 11:09 AM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
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. Therefore, the pressure is off Huntington. If one of our best players walks away in a lopsided deal, don't blame Neal. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2012 11:47 AM
RE: Joel Hanrahan. Where will he go?
No it's just a reflection of the value that closers have around baseball. Every year as many as 10-15 new players become closers be it because of injury or ineffectiveness. Joel Hanrahan had a lot of trade value at the 2011 trade deadline. It's pretty much gone downhill since then. The less amount of control the team has and the higher salary does that. It's just the way it is.
You can't just say well Hanrahan is one of our best players. The trade market is what you can go by. A year ago in the offseason Huston Street was traded for a minor leaguer. Teams are a lot smarter now. Why would any team give up an established major league player capable of pitching 200 innings or 600 at bats for a closer a year away from free agency. No team is going to give up an established 25+ homer bat for Joel Hanrahan because that is far more valuable than 60 innings of a closer. What you will get is a contending team willing to give up a prospect or a young player and that is about it. 39 players in all of MLB baseball hit over 25 homers last year. That is 1.3 players per team. Lets also remember that 3 of those 39 players played on the Pirates. That means on average every team has 1.25 players that hit over 25 homers. Do you really think a team is going to be willing to trade one of them for a 7.5 million dollar closer in his walk year? There are about 300 pitchers capable of being a closer at the major league level. Any reliever capable of getting 3 outs is capable of being a closer. It's the easiest position in all of baseball.
Last edited 10/12/2012 11:49 AM by katoy2j
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
