333F363B2C702A3733312A36276C6E1E39335E0 wrote: Really liked Freese, but I was dreading the prospect of a Moran/Freese platoon at third next year.
At least this seems like a sign that they recognize we need a new plan at third.
Would love to see Kang back and playing well, but I'm guessing there's a 10 percent chance of that happening.
That's better than Moran starting everyday which is now what we are looking at. >:(
Freese to Dodgers
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Freese to Dodgers
4A4D617660030 wrote: This is beginning to take on the appearance of a Newman - Frazier - Kramer middle infield mix next year. And I am ok with that as a base. I am sure a glove man will be added.
Newman and Frazier may have lower ceilings, but they are professional hitters. Kramer is finishing his AAA year hitting .310, with an OPS of .856, and 15 HR. Pretty stout for a 2Bman.
It is time for turnover in that area. If Kang returns to prior form, and the Kevins and Frazier succeed, it will elevate this team a notch or two over where we have been.
Reyes could provide other options while Tucker's cake continues to bake.
Well if this is the plan then expect another couple years of losing. The Archer deal makes much less sense.
Newman and Frazier may have lower ceilings, but they are professional hitters. Kramer is finishing his AAA year hitting .310, with an OPS of .856, and 15 HR. Pretty stout for a 2Bman.
It is time for turnover in that area. If Kang returns to prior form, and the Kevins and Frazier succeed, it will elevate this team a notch or two over where we have been.
Reyes could provide other options while Tucker's cake continues to bake.
Well if this is the plan then expect another couple years of losing. The Archer deal makes much less sense.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Freese to Dodgers
My first thoughts are that I’m glad for David. He has been nothing but class and a model professional. Too bad some of the headcases on this team didn’t take the opportunity to learn from him. He gets to play meaningful games.
Second, I think this is best for the Pirates. They should play only young guys the rest of the way. And next year they need to rebuild the infield and I can’t see $6M allocated to a guy like David.
Regarding a plan going forward: I hope Kang is not their answer to any questions. The guy has been out of MLB too long. During the past three years he has moved into that iffy age range where anyone may deteriorate. He’ll be 32 next spring with few ABs in three years and none against MLB pitching. Add a horrific injury the year before and I don’t think there is any way the Pirates should just give him a spot on the 25 man or make plans around Kang.
Second, I think this is best for the Pirates. They should play only young guys the rest of the way. And next year they need to rebuild the infield and I can’t see $6M allocated to a guy like David.
Regarding a plan going forward: I hope Kang is not their answer to any questions. The guy has been out of MLB too long. During the past three years he has moved into that iffy age range where anyone may deteriorate. He’ll be 32 next spring with few ABs in three years and none against MLB pitching. Add a horrific injury the year before and I don’t think there is any way the Pirates should just give him a spot on the 25 man or make plans around Kang.
-
Bobster21
Freese to Dodgers
6B6C7A727C6B2C20597E74787075377A7674190 wrote: My first thoughts are that I’m glad for David. He has been nothing but class and a model professional. Too bad some of the headcases on this team didn’t take the opportunity to learn from him. He gets to play meaningful games.
Second, I think this is best for the Pirates. They should play only young guys the rest of the way. And next year they need to rebuild the infield and I can’t see $6M allocated to a guy like David.
Regarding a plan going forward: I hope Kang is not their answer to any questions. The guy has been out of MLB too long. During the past three years he has moved into that iffy age range where anyone may deteriorate. He’ll be 32 next spring with few ABs in three years and none against MLB pitching. Add a horrific injury the year before and I don’t think there is any way the Pirates should just give him a spot on the 25 man or make plans around Kang.
I don't think anything will be handed to Kang. He'll likely get an opportunity in ST to show if he can be an asset. If he makes the team I think he will have earned it. If he doesn't, they'll move on from him.
Second, I think this is best for the Pirates. They should play only young guys the rest of the way. And next year they need to rebuild the infield and I can’t see $6M allocated to a guy like David.
Regarding a plan going forward: I hope Kang is not their answer to any questions. The guy has been out of MLB too long. During the past three years he has moved into that iffy age range where anyone may deteriorate. He’ll be 32 next spring with few ABs in three years and none against MLB pitching. Add a horrific injury the year before and I don’t think there is any way the Pirates should just give him a spot on the 25 man or make plans around Kang.
I don't think anything will be handed to Kang. He'll likely get an opportunity in ST to show if he can be an asset. If he makes the team I think he will have earned it. If he doesn't, they'll move on from him.
-
CarolinaBucco
Freese to Dodgers
I'm getting more frustrated with the Archer trade.
What a week ...
Meadows goes 4-4 with 3 HR one night.
Last night Glasnow shuts down the a very good Indians team for 7 innings.
What's next ... I'm guessing Baz throws a perfect game somewhere tonight.
I was 100% behind the trade in concept. I've been clamoring for another legit MLB starter for a couple of years now. He fits the bill (at least I hope he does).
Anyway, I wanted Archer. However, I did NOT want to drastically overpay for him, which unfortunately we did.
Moving Glasnow made sense at the time, since he was not going to work out in Pittsburgh, even though in hindsight that's the Pirates' own fault, and like VA said, it will be a CRUSHING mistake for this franchise that will be felt for years if he turns into the No. 1 starter/ace that we had all hoped he would.
Glasnow and Meadows seemed like a fair trade to me at the time, even though I felt it was bordering on too much. But I could have lived with that.
Including Baz, another No. 1 pick, as well just made it a ridiculous overpay in my opinion.
What a week ...
Meadows goes 4-4 with 3 HR one night.
Last night Glasnow shuts down the a very good Indians team for 7 innings.
What's next ... I'm guessing Baz throws a perfect game somewhere tonight.
I was 100% behind the trade in concept. I've been clamoring for another legit MLB starter for a couple of years now. He fits the bill (at least I hope he does).
Anyway, I wanted Archer. However, I did NOT want to drastically overpay for him, which unfortunately we did.
Moving Glasnow made sense at the time, since he was not going to work out in Pittsburgh, even though in hindsight that's the Pirates' own fault, and like VA said, it will be a CRUSHING mistake for this franchise that will be felt for years if he turns into the No. 1 starter/ace that we had all hoped he would.
Glasnow and Meadows seemed like a fair trade to me at the time, even though I felt it was bordering on too much. But I could have lived with that.
Including Baz, another No. 1 pick, as well just made it a ridiculous overpay in my opinion.
Freese to Dodgers
This is pure salary dump. Now BOB can make another deposit into the First National Bank of Wheeling.
Freese to Dodgers
That's the problem with trading for name players at the trade deadline. You wouldn't do it if it weren't important to you, and when it's important (and you are desperate) the price goes up. Our hope has to be that Archer does well.
-
steve49
Freese to Dodgers
7D5F4C515257505F7C4B5D5D513E0 wrote: I'm getting more frustrated with the Archer trade.
What a week ...
Meadows goes 4-4 with 3 HR one night.
Last night Glasnow shuts down the a very good Indians team for 7 innings.
What's next ... I'm guessing Baz throws a perfect game somewhere tonight.
I was 100% behind the trade in concept. I've been clamoring for another legit MLB starter for a couple of years now. He fits the bill (at least I hope he does).
Anyway, I wanted Archer. However, I did NOT want to drastically overpay for him, which unfortunately we did.
Moving Glasnow made sense at the time, since he was not going to work out in Pittsburgh, even though in hindsight that's the Pirates' own fault, and like VA said, it will be a CRUSHING mistake for this franchise that will be felt for years if he turns into the No. 1 starter/ace that we had all hoped he would.
Glasnow and Meadows seemed like a fair trade to me at the time, even though I felt it was bordering on too much. But I could have lived with that.
Including Baz, another No. 1 pick, as well just made it a ridiculous overpay in my opinion.
Yeah ... I didn't like a whole lot when I heard Glasnow and Meadows. But the 3rd piece was ridiculous. What really bothers me is why does TB have a brand new Glasnow ?
What a week ...
Meadows goes 4-4 with 3 HR one night.
Last night Glasnow shuts down the a very good Indians team for 7 innings.
What's next ... I'm guessing Baz throws a perfect game somewhere tonight.
I was 100% behind the trade in concept. I've been clamoring for another legit MLB starter for a couple of years now. He fits the bill (at least I hope he does).
Anyway, I wanted Archer. However, I did NOT want to drastically overpay for him, which unfortunately we did.
Moving Glasnow made sense at the time, since he was not going to work out in Pittsburgh, even though in hindsight that's the Pirates' own fault, and like VA said, it will be a CRUSHING mistake for this franchise that will be felt for years if he turns into the No. 1 starter/ace that we had all hoped he would.
Glasnow and Meadows seemed like a fair trade to me at the time, even though I felt it was bordering on too much. But I could have lived with that.
Including Baz, another No. 1 pick, as well just made it a ridiculous overpay in my opinion.
Yeah ... I didn't like a whole lot when I heard Glasnow and Meadows. But the 3rd piece was ridiculous. What really bothers me is why does TB have a brand new Glasnow ?
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Freese to Dodgers
64667C7A6C090 wrote: That's the problem with trading for name players at the trade deadline. You wouldn't do it if it weren't important to you, and when it's important (and you are desperate) the price goes up. Our hope has to be that Archer does well.
This truth is why doing nothing at Hot Stove season drives me crazy. We can never afford to over pay.
This truth is why doing nothing at Hot Stove season drives me crazy. We can never afford to over pay.
Freese to Dodgers
6E434E5F58495E1E1D2C0 wrote: Here is what Tim William at P2 has to say about Valdez:
Valdez didn’t sign until he was 19 years old (signed on July 3, 2017) and he hit .230/.343/.412 in 60 games in the DSL this year. He went 16-for-23 in steals and played all four infield positions. He’s a right-handed hitter, who stands 6’0″, 175 pounds. He appears to be a non-prospect, as nothing really stands out about his game and he was old for the level.
And on the Hechavarria deal he says:
They sent infielder Adeiny Hechavarria to the New York Yankees for a player to be named later or cash. The Pirates also included cash in the deal, which off-sets some of his salary, so the Yankees can remain under the luxury tax threshold.
My take is with the Freese deal it is a salary dump of a little over $1 million between his salary left for 2018 amd the $500,000 buyout of his 2019 option.
I have mixed feeling about the Freese deal. Sure would have been nice to have him back in 2019 for his vet presence and versatility in the field. These two moves tell me that NH is going into "full" rebuild mode in 2019 unless they plan on being active in the FA market this winter. The 2 open 40-man roster spots can make it easier to protect some kids they may have not been able to protect for the Rule 5 draft.
Moving Freese also makes it more likely Kang will be back next year.
I thought it meant we were going Donaldson. I kid. Got to hope this kid is a diamond in the rough like Cruz, I guess. I'm indifferent about Kang. Hasn't played a game of MLB in what would be two years.
Valdez didn’t sign until he was 19 years old (signed on July 3, 2017) and he hit .230/.343/.412 in 60 games in the DSL this year. He went 16-for-23 in steals and played all four infield positions. He’s a right-handed hitter, who stands 6’0″, 175 pounds. He appears to be a non-prospect, as nothing really stands out about his game and he was old for the level.
And on the Hechavarria deal he says:
They sent infielder Adeiny Hechavarria to the New York Yankees for a player to be named later or cash. The Pirates also included cash in the deal, which off-sets some of his salary, so the Yankees can remain under the luxury tax threshold.
My take is with the Freese deal it is a salary dump of a little over $1 million between his salary left for 2018 amd the $500,000 buyout of his 2019 option.
I have mixed feeling about the Freese deal. Sure would have been nice to have him back in 2019 for his vet presence and versatility in the field. These two moves tell me that NH is going into "full" rebuild mode in 2019 unless they plan on being active in the FA market this winter. The 2 open 40-man roster spots can make it easier to protect some kids they may have not been able to protect for the Rule 5 draft.
Moving Freese also makes it more likely Kang will be back next year.
I thought it meant we were going Donaldson. I kid. Got to hope this kid is a diamond in the rough like Cruz, I guess. I'm indifferent about Kang. Hasn't played a game of MLB in what would be two years.