54554E5F49090E3A0 wrote:
Let's hold the fort with the Bucs should easily beat out the Cards in 2017. We have issues of our own. We didn't do anything to improve the roster at all. In 2015, STL only had three starts from Wainwright; missed Holliday for a good portion of the season; Molina was out for some games too, but they found a way. STL always overcomes trouble it seems. They will make a good sound move.
There are four new starters in the rotation. There is a new 1B. There is a new bench. There is a new Closer and back end of the bullpen.
That seems like a lot to me. Especially, since the rotation was the problem last year.
I would never think the Cardinals don't have a chance, but how can one say the Pirates did nothing?
Is the roster any better? So far I think it may be addition by subtraction.
So, is your answer Yes?
The roster was broken last year, so changes were made. I am glad it was fixed. How much better, we don't know.
In my opinion, the rotation is better and first base is better. The end of the bullpen can be just as good (I was a big Melancon fan). The bench might be worse, but no one expected the bench to be that good last year with what Rodriguez did in 2015 and Joyce signing as a minor league free agent.
Big blow for the Cards
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Big blow for the Cards
0717162137373B540 wrote: Our luck...the Cardinals will trade for Quintana and he wins 20 games.
I can't see that happening. Cards don't have the farm system to pull it off.
It was funny ready the national media's take on this.
Pirates should give up Meadows, Glasnow and another big piece. The Cards should give up whatever they think is fair.
Yes, the media is dumb ... Pittsburgh shouldn't even consider giving up prospects that might not amount to anything for a good quality arm for the rotation - one that is proven. People get so wrapped up on prospects and think they will automatically thrive. This organization has had a ton of busts. I would have welcomed a deal to get Quintana. I'm very sorry for my sarcastic nature. However, there comes a time and place when an organization has to step up and bring in talent if it wants to win a title. If the status quo is fine, continue to go after reclamation projects and rely on prospects to develop. I truly think our window of opportunity is closing. Once Cole and our OF are all gone, what will we have to show for it? Three wild card games and one series against STL in 25 years?
Well, we're all entitled to our opinion. I don't think I can say anything that will change your mind, but remember...there were plenty of people arguing to trade Marte back in 2012, and then Polanco in 2013, and Taillon in 2014, all with the same rationale, "Some of these prospects never pan out! We're in contention NOW! We should be trying to win NOW!" Personally, I'm quite glad we didn't give Marte, or Polanco, or Taillon away for a rental.
Now, to be sure, Quintana isn't a rental. But if Glasnow and Meadows are what we think they can be, that's a serious overpay for his services, even if we get all four years out of him. On top of that, I've never seen a study done, but I've got to believe that we the combination of A) better training from a young age, B) better minor league training, C) better scouting, D) advanced metrics/SABRmetrics, and E) the internet, that the success rate of prospects is much, MUCH higher than it was even 10 years ago, and certainly 25 years ago.
It used to be that we only looked at the "mainstream" stats, like BA, OBP, HR, and RBI to determine if a guy would make it in the pros. Now, we look at K rate, BB walk, BABIP, hard contact rate, FIP, xFIP, and a myriad of others that I don't understand. But, we've come to realize that just because a guy puts up a .330 average, doesn't mean anything. However, if his hard contact rate is high enough, he doesn't K, and he walks at a decent clip, that those numbers will translate to the major leagues. The end result is that we can be much more certain of the probability of success for future prospects that we used to be.
I can't see that happening. Cards don't have the farm system to pull it off.
It was funny ready the national media's take on this.
Pirates should give up Meadows, Glasnow and another big piece. The Cards should give up whatever they think is fair.
Yes, the media is dumb ... Pittsburgh shouldn't even consider giving up prospects that might not amount to anything for a good quality arm for the rotation - one that is proven. People get so wrapped up on prospects and think they will automatically thrive. This organization has had a ton of busts. I would have welcomed a deal to get Quintana. I'm very sorry for my sarcastic nature. However, there comes a time and place when an organization has to step up and bring in talent if it wants to win a title. If the status quo is fine, continue to go after reclamation projects and rely on prospects to develop. I truly think our window of opportunity is closing. Once Cole and our OF are all gone, what will we have to show for it? Three wild card games and one series against STL in 25 years?
Well, we're all entitled to our opinion. I don't think I can say anything that will change your mind, but remember...there were plenty of people arguing to trade Marte back in 2012, and then Polanco in 2013, and Taillon in 2014, all with the same rationale, "Some of these prospects never pan out! We're in contention NOW! We should be trying to win NOW!" Personally, I'm quite glad we didn't give Marte, or Polanco, or Taillon away for a rental.
Now, to be sure, Quintana isn't a rental. But if Glasnow and Meadows are what we think they can be, that's a serious overpay for his services, even if we get all four years out of him. On top of that, I've never seen a study done, but I've got to believe that we the combination of A) better training from a young age, B) better minor league training, C) better scouting, D) advanced metrics/SABRmetrics, and E) the internet, that the success rate of prospects is much, MUCH higher than it was even 10 years ago, and certainly 25 years ago.
It used to be that we only looked at the "mainstream" stats, like BA, OBP, HR, and RBI to determine if a guy would make it in the pros. Now, we look at K rate, BB walk, BABIP, hard contact rate, FIP, xFIP, and a myriad of others that I don't understand. But, we've come to realize that just because a guy puts up a .330 average, doesn't mean anything. However, if his hard contact rate is high enough, he doesn't K, and he walks at a decent clip, that those numbers will translate to the major leagues. The end result is that we can be much more certain of the probability of success for future prospects that we used to be.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Big blow for the Cards
1C1417203613343B550 wrote: Our luck...the Cardinals will trade for Quintana and he wins 20 games.
I can't see that happening. Cards don't have the farm system to pull it off.
It was funny ready the national media's take on this.
Pirates should give up Meadows, Glasnow and another big piece. The Cards should give up whatever they think is fair.
Yes, the media is dumb ... Pittsburgh shouldn't even consider giving up prospects that might not amount to anything for a good quality arm for the rotation - one that is proven. People get so wrapped up on prospects and think they will automatically thrive. This organization has had a ton of busts. I would have welcomed a deal to get Quintana. I'm very sorry for my sarcastic nature. However, there comes a time and place when an organization has to step up and bring in talent if it wants to win a title. If the status quo is fine, continue to go after reclamation projects and rely on prospects to develop. I truly think our window of opportunity is closing. Once Cole and our OF are all gone, what will we have to show for it? Three wild card games and one series against STL in 25 years?
Well, we're all entitled to our opinion. I don't think I can say anything that will change your mind, but remember...there were plenty of people arguing to trade Marte back in 2012, and then Polanco in 2013, and Taillon in 2014, all with the same rationale, "Some of these prospects never pan out! We're in contention NOW! We should be trying to win NOW!" Personally, I'm quite glad we didn't give Marte, or Polanco, or Taillon away for a rental.
Now, to be sure, Quintana isn't a rental. But if Glasnow and Meadows are what we think they can be, that's a serious overpay for his services, even if we get all four years out of him. On top of that, I've never seen a study done, but I've got to believe that we the combination of A) better training from a young age, B) better minor league training, C) better scouting, D) advanced metrics/SABRmetrics, and E) the internet, that the success rate of prospects is much, MUCH higher than it was even 10 years ago, and certainly 25 years ago.
It used to be that we only looked at the "mainstream" stats, like BA, OBP, HR, and RBI to determine if a guy would make it in the pros. Now, we look at K rate, BB walk, BABIP, hard contact rate, FIP, xFIP, and a myriad of others that I don't understand. But, we've come to realize that just because a guy puts up a .330 average, doesn't mean anything. However, if his hard contact rate is high enough, he doesn't K, and he walks at a decent clip, that those numbers will translate to the major leagues. The end result is that we can be much more certain of the probability of success for future prospects that we used to be.
My favorite of those was Marte for BJ Upton.
Because, of course, Marvin Upton would have helped us "win now" 100% for sure.
It's also important to remember that while no, prospects don't always work out--that veterans don't always either.
I can't see that happening. Cards don't have the farm system to pull it off.
It was funny ready the national media's take on this.
Pirates should give up Meadows, Glasnow and another big piece. The Cards should give up whatever they think is fair.
Yes, the media is dumb ... Pittsburgh shouldn't even consider giving up prospects that might not amount to anything for a good quality arm for the rotation - one that is proven. People get so wrapped up on prospects and think they will automatically thrive. This organization has had a ton of busts. I would have welcomed a deal to get Quintana. I'm very sorry for my sarcastic nature. However, there comes a time and place when an organization has to step up and bring in talent if it wants to win a title. If the status quo is fine, continue to go after reclamation projects and rely on prospects to develop. I truly think our window of opportunity is closing. Once Cole and our OF are all gone, what will we have to show for it? Three wild card games and one series against STL in 25 years?
Well, we're all entitled to our opinion. I don't think I can say anything that will change your mind, but remember...there were plenty of people arguing to trade Marte back in 2012, and then Polanco in 2013, and Taillon in 2014, all with the same rationale, "Some of these prospects never pan out! We're in contention NOW! We should be trying to win NOW!" Personally, I'm quite glad we didn't give Marte, or Polanco, or Taillon away for a rental.
Now, to be sure, Quintana isn't a rental. But if Glasnow and Meadows are what we think they can be, that's a serious overpay for his services, even if we get all four years out of him. On top of that, I've never seen a study done, but I've got to believe that we the combination of A) better training from a young age, B) better minor league training, C) better scouting, D) advanced metrics/SABRmetrics, and E) the internet, that the success rate of prospects is much, MUCH higher than it was even 10 years ago, and certainly 25 years ago.
It used to be that we only looked at the "mainstream" stats, like BA, OBP, HR, and RBI to determine if a guy would make it in the pros. Now, we look at K rate, BB walk, BABIP, hard contact rate, FIP, xFIP, and a myriad of others that I don't understand. But, we've come to realize that just because a guy puts up a .330 average, doesn't mean anything. However, if his hard contact rate is high enough, he doesn't K, and he walks at a decent clip, that those numbers will translate to the major leagues. The end result is that we can be much more certain of the probability of success for future prospects that we used to be.
My favorite of those was Marte for BJ Upton.
Because, of course, Marvin Upton would have helped us "win now" 100% for sure.
It's also important to remember that while no, prospects don't always work out--that veterans don't always either.
-
Bobster21
Big blow for the Cards
3E353D3134352E6B6D1A233B3235357439355A0 wrote:
Let's hold the fort with the Bucs should easily beat out the Cards in 2017. We have issues of our own. We didn't do anything to improve the roster at all. In 2015, STL only had three starts from Wainwright; missed Holliday for a good portion of the season; Molina was out for some games too, but they found a way. STL always overcomes trouble it seems. They will make a good sound move.
There are four new starters in the rotation. There is a new 1B. There is a new bench. There is a new Closer and back end of the bullpen.
That seems like a lot to me. Especially, since the rotation was the problem last year.
I would never think the Cardinals don't have a chance, but how can one say the Pirates did nothing?
The Pirates have done next to nothing since last season ended with a 78-83 record. The changes you note largely took place last August when Melancon was traded, Nova and Rivero were obtained, Watson took over as closer and Bell became a lineup regular. With those changes the team went 26-32 in August, September and October. The season ended with a rotation of Vogelsong, Nova, Taillon, Kuhl. Hopefully a healthy Cole returns but we still don't have a legit #5. A strong bench lost Rodriguez and Joyce, while Gosselin was added. Hudson replaces Feliz. So it's fair to say the Pirate team that ended the 2016 season was different from the one that began it. But since last season ended, very little has changed.
Let's hold the fort with the Bucs should easily beat out the Cards in 2017. We have issues of our own. We didn't do anything to improve the roster at all. In 2015, STL only had three starts from Wainwright; missed Holliday for a good portion of the season; Molina was out for some games too, but they found a way. STL always overcomes trouble it seems. They will make a good sound move.
There are four new starters in the rotation. There is a new 1B. There is a new bench. There is a new Closer and back end of the bullpen.
That seems like a lot to me. Especially, since the rotation was the problem last year.
I would never think the Cardinals don't have a chance, but how can one say the Pirates did nothing?
The Pirates have done next to nothing since last season ended with a 78-83 record. The changes you note largely took place last August when Melancon was traded, Nova and Rivero were obtained, Watson took over as closer and Bell became a lineup regular. With those changes the team went 26-32 in August, September and October. The season ended with a rotation of Vogelsong, Nova, Taillon, Kuhl. Hopefully a healthy Cole returns but we still don't have a legit #5. A strong bench lost Rodriguez and Joyce, while Gosselin was added. Hudson replaces Feliz. So it's fair to say the Pirate team that ended the 2016 season was different from the one that began it. But since last season ended, very little has changed.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Big blow for the Cards
A lot has changed going into 2017 from the start of the 2016 season. A lot can change in the other 104 games the guys I mentioned missed. So, I wouldn't say they did nothing.
Big blow for the Cards
060D05090C0D165355221B030A0D0D4C010D620 wrote: A lot has changed going into 2017 from the start of the 2016 season. A lot can change in the other 104 games the guys I mentioned missed. So, I wouldn't say they did nothing.
Yeah but by your definition of doing something every team does something every off season
Yeah but by your definition of doing something every team does something every off season
Big blow for the Cards
7C777F7376776C292F586179707777367B77180 wrote:
Let's hold the fort with the Bucs should easily beat out the Cards in 2017. We have issues of our own. We didn't do anything to improve the roster at all. In 2015, STL only had three starts from Wainwright; missed Holliday for a good portion of the season; Molina was out for some games too, but they found a way. STL always overcomes trouble it seems. They will make a good sound move.
There are four new starters in the rotation. There is a new 1B. There is a new bench. There is a new Closer and back end of the bullpen.
That seems like a lot to me. Especially, since the rotation was the problem last year.
I would never think the Cardinals don't have a chance, but how can one say the Pirates did nothing?
Is the roster any better? So far I think it may be addition by subtraction.
So, is your answer Yes?
The roster was broken last year, so changes were made. I am glad it was fixed. How much better, we don't know.
In my opinion, the rotation is better and first base is better. The end of the bullpen can be just as good (I was a big Melancon fan). The bench might be worse, but no one expected the bench to be that good last year with what Rodriguez did in 2015 and Joyce signing as a minor league free agent.
My answer is probably based on the lousy years by Cole and Cutch. Besides that there sure aren't many changes from the end of 2016 until now. The bench lost a lot of power, and we don't have a #5 starter. A full season of Bell and Taillon should provide a lift. After that what exactly changed? As constructed we look like a 82-85 win team at best. Certainly there were areas that could have and probably should have been addressed. I just can't see that we did enough.
Let's hold the fort with the Bucs should easily beat out the Cards in 2017. We have issues of our own. We didn't do anything to improve the roster at all. In 2015, STL only had three starts from Wainwright; missed Holliday for a good portion of the season; Molina was out for some games too, but they found a way. STL always overcomes trouble it seems. They will make a good sound move.
There are four new starters in the rotation. There is a new 1B. There is a new bench. There is a new Closer and back end of the bullpen.
That seems like a lot to me. Especially, since the rotation was the problem last year.
I would never think the Cardinals don't have a chance, but how can one say the Pirates did nothing?
Is the roster any better? So far I think it may be addition by subtraction.
So, is your answer Yes?
The roster was broken last year, so changes were made. I am glad it was fixed. How much better, we don't know.
In my opinion, the rotation is better and first base is better. The end of the bullpen can be just as good (I was a big Melancon fan). The bench might be worse, but no one expected the bench to be that good last year with what Rodriguez did in 2015 and Joyce signing as a minor league free agent.
My answer is probably based on the lousy years by Cole and Cutch. Besides that there sure aren't many changes from the end of 2016 until now. The bench lost a lot of power, and we don't have a #5 starter. A full season of Bell and Taillon should provide a lift. After that what exactly changed? As constructed we look like a 82-85 win team at best. Certainly there were areas that could have and probably should have been addressed. I just can't see that we did enough.
Big blow for the Cards
I think we have a #5 for sure. What we may not have is a #3. And if we do have a 3, we don't have a 4.
Innings are innings though. Sheer talent wise, our rotation is very average on paper
Innings are innings though. Sheer talent wise, our rotation is very average on paper
Big blow for the Cards
272E263739430 wrote: I think we have a #5 for sure. What we may not have is a #3. And if we do have a 3, we don't have a 4.
Innings are innings though. Sheer talent wise, our rotation is very average on paper
I agree with this.
Innings are innings though. Sheer talent wise, our rotation is very average on paper
I agree with this.
Big blow for the Cards
1F17142335103738560 wrote: I think we have a #5 for sure. What we may not have is a #3. And if we do have a 3, we don't have a 4.
Innings are innings though. Sheer talent wise, our rotation is very average on paper
I agree with this.
Yes I think I do also.
Innings are innings though. Sheer talent wise, our rotation is very average on paper
I agree with this.
Yes I think I do also.