Wednesday ... More Pain Suffering on the way

rucker59@gmail.com · Post by **rucker59@gmail.com** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:16 pm

717A727E7B7A612422556C747D7A7A3B767A150 wrote: This is what is confusing: Do you want the Pirates to trade prospects or not?

The Broxton deal did not work out. The Brewers got the better player(s). So, was this a bad move to trade the prospect? Was Broxton even a prospect?

Isn't this a reason to hoard the prospects?

In this example, I didn't think it was a big move to trade for Rogers. They gave up potential for the now. Rogers was going to help the 2016 team more than Broxton. But this trade hurt the future as Broxton was needed in 2017. This is the gamble. This is why prospects aren't moved as frequently. Do you want to trade the future for the now?

You seem to say Yes, you do want to do that. So, how can you be upset when the move backfires? It is what you want.

This is the flip-flopping I don't follow. You can hate the front office and bash them, but they did exactly what you wanted them to do. It just didn't work out in their favor. It turned into a bad move.

I don't think this is confusing - i think most Pirate fans desperately want the Pirates to do something meaningful. To trade a prospect or prospects for Clint's ducktape and chickenwire in no way fulfills the needs of the team or the slightest hope of the fans.

To use a simple phrase ive repeated over and over the last several years: FINISH THE TEAM. Broxton for Rodgers does nothing by itself. This winter, acquiring another Rodgers will be meaningless unless Neal finishes the team.

Bobster21 · Post by **Bobster21** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:20 pm

I would say that trade showed the Pirates missed on Broxton more than they missed on Rogers. Rogers was someone they didn't really need and was more AAA depth. He was essentially a 1B/3B with some LF experience in the minors. They already had Jaso at 1B, Kang at 3B and Freese and Rodriguez as backups for those spots. It's fine to pick up some one like that as long as you don't give up much to get him. Turns out they gave up a starting CFer with speed and power. Little was expected of Rogers. There was no place for him anyway. But I don't think they would have traded Broxton for him if they knew Broxton would develop as he has. So, to Dog's point, that's the risk of trading prospects. Or more to the point, it appears they didn't even consider Broxton a prospect.

rucker59@gmail.com · Post by **rucker59@gmail.com** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:31 pm

103D30212637206063520 wrote: I would say that trade showed the Pirates missed on Broxton more than they missed on Rogers. Rogers was someone they didn't really need and was more AAA depth. He was essentially a 1B/3B with some LF experience in the minors. They already had Jaso at 1B, Kang at 3B and Freese and Rodriguez as backups for those spots. It's fine to pick up some one like that as long as you don't give up much to get him. Turns out they gave up a starting CFer with speed and power. Little was expected of Rogers. There was no place for him anyway. But I don't think they would have traded Broxton for him if they knew Broxton would develop as he has. So, to Dog's point, that's the risk of trading prospects. Or more to the point, it appears they didn't even consider Broxton a prospect.

That's why I said bad strategy + bad execution = very bad results.

The bad strategy is their unwillingness to use prospects to fill a critical position with proven talent. The bad execution, recently, is giving up three prospects for nothing and already one of those prospects is making Neal look foolish. The results speak for themselves.

dogknot17@yahoo.co · Post by **dogknot17@yahoo.co** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:45 pm

032E23323524337370410 wrote: I would say that trade showed the Pirates missed on Broxton more than they missed on Rogers. Rogers was someone they didn't really need and was more AAA depth. He was essentially a 1B/3B with some LF experience in the minors. They already had Jaso at 1B, Kang at 3B and Freese and Rodriguez as backups for those spots. It's fine to pick up some one like that as long as you don't give up much to get him. Turns out they gave up a starting CFer with speed and power. Little was expected of Rogers. There was no place for him anyway. But I don't think they would have traded Broxton for him if they knew Broxton would develop as he has. So, to Dog's point, that's the risk of trading prospects. Or more to the point, it appears they didn't even consider Broxton a prospect.

Exactly. Broxton was missed by the Pirates. Little was expected for both, but Broxton turned into the better player. The Pirates took a risk to get that depth now (2016) and they messed up the future as Broxton could have been used later (2017).

My point is that one can't get upset if that is what you want them to do and it doesn't pan out. It is the strategy some wanted, but since it didn't pan out it was a bad strategy? It doesn't work that way.

dmetz · Post by **dmetz** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:29 pm

So we are arguing that Jason Rodgers was a established MLB player now?

That's what the fans want eh? The trading of prospects for established hitters like Rodgers?

Bobster21 · Post by **Bobster21** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:37 pm

222B23323C460 wrote: So we are arguing that Jason Rodgers was a established MLB player now?

That's what the fans want eh? The trading of prospects for established hitters like Rodgers?

No, Rogers [no D] was not established. He did well as a part time players for Milw in 2015. But there was no role for him on the 2016 Bucs with starters and reserves already in place at his positions. He seemed to be AAA depth. Not the type you give up much to get, so it appears they didn't think they were giving up much in Broxton.

OrlandoMerced · Post by **OrlandoMerced** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:37 pm

Broxton is a bum, he has a .303 OBP and strikes out a ton. he's not going to stick in the majors very long. Broxton was a throw in on that deal, the miss was on Rogers as they thought he was a guy that could at least play in the majors until Bell was ready. Supak looks like a guy that could make the majors in some capacity and was probably the more valuable piece of that trade.

Bobster21 · Post by **Bobster21** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:54 pm

407D636E616B60426A7D6C6A6B0F0 wrote: Broxton is a bum, he has a .303 OBP and strikes out a ton. he's not going to stick in the majors very long. Broxton was a throw in on that deal, the miss was on Rogers as they thought he was a guy that could at least play in the majors until Bell was ready. Supak looks like a guy that could make the majors in some capacity and was probably the more valuable piece of that trade.
Six days after Rogers was acquired they signed Jaso to play 1B until Bell was ready. So it doesn't look like they acquired Rogers for that purpose.

Ecbucs · Post by **Ecbucs** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:04 pm

684548595E4F58181B2A0 wrote: Broxton is a bum, he has a .303 OBP and strikes out a ton. he's not going to stick in the majors very long. Broxton was a throw in on that deal, the miss was on Rogers as they thought he was a guy that could at least play in the majors until Bell was ready. Supak looks like a guy that could make the majors in some capacity and was probably the more valuable piece of that trade.
Six days after Rogers was acquired they signed Jaso to play 1B until Bell was ready. So it doesn't look like they acquired Rogers for that purpose.

after they signed Jaso I thought he and Rogers were going to platoon at first. (as one option for the Bucs). It doesn't look like S-Rod started any games at first until May 4 and next start at first was May 27.

rucker59@gmail.com · Post by **rucker59@gmail.com** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:28 pm

69606879770D0 wrote: So we are arguing that Jason Rodgers was a established MLB player now?

That's what the fans want eh? The trading of prospects for established hitters like Rodgers?

Exactly. I'm so tired of these Alice in Wonderland, nothing is as it seems, arguments that I no longer believe they're genuine.

I'm now convinced Bob Nutting is a regular poster on OBN.