664B46575041561615240 wrote: If the Pirates hadn't made the trade and Archer went to another team for prospects, fans would have complained that the Pirates had good enough prospects to get Archer but never want to part with them.
I for one would have never complained. Maybe you are talking about all the posters on this forum that were bashing Vasquez during his week with 4 blown saves. You know the ones that couldn't believe Huntington was stupid enough to extend him. Guy had one bad week in a year and a half and people wanted him replaced .. LOL.
Baz sent to Rays as PTBNL
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Baz sent to Rays as PTBNL
7F78697A6938350C0 wrote: I just fail to see how adding a guy that generally goes about 6 innings , has posted a + 4 ERA for 3 consecutive years is going to make such a difference to a very average rotation. I really think you guys are dreamers .
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
Baz sent to Rays as PTBNL
1E333E2F28392E6E6D5C0 wrote: If the Pirates hadn't made the trade and Archer went to another team for prospects, fans would have complained that the Pirates had good enough prospects to get Archer but never want to part with them.
This is exactly right. People would be bitching up a storm that NH didn't acquire much in a year that at the time the team was less than four games away from a wild card spot which was a hell of a lot better than we all envisioned.
95% of this board was bitching up a storm in the offseason as far as really nothing significant coming in and Cutch/Cole gone. We got Dickerson for a song and then finally NH doesn't something against his grain - acquire a proven arm for prospects (something he hordes) and we have bitching? As Possum stated, Pittsburgh traded potential. Potential is a word that gets GMs and managers fired more than hired. We have no idea what Meadows or Glasnow are two years down the road ... we have no idea what Shane is down the road either. You can't sit back and think this potential all develops into stud player. That would be typical NH before this deal. More than likely only one of these guys amount to a lot.
This is exactly right. People would be bitching up a storm that NH didn't acquire much in a year that at the time the team was less than four games away from a wild card spot which was a hell of a lot better than we all envisioned.
95% of this board was bitching up a storm in the offseason as far as really nothing significant coming in and Cutch/Cole gone. We got Dickerson for a song and then finally NH doesn't something against his grain - acquire a proven arm for prospects (something he hordes) and we have bitching? As Possum stated, Pittsburgh traded potential. Potential is a word that gets GMs and managers fired more than hired. We have no idea what Meadows or Glasnow are two years down the road ... we have no idea what Shane is down the road either. You can't sit back and think this potential all develops into stud player. That would be typical NH before this deal. More than likely only one of these guys amount to a lot.
-
steve49
Baz sent to Rays as PTBNL
2A2B3021377770440 wrote: I just fail to see how adding a guy that generally goes about 6 innings , has posted a + 4 ERA for 3 consecutive years is going to make such a difference to a very average rotation. I really think you guys are dreamers .
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
If Glasnow turns out to be better than Archer , those that liked this trade will just say "it wouldn't have happened in Pittsburgh." Seems like you guys can't lose the argument ? Doesn't matter that a year from now it might be that we lost 3 guys that are better than any pitcher on our team ? If Cole ,Morton and Glasnow are aces , you guys are still right ?
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
If Glasnow turns out to be better than Archer , those that liked this trade will just say "it wouldn't have happened in Pittsburgh." Seems like you guys can't lose the argument ? Doesn't matter that a year from now it might be that we lost 3 guys that are better than any pitcher on our team ? If Cole ,Morton and Glasnow are aces , you guys are still right ?
-
Bobster21
Baz sent to Rays as PTBNL
63647566752429100 wrote: I just fail to see how adding a guy that generally goes about 6 innings , has posted a + 4 ERA for 3 consecutive years is going to make such a difference to a very average rotation. I really think you guys are dreamers .
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
If Glasnow turns out to be better than Archer , those that liked this trade will just say "it wouldn't have happened in Pittsburgh." Seems like you guys can't lose the argument ? Doesn't matter that a year from now it might be that we lost 3 guys that are better than any pitcher on our team ? If Cole ,Morton and Glasnow are aces , you guys are still right ?
Do you not believe Morton had enough chances with the Pirates? Is it your contention that they simply gave up on him too soon after 7 disappointing seasons and that they should have waited until he was 33 and 34 in his 9th and 10th seasons so that they would have seen the same exact pitching from him that the Astros are seeing? Did you not see Cole regress into mediocrity each of the past 2 seasons? Are you saying he was the same pitcher then that he is for the Astros?
There is something suspicious about pitchers not achieving the levels expected by the Pirates until they leave the Pirates. (Altho it's too soon to put Glasnow in that category.) The problem doesn't seem to be that the Pirates are getting fleeced on trades by giving up outstanding pitchers. The real problem seems to be that these pitchers struggle as Pirates until another team gets to work with them. That's a worse problem because it potentially effects every pitcher they bring up and not just the ones they trade.
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
If Glasnow turns out to be better than Archer , those that liked this trade will just say "it wouldn't have happened in Pittsburgh." Seems like you guys can't lose the argument ? Doesn't matter that a year from now it might be that we lost 3 guys that are better than any pitcher on our team ? If Cole ,Morton and Glasnow are aces , you guys are still right ?
Do you not believe Morton had enough chances with the Pirates? Is it your contention that they simply gave up on him too soon after 7 disappointing seasons and that they should have waited until he was 33 and 34 in his 9th and 10th seasons so that they would have seen the same exact pitching from him that the Astros are seeing? Did you not see Cole regress into mediocrity each of the past 2 seasons? Are you saying he was the same pitcher then that he is for the Astros?
There is something suspicious about pitchers not achieving the levels expected by the Pirates until they leave the Pirates. (Altho it's too soon to put Glasnow in that category.) The problem doesn't seem to be that the Pirates are getting fleeced on trades by giving up outstanding pitchers. The real problem seems to be that these pitchers struggle as Pirates until another team gets to work with them. That's a worse problem because it potentially effects every pitcher they bring up and not just the ones they trade.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3630
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Baz sent to Rays as PTBNL
587578696E7F68282B1A0 wrote: I just fail to see how adding a guy that generally goes about 6 innings , has posted a + 4 ERA for 3 consecutive years is going to make such a difference to a very average rotation. I really think you guys are dreamers .
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
If Glasnow turns out to be better than Archer , those that liked this trade will just say "it wouldn't have happened in Pittsburgh." Seems like you guys can't lose the argument ? Doesn't matter that a year from now it might be that we lost 3 guys that are better than any pitcher on our team ? If Cole ,Morton and Glasnow are aces , you guys are still right ?
Do you not believe Morton had enough chances with the Pirates? Is it your contention that they simply gave up on him too soon after 7 disappointing seasons and that they should have waited until he was 33 and 34 in his 9th and 10th seasons so that they would have seen the same exact pitching from him that the Astros are seeing? Did you not see Cole regress into mediocrity each of the past 2 seasons? Are you saying he was the same pitcher then that he is for the Astros?
There is something suspicious about pitchers not achieving the levels expected by the Pirates until they leave the Pirates. (Altho it's too soon to put Glasnow in that category.) The problem doesn't seem to be that the Pirates are getting fleeced on trades by giving up outstanding pitchers. The real problem seems to be that these pitchers struggle as Pirates until another team gets to work with them. That's a worse problem because it potentially effects every pitcher they bring up and not just the ones they trade.
Yes, if it continues to happen you need to look at development/coaching more than trading.
I'd also look at Morton as a different type of case, being a guy who turned his career around himself (and good for him). He was let go by a terrible Phillies team ferchrissake. Not sure that one is a failure on the part of the Pirates.
Though I would take a close look at what we got for Cole vs. what the Rays got for Archer. I know it's not perfect because of years of control, trade deadline premium, etc., but why do we never seem to get other teams' top three type guys in deals? I know part of it is because we don't have premium players to deal a lot of the time.
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
If Glasnow turns out to be better than Archer , those that liked this trade will just say "it wouldn't have happened in Pittsburgh." Seems like you guys can't lose the argument ? Doesn't matter that a year from now it might be that we lost 3 guys that are better than any pitcher on our team ? If Cole ,Morton and Glasnow are aces , you guys are still right ?
Do you not believe Morton had enough chances with the Pirates? Is it your contention that they simply gave up on him too soon after 7 disappointing seasons and that they should have waited until he was 33 and 34 in his 9th and 10th seasons so that they would have seen the same exact pitching from him that the Astros are seeing? Did you not see Cole regress into mediocrity each of the past 2 seasons? Are you saying he was the same pitcher then that he is for the Astros?
There is something suspicious about pitchers not achieving the levels expected by the Pirates until they leave the Pirates. (Altho it's too soon to put Glasnow in that category.) The problem doesn't seem to be that the Pirates are getting fleeced on trades by giving up outstanding pitchers. The real problem seems to be that these pitchers struggle as Pirates until another team gets to work with them. That's a worse problem because it potentially effects every pitcher they bring up and not just the ones they trade.
Yes, if it continues to happen you need to look at development/coaching more than trading.
I'd also look at Morton as a different type of case, being a guy who turned his career around himself (and good for him). He was let go by a terrible Phillies team ferchrissake. Not sure that one is a failure on the part of the Pirates.
Though I would take a close look at what we got for Cole vs. what the Rays got for Archer. I know it's not perfect because of years of control, trade deadline premium, etc., but why do we never seem to get other teams' top three type guys in deals? I know part of it is because we don't have premium players to deal a lot of the time.
Baz sent to Rays as PTBNL
477579796D5F7C75787D7275140 wrote: I just fail to see how adding a guy that generally goes about 6 innings , has posted a + 4 ERA for 3 consecutive years is going to make such a difference to a very average rotation. I really think you guys are dreamers .
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
If Glasnow turns out to be better than Archer , those that liked this trade will just say "it wouldn't have happened in Pittsburgh." Seems like you guys can't lose the argument ? Doesn't matter that a year from now it might be that we lost 3 guys that are better than any pitcher on our team ? If Cole ,Morton and Glasnow are aces , you guys are still right ?
Do you not believe Morton had enough chances with the Pirates? Is it your contention that they simply gave up on him too soon after 7 disappointing seasons and that they should have waited until he was 33 and 34 in his 9th and 10th seasons so that they would have seen the same exact pitching from him that the Astros are seeing? Did you not see Cole regress into mediocrity each of the past 2 seasons? Are you saying he was the same pitcher then that he is for the Astros?
There is something suspicious about pitchers not achieving the levels expected by the Pirates until they leave the Pirates. (Altho it's too soon to put Glasnow in that category.) The problem doesn't seem to be that the Pirates are getting fleeced on trades by giving up outstanding pitchers. The real problem seems to be that these pitchers struggle as Pirates until another team gets to work with them. That's a worse problem because it potentially effects every pitcher they bring up and not just the ones they trade.
Yes, if it continues to happen you need to look at development/coaching more than trading.
I'd also look at Morton as a different type of case, being a guy who turned his career around himself (and good for him). He was let go by a terrible Phillies team ferchrissake. Not sure that one is a failure on the part of the Pirates.
Though I would take a close look at what we got for Cole vs. what the Rays got for Archer. I know it's not perfect because of years of control, trade deadline premium, etc., but why do we never seem to get other teams' top three type guys in deals? I know part of it is because we don't have premium players to deal a lot of the time.
why the Pirates don't get other teams top 3? Part of the reason is that NH looks for major league ready return and he likes quantity. While he wasn't a top prospect with the Dodgers, it was great to get O'neil Cruz for Watson.
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
If Glasnow turns out to be better than Archer , those that liked this trade will just say "it wouldn't have happened in Pittsburgh." Seems like you guys can't lose the argument ? Doesn't matter that a year from now it might be that we lost 3 guys that are better than any pitcher on our team ? If Cole ,Morton and Glasnow are aces , you guys are still right ?
Do you not believe Morton had enough chances with the Pirates? Is it your contention that they simply gave up on him too soon after 7 disappointing seasons and that they should have waited until he was 33 and 34 in his 9th and 10th seasons so that they would have seen the same exact pitching from him that the Astros are seeing? Did you not see Cole regress into mediocrity each of the past 2 seasons? Are you saying he was the same pitcher then that he is for the Astros?
There is something suspicious about pitchers not achieving the levels expected by the Pirates until they leave the Pirates. (Altho it's too soon to put Glasnow in that category.) The problem doesn't seem to be that the Pirates are getting fleeced on trades by giving up outstanding pitchers. The real problem seems to be that these pitchers struggle as Pirates until another team gets to work with them. That's a worse problem because it potentially effects every pitcher they bring up and not just the ones they trade.
Yes, if it continues to happen you need to look at development/coaching more than trading.
I'd also look at Morton as a different type of case, being a guy who turned his career around himself (and good for him). He was let go by a terrible Phillies team ferchrissake. Not sure that one is a failure on the part of the Pirates.
Though I would take a close look at what we got for Cole vs. what the Rays got for Archer. I know it's not perfect because of years of control, trade deadline premium, etc., but why do we never seem to get other teams' top three type guys in deals? I know part of it is because we don't have premium players to deal a lot of the time.
why the Pirates don't get other teams top 3? Part of the reason is that NH looks for major league ready return and he likes quantity. While he wasn't a top prospect with the Dodgers, it was great to get O'neil Cruz for Watson.
-
steve49
Baz sent to Rays as PTBNL
123F32232435226261500 wrote: I just fail to see how adding a guy that generally goes about 6 innings , has posted a + 4 ERA for 3 consecutive years is going to make such a difference to a very average rotation. I really think you guys are dreamers .
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
If Glasnow turns out to be better than Archer , those that liked this trade will just say "it wouldn't have happened in Pittsburgh." Seems like you guys can't lose the argument ? Doesn't matter that a year from now it might be that we lost 3 guys that are better than any pitcher on our team ? If Cole ,Morton and Glasnow are aces , you guys are still right ?
Do you not believe Morton had enough chances with the Pirates? Is it your contention that they simply gave up on him too soon after 7 disappointing seasons and that they should have waited until he was 33 and 34 in his 9th and 10th seasons so that they would have seen the same exact pitching from him that the Astros are seeing? Did you not see Cole regress into mediocrity each of the past 2 seasons? Are you saying he was the same pitcher then that he is for the Astros?
There is something suspicious about pitchers not achieving the levels expected by the Pirates until they leave the Pirates. (Altho it's too soon to put Glasnow in that category.) The problem doesn't seem to be that the Pirates are getting fleeced on trades by giving up outstanding pitchers. The real problem seems to be that these pitchers struggle as Pirates until another team gets to work with them. That's a worse problem because it potentially effects every pitcher they bring up and not just the ones they trade.
No doubt that it's highly likely that the Pirates have problems developing thesis pitchers. I've mentioned this in multiple posts . My point in this trade is that it was too much to give up for Archer and that IMO Glasnow will join Morton and Cole as ex private aces. And yes , you are correct saying the Pirates problem "is not getting fleeced in trades." This IMO is the first time they messed up big. Time will tell and I won't come back and say "i told you so " but I have no doubt when baseball gurus come back in two -three years to evaluate this one , it will go down as horribly lopsided.
We were fleeced.
Do you even look at the peripheral stats? His FIP was 3.62 which is pretty good considering he pitched in the A.L. East. As far as Glasnow, it wasn't happening here. He needed the change of scenery. It wasn't just mental either, he couldn't consistently repeat his delivery. 12 innings is such a SSS. We were not fleeced in any way.
OK his HIP is "pretty good." Easy to say Glasnow couldn't do it here. But then you say it wasn't mental , it was his delivery. So if he turns into an ACE and it was nothing mental as you say ... then he would have done it here ... no ?
BTW.. Glasgow in his interview said two days before he was traded that "found it" in a BP session . Very honest looking interview , so I tend to believe that. Question is if he "keeps it "
I never said it wasn't mental. I said it wasn't just mental there was also a delivery issue. I truly believe it wasn't going to happen for him in Pittsburgh. I read the article. There was a lot going on there. It sure sounded like the change of scenery played a large part in his recent success. Let's see if he continues to pitch well.
If Glasnow turns out to be better than Archer , those that liked this trade will just say "it wouldn't have happened in Pittsburgh." Seems like you guys can't lose the argument ? Doesn't matter that a year from now it might be that we lost 3 guys that are better than any pitcher on our team ? If Cole ,Morton and Glasnow are aces , you guys are still right ?
Do you not believe Morton had enough chances with the Pirates? Is it your contention that they simply gave up on him too soon after 7 disappointing seasons and that they should have waited until he was 33 and 34 in his 9th and 10th seasons so that they would have seen the same exact pitching from him that the Astros are seeing? Did you not see Cole regress into mediocrity each of the past 2 seasons? Are you saying he was the same pitcher then that he is for the Astros?
There is something suspicious about pitchers not achieving the levels expected by the Pirates until they leave the Pirates. (Altho it's too soon to put Glasnow in that category.) The problem doesn't seem to be that the Pirates are getting fleeced on trades by giving up outstanding pitchers. The real problem seems to be that these pitchers struggle as Pirates until another team gets to work with them. That's a worse problem because it potentially effects every pitcher they bring up and not just the ones they trade.
No doubt that it's highly likely that the Pirates have problems developing thesis pitchers. I've mentioned this in multiple posts . My point in this trade is that it was too much to give up for Archer and that IMO Glasnow will join Morton and Cole as ex private aces. And yes , you are correct saying the Pirates problem "is not getting fleeced in trades." This IMO is the first time they messed up big. Time will tell and I won't come back and say "i told you so " but I have no doubt when baseball gurus come back in two -three years to evaluate this one , it will go down as horribly lopsided.
Baz sent to Rays as PTBNL
And one more, just for good measure.
-
steve49
Baz sent to Rays as PTBNL
70787B4C5A7F5857390 wrote: And one more, just for good measure.
"Yeah ... maybe throw in the 1986 trade for Drabek too ? I'm feeling better already .....Anyone that thinks this was a good deal is a true fish."
The above was my post # 17. Hate to call all those that liked this deal a fish but it is what it is.
"Yeah ... maybe throw in the 1986 trade for Drabek too ? I'm feeling better already .....Anyone that thinks this was a good deal is a true fish."
The above was my post # 17. Hate to call all those that liked this deal a fish but it is what it is.