2229212D2829327771063F272E2929682529460 wrote: I guess I'm okay with the fact that Hutchison got lit because (A) He's not very good and if you put him in the rotation you are just asking for trouble; and (B) I really think we need the lefty Brault in the 5 spot.
I can recall seasons when a ST "competition" was "won" by the pitcher who put up worse stats than the loser. I will be very surprised if Hutchison is not the 5th starter regardless of ST stats. The Liriano/McGwire, Ramirez deal was bad PR and a decision that Hutchison isn't good enough to be #5 will be more egg on the face for the FO that tried to say that deal was to acquire Hutchison rather than giving away prospects to get Toronto to pay Liriano's salary. Plus, the Pirates gave Hutchison 2 million this year. That's a lot for a AAA pitcher. I don't think anyone else has a chance.
I just don't think this is fair though. It seems to me that, if anything, this FO has shown a propensity to not give a rat's behind what public perception is. I don't think Hutchison is a lock by any means. My money's on Brault. Glasnow comes up whenever an inevitable injury happens.
Of course it's not fair. But they cared about the public's perception of the Liriano salary dump by insisting their primary goal was to obtain Hutchison (though few believed that). If NH wants us to believe he traded Liriano and 2 prospects because he wanted Hutchison so badly, having Hutchson lose out to an unproven pitcher would suggest that NH really overrated him. And overpaid him. I hope I'm wrong and that the best pitcher gets the #5 spot. But I suspect Hutchison has a scholarship.
No, that is how you are looking at it. Also how others who are so against the front office is looking at it too.
In order for Toronto to get the two prospects for Hutchison, they had to take Liriano. This was explained. It is just something that some don't believe. Like, they pick and choose what they want to believe so they are right in their own mind.
Dog, professional sports all rely on public relations. They need a fan base to be interested and support them. Even when a team makes a move that's unpopular with the fans, they will put the best possible spin on it. They need to for PR purposes and I don't blame them. That's to be expected of any team in any sport. It's also unlikely that they are 100% honest about everything 100% of the time. We don't have to accept the positive spin all the time. Sometimes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Understanding this, sometimes it's fair to say, "I'm sorry but I'm just not buying it this time." That doesn't mean someone is "against the front office."
Personally, I was tired of Liriano pitching poorly and had no qualms about him being dealt. Even now when we don't seem to have a legit 5th starter I still support NH's idea to trade him. I just don't buy the line that they wanted the below average Hutchison badly enough to trade not only Liriano but also Ramirez and McGuire. Ecbucs is probably right that a fair trade for Hutchison would have required only one or the other of the prospects. But the 3 for 1 deal was clearly to rid the team of Liriano's contract. NH admitted that the contract was part of the reason for the deal but insisted that the main goal was to get Hutchison. So now's the time for Huchison to show he is a better pitcher than his past history shows. Otherwise, NH's explanation of the trade looks suspicious. My point is you don't have to be "for" or "against" the front office. It's possible to keep an open mind and evaluate on a case by case basis. I don't doubt everything they say, nor do I accept everything they say as gospel.
2017 Bullpen
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
2017 Bullpen
I understand your point and the PR issue. I just don't like how people, media pick and choose what they want to believe. If Hutchison was tearing it up or liked from the get go, this issue probably wouldn't be brought up so much.
I do think the trade for the two prospects went down only if they took Liriano as well. I said this from the get go. Huntington said it as well (I heard him live at Pirates Fest). Yet, people still think the trade went down differently.
Melancon was a "salary dump" too. How come that isn't being brought up? I know. It is because Rivero is good.
Personally, I think it was time to get rid of Liriano. He was awful last year and then became a little problem. I also think people are ranking McGuire and Ramirez too high. McGuire was falling behind and Ramirez doesn't look like a major league starter. The Pirates finally trade some prospects for pitching and it still wasn't good enough in some eyes.
I do think the trade for the two prospects went down only if they took Liriano as well. I said this from the get go. Huntington said it as well (I heard him live at Pirates Fest). Yet, people still think the trade went down differently.
Melancon was a "salary dump" too. How come that isn't being brought up? I know. It is because Rivero is good.
Personally, I think it was time to get rid of Liriano. He was awful last year and then became a little problem. I also think people are ranking McGuire and Ramirez too high. McGuire was falling behind and Ramirez doesn't look like a major league starter. The Pirates finally trade some prospects for pitching and it still wasn't good enough in some eyes.
2017 Bullpen
I've been pretty clear in the fact that I hated the Liriano trade. I still hate it. I'd love to have him as our #5 starter. With that as a caveat, I'm going to disagree with this point, Dog.
I also think people are ranking McGuire and Ramirez too high. McGuire was falling behind and Ramirez doesn't look like a major league starter.
Even if this is true, it's beside the point. The point that is relevant is what they were worth AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE. To use an economic analogy, let's look at the price of gold. Right now, gold is trading for around $1,200 an ounce, I think. (I don't really know, exactly, as I'm not interested in buying and selling gold, but that's beside the point.). Let's just say it's selling for $1,200 an ounce.
But, a few years ago, it was going for over $2,000 an ounce. Let's say at the time, I had 100 ounces of gold to sell. That's worth $200,000. But now, those same ounces would only be worth $120,000. If I had sold them at the time for $150,000, relative to today, that would be a good sale, but AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE I would have shorted myself close to $50,000. It makes no difference what the price is today. What matters is what the price was then.
If McGuire and Ramirez both retire today, it makes no difference in the analysis of whether or not we got a fair deal. It makes no difference that we have a surplus of outfielders and catchers. What matters is what the going rate was for those two prospects, both of whom had at lest garnered consideration for various top 100 lists, IIRC. With that understanding and in that context, NH got fleeced on this deal, all to unload Liriano, who really wasn't getting paid that much in the grand scheme that is the mixed up economic system of professional baseball.
I'm an NH fan. I would like to see him extended. But this deal was not one of his brighter moments.
I also think people are ranking McGuire and Ramirez too high. McGuire was falling behind and Ramirez doesn't look like a major league starter.
Even if this is true, it's beside the point. The point that is relevant is what they were worth AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE. To use an economic analogy, let's look at the price of gold. Right now, gold is trading for around $1,200 an ounce, I think. (I don't really know, exactly, as I'm not interested in buying and selling gold, but that's beside the point.). Let's just say it's selling for $1,200 an ounce.
But, a few years ago, it was going for over $2,000 an ounce. Let's say at the time, I had 100 ounces of gold to sell. That's worth $200,000. But now, those same ounces would only be worth $120,000. If I had sold them at the time for $150,000, relative to today, that would be a good sale, but AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE I would have shorted myself close to $50,000. It makes no difference what the price is today. What matters is what the price was then.
If McGuire and Ramirez both retire today, it makes no difference in the analysis of whether or not we got a fair deal. It makes no difference that we have a surplus of outfielders and catchers. What matters is what the going rate was for those two prospects, both of whom had at lest garnered consideration for various top 100 lists, IIRC. With that understanding and in that context, NH got fleeced on this deal, all to unload Liriano, who really wasn't getting paid that much in the grand scheme that is the mixed up economic system of professional baseball.
I'm an NH fan. I would like to see him extended. But this deal was not one of his brighter moments.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
2017 Bullpen
434B487F694C6B640A0 wrote: I've been pretty clear in the fact that I hated the Liriano trade. I still hate it. I'd love to have him as our #5 starter. With that as a caveat, I'm going to disagree with this point, Dog.
I also think people are ranking McGuire and Ramirez too high. McGuire was falling behind and Ramirez doesn't look like a major league starter.
Even if this is true, it's beside the point. The point that is relevant is what they were worth AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE. To use an economic analogy, let's look at the price of gold. Right now, gold is trading for around $1,200 an ounce, I think. (I don't really know, exactly, as I'm not interested in buying and selling gold, but that's beside the point.). Let's just say it's selling for $1,200 an ounce.
But, a few years ago, it was going for over $2,000 an ounce. Let's say at the time, I had 100 ounces of gold to sell. That's worth $200,000. But now, those same ounces would only be worth $120,000. If I had sold them at the time for $150,000, relative to today, that would be a good sale, but AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE I would have shorted myself close to $50,000. It makes no difference what the price is today. What matters is what the price was then.
If McGuire and Ramirez both retire today, it makes no difference in the analysis of whether or not we got a fair deal. It makes no difference that we have a surplus of outfielders and catchers. What matters is what the going rate was for those two prospects, both of whom had at lest garnered consideration for various top 100 lists, IIRC. With that understanding and in that context, NH got fleeced on this deal, all to unload Liriano, who really wasn't getting paid that much in the grand scheme that is the mixed up economic system of professional baseball.
I'm an NH fan. I would like to see him extended. But this deal was not one of his brighter moments.
You don't think players are traded based on projections? Isn't this why Meadows and Glasnow weren't moved for Quintana?
Even if you don't think that, McGuire and Ramirez could still be overrated at the time of the trade. I am not sure if they were being shopped around. But at the time of the trade and probably some projection, Hutchison was the return Huntington went with. It might turn out to be a terrible trade, but we don't know that today at this moment.
Personally, I find it sad that Liriano wasn't dealt alone as I thought some team would take a chance on him. But his salary might have came into play. Liriano was great overall for the Pirates. But he was awful last year and I am sure the Pirates wanted to get rid of him before that happened again in 2017.
I also think people are ranking McGuire and Ramirez too high. McGuire was falling behind and Ramirez doesn't look like a major league starter.
Even if this is true, it's beside the point. The point that is relevant is what they were worth AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE. To use an economic analogy, let's look at the price of gold. Right now, gold is trading for around $1,200 an ounce, I think. (I don't really know, exactly, as I'm not interested in buying and selling gold, but that's beside the point.). Let's just say it's selling for $1,200 an ounce.
But, a few years ago, it was going for over $2,000 an ounce. Let's say at the time, I had 100 ounces of gold to sell. That's worth $200,000. But now, those same ounces would only be worth $120,000. If I had sold them at the time for $150,000, relative to today, that would be a good sale, but AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE I would have shorted myself close to $50,000. It makes no difference what the price is today. What matters is what the price was then.
If McGuire and Ramirez both retire today, it makes no difference in the analysis of whether or not we got a fair deal. It makes no difference that we have a surplus of outfielders and catchers. What matters is what the going rate was for those two prospects, both of whom had at lest garnered consideration for various top 100 lists, IIRC. With that understanding and in that context, NH got fleeced on this deal, all to unload Liriano, who really wasn't getting paid that much in the grand scheme that is the mixed up economic system of professional baseball.
I'm an NH fan. I would like to see him extended. But this deal was not one of his brighter moments.
You don't think players are traded based on projections? Isn't this why Meadows and Glasnow weren't moved for Quintana?
Even if you don't think that, McGuire and Ramirez could still be overrated at the time of the trade. I am not sure if they were being shopped around. But at the time of the trade and probably some projection, Hutchison was the return Huntington went with. It might turn out to be a terrible trade, but we don't know that today at this moment.
Personally, I find it sad that Liriano wasn't dealt alone as I thought some team would take a chance on him. But his salary might have came into play. Liriano was great overall for the Pirates. But he was awful last year and I am sure the Pirates wanted to get rid of him before that happened again in 2017.
2017 Bullpen
4D464E4247465D181E695048414646074A46290 wrote: I've been pretty clear in the fact that I hated the Liriano trade. I still hate it. I'd love to have him as our #5 starter. With that as a caveat, I'm going to disagree with this point, Dog.
I also think people are ranking McGuire and Ramirez too high. McGuire was falling behind and Ramirez doesn't look like a major league starter.
Even if this is true, it's beside the point. The point that is relevant is what they were worth AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE. To use an economic analogy, let's look at the price of gold. Right now, gold is trading for around $1,200 an ounce, I think. (I don't really know, exactly, as I'm not interested in buying and selling gold, but that's beside the point.). Let's just say it's selling for $1,200 an ounce.
But, a few years ago, it was going for over $2,000 an ounce. Let's say at the time, I had 100 ounces of gold to sell. That's worth $200,000. But now, those same ounces would only be worth $120,000. If I had sold them at the time for $150,000, relative to today, that would be a good sale, but AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE I would have shorted myself close to $50,000. It makes no difference what the price is today. What matters is what the price was then.
If McGuire and Ramirez both retire today, it makes no difference in the analysis of whether or not we got a fair deal. It makes no difference that we have a surplus of outfielders and catchers. What matters is what the going rate was for those two prospects, both of whom had at lest garnered consideration for various top 100 lists, IIRC. With that understanding and in that context, NH got fleeced on this deal, all to unload Liriano, who really wasn't getting paid that much in the grand scheme that is the mixed up economic system of professional baseball.
I'm an NH fan. I would like to see him extended. But this deal was not one of his brighter moments.
You don't think players are traded based on projections? Isn't this why Meadows and Glasnow weren't moved for Quintana?
Even if you don't think that, McGuire and Ramirez could still be overrated at the time of the trade. I am not sure if they were being shopped around. But at the time of the trade and probably some projection, Hutchison was the return Huntington went with. It might turn out to be a terrible trade, but we don't know that today at this moment.
Personally, I find it sad that Liriano wasn't dealt alone as I thought some team would take a chance on him. But his salary might have came into play. Liriano was great overall for the Pirates. But he was awful last year and I am sure the Pirates wanted to get rid of him before that happened again in 2017.
Of course they're traded based on projections. That's precisely the point. But their trade value is determined by what their future projection is. So, while the future projection of either McGuire, Ramirez, or both, may have declined since the day of the trade, that's irrelevant and beside the point--they aren't being traded today. They were being traded in late July of 2016. The relevant question is, "What WAS their future projection as of July 2016?" Not, "What is their future projection as of March 2017?"
Go back to my gold analogy. If I'm selling 100 ounces of gold, I don't care what the price may be a year from now. I care what it is today, because today is when I'm selling. If I'm buying, I'm hoping that the price of gold INCREASES between now and when I ultimately sell it. But that isn't relevant to what I'm willing to pay TODAY. If I'm buying today, I'm willing to pay it's fair market value today. Not it's FMV a year from now.
It's the same way with prospects. A year from now, Glasnow might be relegated to a relief role. His trade value will have plummeted. Or, he might develop into a bonafide ace. We don't know. What we DO know is his trade value today, not what it might be a year from now. So, let's say we hold on to him, and a year from now, we look back and say, "Gosh. I wish we'd have traded him for Quintana. That would have been a great trade." That's evaluating with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Because none of us can see the future. The only thing we have to analyze a trade today is his trade value today.
Likewise, even though McGuire and Ramirez may have lost some trade value, the only relevant question is what was their value when we traded them. I think the consensus is that it should have brought back a better return than Hutchison.
I also think people are ranking McGuire and Ramirez too high. McGuire was falling behind and Ramirez doesn't look like a major league starter.
Even if this is true, it's beside the point. The point that is relevant is what they were worth AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE. To use an economic analogy, let's look at the price of gold. Right now, gold is trading for around $1,200 an ounce, I think. (I don't really know, exactly, as I'm not interested in buying and selling gold, but that's beside the point.). Let's just say it's selling for $1,200 an ounce.
But, a few years ago, it was going for over $2,000 an ounce. Let's say at the time, I had 100 ounces of gold to sell. That's worth $200,000. But now, those same ounces would only be worth $120,000. If I had sold them at the time for $150,000, relative to today, that would be a good sale, but AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE I would have shorted myself close to $50,000. It makes no difference what the price is today. What matters is what the price was then.
If McGuire and Ramirez both retire today, it makes no difference in the analysis of whether or not we got a fair deal. It makes no difference that we have a surplus of outfielders and catchers. What matters is what the going rate was for those two prospects, both of whom had at lest garnered consideration for various top 100 lists, IIRC. With that understanding and in that context, NH got fleeced on this deal, all to unload Liriano, who really wasn't getting paid that much in the grand scheme that is the mixed up economic system of professional baseball.
I'm an NH fan. I would like to see him extended. But this deal was not one of his brighter moments.
You don't think players are traded based on projections? Isn't this why Meadows and Glasnow weren't moved for Quintana?
Even if you don't think that, McGuire and Ramirez could still be overrated at the time of the trade. I am not sure if they were being shopped around. But at the time of the trade and probably some projection, Hutchison was the return Huntington went with. It might turn out to be a terrible trade, but we don't know that today at this moment.
Personally, I find it sad that Liriano wasn't dealt alone as I thought some team would take a chance on him. But his salary might have came into play. Liriano was great overall for the Pirates. But he was awful last year and I am sure the Pirates wanted to get rid of him before that happened again in 2017.
Of course they're traded based on projections. That's precisely the point. But their trade value is determined by what their future projection is. So, while the future projection of either McGuire, Ramirez, or both, may have declined since the day of the trade, that's irrelevant and beside the point--they aren't being traded today. They were being traded in late July of 2016. The relevant question is, "What WAS their future projection as of July 2016?" Not, "What is their future projection as of March 2017?"
Go back to my gold analogy. If I'm selling 100 ounces of gold, I don't care what the price may be a year from now. I care what it is today, because today is when I'm selling. If I'm buying, I'm hoping that the price of gold INCREASES between now and when I ultimately sell it. But that isn't relevant to what I'm willing to pay TODAY. If I'm buying today, I'm willing to pay it's fair market value today. Not it's FMV a year from now.
It's the same way with prospects. A year from now, Glasnow might be relegated to a relief role. His trade value will have plummeted. Or, he might develop into a bonafide ace. We don't know. What we DO know is his trade value today, not what it might be a year from now. So, let's say we hold on to him, and a year from now, we look back and say, "Gosh. I wish we'd have traded him for Quintana. That would have been a great trade." That's evaluating with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Because none of us can see the future. The only thing we have to analyze a trade today is his trade value today.
Likewise, even though McGuire and Ramirez may have lost some trade value, the only relevant question is what was their value when we traded them. I think the consensus is that it should have brought back a better return than Hutchison.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
2017 Bullpen
My opinion on McGuire and Ramirez has not changed since they were traded. I think McGuire was falling behind and Ramirez was not a starting outfielder at the time of the trade.
They got Hutchison and that was what Toronto thought they were worth. I am sure Huntington tried to get more, right? But their stock was not on the rise even back in July.
Values to teams varies too. McGuire might be a top line prospect for Toronto now. But he wasn't a top line prospect for the Pirates with Bell, Meadows, Glasnow, Keller, Hayes, Newman, Tucker and Craig. I like McGuire, but I don't see him helping the Pirates any time soon with Cervelli and Diaz ahead of him.
They got Hutchison and that was what Toronto thought they were worth. I am sure Huntington tried to get more, right? But their stock was not on the rise even back in July.
Values to teams varies too. McGuire might be a top line prospect for Toronto now. But he wasn't a top line prospect for the Pirates with Bell, Meadows, Glasnow, Keller, Hayes, Newman, Tucker and Craig. I like McGuire, but I don't see him helping the Pirates any time soon with Cervelli and Diaz ahead of him.
2017 Bullpen
Hutchison was a DFA candidate in Toronto.
Only in pirateland can a player like that be said to be worth two top 10 prospects in a strong system with a straight face. It takes a special kind of fan. I admire that level of zealotry.
But this thread is about the roster not the Liriano debacle (again). For sure that trade adds weight to Hutchison getting that #5 spot on a scholarship. Add 2+mil in arb, no options, and you've got a very very good chance he's your man. At the very least, he's on the team. Little doubt.
Only in pirateland can a player like that be said to be worth two top 10 prospects in a strong system with a straight face. It takes a special kind of fan. I admire that level of zealotry.
But this thread is about the roster not the Liriano debacle (again). For sure that trade adds weight to Hutchison getting that #5 spot on a scholarship. Add 2+mil in arb, no options, and you've got a very very good chance he's your man. At the very least, he's on the team. Little doubt.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
2017 Bullpen
Well, that trade keeps being brought up. I think we found the whipping boy this year: Hutchison. Fans don't like him right now and he hasn't even done anything. It wasn't his doing in being traded. If he pitches bad, he will get boo-ed louder and longer than most.
Hutchison can be a bullpen pitcher too if he loses the 5th spot. I don't see the others in competition going to the bullpen. I am worried about Hughes. He wasn't very good last year either.
Hutchison can be a bullpen pitcher too if he loses the 5th spot. I don't see the others in competition going to the bullpen. I am worried about Hughes. He wasn't very good last year either.
2017 Bullpen
Hutchison is very much a gamble to me. He was in the Blue Jays rotation for two years and then without an injury interruption he had to go back to AAA.
That is not a common track record for starting pitchers.
I just have a hard time believing he can even be a Charlie Morton (apparently he is like Morton in that he can look great and then fall apart at drop of a hat).
That is not a common track record for starting pitchers.
I just have a hard time believing he can even be a Charlie Morton (apparently he is like Morton in that he can look great and then fall apart at drop of a hat).
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
2017 Bullpen
I think something that will be interesting to follow is how opinions on Hutchison will be colored by opinions on the controversial way he came to be a Pirate. I think people here are doing a pretty good job of separating that, but it will always be in the back of mind as long as he remains in the organization.