6269616D6869723731467F676E6969286569060 wrote: 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.
I agree there. Hughes really shouldn't be on the team. If they go with Brault, which I think is unlikely but possible, putting Hutchison in the pen as long man is an easy way to keep him in the org. There's room. Who else is going to be long-man d would that person be demonstrably better than Hutchison?
Finally, whoever that is would have options while Hutchison doesn't.
Hutch is on the club. I can't really see a scenario where he's not
2017 Bullpen
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
2017 Bullpen
6A5854544072515855505F58390 wrote: 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.
Yes but only if he fails (i.e., is no better than Locke or Morton). If he becomes an asset, no one will care how much it took to get him. But your point is valid. In many ways the opinion of Alvarez was clouded by what it took to get him. Agent Boros holding out for more and more money as if the Pirates were obtaining a franchise player and even trying to get out of signing with the Pirates altogether. This created expectations for Alvarez that he didn't have the ability to fulfill. (And, yes, I know he had power and won a "Silver Slugger" when all it took was a .233 BA, a .296 OBP and 186 Ks but he was never the franchise player the fans expected after Boros held him out.) Similarly, expectations for Hutchison are probably effected more by the trade than by his past performance.
Yes but only if he fails (i.e., is no better than Locke or Morton). If he becomes an asset, no one will care how much it took to get him. But your point is valid. In many ways the opinion of Alvarez was clouded by what it took to get him. Agent Boros holding out for more and more money as if the Pirates were obtaining a franchise player and even trying to get out of signing with the Pirates altogether. This created expectations for Alvarez that he didn't have the ability to fulfill. (And, yes, I know he had power and won a "Silver Slugger" when all it took was a .233 BA, a .296 OBP and 186 Ks but he was never the franchise player the fans expected after Boros held him out.) Similarly, expectations for Hutchison are probably effected more by the trade than by his past performance.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
2017 Bullpen
Yeah, I agree and that is kind of sad. Hutchison has to do more to win over the fans because people aren't happy how he was acquired. This reminds me of a lesser Daniel Moskos.
Moskos used to get boo-ed when he warmed up in the minors. He was heckled just because where/when he was drafted. He said it took a tool on him too. Those minor league fans are close to the bullpen too. It wasn't his fault he was taken fourth overall in front of Matt Weiters.
Moskos used to get boo-ed when he warmed up in the minors. He was heckled just because where/when he was drafted. He said it took a tool on him too. Those minor league fans are close to the bullpen too. It wasn't his fault he was taken fourth overall in front of Matt Weiters.
2017 Bullpen
6B60686461607B3E384F766E676060216C600F0 wrote:
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.
Gotta disagree with you here, too. Trade value is objective, or at least, it should be, not subjective relative to a team. Now, might a team overpay or underpay on occasion? Sure. But trade value still needs to be evaluated objectively.
I'll use another investment analogy. If Jeff Bezos wants to sell 100 shares of Apple stock, those shares are worth the same to him (roughly $140 a share) as they would be to me. The fact that Jeff Bezos is a billionaire and I'm not has no bearing on what his shares are worth, or that he owns millions of shares of Amazon.
Could the Pirates give away prospects out of the goodness of their hearts? Sure. But they aren't a charity organization. They're trying to win baseball games. Even if we had a surplus of catching and outfielders, it doesn't matter. You expect teams to pay market rate for your players. The fact is that on this trade, at least to my untrained eye, the Pirates paid more than was needed for Hutchison, or didn't demand enough for two of their top ten prospects.
Anyway, what's done is done. Hutchison wears black and gold now. As such, I'm going to root for him. I'll never boo him.
I'm listening to the Pirates game and watching a bit of the NCAA Tourney. Cole is on his A game today. As Greg Brown is describing it, this is as good as Cole has ever looked. That's great news. Ngoepe also made a great defensive play.
Cole consistently hitting 97, 5 Ks through three innings.
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.
Gotta disagree with you here, too. Trade value is objective, or at least, it should be, not subjective relative to a team. Now, might a team overpay or underpay on occasion? Sure. But trade value still needs to be evaluated objectively.
I'll use another investment analogy. If Jeff Bezos wants to sell 100 shares of Apple stock, those shares are worth the same to him (roughly $140 a share) as they would be to me. The fact that Jeff Bezos is a billionaire and I'm not has no bearing on what his shares are worth, or that he owns millions of shares of Amazon.
Could the Pirates give away prospects out of the goodness of their hearts? Sure. But they aren't a charity organization. They're trying to win baseball games. Even if we had a surplus of catching and outfielders, it doesn't matter. You expect teams to pay market rate for your players. The fact is that on this trade, at least to my untrained eye, the Pirates paid more than was needed for Hutchison, or didn't demand enough for two of their top ten prospects.
Anyway, what's done is done. Hutchison wears black and gold now. As such, I'm going to root for him. I'll never boo him.
I'm listening to the Pirates game and watching a bit of the NCAA Tourney. Cole is on his A game today. As Greg Brown is describing it, this is as good as Cole has ever looked. That's great news. Ngoepe also made a great defensive play.
Cole consistently hitting 97, 5 Ks through three innings.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
2017 Bullpen
Have you ever traded or bartered with anyone? What about baseball cards when you were little?
I remember trading a Danny Tartabull rookie card for an Eric Davis second year. I wanted more for my card, but I also had three of them. I didn't have that Davis card. That Davis card was worth more to me than that third Tartabull card.
Teams make lopsided trades all the time. They trade for needs. The Pirates traded 23 year old Moises Alou for 29 year old Zane Smith. Smith helped the Pirates beat the Mets in 1990 and signed as a free agent with the Pirates and pitched five more years. Alou went on to bat over .300 for a 17 year career. But Smith was more valuable to the Pirates than Alou considering the Pirates had three all star outfielders already. If Smith didn't sign as a free agent, they would have only had him for two months.
So yes, teams do value players differently. You should watch the TV Show Barter Kings. It will show you what value means to different people.
I remember trading a Danny Tartabull rookie card for an Eric Davis second year. I wanted more for my card, but I also had three of them. I didn't have that Davis card. That Davis card was worth more to me than that third Tartabull card.
Teams make lopsided trades all the time. They trade for needs. The Pirates traded 23 year old Moises Alou for 29 year old Zane Smith. Smith helped the Pirates beat the Mets in 1990 and signed as a free agent with the Pirates and pitched five more years. Alou went on to bat over .300 for a 17 year career. But Smith was more valuable to the Pirates than Alou considering the Pirates had three all star outfielders already. If Smith didn't sign as a free agent, they would have only had him for two months.
So yes, teams do value players differently. You should watch the TV Show Barter Kings. It will show you what value means to different people.
-
Bobster21
2017 Bullpen
2F242C2025243F7A7C0B322A2324246528244B0 wrote: Have you ever traded or bartered with anyone? What about baseball cards when you were little?
I remember trading a Danny Tartabull rookie card for an Eric Davis second year. I wanted more for my card, but I also had three of them. I didn't have that Davis card. That Davis card was worth more to me than that third Tartabull card.
Teams make lopsided trades all the time. They trade for needs. The Pirates traded 23 year old Moises Alou for 29 year old Zane Smith. Smith helped the Pirates beat the Mets in 1990 and signed as a free agent with the Pirates and pitched five more years. Alou went on to bat over .300 for a 17 year career. But Smith was more valuable to the Pirates than Alou considering the Pirates had three all star outfielders already. If Smith didn't sign as a free agent, they would have only had him for two months.
So yes, teams do value players differently. You should watch the TV Show Barter Kings. It will show you what value means to different people.
Gotta disagree. The value of a player being traded should not be diminished by whether or not he is surplus to his team. A GM who trades away players in that manner is shortchanging the return his team should be getting.
Let's say by midseason, Meadows is having a super year in AAA (as expected) and Polanco, Marte and Cutch are all having all-star seasons. Cutch regains both his hitting and fielding prowess and the team announces he has signed a team friendly contract to finish his career as a Pirate. So the Orioles approach NH about Meadows saying they'd love to have him but don't think they should have to give up much since the Pirate OF is now set for years to come and the Pirates don't really need Meadows. NH would be foolish to discount Meadows simply because he was surplus. Rather, his response should be that Meadows has great value to whoever would acquire him and if one team doesn't offer an appropriate trade, another probably will.
You discounted your 3rd Tartabull rookie card because you didn't need it. IMHO, you made a poor deal since you said you wanted more for it but took less. A GM who could get more but takes less probably won't be a GM for long.
I remember trading a Danny Tartabull rookie card for an Eric Davis second year. I wanted more for my card, but I also had three of them. I didn't have that Davis card. That Davis card was worth more to me than that third Tartabull card.
Teams make lopsided trades all the time. They trade for needs. The Pirates traded 23 year old Moises Alou for 29 year old Zane Smith. Smith helped the Pirates beat the Mets in 1990 and signed as a free agent with the Pirates and pitched five more years. Alou went on to bat over .300 for a 17 year career. But Smith was more valuable to the Pirates than Alou considering the Pirates had three all star outfielders already. If Smith didn't sign as a free agent, they would have only had him for two months.
So yes, teams do value players differently. You should watch the TV Show Barter Kings. It will show you what value means to different people.
Gotta disagree. The value of a player being traded should not be diminished by whether or not he is surplus to his team. A GM who trades away players in that manner is shortchanging the return his team should be getting.
Let's say by midseason, Meadows is having a super year in AAA (as expected) and Polanco, Marte and Cutch are all having all-star seasons. Cutch regains both his hitting and fielding prowess and the team announces he has signed a team friendly contract to finish his career as a Pirate. So the Orioles approach NH about Meadows saying they'd love to have him but don't think they should have to give up much since the Pirate OF is now set for years to come and the Pirates don't really need Meadows. NH would be foolish to discount Meadows simply because he was surplus. Rather, his response should be that Meadows has great value to whoever would acquire him and if one team doesn't offer an appropriate trade, another probably will.
You discounted your 3rd Tartabull rookie card because you didn't need it. IMHO, you made a poor deal since you said you wanted more for it but took less. A GM who could get more but takes less probably won't be a GM for long.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
2017 Bullpen
Players still have different values for different teams. Two months of Mark Melancon was more valuable to the Nationals winning it all than the six years of control for Felipe Rivero. This happens all the time.
Accepting the lower value for Meadows in your situation would be bad for that GM. But that doesn't mean the offers will be higher knowing the situation. Teams would like to get something knowing certain players aren't needed. This is why a lot of players at the end of their contracts are dealt.
Because you want more doesn't mean you will get more. Having those three Tartabulls hurt me as my trading partner knew I would take less in that situation. Striking at the right time is important too. Thirty years later, I made the right deal. At the time, it was laughed at on my playground.
Accepting the lower value for Meadows in your situation would be bad for that GM. But that doesn't mean the offers will be higher knowing the situation. Teams would like to get something knowing certain players aren't needed. This is why a lot of players at the end of their contracts are dealt.
Because you want more doesn't mean you will get more. Having those three Tartabulls hurt me as my trading partner knew I would take less in that situation. Striking at the right time is important too. Thirty years later, I made the right deal. At the time, it was laughed at on my playground.
-
Bobster21
2017 Bullpen
656E666A6F6E753036417860696E6E2F626E010 wrote: Players still have different values for different teams. Two months of Mark Melancon was more valuable to the Nationals winning it all than the six years of control for Felipe Rivero. This happens all the time.
Accepting the lower value for Meadows in your situation would be bad for that GM. But that doesn't mean the offers will be higher knowing the situation. Teams would like to get something knowing certain players aren't needed. This is why a lot of players at the end of their contracts are dealt.
Because you want more doesn't mean you will get more. Having those three Tartabulls hurt me as my trading partner knew I would take less in that situation. Striking at the right time is important too. Thirty years later, I made the right deal. At the time, it was laughed at on my playground.
You seem to be confusing 2 different concepts. Yes, players have different values to different teams. If you ask a team that already has a great closer what they will give you for your great closer, they probably won't give you much because they already have that need filled. But a team in need of a great closer will make a substantial offer. But the worth of the great closer you want to trade is not diminished by the fact that you already have a ready replacement. It's called trading from strength. Part of any team's philosophy for building a strong farm system is that, in addition to developing useful players, it also enables the team to acquire outside talent by trading from a surplus. But it would be self-defeating to take less than your surplus players are worth simply because they are surplus to your team.
Accepting the lower value for Meadows in your situation would be bad for that GM. But that doesn't mean the offers will be higher knowing the situation. Teams would like to get something knowing certain players aren't needed. This is why a lot of players at the end of their contracts are dealt.
Because you want more doesn't mean you will get more. Having those three Tartabulls hurt me as my trading partner knew I would take less in that situation. Striking at the right time is important too. Thirty years later, I made the right deal. At the time, it was laughed at on my playground.
You seem to be confusing 2 different concepts. Yes, players have different values to different teams. If you ask a team that already has a great closer what they will give you for your great closer, they probably won't give you much because they already have that need filled. But a team in need of a great closer will make a substantial offer. But the worth of the great closer you want to trade is not diminished by the fact that you already have a ready replacement. It's called trading from strength. Part of any team's philosophy for building a strong farm system is that, in addition to developing useful players, it also enables the team to acquire outside talent by trading from a surplus. But it would be self-defeating to take less than your surplus players are worth simply because they are surplus to your team.
2017 Bullpen
4F626F7E79687F3F3C0D0 wrote: Players still have different values for different teams. Two months of Mark Melancon was more valuable to the Nationals winning it all than the six years of control for Felipe Rivero. This happens all the time.
Accepting the lower value for Meadows in your situation would be bad for that GM. But that doesn't mean the offers will be higher knowing the situation. Teams would like to get something knowing certain players aren't needed. This is why a lot of players at the end of their contracts are dealt.
Because you want more doesn't mean you will get more. Having those three Tartabulls hurt me as my trading partner knew I would take less in that situation. Striking at the right time is important too. Thirty years later, I made the right deal. At the time, it was laughed at on my playground.
You seem to be confusing 2 different concepts. Yes, players have different values to different teams. If you ask a team that already has a great closer what they will give you for your great closer, they probably won't give you much because they already have that need filled. But a team in need of a great closer will make a substantial offer. But the worth of the great closer you want to trade is not diminished by the fact that you already have a ready replacement. It's called trading from strength. Part of any team's philosophy for building a strong farm system is that, in addition to developing useful players, it also enables the team to acquire outside talent by trading from a surplus. But it would be self-defeating to take less than your surplus players are worth simply because they are surplus to your team.
yep, dealing from strength is the key and you deal with a team that has a weakness. That is how to get maximum value. I look at the Liriano trade as similar to the Ramirez deal with the Cubs. The Bucs were desperate to make a deal each time.
Accepting the lower value for Meadows in your situation would be bad for that GM. But that doesn't mean the offers will be higher knowing the situation. Teams would like to get something knowing certain players aren't needed. This is why a lot of players at the end of their contracts are dealt.
Because you want more doesn't mean you will get more. Having those three Tartabulls hurt me as my trading partner knew I would take less in that situation. Striking at the right time is important too. Thirty years later, I made the right deal. At the time, it was laughed at on my playground.
You seem to be confusing 2 different concepts. Yes, players have different values to different teams. If you ask a team that already has a great closer what they will give you for your great closer, they probably won't give you much because they already have that need filled. But a team in need of a great closer will make a substantial offer. But the worth of the great closer you want to trade is not diminished by the fact that you already have a ready replacement. It's called trading from strength. Part of any team's philosophy for building a strong farm system is that, in addition to developing useful players, it also enables the team to acquire outside talent by trading from a surplus. But it would be self-defeating to take less than your surplus players are worth simply because they are surplus to your team.
yep, dealing from strength is the key and you deal with a team that has a weakness. That is how to get maximum value. I look at the Liriano trade as similar to the Ramirez deal with the Cubs. The Bucs were desperate to make a deal each time.
-
DemDog
2017 Bullpen
Back on topic. What the heck is up with Watson? Guy has just gone to the crapper since being named as closer. He got lit up again today and the same for Bastardo who had a couple decent outings but got lit up today. But Hughes, everyones BP whipping boy pitched a clean inning today. Go figure.