OnlyBucs

674A47565140571714250 wrote:

Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough. 
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.



BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml


Thinking about trade philosophy -

I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect.  But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present. 



Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?



The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?



I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year.  The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff.  With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff. 



A long shot, but a chance.  There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.




I think it comes down to what your opinion is of Glasnow at this point.  I am still cautiously optimistic that he can make a difference as a starter as soon as later this year.  If that's the case, it's foolish to give up him plus something else plus something else; with the hopefulness that maybe we win the lottery and something bad happens to the Cubs. 



I certainly understand the other way of thinking though.  I think it would be great to get him.  I mean I very well have been the first person to bring up Quintana's name here when the White Sox stated trading off all their guys.
A cautionary tale: The 2007 Mariners finished in 2nd place at 88-74, six games behind the division winner and it was the team's 3rd year in a row of improving their record. So they made a bold move to get over the hump. They dealt prospects Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and Kam Mickolio and reliever George Sherrill to Baltimore for one of the top A.L. pitchers Eric Bedard. The trade didn't result in a championship for either team. But Jones has been the face of the Baltimore franchise for the past 9 years and Tillman has been their top starter. We'll never know how much difference Bedard would have made with Seattle if he hadn't gotten injured. But the Mariners have had only 3 winning seasons since that trade with 87 wins being the tops. Probably safe to say that even if Bedard had been productive, the Mariners would have been batter off with the players they traded away.


No doubt caution is required. It may not work, may blow up. But many examples can be offered that resulted in a team winning a WS after a bold trade.



What's the downside? What's the upside? If a trade creates a greater opportunity to win a championship but also blowing up the future is that better or worse then preserving a middling present and future if no trade is made?



This team is not a realistic WS contender. Q would potentially move them into that catagory.

5F57546375507778160 wrote:

Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough. 
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.



BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml


Thinking about trade philosophy -

I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect.  But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present. 



Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?



The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?



I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year.  The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff.  With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff. 



A long shot, but a chance.  There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.




I think it comes down to what your opinion is of Glasnow at this point.  I am still cautiously optimistic that he can make a difference as a starter as soon as later this year.  If that's the case, it's foolish to give up him plus something else plus something else; with the hopefulness that maybe we win the lottery and something bad happens to the Cubs. 



I certainly understand the other way of thinking though.  I think it would be great to get him.  I mean I very well have been the first person to bring up Quintana's name here when the White Sox stated trading off all their guys.
A cautionary tale: The 2007 Mariners finished in 2nd place at 88-74, six games behind the division winner and it was the team's 3rd year in a row of improving their record. So they made a bold move to get over the hump. They dealt prospects Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and Kam Mickolio and reliever George Sherrill to Baltimore for one of the top A.L. pitchers Eric Bedard. The trade didn't result in a championship for either team. But Jones has been the face of the Baltimore franchise for the past 9 years and Tillman has been their top starter. We'll never know how much difference Bedard would have made with Seattle if he hadn't gotten injured. But the Mariners have had only 3 winning seasons since that trade with 87 wins being the tops. Probably safe to say that even if Bedard had been productive, the Mariners would have been batter off with the players they traded away.


This is true.  Every good player was a prospect at one point in time.  Some guys live up to their predictions.  Some guys fall short.  Some guys go way above and beyond who they were anticipated to be in the minors.  It's faulty logic to say, "He's just a prospect!  He hasn't done/proven anything yet!"  That's the point...yet.  You might be trading away the next Mike Trout, or the next Alen Hanson.  You just don't know.  However, with advanced analytics, computers, and cameras watching every swing, every ground ball, every throw, I think it's getting easier and easier to predict who will become a star and who will flop.  As much as I would love to have Quintana, I would hate to trade Glasnow and see him win two or three Cy Youngs in a White Sox uniform.


But we have to remember that this trade was bold for the O's as well. They gambled as well. In the end the M's regret the move; the O's celebrate the move. The O's could have held on out of risk that the prospects don't develop.

This has to be a new record for nested quotes.

3235232B2532757900272D21292C6E232F2D400 wrote:

Maybe I'm just too timid with these kinds of things, but I'm leery of cashing in all (most) of your chips in order to still not be good enough. 
I agree. We're still wondering if Cole, Cutch, Harrison and Cervelli will bounce back. And if Kang will play at all this year. And if Watson can be a legit closer. It would be very possible to make that trade for Quintana and still not get past the WC game if they got there at all. It's very possible everyone bounces back and the starting rotation does well. But there are enough questions that I would not give up those prospects to go "all in" with Quintana when getting him may not be enough.



BTW-Baseball reference lists comparable all-time pitchers by the same age (27) as Quintana and #4 is Jon Niese. Yikes!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml


Thinking about trade philosophy -

I use to "horde" prospects, never trade a big time prospect.  But I know my philosophy was based upon years of ineptitude by the Buccos and protecting the future was every bit as important as the present. 



Regarding the possibility of trading three prospects for a potential frontline starter, but not pulling the trigger because it "probably won't make a difference" - what difference will the prospects make in the future on a Pirates team never quite good enough?



The Cubs aren't going anywhere for the next bunch of years. So what are we playing for?



I agree with Ia above that the Cubs could come back to earth just a bit this year.  The best way to beat them is with a dominating staff.  With the right trade this has the potential to be a dominating staff. 



A long shot, but a chance.  There's no real chance if the Pirate's goal is to ensure a "pretty good team" can be fielded each year.




I think it comes down to what your opinion is of Glasnow at this point.  I am still cautiously optimistic that he can make a difference as a starter as soon as later this year.  If that's the case, it's foolish to give up him plus something else plus something else; with the hopefulness that maybe we win the lottery and something bad happens to the Cubs. 



I certainly understand the other way of thinking though.  I think it would be great to get him.  I mean I very well have been the first person to bring up Quintana's name here when the White Sox stated trading off all their guys.
A cautionary tale: The 2007 Mariners finished in 2nd place at 88-74, six games behind the division winner and it was the team's 3rd year in a row of improving their record. So they made a bold move to get over the hump. They dealt prospects Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and Kam Mickolio and reliever George Sherrill to Baltimore for one of the top A.L. pitchers Eric Bedard. The trade didn't result in a championship for either team. But Jones has been the face of the Baltimore franchise for the past 9 years and Tillman has been their top starter. We'll never know how much difference Bedard would have made with Seattle if he hadn't gotten injured. But the Mariners have had only 3 winning seasons since that trade with 87 wins being the tops. Probably safe to say that even if Bedard had been productive, the Mariners would have been batter off with the players they traded away.


This is true.  Every good player was a prospect at one point in time.  Some guys live up to their predictions.  Some guys fall short.  Some guys go way above and beyond who they were anticipated to be in the minors.  It's faulty logic to say, "He's just a prospect!  He hasn't done/proven anything yet!"  That's the point...yet.  You might be trading away the next Mike Trout, or the next Alen Hanson.  You just don't know.  However, with advanced analytics, computers, and cameras watching every swing, every ground ball, every throw, I think it's getting easier and easier to predict who will become a star and who will flop.  As much as I would love to have Quintana, I would hate to trade Glasnow and see him win two or three Cy Youngs in a White Sox uniform.


But we have to remember that this trade was bold for the O's as well.  They gambled as well.  In the end the M's regret the move; the O's celebrate the move.  The O's could have held on out of risk that the prospects don't develop.




I don't know. The Orioles were probably rebuilding. They had 69 wins in 2007 (70 in 2006).



I think the Pirates are in a different position. The Pirates are one season removed from three playoff appearances. I see both sides of the Pirates dealing high prospects now. These prospects could be game changers down the road, but a top pitcher now could put them in a better playoff picture. Tough call. Neither is a guarantee.

484F59515F480F037A5D575B5356145955573A0 wrote: I agree with Glasnow being the deciding factor - if he's on the verge of dominating I'd rather have his years plus Bell and Keller. 



For the life of me I don't see how he manages the big leagues' running game or the big league bats that aren't missing the 2nd time through the lineup.  I hope I'm dead wrong.
See that's just it. I don't think your wrong. I've seen him pitch in person. How many here have seen him? The big strikeout numbers are nice, but he is wildly inconsistent. I don't see him making a huge impact this season. I just don't think he is ready. He is working on holding runners, instituting a slide step, along with trying to figure out a 3rd pitch. I hope I'm wrong but I see him in the pen in the future.

6D6C7766703037030 wrote: I agree with Glasnow being the deciding factor - if he's on the verge of dominating I'd rather have his years plus Bell and Keller. 



For the life of me I don't see how he manages the big leagues' running game or the big league bats that aren't missing the 2nd time through the lineup.  I hope I'm dead wrong.
See that's just it. I don't think your wrong. I've seen him pitch in person. How many here have seen him? The big strikeout numbers are nice, but he is wildly inconsistent. I don't see him making a huge impact this season. I just don't think he is ready. He is working on holding runners, instituting a slide step, along with trying to figure out a 3rd pitch. I hope I'm wrong but I see him in the pen in the future.


Agreed on all points.  I saw him this spring, the ultimate SSS. 



BUt I'm confused when Neil says he has nothing left to work on At AAA, he sure looks like he needs to work on everything you sited.  And if, what we've seen is what we going to get, then I say move him while other folks are still looking at potential that's not going to be realized. 



Note - I really hope I'm wrong. 

7A71797570716A2F295E677F767171307D711E0 wrote:

A cautionary tale: The 2007 Mariners finished in 2nd place at 88-74, six games behind the division winner and it was the team's 3rd year in a row of improving their record. So they made a bold move to get over the hump. They dealt prospects Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and Kam Mickolio and reliever George Sherrill to Baltimore for one of the top A.L. pitchers Eric Bedard. The trade didn't result in a championship for either team. But Jones has been the face of the Baltimore franchise for the past 9 years and Tillman has been their top starter. We'll never know how much difference Bedard would have made with Seattle if he hadn't gotten injured. But the Mariners have had only 3 winning seasons since that trade with 87 wins being the tops. Probably safe to say that even if Bedard had been productive, the Mariners would have been batter off with the players they traded away.


This is true.  Every good player was a prospect at one point in time.  Some guys live up to their predictions.  Some guys fall short.  Some guys go way above and beyond who they were anticipated to be in the minors.  It's faulty logic to say, "He's just a prospect!  He hasn't done/proven anything yet!"  That's the point...yet.  You might be trading away the next Mike Trout, or the next Alen Hanson.  You just don't know.  However, with advanced analytics, computers, and cameras watching every swing, every ground ball, every throw, I think it's getting easier and easier to predict who will become a star and who will flop.  As much as I would love to have Quintana, I would hate to trade Glasnow and see him win two or three Cy Youngs in a White Sox uniform.


But we have to remember that this trade was bold for the O's as well.  They gambled as well.  In the end the M's regret the move; the O's celebrate the move.  The O's could have held on out of risk that the prospects don't develop.




I don't know.  The Orioles were probably rebuilding.  They had 69 wins in 2007 (70 in 2006).



I think the Pirates are in a different position.  The Pirates are one season removed from three playoff appearances.  I see both sides of the Pirates dealing high prospects now.  These prospects could be game changers down the road, but a top pitcher now could put them in a better playoff picture.  Tough call.  Neither is a guarantee.
Yes Dog, the Orioles were rebuilding. The comparison was not with them, it was with Seattle who had improved their record 3 years in a row, were 84-78 in 2nd place and went all in to get Bedard.

This grade is a D+ and that was because it resigned Nova.  Who of significance was really brought in that will project to help?



Lost SRod, Joyce ... that kills the bench right there.  DF has to start the season because Kang can't keep his behavior straight.  That is another loss off the bench.  The solution?  A failed guy in Arizona?  Gosselin?



There was absolutely no improvement here. Didn't do anything to really improve the rotation. We are going to be throwing AAA talents out there in the back two.