Luis Gonzalez: A Bad Fit for the Bench
(UPDATE: A couple hours after I suggested the Pirates might pursue Eric Hinske, a report came out that they are, in fact, doing that. Hinske's defensively challenged, but I like him a lot more than I like Gonzalez; he's younger, more versatile, and a better hitter.)
* * *
Let's assume the Pirates' hitters will be aligned like this. This isn't the alignment I prefer, but is rather my best guess about what the management team wants to do, so let's take this arrangement as a given for now.
STARTERS
C Ryan Doumit, 1B Adam LaRoche, 2B, Freddy Sanchez, SS Jack Wilson, OF Nyjer Morgan (?!), OF Nate McLouth, OF Brandon Moss
BENCH
C Jason Jaramillo, IF Ramon Vazquez, ???
AAA
C Robinzon Diaz, 1B/OF Steve Pearce, OF Andrew McCutchen
Morgan's awful, of course, and shouldn't be starting, but every indication we've received so far is that he will. Management wants Pearce starting in AAA, so we can't use him for one of the outfield bench spots. Diaz might beat out Jaramillo, but that really doesn't matter right now--one will be the backup catcher in the majors, and the other will start in AAA. Either way, catcher is covered, and Vazquez is a good, versatile bench player who should be able to cover second, short and third.
What do you do with the other three bench spots? Ideally, two of these players would be outfielders. Versatility and ability to hit would be desirable traits for all these guys, but particularly in the outfield, since one of your starting outfielders (Moss) is dubious and calling another (Morgan) dubious would be kind. Also, someone who could play first would be nice, since your first baseman doesn't show up until May. Finally, the starter at third could be a problem and you probably don't want Vazquez starting there long-term. (Russell Branyan, who can hit and play all four corners, would have made a ton of sense for the Pirates, and they actually did pursue him, but he signed with the Mariners instead. Oh well.)
Unless your priority is pacifying a fanbase that just can't get enough of gritty old guys like Doug Mientkiewicz, Luis Gonzalez doesn't really make sense for the Pirates. He doesn't hit terribly well, he can't play center field or first base (he hasn't played center since 1998 or first since 1998). Right field isn't a possibility either, since he may have the worst outfield arm in the major leagues. For a team with a tenuous outfield situation, it's not good to have a bench spot occupied by a 41-year-old who can only play left field.
The Pirates already have Jeff Salazar, a better, more versatile defensive outfielder and probably Gonzalez' equal as a hitter, signed to a minor league contract. The Pirates should let him have one of the bench spots. They also have Andy Phillips, a good minor-league hitter who can probably fill the Mientkiewicz infield-corners role perfectly well. Phillips can also fill in at second and left in a pinch, and he's a righty, so he can take some at bats against tough lefties away from Adam LaRoche early in the season.
So the smart thing to do, in my opinion, would be to forget about Gonzalez and not worry much about Mientkiewicz. The Pirates have had plenty of veteran leaders over the years--Matt Stairs, Jose Mesa, Matt Morris, Mientkiewicz. These players never seem to have any effect on wins and losses (well, Stairs did, but only because he actually produced), and if they're poorly suited to the team, like Morris was, they cause more problems than they solve. Gonzalez is poorly suited to this team.
If we put Salazar and Phillips in two of the bench spots, there is still one roster spot left for a hitter, probably an outfielder. There are a few viable directions the Pirates could go with this.
1) Suck it up, break the silly payroll limit and sign someone who's actually good, like Adam Dunn and Bobby Abreu, to a one- or two-year contract. This is the Bucs Dugout-endorsed path to take. It's possible that neither of those players would come to Pittsburgh, but we don't know, because we haven't read any reports that the Pirates have made competitive offers--actually, any offers--to either of these guys. They'd be expensive, but the Bucs could use the Gonzalez money to pay one of them for a month and actually get something back for their investment.
2) Sign someone potentially less expensive than Dunn but capable of contributing and somewhat more versatile than Gonzalez, like Eric Hinske.
3) Make a trade.
4) Start Morgan (or whatever) and sign a couple more guys with some versatility and some smidgen of upside to minor-league contracts. I'm thinking of people like Chip Ambres, who strikes me as pretty obviously good enough to be a major-league bench outfielder.
Unless we are to believe that it is critically important to placate a fanbase more interested in veteran leadership than in winning baseball games, any of the options above would, in my opinion, make more sense than signing Luis Gonzalez.
A hat tip to the commenters in the last Gonzalez thread, who got me thinking harder about this. Like WTM, I really don't understand the way Neal Huntington has constructed major league benches so far.
0 recs |
55 comments
Comments
In everything I’ve said, I’ve assumed that Gonzalez would be signed to a major league contract. Assuming that’s right, he could gum things up at the end of the spring. I would like to see the 40-man have room for at least Salazar, Phillips, and Juan Mateo. It’ll be a lot easier to cut Virgil Vasquez or Luis Cruz than Luis Gonzalez.
by Arnold Rothstein on Jan 27, 2009 5:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It’ll be a lot easier to cut Virgil Vasquez or Luis Cruz thanLuis Gonzaleza random human.
Fixed.
by WTM on Jan 27, 2009 5:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Am I missing something?
I thought DKs post stated that NH “talked” to Luis Gonzales? Right? Well he could talk to Manny Ramirez but that doesn’t mean they have interest in signing him. Maybe there was just checking in to see if he’d be interested in a minor league contract. I just think we are getting awfully worked up about something that hasn’t happened yet, and IMO probably won’t happen.
Anway, in other news I see that Chase Wright was DFAd by the Yankees. His era was good and he’s a lefty…should we be interested? Don’t know much about him…anyone?
by Slick1 on Jan 27, 2009 6:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ask and you shall recieve
Looks like management read number 2.
by buccos on Jan 27, 2009 6:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Jacque Jones
Wasn’t such an “out there” idea…..
by letsgobuccos79 on Jan 27, 2009 7:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Gonzo
I’m all for the signing as long as our broadcasters don’t call him Gonzo and act like they were the first ones to ever call him that like they did with our former closer.
by letsgobuccos79 on Jan 27, 2009 7:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm somewhat late to the discussion...
as I just got off work…but there definitely appears to be legs to the Hinske rumor…as DK now also reporting talks.
http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/pbc/archive/2009/01/27/hinske-in-outfield-mix-too.aspx
by Thunder on Jan 27, 2009 8:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
that's a bit better
hinske can back up all of the OF positions and mash against righties. he’s not abreu or dunn, but i can see some sense behind that signing.
by johnnycuff on Jan 27, 2009 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
oops
meant to say back up the corner positions
by johnnycuff on Jan 27, 2009 8:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bench spots
I like Hinske for one spot – can platoon with Little or Big LaRoche as needed – and I would bet on Monroe for another spot. At least he has a little pop. Vasquez and Hinske should take care of the infield needs, plus Hinske can play right if needed.
by TPenaRules on Jan 27, 2009 8:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
chip ambres
just signed with the red sox along with former bucco carlos maldonado.
by johnnycuff on Jan 27, 2009 9:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
bench strength
Or, the Pirates could send Morgan back to AAA and sign both Hinske and Ty Wigginton, a lefty-righty combo with power, each of whom can play all 4 corner spots. That might help them avoid 100 losses if nothing else. Word is, Wigginton wants no part of returning to Pittsburgh, but surely he knows the Littlefield gang that so mistreated him is gone.
by rogero on Jan 27, 2009 9:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
PBC should sign Hinske
He’s a poor man’s Adam Dunn — and we all can agree the PBC is the “poor man” of MLB. Start him and put Morgan way, way, way at the end of the bench, unless Hinske is starting at 1B for Mario.
But no Wiggy please — I hate taking steps backward. Plus, IIRC didn’t he pretty much suck in black & gold?
Dunn is holding out for $56M/4 years and rejected Nationals last offer of $40/4 years. He’s not coming off injury or getting old and has got nothing to prove, so there’s absolutely no reason for him to settle for a 1 year contract. Gonzo made $2.5M last year with incentives ($2M base) and will look for something like that this year. They (and Abreu) just aren’t going to be Pirates. I’d still take Garrett Anderson for $6M/1 year and trade him on 7/31 (and then start Cutch in LF), but maybe that’s too rich for PBC?
(And don’t forget that Dunn told the BoSox he absolutely refuses to play 1B, which clearly cuts into his value for NL teams.)
by WstCstBucco on Jan 27, 2009 10:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wiggy
Yeah I remember him being distinctly mediocre with us as well. A lot of errors associated with him as well if I remember correctly. He’s improved a lot since then but I’m not sure how to interpret that improvement.
That being said I wouldn’t mind having him as a bench player but I think he will want more than he’s worth to the Pirates.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Jan 27, 2009 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing wrong with Wiggy if you use him right.
I.e. in LF/RF/1B, not 3B or 2B.
He sucked on toast for us in 2004, but was actually pretty tolerable in 2005, thanks to a late hot streak: .258/.324/.465 (plus a .293/.390/.507 line at AAA). When they non-tendered him that offseason, it was more because they’d had mistaken impressions about what kind of player he was, than it was because his performance actually merited a non-tender.
by Vlad on Jan 28, 2009 8:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just curious
If we were to bench or demote Mr. Excitement, who on this team bats leadoff?
by Zadoras on Jan 27, 2009 10:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The all star with the .356 OBP last year
This is a good question, though. I can understand wanting someone who gets on base to hit in front of McLouth, which Nyjer might do at a .350ish clip, but that shouldn’t be the driving force to start him. I just do think it’s a very big deal who hits leadoff this year.
Maybe Freddy if he hits .300
by DITO on Jan 27, 2009 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dejan reported a month or so ago that Nate was penciled in for leadoff.
Wigginton has batted around .215 career at PNC. We don’t want him for free.
by Arnold Rothstein on Jan 27, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Last year
2008 started with a bench of a C, 2 IF, OF, UT:
Paulino
Morgan
Gomez
Rivas
Mientkiewicz
2009, I’m guessing will necessarily follow a similar pattern. My guess:
Diaz/Jaramillo
Vazquez
Cruz
I think the OF and UT spots are still open, but we’ll only hear about the team talking to OF and UT types, not MI. Probably one should be lefty, one righty. Hinske or Mientkiewicz, wouldn’t be both.
by azibuck on Jan 28, 2009 12:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Conspiracy theory:
Management planted the story about Gonzo in the P-G to try and push Hinske into making a decision one way or the other on their offer, by implying that they were getting ready to go in a different direction and take their offer off the board.
by Vlad on Jan 28, 2009 8:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Charlie and WTM
Given DK’s note this morning, I’m still curious about what you don’t understand about NH’s bench construction. You can disagree on which players to choose, for sure (i.e., 0-for-3vas, Gomez), but you seem to indicate something else. Perhaps more along the lines of the type of players. I’d pass on Gonzalez too, but I think I understand the thinking.
by azibuck on Jan 28, 2009 10:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I understand the formula, I just don’t get the logic behind it.
Washed-up veteran + former AL Central player = Pirate backup
Mientkiewicz, Vazquez and Hinske don’t fit the formula, so I’m fine with them. But I wish NH would make more effort to look for overlooked younger guys with a little upside. The fallacy in his thinking is that you need a really, really old guy to sit on the bench. But backups can get 300-400 ABs a year, especially on a crappy team like the Pirates. The assumption that only a veteran can be productive as a bench player is not a good one, especially when you’re talking about vets like Rivas, Michaels and Monroe, who show every sign of being finished. Better to take a chance that a younger guy can’t adapt to the bench than gamble that a guy with Monroe’s track record is going to produce.
by WTM on Jan 28, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gotcha, it does seem formulaic
I would agree that a great guy to have in the OF bench role would be someone like Pearce. But apparently not Pearce because he hasn’t shown he can hit breaking balls. I’d love for him to show NH he’s made progress on that in ST, then sustain it in Indy for 6-8 weeks, and get called up to shove out whoever is not performing.
But with the (relatively) high floors of the cheap vets, the risk is mitigated. If they go into the season with Pearce and Salazar in two bench roles, then say Moss starts OK, but his knee quickly deteriorates and he’s done for the year. AND, say, Nyjer hits .181 like most people think. If Pearce and Salazar can’t step in and provide average or slightly below average production at worst, it could be a long summer, and it would be NH’s fault for building such a questionable bench.
I know I’m in the minority, but I doubt Salazar or Phillips make the team out of ST. I think with bench players we probably need to look at least as deep as his platoon split. For Hinske, and for that matter perhaps Emil Brown or whatever righty I presume they’ll bring in, their split is pretty solid, and it’s likely their PA will be optimized, or should be.
Maybe at this stage of the rebuilding it does make more sense to be out of the box with the bench and bullpen, but I could see how it might really blow up in their face and the team would be a laughingstock — I mean a 110+ loss laughingstock — if just a couple things went wrong.
by azibuck on Jan 28, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Salazar has a shot, at least not if they sign Hinske or Gonzo, but I think Phillips has a good chance because he hits RH.
by WTM on Jan 28, 2009 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Salazar and Nyjer are fighting for one job.
And unfortunately for Salazar, it’s probably not a fair fight.
by Vlad on Jan 28, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For the record:
I don’t think Nyjer is going to hit .181. I think he’s going to hit something like .270/.325/.340, with a SB/CS that nerfs a lot of his baserunning value. Which would be plenty damaging in and of itself.
by Vlad on Jan 28, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What difference does it make if
we are a 110 loss laughing stock, with a bad bench or a 105 loss laughing stock with a good one? I’d say any significant difference a couple of wise FA signings would make is on the other end – if the Bucs do a lot better than expected and, say, are on track to win 75-80 games based upon the performance of their pitching and starters. Now a couple of good bench pieces could give us a real shot at .500 or maybe even let us contend for awhile if the Cubs and Cards slump.
BTW, a lot of you seem to want Pearce to play a bigger role on the team than management seems to want. I thought I read somewhere that he played winter ball. If this is true does anyone knwo how he did?
by WestCoastBuc on Jan 28, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So-so.
Batted .305, but with mediocre power. Also got sick and lost weight, which may have impacted his performance.
Basically, there’s info there to support whatever conclusion you feel like making.
by Vlad on Jan 28, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I remember McLouth got sick in Mexico. Pretty sure some other guys did, too.
by WTM on Jan 28, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Pirates Need To Make Some BIG Moves!
I find it fairly comical that we are all agonizing over whether to sign Eric Hinske or Luis Gonzalez, and actually thinking that they or Craig Monroe could significantly help the Pirates in 2009 or beyond.
All three of them combined won’t make a difference between 65 and 70 wins.
If these are the major decisions that the Pirates are faced with, the Pirates are in big trouble.
What the Pirates must do is think about what players on the current Pirate roster other teams might be interested in - both right now and in the event somebody on another club is injured in spring training in the next two months.
Now … or then, the Pirates must be ready to strike.
We have pitchers in Maholm, Gorzelanny, Snell, Grabow, Capps and possibly my boy, Duke, that other teams might be interested in. We have LaRoche, Sanchez, Wilson, McLouth, and Doumit as well.
I certainly hope that Team Coonington is exploring the level of interest in these players, and I hope that they are identifying players and prospects in other organizations that they would like to acquire.
Does anybody really think that active roster players 23, 24 and 25 are going to make a significant difference in the Pirates’ on-field performance in 2009?
We need to find players 1-20 before we start worrying about the final pieces.
by thegunner on Jan 28, 2009 1:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Who here thinks Craig Monroe is going to help?
I certainly don’t, and I don’t remember seeing anyone else who does, either.
Late January is a terrible time to try and put together veteran-for-prospect deals. Most teams are going to go dark on non-FA major moves until spring training, when they can assess holes and depth on their rosters and act accordingly.
by Vlad on Jan 28, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad
“Assessing holes and depths on their rosters and act(ing) accordingly” is a 365 day/year job for good front office people involved with evaluating player personnel.
by thegunner on Jan 28, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but...
…if they aren’t sure whether a particular situation is a hole or not, they won’t have access to any new information about the situation until spring training. Right?
And if a team already knew enough about a situation to know that it was a hole that needs filling, then they would’ve also known about the hole during the winter meetings, and tried to make a move then. So to make a major move, we need for some other team to have one of their players pull a hammy during warmups or show up to camp out of shape or age in dog years over the offseason, and thus create a need for our trade commodities.
by Vlad on Jan 28, 2009 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad --- Knowing Where The Holes Are...
The new Pirate front office made very few significant changes prior to the 2008 season, other than improving the bench nicely?
What good did that do us?
Gomez, Minky, and Michaels MIGHT have played a part in a maximum of five wins, but I actually think that three would be a closer figure.
The owner and Team Coonington thought that the Pirates underperformed in 2007 and thought that 2008 would bring greater results from basically the same players.
This was not the case in terms of W-L results although some players performed well individually. Unfortunately, individual performance only benefits the rotisserie (oh, there’s that dreaded word again!) league players.
What is worse - the Pirates are entering 2009 with a roster that, on paper, is inferior to the 2008 roster. The only area that has been seemingly upgraded is the number of starting pitchers to build a staff from. This is extremely important, and I think that Team Huntington did the best that they could in that area.
Plus, I applaud the replacement of our pitching coach. We will see if Joe Kerrigan and our new first base coach can make the difference in 2009.
But there were plenty of holes prior to 2008 and there are still plenty of holes as we are only two months plus away from opening day.
by thegunner on Jan 28, 2009 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
It doesn’t seem to have anything to dowith the post to which you’re replying, which is about the historical timing of roster construction for other teams.
But what the hell. We’ll go with your random tangent for a while.
Huntington is investing in the bench to ensure that the team is no worse than a respectable failure if any of the starters go down, since we still have relatively few upper-level prospects of any quality to stick into the gaps. He’s effectively buying insurance against the team losing 120 games next year, which is awfully nice of him from a fan-service standpoint, in that the team’s primary, secondary, and tertiary objective right now is to put together a good young core for ~2012 and in terms of accomplishing that objective it doesn’t matter much whether we win 68 games next year or 48. The farm is the alpha and the omega. It’s all that matters.
I know you’d like to see a nice smooth geometric progression of five extra wins a year every year for the ML team, but that’s not how real baseball works. Baseball teams aren’t built that way. It’s like wishing for the groundskeepers to sow the outfield with dragons’ teeth and have a new roster of indestructable players spring from the earth fully-formed.
by Vlad on Jan 28, 2009 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad - WOW --- That's A Stretch!!!
So your post above my immediate reply was about “the historical timing of roster construction for other teams”.
I didn’t quite get that from your post; in fact, I don’t imagine anyone else would have gleaned that either.
Vlad, not everything gets done at the winter meetings. As Charlie pointed out today (and as I meant to point out in my previous post today), Seatte (and Jack Z.) has already moved Heilman, who he just acquired a few weeks ago, in an effort to “fill some holes”.
The Pirates must know that they have mediocre players at 2B, SS, 3B, LF and RF. They also have a below average everyday defensive catcher who swings a nice bat.
When a franchise has as many holes as the Pirates, the front office has to try to fill them and they have to be working at it everyday.
by thegunner on Jan 28, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So NH shouldn’t be spending a quarter of his time vacationing at his ranch in Texas???
Oh, wait, that was somebody else . . . .
by WTM on Jan 28, 2009 10:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To repeat myself:
Historically, most teams do not make major trades during this time period. Teams that went into the offseason with recognized holes on their rosters will generally have filled them by now, and teams with unrecognized holes on their rosters will have had no new opportunities to recognize them. Furthermore, there are still many quality free agents available, which temporarily decreases the market value of tradable veterans. Trades like today’s Seattle/Chicago one are the exception, not the rule. Frantically working to swing trades at a time when most teams are not ready or willing to make trades is not a particularly high-percentage strategy.
As for having lots of holes on our roster, I’m not sure I agree. We have incumbent starters at almost all positions, and a whole mess of marginal starters to compete for jobs at the back of our bullpen. The one hole in the lineup is LF/RF, and if we sign Hinske, we’ll fill it. Now, many of these positions aren’t filled with players of particularly high quality, but since the performance of the 2009 team is almost entirely irrelevant to both the goals at hand and the the future of the franchise (barring a 120 loss-type season and an accompanying fan revolt, which seems unlikely), that’s relatively small beer.
by Vlad on Jan 28, 2009 11:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad - "...the performace of the 2009 team is almost entirely irrelevant to...
both the goals at hand and the future of the franchise".
What year will the performance of the franchise become relevant?
Are you honestly waiting for great players at PNC as a result of the 2008-2010 drafts and possible trades of some current major leaguers or trades of some of these newfound future impact stars that we are going to be accumulating as a result of our great new scouting and player development personnel?
Vlad, I hope that you are a relatively young man with a strong respiratory system. But a word of caution - DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH!
And don’t ever let Bob Nutting hear you say that the 2009 Pirate performance is irrelevant. It sounds like he is expecting great improvement this year in the W-L record.
by thegunner on Jan 29, 2009 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, of course he's going to say that.
Selling season tickets is hard enough without the owner coming out and admitting that he’s asking you to subsidize two or three years of poor play in exchange for a nebulous future return. But at the current payroll, it’s the only way for us to climb out of the ditch.
And I know that our scouting/PD people may still screw it up. Smith’s time in Detroit was quite shaky, to take one example. But it’s the only chance we’ve got, and since there’s no way to assess whether we’re on the right track or not for a few years, all we can do is sit on our hands and hope for the best.
It sucks, but it is what it is, and we can’t change it.
by Vlad on Jan 29, 2009 6:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad - You've Got That Right!!!
But I honestly do think that Nutting does expect a better W-L record.
Why would he think that? I have absolutely no idea other than wishful thinking.
by thegunner on Jan 29, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, probably wishcasting.
Nobody wants to buy a MLB team so they can watch it lose every year and become a laughingstock.
by Vlad on Jan 29, 2009 10:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll bet it was just you
I think it was impossible not to get that.
by azibuck on Jan 29, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good grief, no one's agonizing Hinske, etc.
We’re discussing the 2009 makeup of our favorite team. If players 23-25 aren’t important to you, don’t post here. If minor moves a 90+ loss team makes doesn’t interest you, don’t post here.
by azibuck on Jan 28, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
azbuck --- OK, I'll Take It Under Advisement ---But No Promises!
I’m just saying that the Pirate front office has their priorities misplaced.
You needn’t take it so hard. You just need to consider that it might be true.
by thegunner on Jan 28, 2009 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Non-sequiturs
I find it fairly comical that we are all agonizing …
Are you in the Pirates FO? Otherwise, “we”, in the context of this thread, clearly meant we, the fans and commentors at Bucs Dugout. Like I said, we aren’t agonizing, we’re discussing. And why not? It’s the news of the week in a very calm time for the PBC. And if you meant the FO, I highly doubt they’re “agonizing” over these decisions either.
You needn’t take it so hard.
I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about with that. I was honestly and respectfully suggesting that if you don’t understand something or think a discussion is pointless, then stay out of it.
Finally, your overuse of exclamation points displays a lack of maturity, and a belief that that the information you’re presenting is not, on its own merit, strong. But perhaps you should focus on larger issues first, like reading comprehension.
by azibuck on Jan 29, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I thought maybe Leap Day was part of your secret plan for building a winning team somehow.
by WTM on Jan 28, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gunner speaks:
“We have pitchers in Maholm, Gorzelanny, Snell, Grabow, Capps and possibly my boy, Duke, that other teams might be interested in.”
No, your boy is Yoslan Herrera.
In the outfield:
Nate McClouth is a keeper.
Let’s hope Brandon Moss’s knee is fit and he can have a good year.
I’d like to see the team sign Eric Hinske.
It’s far from a done deal that Craig Monroe will make the team out of spring training.
Nyjer Morgan sucks.
Steve Pearce hasn’t shown much of anything, either.
We need an OF who has some power from the right side of the plate in the mix if we are even going to attempt to put a major-league caliber outfield on the field on a daily basis.
But no trade or FA signing is going to make the Pirates a good team in 2009-not even close.
Let’s stay the course of building from within that Huntington and Coonelly started a year ago. And when we’re ready, let’s add to the team at the big-league level to start the team on what we all hope will be a run of many successful seasons next decade.
I hope it doesn’t take five years, but I believe we are headed in the right direction-finally.
by patthatt on Jan 28, 2009 4:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
My BOYS have always been Duke and Herrera!
by thegunner on Jan 28, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Zach Duke does not think this bodes well.
by WTM on Jan 28, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HINSKE IS A POOR MANS DUNN
he brings power to the table and not much else. i like the signing. he probably comes about 6 million dollars cheaper than dunn. i mean theres a good reason for that. he isnt nearly as good as dunn, but he is pretty good.
BRING BACK TIKE REDMAN
by omar moreno on Jan 29, 2009 12:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 













