Please Stop These Silly Trade Ideas!

by zogger on Jun 20, 2011 7:54 PM EDT

If I hear one more "Let's trade a bunch of our junk for some big star" or "Let's trade one of the Big 5 for some top player who will be a FA in a year and half", I will pull what is left of my hair out. Do you guys actually think these ideas are any good? If you are, then you are too into your fantasy leagues.

So here is the reality:

NH will not trade any of the Big 5 (McCutchen, Alvarez, Walker, Tabata, Hanrahan) for the next year or two. These are the core and NH will stick with them to give them time to develop. You don't trade a solid closer when you have no replacement and he is under contract for the next few years. You don't trade your No. 1 pick (Alvarez) after less than 500 ABs.
No team with a top flight player (Met-Reyes/Wright) will be trading with the Bucs when they can be trading with playoff teams that will pay big to win this year. Nobody will give us anything of value for our junk (Overbay, Diaz, Wood, Doumit).
Spending 10M+ for a 3 month rental player makes no sense for the Pirates this year.
Giving up players with potential from our farm system for a rental player makes no sense right now. When the Reds pulled the Rolen deal, they were ready to win-and they did. The Pirates are still 2 years away from winning. Plus we need much better pitchers than we have now. Don't be fooled by the SP performance this year. We need the talent NH has stock piled in the minors.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 6 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Debbie Downer.

NH should seriously consider trading Hanrahan.

But we stand corrected,thank you.

Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you

by Scranton on Jun 20, 2011 8:21 PM EDT reply actions

Hanahan...

is part of a “big five”? Everyone on the team is available in the right deal. I’m sure NH would trade McCutchen if the Nationals offered Strasburg and Harper. What makes Hanahan likely to be traded is a few things. One, his trade value will likely never be higher than it is. He is under control for more than this year and has had his best season yet. Two, he will take the least to be acquired. It would only take a B+ prospect and maybe some change to get him. Three, teams looking to acquire players are usually in contention and contenders are looking for “Core” players. They already have them. Four, believe it or not, Hanahan is replaceable. He is a relief pitcher. Relief pitchers can be had for almost nothing. Are you forgetting we got him for two spare parts? The other four should not be traded unless we are blown away with an offer, but Hanahan and others such as Maholm and Correia, should be actively shopped.

ETHAN MARTIN!!!!

by joegonzo on Jun 20, 2011 8:49 PM EDT reply actions

HanRahan...

is absolutely part of the current core because, unlike any other closer we’ve had in recent memory (Dotel, Capps, Mesa, Hernandez, Gonzalez, Williams), Hanrahan is lights out in the 9th inning the Pirates can’t afford to give away games that they have won after 8 1/2 innings. He is also under control for at least the next couple of years which gives the team time to develop or find a replacement if they decide not to extend him for big-closer money (which is perfectly reasonable).

This is not to say he is untouchable but he should be almost prohibitively expensive. Last year, the Pirates told Texas that Neftali Feliz would have to be included in any deal for Hanrahan. At the time, Feliz was the number 9 prospect in all of baseball and was on his way to setting the rookie save record. That is the kind of return the Pirates should be looking for. If they get an offer that includes the name Harper, Trout, Montero, Brown, Teahran, Hellickson, Chapman (depending on what Steve Blass says), Hosmer, Moustakas, Myers, Ackley, Miller, Machado, or Moore then I’d listen. Other than that, I’d rather have ‘Hammer.’

by KentuckyPirate on Jun 21, 2011 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions

A closer is still a closer.

Not saying that it isn’t nice to have a reliable shut down closer, but how long will NH keep a closer, if he is bound to make $8+MM?

It doesn’t make sense to pay such a high price for, at most, 90 innings of baseball.

If there is an offer of any top hitting prospect for Hanrahan, it will probably be taken, as Huntington believes he can rebuild a bullpen on a yearly basis.

by H2O on Jun 23, 2011 2:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, Hanrahan is the guy who I would pick if this were a game of "One of these things is not like the other ones"

by Justin Mos on Jun 20, 2011 8:56 PM EDT reply actions

You could just not read them...just a suggestion

by pantherboy on Jun 20, 2011 9:19 PM EDT reply actions

The thing is, when five of them a day are posted, it pushes fanposts that are actually worth reading off the front page.

www.stealingfirstbase.com

by Stealing First Base on Jun 20, 2011 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

So take an extra click and find them

by pantherboy on Jun 21, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions

or save yourself a bunch of clicks and don't type them

by johnnycuff on Jun 21, 2011 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions

This site is for discussing pirate baseball,

it’s not a site that is only for people with advanced knowledge in sabremetrics or assumed knowledge in how baseball trades would work.

If people hate the trade idea threads, then start one about something you would like to talk about…why is this so hard to comprehend for some?

by pantherboy on Jun 21, 2011 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Flooding is frowned upon on pretty much every internet forum.

Why is it so hard to comprehend “If you want to talk about a bunch of ridiculous trade ideas, at least keep them in one post?”

www.stealingfirstbase.com

by Stealing First Base on Jun 21, 2011 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Don’t you find it odd that this stuff is getting rec’d?

Thank you Ned Colletti.

by ryebr3ad on Jun 21, 2011 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

wish I would have gotten here earlier...

cause I would have rec’d it before just now; and the people that you just proposed that question to, will never understand what you are talking about.

Which is why I felt a moral imperative to also rec’ ryebr3ed’s post.

Paul.

"I choose to gamble with my life

Twice the risk, four times the prize

Nothing knocks me over"

by lighthouse913 on Jun 22, 2011 3:25 AM EDT up reply actions

hanrahan

for a middle of the order prospect ,yea I would be shopping him. closer come and go so he can be replaced. he gets 3 outs big deal.

57-105 come on "sale the team"

by sweetleb on Jun 20, 2011 9:56 PM EDT reply actions

rec'd!!!

by white angus on Jun 20, 2011 10:13 PM EDT reply actions

What everyone else said

1. Yup, most of these trade proposals are infeasible, unreasonable, or just plain dumb.

2. No, we shouldn’t trade any of our young, cost-controlled talent. That definitely includes McCutchen, Walker, Alvarez, and Tabata, and, despite current struggles, I’d be inclined to add Morton to that list.

2A. No player is untouchable. If the Reds offered us Votto, Bruce, Leake, Stubbs, and Cueto for McCutchen, we should do that, okay? Obviously that’s not going to happen, but the point is, no player should be “untouchable” until the deal is considered.

3. Hanrahan is a different case than the other players you mentioned for three reasons: We don’t control him for as long, closers are notoriously overvalued by GMs, and closers are notoriously unreliable from year to year. Fortunately we don’t need to trade Hanrahan, but if the right deal comes along we absolutely need to consider it.

by Garrett122 on Jun 20, 2011 10:23 PM EDT reply actions

Personally

I would take just Votto and Bruce or Stubbs for McCutchen. :-p

www.stealingfirstbase.com

by Stealing First Base on Jun 20, 2011 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions

haha well yeah, okay

I just think it’s funny when we deem players “absolutely untouchable.” I mean, I understand that Cutch-22 is as close as possible to that threshold — young, cheap, improving, and playing a premier defensive position — but still, no player in all of MLB is so valuable that a package of other players could not theoretically be worth more.

by Garrett122 on Jun 20, 2011 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions

so how about overbay, diaz, jones, cedeno, wood and ciriaco to the mets for reyes and wright? that’s 6 for 2! the mets would get a LOT of guys for a couple players who’ll be free agents this offseason anyway!

by Captain Easychord on Jun 21, 2011 1:20 AM EDT reply actions

Sounds like some of the fantasy offers I've been getting this year.

“What do you mean that’s not enough? I’m giving up Melky Cabrera, Brett Gardner, and Orlando Cabrera! All you’re giving up is James Shields! What if I sweeten the pot and throw in Chris Narveson?”

www.stealingfirstbase.com

by Stealing First Base on Jun 21, 2011 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions

"Please Stop These Silly Trade Ideas!"

Yes, please!

パトリック

by patthatt on Jun 21, 2011 9:59 AM EDT reply actions

Why Hanahan is Included

I included Hanahan because:

-Hanahan is in his 1st year as closer, hence most contending teams would view him as a setup man not as their closer. The value we would get for a setup man is not much. We don’t need any more ex-prospects that we hope will turn it around

-We have no replacement for Hanahan right now. When Meek comes back we don’t know how good he will be-he was not good before the injury. Right now we need a reliable closer, so keep Hanahan.

-Big 5 sounds better than Big 4

by zogger on Jun 21, 2011 10:53 AM EDT reply actions

Who is this

Hanahan guy?

by bucdaddy on Jun 21, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions

plays 3rd base for the Indians.

#AllTheBuntsAreBad!

by Slick1 on Jun 21, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Trade idea

I think we can get Elvis Andrus for Cedeno and Brad Lincoln.

Kidding!

by Blyleven Curve Ball on Jun 21, 2011 11:02 AM EDT reply actions

Point made

it does however neglect the fact that there are good players out there, and that we won’t be able to protect all of our players in Rule 5 next year. I’d rather dump some excess and add someone who turns into a compensatory pick that have guys who can’t make the 40 man roster of this team.

Think of the 10 mill as “buying a draft pick” in a slotted draft. Would you rather have slumping Bryan Morris and Andrew Lambo or a pick between the first and second round of next years draft?

Bees Bees Everywhere

by VoteforPedro on Jun 21, 2011 12:34 PM EDT reply actions

I'd rather have Morris...

#AllTheBuntsAreBad!

by Slick1 on Jun 21, 2011 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Who knew Matt was still around?

Yeah $10M sounds like a deal compared to the last version.

by lambert58 on Jun 21, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Look heres all you need to know.

Pirates trading for rental players is a real bad idea.

The Pirates trading Prospects for a starting position player who’s under contract for next year might be a good idea especially if its a 1B,RF, or SS.

That being said also Maholm should def be dealt if the right deal comes along, no matter if were 10 games under .500 or 10 games over .500, he is not worth 9.75 mil in my opinion, and the pirates have options.

Hanrahan, to me is a little tougher because we don’t have someone to step in right away and fill that void. But his value might never be higher. So If the package is too good to pass up then you take the deal.

Neal Huntington has never stood pat at the deadline. And i don’t think this year will be any different.

by BigB2323 on Jun 21, 2011 12:36 PM EDT reply actions