Untouchables
by BuccoNation15 on Jul 8, 2011 9:45 AM EDT
Email
Print
As we approach the trade deadline, who should be the "untouchables" in the Pirates organization? I know most GMs say that no one is untouchable, but in reality, there are at least a handful of guys in the Pirates system that even educated fans would absolutely freak out about if they were traded (I'm not talking casual fan backlash at things like trading Nate McLouth). My list looks like this, and I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts:
MLB - Andrew McCutchen, Neil Walker, Joel Hanrahan
Prospects - Jameson Taillon, Stetson Allie, Luis Heredia, Starling Marte
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.
88 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cutch, Taillon, and Heredia
That’s it for me. Don’t get me wrong, I love the other guys you mentioned but if the offer is right, they could all be included.
See your point
I definitely get your point KentuckyPirate – I do believe the offer would have to be something that significantly helps us this year though. Or obviously something that you couldn’t pass up, like a top 20 prospect (this is why speculation on Perez/Profar from the Rangers is so rampant and it may pose a difficult decision for Huntington in a few weeks).
by BuccoNation15 on Jul 8, 2011 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Perez/Profar
Bucco: I’ve read some of the Perez/Profar stuff.
I would not trade a ML closer (Hanrahan) for an A-ball SS (Profar) — that’s too long to wait for a return. Perez becomes a more interesting argument. He’s a AA LHSP who has maintained his success, and may very well end up in AAA this year. I’d still want a young arm (Luke Jackson comes to mind – overshooting?), and/or a young SS (Sardinas could project to be pretty good) and wild arm (Miguel de los Santos, anyone?). (Would love to hear some opinions on Perez/Jackson/Sardinas/de los Santos or others)
As Texas progresses this season, a Hanrahan could mean a lot to a championship run and as such could make them a VERY motivated buyer. My asking price may be way overshooting it…but unlike Heath Bell, Hanrahan is under team control and is VERY VERY affordable in the short-term.
by insane_sanity on Jul 8, 2011 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
That would be my list as well.
Proud fan of Pittsburgh's professional sports teams and the Pirates too.
by Black&GoldTrain on Jul 9, 2011 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Cutch and Taillon for me
Hanrahan is going to be the trickiest… the window to trade him at very high value is rapidly closing, and the Bucs will have to trade off many factors to get this right.
Cutch
I would theoretically be willing to part with any of the prospects for a good return. The question is what would that return be. Obviously for Taillon, it’d have to be a great player under control for a couple years, and I don’t know who that would be. Notionally someone like Kershaw maybe? Heredia and Allie are both lesser prospects than Taillon, but I like their chances in our system, so it’d still have to be a very good return. Marte and Sanchez are kind of on that line of tradeable for a shorter term solution, but ultimately I’d rather see them pay for short term solutions with money, not prospects.
Hanrahan is awesome, but I wouldn’t hesitate to trade him for a good return. Really, I’d summarize my position here as disinclined but open to trading any of these players, which IMO gives us a strong negotiating position.
charity standing orders
Really, I’d summarize my position here as disinclined but open to trading any of these players, which IMO gives us a strong negotiating position.
Great comment.
No one is untouchable, but we are NOT sellers in any way, shape or form. As a matter of fact, as we are not sellers…anyone approaching us should be viewed as a “motivated buyer” and should be expected to possibly pay a premium for whatever they are looking for. (IMO this goes for McCutchen too — if the offer is to good to be true, accept it)
by insane_sanity on Jul 8, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
McCutchen, obviously. He might be the single most valuable asset is baseball right now, there’s not one player in baseball I would trade him for straight across. None of the prospects other than the top 3 pitchers (who we couldn’t trade even if we wanted to, I believe) should be untouchable given the right deal.
Mr. Pujols, Tulowitzki, Halladay, King Felix, Gonzalez, Weaver, Fielder, Bautista
to name a few would like to have a word with you. I threw in Jose F. Bats for fun.
If you want to compete this year, and that's the point of buying
Hanny is untouchable, period.
If you trade him for a bat, then who closes?
It’s counter productive to eliminate a player at a position we are so thin, closer, unless that bat helps us win by about 5 runs a game, every game.
It doesn’t cost a thing to believe and the payoff on a winner is huge!
No one. Period.
That said, it would take a rediculous amount of talent to get certain guys — Andrew McCutchen.
It is funny — there is a recent post about it — that now the Pirates are winning some games, the outlook has totally changed. Let’s not kid ourselves – the Pirates are not a great organization yet.
If Texas comes and offers us Andrus + Feliz + 2 top tier minor leaguers (say Profar and Martin) because they want Andrew McCutchen….would you do that deal? I understand this would NEVER happen, but if it did…would you do that deal? If so, he’s not “untouchable”….there’s just a 99.9% chance we won’t move him.
This brings up Hanrahan — I would absolutely move him if the price is right. “Untouchable” means 100% NO. I refuse to deal in absolutes with anybody on this roster — if someone wants to pay what WE want in return…move the players to make the organization better (keeping in mind beyond 2011).
Agreed
But the way I look at “untouchable” is whether or not there is a viable trade scenario where I can imagine dealing one of those players. Texas would never make an offer like that the same way Washington would never offer us Zimmerman, Strasburg, Harper and Rendon for McCutchen.
If you’re looking at the most appealing, however, highest priced “trade piece” in baseball right now, it would probably be Matt Kemp (although this is arguable, of course). If the Pirates were trading for Matt Kemp there are 3 players that I wouldn’t include in any realistic deal and those are Cutch, Taillon and Heredia. My reasoning is that I feel like Cutch and Kemp are essentially equal except Kemp become a FA 3 years earlier, so McCutchen is out. Taillon is too valuable to include in that deal as well. The reason Heredia is also untouchable is that I dont think he’s proven enough yet to be the centerpiece for that deal, however, since there are still questions about how good he could wind up being, I wouldn’t to include him as part of a package to get a CF who is so close to FA and underperformed so badly last season.
I can envision a realistic scenario where every other member of our organization could be traded. I can’t think of a way that I would include those three in any possible trade that we might make.
by KentuckyPirate on Jul 8, 2011 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Hanny is definitely tradable.
I won’t be surprised if he is gone this year. May as well get some value for him before he turns into a pumpkin. Unless, of course, you think he’s Mariano RIvera, he is movable.
But then we create a bigger hole by dealing Hanny.
Right now we are winning with the anemic offense and Hanny closing.
You can’t tear down the strongest part of our team and expect to continue winning.
Keep in mind, we’re talking about this deadline.
It doesn’t cost a thing to believe and the payoff on a winner is huge!
trading Hanrahan
is pretty much an indication that the FO believes this team cant make the playoffs. However, that may well be the right thing to do. It really depends on what they can get back for him. I’m hoping they’ll be able to extract a king’s ransom out of Hanrahan. Right now, all games with a lead are 8 inning games, for all practical purposes.
I think
we’re starting to overvalue closers again.
Who would close? Resop looks pretty sharp, maybe Beimel when he comes back … hell, I’d give everybody a two-week tryout. The difference between Hanny going perfect the rest of the year and somebody (or a committeee) blowing three or four saves is two or three wins. If we lose the pennant by two games, then it makes a difference. Otherwise, big deal. Hanny can go 60-for-60 and if we’re not in the playoffs, then the team can be improved.
by bucdaddy on Jul 8, 2011 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I mean,
Resop came in the other night and blew away three Astros on nine pitches, all strikes. Hammer couldn’t possibly have done better unless he’d struck out the side. The only reason that effort wasn’t called a “save” is that we didn’t lead by three.
Getting the final out is a lot different than getting any other out...
As for Resop’s appearance, it’s one appearance. Hannrahan is one of two closers with more than 15 who hasn’t blown a save.
If the Pirates want to win the division, they need to deem Hanny untouchable. If they don’t care about the division, then Hanny is available.
Based on what Nutting said in the DK interview, I would say Hanny is untouchable.
It doesn’t cost a thing to believe and the payoff on a winner is huge!
Getting the final out is a lot different than getting any other out…
I’m not convinced that is true, in general. Hence my willingness to trade Hanny. It all comes down to how special you think the closer role is. I think its just the best releiver, others put an almost supernatural spin on that role. This entire debate is about where you are on that spectrum. I feel that the FO doesn’t value them too highly (Capps, Dotel, etc), but we’ll see.
by Wizard of Woz on Jul 8, 2011 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
The FO hasn't had to value them highly yet.
Ask them when they are playing the Brewers in August and they are within one game and are up by one run in the 9th and we are sending Veras to the mound.
It doesn’t cost a thing to believe and the payoff on a winner is huge!
How much difference is there
between getting the final out with a three-ruin lead versus a four-run lead?
I see your larger point, most games are decided by one or two runs and maybe that somehow takes a different mindset. My point is that the creators of the “save” drew a highly arbitrary line at three runs (Why not five? Why not one?) and many fans imagine it takes some kind of extreme mental focus to pitch on one side of that line that isn’t required on the other.
I don’t see it. Every year a dozen teams give the closer’s job to a guy who has never closed before and most of them do a fairly good job for awhile. Did they not have that focus before and suddenly they do now?
I’m just saying I think three-fourths of the relievers in baseball could probably close with an 80-90% success rate or they wouldn’t be MLB pitchers.
It's not an arbitrary line...
It’s three runs because there will be at least three batters in the inning. You also can get a four-run save and a 5-run save.
If a pitcher enters the game in the 9th with the bases loaded and no outs, that means that at least 5 batters will bat or have a chance to score, in theory.
It is tougher to close out a game. You will see more pinch hitters and more left-right matchups.
It doesn’t cost a thing to believe and the payoff on a winner is huge!
Cutch is untouchable
I would disagree that McCutchen is not untouchable based on his salary, years of control left, and value to this franchise. Even if we got a deal such as Strausberg and Harper for Cutch I would not take it because of injuries for Straus and some (albeit small) uncertainty for Harper. Cutch is the definition of a 5 tool player and unless the yankees want to trade us their whole team and still take on the entire payroll for him than he is untouchable. Also if Huntington or anyone on the Pirates staff even hears Cutch’s name brought up they should hang up the phone because they need to show him that he is “our guy” and someone we want to keep and build around for the next ten years. When everyone says we need to add payroll by signing free agents I want to scream because I want to add payroll and pay for players who are already on the team. Who is the last player to play his entire career with the Pirates? I have no clue…but I think changing that is a big step forward for this organization and I feel like Cutch is the guy we need to keep for a long time and extend a large contract (7 years 100+ million) for this team.
by nagihcimwolves50 on Jul 8, 2011 11:35 AM EDT reply actions
Don't touch Cutch!
It would make a good T-shirt.
Nobody better lay a finger
on my Cutch. ?
Yeah, no.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 8, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Nobody's touchin'
McCutchen!
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 8, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Yep
We can dream with Harper or Strasburg, but the fact is that Cutch is almost as good right now as those players “could be” if they develop or recover as planned. Pujols and Randy Johnson have each had 1 season above 10 WAR. Roger Clemens had 2. Mauer’s peak season thus far has been 7.9 WAR.
Not that WAR is a perfect stat, but Cutch is on pace for a WAR of about 8.5 without the benefit of an anomalous BABIP (i.e. Reyes). I think he’s as untouchable as you can get until he’s closer to being a FA.
charity standing orders
Hanrahan is a dilemma
I can’t imagine a tougher situation than Hanrahan right now. He is arguably the best closer in baseball, and while I agree that closers’ value is incredibly volatile, right now, at this moment, his value is relatively huge. So, you have to take the view that you can either cash in on that value and get the (hopefully) best package possible right now, or you hold on to him for the run. If you trade him, you’d have to get a bat that can help the team right now in the division race, as well as a high prospect or two to build the farm. Trading Hanny doesn’t mean you’re giving up, but it does open a huge hole for a team in our position as a playoff contender. Backend bullpen guys are invaluable down the playoff stretch, and so tell me this: what contender would possibly give us a ML impact guy for our own stretch drive in return for Hanrahan?
What do the Twins have to deal?
Since they pretty much just demoted our old friend Matt Capps from the job.
OTOH, the Twins seem like the kind of reasonable smart org that knows closers are a dime a dozen and wouldn’t pay much of value for one.
the Twins seem like the kind of reasonable smart org that knows closers are a dime a dozen and wouldn’t pay much of value for one.
They just dealt Wilson Ramos for Capps last year.
To build off of that...
How many times during this losing streak have we said, “trade Mike Williams/Dotel/Capps because we don’t need a top closer”?
On the flip side, there is a reason that teams in contention want to add closers for a stretch run, they are valuable. We are in contention.
It doesn’t cost a thing to believe and the payoff on a winner is huge!
This is just my opinion here
but NH and company has shown they’ll make tough PR decisions if an opportunity to materially improve the team long term comes along. I have to believe that if they get a shot at a legit ace prospect or someone like Profar they’re going to make it happen, especially if they can offset that loss with some sort of hitter.
charity standing orders
If I am NH,
I deal Maholm, Correia, Hanrahan, Doumit, Diaz, and Veras.
It won’t happen, but if we have big leverage (like, competing for division) we could get huge returns for all of the above. Sure, fans would kill me, but I have no contract for next season anyways. Plus, the team gets MUCH better long-term, and could run away with the division in a year or two.
On the flip side, I love being in contention.
I'm not going to kill you.
I completely agree with you. Trade those players while their value is still high. Maholm and Correia aren’t going to be around when this team challenges for the pennant anyways. I like being in contention too in a weak division but I rather get some more prospects that can help us down the road than keep those guys. Hanrahan should get a real good package.
Proud fan of Pittsburgh's professional sports teams and the Pirates too.
by Black&GoldTrain on Jul 8, 2011 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Untouchables
MLB level – Cutch, Walker
MiLB – Curry, Marte, Sanchez, Taillon, Heredia, Allie, McPherson
Bees Bees Everywhere
McPherson? CURRY?
Even Marte is a stretch if you aren’t going to include Tabata and Alvarez on the list.
To me, nobody in the MiLB is untouchable, as long as the deal makes sense.
McPherson
is a STUD, Curry has pop that I have seen with my own two eyes.
Alvarez isn’t on the MLB roster, neither is Tabata. Both are rehabing
Bees Bees Everywhere
Switch Hitters with Pop
at a position in which most players have none, that play average defense, that still have 4 years of org control are priceless
Bees Bees Everywhere
not to insult Walker, but his numbers are starting to level off just like his minor league numbers
his OPS is falling rapidly. his bat was a plus over his glove at 2B, but now? not so much.
im not dissing Walker, by the way. i like him as a pirate. i just would never, ever call him untouchable.
Let's frame the issue this way:
If you’re a GM for a contending team and you think you biggest needs are for a CF and/or a closer, do you say to yourself, “There’s no point calling the Pirates, they’ll NEVER deal McCutchen or Hanrahan, if I had those guys I’d think they were untouchable, so I’m not even going to bother”?
If you did that, you should be fired yesterday.
If you’re NH, do you call up all the other GMs and announce “McCutchen and Hanrahan are untouchable, don’t even bother asking, there’s nothing you can offer me that can pry them away, so don’t even try”?
Unless you’re attempting to employ some clever psych strategy that could, of course, backfire if everybody believes you, then you should be fired yesterday.
Any GM who won’t ask and any GM who won’t listen should be immediately unemployed.
No one would trade what it would take to get McCutchen, so there’s no point in any negotiations. McCutchen’s contract probably has a net value over $100M. It would take either an MVP candidate who’s under contract for a number of years (which would beg the question of why make the trade at all?) or the Rays or Rangers like top 7 prospects. A deal like that would cause such a disruption in both clubs that it just wouldn’t happen. That’s why he’s untouchable.
Hanny is a very valuable piece, certainly, but he’s a completely different situation.
charity standing orders
this, exactly
Hanrahan is the key. The Bucs need to trade him (not necessarily now, but certainly by the offseason) and they need to find someone who will give up a great return. I don’t think they’ve had a better trade chip than him in a long time.
I am fine with trading him in the offseason, but not right now.
It doesn’t cost a thing to believe and the payoff on a winner is huge!
He will
if he goes 50-for-50.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 8, 2011 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah
the risk is, though, he is doing it right now with a million eyes watching… he blows a few, the Bucs fall out of contention, and you are right back where you started, a good but not great closer. Of course, if he goes 50-for-50, sure, pretty darn high value.
yeah.
just tossed that out there for gits and shiggles.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 8, 2011 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
You're fired.
It doesn’t cost you a cent or a player to ask the price, does it? So why wouldn’t you even call? You can always laugh and hang up.
When I’m in Kroger or Giant Eagle, I always cruise the beer aisle, whether I need beer or not. (What? Oh, right, this is in West Virginia.) Because you never know when somebody is going to go nuts and price every six pack at $1.
And, in fact, that sort of happened once. We had a new Kroger open and when they put up the prices on the half-cases in the cooler, they mispriced Sierra Nevada pale ale at $7.99 — 12 bottles for the price of six. I took one to checkout just because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing, and in fact the price was $7.99. So I bought it, then continued on to work. And about five minutes later I was kicking myself. “Damn it, I should have bought as many cases as I could wheel out in a cart.” When I stopped back in after work eight hours later, almost all the Sierra Nevada was gone and someone had put up a new price sign.
The moral of the story, in case you’re all a little thick, is: What’s the hurt in taking a look, making a call? There may not be as many dolts and morons in the GM business as there used to be, but there are still dolts and morons in the GM business, in places like Dodger Stadium and Houston. You never know what one of them will think he needs and what he’s willing to give for it.
I’ll note here that I don’t think NH is an idiot, and maybe Ned Colletti isn’t, either, but most all of us have idiot days when we can be fleeced. I want to be at the front of the line when opportunity knocks. It might be a one in a million shot, but not even calling gives you a zero in a million shot.
the hurt
The hurt in taking a look is that you’re wasting time in which you could be doing something productive on the infinitesimal chance that the Rays will offer Upton and Longoria for Cutch. You have to prioritize. You can spend your time checking out the beer aisle every time you’re in the grocery store, but you can’t check out the beer aisle, plus the peanut butter, plus the ice cream, plus every other product in the store. You have to focus on what’s really important. Beer is important, trading Cutch is the opposite.
Until that day
you wake up to this headline:
Pirates trade McCutchen to Yankees for bag of magic beans
Are your legs long enough to kick yourself in the ass?
Cutch is untouchable from NH's perspective.
Other GM’s could ask (and probably have) about him hoping to get lucky, sure, but NH isn’t a motivated seller, so any package would have to be fair value plus a premium, and such a package would be so disruptive to both organizations that it simply would not happen. NH has nothing to gain from any talks about Cutch, which is why he’s untouchable.
charity standing orders
Sell Hanrahan, get a few big wig AA/AAA prospects. This is the Pirates chance to put themselves over the top for 2012 and beyond. Some of our players are at their highest values. We can be buyers and still sell some of our better players.
Not trying to be negative but I still dont think we win this divison, i do think we break 81 wins, so keep building it up, again, now is a great chance to potentially add some great prospects to the pipeline.
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend!
the way i look at it is this, the Pirates will now be expected by most of the fan base
To Win next year now. because of the success of this year. So you keep Hanrahan now. Because 2014 isn’t the year we start expecting to win its 2012 now.
Completely agree with your whole post
The Pirates are in an excellent position to get some good value for players who are playing well right now. I saw pull the trigger and load up on some prospects that will make us stronger down the road. I don’t think we are going to win the division either so keep building for the future while unloading guys who won’t be a part of that.
Proud fan of Pittsburgh's professional sports teams and the Pirates too.
by Black&GoldTrain on Jul 8, 2011 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
the only way i trade hammer is if the return is overwhelming. i think texas will be calling and calling for him and huntington is gonna have to make a hard decision. but i think if we get some big bats in return for other guys, having a closer isnt really that valuable because we ll be scoring runs. i just hope huntington doesnt foam at the mouth for a laroche,hansen,moss deal again.
BuccoNation15, my list would be the same as yours
except I’d add Pedro Alvarez (wait until he gets at least the same number of PA as Andy Laroche received), Tony Sanchez (no obvious internal replacement), plus Cole and Bell (assuming they sign).
Good Point
To be honest, I didn’t think about PA so I guess I left him off mistakenly. I’d add him to the list as well. Also kept off recent draftees, but agree with you there. Would like to see Sanchez take off before making him off limits though.
by BuccoNation15 on Jul 8, 2011 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
The good news...
we’ve got 23 days before Neal must decide who is untouchable. A lot can happen in that time, including a long winning streak or a long losing streak. Either one of those would make decisions a lot more cut and dried.
Hammer
About a year ago, Texas came calling for Hanrahan and NH reportedly asked for Neftali Feliz in return. That was a year ago….there’s no way he’s going to trade him now for a couple of minor leaguers if he asked for a guy like Feliz last year.
Any trade
of Hanrahan or other performing players would be a mistake unless they fall out of contention. The mental and emotional hit would linger and create unnecessary distrust between the front office and the players. If they are within five or six games at the end of July, let it ride.
"Throw strikes, but don't give him anything good to hit."
Cmon guys. This is the best Pirate team we’ve seen in 19 years. We have good young ML talent at several positions and a minor league system stocked with some serious young talent.
It’s a good time to be a Pirate fan. Are we, as fans, so stuck in the “we can’t afford to compete with the big boys” mentality that we instantly have to look for trade possibilities the second a player starts to play well? That’s scared thinking. Yes, it’s how we’ve had to think for the past decade plus, but shouldn’t we at least give the new ownership a chance to prove they are different before we start selling some valuable pieces. Yes, at 26 for 26 in saves, Hanrahan can’t possibly pitch any better or have a higher value. But who is to say that he doesn’t go on to be an All-Star level closer for six more years. Meanwhile, who is to say that the prospect(s) we get to replace him ever have one AS caliber season….ever. The Pirates have an improving level of talent in the minors. They don’t need to invest more to improve that level. What they don’t have (or any team has) is multiple bullpen arms equivolent to that of Hanrahan. If he was a free agent in 3 months, I’d CONSIDER trading him. We have him under salary control for two more years I believe, so why the rush? Is trying to win in two years a bigger priority than trying to win now? I think if you keep Hanrahan and are smart in handling his salary, you can win now and still have him around to help you win in the future. I just don’t understand the logic of trying to propose a trade idea for every player on our roster. Why not just sit back and enjoy the fine product that the Pirates have fielded this year.
We will have decisions to make about Doumit and Maholm soon enough. All the other important cogs in the Pirate ML roster are under contract for next season. The Pirates need to make a decision on those two in the offseason and then look for reasonable, affordable ways of extending some of their good young talent. I would start by offering Cutch a 6 year-$55 million extension and offering Hanrahan 4 years at $18 million. Wouldn’t taking two established young stars and signing them to sensible contracts be a better alternative than just trading them away for players who might never be nearly as good? Hanrahan is the best relief pitcher we’ve had in a long. McCutchen is the best player in the Pirate organization since Bonds. Trading them should be unthinkable. Stop being so shell shocked here folks. If our long range goal is to have our payroll in the $70-$80 million range (as ownership has stated), paying $13-$15 million per year combined to lock down Hammer/Cutch through arbitration and for their first two years of potential free agency is not unreasonable at all. Both of those contracts I just proposed would make sense for the Pirates and would make sense for the players as well, since both are still on year-to-year contracts.
for the record, the FO has never ever said the "goal" was to have an $80MM payroll
just thought i would throw that in there
"Is trying to win in two years a bigger priority than trying to win now?"
No. Trying to win this year, and next year, and two years from now, and the year after that, and … THAT is a bigger priority. It would be nuts to pass up a chance to improve the team for the next five years for the sake of a wild-ass pennant run this year.
NH is confident he can put a good bullpen together every year, and with good reason: He has. If he gets a great deal for Hammer, he takes it. Resop or somebody else can close, and whatever psychological hit the rest of the team might take, Resop or somebody else can recover by being handed a high-profile job and a chance to excel.
Look, even if we somehow luck into a playoff spot, would you want to stand pat with this team? Does it look like it’s built for the long haul? Hell naw. Every avenue to improvement must at least remain open, if not fully explored.
Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
I disagree with virtually everything in your post. A “great deal” for Hanrahan is likely going to net players/prospects who will never come close to being as dominant as he is now. Our minor league system is no longer void of legit talent. Those days have passed. Unfortunately, the defeated, sky-is-falling mentality that has circled over the Pirates for the past two decades can’t seem to escape the minds of some of its fans.
Yes, I understand that closers are overvalued, but Hanrahan has made himself virutally irreplaceable right now. The Pirates only need to be ahead after 8 innings or take the lead in the top of the 9th and the game is essentially over. Having Hanrahan changes your entire strategy for a game. Nothing demoralizes a team more than losing a lead in the 9th. The Pirates of 2011 have yet to feel that sensation, which might explain why they’ve avoided those long losing streaks of the past and have been so competitive. If we got two major league ready position players back for Hanrahan, it still doesn’t make sense, since we have major league ready prospects in place at every position already. Is the potential prospects we receive back going to be a better prospect than D’Arnaud for instance? Is another OF prospect really going to help us when we control McCutchen for 4 more years and Tabata and Presley for 5 more years AND we still have Marte eventually waiting in the wings. You can never have too much talent, but there might be limited spaces for some of these players we acquire to actually play. Hanrahan has a clearly carved-out role and he’s as good as anyone at it so far this season. Why trade him for a player who might not even have a spot to play?
And yes, I believe the Pirate organization is bult for the long haul considering we control the contracts of some of best young players for years to come. The only way this young talent doesn’t grow together is if we start trading it away for the sake of getting even younger. Then we’re just turning into the Florida Marlins.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
