Author Topic: Should we trade starting pitching?  (Read 4932 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 42966
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #25: October 05, 2014, 08:13:49 PM »

Offline TigerFan

  • Posts: 3890
  • A split allegiance is still an allegiance
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #26: October 05, 2014, 08:14:33 PM »
At least three.

Have they contended for a WS once?

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #27: October 05, 2014, 08:31:31 PM »
Only in the minds of the SSS morons.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #28: October 05, 2014, 08:32:48 PM »
Have they contended for a WS once?

Twice.

In baseball, few enough teams get in that any team that makes the playoffs is in contention.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #29: October 05, 2014, 08:34:28 PM »
:lmao:

Offline TigerFan

  • Posts: 3890
  • A split allegiance is still an allegiance
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #30: October 05, 2014, 08:37:37 PM »
Twice.

In baseball, few enough teams get in that any team that makes the playoffs is in contention.

Define contend?  Make the playoffs?

EDIT: yes that's your definition and it is wrong.  The Tigers didn't "contend" for the WS one iota this year. 

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #31: October 05, 2014, 08:39:06 PM »
Define contend?  Make the playoffs?

EDIT: yes that's your definition and it is wrong.  The Tigers didn't "contend" for the WS one iota this year.

Once you are in, anyone can win it all. Anyone.

It's not like hockey where they let 16 teams in.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 42966
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #32: October 05, 2014, 08:39:40 PM »
Define contend?  Make the playoffs?

Get in the playoffs with a reasonable chance of winning it all. Two years of finishing with the best record in the NL meets the definition of contending for a WS in my book. And we'll be back for the next 2-3 years barring major injuries and assuming giolito's progression.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63326
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #33: October 05, 2014, 08:40:43 PM »
We need a bat that hits during the playoffs, regardless of size.  If we could drop a couple of smart slap hitters in the middle of this lineup, right now, we'd be up 2-0.

We need players who can hit in the playoffs, above all else, period.

But how do you find that? I mean, did you really think Brandon Belt would be the big bat? Pablo Sandoval is meh in the regular season.

Nelson Cruz?

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #34: October 05, 2014, 08:40:47 PM »
SSS memo to all members: "Lower the standards to perpetuate the delusion. Rinse and repeat."

Offline imref

  • Posts: 42966
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #35: October 05, 2014, 08:45:08 PM »
But how do you find that? I mean, did you really think Brandon Belt would be the big bat? Pablo Sandoval is meh in the regular season.

Nelson Cruz?

Trade for a-rod?

Typically though successful teams have 1-2 big banshees in the middle of the lineup. It's a glaring weakness of ours. You hope Harper steps up and fills that role at some point. Of course, we could hav signed fielder.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63326
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #36: October 05, 2014, 08:46:45 PM »
Trade for a-rod?

Typically though successful teams have 1-2 big banshees in the middle of the lineup. It's a glaring weakness of ours. You hope Harper steps up and fills that role at some point. Of course, we could hav signed fielder.

Reallyl?

Cardinals don't anymore. Dodgers have more than one. Royals don't.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 42966
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #37: October 05, 2014, 08:49:06 PM »
Reallyl?

Cardinals don't anymore. Dodgers have more than one. Royals don't.

I said "typically". There are always exceptions, and even having those guys doesn't guarantee success (eg Texas and Detroit).  I would like to see us get a big bat in the middle, but not at the expense of starting pitching.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #38: October 05, 2014, 08:53:36 PM »
I said "typically". There are always exceptions, and even having those guys doesn't guarantee success (eg Texas and Detroit).  I would like to see us get a big bat in the middle, but not at the expense of starting pitching.

As long as you are pitching around that guy and your next guy is Desmond or Harper, it'd be a waste of money.

Grinders like Werth and LaRoche who know how to extend an at bat and often make you pay are better.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21642
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #39: October 05, 2014, 09:04:15 PM »
:lmao: so that's why laroche had to come back with his tail between his legs last time he hit free agency

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #40: October 05, 2014, 09:06:26 PM »
:lmao: so that's why laroche had to come back with his tail between his legs last time he hit free agency

And he proved himself this year. Nothing wrong with shopping around and staying.

Prince Fielder is a useless fatass who ironically can't field.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 16423
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #41: October 05, 2014, 09:17:38 PM »
We need a bat that hits during the playoffs, regardless of size.  If we could drop a couple of smart slap hitters in the middle of this lineup, right now, we'd be up 2-0.

We need players who can hit in the playoffs, above all else, period.

Yes! As I shivered last night, I noticed how much this Nats team needs a clone of Cecil Travis and another of Sam Rice. Travis led the AL in hits in 1941, the magic year for Williams and DiMaggio. (higher average than Joe, longer hitting streak than Ted.).

"Travis hit .300 in eight of his first nine Major League seasons. A three-time All-Star, he had his best year in 1941, when he hit .359 (second in the American League), led both leagues in hits (218), and was named by The Sporting News as the best shortstop in baseball." SABR bio: http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/4d5ab420

("The finest player never to get a single vote for the Hall of Fame", someone wrote. Travis joined the Army in 1942, froze his feet during the Battle of the Bulge and had lost some skill when he came back to the Nats in 1945.)

Sam Rice, originally a pitcher, switched to OF at 27, became full time at 29. Finished with a .320 lifetime average, .800 OPS, ten consecutive season with ten or more triples. Described as a throwback to the dead-ball-era, a CF who played almost his entire career in the Babe Ruth era. Ty Cobb -- no softheart -- campaigned to get Rice in the Hall of Fame, and succeeded. 

Offline imref

  • Posts: 42966
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #42: October 05, 2014, 09:22:13 PM »
We've got one in Rendon, but he can't do it alone.  Span and werth's struggles have been especially aggravating.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21642
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #43: October 05, 2014, 09:23:42 PM »
And he proved himself this year. Nothing wrong with shopping around and staying.

Prince Fielder is a useless fatass who ironically can't field.

that implies other options

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #44: October 05, 2014, 09:29:01 PM »
that implies other options

Neither he or the team seemed to have better options, and it worked out for both parties.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63326
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #45: October 05, 2014, 09:40:29 PM »
And he proved himself this year. Nothing wrong with shopping around and staying.

Prince Fielder is a useless fatass who ironically can't field.

He didnt shop around. He couldn't find a buyer.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39786
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #46: October 05, 2014, 10:10:15 PM »
At least three.
which is one more year than Strasburg is under contract and two more years than Fister and JZ.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 42966
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #47: October 05, 2014, 10:56:30 PM »
ok...so if we're going to speculate - JZ to Milwaulkee for Braun, shift Harper over to CF, and then deal Span for something.  That probably shifts Rendon to leadoff.

update: just looked at Braun's contract.  never mind.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #48: October 05, 2014, 11:05:52 PM »
Trade for a-rod?

Typically though successful teams have 1-2 big banshees in the middle of the lineup. It's a glaring weakness of ours. You hope Harper steps up and fills that role at some point. Of course, we could hav signed fielder.

How do you know those big bats won't swing at junk in the dirt come playoff time and end up 1 for 10 with a walk after two games of the divisional series?

Offline imref

  • Posts: 42966
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Should we trade starting pitching?
« Reply #49: October 05, 2014, 11:20:10 PM »
How do you know those big bats won't swing at junk in the dirt come playoff time and end up 1 for 10 with a walk after two games in the divisional series?

last six teams to win the WS (home runs)
2013: Red Sox - Papi (30) / Napoli (23)
2012: Giants - Posey (24) / plus Melky's career year (.346 .390 .516)
2011: Cardinals - Pujols (37) / Berkman (31) (plus they had Molina)
2010: Giants - Posey (18 in 108 games) / Huff (26) and Urbie (24)
2009: Yankees - A-Rod (30)/ Tex (39)
2008: Phillies - Utley (33)/Howard (48)

Except for the Giants, each of those teams had at least one guy in the middle of their line-up who were 30+ home run guys, and at least one other batter that would scare the daylights out of opposing pitchers.  We still lack that.  I still think Harper can become that guy, but obviously he's not there yet.