It might be they want to give Ambriz an extended look. It may be that Porter feels more loyal to veterans. It could be Porter isn't a good manager. Who cares about Melancon? He didn't have a great year last year. Jed Lowrie was a good player for us. Now we have Chris Carter and Brad Peacock. Peacock has the talent of Melancon. We've actually had some pretty decent relievers in Lyon, Lopez, & Melancon.
I was waiting for someone to say that. My point is, I doubt we trade him if we knew he would be a ERA 0.99 WHIP 0.88 SO/BB 39/04 Kind of guy. Did the value we got equal this ^^^^
At this moment, Id rather have Melancon than Peacock + Carter. But again, my larger point was its a good thing to give guys long looks when you have the luxury (like this year) to do so.
No, you weren't. You simply didn't remember what we got for him. And Melancon's done that over 35 innings 2 years after we traded him (to the Red Sox). Would you want to trade Carter, Peacock, Stassi, and Weiland for Mark Melancon right now? Yeah, neither would I.
Me too, for the most part (I don't like Carter very much). Poor Boston traded for him, watched him struggle, and then traded him away for a guy that is struggling.
He has for half a season I agree his 2013 numbers may not be sustainable. Time is required to see which guy he truly is, certainly. I do find it odd that people here are keying on an example (a guy no one saw putting up these numbers) rather than my broader point.
Melancon just wasn't a good example. Try Matt Lindstrom. We traded him for next to nothing (Wes Musick might have a career) and Lindtrom has been great ever since. Just had no business being a closer. Similarly, I hate the Wilton Lopez trade, though Alex White at least has potential. What you come to realize is, bullpen guys just don't have a ton of trade value.
Certainly there are many ways to look at it. But right now, if you look at the ML level only, Melancon is helping the Pirates more than Carter, Peacock, Stassi, and Weiland have. But lets get something strait. I didnt say we shouldnt have done the trade, did I? I didnt say I would trade for him either. What I am saying is a longer look at guys lessens (doesnt eliminate) the potential of a guy breaking out after we move along. It seems your purposely arguing a point I didnt make in the first place in order to make the point I did make (that you havent addressed at all) wrong in some way. Why is this?
I assumed/hoped that one didnt have to make a case that players teams let go sometimes go on to have stellar careers elsewhere. This has happened to every ML club multiple times. This cant be news to anyone, can it?
In terms of disappointed, it really only bothers me when I get nothing (or very little) in return. That is all.
Not really. Why on earth would you look at the ML level only when evaluating players involved in a trade?? You certainly implied it, but now you're backtracking because two posters showed you the light. If you thought we should have made the trade, your entire argument is invalidated anyway. Well, no *****. What "point" did you make??? That you can better evaluate a player the more you see him play? Um, ok, no argument here. You win.
Errors and making outs on the bases (when aggressiveness isn't called for). These are some of the most frusturating things that the Astros have done way too often this season.
