Big Z: We Should Trade Hanley

[Swifty]

Yeah but LoMo is white and plays with a hurt knee.
--------------------
Oh and he got hit in the face with a baseball one time in the on deck circle and didn't let it end his career like that lazy ass Encarnacion.

[Mainge]

Can someone please photoshop Hanley and make him white. I want that as an avatar.

[Beef]

Deloitte

Oh. Nevermind Mm81!

[HUGG]

I believe the argument was that you win with talent and the douchebags don't matter when you're good.

So teams without talent have to get rid of douchebags so that they have better chemistry.

And then lose to the teams with talent and douchebags.
--------------------
As always the best way to get better is to trade your best player.

Definitely worked for Pittsburgh over and over again.
--------------------
If this team was super talented and still losing, I might (MIGHT) be able to get behind trade Hanley, he's a cancer and a distraction.

But what's he distracting from? The fact that we're one of the best teams in the NL this season with him and one of the worst without him? Might be a coincidence...but what if its not?

[nny]

Sort of like trading Cabrera got us Mike Cameron in his prime 2.0 and the next Randy Johnson, amirite?

Mike Cameron has a career 105 OPS+ and was known for defense and base runnings.

Cameron Maybin has a 105 OPS+ this year (Him now being the same age as Mike's rookie year when Mike put up a 109 OPS+) with good defense and base running.

So yeah, I think that's working out as projected. Just for the WRONG FUCKING TEAM

*Also, I know you said "in his prime", but Mike Cameron's OPS+ from age 24 through age 31: 105. Mike Cameron didn't really have peaks, he was a very consistent player.
--------------------
(P.S. Yes I'm going to be that guy, at least for the next 4 years, and then he'll be eligible for free agency so it won't matter. That is, unless he signs a contract which it sounds like he will, then I'll stop when that contract runs out.

That is, unless he starts sucking. Then you won't hear me say anything

Not "sucking" like he was when he were here, cuz he didn't suck)

[Bobbob1313]

Not "sucking" like he was when he were here, cuz he didn't suck)

Well, you can say he didn't get enough chances, but he had an 89 OPS+ in his time here, and an 82 OPS+ if you discount the 32 ABs in 08. Yeah, he was young and we jerked him around, but he was also pretty crappy when he was here. The defense of Maybin's time in Florida is the jerking around and small samples; but he wasn't really anything approaching good.

[nny]

Well, you can say he didn't get enough chances, but he had an 89 OPS+ in his time here, and an 82 OPS+ if you discount the 32 ABs in 08. Yeah, he was young and we jerked him around, but he was also pretty crappy when he was here. The defense of Maybin's time in Florida is the jerking around and small samples; but he wasn't really anything approaching good.

You're only looking at offense.

2.7 WAR in the years worth of games he had with us.

Yes, he was a negative with a bat. But he was a plus defensively and on the base paths and positionally.

The total package is what matters.

[Bobbob1313]

Im not sure a full seasons worth of playing time over 3 seasons is going to give very accurate defensive numbers, so I take it with a grain of salt.
--------------------
Also, a full win of that was in that first 3 week cup of coffee. So not really all that.

[emkayseven]

But was he a douchebag????????

[Omar]

I actually thought there'd be a statistical analysis

[emkayseven]

but it says big z

[nny]

Im not sure a full seasons worth of playing time over 3 seasons is going to give very accurate defensive numbers, so I take it with a grain of salt.
--------------------
Also, a full win of that was in that first 3 week cup of coffee. So not really all that.

So 3 good weeks should be removed from every rookie's season?

And I don't see why it being spread over 3 seasons matters. Innings are innings.

[Ramp]

I think a flukey 3 weeks probably should be removed when talking about Maybin at this point

[nny]

it wasn't 3 weeks.

It was basically one week

8 games.

And does that mean it's ok to remove Volstad starts now too?

[Bobbob1313]

it wasn't 3 weeks.

It was basically one week

8 games.

And does that mean it's ok to remove Volstad starts now too?

So you think it is accurate to say he was a 1 win player for that 8 game stretch?