PDA

View Full Version : Josh Hancock signed by Cardinals



Doc. Scott
02-22-2006, 03:11 PM
You know what this means. All-Star, baby.

Or it could mean very bad things for Josh, given that he's now sharing a camp with Sidney Ponson.

westofyou
02-22-2006, 03:13 PM
Maybe he can share some Sidney Ponsons Slimfast?

MattyHo4Life
02-22-2006, 06:47 PM
Does anybody know what Hancock's current weights is? I'm guessing it's less than Kearns.

creek14
02-22-2006, 07:48 PM
Manager Jerry Narron said Hancock, whose weight is listed at 207 pounds, reported 17 pounds too heavy.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/baseball/20060218-1457-bbn-reds-hancock.html

captainmorgan07
02-22-2006, 07:54 PM
hes' not that good but the cards i'll make him servicable somehow

Falls City Beer
02-22-2006, 07:57 PM
Personally I think it's insulting and hypocritical to spout off to the media that you're cutting someone not based on performance or non-performance, but just on being fat. If that's Jerry Narron's idea of "old school," give me "dumb school."

How can people not see a move like this by the Reds as just another in a long line of bush league personnel handlings on a par with the Oester bait and switch, MassageChair-gate, ad nauseam?

I don't think Josh is a particularly talented pitcher, but I wouldn't mind seeing him plunk Narron with a "stray" throw this season. I wish the guy luck in St. Louis, and hope that if and when he is cut, it's with a little more dignity, which I'm sure it will be.

Doc. Scott
02-22-2006, 08:04 PM
Actually, put me down for a similar sentiment. I hope Hancock earns some Show-related cash money, as long as he gets bombed every time the Reds are in the other dugout.

MattyHo4Life
02-22-2006, 08:06 PM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/baseball/20060218-1457-bbn-reds-hancock.html

207 pounds when you're 6'3" isn't bad. Aren't Dunn and Kearns much heaveier than that?

traderumor
02-22-2006, 08:07 PM
Personally I think it's insulting and hypocritical to spout off to the media that you're cutting someone not based on performance or non-performance, but just on being fat. If that's Jerry Narron's idea of "old school," give me "dumb school."

How can people not see a move like this by the Reds as just another in a long line of bush league personnel handlings on a par with the Oester bait and switch, MassageChair-gate, ad nauseam?

I don't think Josh is a particularly talented pitcher, but I wouldn't mind seeing him plunk Narron with a "stray" throw this season. I wish the guy luck in St. Louis, and hope that if and when he is cut, it's with a little more dignity, which I'm sure it will be.The difference here is that a standard was clearly communicated and the standard was upheld. Sometimes you have to make an example of someone. All the blame goes to Hancock, who seems to have taken his position for granted (really dumb for fodder like himself, I might add). I'm not sure what is dignified about that on his end, either.

Falls City Beer
02-22-2006, 08:09 PM
Actually, put me down for a similar sentiment. I hope Hancock earns some Show-related cash money, as long as he gets bombed every time the Reds are in the other dugout.

One thing I can take solace in is that when the Reds are 20 games out in June, old Jerr's going to probably get his final MLB managerial pink slip. So he can sit around and get fat all he wants.

traderumor
02-22-2006, 08:09 PM
Does anybody know what Hancock's current weights is? I'm guessing it's less than Kearns.You seem to be obsessing over Kearns. You take a dig on him any chance you get lately.

MattyHo4Life
02-22-2006, 08:11 PM
I mentioned both him and Dunn...check out my next post ;) I mentioned Kearns since he and Hancock are the same height.

Falls City Beer
02-22-2006, 08:12 PM
You seem to be obsessing over Kearns. You take a dig on him any chance you get lately.

It's not as though she doesn't have a point. And while we're on the subject of dumping awful performers, why not Womack, Milton, Aurilia, Kearns....

It's an empty example, tr. It only applies to fringey players. Any of these other embarrassments for players get to wallow around in their stink because the Reds think it's smart to pay some of these guys over $1 million.

traderumor
02-22-2006, 08:22 PM
It's not as though she doesn't have a point. And while we're on the subject of dumping awful performers, why not Womack, Milton, Aurilia, Kearns....

It's an empty example, tr. It only applies to fringey players. Any of these other embarrassments for players get to wallow around in their stink because the Reds think it's smart to pay some of these guys over $1 million.It seems to apply to guys who showed up significantly overweight. I'm not sure why Kearns applies here, since he was sent back to the minors for being out of shape last year himself. To a player with the ability of Kearns, that is akin to cutting some scrub like Hancock. And face it, when you're a scrub hoping to land a back of the bullpen job, it was ignorant to show up overweight. You have Hancock, with his injury problems showing a total lack of committment. To turn this into "what about poor performers" is nothing more than a bait and switch on the true issue. Guys like Womack and Aurilia, whom are agreeable shadows of their former selves, have been valuable performers over their respective careers, and I don't think they showed up with love handles.

BTW, I heard this same stuff when Marvin started cracking the whip with some Bengals chaff when he took over from folks who had been complaining about how bad the Bengals were, then complained when they started to show some backbone.

MattyHo4Life
02-22-2006, 08:31 PM
Would you rather me compare him to Rick White? He probably showed up to camp with love handles.

traderumor
02-22-2006, 08:34 PM
Would you rather me compare him to Rick White? He probably showed up to camp with love handles.Off season acquisition who would have been on another team when the message was delivered to individuals.

Besides, comparing height and weight to determine fairness is not really valid since folks are built different. Some guys my height and weight can play lineman in the NFL at my age, I cannot.

Falls City Beer
02-22-2006, 08:47 PM
It seems to apply to guys who showed up significantly overweight. I'm not sure why Kearns applies here, since he was sent back to the minors for being out of shape last year himself. To a player with the ability of Kearns, that is akin to cutting some scrub like Hancock. And face it, when you're a scrub hoping to land a back of the bullpen job, it was ignorant to show up overweight. You have Hancock, with his injury problems showing a total lack of committment. To turn this into "what about poor performers" is nothing more than a bait and switch on the true issue. Guys like Womack and Aurilia, whom are agreeable shadows of their former selves, have been valuable performers over their respective careers, and I don't think they showed up with love handles.

BTW, I heard this same stuff when Marvin started cracking the whip with some Bengals chaff when he took over from folks who had been complaining about how bad the Bengals were, then complained when they started to show some backbone.

Tony Womack is a far less valuable commodity than Josh Hancock.

Aurilia complained constantly and got nothing but rewarded with playing time over talent like EE.

It's not cracking the whip. You think it is. But it's showmanship. Lewis actually got rid of waste on the Bengals. The current Reds 40 man looks like a toxic waste dump. Tough, my ass. And you can bet the farm that guys like Womack and Aurilia will see a ton of playing time with OBPs hovering around .300.

It's bogus. Bullcrap. Ballyhoo. It's all a tough guy show--all words no action. And when the Reds' losses this season mount into the upper 80s/90s we won't even think for a second about how big Jerry brought his "no-nonsense" style to straighten out the Reds. In fact, we won't be thinking about Jerry Narron at all.

TeamBoone
02-22-2006, 09:21 PM
It's not as though she doesn't have a point. And while we're on the subject of dumping awful performers, why not Womack, Milton, Aurilia, Kearns....

This had nothing to do with performance; it had everything to do with Hancock not taking seriously what amounts to a mandate from the Club's manager at the end of last season. The rules are for everyone; he ignored it.

And maybe it was "showmanship". So what? Someone has to be the boss... and in this case, it's JN.

Even though he was listed at 207 doesn't mean that perhaps he had already gained some weight during the season. He could have weighed more by season's end.

Falls City Beer
02-22-2006, 09:25 PM
This had nothing to do with performance; .

Therein lies the problem.

Arbitrary weight rules amount to nothing more than window-dressing for skills. I bet Adam's overweight. He sure looks it in his picture. But obviously, the rules don't apply to him. It's baloney. It's right up there with the massage-chair incident.

Make the cuts performance-based. Then you've to explain yourself to no one.

TeamBoone
02-22-2006, 09:27 PM
Therein lies the problem.

Arbitrary weight rules amount to nothing more than window-dressing for skills. I bet Adam's overweight. He sure looks it in his picture. But obviously, the rules don't apply to him. It's baloney. It's right up there with the massage-chair incident.

Make the cuts performance-based. Then you've to explain yourself to no one.

He doesn't have to explain himself to anyone. He's the boss.

In addition, he already said that all players aren't treated the same. There was more to that statement in one of the articles.

Falls City Beer
02-22-2006, 09:34 PM
I hope Jerry enjoys his run as manager. I sure hope he doesn't start pointing fingers when the losses start piling up--that would be, ehem, undignified.

Cedric
02-22-2006, 09:35 PM
Therein lies the problem.

Arbitrary weight rules amount to nothing more than window-dressing for skills. I bet Adam's overweight. He sure looks it in his picture. But obviously, the rules don't apply to him. It's baloney. It's right up there with the massage-chair incident.

Make the cuts performance-based. Then you've to explain yourself to no one.

How is weight not performance-based? Maybe they realized with his weight he wouldn't be ready when they need him and cut him. You are too smart to compare reject pitchers like Hancock and Adam Dunn.

Falls City Beer
02-22-2006, 09:39 PM
How is weight not performance-based? Maybe they realized with his weight he wouldn't be ready when they need him and cut him. You are too smart to compare reject pitchers like Hancock and Adam Dunn.

I'm saying if it's a rule, then it's a rule. It applies to everybody.

If it's some arbitrary mechanism to "get tough" on people on the fringe then it's stupid and unfairly applied.

Just make it performance-based. How hard is it?

Weight isn't performance. No matter how hard you try to make it. If he can't throw his pitches, that's performance. Fine, cut him.

But this arbitrarily applied "weight rule" crap is for the birds. It's not going to make a damn bit of difference, and it does nothing but make the Reds look (more) like a bush league outfit.

traderumor
02-22-2006, 10:08 PM
I'm saying if it's a rule, then it's a rule. It applies to everybody.

If it's some arbitrary mechanism to "get tough" on people on the fringe then it's stupid and unfairly applied.

Just make it performance-based. How hard is it?

Weight isn't performance. No matter how hard you try to make it. If he can't throw his pitches, that's performance. Fine, cut him.

But this arbitrarily applied "weight rule" crap is for the birds. It's not going to make a damn bit of difference, and it does nothing but make the Reds look (more) like a bush league outfit.I think its a great message to be sending. If Bush is setting a standard for a player and having him suffer the consequences for falling well short of the standard, then I guess I don't understand what you mean by "bush."

To me it is about performance, which doing appropriate offseason conditioning is part of performing one's job. I think your attitude is more "old school" than Narron's considering that in the "good old days" guys used to brag about having to play themselves into shape. All of your other accusations about who might have reported overweight are simply conjecture.

Patrick Bateman
02-22-2006, 10:34 PM
Actually, put me down for a similar sentiment. I hope Hancock earns some Show-related cash money, as long as he gets bombed every time the Reds are in the other dugout.


Make no mistake, Handcock is not a particularly talented pitcher, but his time in the show was not filled with bombings. He was actually quite servicable when he did pitch here.

We've had many, many worst showings than Hancock.

alloverjr
02-22-2006, 11:34 PM
207 pounds when you're 6'3" isn't bad.

Well, considering that equates to a BMI of 26 which classifies one as overweight, I'd say it ain't good.

As for the actual release, you can cross off the weight and pencil in any other edict that was passed down from management to Josh. If he didn't follow through, he either doesn't care or is incredibly stupid. Neither of which are stellar traits for a human being fighting for a roster spot. We're also not talking Cy Young either.

MattyHo4Life
02-22-2006, 11:40 PM
Well, considering that equates to a BMI of 26 which classifies one as overweight, I'd say it ain't good.

Then there are a lot more cuts that need to be made before Hancock.

Spring~Fields
02-22-2006, 11:41 PM
I don't think it would come as a surprise if Hancock made a decent contribution to the Cards team, the Reds have had worse, and the Cards have more assets anyway.

Cedric
02-22-2006, 11:54 PM
Then there are a lot more cuts that need to be made before Hancock.

Why? Did any of those guys have limited potential and an even worse history? You don't give the Josh Hancock's of the world slack.

traderumor
02-23-2006, 12:00 AM
Then there are a lot more cuts that need to be made before Hancock.I don't know about before Hancock (in fact, y'all can have him), but my hope is that many more scrubs like him are dismissed from the organization instead of looking at guys like him as help for the big league club.

MattyHo4Life
02-23-2006, 12:13 AM
I don't know about before Hancock (in fact, y'all can have him), but my hope is that many more scrubs like him are dismissed from the organization instead of looking at guys like him as help for the big league club.

Thanks...we'll take him, and you can have Rick White. ;)

alloverjr
02-23-2006, 12:37 AM
Then there are a lot more cuts that need to be made before Hancock.

I would whole-heartedly agree, including your boy Rick White :)

However, I didn't say or mean to insinuate that being fat is a condition of release in and of itself. That he didn't do what he was told to do was. He wasn't the worst pitcher on the staff, but there were 130+ games last year where he could have proved me wrong.

REDREAD
02-23-2006, 01:46 AM
It's bogus. Bullcrap. Ballyhoo. It's all a tough guy show--all words no action. And when the Reds' losses this season mount into the upper 80s/90s we won't even think for a second about how big Jerry brought his "no-nonsense" style to straighten out the Reds. In fact, we won't be thinking about Jerry Narron at all.

Yes, this reminds me so much of when Tim Naehring took over the minors.
Two players got promoted in the minors, and they complained to a writer about the level they just advanced past (IIRC they compained about the food at the lower level), so "tough guy" Naehring sent them back down.

I'm not crying about losing Hancock, but this "Tough guy" act the Reds pull is just pure BS. It's a smoke and mirror trick designed to pump up the fans.

SteelSD
02-23-2006, 03:53 AM
Well, considering that equates to a BMI of 26 which classifies one as overweight, I'd say it ain't good.

A BMI of 25.9 only qualifies one as "overweight" according to the archaic BMI standards if one is not an athlete.

Curt Schilling (27.9 BMI) is, by BMI standards, approaching "obese" level at his listed height and weight of 6'5" and 235 lbs.

Adam Dunn- at 6'6" and 275 lbs. listed- is a guy who'd probably be able to get his insurance company to pay for gastric bypass surgery because that guy (31.8 BPI) is actually 1.8 points over "obese" level according to his BMI.

For the sake of completeness, here are the BMI rankings for each of the Reds offensive players based on their listed height and weight records at baseballreference.com:

C- Jason Larue: 27.9 (Overweight)
C- Javy Valentin: 28.4 (Overweight)
1B- Adam Dunn: 31.8 (Obese)
2B- Rich Aurilia: 23.1 (Normal Weight)
2B- Ryan Freel: 26.5 (Overweight)
SS- Felipe Lopez: 23.1 (Normal Weight)
3B- Edwin Encarnacion: 25.7 (Overweight)
LF- Wily Mo Pena: 26.9 (Overweight)
CF- Ken Griffey Jr.: 25.6 (Overweight)
RF- Austin Kearns: 27.5 (Overweight)

Ryan Freel? Fat. Ken Griffey Jr.? Fat. Edwin Encarnacion? Fat.

And speedster Juan Pierre, who's listed at 6'0" 180 lbs.? He's 0.4 BMI points below "fat". Yeah. But at least he isn't Rickey Henderson- whose last listed height (5'10") and weight (195 lbs.) is 2.0 points from being obese. Rickey Henderson- potential stomach stapling candidate. Who knew?

Do we really need to continue? Do we really think that Rich Aurilia is 175 pounds anymore? Do we really think that Felipe Lopez is 185 at this point? Those are the only two guys on the team who approach borderline "normal" weight according to BPI standards- which don't apply to athletes in the first place. The only place that currently appears to utilize BMI is Hollywood. And, frankly, someone needs to get in there and tell some of those frail waif-like girls to eat a damned sandwich.

Even if Josh Hancock showed up at 224 lbs. (17 lbs. over his listed weight of 207), we're at a BPI of 28. That's as fat as Rickey Henderson. Blah. And frankly, I have a feeling that Hancock probably was more likely around 10 lbs. over his listed weight. That can be lost in a month. Easily.

Josh Hancock was an easy target. He was a guy who slipped through waivers unclaimed. He was sacrificed to send a ridiculous neutered "message" to a team of players that have no reason to fear being sent home. Just another version of "chairgate".

FCB and MattyMo are 100% correct on this one. Stupid message applied arbitrarily and meant nothing to those who know they can't possibly be a target. But at least fat guy Ryan Freel thought it was a bright thing to do. I guess that's something...

savafan
02-23-2006, 04:02 AM
I'm not saying that Hancock would be a difference maker, but at the end of last season, after coming back from injury, he posted an ERA of 1.93 and a WHIP of 0.857. I realize that it was only 14 innings, but for an organization so hurting for pitching, shouldn't they at least give him a look-see in Spring Training action before simply cutting him loose? He already wasn't on the 40 man roster, so what harm would it have done?

savafan
02-23-2006, 05:53 AM
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/BFF83C6A4DA397408625711E001BE824?OpenDocument

By Derrick Goold
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/23/2006

JUPITER, FLA.

Although 6-1 in his past 23 major league appearances, Josh Hancock was released by the pitching-strapped Cincinnati Reds this week because they dubbed him overweight.

He felt he was an ample and easy target for the Reds to make a statement.

"There's a lot of bitterness; it still kind of stings," said Hancock, 27. "But I definitely think I was made an example of, like a shot across the bow to the other players to let them know they have to come in and be in shape and be ready. ... It was unexpected, to say the least."

Hancock, a righthander, arrived at the Cardinals' spring training facility Wednesday as a nonroster invitee to camp. Cardinals officials said he passed his physical, and one official said he didn't look particularly overweight. Hancock briefly threw off the mound and will merge this week into the mix of pitchers vying for a righthanded relief role or a slot in the Class AAA Memphis starting rotation.

The Reds reportedly told Hancock on Saturday that they were releasing him because he was 17 to 17 1/2 pounds overweight. Hancock said he had not been given a target weight, nor had he been approached about his weight as he worked out over the past month.

"I knew I was carrying more weight this year, but I'm not carrying any more than I have in previous years," said Hancock, who threw 18 1/3 innings in winter ball in Venezuela to further distance himself from 2005's injuries. "I think the one thing that (hurt me) was that in my bio it says I was 207 and I haven't been 207 since I was in high school. You add 17 pounds to that, and then there I am."

Hancock, who has a 6-3 record in 32 major league appearances (12 starts), missed five months of last season with a groin injury. That cost him a spot on the Reds'opening-day roster and kept him off the big league mound until September. Hancock made 11 appearances for the Reds, went 1-0 and had a 1.93 ERA. Four of his appearances last season were against the Cardinals. He pitched five innings against them, allowed one unearned run and four hits, and got his only win.

Cardinals manager Tony La Russa said, "I asked him for his scouting report, because he always pitched well against us."

MattyHo4Life
02-23-2006, 07:19 AM
I would whole-heartedly agree, including your boy Rick White :)

My boy? :laugh: Here is what I said about both White and Hancock the day that Rick White was signed.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42645&page=4&highlight=rick+white+signed

MattyHo4Life
02-23-2006, 07:26 AM
In the past, I've heard a lot of players talk about gaining weight over the winter. Steve Kline is one of them. Kline always talked about how he gained weight over the winter, but always would lose it in Spring Training.

OnBaseMachine
02-23-2006, 07:40 AM
Overweight or not, Hancock sucked and I'm glad the Cards picked him up. It should help the Reds lead the NL in homeruns again.

traderumor
02-23-2006, 08:04 AM
The Reds reportedly told Hancock on Saturday that they were releasing him because he was 17 to 17 1/2 pounds overweight. Hancock said he had not been given a target weight, nor had he been approached about his weight as he worked out over the past month.And I also have this wonderful tract of land in the Florida Everglades that I now have to sell because of the mean ole Reds.

MattyHo4Life
02-23-2006, 08:15 AM
Overweight or not, Hancock sucked and I'm glad the Cards picked him up. It should help the Reds lead the NL in homeruns again.

Yeah...Hancock really sucked last year. :rolleyes:

Besides, if he isn't any good, then he won't make the team.

OnBaseMachine
02-23-2006, 08:34 AM
Fine, you win. We'll look past his mediocre minor league stats and the fact that he gave up 17 homeruns in 64 innings with the Reds two years ago. He's a great pitcher then. :rolleyes:

I hope the Cards feel the same about him as you do. Reds could hit 250 homeruns next year if Josh makes the Cards roster!

MattyHo4Life
02-23-2006, 08:49 AM
Fine, you win. We'll look past his mediocre minor league stats and the fact that he gave up 17 homeruns in 64 innings with the Reds two years ago. He's a great pitcher then. :rolleyes:

I hope the Cards feel the same about him as you do. Reds could hit 250 homeruns next year if Josh makes the Cards roster!

Did I ever say he is a great pitcher? I just don't see the harm in signing him to a minor league deal. He could be a good reliever for the Cardinals. If not, then what harms was done in signing him? I'd take Hancock over Rick White easily. He will either be in the Cards bullpen or in AAA Memphis.

Krusty
02-23-2006, 09:58 AM
Given that the Reds signed Chris Hammond and Rick White to guarantee contracts, Hancock was on the bubble when he rolled into camp. And if Narron told him at the end of last season about being prepared and in shape when it is time to roll into camp, then Hancock should knew he was on the bubble. Coming in overweight when you're an established veteran is one thing. Coming into camp trying to make a roster spot while weighing more than you should is another.

traderumor
02-23-2006, 10:03 AM
Yeah...Hancock really sucked last year. :rolleyes:

Besides, if he isn't any good, then he won't make the team.
Not sure why you are rolling your eyes. Hancock did put up some good numbers in that short stint with the Reds, but I know you know more about the game than to put any stock in 14 IP. How about that 1.73 WHIP in AAA Louisville over 44 IP with a 5.93 ERA? Or the 1.55 WHIP when he "wasn't that bad" in some starts with the Reds in so many eyes.

traderumor
02-23-2006, 10:08 AM
Josh Hancock was an easy target. He was a guy who slipped through waivers unclaimed. He was sacrificed to send a ridiculous neutered "message" to a team of players that have no reason to fear being sent home. Just another version of "chairgate".He made himself a target. What I don't get about the comparison to the chair episode is that it affected two of the stars, yet the boohooing over Hancock is because he is a fringe player who was supposedly not much of a sacrifice talent-wise. I don't see any comparison between the two.

TRF
02-23-2006, 10:48 AM
Hancock got cut in winterball, missed 130 inning last year, increased the wind speed in Kentucky with all the longballs he gave up, and was given a simple chore.

As a member of the reds he failed to keep his era down, his HR's allowed down, his injuries down, and now his weight down.

As for the message it sends, I like it. This isn't a message to Dunn or Jr. It isn't even a message to a guy like Freel. This message is for you RA, Womack and Cruz. Cuz their year wasn't too damn hot last season.

MattyHo4Life
02-23-2006, 11:04 AM
Not sure why you are rolling your eyes. Hancock did put up some good numbers in that short stint with the Reds, but I know you know more about the game than to put any stock in 14 IP. How about that 1.73 WHIP in AAA Louisville over 44 IP with a 5.93 ERA? Or the 1.55 WHIP when he "wasn't that bad" in some starts with the Reds in so many eyes.

Once again, I'm not saying that he's the second coming of anyone. I'm just saying that he has the chance to be a servicable reliever. He's not going to hurt the Cards. If he can't beat out the likes of Reidling and company for a spot in the Cards bullpen, then he'll be pitching in AAA.

I would rather give him a chance to see what he can do than a journeyman like Rick White who was never any good.

TRF
02-23-2006, 11:32 AM
Once again, I'm not saying that he's the second coming of anyone. I'm just saying that he has the chance to be a servicable reliever. He's not going to hurt the Cards. If he can't beat out the likes of Reidling and company for a spot in the Cards bullpen, then he'll be pitching in AAA.

I would rather give him a chance to see what he can do than a journeyman like Rick White who was never any good.

Except hancock is Rick White. Just younger.

The only thing Hancock had going for him in 2004 was wins. fat ERA, prone to the long ball.

Young crap is still crap. If you really want to screw up a pen, sign Ben Weber too.