PDA

View Full Version : Josh Hancock



grantbalfour
03-27-2006, 07:35 PM
8.1 IP, 10 K's, 0.00 ERA this spring.

OnBaseMachine
03-27-2006, 07:41 PM
8.1 IP, 10 K's, 0.00 ERA this spring.


:rolleyes: Is this ajmlx9 hiding behind a new name?

12 IP, 4 H, 5 BB, 12 K, 0.75 WHIP, 0.75 ERA. That was Josias Manzanillo's Spring Training line back in 2003. He turned out well, eh?

Matt700wlw
03-27-2006, 07:43 PM
8.1 IP, 10 K's, 0.00 ERA this spring.


Um....

Team Clark
03-27-2006, 07:45 PM
Um....

I showed up to Spring Training "fat" this year and noticed I fit in quite well.

pedro
03-27-2006, 07:51 PM
Hancock isn't a good pitcher.

westofyou
03-27-2006, 07:51 PM
http://momus.no-place.com/images/drawings/hick.jpg

KoryMac5
03-27-2006, 08:06 PM
Hancock is nothing more than a long reliever. We have so many of them already there was no room for him. It was convenient that he did show up at camp overweight so the Reds could cut him.

MattyHo4Life
03-28-2006, 12:14 AM
I don't know....I put little to no stock in spring training stats. Having said that, I'm glad that the Cards put Hancock ahead of Nelson (they cut Nelson on Sunday). I do think Hancock can be a decent reliever if he makes the team, but he won't pitch as well as he has this spring.

paulrichjr
03-28-2006, 12:26 AM
Hancock isn't a good pitcher.

I disagree. Hancock was often quiet good COMPARED to most everyone on our staff. Releasing him was in my opinion stupid.

Show me one problem with a guy that has a 1.93 ERA last year. Yes I know he didn't pitch much but when he did he did very well. How about a starter for our staff that goes 5 and 1 with a 4.45 ERA in 2004 when we couldn't win a game to save our lives. Do you remember the team we ran out there the last month and a half in 2004? Hancock was the one surprise. Frankly I am in the minority I know but some of Krivs moves have been puzzling. Releasing a pitcher the first day of camp instead of working his butt off seems like one of those puzzles.

2004 CIN NL 5 1 12 9 0 0 2 0 54.7 60 34 27 14 25 31 1 5 251 2 0 4.45 4.01 90 1.555
2005 27 CIN NL 1 0 11 0 0 0 5 0 14.0 11 4 3 1 1 5 0 0 54 0 0 1.93 4.44 230 0.857

MattyHo4Life
03-28-2006, 12:33 AM
Releasing a pitcher the first day of camp instead of working his butt off seems like one of those puzzles.

I agree that it was a mistake. I would prefer Hancock in my bullpen over Rick White anyday.

westofyou
03-28-2006, 12:33 AM
Show me one problem with a guy that has a 1.93 ERA last year

14 IP is hardly anything to hang your hat on at the age 27, nor is 3.21 K per nine.

pedro
03-28-2006, 12:35 AM
I disagree. Hancock was often quiet good COMPARED to most everyone on our staff. Releasing him was in my opinion stupid.

Show me one problem with a guy that has a 1.93 ERA last year. Yes I know he didn't pitch much but when he did he did very well. How about a starter for our staff that goes 5 and 1 with a 4.45 ERA in 2004 when we couldn't win a game to save our lives. Do you remember the team we ran out there the last month and a half in 2004? Hancock was the one surprise. Frankly I am in the minority I know but some of Krivs moves have been puzzling. Releasing a pitcher the first day of camp instead of working his butt off seems like one of those puzzles.

2004 CIN NL 5 1 12 9 0 0 2 0 54.7 60 34 27 14 25 31 1 5 251 2 0 4.45 4.01 90 1.555
2005 27 CIN NL 1 0 11 0 0 0 5 0 14.0 11 4 3 1 1 5 0 0 54 0 0 1.93 4.44 230 0.857

Was he good enough to make the Reds staff? Maybe.

Is he good? Not really.

It really doesn't matter whether Hancock should or shouldn't have been cut. He wasn't going to be a difference maker for the Reds and I be shocked if he turns out to be one for the Cardinals.

Look at his K/BB ratio or the fact that he gave up 17 HR's in 64 innings in 2004.

Hancock's career stats are oddly scewed by seasons in which he did well while pitching under 20 innings. In the seasons where he actually had decent samples sizes Hancock was exposed for the marginal pitcher he is.

BrooklynRedz
03-28-2006, 12:48 AM
I think Hancock sunk his own boat with his lack of attention to the offseason program. On the heels of what many considered a disappointing recovery from injury last year, the club had no other choice. There is a roster deep in Hancocks and that's been the problem for far too many years. Cut bait on these jokers.

Izzardius
03-28-2006, 01:17 AM
Hancock will be long reliever/mopup guy and not much more. It was strange that the Reds cut him, but no big loss.

pedro
03-28-2006, 01:24 AM
I smell a subtle ruse.

MattyHo4Life
03-28-2006, 08:45 AM
I think Hancock sunk his own boat with his lack of attention to the offseason program. On the heels of what many considered a disappointing recovery from injury last year, the club had no other choice. There is a roster deep in Hancocks and that's been the problem for far too many years. Cut bait on these jokers.

If the Reds were so interested in fit relievers, why did they sign Rick White?

Krusty
03-28-2006, 08:58 AM
The front office sent a message by cutting Hancock.....take the game seriously or get the hell out. If you can't come in shape and under the weight outlined by the front office, then they have to question your commitment.

Even Austin Kearns got the message this year. If you want to change the fortunes of this club around, then it starts with the attitude and mindset throughout the entire organization first.

MattyHo4Life
03-28-2006, 09:02 AM
The front office sent a message by cutting Hancock.....take the game seriously or get the hell out. If you can't come in shape and under the weight outlined by the front office, then they have to question your commitment.

Even Austin Kearns got the message this year. If you want to change the fortunes of this club around, then it starts with the attitude and mindset throughout the entire organization first.

According to Hancock, the team never told him that he needed to lose weight.

BrooklynRedz
03-28-2006, 09:12 AM
If the Reds were so interested in fit relievers, why did they sign Rick White?

Because not all players are treated equally. Dunn arriving at camp a little over weight will be treated far differently than would Kearns. Granted, White is hardly Dunn, but he has had some success, whereas Hancock has not. Hancock took over half a season to recover from a strained groin last year. And how does he prepare himself for this season? With a donut-of-the-week subscription.

There is no better comparison than Coffey and Hancock. Coffey has fought weight issues all his life and how does he prepare for a shot at a full season on the ML roster? With a disciplined offseason program and arriving at camp a good month before reporting date. If Hancock had shown one iota of desire, I'm willing to bet he'd be in a Reds uni still. As it is, good luck with him.

MattyHo4Life
03-28-2006, 09:19 AM
Because not all players are treated equally. Dunn arriving at camp a little over weight will be treated far differently than would Kearns. Granted, White is hardly Dunn, but he has had some success, whereas Hancock has not. Hancock took over half a season to recover from a strained groin last year. And how does he prepare himself for this season? With a donut-of-the-week subscription.

Rick White is a BAD reliever who has had very little success in his long career. Bottom line, he is a bad reliever.

Chip R
03-28-2006, 10:02 AM
So let it be written! So let it be done!

Hey! I stole that line! You probably stole all those Nobel Prizes too.

RedsManRick
03-28-2006, 10:12 AM
Quit looking at numbers like OPS. Who cares? W/L and ERA are ALL THAT MATTERS when it comes to a pitcher.

A guy that gives up 40 doubles is going to have a higher OPS than a guy that gives up 80 singles. Who cares?

I want to know if he can keep his ERA down and have a winning record. Hancock was a winner with a (relatively) low ERA.

Nolan Ryan was a HORRIBLE pitcher in 1987.

OnBaseMachine
03-28-2006, 07:29 PM
Rick White is a BAD reliever who has had very little success in his long career. Bottom line, he is a bad reliever.

As is Josh Hancock.

traderumor
03-28-2006, 07:39 PM
According to Hancock, the team never told him that he needed to lose weight.
Yea, you get those kind of denials from ex-employees. Sort of like George Costanza's response when confronted with having sex with the cleaning lady in the office: "Was that wrong?"

MattyHo4Life
03-28-2006, 10:42 PM
Yea, you get those kind of denials from ex-employees. Sort of like George Costanza's response when confronted with having sex with the cleaning lady in the office: "Was that wrong?"

Of course the employee is lying, and the employer must be telling the truth.

MattyHo4Life
03-28-2006, 10:43 PM
As is Josh Hancock.

At least he is a younger and cheaper bad reliever.

PuffyPig
03-29-2006, 09:09 AM
Rick White is a BAD reliever who has had very little success in his long career. Bottom line, he is a bad reliever.

Rick White has been in the majors since 1994, with an ERA of 4.24. While there's lots to be said (negative) about Rick White, he has been, over that time, an average reliever (at worse).

While I don't, at this time, want him on my team, let's not exaggerate his career.

dfs
03-29-2006, 09:20 AM
...I don't understand the need to "make an example" of Josh Hancock.

You've got the worst pitching staff in the major leagues, a historically bad staff and on one of the first official days of spring training you walk over to a 27 year old arm and cut it? to make a point?

I really don't get that. I don't think Hancock was anything special, but he was as likely to give the reds 100 decent innings as a swing man as Gosling or Kozlowski or...well or Milton or Williams or Paul Wilson. That's not even talking about a conversion to relief. I certainly don't think the guy should have been assured a spot in the rotation, but he wasn't even on the 40 man roster. Why release him? To make the cardinals better?

Ok...they didn't have enough space to look at all the pitchers they wanted to, why not just send the dude to the minor league camp? But release him out of the organization? That's silly.

Hancock says nobody talked with him about losing weight at the end of last year. The cardinals don't seem to have a problem with his weight. Last year all spring training we heard about how great Austin Kearns looked. He got out of the gate slow and all of a sudden he was too heavy and needed to go to AAA and get right. huh?

traderumor
03-29-2006, 09:45 AM
Of course the employee is lying, and the employer must be telling the truth.
Or convenient memory, or perhaps misunderstanding. I guess both parties made a mistake if nothing was put in writing so it didn't become he said/they said. But then I can think of one party in the dispute that needs to save face, and it isn't the Reds.

Glad you are happy to have Hancock. I always enjoy the Reds having pitchers like him to face.

MattyHo4Life
03-29-2006, 10:58 AM
But then I can think of one party in the dispute that needs to save face, and it isn't the Reds.

Glad you are happy to have Hancock. I always enjoy the Reds having pitchers like him to face.

I just see it differently. I don't think it is Hancock that needs to save face. He has a job with a better team that is a favorite to make the playoffs every year. He could come out and say that he didn't lose the wieght that the Reds asked him to lose, and nobody in St. Louis would care. On the other hand, the Reds need to explain to their fans why they cut loose a young reliever that pitched very well the last month of last season. It's not like the Reds have an excess of good young pitchers. The Reds have every reason to save face. Hancock has a good chance to make the bullpen on a very good team. Why does he need to save face?

westofyou
03-29-2006, 11:07 AM
On the other hand, the Reds need to explain to their fans why they cut loose a young reliever that pitched very well the last month of last season.

Well they could start by saying, A. He's not young (28) and B. He pitched only 14 innings last year but in 2004 he pitched like crap for 60 plus and in 2003 he was pedestrian at best.

paulrichjr
03-29-2006, 11:08 AM
I just see it differently. I don't think it is Hancock that needs to save face. He has a job with a better team that is a favorite to make the playoffs every year. He could come out and say that he didn't lose the wieght that the Reds asked him to lose, and nobody in St. Louis would care. On the other hand, the Reds need to explain to their fans why they cut loose a young reliever that pitched very well the last month of last season. It's not like the Reds have an excess of good young pitchers. The Reds have every reason to save face. Hancock has a good chance to make the bullpen on a very good team. Why does he need to save face?


Anything that DanO did or anyone that DanO traded for is bad in many people's eyes. Hancock was DanO's pitcher like Aurilla is his hitter. I have already stated that in my mind the first move that Krivs made (dropping Hancock I think) was just plain stupid. I personally feel that most of the moves that he has made have been bad but so far he is in a honeymoon stage on this board. The season will start soon and I have a feeling that Arroyo might end up being Krivs Hancock.

traderumor
03-29-2006, 11:13 AM
I just see it differently. I don't think it is Hancock that needs to save face. He has a job with a better team that is a favorite to make the playoffs every year. He could come out and say that he didn't lose the wieght that the Reds asked him to lose, and nobody in St. Louis would care. On the other hand, the Reds need to explain to their fans why they cut loose a young reliever that pitched very well the last month of last season. It's not like the Reds have an excess of good young pitchers. The Reds have every reason to save face. Hancock has a good chance to make the bullpen on a very good team. Why does he need to save face?Well, he went to St. Louis and got in shape, so there seems to be some truth that he did not show up at Reds' camp fit as a fiddle. Plus, there's the media coverage of the reason for the Reds releasing him. Your average athlete would be embarrassed by such a situation, as he obviously was.

As for the Reds, notice you have not seen any more comments forthcoming from them since the cut. And while he will make the squad based on a good spring, I don't expect him to hang around long once the ST pyrite turns into powder. But then, who knows, maybe he'll have a Simontacchi year and Master Dave Duncan can put another feather in his cap.

westofyou
03-29-2006, 11:15 AM
Anything that DanO did or anyone that DanO traded for is bad in many people's eyes.

Where's the list of the *good* MLB moves he made?

If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck.

paulrichjr
03-29-2006, 11:18 AM
Well they could start by saying, A. He's not young (28) and B. He pitched only 14 innings last year but in 2004 he pitched like crap for 60 plus and in 2003 he was pedestrian at best.

Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP
CIN NL 5 1 12 9 0 0 2 0 54.7 60 34 27 14 25 31 1 5

WP BFP IBB BK ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP

251 2 0 4.45 4.01 90 1.555

I realize that you are the stats guy on this board and know a lot more than I do about this stuff so I would like your help explaining how this is crap.

I remember 2004 as a time that we had half of the team on the DL and guys like Tim Hummel were finishing out the season. We barely won a game it seemed like the last 2 months of the season yet Josh Hancock somehow came in and won 5 and kept us in every game. Yes he gave up a lot of homers but in our park everyone gives up a lot.
TOTAL team age - 28.5 162 5.19 76 86 47 162 157 5 8 1443.7 1595 907 832 236 572 992 6451 74 54 3 55 77

Please understand that I don't disagree with you..I just don't know what you are talking about. I seriously felt that we had a chance to win every game that he started while EVERYONE else that pitched that year absolutely stunk.

MattyHo4Life
03-29-2006, 11:20 AM
Well, he went to St. Louis and got in shape, so there seems to be some truth that he did not show up at Reds' camp fit as a fiddle.

I don't remember him ever saying that he was fit. A lot of players don't report to camp fit as a fiddle. I remember Steve Kline usually came to camp overweight. He would always say that he used Spring Training to get into shape. At the time, I thought it was a really bad move for the Reds, but I think the Cardinals made a good move by giving him a chance. Only time will tell.

paulrichjr
03-29-2006, 11:24 AM
Where's the list of the *good* MLB moves he made?

If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck.

I'm not saying that DanO made a lot of good moves. As I have stated in other posts I feel that signing Randa, Aurilla, and Javier Valentin were good moves. In fact the Valentin move might have been his best move. His draft last year was at least a B after a lot of C and below drafts by this team. I'm just saying that in some peoples eyes every move by DanO was wrong and don't give him any credit.

traderumor
03-29-2006, 11:26 AM
Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP
CIN NL 5 1 12 9 0 0 2 0 54.7 60 34 27 14 25 31 1 5

WP BFP IBB BK ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP

251 2 0 4.45 4.01 90 1.555

I realize that you are the stats guy on this board and know a lot more than I do about this stuff so I would like your help explaining how this is crap.

I remember 2004 as a time that we had half of the team on the DL and guys like Tim Hummel were finishing out the season. We barely won a game it seemed like the last 2 months of the season yet Josh Hancock somehow came in and won 5 and kept us in every game. Yes he gave up a lot of homers but in our park everyone gives up a lot.
TOTAL team age - 28.5 162 5.19 76 86 47 162 157 5 8 1443.7 1595 907 832 236 572 992 6451 74 54 3 55 77

Please understand that I don't disagree with you..I just don't know what you are talking about. I seriously felt that we had a chance to win every game that he started while EVERYONE else that pitched that year absolutely stunk.
You can start with a WHIP of 1.555. 91 men reached on a hit or walk in 55 IP. Think about that. He was approaching two men on base for every inning pitched. Yikes is all you say to that. While that is typical for the Reds, that is not good pitching. I remember those late season games that helped along his 5-1 record. He worked out of jam after jam, ala Jimmy Haynes for a the entire 2002 season. The unfortunate part is if he had been cut without the concurrent "cutting loose the lard butt", no one would have blinked an eye.

MattyHo4Life
03-29-2006, 11:27 AM
Well they could start by saying, A. He's not young (28)

Then they would be lying. How many players on the Reds active roster are younger than Hancock? He is a lot younger than Rick White (37). He is also younger than Jeff Nelson (39) whom the Cards cut in favor of Hancock.

IslandRed
03-29-2006, 11:32 AM
Then they would be lying. How many players on the Reds active roster are younger than Hancock? He is a lot younger than Rick White (37). He is also younger than Jeff Nelson (39).

True. But 28 is old enough to have reached "he is what he is" status, which is the point. He's not a prospect that can be reasonably projected to get substantially better.

MattyHo4Life
03-29-2006, 11:39 AM
True. But 28 is old enough to have reached "he is what he is" status, which is the point. He's not a prospect that can be reasonably projected to get substantially better.

I agree with that. He's too old to be considered a prospect anymore, but he is young compared to most Major Leaguers. Nobody expects Hancock to be a great reliever, but I think he is good enough to make the Reds bullpen.

flyer85
03-29-2006, 11:42 AM
I agree with that. He's too old to be considered a prospect anymore, but he is young compared to most Major Leaguers. Nobody expects Hancock to be a great reliever, but I think he is good enough to make the Reds bullpen.I think Hancock would have adequately filled a role for the Reds that they are missing which is long relief/swingman.

MattyHo4Life
03-29-2006, 11:48 AM
Rick White has been in the majors since 1994, with an ERA of 4.24. While there's lots to be said (negative) about Rick White, he has been, over that time, an average reliever (at worse).

While I don't, at this time, want him on my team, let's not exaggerate his career.

Ok...you are right about his career. 5 years ago, Rick White was a average to good reliever. At 37, he is long past his prime. In two of the last three years he has had an ERA of over 5.00. I don't know about you, but I would just prefer a 27 year old decent reliever to a 37 year old decent reliever. Especially since that 27 year old is cheaper.

westofyou
03-29-2006, 11:51 AM
Then they would be lying. How many players on the Reds active roster are younger than Hancock? He is a lot younger than Rick White (37). He is also younger than Jeff Nelson (39) whom the Cards cut in favor of Hancock.
How many RH pitchers who have less than under 100 IP at the age of 28 make it?

If there is anything the game has shown it's that RH relievers are a dime a dozen.

Young?

Not in my book... compared to me yes.. compared to what I call young pitching.. no frigging way.

PuffyPig
03-29-2006, 12:46 PM
I don't know about you, but I would just prefer a 27 year old decent reliever to a 37 year old decent reliever. Especially since that 27 year old is cheaper.

You are assuming that Hancock is a decent reliever. He hasn't proven that yet.

flyer85
03-29-2006, 12:47 PM
You are assuming that Hancock is a decent reliever. He hasn't proven that yet.White has pretty much proven he isn't. Watch for White's HR rate to normalize from last year(back to 1.0+ for 9IP) and his ERA to jump well over 5.

MattyHo4Life
03-29-2006, 12:55 PM
You are assuming that Hancock is a decent reliever. He hasn't proven that yet.

He has pitched well enough in ST for the Cardinals to consider giving him a spot in the bullpen. It appears likely that both Hancock and Wainwright will make the team as relievers. If he doesn't pitch good enough, then they can send him to AAA. Jeff Nelson is available if the Reds are interested in another old reliever with good career stats. I would prefer both Hancock and Nelson over Rick White.

PuffyPig
03-29-2006, 05:32 PM
He has pitched well enough in ST ......

9 innings in spring training can't undo a lifetime of mediocrity.

FYI, I note Hancock got lit up today for 3 runs in 2/3rds of an inning. Baseball is a marathon, not a sprint. Players eventually reach their level over a larger sample size.

But yeah, I'd rather have Hancock over White or Nelson too!!!

I've never liked White, especially when he pitched about 1 month of near perfect ball for the Cards way back when. They had no right to get that kind of production.

And could Nelson get a LH hitter out today? I doubt it. The Cards already have too many pitchers who are either LOOGY (Rincon) or ROOGY (Looper). They certainly didn't need Nelson.

He would only have satisfied Larussa's need to use 6 pitchers in an inning.

MattyHo4Life
03-29-2006, 05:48 PM
9 innings in spring training can't undo a lifetime of

First off, I agree with this statement. Nelson was unhittable in ST also. I don't put any weight in ST statistics, but they are necessary in some cases when players are competing for jobs. I do put weight in regular season statistics, and Hancock did well last year even though it is a small sample size. I get the feeling that some of you think that I am arguing that Hancock is going to be a great reliever. I'm not, but I think he will be a servicable reliever, and for the cost....he was a great pickup for the Cardinals. I think the Reds could use him in their bullpen this year. I also think he will have a better year than Rick White.

OnBaseMachine
04-08-2006, 04:30 PM
Superstar gave up a 2-run HR to Barrett today. 6.75 ERA. ;)

paulrichjr
04-08-2006, 04:35 PM
Superstar gave up a 2-run HR to Barrett today. 6.75 ERA. ;)

He would still be a better option than the junk we have in our bullpen right now.

membengal
04-08-2006, 04:54 PM
Superstar gave up a 2-run HR to Barrett today. 6.75 ERA. ;)

I had flipped over to that right before it happened...best part was this from the Cards' announcers discussing Hancock (before the HR):

"Hancock was an absolute gift from the Reds."

Indeed.

harangatang
04-08-2006, 04:58 PM
He would still be a better option than the junk we have in our bullpen right now.
Hancock at 6.75 ERA or Hammond at 189.00 ERA

membengal
04-08-2006, 05:08 PM
Hancock at 6.75 ERA or Hammond at 189.00 ERA


I choose:

(c) Neither.

traderumor
04-08-2006, 06:44 PM
I had flipped over to that right before it happened...best part was this from the Cards' announcers discussing Hancock (before the HR):

"Hancock was an absolute gift from the Reds."

Indeed.The gift that keeps on giving :laugh:

MattyHo4Life
04-08-2006, 08:41 PM
Superstar gave up a 2-run HR to Barrett today. 6.75 ERA. ;)

Dang, and I thought he would go the entire season without giving up any home runs. ;)

Patrick Bateman
04-09-2006, 12:22 AM
Dang, and I thought he would go the entire season without giving up any home runs. ;)

THe fact that the Cards are using a 6.75 ERA reliver (who was relaesed by the Reds) in an important role speaks volumes.

It's shouting " Looper sucks".

The Baumer
04-09-2006, 11:04 PM
Hancock with another non-stellar performance tonight.

cincy09
04-09-2006, 11:07 PM
Hancock with another non-stellar performance tonight.

Maybe it's because he is fat? :beerme:

paulrichjr
07-23-2006, 02:55 PM
I disagree. Hancock was often quiet good COMPARED to most everyone on our staff. Releasing him was in my opinion stupid.

Show me one problem with a guy that has a 1.93 ERA last year. Yes I know he didn't pitch much but when he did he did very well. How about a starter for our staff that goes 5 and 1 with a 4.45 ERA in 2004 when we couldn't win a game to save our lives. Do you remember the team we ran out there the last month and a half in 2004? Hancock was the one surprise. Frankly I am in the minority I know but some of Krivs moves have been puzzling. Releasing a pitcher the first day of camp instead of working his butt off seems like one of those puzzles.

2004 CIN NL 5 1 12 9 0 0 2 0 54.7 60 34 27 14 25 31 1 5 251 2 0 4.45 4.01 90 1.555
2005 27 CIN NL 1 0 11 0 0 0 5 0 14.0 11 4 3 1 1 5 0 0 54 0 0 1.93 4.44 230 0.857



OK since someone else started a thread about Hancock I thought I would go back and look at what was said in March and April about him. I haven't changed my mind one bit about this move and think that if Kriv hadn't been so quick to react that we could have saved some of our ammo that we gave to the Nats for a trade later this month. Don't get me wrong, I love most of Krivs moves since the Hancock move...I just like to go back and look at what others thought then and now what they think...