PDA

View Full Version : Hancock Tonight



tripleaaaron
04-12-2006, 11:39 PM
Hancock pitched well in relief for the cards giving up no runs, no hits, and striking out 1 in the ninth inning, the only baserunner (B. Clark) reached on a fielding error by 2b A Miles.

Newman4
04-13-2006, 12:05 AM
Hancock had to have done something other than being fat to get the boot. Heck, Rick White isn't exactly ready for the Bow Flex commercial.

tripleaaaron
04-13-2006, 12:12 AM
no kidding, we could use this kind of bullpen production right now, I think narron just wanted to make an example out of someone, to prove to ownership that he was also committed to winning at all cost, and wouldn't tolerate otherwise, Hancock wasn't really even that out of shape either, and just got, well, screwd

StillFunkyB
04-13-2006, 12:13 AM
Hancock had to have done something other than being fat to get the boot. Heck, Rick White isn't exactly ready for the Bow Flex commercial.

I don't agree. They gave players offseason workout programs. Josh chose not to follow, and the management made an example. I don't have a problem with it.

The only caveat to that is that I don't get the feeling the rules apply to everyone. Would they have done the same thing had Dunn shown up that overweight?

OSURedLeg
04-13-2006, 12:31 AM
no kidding, we could use this kind of bullpen production right now, I think narron just wanted to make an example out of someone, to prove to ownership that he was also committed to winning at all cost, and wouldn't tolerate otherwise, Hancock wasn't really even that out of shape either, and just got, well, screwd


Who says he got screwed? Josh Hancock now has a role in the bullpen of the team favored to win the NL Central Division & probably also the favorite to make it back to the World Series. I dunno how others feel about that, but I call it luck.

savafan
04-13-2006, 01:37 AM
Who says he got screwed? Josh Hancock now has a role in the bullpen of the team favored to win the NL Central Division & probably also the favorite to make it back to the World Series. I dunno how others feel about that, but I call it luck.

You're right, we Reds fans got screwed.

SirFelixCat
04-13-2006, 05:48 AM
I don't agree. They gave players offseason workout programs. Josh chose not to follow, and the management made an example. I don't have a problem with it.

The only caveat to that is that I don't get the feeling the rules apply to everyone. Would they have done the same thing had Dunn shown up that overweight?


The difference, imo, is that Dunn wouldn't show up overweight. Making the kind of jack these players do, it's not out of line for the ballclubs to expect players to make staying in shape a 365 job.

And I have no problem with management making an example of Hancock. While I have no doubt he would have helped the ballclub this year, if you let things like that slide, it will have concequences. And let's face it...Hancock is a decent reliever, he's not anything that the Reds can't replace, or so I would hope....

CySeymour
04-13-2006, 10:34 AM
The only caveat to that is that I don't get the feeling the rules apply to everyone. Would they have done the same thing had Dunn shown up that overweight?

It's not a secret that this is the case...Narron himself said so. Heck, Sparky Anderson was famous for saying that Rose, Morgan, Bench and Perez had a different set of rules than the rest.

redsfan30
04-13-2006, 10:38 AM
I watched most of that game on Extra Innings, and in the 9th inning the announcers were politely destroying the Reds for dropping him. They understood the Reds were making an example of him but could not get over why a pitching starved team like the Reds would let him go.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 10:50 AM
I watched most of that game on Extra Innings, and in the 9th inning the announcers were politely destroying the Reds for dropping him. They understood the Reds were making an example of him but could not get over why a pitching starved team like the Reds would let him go.

Funny, I find myself in agreement with the Cardinals announcers. Particularly after seeing what our bullpen has put up over the first 1+ week.

traderumor
04-13-2006, 11:09 AM
Still mourning over the loss of Josh Hancock? What has this guy done to get this type of reaction? His numbers and his stuff have always been mediocre to bad and he is just more of the same that isn't getting the job done here. I just don't get it--they could release 10 more of the same and still not be rid of all the bad pitchers in this organization.

Newman4
04-13-2006, 11:11 AM
I don't agree. They gave players offseason workout programs. Josh chose not to follow, and the management made an example. I don't have a problem with it.

The only caveat to that is that I don't get the feeling the rules apply to everyone. Would they have done the same thing had Dunn shown up that overweight?

I just hope you meant the Hancock part and not the White/BowFlex part :laugh:

NJReds
04-13-2006, 11:13 AM
Still mourning over the loss of Josh Hancock? What has this guy done to get this type of reaction? His numbers and his stuff have always been mediocre to bad and he is just more of the same that isn't getting the job done here. I just don't get it--they could release 10 more of the same and still not be rid of all the bad pitchers in this organization.

Except that he's better than White, Hammond and Burns. I understand the need for taking a stand. But the Reds would be better off making cuts based on talent, considering they have very little in the pen right now.

dfs
04-13-2006, 11:25 AM
Still mourning over the loss of Josh Hancock? What has this guy done to get this type of reaction? His numbers and his stuff have always been mediocre to bad and he is just more of the same that isn't getting the job done here. I just don't get it--they could release 10 more of the same and still not be rid of all the bad pitchers in this organization.

But the object isn't to get rid of the "bad pitchers." The object is to keep the best pitchers with a chance at success. In trying to make a point, the reds management didn't do that.

In trying to make a [stupid] point, the reds management [clumsily] didn't do that [and left themselves open to second guessing].

Hancock may be no better or worse than 3 or 4 guys on the staff right now, but when those guys crash and burn, the organization doesn't have josh around as AAAA depth in order to stop the bleeding.

Veteran happy Narron had a problem with Hancock. I don't mind that, but Josh wasn't even on the 40 man roster. Shove him down to the minor league camp and make him earn/pitch his way back to GAB...that's fine. That's what a good organization would do. Cutting him lose and pretending it was about his weight was just small potatoes. Who exactly got the message? Chris Hammond? Rick White? Homer Baily?

It's not like Hancock was blocking a prospect.

Newman4
04-13-2006, 11:41 AM
Except that he's better than White.

A little slimmer too.

Newman4
04-13-2006, 11:43 AM
What I don't understand is why Hancock got cut and White signed to a FA deal when White is fatter than Hancock.

westofyou
04-13-2006, 11:44 AM
Oh now a 28 year old middle reliever having a career week has escaped the Reds grasp.

Oh the horror.......

traderumor
04-13-2006, 11:58 AM
Except that he's better than White, Hammond and Burns. I understand the need for taking a stand. But the Reds would be better off making cuts based on talent, considering they have very little in the pen right now.
I doubt if he puts up better numbers than any of those three over a full season. Of course, I'll be surprised if he makes it a full season, but Hancock has never put up numbers in his career like Hammond has over the last 4. Hammond is an old man and has really had troubles out of the gate, but I wouldn't jump the gun on saying he stinks just yet. He has had a successful run and could still have something to offer before all is said and done. White, eh, maybe a draw and Burns has better command than Hancock can ever hope for, although he is no great shakes, perhaps a draw in comparison. But better? I don't think so.

traderumor
04-13-2006, 12:00 PM
But the object isn't to get rid of the "bad pitchers."You must work for the Reds FO, because that seems to be their MO as well.

BrooklynRedz
04-13-2006, 12:00 PM
I don't agree. They gave players offseason workout programs. Josh chose not to follow, and the management made an example. I don't have a problem with it.

The only caveat to that is that I don't get the feeling the rules apply to everyone. Would they have done the same thing had Dunn shown up that overweight?

Apples...oranges.

Josh Hancock missed over half of last season because of a groin pull. The Reds were less-than-pleased with his ability to bounce back during rehab. The Reds presented him with an offseason program geared toward preventing the same injury while also putting him in a better physical condition so he could better respond to treatment. When he showed up at camp it was obvious he didn't take their suggestions seriously, implying perhaps he didn't take his career seriously. Hey, he wouldn't be the first to follow such a path (see Graves, Danny).

Dunn has not missed such a stretch of time due to injury. He has shown the ability to bounce back and heed instruction regarding treatment and rehab. Furthermore, he has separated himself from his peers with his performance on the field.

Dunn and Hancock couldn't be less similar.

MartyFan
04-13-2006, 12:20 PM
I don't disagree with Narron giving him the boot...in fact, Narron did not give him the boot....Hancock gave himself the boot and at the time all the involved people said they hoped that Hancock would catch on someplace else....I have no doubt that they were making an example of josh hancock and it does look like most players are following orders, not bellyaching aboutwhere, when and how much they play.

All of that said...we need some BP help ASAP.

I am glad Hancock is doing well and look forward to the Reds lineup humiliating him and the Cards when the two teams meet.

tripleaaaron
04-13-2006, 11:07 PM
Who says he got screwed? Josh Hancock now has a role in the bullpen of the team favored to win the NL Central Division & probably also the favorite to make it back to the World Series. I dunno how others feel about that, but I call it luck.
Sorry about that, savafan said it best we got screwed.

KronoRed
04-13-2006, 11:13 PM
You're right, we Reds fans got screwed.
I don't think so..if he were here he'd be stinking.

It's just the way of things.

KoryMac5
04-13-2006, 11:49 PM
I remember on the telecast on Espn Steve Phillips said the Reds were very much in the right for parting ways with Hancock. It's all in the way you look at it. Ballplayers need to stay in shape year round, Hancock was given a target weight and did not come close to hitting it, that coupled with the fact that he was hurt last year signed his release.

Can he be a successful major league pitcher 17 pounds more than he's asked to be? Maybe. But we looked at last year -- he was on the disabled list for 133 games -- and just did not see the commitment that we wanted to see this winter."

Chip R
04-14-2006, 12:03 AM
This is much ado abut nothing. Even if he would not have been released, who is to say he would have even made the Reds bullpen? Now before you think that I am talking crazy here, since our bullpen is beyond bad and even Ray Charles could see a guy like Hancock would be an improvement, look who did not make the team. Guys like Wagner and Shackelford did not make the 25 man roster. Say Hancock had an OK spring with the Reds. Based on spring numbers alone and who had options and who did not and forgetting about hindsight, do you really think Hancock would have made the roster when guys like Wagner and Shackelford did not? When guys like Hammonds and White had major league contracts? He may have taken the spots of Belisle and/or Burns but they both pitched well in ST, for the most part. Especially Burns. Another thing to remember: Hancock was a DanO acquisition. Wayne has not had a lot of patience with DanO acquisitions. Even if Hancock had made the 25 man roster, does anyone really think he would turn into Eric Gagne? Maybe this was a kick in the ass that he needed. Maybe Dave Duncan & Co. found a way to improve his performance. I know I would trust them a lot more than I would trust our guys.

columbusbrian
04-14-2006, 12:43 AM
I don't think Josh Hancock is or was the answer to this teams bullpen problems. He may have been alright this year, but in all likelihood, he would be no better than average. Watching the Cubs this weekend, they are in no better position than the Reds, and maybe even a worse position.

I feel espeacially confident after the BP put up 5.1 scoreless over the last two games that there is a decent BP to be had this year. Right now White and Hammond are beyond bad, but they are clearly only going to see time in games that aren't close, and they may level out somewhat. Burns is mediocre which for the time being is good, Coffey, Merker and Weathers are good, which, for the time being is very good, and Belisle has proven himself in the past and should come around.

That being said, the important thing here is the in two to three weeks, Wilson is coming back to this team, and either he or Dave Williams are going into the pen. Plus we have Shack and Wagner as insurance, both of whom are at present upgrades for the BP.

Wagner got so overused by Miley last year that he should have sued for negligence. I think the start in AAA is only going to be a plus this season for him, and I think that this team will drop the axe on White and/or Hammond and actually improve as a result, if the two pitchers continue to perform well below a satifactory level.

As much as this team needs serious improvement, it is still a good team with a sort of disguised depth that (like the starting rotation) will likely handily exceed the knee high expectation placed on them.

MattyHo4Life
04-14-2006, 12:55 AM
Can he be a successful major league pitcher 17 pounds more than he's asked to be? Maybe. But we looked at last year -- he was on the disabled list for 133 games -- and just did not see the commitment that we wanted to see this winter."

The reports at the time were that Hancock was 17 pounds overweight, and the weight listed in his bio was 207lb. According to Hancock, he is 17 pounds heaver than that weight, but he hasn't weighed 207lb since High School.

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 04:19 PM
Josh Hancock: 18.1 innings, 13 hits, 12 K/ 5 BB, 1.00 WHIP, .575 OPSA

We're starting to get into "not-so-small-sample-size" territory for a reliever's season.

Whatya wanna bet ole Jerry drops that asinine weight rule next spring? ;) (If there is a next spring for big Jerr).

westofyou
05-07-2006, 04:29 PM
Josh Hancock: 18.1 innings, 13 hits, 12 K/ 5 BB, 1.00 WHIP, .575 OPSA

We're starting to get into "not-so-small-sample-size" territory for a reliever's season.

Whatya wanna bet ole Jerry drops that asinine weight rule next spring? ;) (If there is a next spring for big Jerr).
What do ya wanta bet he won't have to enforce it again?

If life was a chess game Hancock would be nothing but a pawn, sacrificed early for a cause.

Welcome to sports, where learning who the boss is comes in different packages every day.

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 04:34 PM
What do ya wanta bet he won't have to enforce it again?


I'll tell ya what: if Wayne Krivsky has to watch Josh Hancock strike out Morgan Ensberg with the bases loaded this October 15, ole Jerr's gonna be forced to reassess that rule. You can bet your hide of that.

Yeah, bosses come in all shapes and sizes, and everyone--even Jerry's--got one.

Sea Ray
05-07-2006, 09:47 PM
I don't know what the problem here is. Jerry made an example of a major league pitcher. He said "you didn't take care of business in the off season and we won't tolerate it. You're out of here." The fact that Hancock has proven himself to be a competant major league pitcher makes him a bigger example to those who may choose to take him lightly.

It says, "I don't care if you can pitch a little. We still won't tolerate this kind of stuff."

I think this was a good place for Narron to make a stand. It would be stupid to make such a stand if the player in question was a superstar or the other extreme, say a Bubba Nelson type.

I say way to go Jerry and I hope you do come back next year.

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 09:49 PM
I don't know what the problem here is. Jerry made an example of a major league pitcher. He said "you didn't take care of business in the off season and we won't tolerate it. You're out of here." The fact that Hancock has proven himself to be a competant major league pitcher makes him a bigger example to those who may choose to take him lightly.

It says, "I don't care if you can pitch a little. We still won't tolerate this kind of stuff."

I think this was a good place for Narron to make a stand. It would be stupid to make such a stand if the player in question was a superstar or the other extreme, say a Bubba Nelson type.

I say way to go Jerry and I hope you do come back next year.

I know how much I enjoyed watching Rick White cough up the lead tonight.

traderumor
05-07-2006, 09:52 PM
I'll tell ya what: if Wayne Krivsky has to watch Josh Hancock strike out Morgan Ensberg with the bases loaded this October 15, ole Jerr's gonna be forced to reassess that rule. You can bet your hide of that.

Yeah, bosses come in all shapes and sizes, and everyone--even Jerry's--got one.The job Hancock does under another's employ is irrelevant to the reason he is not with the Reds.

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 09:53 PM
The job Hancock does under another's employ is irrelevant to the reason he is not with the Reds.

Wayne strikes me as a guy who pays attention to details; if Hancock outperforms 6/7th of the Reds bullpen this season, I think Wayne will notice.

MattyHo4Life
05-07-2006, 10:05 PM
I think Narron was absolutely right in making an example of Hancock. I think he should go even further and make examples of pitchers like Harang, Arroyo, and Coffey. ;)

Sea Ray
05-07-2006, 10:11 PM
I know how much I enjoyed watching Rick White cough up the lead tonight.


First of all, your comment above is an exaggeration. It is not factually correct. If he'd coughed up the lead, the Reds would have lost. Just to set the facts right, he did not cough up the lead and the Reds did win.

That being said, Rick didn't have a good night. After retiring the first two he did run into trouble. Hancock ran into trouble vs the Reds a week ago. I honestly don't find myself wishing for Hancock everytime White comes into the game. Maybe that's where we differ. Sometimes, I'd prefer his 95 MPH heat. I think Hancock will have some off nights as will White. I think RH long relief guys are a dime a dozen. You do need a few of them to compete but they're really not that hard to find. I'm OK with going through this season without Josh Hancock.

traderumor
05-07-2006, 10:13 PM
Wayne strikes me as a guy who pays attention to details; if Hancock outperforms 6/7th of the Reds bullpen this season, I think Wayne will notice.He also strikes me as someone who allows people under him to make decisions and moves on and does not dwell on them based on subsequent performance. There's a difference between reviewing past decisions to aid future decisions and obsessing ex post facto.

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 10:15 PM
There's a difference between reviewing past decisions to aid future decisions and obsessing ex post facto.

One of the ways to correct past decisions is to change the thinking that caused the poor decisions: the goofy "weight" rule.

Which is exactly my point. Get rid of stupid rules or get rid of the guy who makes up the stupid rules. I don't want Hancock back; I want stupid decision-making gone from my favorite team.

MWM
05-07-2006, 10:17 PM
I don't see why it was such an example. The guy was released by the Reds and picked up by the Cards. He went from perennial loser to perennial World Series contender. I'd say if other players were paying attention, they might be tempted to come into camp overweight in the hopes the same thing might happen to them. I really don't buy that the action against Hancock will serve as a deterrent. If you can get guys out you'll have a job.

traderumor
05-07-2006, 10:17 PM
I think Narron was absolutely right in making an example of Hancock. I think he should go even further and make examples of pitchers like Harang, Arroyo, and Coffey. ;)I'm glad you're happy with Hancock. May you be so fortunate that the sweat from the bill of his cap drips on your program as he signs it for a memory to last a lifetime ;)

Sea Ray
05-07-2006, 10:18 PM
One of the ways to correct past decisions is to change the thinking that caused the poor decisions: the goofy "weight" rule.

Which is exactly my point. Get rid of stupid rules or get rid of the guy who makes up the stupid rules. I don't want Hancock back; I want stupid decision-making gone from my favorite team.

What stupid rule do you want eliminated? As far as I know the rule Narron has set is "if you show up to camp out of shape you will be held accountable." What's wrong with that? It says nothing that you'll definitely be cut.

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 10:19 PM
What stupid rule do you want eliminated? As far as I know the rule Narron has set is "if you show up to camp out of shape you will be held accountable." What's wrong with that? It says nothing that you'll definitely be cut.

No, the rule as it applied to Hancock was: "you're cut; I don't even want to see you pitch."

traderumor
05-07-2006, 10:22 PM
One of the ways to correct past decisions is to change the thinking that caused the poor decisions: the goofy "weight" rule.

Which is exactly my point. Get rid of stupid rules or get rid of the guy who makes up the stupid rules. I don't want Hancock back; I want stupid decision-making gone from my favorite team."Stupid" decision-making is always a matter of perspective and will always be present in an organization.

Sea Ray
05-07-2006, 10:23 PM
I don't see why it was such an example. The guy was released by the Reds and picked up by the Cards. He went from perennial loser to perennial World Series contender. I'd say if other players were paying attention, they might be tempted to come into camp overweight in the hopes the same thing might happen to them. I really don't buy that the action against Hancock will serve as a deterrent. If you can get guys out you'll have a job.

We just disagree. I think it is very humiliating to be cut. I'm willing to bet he won't show up 17 lbs over weight again. If he uses this chance with the Cards as a new life, more power to him. I wish him the best. If he's not offered arbitration this fall and he's onto another team next year then 2006 with the Cards is just one year in the career of the baseball nomad.

MWM
05-07-2006, 10:28 PM
I think his humiliation lasted until he got probably a dozen calls asking him to join their team's camp. If anything he's probably thinking to himself that he really got over on the Reds. And I'm sure he's following the Reds bullpen woes and having a nice laugh. I think any thought of humiliation is long gone and replaced by relief....pun intended).

westofyou
05-07-2006, 10:30 PM
Josh Hancock is not your savior!!

Sea Ray
05-07-2006, 10:36 PM
And I'm sure he's following the Reds bullpen woes and having a nice laugh.

woes???

Up until today, the Reds' bullpen had been unscored upon in their past 8 appearances. If this team falls back into the 2005 Reds I'll agree with you, but so far this year all Hancock is "following" is this bullpen being better than expectations and his Cardinals looking up on the Reds in first place.

kheidg-
05-07-2006, 10:39 PM
I'd take Hancock over Rick White

MWM
05-07-2006, 10:39 PM
Well, the Cards have the second best bullpen ERA in the NL compared to the 10th for the Reds. The Reds are 14th out of 16th in OPS against for the bully (.804). The Cards are second at .646. I'd say that's worth a laugh.

Sea Ray
05-08-2006, 01:01 AM
Well, the Cards have the second best bullpen ERA in the NL compared to the 10th for the Reds. The Reds are 14th out of 16th in OPS against for the bully (.804). The Cards are second at .646. I'd say that's worth a laugh.

I am of the opinion that most folks (outside of sites like this) don't go home and get laughs out of comparing bullpen OPS. I think the Reds are pleased to be in first place and Josh Hancock knows he screwed up by showing up to camp out of shape and he's bound and determined to make the most of his second chance with the Cardinals, which he should.

savafan
05-08-2006, 02:08 AM
I'd take Hancock over Rick White

same here. White isn't exactly cut and ripped.

CTA513
05-08-2006, 03:31 AM
same here. White isn't exactly cut and ripped.

He gets away with it because hes a veteran.

:laugh:

MattyHo4Life
05-08-2006, 05:37 AM
Josh Hancock knows he screwed up by showing up to camp out of shape and he's bound and determined to make the most of his second chance with the Cardinals, which he should.

Actually, that isn't true. According to Josh Hancock, the Reds never gave him a set weight to report to camp at. He was surpriesed when he was cut for that. He said he was a little overweight when he reported to camp, but it wasn't anything unusual. He also said that one thing that made it look bad is the weight listed in his bio was 17 pounds less than what he reported to camp as. Although, he hasn't weighed that since high school, so it isn't like he gained 17 pounds over the winter.

MaineRed
05-08-2006, 07:43 AM
I am of the opinion that most folks (outside of sites like this) don't go home and get laughs out of comparing bullpen OPS. I think the Reds are pleased to be in first place and Josh Hancock knows he screwed up by showing up to camp out of shape and he's bound and determined to make the most of his second chance with the Cardinals, which he should.

I agree.

There is obviously more to this story IMO. If guys get cut for being fat, would Coffey be on the team?

Hancock, it seems to me, must have reached strike 3. If this is the case, the Reds release him and say he didn't follow their orders, even though there was probably more to it. If the Reds come to the decision that they need to get rid of the guy, why tear him apart on his way out the door? Getting rid of him was deemed the important thing, not slandering him. And to this point, it is hard to argue with the results. The Reds played the best ball of anyone in the spring and they are right up there now.

Hancock of course is going to come out and say, it was a shock, he did what they asked, he was blindsided, his weight is listed wrong, blah, blah, blah.

Baloney.

traderumor
05-08-2006, 08:43 AM
I think his humiliation lasted until he got probably a dozen calls asking him to join their team's camp. If anything he's probably thinking to himself that he really got over on the Reds. And I'm sure he's following the Reds bullpen woes and having a nice laugh. I think any thought of humiliation is long gone and replaced by relief....pun intended).
Yes, I'm sure there was quite a bidding war going on for a 28 year-old righty with a minor league career ERA of 3.98, a WHIP of 1.32, 6.85 K/9 rate. Didn't he even pass through waivers once while we had him? I mean, come on, fine if you disagree with the policy, but to paint a picture that he was highly coveted? The only thing he did was find a team that took a flier on a warm body and found a pulse, which is about all any team is looking for at the back of their bullpen these days.

traderumor
05-08-2006, 08:45 AM
I agree.

There is obviously more to this story IMO. If guys get cut for being fat, would Coffey be on the team?

Hancock, it seems to me, must have reached strike 3. If this is the case, the Reds release him and say he didn't follow their orders, even though there was probably more to it. If the Reds come to the decision that they need to get rid of the guy, why tear him apart on his way out the door? Getting rid of him was deemed the important thing, not slandering him. And to this point, it is hard to argue with the results. The Reds played the best ball of anyone in the spring and they are right up there now.

Hancock of course is going to come out and say, it was a shock, he did what they asked, he was blindsided, his weight is listed wrong, blah, blah, blah.

Baloney.
That's really not fair to compare Coffey since his work ethic and regimen to manage his weight has been well documented.

MattyHo4Life
05-08-2006, 09:34 AM
The Reds played the best ball of anyone in the spring and they are right up there now.

That has nothing to do with them losing Hancock. Are you trying to say that the Reds are playing better since Hancock is not on the team? If that is the case, then that is ridiculous. Hancock pitched very good the last month of 2005, and picked up right where he left off this year.

MattyHo4Life
05-08-2006, 09:36 AM
Yes, I'm sure there was quite a bidding war going on for a 28 year-old righty with a minor league career ERA of 3.98, a WHIP of 1.32, 6.85 K/9 rate. Didn't he even pass through waivers once while we had him? I mean, come on, fine if you disagree with the policy, but to paint a picture that he was highly coveted? The only thing he did was find a team that took a flier on a warm body and found a pulse, which is about all any team is looking for at the back of their bullpen these days.

To be fair... Hancock has stated that the Cardinals are the only team that contacted him after being released by the Reds. Hancock pitched really well against the Cardinals in the past, and they liked what they saw of him.

OnBaseMachine
05-08-2006, 10:01 AM
I can't believe the big fuss being made over Josh Hancock. We're talking about a guy with below average stuff, average minor league stats, and bad major league stats save for maybe 25 or 30 solid innings.

Josh Hancock-Career Minor League stats

877.2 IP, 903 H, 69 HR, 255 BB, 668 K, 3.98 ERA, 1.32 WHIP

Over a hit per inning, low K rate, and he allows a decent amount of baserunners. Smell like a bad pitcher to me. It's not like he has electric stuff and has underachieved his whole career. His stuff is below average.

Don't forget his career 4.05 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, and the ridiculous 21 home runs he has allowed in 107 major league innings. 21 HR in 107 innings? Wow.

Let me just point out that Jimmy Haynes once posted a 3.10 ERA over a span of 29 consecutive innings back in 2002. Even the crappiest pitchers have a decent run every now and again.

MattyHo4Life
05-08-2006, 10:35 AM
I can't believe the big fuss being made over Josh Hancock. We're talking about a guy with below average stuff, average minor league stats, and bad major league stats save for maybe 25 or 30 solid innings.


His last 25 or 30 innings have been very good.

flyer85
05-08-2006, 10:44 AM
His last 25 or 30 innings have been very good.That is true but in the end Hancock will always be one those 11/12th man on a pitching staff. They are a dime a dozen.

That being said I don't think there was any real example set by cutting him.

OnBaseMachine
05-08-2006, 10:47 AM
His last 25 or 30 innings have been very good.

Which is what I just said.

Jimmy Haynes once put together 29 good innings.

Falls City Beer
05-08-2006, 11:38 AM
That is true but in the end Hancock will always be one those 11/12th man on a pitching staff. They are a dime a dozen.

That being said I don't think there was any real example set by cutting him.

Why pay more for lesser talent (White, Hammond) when greater talent is available for less money (Hancock)?

The argument looks like it's over the long-term merits of Josh Hancock. It's not. It's about optimizing your resources and not letting ego and hubris (Narron) get in the way of the best interests of the team's winning ballgames.

flyer85
05-08-2006, 11:59 AM
Why pay more for lesser talent (White, Hammond) when greater talent is available for less money (Hancock)? [/I]The Reds answer was to "set an example". However, I don't think they set one.

The amount of monetary difference was neglible in percentage terms. One thing I have noticed is that Narron seems to have some confidence in four relievers (Shack, Coffey, Mercker, Weathers) and only uses the other three when he is forced to.

Cutting Hancock was not a good idea because he may have been able to help the team for less money but the difference between White and Hancock isn't that great because of the low leverage situations they tend to pitch in. I really think there is some middle releif help sitting in AA at the moment that will be superior to Hammond/White. It will be interesting to see if they get a chance this year.

Puffy
05-08-2006, 12:17 PM
Josh Hancock is a slop throwing righty. If he is having a good stretch its only because one of two things happened. He's just hot right now and will soon regress to norms or Dave Duncan (the best or second best in the business) found something in him which works and he will "thrive" while with Duncan.

Either way, he'd be no help to the Reds cause if its the first thing (being on a hot streak) it will end terribly soon, and if its the second thing, well, we don't have Duncan.

Small sample sizes people, they mean very little in the grand scheme of things.

Falls City Beer
05-08-2006, 12:23 PM
Josh Hancock is a slop throwing righty. If he is having a good stretch its only because one of two things happened. He's just hot right now and will soon regress to norms or Dave Duncan (the best or second best in the business) found something in him which works and he will "thrive" while with Duncan.

Either way, he'd be no help to the Reds cause if its the first thing (being on a hot streak) it will end terribly soon, and if its the second thing, well, we don't have Duncan.

Small sample sizes people, they mean very little in the grand scheme of things.

That's a fair point about Dave Duncan. But Hancock's thrown 18 1/3 innings--no longer a small sample size for a reliever. By the same logic, I think then we should discount Coffey's performance thus far. But I'm not willing to go there anymore, because frankly, it's not really a small sample anymore for a reliever.

And I'm not saying (for the thousandth time) that Hancock is a longterm answer--he's not. And I understand that. My issue is with the principle of Jerry's fat farm philosophy, and how it might have a cost us a better (but not great) option in the bullpen.