PDA

View Full Version : Hancock or Majewski?



Superdude
07-14-2006, 09:06 PM
Josh Hancock: 47IP, .94WHIP, 32K, 3.26ERA
Gary Majewski: 55IP, 1.34WHIP, 34K, 3.58ERA

Who would you guys rather have right now? We should have waited until the all star break and traded Hancock for Carpenter and Rolen! :cry:

Dunner44
07-14-2006, 09:30 PM
Majewski did not help his case tonight.... nor did Clayton

IrishDavidKY
07-14-2006, 09:49 PM
Majewski did not help his case tonight.... nor did Clayton

I didn't think so either, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, travel, new team etc.

UKFlounder
07-14-2006, 09:52 PM
Majewski did not help his case tonight.... nor did Clayton

Nor did Lopez or Kearns for the Nats

The Baumer
07-14-2006, 09:55 PM
I was hoping Majewski would strike out the side on 2 pitches. Didn't happen.

Dunner44
07-14-2006, 09:57 PM
I didn't think so either, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, travel, new team etc.


Its true... Lopez and Kearns went a combined 0-7 with 10 LOB, a pair of walks and a HBP. Hardly stellar. But Kearns did just throw out a runner at home to stop the bleeding in the 8th. Pirates lead 7-4, and unless the Nats get lucky we won't see Ears or Lopez again tonight. Lopez also had an error on an eazy DP ball, and that washinton relief pitching just gave up 2 runs in the 8th in what WAS a 1 run game.

Kearns also got doubled off 1st in an unassisted DP by Sean.

BUTLER REDSFAN
07-14-2006, 10:24 PM
also majewski hasnt pitched in a week so maybe just a little rusty

Falls City Beer
07-14-2006, 10:35 PM
Hancock would be, by far, the best arm in the Reds' bullpen.

Wayne should have called me first. I would have set him straight.:)

Shaggy Sanchez
07-14-2006, 10:44 PM
I'm not a fan of Hancock but the way he has pitched this season I would rather have him and be able to use Kearns and or Lopez for another trade than Majewski.

KoryMac5
07-14-2006, 11:08 PM
I did like Hancock out of the bullpen with the Reds last year. But that was a different situation for him. Given the state of our bullpen before the trade was made I am sure Hancock's arm would be ready to fall off by now. Magic has nasty stuff and I for one was not worried one bit when Narron made the call to the pen. Couldn't say that a week ago.

Superdude
07-14-2006, 11:19 PM
Is Clayton actually gonna start? Aurilia's bat is about 7 times better and his defense at short is probably just as good if not better. If Aurilia doesn't play, then my opinion on the future of this organization is much less optimistic.

BuckWoody
07-14-2006, 11:30 PM
Would Hancock be pitching as well as he is if he was never released by the Reds? He's a human being after all, it's reasonable to assume that being released shook him up or pissed him off enough to make him work a little harder than he had been. It's human nature.

I'm not sold on looking at this argument with stats only. I'll trust WK on this one so far.

Guacarock
07-15-2006, 02:32 AM
Easy answer: Hancock.

We had him. He was all ours, until we handed him over to the Cards, receiving nothing of value in return.

Then, lo and behold, in his absence, our bullpen posted the worst ERA of any team in the National League. Up a creek without a paddle, we dealt away Kearns and Lopez -- two of our most proficient young everyday players -- to secure middle relievers to do a job for us that Hancock was well equipped to handle this season.

Front office apologists can couch this lopsided trade as a move toward pitching and defense. But let's be honest about what really happened.

Krivsky exhibited a magic touch in picking up Phillips, Ross, Hatteberg and Arroyo this spring. On the flip side, he made a colossal blunder in backing up Narron on Hancock and Wagner, exposing the ugliest warts of our horrendous bullpen.

We got fleeced then. Now, we've been taken to the cleaners a second time to try to compensate for that first rash and inexcusable blunder.

If Krivsky's mantra really is pitching and defense, then he should never have permitted Narron to cut Hancock before we had a chance this spring to see his stuff. Fat guys can't pitch? Tell that to David Wells.

crazybob60
07-15-2006, 03:05 AM
Right now I think Majewski is going to be a tad better and at the end of the season I think it will probably be the same. And when all is said and done I think that Hancock and Majewski will probably post similar career numbers from this point right now until the end of both of their respective careers.

KronoRed
07-15-2006, 03:21 AM
Is Clayton actually gonna start? Aurilia's bat is about 7 times better and his defense at short is probably just as good if not better. If Aurilia doesn't play, then my opinion on the future of this organization is much less optimistic.
Rich will play plenty...at 3rd

Jpup
07-15-2006, 05:05 AM
Majewski.

MattyHo4Life
07-15-2006, 09:08 AM
Would Hancock be pitching as well as he is if he was never released by the Reds? He's a human being after all, it's reasonable to assume that being released shook him up or pissed him off enough to make him work a little harder than he had been. It's human nature.

Hancock pitched only 14 innings last year, but he still posted a .86 WHIP. As small of a sample it is, he picked up this year right where he left off last year. I don't see why he wouldn't have pitched this well for the Reds. He pitched well the last month of last season without being "shook up".

Izzardius
07-15-2006, 06:50 PM
With the state of the Reds bullpen before the season, I didn't understand why they chose to cut Hancock.

Matt700wlw
07-15-2006, 06:53 PM
I'll take the one who's not fat ;)

reds44
07-15-2006, 06:54 PM
Majewski.
I agree. Although we could have both.

redsfanmia
07-15-2006, 07:25 PM
The release of Hancock sent a message to the reast of the team and he would not have been nearly as good if he was still here. The release of Hancock meant one thing that didnt happen under the old regime, this new regime was going to hold players accountable. Wayne held Kearns accountable for not working as hard as he should and not taking coaching. Its a beautiful thing IMO.

pedro
07-15-2006, 07:25 PM
They was no way to project that Hancock would be as good this year as he's been.

KoryMac5
07-15-2006, 07:58 PM
Easy answer: Hancock.

We had him. He was all ours, until we handed him over to the Cards, receiving nothing of value in return.

Then, lo and behold, in his absence, our bullpen posted the worst ERA of any team in the National League. Up a creek without a paddle, we dealt away Kearns and Lopez -- two of our most proficient young everyday players -- to secure middle relievers to do a job for us that Hancock was well equipped to handle this season.

Front office apologists can couch this lopsided trade as a move toward pitching and defense. But let's be honest about what really happened.

Krivsky exhibited a magic touch in picking up Phillips, Ross, Hatteberg and Arroyo this spring. On the flip side, he made a colossal blunder in backing up Narron on Hancock and Wagner, exposing the ugliest warts of our horrendous bullpen.

We got fleeced then. Now, we've been taken to the cleaners a second time to try to compensate for that first rash and inexcusable blunder.

If Krivsky's mantra really is pitching and defense, then he should never have permitted Narron to cut Hancock before we had a chance this spring to see his stuff. Fat guys can't pitch? Tell that to David Wells.

The bullpen problems would not be solved with one Hancock. Wagner stunk up AAA, Hammond and White were released, Mercker and Weathers have had problems, Standridge and Burns have been terrible and Coffey has been up and down. This team should be easily ahead of the Cards by 5 or 6 games. With all our bullpen problems one Josh Hancock would not cure all our ills. This being taken to the cleaners goes along way in helping to remove the ugly stains of our terrible bullpen. A very expensive Cleaning.

Ravenlord
07-15-2006, 08:08 PM
my question about the year Hancock is having is very simple;

how much of it is due to the tutelage of Dave Duncan?

paulrichjr
07-15-2006, 10:47 PM
my question about the year Hancock is having is very simple;

how much of it is due to the tutelage of Dave Duncan?


Uhh...He never pitched bad here. This was the dumbest move that Krivs made until this past week that is...

pedro
07-15-2006, 10:51 PM
Uhh...He never pitched bad here. This was the dumbest move that Krivs made until this past week that is...


Sure he did. His ERA in 2004 was 5.09 with and OPS against of .881. That's bad.

In 2005 he only through 14 inning.

So, in reality the never really pitched well for the Reds.

KoryMac5
07-15-2006, 11:08 PM
Hancock was 1-0 with a 1.93 ERA in 11 relief appearances last season, but he spent most of the year on the disabled list with a strained right groin. The 27-year-old did not pitch in his first game until September. Last month when the Reds signed pitcher Grant Balfour, Hancock was taken off the 40-man roster to clear space, and he was signed to a Minor League deal with an invite to camp.

Here is a guy that wasn't even on the MLB roster to start the year and we are bemoaning his loss. As far as the Krivs criticism Narron was the guy who pushed for Hancocks release.