Printable View
For Jordan Walden.
I don't know if Hanson can return to his pre 2012 form, but if he can it's a nice acquire by L.A. Walden is no slouch either, but obviously good starters are harder to find than good relievers. It does make the case for selling high though, the haul for Hanson would have been much larger had Atlanta traded him the previous offseason.
Given the choices, I think I'd almost prefer Walden. ATL's bullpen is going to be filthy.
Hanson's got injury problems. I'd rather have Walden.
My friend who is a Braves-aholic and regular writer on their main community blog likes the deal. He says Hanson is beyond repair. And he likes their bullpen even more now.
Love the gamble by both teams.
This may be the most fascinating deal this offseason.
If Walden gets that Fastball under control, then he will be a flat out nasty setup man. I agree that their bullpen will be great.
It also frees up for the Braves to move their prospects up in Delgado and Teheran.
At first glance I thought the Angels won this trade, but after thinking about it for a sec, I think the Braves may have made out pretty well.
Teheran isn't ready to be a Major League starter.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazybob60
I think both guys are injuries waiting to happen. Hanson made 31 starts in 2012. He's an OK back end starter, but doesn't go deep enough into games IMO. Being in the AL West may help him with his HR propensities.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsManRick
Walden looks good on the radar gun (but those numbers have dropped), but he only threw 39 innings in 2012 and isn't the picture of health himself. When you watch him pitch, he has that "inverted W" motion with his elbow above his shoulder. Perhaps being in the pen will limit Walden's innings enough to keep that motion from catching up with him, but I'd guess the only reason the Angels would deal him is they're a little worried about his long term prospects.
This may be a deal where we wait to see who breaks down first.
More interesting to me is that Hanson seems a good comp for Mike Leake and this deal may be a decent estimate of Leake's value on the market. Leake's health history would suggest he has a little more value than Hanson, but how much more? Doesn't seem like enough for him to bring back a major piece. If Hanson is worth a risky reliever who only threw 39 innings, than I'd doubt Leake would Garner anything significant enough to make it worth messing with the rotation depth. I'd think anything he could bring back, could be had elsewhere by dealing kids and spare parts.
Maybe the Braves can make Kimbrel a starter now. I can't believe they're "wasting" all those innings with him being their closer. Pitching in the 9th inning in very close games isn't as difficult as some would have you believe. Closers are overrated.
[Sarcasm off.]
Not sure why you're turning a thread about a Hanson/Walden trade into a rant against those in favor of turning Chapman into a starter, but Kimbrel has never started a single game in his minor league or pro career so the comparison is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey
It was a joke, but since you brought it up ... let's not pretend that Aroldis Chapman has a long history of being a starting pitcher. You do know he didn't even become a pitcher until the age of 16. Was a first baseman before that. He had some starts for the Cuban national team, some spring training starts for the Reds and some starts in Louisville. When you hear some people talk about Chapman moving to the rotation, you would think he has some vast history as a starter. It's simply not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
He started from age 16 until age 22. That is how most guys are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey
Just so you guys know, I didn't become a starting pitcher until I was 14 years old, and I have no career in MLB. If I only I had started sooner . . .
No, "most" MLB pitchers did not start pitching for the first time when they were 16. C'mon Doug, you know that's not true. Most MLB pitchers have been pitching since they were little kids. Not all, but certainly over 50 percent. Chapman is the exception to the rule. There are others like him, but most MLB pitchers have been pitching since Little League.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougdirt
And a lot of guys played shortstop in high school too. A lot of guys don't actually start pitching until they are 14-16 because all of a sudden they start growing into bodies that the other kids aren't growing into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey
Either way, it doesn't matter. The point is, that Chapman starting to pitch at 16 isn't rare and it really isn't something that should even be brought up as some sort of "detrimental" thing.