Braves trade David Hale and Gus Schlosser for...

None of the players in this trade are likely to amount to much. But the one who is most likely to do something is Hale. His repetoire has evolved over the past couple years and with the sinker he could turn out to be a decent major league pitcher.

As for the perceived need for Briceno, I'm not so sure he automatically our best catching prospect. BA named Tanner Murphy one of the top 20 prospects in the Appy League last year.
 
nsacpi said:
None of the players in this trade are likely to amount to much. But the one who is most likely to do something is Hale. His repetoire has evolved over the past couple years and with the sinker he could turn out to be a decent major league pitcher.
Click to expand...

Memory serves that you actually thought Schlosser was something. Now this isn't sour grapes, but nothing about Hale was particularly impressive while seeing him pitch for Gwinnett, 2 years ago. He seemed pretty average, that is nothing more special than Cody Martin. Plus, add in the fact that Hale is 26 years old. This is no huge loss.
 
Knucksie said:
Memory serves that you actually

thought Schlosser was something.
Click to expand...
you must be confusing me for someone else. I've always liked Hale more. There were some during last spring training who were gaga for Schlosser but they seem to have retreated into radio silence.
 
Knucksie said:
Memory serves that you actually thought Schlosser was something. Now this isn't sour grapes, but nothing about Hale was particularly impressive while seeing him pitch for Gwinnett, 2 years ago. He seemed pretty average, that is nothing more special than Cody Martin. Plus, add in the fact that Hale is 26 years old. This is no huge loss.
Click to expand...

What part of nsacpi noting that Hale's "repetoire has evolved over the past couple years" did you not understand? Or is this just one of those times where you remind us about one of your little scouting trips? :)
 
nsacpi said:
you must be confusing me for someone else. I've always liked Hale more. There were some during last spring training who were gaga for Schlosser.
Click to expand...

He seems to making an issue of you liking Schosser at all. Whatever the case it's a poor attempt on his part at taking a shot at your track record for judging talent.
 
I just call em as I see em, which is all any of us can be expected to do. I liked Kubitza more than most around here but that didn't stop me from saying I thought trading him for Sanchez was a good move by Hart and company. It is all about value.
 
nsacpi said:
I just call em as I see em, which is all any of us can be expected to do. I liked Kubitza more than most around here but that didn't stop me from saying I thought trading him for Sanchez was a good move by Hart and company. It is all about value.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But it's not an issue when you agree with a trade by Hart and co. It's only when we disagree with a trade that we're crazy or being too negative. :)
 
Well there is a group that has opted to be blind homers for Hart and i have no interest in engaging them on any subject. Fortunately there are enough posters with reasoned independent points of view to keep things interesting.
Braves1976 said:
Agreed. But it's not an issue when you agree with a trade by Hart and co. It's only when we disagree with a trade that we're crazy or being too negative. :)
Click to expand...
 
I find it hilarious that a few weeks ago I suggested that Hale might make a great deal sweetener, was promptly assured he had little to no value, and then the same folks complain about the return we just got for him and Another AAA guy.
 
Hale has improved, but he doesn't miss many bats. The light bulb going on for a pitcher relatively late (or relatively unexpected) isn't unheard of, but Hale's K-rate and K/BB make me wonder what his ceiling is. Heavy sinker can work at Coors, so we'll just have to see.
 
nsacpi said:
None of the players in this trade are likely to amount to much. But the one who is most likely to do something is Hale. His repetoire has evolved over the past couple years and with the sinker he could turn out to be a decent major league pitcher.
Click to expand...

He may or may not be the most likely to produce, but he doesn't have the highest upside.
 
Braves1976 said:
What part of nsacpi noting that Hale's "repetoire has evolved over the past couple years" did you not understand? Or is this just one of those times where you remind us about one of your little scouting trips? :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, so you go on to give him kudos for "calling 'em as he seems him," without any indication that he's actually ever seen these guys pitch (except maybe a couple Hale starts on TV). Yet when I actually take the trouble and offer honest thoughts, it's immediately questionable. :confused:

Braves1976 said:
He seems to making an issue of you liking Schosser at all. Whatever the case it's a poor attempt on his part at taking a shot at your track record for judging talent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Schlosser was fringe. Not even a prospect. AAA filler. Hey, if he wants to overrate every Braves minor leaguer, like Shanks did, don't let me stand in the way. Meanwhile, there's the question of why you felt the need to interject and do it twice. Who are you? His lawyer?
 
This thread reminds me of when I told everybody that the Doumit trade was ****ty, not because Gilmartin was anything to write home about, but because Doumit was never going to catch for the Braves and would probably struggle off the bench.

Then I was beat into submission in a small, dirty corner.
 
Tapate50 said:
I find it hilarious that a few weeks ago I suggested that Hale might make a great deal sweetener, was promptly assured he had little to no value, and then the same folks complain about the return we just got for him and Another AAA guy.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it depends on which way the wind blows.
 
Hawk said:
This thread reminds me of when I told everybody that the Doumit trade was ****ty, not because Gilmartin was anything to write home about, but because Doumit was never going to catch for the Braves and would probably struggle off the bench.

Then I was beat into submission in a small, dirty corner.
Click to expand...

You may have been right, but you deserved that for a plethora of other things.
 
Knucksie said:
Yeah, so you go on to give him kudos for "calling 'em as he seems him," without any indication that he's actually ever seen these guys pitch (except maybe a couple Hale starts on TV). Yet when I actually take the trouble and offer honest thoughts, it's immediately questionable. :confused:

Yeah, Schlosser was fringe. Not even a prospect. AAA filler. Hey, if he wants to overrate every Braves minor leaguer, like Shanks did, don't let me stand in the way. Meanwhile, there's the question of why you felt the need to interject and do it twice. Who are you? His lawyer?
Click to expand...

To answer your question, I suppose I just got tired of your cranky old man routine. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top