19 Jul 2017 14:25:07
Pirates: Jed Lowrie
Athletics: Tony Watson.


1.) 19 Jul 2017
19 Jul 2017 14:57:10
Pirates want more than a rental for Watson.


2.) 19 Jul 2017
19 Jul 2017 16:35:02
I would rather have Watson than lowrie too, but lowrie does have a team option next year, so he's not exactly a rental.


3.) 19 Jul 2017
19 Jul 2017 20:24:42
You're right, Lowrie does have an option.

That said, the Pirates would want prospects back was the point I figured most would understand.


4.) 20 Jul 2017
20 Jul 2017 03:50:11
I wouldn't say that, they got an MLB player (plus a low prospect) for melancon last year, and the pirates are certainly still in the hunt.


5.) 20 Jul 2017
20 Jul 2017 04:27:54
They got a player with 5+ years of control for Melancon.


6.) 20 Jul 2017
20 Jul 2017 12:14:00
You want more examples? Walker for niese, niese for bastardo, Wilson for cervelli, mcgehee for qualls, liriano for hutch, the list goes on. Watson isn't worth that much, his FIP is in the high 4s, he isn't fooling anyone. And the pirates are one have under .500 and are 4 games out of the division. If they make trades, it will likely be someone who is gone this offseason (Watson), for someone who can contribute now, and will be around beyond this year.


7.) 20 Jul 2017
20 Jul 2017 15:33:17
Niese and Bastard were both horrendous when they were traded. The idea was that perhaps both would go back to their old teams and succeed, neither did. McGehee was awful. And Cervelli for Wilson, wasn't a rental for rental. Cervelli had only 4 years service time when traded, Wilson had 1. The Walker-Niese trade was in the offseason, and the expectation was that they'd get a full year of a cheap SP. Niese was horrible, so they moved on.

With Watson, teams don't have many other LH options unless they want to pony up for Wilson or Hand. Watson presents a decent 7th or 8th inning option. Look at his numbers in save situations vs. non-save situations. Teams will see those and get pretty excited. The Pirates can and likely will get more future value for Watson.


8.) 20 Jul 2017
20 Jul 2017 17:13:33
As I said previously, I would rather have Watson than lowrie, I'm not saying lowrie is their guy, but my point is that I don't believe they will trade him for prospects, as you said they would.


9.) 20 Jul 2017
20 Jul 2017 23:08:21
Will they get top prospects for Watson? Of course not. They won't get useful MLB pieces for him.


10.) 21 Jul 2017
20 Jul 2017 23:22:55
They aren't going to move Watson for meaningless prospects while they are still in contention.


11.) 21 Jul 2017
21 Jul 2017 01:05:25
Trust me, they won't get "meaningless" prospects for Watson. As I said, he's the best LHH rental. That won't come cheap.