Master Index of Archived Threads


It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

A Boy Named Seo Dec 01 2016 05:42 PM

I'd rather leave Gomez alone, trade Bruce, and then take a stab at a 1-year McCutcheon rental. I'm gunna go make some WATPs for us to chew upon.

Zvon Dec 01 2016 05:54 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I'd rather leave Gomez alone, trade Bruce, and then take a stab at a 1-year McCutcheon rental. I'm gunna go make some WATPs for us to chew upon. ^This. I say Bruce should go, Grandy should stay. But if we bring McCutchen on board, that changes everything. The ripple effect could end up changing the teams long term plans but as long as Conforto is here at the end of the day I'll be okay with whatever (he can back all three OF positions). I'm a Lagares fan but he would be the weakest link and there's gotta be a team out there looking for a good glove in center.

Zvon Dec 01 2016 05:55 PM

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Jay Bruce -> Blue Jays for CF prospect Anthony Alford, + LHRP Aaron Loup Nimmo / Gsellman / TEBOW -> Pirates for one year of downtrodden Andrew McCutcheon. Sounds like the Nats are already moving on some McCutch deal but we can beat those bastards with the inclusion of TEBOW. Matz/Lagares

Benjamin Grimm Dec 01 2016 06:00 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

I expect that the price for McCutchen would be rather steep. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says: The Pirates discussed a McCutchen trade with the Washington Nationals, the Texas Rangers and the Seattle Mariners, the sources said, and are looking primarily for prospects in return. And also: The Pirates’ biggest need this offseason is starting pitching. With a weak and pricey free agent market, their best avenue to acquire quality pitching is via trade. Does Matz get it done? And is it something we'd be willing to do?

A Boy Named Seo Dec 01 2016 06:01 PM Re: I would now like to hear your WATP

Zvon wrote: A Boy Named Seo wrote: Jay Bruce -> Blue Jays for CF prospect Anthony Alford, + LHRP Aaron Loup Nimmo / Gsellman / TEBOW -> Pirates for one year of downtrodden Andrew McCutcheon. Sounds like the Nats are already moving on some McCutch deal but we can beat those bastards with the inclusion of TEBOW. Matz/Lagares That would do it, I bet. I still believe in Matz, though. Do we all want him gone now??

Nymr83 Dec 01 2016 06:03 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

When our pitching explodes again we'd sorely miss him. why trade for McCutchen at all? sign Fowler!

Benjamin Grimm Dec 01 2016 06:09 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

I like that idea better.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 01 2016 06:10 PM Re: I would now like to hear your WATP

I no longer have a whole lot of faith in him, but I'd be reluctant to trade him.

Zvon Dec 01 2016 06:11 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Does Matz get it done? And is it something we'd be willing to do? Throw in Lags and I think it's possible. And it's not that I'm down on Matz (as I've said I'd prefer holding on to all arms, but....Cutch...) it's just that I'm higher on Gsellman. For someone like Andrew I'm afraid we will have to give up one of the big 5.

Zvon Dec 01 2016 06:15 PM Re: I would now like to hear your WATP

A Boy Named Seo wrote: A Boy Named Seo wrote: Jay Bruce -> Blue Jays for CF prospect Anthony Alford, + LHRP Aaron Loup Nimmo / Gsellman / TEBOW -> Pirates for one year of downtrodden Andrew McCutcheon. Sounds like the Nats are already moving on some McCutch deal but we can beat those bastards with the inclusion of TEBOW. Matz/Lagares That would do it, I bet. I still believe in Matz, though. Do we all want him gone now?? I really would rather not. But we don't get McCutchen w/o giving up something we covet, IMO, one of our starters. And as I said on the other thread it;s not that I'm down on Matz, I'm not, I'm just up on Gsellman. He came up in a pressure packed situation and he showed he can pitch here in NY.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 01 2016 06:31 PM Re: I would now like to hear your WATP

Five years of control for Matz vs. one year of control for McCutchen. You have to figure that into the calculation.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 01 2016 06:32 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

I can't believe people aren't prepared to trade Matz for an MVP centerfielder

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 01 2016 06:40 PM Re: I would now like to hear your WATP

5 years for Matz = 1.5 years for normal people. It's about even

Nymr83 Dec 01 2016 06:48 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I can't believe people aren't prepared to trade Matz for an MVP centerfielder you mean an expensive player on a steep downward trajectory? he was NEGATIVE WAR player this past year (last 5 years: 7.0; 8.1; 6.3; 4.9; -0.7 on BRef) - i'm guessing he isnt that bad, but he is owed 14 mil each of the last 2 years and arguably already belongs in a corner spot. at that point, he's Jay Bruce. Why would you trade Matz for that?

A Boy Named Seo Dec 01 2016 06:52 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

I think the 2nd year is an option, but still. He's not quite that guy anymore, which is why he's even available. I'd try to get him for my bulletproof offer of Nimmo (or Lagares)/Gsellman/TEBOW, but would walk away if it came to Matz.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 01 2016 06:54 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

Because Matz for all his potential has been hurt repeatedly, and to the extent we can deal from a position of strength we have pitching to trade and offense to gain. Plus he's marrying a weird country singer who I don't trust. He probably voted for Trump, him & Harvey. I'm a lil ignorant of McC's glove these days but would be surprised if he's done already and cetrainly a better bet to have a good year than Bruce or Grandy and is one of the few players in the game capable of having a better season than Cespedes.

Nymr83 Dec 01 2016 06:55 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

I'm not trading Gsellman either. take Tebow and we'll take on the entire contract!

Benjamin Grimm Dec 01 2016 06:58 PM Re: I would now like to hear your WATP

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 5 years for Matz = 1.5 years for normal people. It's about even Good point.

Frayed Knot Dec 01 2016 07:05 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

There's a $14.5 million 2018 option on McCutcheon so, absent a further descent into hell by him, consider him to be under club control for two more seasons, not one, and adjust your WATPs accordingly. Very strange year for him in 2016. Dropped 120+ OPS points off 2015 around 170 points off the average of his four year run (2012-2015) where he finished 3rd, 1st, 3rd, and 5th in MVP voting. Fielding metrics had him as the worst OF in baseball by some measure or another which just seems too freakish for logic although there were reports out of Pittsburgh that he didn't take well to the radical shifting the Pirates dove headlong into recently which is at least partially what explains his poor 'range'. He did hit better over the second half of the year and GEEZ he just turned 30 a few weeks ago so it's totally illogical to assume that he's done.

Edgy MD Dec 01 2016 07:13 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

Maybe at Jacob deGrom's press conference, he'll be able to be able to clue us in on what's up with McCutcheon.

Zvon Dec 01 2016 07:19 PM Re: I would now like to hear your WATP

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Five years of control for Matz vs. one year of control for McCutchen. You have to figure that into the calculation. I agree that it's an all-out for 2017 (and risky) move. Also, I am not all-up on McCutchen's more recent seasons. I read that last year he needed a jump start about half way though. I think he still has plenty left in his tank and the change of scenery would be an overall jump start for him. Also keeps him away from the Nats (now in negotiations with Pittsburgh, I read earlier today). Of course, if we could get it done for less, I'd approve. I consider Matz one of the core 5 arm wise. He's also a lefty. Moving him would be painful. I don't consider Gsellman one of the 5. But I feel confident he can fill the opening. But Matz being the only lefty...that might derail my thinking.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 01 2016 07:31 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

Does Pittsburgh do radical outfield shifting?

Frayed Knot Dec 01 2016 07:48 PM Re: I would now like to hear your WATP

As mentioned in another thread (we now have dueling McCutcheon threads without either one being an actual McCutcheon thread) McCutcheon is, in effect, under control of whatever team winds up with him for Two more seasons, not one.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 01 2016 08:08 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Both McCutchen discussions have been split from their original threads and combined into this one. Let's talk about Andrew McCutchen!

A Boy Named Seo Dec 01 2016 08:19 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

If we don't trade for McCutchen, Guns N Roses might to have him fill in for Buckethead. I'm gonna go Google for some fGWAR stats now.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 01 2016 08:58 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

A Boy Named Seo wrote: If we don't trade for McCutchen, Guns N Roses might to have him fill in for Buckethead. I'm gonna go Google for some fGWAR stats now. If we don't trade for this cat, and Washington does, we're gonna be up against it, bigly. CMON SANDY MAKE THE FRIGGIN DEAL ALREADY.

Zvon Dec 01 2016 09:18 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Two seasons and it's less painful to include Matz. Of course this is said with the hope that McCutchen returns to his old form for a few years. There is only one Buckethead.

Centerfield Dec 05 2016 07:56 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Stupid question here. Why are the Bucs looking to trade McCutchen? I mean, his value is so low right now. Fairly reasonable contract. Why not see if he can bounce back a bit? I guess the downside is he may kill the rest of his value if he tanks again, but we are thinking he can bounce back right?

Benjamin Grimm Dec 05 2016 08:04 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I think that they've ruled out giving him a long-term contract, and they want to see if they can get anything back for him in a trade, rather than let him walk away through free agency.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2016 08:45 PM Re: Trade Jay Bruce

I can't believe people aren't prepared to trade Matz for an MVP centerfielder you mean an expensive player on a steep downward trajectory? he was NEGATIVE WAR player this past year (last 5 years: 7.0; 8.1; 6.3; 4.9; -0.7 on BRef) - i'm guessing he isnt that bad, but he is owed 14 mil each of the last 2 years and arguably already belongs in a corner spot. at that point, he's Jay Bruce. Why would you trade Matz for that? While I wouldn't know what McCutchen's future holds, I don't see a steep downward trajectory either. He had an off year in 2016. The four years before that, he finished in the top five in league MVP voting every single season -- including a number one finish in 2013. He was also an all-star the last five seasons before 2016. Johnny Bench was the NL MVP in 1970 and in 1972. And in between -- 1971 -- he had the worst year of his prime. Go figure.

Edgy MD Dec 05 2016 09:16 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

That said, FanGraphs' Steamer tool projects him for a 3.6 fWAR this season, which is something like Lagares' upside (if not quite his ceiling). On the other hand, those projections gravitate toward the mean. Paul Goldschmidt has a 4.3 projection. Nolan Arrenado has a 4.2. But obviously some of these guys will have soaring years. So forget I said anything.

Centerfield Dec 05 2016 09:19 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I don't know if it's a trajectory. I guess you don't know until you see how it plays out, but his OPS has been dropping each of the last 3 years. .952-.889.-766. I guess if he bounces back it's an aberration. If he gets worse it's a trajectory.

Ashie62 Dec 05 2016 09:28 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I would trade Matz for McCutchen, and quickly. One has a big resume, one has a small one. Pirate GM would be shot if that went off like that.

Centerfield Dec 05 2016 09:30 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Ashie62 wrote: I would trade Matz for McCutchen, and quickly. One has a big resume, one has a small one. Pirate GM would be shot if that went off like that. Maybe we could offer to take back Antonio Bastardo. Where is Jon Niese? Let's sign him and trade him again.

cooby Dec 06 2016 02:06 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I want him to stay a Pirate

TransMonk Dec 07 2016 10:25 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I wonder with the Nats seemingly out if Sandy can make a play here from a position of strength.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2016 12:11 AM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I would trade the shit out of Matz for this fella

Edgy MD Dec 08 2016 12:36 AM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

TRAID HARVEY!!1!1!

MFS62 Dec 08 2016 12:54 AM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Edgy MD wrote: TRAID HARVEY!!1!1! You're right. Let's get rid of that wuss. What's he done lately? Later

Gwreck Dec 08 2016 01:04 AM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

It can't possibly just take Steven Matz to get McCutchen or we would have done so already, right? McCutchen is getting $14M in 2017 and the same in 2018 with a team option ($1M buyout).

Lefty Specialist Dec 08 2016 01:17 AM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Hmm. McCutchen would look really good in this lineup, but whither Conforto if that happens? You have to assume Bruce gets traded and Grandy moves back to RF.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2016 01:47 AM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

McCutcheon wouldn't look nearly as good as Joseph F. Votto. That's what I say.

Lefty Specialist Dec 08 2016 12:55 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Edgy MD wrote: McCutcheon wouldn't look nearly as good as Joseph F. Votto. That's what I say. Yeah, but that contract. Ay Caramba. Not just the money but the length, too.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2016 02:34 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I'm telling you, by the end of the contract, it won't look so big.

Vic Sage Dec 08 2016 02:54 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Edgy MD wrote: I'm telling you, by the end of the contract, it won't look so big. Yes, I Vote 4 Votto!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2016 05:02 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

We're all in agreement then. Matz, Bruce and Doodoo for Votto and a Cincy relief pitcher.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2016 05:07 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

HURRY THE EFF UP AND MAKE THIS DEAL SANDY!!!!!1

Frayed Knot Dec 20 2016 02:04 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Both the NYPost and the Snooze pick up this morning on Ken Rosenthal's recent tidbit that the Mets have had "ever-so preliminary" talks recently concerning Andrew McCutcheon. Neither gets into the guesstimation game on what it would take to swing a deal as both articles are more about going through the logistics of what it would take just to pre-set the stage for a possible swap. Mainly, they'd first have to deal both Bruce & Granderson as adding an OFer when you've already got an OF glut only compounds things, and that they'd likely have to add at least one reliever (above and beyond whatever they might want to add anyway) in order to make up for the likely pitching drain of whoever heads to Steel Town. As always, both add that only Amed Rosario is off the table if and when discussion ever do turn serious.

MFS62 Dec 20 2016 02:52 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

And then there's this from sny.com Dec. 20 | 8:22AM The Blue Jays remain in talks with the Mets about a possible deal involving Jay Bruce or Curtis Granderson, according to FoxSports.com's Jon Morosi. The day the Mets announced the Yoenis Cespedes signing, a Mets official told Kevin Kernan of the NY Post that trading both Jay Bruce and Curtis Granderson was possible. Dec. 19 | 10:50AM The Blue Jays, Orioles and Rangers continue to be talked about as the most likely destination for Bruce, several MLB insiders recently told MetsBlog.com's Matthew Cerrone. "There are other teams with interest, and other teams that make sense -- such as the Mariners, Indians, Cardinals and Giants," Cerrone added. "However, the current buzz points to Texas, Baltimore and Toronto ending up as the best fit for Bruce when all is said and done." Instead of immediate impact-talent, the Mets will likely get back a low-cost, low-ceiling reliever or one or two minor leaguers in a deal for Bruce. "The O's and Rangers are willing to deal relief pitchers, while the Jays are more interested in moving prospects or an extra position player, such as Dalton Pompey," Cerrone concluded. Later

Frayed Knot Dec 20 2016 03:36 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

... the Jays are more interested in moving prospects or an extra position player, such as Dalton Pompey," Cerrone concluded. I don't know about that guy, he could blow up at any minute.

Centerfield Dec 20 2016 03:39 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Frayed Knot wrote: Both the NYPost and the Snooze pick up this morning on Ken Rosenthal's recent tidbit that the Mets have had "ever-so preliminary" talks recently concerning Andrew McCutcheon. Neither gets into the guesstimation game on what it would take to swing a deal as both articles are more about going through the logistics of what it would take just to pre-set the stage for a possible swap. Mainly, they'd first have to deal both Bruce & Granderson as adding an OFer when you've already got an OF glut only compounds things, and that they'd likely have to add at least one reliever (above and beyond whatever they might want to add anyway) in order to make up for the likely pitching drain of whoever heads to Steel Town. As always, both add that only Amed Rosario is off the table if and when discussion ever do turn serious. I would think the Pirates would be asking for something like Matz and Conforto. Which, I guess, would help alleviate the OF situation, but do nothing to clear salary. As the articles suggest, I think the probability of this is pretty low. It would be strange to have a rotation without any lefties.

seawolf17 Dec 20 2016 03:44 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Centerfield wrote: It would be strange to have a rotation without any lefties. "You rang?"

Centerfield Dec 20 2016 04:17 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

seawolf17 wrote: Centerfield wrote: It would be strange to have a rotation without any lefties. "You rang?" LOLOLOL. Not funny.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 20 2016 04:32 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I'll bet if he wanted to, and he were healthy enough, (two big "ifs" I know) Niese could adjust his game so that he could fake it as a lefty bullpenner. Offhand I'd you'd have to think that at least some degree of "success" among LOOGYs is due to the highly specialized nature of the assignnmet itself vs. the highly generalized nature of the No. 5 starting assignment. That said little in Niese's career splits would indicate he possesses anything that's especially tough on lefties (or anyone else) but conditions could be such for him and maybe us that someone gives him the chance.

Edgy MD Dec 20 2016 05:59 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

LOOGy or not, Niese looked strong out of the bullpen in the 2015 postseason.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 20 2016 06:03 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

As I recall it he dodged a bullet (smoking line drive caught?) but got it done. I mean it's likely at some point every team will need relief help from someone else's castoff former starter.

Ashie62 Dec 20 2016 06:53 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Getting McCutchen might be easier if we had not tendered Bruce. It appears we overestimated Bruce's value. Jay is part of a logjam for now.

Edgy MD Dec 20 2016 06:57 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

He'll bring something back. I'm a little wary of of McCutchen—coming off a bad year, several years since he was a defensive plus, and still bearing a superstar's price tag. On the other paw, I've always loved his halfback physique, and he strikes me as the type of guy who can still be an asset when he's not at 100%. I think Alderson values those type of guys.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 20 2016 06:58 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I'll be pretty surprised if he ends up as a Met, but perhaps quite not as surprised as I would have been two or three weeks ago.

Centerfield Dec 20 2016 07:13 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Edgy MD wrote: I'm a little wary of of McCutchen—coming off a bad year, several years since he was a defensive plus, and still bearing a superstar's price tag. I assume you mean in terms of trade haul? His salary is pretty reasonable.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 20 2016 07:20 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I think we should start chatting about Charlie Blackmon

Edgy MD Dec 20 2016 07:24 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Yeah, his presumed trade price is what I refer to, but that's obviously largely speculative. He put up .400-or-better OBPs four years in a row, which suggests he could be something like the #3 hitter I crave (even if he isn't a lefty), but then last year he fell to .336. My feelings, I find, are conflicted.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 20 2016 07:37 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I did a Google News search on McCutchen to see how widespread this McCutchen-Mets thing is, and to see if the noise is coming exclusively from New York or if there's similar buzz in Pittsburgh too. My take is that we're seeing speculation that's feeding on itself in New York, and there are a few echoes in Pittsburgh, but it doesn't look like there's much to it, at least at this point.

d'Kong76 Dec 20 2016 07:40 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

I was just going to post that there probably isn't much fire to this smoke thinking that nothing big is going down until after Jan 1. The Mets offices are likely closed with a few lackies maybe pushing some papers around and the agents and their lawyers ain't drawing up contract changes this week and certainly not next. Next person to tweet some Mets 'news' that doesn't have any legs to it should be banned from Twitter until Jan 1. That is all.

Frayed Knot Dec 20 2016 07:54 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I did a Google News search on McCutchen to see how widespread this McCutchen-Mets thing is, and to see if the noise is coming exclusively from New York or if there's similar buzz in Pittsburgh too. My take is that we're seeing speculation that's feeding on itself in New York, and there are a few echoes in Pittsburgh, but it doesn't look like there's much to it, at least at this point. Both the News & Post cited the recent Ken Rosenthal mention of talks between the two (however informal and preliminary) so that seems to be the genesis of this. Overall there doesn't seem to be a great fit between the two teams. Pitt's #1 prospect is Austin Meadows, a 21 y/o, top-20 type prospect OF'er who's either ready to start on OD or is a 1/2 season away at worst meaning that, with Polanco & Marte both good and young, not only are the Pirates not going to want any part of Grandy or Bruce but might not even be that high on Conforto if he were to be offered. They'll want young pitching of course but that isn't as plentiful in Queens as it was with the trade of Fulmer, health questions around Wheeler, Matz, & Harvey, the drying of the recent pipeline from the minors (unless Gsellman really is the next deGrom), the loss of Bartolo the human stopgap, and with all the young guns now one year closer to FA-gency. Then take Rosario off the table and the WATPs become tougher to create.

cooby Dec 20 2016 07:56 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

d'Kong76 wrote: I was just going to post that there probably isn't much fire to this smoke thinking that nothing big is going down until after Jan 1. The Mets offices are likely closed with a few lackies maybe pushing some papers around and the agents and their lawyers ain't drawing up contract changes this week and certainly not next. Next person to tweet some Mets 'news' that doesn't have any legs to it should be banned from Twitter until Jan 1. That is all. Then I hope it's Trump

d'Kong76 Dec 20 2016 08:00 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Lol, I don't follow him.

cooby Dec 20 2016 08:03 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Me either but it sounds like he'd be a good guy to ban

A Boy Named Seo Dec 20 2016 08:33 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

For comparisons sake, the Pirates turned down the Nats offer of Lucas Giolito (their former #1 prospect), Dane Dunning (21-year old pitcher, their 2016 first round pick), and a 'third player', sez some blowhard from FanRag. Justin Dunn would be an easy comp for the Mets for Dane Dunning. Is Matz a Giolito comp? Both have lost a little luster, but I think Giolito's upside is still way upper. Szapucki? Would you still play if these were the names Pittsburgh was throwin around?

Edgy MD Dec 20 2016 08:56 PM Re: It looks like we're talking about Andrew McCutchen

Dane Danning sounds like a former Miss Rheingold.