Pearce to Start Season in AAA

by johnnycuff on Jan 23, 2008 1:21 PM EST Comment 36 comments

"In a perfect world, Steve deserves a chance to win an everyday job at the Major League level, but with Xavier, with Jason, with Adam [LaRoche], we're not in a position to give that to him," Huntington said. "He's not going to want to hear this, but a young player needs to continue to play, and as a result, Steve will probably end up back in [Triple-A] Indianapolis where he can play every day and develop."

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it shows that the bucs probably aren't going to move Nady before the season starts and commit to a rebuilding project, which has been discussed at length and with much grinding of teeth in threads outside this one.

On the other, Pearce is obviously no sure thing and since the team seems committed to this "what the hell, let's see what happens and maybe we get 83 wins" plan for now Pearce would do nothing but rot on the bench for at least the first half of the season, much like McLouth last year. No question that this would be a bad thing for his development. I'd rather see him getting regular at bats in AAA than spotty ones on the ML roster.

Ideally I'd like to see them move Nady for whatever low-level prospect they can get and let Pearce split time with Doumit in right and occasionally spell Laroche at first.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well, crap.

<n/t>

by Vlad on Jan 23, 2008 1:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

AAA

What he did last year was quite the accomplishment, but I actually believe what the Bucco Brass are doing is justified. Let him get his reps in AAA and prove 07 wasn't a fluke and move him up when Nady/Doumit get hurt.

by EndlessMike on Jan 23, 2008 2:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Last year at AAA...

...he hit .320/.366/.557. You can't get much more ready than that.

He needs to be playing every day in the majors. If they can't clear a space for him by making a blockbuster Bay deal or trading Nady for a B-level prospect, then they need to bite the bullet and start him over Nady.

by Vlad on Jan 23, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sample size

He's good at putting the bat on the ball, but that doesn't mean he should be swinging at pitches over his head, which he did last year. I tried to dig up a link to the story, but I clearly remember Dejan commenting on it, but in a good way. Pearce got a base hit on a ball in his eyes and Dejan asked why he swung at it and he said something like, because I knew I could hit it. That's a great attitude and all, but Randall Simon had the same type of skill.

I hope we move Nady and/or Bay sooner rather than later. Heck, I won't even argue they should bite the bullet and start Pearce over Nady. But Pearce in AAA until June 1 won't break my heart either.

by azibuck on Jan 23, 2008 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I could sort-of buy sample size...

...except it's right in line with his MLEs from A, AA, and the majors.

Having him repeat at AAA isn't going to teach him not to swing at balls over his head. He's already demonstrated that he's going to swing at those balls in AAA and hit the crap out of 'em. To imprint on that lesson, he's going to need to face pitchers who can get him out with the high FB... which means playing regularly in the majors until it sinks in.

by Vlad on Jan 23, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

GOOD CALL

I think that he should be up in the majors, but you make a real strong point. He does need to prove it wasnt a fluke, but he could also do that by starting the season in the Bigs

BRING BACK TIKE REDMAN

by omar moreno on Jan 23, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I give up

These people are as stupid as the people they replaced.

by RichieHebner on Jan 23, 2008 2:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

WOW

I think its a stupid decision. I definetly think that he could use the atbats in the bigs. He would give SOME offense to our bench. And he would also grow much more by getting at bats with the Pirates than playing regularly with the Indians.

I think this is a stupid move and where are we going to get our offense from on the bench???

BRING BACK TIKE REDMAN

by omar moreno on Jan 23, 2008 2:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

(Yawn)

n/m

by azibuck on Jan 23, 2008 3:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ugh.

by Charlie on Jan 23, 2008 4:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Jaret Wright

The Bucs signed Jaret Wright to a minor league deal...

Check it out at the Post-Gazette

by bryanzane on Jan 23, 2008 6:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Couple other moves, too.

Bringing back Shortslef and Buttler, and adding the fairly interesting Anthony Webster, along with some depth guys. Link.

by Vlad on Jan 23, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In order to help myself sleep tonight

I will tell myself that the insistence on holding and playing Nady is an attempt to inflate his value ever-so-slightly more before flipping him somewhere else.

by matskralc on Jan 23, 2008 7:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Always possible

and hopefully true.

by RichieHebner on Jan 23, 2008 9:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Slow Down

People,

Most of you are much more into stats than I, but I think that many are being too quick to push Nady overboard. Starting Pearce at Indy is not a terrible idea. As others said, make him show that '07 wasn't a fluke. What would be stupid is if the big leaguers stink out the joint but continue to play over a red hot Pearce at Indy.

I think that dumping Nady now would be a mistake on several levels. One, if healthy I think he is pretty solid. More importantly, it would be selling low - a practice that all have rightly derided the Bucs for employing.

Finally, there is no 'end of the world' scenario with a franchise as pathetic as our beloved Buccos, but what happens if we dump Nady for a used q-tip in order to play Pearce, only to have Pearce proceed to play like Brant Brown? What is your plan B in that plausible scenario?

Bottom line: I don't see a downside to at least waiting until mid-May to dump a player at his low value.

Good day.

by UncleNate on Jan 23, 2008 10:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nady

Actually, based on his history, trading Nady now would be selling high.

by WTM on Jan 23, 2008 10:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Selling low?

Meaning you think Nady is a lot better than his 2007 numbers???

"what happens if we dump Nady for a used q-tip in order to play Pearce, only to have Pearce proceed to play like Brant Brown? What is your plan B in that plausible scenario?"

Ryan Doumit--but who cares anyway? At least we will know what we have for the future, rather than playing a guy who we know has no part in our future. You seem to be missing the point.

by The New Guy on Jan 23, 2008 10:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

about Nady's value and selling low....

it's not just Nady's numbers... you have to also consider what else is out there, the 'opportunity cost' of some GM trading a prospect for Nady. Steve Henson's article at yahoo.com points out that there's a still a surplus of Nady-comparable (e.g., cost and expected production) outfielders available in the free agent market:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ap6nJ7ufSsgR_hXJl25Wm3sRvLYF?slug=sh-freeagentsale012108&p rov=yhoo&type=lgns

(if the link doesn't work, go to sports.yahoo.com/mlb, and look for the article, titled 'It's a shoppers paradise for GMs')

ideally, I agree with johnnycuff's conclusion about trading Nady and letting Pearce start in the majors at OF and sometimes 1B. but if there are no good deals to be had, then I'd also rather not see Nady dumped for pennies on the dollar (see A.Ramirez, K.Benson), prospect-wise. yes it's a gamble, especially if it's Sept. 1 and Nady is still on the Pirates' roster, but the Pirates don't have many good cards to play/deal right now. I would rather NH to be very picky for the short term.

by humbucker on Jan 23, 2008 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Omigod!!

If we trade Nady and Pearce sucks, we could lose 94 games!!! Oh, wait . . . .

by WTM on Jan 23, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Keep Nady

And make him a bench player. It's the best of both world - we see what Pearce does on a daily basis AND strengthen the bench. There's room for all if Doumit is the backup catcher.
And gee, what are the odds that Bay, Nady or Doumit will get hurt? Even if Pearce starts the year in Indy, he'll be in Pittsburgh by May 1.

by TPenaRules on Jan 24, 2008 10:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

NL Central - Winter Rankings.

NL Central - Winter Rankings

vr, Xei

Jim Tracy 4 President!

by Xeifrank on Jan 24, 2008 1:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Easy folks ...

I'm not getting worked up over this. Yet.

Things change. Players slump. Xavier Nady and Ryan Doumit get hurt.

Regardless of what NH is saying now -- he could change his mind, you know -- Steve Pearce will more than likely get his shot in 2008. Well, unless the following happens:

1.) Pearce tanks in Indy and proves '07 was a Jack-like fluke.

2.) Nady stays off the DL isn't traded and puts up a .295/.350/.525 season.

3.) Nate McClouth wins the CF job and puts up similar numbers to last year's second half, but is moved to RF in mid-June when a hot-hitting Andrew McCutchen is called up.

I can't see any of the three happening, particularly No. 2 ... Nady is too damn fragile to play a full season.

by nick3849 on Jan 24, 2008 1:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

There's also option 4:

We waste one of the best years of Pearce's career in order to provide playing time for a guy with a career .768 OPS.

by Vlad on Jan 24, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny

Nobody ever seems to think about this. If he's set to have, say, five prime years at ages 25-29, do you really want one of those to come in AAA? Most people don't seem able to think of a player's prime as being tied to his age, but all the evidence indicates that it is. This is why I get impatient with the notion that, "It won't hurt him to spend another year in AAA." Maybe it will hurt him and maybe it won't, but if he spends what could be a very good major league season in AAA, it's a lost asset to the team.

Of course, I also disagree with the notion that it doesn't hurt a guy who's ready for the majors to spend another year in the minors.

by WTM on Jan 24, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Another reason to shop Bay and Sanchez.....

As you rightly point out WTM, these guys are getting a bit old. I don't understand this whole selling low idea. You trade a guy when it makes sense. Bay's value is what it is. Sure it was higher going into last year, but the reality is he performed like he did, everyone saw it and now there are questions as to what kind of player he is. You aren't selling high or selling low, you are selling based on past performance and future expectations (which obviously will vary from person to person). If Bay has another bad year he will essentially be worthless. The guy can't control the outside half of the plate and his tendency to try to pull everything leaves me to believe that it's very unlikely that he returns to his form of 2005 or 06.

Sanchez is turning 30 and we aren't paying him two years from now so trade him too. Just don't expect to get a king's ransom in return. Other teams can figure out these things as well. 30, a free agent in two years. He is not part of the Pirates future.

by dtoddwin on Jan 24, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong about Bay

It's the inner half he can't control, and he doesn't try to pull everything. In fact, he can't, or couldn't in 2007 anyway.

by azibuck on Jan 24, 2008 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Look at the stats.....

If you look at the stats on THT and Baseball Prospectus it shows Bay being one of the biggest right handed pull hitters in the game over the last three years. We can disagree over which side of the plate he doesn't control, but in my view he doesn't get beat with fastballs inside, he gets beat when he waves at fastballs away or doesn't recognize hard curves and sliders away.

by dtoddwin on Jan 24, 2008 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sliders away

That's all you needed to throw Bay last year and he'd wave at them all.

by matskralc on Jan 24, 2008 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I did

I won't argue further, because "2007" is different than "the last three years." Looking at his hitting chart, he pulled the ball much less in 2007, at least to the OF. But in the years before that, yes, he pulled the ball more, with authority.

As for his command of the plate, this is only from last year, but it's great stuff:

http://baseball.bornbybits.com/plots/bat/Jason_Bay.html

Look at the swinging strikes and more galling, the called strikes on the inside part of the plate. I didn't mean to say he was strong against sliders away either, just that it was far from his biggest problem in 2007. One final note: 2007 was the first year I got the mlb.tv package so saw him a lot more than I did in previous years, when I'd only see about 15 games a year. And obviously, Bay's performance wasn't what it was in the seasons before.

by azibuck on Jan 24, 2008 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

throw all the stats at me you want

but I have watched Bay whiff on one too many sliders away to believe his problem is the inner half of the plate

by The New Guy on Jan 24, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Bay and Nady are different animals.

There's a reasonable chance that Bay will rebuild his value if held for a couple of months, even if it's not a given.

Nady, in contrast, doesn't have any value to build. He is what he is: a 4th OF on a good team, or maybe half a platoon. A complementary piece.

by Vlad on Jan 24, 2008 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

And actually, teams rarely give anything up for those kinds of players.

Pat at WHYGAVS has been talking a lot recently about whether we should have non-tendered Nady. When that was rumored to be a possibility, I said that would be a bad idea. I still think so, in that I think the Pirates should be able to get SOME return for Nady, but I'm coming around to the idea that dumping him wouldn't have been all bad.

At this point, I think the Pirates should just sell Nady to the highest bidder. They should be able to get something, but not much - a 21-year-old starter in Class A with control problems, or something. I don't think holding out for something better is likely to get them anywhere, certainly not far enough to offset the downside of Pearce stagnating at a level where he doesn't belong.

by Charlie on Jan 24, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Non-tendering.

I think that non-tendering him would've been a pretty dumb decision, insofar as his salary shouldn't be out of line for a reasonably competitive team's primary bench bat. It'd be a different matter if he were slated to make $8M (i.e. starter money). Even if he's not starting (and he shouldn't be over Pearce), he has value as a backup in LF, RF, and 1B (plus maybe a platoon partner for LaRoche).

by Vlad on Jan 25, 2008 2:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs