Pirates Wouldn't Pursue Carlos Pena

by Charlie on May 11, 2008 8:01 PM EDT

Dejan Kovacevic reports that someone in the Pirates' employ in early 2007 was "pleading" for Dave Littlefield to acquire Carlos Pena, who went on to hit 46 homers last year.

This is certainly interesting, but there's no way I'm adding this to the long list of things I blame Littlefield for. Pena was an effective but unspectacular hitter before 2007, and he's off to a slow start this year; his 2007 could end up having been a giant fluke. The Bucs traded for Adam LaRoche that offseason. As disappointing as LaRoche has sometimes been, he was clearly a better option than Pena at the time. The Bucs also had a bench masher in Josh Phelps who hit .351/.463/.649 but still couldn't get more than 77 at bats; if it had been Pena instead of Phelps, the same thing might've happened, and I don't think I would have blamed the Pirates in the least. Yeah, Littlefield was an idiot, but I'll stick to criticizing mistakes that were foreseeable.

UPDATE: Another way of putting this is that Carlos Pena signed with Tampa Bay because he's just the sort of player who signs with Pittsburgh or Tampa Bay or Kansas City. So somebody in the Pirates' management was clamoring for Carlos Pena -- I'm at least as inclined to see that as the problem as I am to see Littlefield's inaction as the problem.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments | Add your comment

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Carlos Pena

I agree about Pena. Nothing about his career indicated that 2007 would happen. Same goes for the talk about the Bucs passing on Cliff Lee this spring. Still though, why don’t we ever get lucky on one of these?

by jpj74 on May 11, 2008 8:45 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Yeah

I didn’t like the inclusion of Lee, but didn’t think that deal was too bad because I had a higher opinion of Gutierrez than most. I was really low on Bay last year and thought we should have done that deal, but it is proving to be a smart move by NH (at least by letting Bay show he isn’t washed up, obviously not by passing on Lee).

by DITO on May 11, 2008 8:57 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Luck

They never get lucky on them because they never try. When Pena was looking for work, the Pirates were down to around 16 position players on the major league roster, and they had no left-handed power in the system. Maybe they wouldn’t have gotten lucky with Pena, but they should have been collecting guys with his profile.

by Arnold Rothstein on May 11, 2008 10:45 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

It wasn't me

But a visitor to bucsdugout posted a diary saying the Pirates should get Pena. This was before the LaRoche deal. Can’t remember who it was, but it was great call.

by bolton on May 12, 2008 4:03 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Pena v. LaRoche

I think that you’re missing the point. Pena and LaRoche are essentially the same player, except Pena is two years older. They’re both decent glove men at first, and the both tend to put up an OPS+ somewhere between 105 and 115 in a typical year. You could make the case that Pena is the better hitter even without taking last year into account. The Pirates could have signed Pena, then used Gonzalez to address some other position. That may not have made a huge difference, but it’s something to consider.

I think that citing Josh Phelps in your post was a little misleading. Phelps only got 77 ABs because he couldn’t play the field worth a darn at any position, not because there were better hitters keeping him on the bench.

by sisyphus on May 12, 2008 9:56 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

In 2006 LaRoche had anything but a typical year. He was in the top 10 in the league in OPS, and he’d gone on medication at midseason that was supposed to have helped him go nuts in the second half of the season. In retrospect, yeah, they’re probably pretty similar players in terms of value, but if you’d said that in the ‘06-’07 offseason, people would have called you crazy, I think for good reason.

by Charlie on May 12, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Good point

You’ve got a good point. It comes down to LaRoche’s 2006. If you think it was a career year, then he and Pena are about the same guy. If you think it was the first step towards a real breakout, then you’ve got to like LaRoche by a big margin. Personally, I’m hoping that it WAS the first step towards a real breakout. It’s still possible that last year was an aberration. I’d like nothing better than to remind you of this discussion in September in my apology for doubting you, LOL.

by sisyphus on May 12, 2008 11:51 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Thanx for not adding to my ulcer...

This is up there with the old rumor that we could have acquired Ryan Howard from the Phillies before his break-out season and that one was never proven to be true. I’m all for examining our mistakes so that we can learn from them and not repeat them in the future but I don’t want to beat ourselves needlessly. We certainly have enough valid reasons to do that. I think Charlie’s position was well thought out and right on. Thanx for having a level head.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on May 12, 2008 11:10 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Not to add to your ulcer, but...

How would you ever “prove” that Ryan Howard rumor to be true? Multiple sources have confirmed it. That’s good enough for me, and there’s as much evidence as there ever is when you’re talking about a trade that didn’t actually happen.

by Charlie on May 12, 2008 11:31 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Carlos Pena

Let’s remember that the Red Sox gave up on Carlos Pena as well ! Oh,for a crystal ball…......

by rissaldar on May 12, 2008 2:22 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Memory

When you remember that the Red Sox gave up on Pena, make sure you remember that they already had Kevin Youkilis.who was already as good as Pena, but cheaper, and young enough that he could still improve.

by sisyphus on May 12, 2008 11:59 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

math

Carlos Pena 2007 = Adrian Beltre 2004 – high average + strikeouts + 4 years older

let’s not overreact here

by johnnycuff on May 12, 2008 3:28 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Pena

Very true. Just saying,who couldn’t have used Pena’s bat last year? I don’t really think the Sox gave up on Pena because they had Youk. I just think they misjudged him…...

by rissaldar on May 13, 2008 4:17 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

It's still early...

...and Pena is on pace for 30+ HR this year, even with the slow start. I think his BA will drift up a bit as the year goes on, and while that won’t make him a superstar, he’ll still be a useful 1B.

by Vlad on May 13, 2008 6:02 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs