No trades of Bay or Nady?
Jayson Stark has an interesting article up over on espn.com about the whirlwind life of managers like Ozzie Guillen and Ned Yost. The pertinent information about the Buccos comes near the bottom:
• Pass the Bucco: The Jason Bay/Xavier Nady rumors continue to percolate. But an official of one team that investigated says we should take all Pirates trade rumors this July with an entire shaker of salt. "My feeling is they're not going to trade any of those guys, because [their ownership] wants to finish at .500. They haven't done it in 15 years. So if they're even close at the deadline, they won't trade anybody."
Obviosly, if the Pirates finish below .500 this year they will set a major sport record for futility by failing to reach that mark for 15 years. As horrible as that would be, the interest of the owners and Huntington/Coonelly should be to win later at the expense of winning now. This smacks of Littlefield syndrome, except the stakes are raised from 70 games to 82. As a 23-year-old Pirates fan, I have suffered through awful teams for almost all of my life and that makes me more interested in the long term than the short term. The real question is whether or not keeping them will hurt Bay or Nady's value. If the Pirates perceive teams will be as willing to give up the same amount of talent in the off-season, then it doesn't matter if the Pirates keep them in an effort to achieve .500. If it does hurt their value, it doesn't make any sense at all to keep them and could lead to the first real criticisms of this administration. Neither of those players are a part of the core the Pirates will build around. Their value to the franchise lies in what they can bring in return. Let's hope Huntington/Coonelly get all the value they can.
0 recs |
17
comments
Read Related
Comments
This lunacy is why the current record might be a bad thing
It’s unacceptable to refuse to take advantage of opportunities to improve the organization so that it might contend in the future. Passing the McClatchy means achieving mediocrity! Why would this be a goal?
Steve Z
by steve_z on Jun 13, 2008 4:36 PM EDT 0 recs
Nady (and Marte) have to be traded by July 31...
I could see waiting until after the season or until next year to trade Bay and others (Laroche? Grabow?), but from a contractual standpoint, it makes no sense to keep Nady and Marte. (it’s nothing personal—I like what Nady and Marte have done for the Pirates.)
maybe NH is subtly trying ‘reverse psychology’, an attempt to build up value by implying scarcity, to get a desperate (or stupid) GM to offer more than they want to give up when the trade deadline arrives. of course, if they keep playing the way that they have, there will be no need for such shenanigans….
by humbucker on Jun 13, 2008 4:41 PM EDT 0 recs
Maybe the Article is All BS?
So far NH has shown himself to pretty sharp and he has a plan. I think he will trade Bay and Marte by 7/31 but only if he gets something for them that will help the future. “But an official of one team…My feeling is…” is just speculation. I think the sportswriter is helping this team to drive the price down on these guys.
I take that article with a grain of salt.
by zogger on Jun 13, 2008 5:16 PM EDT 0 recs
Worst possible scenario
To me the worst case scenario was that they’d be hovering within reach of .500 but not be in the race. Since the Cubs and Cards (although I don’t see them lasting) have been way better than expected, the Pirates aren’t likely to get in contention. But if they don’t do their usual lay-down for the AL teams, they’ll probably stay within reach of .500. That leaves NH and Coonelly with the choice of trading players from a decent team. They can deny it all they want, but I have no doubt at all that breaking the losing streak is a major priority. So the end result could be a modified version of the usual McClatchy/DL foolishness of keeping the team together (or even worse, adding to it) for a big late-season run. Except instead of just hoping that a terrible team finishes well to save the GM’s job, they’ll be hoping that a team that’s not in contention can reach .500. Either way, the chances of ever contending drop once again.
Of course, if the AL teams, as usual, kick the Pirates around like a tin can, this will be a moot point. Then they’ll be facing the exact same scenario that their idiot predecessors faced every year. If they come to the same conclusion, we’ll know nothing at all has changed.
by WTM on Jun 13, 2008 5:17 PM EDT 0 recs
Keep them
I guess I just think differently about this. The chances of the Pirates receiving something interesting for the future for any of these guys seem pretty remote to me. A few deals would look good (i.e. if we could get Kemp for Bay/Marte or something like that) but teams don’t trade good prospects anymore. I guess I just think that it’s more than likely that the packages won’t be great, and the guys we get back won’t be much of a part of the future anyway, so why not try to finish .500? I would love, from a selfish standpoint, to play somewhat meaningful games in August and September. Keep the team focused toward the real prizes, the draft and international scouting.
by hisjazziness on Jun 13, 2008 7:54 PM EDT 0 recs
Don't know if this
gives you any idea what our guys are worth, but the Mets picked up Trot Nixon from the Snakes for, AP says, cash or a PTBI. Well, actually from AAA Tucson. Sheesh, they could have done better (cough Nady cough).
by bucdaddy on Jun 13, 2008 11:47 PM EDT 0 recs
but...
would we have given the Mets Nady and only taken cash or a PTBNL…I hope not.
by Thunder on
Jun 14, 2008 12:14 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Part of the problem there...
...is that the Mets don’t really have much of interest to trade for a Nady. Their one big prospect, F-Mart, is redundant on a team with as much CF depth as we have, I’m not a fan of Carp, and the only really interesting young arm they have is Niese, who can’t swing a deal by himself.
They went with Nixon because they just can’t afford anything better right now.
by Vlad on
Jun 14, 2008 12:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
another Met arm
that I kinda like is at AA Binghamton as well-Robert Parnell.
I would not argue against adding him as well as Niese,
by Count Vertigo on
Jun 14, 2008 6:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Neil can say whatever he wants
If he wants to try and build a market by implying that we don’t need to deal, that’s fine with me. We’ll see whether he’s really serious about doing the right thing for the franchise (i.e. making a deal) when we get to the deadline.
by Vlad on Jun 14, 2008 12:19 PM EDT 0 recs
Why trade Marte
Marte has pretty much been unstoppable for the last 2 years. Why would you trade him? I know we probably won’t be in the hunt at the end of the year, but .500 would be a good start for this team. The only two guys I would trade would be Nady and LaRoche (if anyone would want him).
by thielcats on Jun 14, 2008 12:32 PM EDT 0 recs
Well, as you aptly demonstrate...
...relievers are often tremendously overvalued.
by matskralc on
Jun 14, 2008 1:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I hate to say it but
this year and next may be as good as it gets for the Bucs for a long time. Maybe it is against the odds but if Snell and Gorzo start pitching the way they did last year and the rest of the team plays as they have we’d have a very competitive team; maybe not with the Cubs but we’d have a shot at a wild card slot.
I’d be all for a Bay/Marte-for-Kemp deal but I think it is very unlikely the Dodgers would go for that; would you if you were the Dodger GM? Kemp could easily be a superior player to Bay as early as next year. And the idea that another team will give us the type of prospect(s) we want with Nady as the center piece of the deal is simply wishful thinking, far less likely than the possiblity that the current crop will gel based upon the resurgence of Snell and Gorzo.
What might give Nady a little more value than he has now is if he can stay healthy the rest of the year and continue to perform at the level he has displayed so far this season. Any GM interested in him now would have to be concerned about his tendency to tail off the second half of the season and would, therefore, be unwilling to part with a prospect with much potential.
by WestCoastBuc on Jun 14, 2008 2:26 PM EDT 0 recs
Kemp couple easily be a superior player to Bay as early as next year
implies that Bay is better now. Coletti cares about now. That said, I still don’t think they will do it. Kemp is more versatile on defense and runs better.
by DITO on Jun 14, 2008 3:15 PM EDT 0 recs
Depends
on whether Coletti is a moron, doesn’t it? Is he? Because the Dodgers have a terrible outfield, and Bay-for-Kemp closes one hole but simply opens another, while adding seven years, so it would take a moron to swing that deal. Too bad DL isn’t running the Dodgers.
thielcats, Because next year Marte’s pay kicks up a few notches beyond what a team like the Pirates ought to pay a LOOGY.
by bucdaddy on
Jun 14, 2008 5:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, if that is not true
there is not much point to this conversation. It will be hard to find a GM willing to part with younger, cheaper and better for older, more expensive and worse. More realistic than a deal for Kemp probably is Bay/Marte for several prospects that are a couple years away. I’m not sure if the Dodgers have could put together a package that would be attractive to us or not.
by WestCoastBuc on
Jun 14, 2008 7:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
This year will be the 16th losing season
If they do indeed finish below .500, and it will only tie the Phillies’ record. Next year would be the record setter if they lose this year and next.
holt shit its christmas.
by yteimlad on Jun 14, 2008 6:56 PM EDT 0 recs




