Player to Watch: Patrick McAnaney

by Charlie on Sep 4, 2008 10:44 PM EDT Comment 22 comments

Following up on my post about State College below, where I said that Dave Littlefield had left little land mines all over the place, there's a pitcher named Patrick McAnaney in the low levels of the Diamondbacks system you may want to watch. The Pirates drafted him in the 38th round last year but didn't sign him. Here's what WTM had to say:

Several newspaper articles shortly before the signing deadline indicated that McAnaney was very close to signing with the Pirates, but their last negotiated session went very badly. It's possible the Pirates pulled back at the last second because former GM Dave Littlefield committed all his available resources to paying Matt Morris. Littlefield stated, after the Pirates had signed 27 draftees, that they planned to sign at least a few more. Instead, they didn't sign any, so it seems possible that Littlefield re-directed all his resources to that one staggering blunder.

The Diamondbacks picked McAnaney in the 8th round of the draft this year, and here are his stats:

Yakima (Northwest League): 9 games, 6 starts, 32.2 innings, 38 strikeouts, 13 walks, 0.55 ERA

South Bend (Midwest League): 4 games, 4 starts, 18 innings, 12 strikeouts, 5 walks, 1.50 ERA

McAnaney allowed just one homer in both stops combined.

Yakima is the same level as State College, and South Bend is the same level as Hickory. McAnaney probably would have been a late signing by the Pirates last year, so he wouldn't have started his pro career until 2008 even if the Pirates had signed him in 2007. He probably would have started at Hickory anyway (a rung higher than State College), but how nice would it have been to have him at State College, the level where he ended up playing most of this year for the Diamondbacks?

Of course, what's really strange about McAnaney is that Littlefield drafted him in the first place. It was incredibly rare for Littlefield to take players with upside in the late rounds. The one time in a hundred he actually got one who might be able to help, he may have passed him over so he could pay for Matt Morris. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what happens to McAnaney. The Diamondbacks have to be pretty happy with him so far. Anyway, it's probably not a huge deal and, as I said, McAnaney might not have played for the Spikes in any case, but when I say that the State College mess is the result of Littlefield not having his priorities straight, Morris-over-McAnaney is the sort of decision I'm talking about.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

How little money does it take to snag a 38th rounder?

Tell me it can’t be much.

by ETNBuc on Sep 5, 2008 7:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

McAnaney probably would have been paid about like a 5th rounder.

by WTM on Sep 5, 2008 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There Are Too Many McAnaneys To Count

This is not an excuse for Littlefield, but these things happen all the time.

We should not have lost Chris Shelton to the Rule 5 draft either. This was a mistake on Littlefield’s part. But the fact of the matter was that Chris Shelton was NOT the answer to the Pirates’ problem either.

Great organizations (NOT the Pirates yet) make mistakes too. Just not as many.

by thegunner on Sep 5, 2008 10:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Great Organizations

Say what you want about the records of minor league teams not being important.

That is true to SOME extent. The minor leagues should be more about the development of players than about the W/L record.

However, I think that most organizations that are consistently great will most often produce winning teams in the minor leagues. With GREAT organizations, WINNING becomes part of the CULTURE from top to bottom.

by thegunner on Sep 5, 2008 11:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not really

Milwaukee’s system has been highly regarded in recent years and has produced a strong team this year, but their farm teams as a whole have had a losing record every year but one since 1997. Arizona’s system has been very productive, yet has had a losing record the last two years and four of the last five. Florida somehow keeps resupplying the major league roster despite repeated salary dumps, but their system had a losing record in four of the last seven years. The Rays’ system, with all that talent that produced this year’s outstanding team, had a losing record every year but one since 1999. Meanwhile the Yankees’ system has had a winning record every year since at least 1992, but was a notoriously bad system for nearly a decade and produced little talent in the years between Jeter/Posada/Rivera/etc and the last couple years, forcing the Yankees to rely almost entirely on free agents.

There’s no connection between winning in the minors and producing talent. If anything, there’s an inverse relationship, as we saw with DL, because the desire to win gets in the way of developing prospects.

by WTM on Sep 5, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good Research WTM ...

But I think that if you will ask anyone about the great baseball organizations in baseball (and there are very few of them) a tradition of winning is ingrained in the culture and it permeates every team in the organization, The Cardinals of the last 40 years and the Dodgers of 1950-1985 come to mind.

The Pirates have never had any real continuity over the last 50-55 years. The ONLY years that the Pirates had any semblance of consistency and respectability were during the Joe L. Brown years.

I am NOT a baseball historian or researcher like you seem to be, but to site the Brewers, Marlins and Rays appears to me, on the surface, to be a little silly. I will accept the Yankees; however, when you have the revenue stream of the Yankees, you pretty much do whatever you want. Still, the Yankee tradition is pretty powerful, although the image was pretty tarnished during the Michael Burke years (the 60s).

It is the continuity of great people in key positions in every organization, baseball or otherwise, that accounts for consistent success.

by thegunner on Sep 5, 2008 3:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Silly?

Based on what? Those are some of the most successful systems of recent years. You seem to assume, without offering any evidence, that teams that win a lot in the majors also win in the minors and that there’s some connection between the two. I’ve never seen a shred of evidence that there’s a connection between winning in the majors and in the minors, in fact just the opposite as I pointed out. And even when you find teams that do both, like the Yankees did throughout the Torre era, there may not be any connection at all if the players aren’t coming from the farm system, as was the case with the Yankees. BA even published an article about why the Yankees’ system was so bad: they concluded it was because Steinbrenner insisted on winning in the minors and it interfered with prospect development. Historian or not, if you can’t back up your point with facts I’m not going to be persuaded.

The Cardinal and Dodger systems from long ago, btw, are a bad example because those two organizations rose to dominance at a time when many teams had no farm systems. It wasn’t until the mid- to late-1950s that everybody in MLB got on board with the concept of a farm system, and there was no draft until the mid-60s or so. The Cards at one time had something like 40-odd farm teams while some teams, like the Phillies, had one or two. You can’t compare that era to the current one.

Do you even know whether the Cardinal and Dodger systems of the years you’re referring to had winning records? You seem to be assuming they did. The Cards’ system has been very weak in terms of prospects for quite a few years now (until the last year or so) AND has had mostly losing records for a number of years. It’s not an example I’d want the Pirates to follow.

If all you’re saying is the Pirates need good people throughout the organization to win, gee, I guess I’ll just have to agree. Duh.

by WTM on Sep 5, 2008 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WTM

Do you make an annual trip of all the teams in the Pirate farm system?

I know that you do extensive research about all of the players.

by thegunner on Sep 5, 2008 4:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I wish I could

I see Lynchburg and Altoona a lot, Hickory usually a few times a year, and occasionally the NYPL team. I also see a random assortment of the minor leaguers in Bradenton in March most years, in exhibition games and workouts.

I get a lot of information from people posting online and directly from a few people I know. I’m slowly developing a bit of a network in my own amateurish way.

by WTM on Sep 5, 2008 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WTM

If you read my first post that started this mini-conversation, I never said that there was a direct correlation between minor league W/L records and major league performance.

I simply said that great organizations establish a winning culture throughout the system. Yes, player development in the minor leagues is more important than winning, but the really great organizations also develop a winning attitude.

Incidentally, the major league free agent draft began in 1965. By my calculations, that is about 43 years ago. So when I mentioned the Cardinals of the last 40-50 years and the Yankees of the 70s and 80s (or whatever period I mentioned) the draft had already been in place.

I am not a trivia buff, sabermetrician (although I can appreciate ‘new’ stats but file them in their proper place) or a baseball historian. But I have a pretty in depth understanding of the business of baseball and how to play the game the right way.

by thegunner on Sep 5, 2008 7:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Then the Cardinals example doesn’t work. They haven’t been a great organization the last 40-50 years. They had one brief stretch in the late ‘60s, another brief one under Herzog, and a very good 7-year run ending two years ago. This is not the Yankees we’re talking about.

In any event, like I said, if your only point is that we need a great organization top to bottom, that’s not exactly earth-shattering news. I’m all for it. What I’ve been discussing is the specific point that winning in the minors is essential for developing good major league players, which is demonstrably untrue. If you’re not disputing that, fine. If you are, then you need to produce more than unsupported assertions to have any credibility with me.

by WTM on Sep 5, 2008 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WTM

I’m not disputing your point, but if you want to take the time to check the Cardinals’ overall record on the last 40-50 years, I think that you will find that they rank in the top 20%. But I have no idea if this is true. Just an assumption. I think that you forgot a “not” in your latest post (next to last line – there should be a “not” I think.

I would rather win at the major league level and develop players in the minor leagues. There may be no real statistical correlation at all, but the consistently great organizations will do both.

When I talk about good PEOPLE, I am talking about front office and field personnel on the baseball side. You may say, “DUH”, but this is the single greatest failing of most franchises. They don’t have good people. Same goes for all companies.

by thegunner on Sep 5, 2008 7:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good people

Part of having the right people is having the right system, with everybody on the same page. You’re not going to have a great organization without this because you’ll have no organizational identity. Dejan has written about this several times, including today. He seems to think that there are going to be quite a few changes and mentioned that they’ve gone with a couple people with minimal qualifications because the guys they replaced weren’t with the program.

I don’t know whether you’re as old as I am, but a possible parallel to this is when Noll took over the Steelers. They went 1-13 and, if anything, were worse than their record. Noll said part of the problem was that he wasn’t willing to compromise on the system he wanted to use even though he knew he didn’t have the personnel. He said he’d rather put the system in place and try to find the personnel than the reverse. I think the Pirates are trying to do this. It’ll take time, like it did with Noll. I have no idea whether they’ll be as successful, but it’s the same basic idea. And it’s going to entail problems like that 1-13 record, and like what’s happening to St. Coll.

by WTM on Sep 5, 2008 8:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You have no idea if the Pirates

will someday be as successful as the Steelers were under Noll? Somehow I have my suspicions. Four world titles in six years for the Pirates would be, perhaps the most astounding achievements in sports history.

But seriously, thanks for sharing your insights into minor league ball. An interesting read.

by WestCoastBuc on Sep 6, 2008 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WTM - You're Putting The Cart Before The Horse!

The people create the systems! The system does not create the people!Noll was good people. He put in the system.

(I’ll be 65 later this year.)

Art Rooney was a good man, but the Steelers were never any good at all until the early 60s. Even then, it was hit and miss. It was not until Dan Rooney got more involved and realized that he better let people who knew football (like Noll) run the show.

That’s when the Steelers started their remarkable run that continues today - because of a strong front office - ON THE FOOTBALL SIDE. Naturally, there have been a few down years, but the last 35 plus have been marked by consistently good performance.

PEOPLE CREATE THE SYSTEM!

by thegunner on Sep 5, 2008 11:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's not me

It’s Noll. That was his explanation, not mine. No wonder he only won four Super Bowls. He was putting the cart before the horse. Who would’ve guessed?!

by WTM on Sep 6, 2008 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

gunner

Your arguments are irrational. You make no sense whatsover.

by patthatt on Sep 6, 2008 12:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Irrational catinthehat

I just reread my “irrational” post. Sorry that you could not understand it. How can I clear things up for you? Am I using too many multisyllable words?

by thegunner on Sep 6, 2008 12:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

WTM - You Still Don't Get It!

Noll installed the SYSTEM and led the Steelers to greatness. Noll (good PEOPLE) installed the SYSTEM.

Nobody created the SYSTEM first, except Noll, and he sold Steelers’ management on the fact that he was doing things right.

Somebody knew what they were doing when they hired Chuck Noll.

by thegunner on Sep 6, 2008 10:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No, you don't get it

I really can’t figure out what the fuck you’re on about. Noll—yes, a great coach—installed the system, then found the right people for it. We don’t know yet whether Huntington is “good people” or not, but we have to hope he is. He’s installing a system and trying to find the right people for it. He’s trying to follow the same pattern as Noll, it seems to me, and that’s the only point I was trying to make. We’ll find out later whether NH is the right person.

by WTM on Sep 6, 2008 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

gunner:

Honest to God, gunner, you really make no sense. Charlie started a thread about the Pirates perhaps missing out on a promising, late-round draftee because of DL`s financial mismanagement due to the Morris acquisition.

But then you go from an irrelevant point about losing a Rule V draftee, Chris Shelton, to unsubstantiated claims about various teams and their minor league systems(which WTM picks apart at every opportunity), and then you don`t see that you are actually agreeing with what WTM says with the Steelers/Chuck Noll example, and its correlation to what Coonelly/Huntington are trying to do from this year with the Bucs.

What the f**k are you on about, gunner?

Anyone who would post the following doesn`t know baseball:

Yoslan Herrera Is The Man!

"Sometimes, the stars just have to be properly alligned … like when Wally Pipp sat out a game or two and Lou Gehrig got to play … like 2,000 plus games in a row.

Fortunately for Herrera, after two rough outings, the Pirates had no one else to turn to and Yoslan got a third opportunity.

Now some of you say that it was the pitiful Padres, but hey, they are a major league club with the likes of Giles and Gonzalez and a few other hitters.

I’m thinking that it just took two bad outings for Herrera to finally feel comfortable. After all, his last three years would have challenged anyone, plus not speaking the English language or understanding our "culture" doesn’t make it any easier.

If he stays healthy, I expect him to take the ball every fifth day for the rest of the season. It probably will NOT be smooth sailing from here on out. But Herrera does NOT have to take a backseat to ANY Pirate starting pitcher in terms of his mound presence or his competitive spirit.

He simply knows how to pitch, and if he can pick up a tad more velocity on his fastball, by next season, he is going to be one of our top starters."

by thegunner on Jul 25, 2008 11:35 AM JST actions 0 recs

by patthatt on Sep 6, 2008 11:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll Stick With Yoslan!

He may never pitch another inning for the Pittsburgh Pirates, but I think that, with the right supervision, he will contribute more to a major league club than many of the pitchers currently on the expanded Pirates’ September roster.

Everybody gave up on Bixler a little too early, He has a long way to go, but I’ll take him at SS at $400K per year anyday over Wilson at $6-8 million.

Cogitate on this!

by thegunner on Sep 6, 2008 2:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs