Pirates Cut Neil Walker, Dave Davidson, Brian Slocum

by Charlie on Mar 19, 2009 2:39 AM EDT Comment 25 comments

Neil Walker, Dave Davidson and Brian Slocum have all been sent to Class AAA Indianapolis. Walker had to go because keeping him in camp would have started his service clock, but it's moot anyway--Walker isn't ready for the big leagues, and no amount of spring hitting would've really proven otherwise. He's still a prospect, but he needs to hit well at AAA this year to be taken seriously as a starting big-league infield option.

As for the other two, no one really knows what Davidson is still doing on the 40-man roster at this point, and Slocum is AAA roster filler. Neither had any shot at a big-league job.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nobody reads fanshots and this is short

Keith Law…not a Pedro Alvarez fan. Covered Pedro and the Buccos a few times in his chat today. Thinks Smoak was better and the pirates just took the biggest name.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=25559

by GTrain on Mar 19, 2009 2:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Keith Law

Law is just seeing what he wants to see. Smoak fell out of top 5 to No. 11 in the draft, and Law is just trying to rehabilitate his pre-draft call.

Smoak has had a good spring, but his stats are nothing compared to Alvarez. For example, Smoak’s OPS is .798 this spring, while Alvarez is raking at an OPS of 1.278.

Law says he and many scouts were down on Alvarez because of “poor Friday-night performances, troubles against lefties, or the position question. " I get the fact that Pedro may be a future 1B — though I don’t see that as a negative. But does anyone know what hell Law is talking about when he mentions "poor Friday night performances” and “troubles against lefties”?

BTW, Law admits he hasn’t watched a single Grapefruit League game this year.

by WstCstBucco on Mar 19, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Law

only gets space because he’s a surly dude and likes to be contrary. Can’t take him seriously.

by BlassBalls on Mar 19, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great handle

by azibuck on Mar 19, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Law isn't the only one who liked Smoak more than Alvarez.

I did, too.

Smoak is GG-caliber defender at 1B, while Alvarez will probably be more pedestrian there once he makes the move, and Alvarez’s college issues with contact (as demonstrated by his K rate) were a big red flag for me. I also liked the security granted by Smoak’s wood-bat successes in the CCL.

Mike Emeigh, whose opinion on prospects I also trust a lot, wanted us to take Hosmer in that slot.

by Vlad on Mar 19, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I should also add...

…that Law has been down on Alvarez from the very beginning. This isn’t a new position for him – he’s been vocal about it for more than a year now, dating back to the pre-draft period.

by Vlad on Mar 19, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Got it Vlad

But would it kill Law to honestly report that Pedro had a hell of a spring training — especially for a guy playing his first professional BB??

by WstCstBucco on Mar 19, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...probably...

because Alvarez doing well might make Law appear to be wrong…and he’s not real good at admitting that.

by Thunder on Mar 19, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Damn it!

I want some national paper, periodical or website to acknowledge that it’s not just the “same old pirates.”

Charlie is doing his part, but guys like Law are just covering their butt.

I’m not asking Law to nominate Pedro Alvarez for the HOF, but it would be nice to read somewhere that the PBC had a couple kids play some pretty damn poetic baseball this spring.

by WstCstBucco on Mar 19, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like most real prospect analysts, Law takes the long view.

Two or three good weeks isn’t going to make much of a dent in his impression of a player. Which is the way it should be – guys go hot/cold all the time.

by Vlad on Mar 20, 2009 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ditto, and then some

A bunch of us thought very highly of Smoak

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2008/6/5/546140/2008-draft-open-thread#6586748

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2008/5/19/520400/2008-june-draft#6233534

Law was complimentary of Alvarez in a quote from the first link, he just like Smoak more.

by azibuck on Mar 19, 2009 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probable meaning of "poor Friday night performances"...

in college baseball…most of your conference and big ticket games occur over the weekend. Most of the time…the “ace” of the staff will pitch the Friday night game. I would take this to mean…if true…that his big numbers were made on second line pitchers. Pedro’s splits…

http://aluminum.minorleaguesplits.com/draft/alvarpe42-b.html

Does show SOME possible validity to what Law is saying. OPS of .943 vs lefties…1.061 vs righties. And hitting .250 on Friday nights during his 2008 college season. However…his SEC conference numbers were just fine. BA of .351 and OPS of 1.087. Looks like Law may be cherry picking stats to support his view.

by Thunder on Mar 19, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You learn something every day

in college baseball…most of your conference and big ticket games occur over the weekend. Most of the time…the "ace" of the staff will pitch the Friday night game.

Thanks Thunder!

by WstCstBucco on Mar 19, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The big schools play better teams on Fridays, which is why they tend to use their #1 pitchers then.

by wickethewok on Mar 20, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't the Friday night thing the main reason

Clemson moved Daniel Moskos to the starting rotation his junior year?

By the way, has anyone read how Moskos is pitching so far in camp? Not that I’m expecting big things, but it would be nice to think he might be a serviceable reliever in a couple of years.

by patthatt on Mar 19, 2009 8:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

To a few of you guys – whats with the ad hominem attacks on Keith Law? Not everyone who disagrees with you is biased, yknow.

@WstCstBucco – When talking about drafting/player development/organizational stuff (the stuff that matters right now), who in The Media™ thinks these are the “same old pirates”? If you’re talking about just the media’s view on the MLB club, than that is different. Not that thinking the Pirates are going to be terrible this year is wrong…

by wickethewok on Mar 20, 2009 10:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not to state the obvious, but didn’t 8 other squads pass on Smoak too?

by chicos_pants on Mar 20, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah.

And the year before, thirteen passed on Jason Heyward.

How many of them, in retrospect, think THAT was a good idea?

by Vlad on Mar 20, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ten squads. not 8

Smoak was 11th pick in 2008 MLB draft.

by WstCstBucco on Mar 20, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you serious? Rays take Beckham, Pirates take Alvarez, and 8 additional teams select players other than Smoak.

And it’s not like the Pirates could trade down. They took the best player at their slot, which is a minor miracle for this organization

by chicos_pants on Mar 20, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's exactly the issue, right there.

How do you know that Alvarez was the best player at the slot?

by Vlad on Mar 20, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, you could start with Charlie's other posts

If you read my post, I am specifically talking about sports punditry sticking with the “same old pirates” story, which is easy and writes itself, rather than invest 2 minutes of time to look at the potential being shown this spring by Alvarez, Tabata, Andrew McCucthen and others.

Keith Law denies Alvarez thrice in the same blog, even going so far to explicitly claim that PBC will “aggressively” “push” him through the minors not because of his talent, but because “Smoak [is] impressing everyone in Arizona.” WTF kind of reasoning is that?

I love the fact that Law later admits he hasn’t seen a single Grapefruit League game this year, and doesn’t intend to. Way to be informed, dude.

Quick check on other pundits — here’s the only USA Today post on Pedro this spring:

Alvarez is 7-for-16 with three doubles and two walks. The 2008 first-round pick is expected to start off at Single-A Lynchburg, but he’s making a case for beginning his pro career in Double-A.

Here’s what USA Today says about Smoak:

Smoak is 5-for-10 and he has two doubles to go along with the homer. He looked about as close to the majors as any prospect drafted last year, and nothing has happened to alter that assessment since June. The Rangers might be ready to pencil him in at first base or DH by this time next year.

If you want to compare their stats this spring, see my post above. Smoak got pretty much smoked by Pedro.

Again, I don’t want to make this an anti-Smoak post. I sincerely hope the kid is the next Mark Teixeira, and it looks totally attainable for him.

I would just like to see some love, outside of local and Bradenton papers, for how several of the Pirate prospects have played this spring.

by WstCstBucco on Mar 20, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Piazza lasted until the 62 round

I’m missing something . . . is Alvarez somehow related to Moskos?

by chicos_pants on Mar 20, 2009 12:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How many rounds did the draft go back then when Piazza was drafted? Did they just go until everyone decided they were done? The draft even now should be cut down to like 20 rounds. Let the players after that sign where they want.

by wickethewok on Mar 20, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, you could keep picking for as long as you had names on your list.

Piazza got chosen as a personal favor, because Tommy Lasorda was a friend of the family, and the Dodgers only signed him because they needed a backup catcher for their Low-A team. And then two years later, he started hitting the crap out of the ball…

Rob Mackowiak was a really low pick, too. 53rd-rounder. Those are tremendously low-percentage picks, but a few still panned out every year.

by Vlad on Mar 20, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs