Minor League Roundup: Pedro Alvarez Racks Up Strikeouts
-P- Pedro Alvarez's Class AA debut: 0-for-4, with three strikeouts. Over the past few days, there have been some pretty interesting conversations in the comments about what Alvarez's strikeouts mean. While I share the concern of those who point out that most successful players don't strike out as much in Class A as Alvarez did, it's also true that the Lynchburg experience was Alvarez's first exposure to pro ball, coming after a long layoff from organized baseball, and that it wasn't a huge sample size. He also hit very well (albeit in an extremely small sample size) in Spring Training. So I'm worried, but I'm not ready to make any grand proclamations about Alvarez's problems, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
-P- The Gulf Coast League Pirates--that's the lowest-ranked stateside Pirates affiliate, just below the State College Spikes--opened their season today, losing to the GCL Yankees, 8-2. There are just a ton of interesting players on that Pirates team, though. South African prospect Mpho Ngoepe batted second and played second, and had two hits. The outfield consisted of 2008 bonus baby Wesley Freeman in right and touted Latin American prospects Rogelios Noris and Starling Marte in left and center, respectively. Andury Acevedo, a Littlefield-era Dominican prospect who's still only 18, played third. Elicier Navarro, who posted a ridiculous 108:8 K:BB ratio for the Dominican Pirates affiliate last year. Obviously the first game wasn't very good, but this is definitely a team worth watching.
-P- The Post-Gazette noticed that Virgil Vasquez was pulled early from his start tonight. The Bucs did that as a precaution in case Charlie Morton's hamstring acts up again. If that happens, Vasquez will be called up.
0 recs |
66 comments
|
Comments
Alvarez
Charlie, I think you said it best a few weeks ago. It’s too early to panic, but not too early to be concerned.
by bolton on Jun 23, 2009 11:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One comment on the major league team...
If we are building a “defensive” OF around Andrew McCutchen then why in the hell is Brandon Moss not playing every day in RF? According to the UZR stat Moss is a plus defender in RF and he is the only one on our team right now who is a plus defender in RF. It makes no sense to me to have plus defenders in LF and CF if we are going to give up runs in RF. I have no idea if Moss is in the “doghouse” or not but since he was given a sabatical to work with Long he has been on fire. It seems awfully hypocritical to keep trotting Morgan out to LF every damn day because his defense outweighs his offense, yet we are willing to give games away with DY and Pearce in RF while Moss keeps the benches warm. Maybe JR secretly hopes we can draft Bryce Harper next year…I know I am, but that isn’t a secret.
by Slick1 on Jun 23, 2009 11:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it disgusts me that Russell would rather trot out Steve Pearce than Moss. Pearce’s garbage defense cost us a run tonight, and his great minor league bat has never done anything in the majors. Moss needs to play. He’s the hot hand right now offensively, and he won’t give you headaches in the field like Young, Hinske, or Pearce.
McCutchen is awesome. Tonight was the first time I ever saw him in person, and man was I impressed. He smoked the ball every time up except, ironically, on his only hit of the game. That said, it was nice poise and clutchness to step up and get that hit in the 9th.
by Suffering Buc on Jun 23, 2009 11:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I understand what the Pirates are trying to do. I get it. They just traded away their biggest power bat (since Doumit is still out) at the beginning of the month, and this offense has to have a power source come from somewhere. They’re desperate for power. Adam LaRoche is a decent power source, but nothing special. Pearce is the next obvious choice. He had been on a tear at Triple-A when he was promoted. But just like you said, Pearce’s bat nor his power have translated over to the big leagues, and honestly, I don’t think it ever will. It’s a desperate move by the Pirates to get some power in the starting lineup and off of the bench, but I don’t think Pearce is going to hit enough to make a difference anyway. The most he has hit during his two previous call-ups is four. Let Moss play. How can you get a feel for the guy and find out if he can produce for a full year and “be a piece of the future” if you don’t ever let him play or only let him play against right-handed pitching? It doesn’t make any sense, and it’s just another reason why fans continue to question the moves and direction under the new regime. You want to trade the best players (because we’re not going to win with them) for high-ceiling prospects for the future, but yet you’re not letting one of the guys you traded for in the Bay deal play! We were going to lose with or without Nady, Bay and McLouth. We’re going to lose this year with or without Moss, so let the guy play and try to prove himself. If he flounders the rest of the season, that will be a year and a half with him and then you can decide to go in a different direction if needed. But he needs playing time, not bench time.
by mspirate on Jun 24, 2009 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're trying to get Pearce a few starts here and there...
…to see whether he’s a viable replacement for LaRoche after the trade deadline.
Jeez, people. This isn’t rocket science.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think that’s all it is. They NEED some power from somewhere.
by mspirate on Jun 24, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, it’s nice to see Gorkys Hernandez has worked out the kinks a bit, statistically speaking, over the last few games.
by Suffering Buc on Jun 23, 2009 11:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
also nice to see dejan has let up on the “and is 4 for 40 since the trade” thing. to me, that was pretty harsh.
by johnnycuff on Jun 24, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just remember:
Dejan doesn’t editorialize when he’s wearing his Serious Newspaper Person Hat.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't agree more....
was thinking the same thing this morning.
by dtoddwin on Jun 24, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Elsewhere in the minors...
Gorkys and Tabata both had a couple of hits tonight. Sanchez had a hit as well so it wasn’t all bad news tonigt!
by Slick1 on Jun 24, 2009 12:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
McCutchen, Tabata, Hernandez, Alvarez—the nucleus of the next great Pirate team!
by mspirate on Jun 24, 2009 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dubee continues to impress. One strikeout and no runs in one inning pitched. This guys is starting to look very intriguing. Maybe he is just a mediocre pitcher that is on a tear right now, but he is absolutely dominating right now. And we got him for Andy Phillips??
by mspirate on Jun 24, 2009 1:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Alvarez
At Vanderbilt he showed that he had a propensity for strikeouts when he was healthy. His K percentage his freshman year was 26.6 % with a .675 SLG. 23.9% k with .684 slg as a sophmore and 16.7 k with .593 slug as a junior with some health issues. After watching many times at Vandy he was much less successful on Friday nights when SEC teams throw their best pitchers. Saturday and especially Sundays his results were far greater. I have always thought his lines in his early MLB career would be about .270/.350/.600 with a 23-25 % K rate and I will take that. As he reaches prime years it will will be near .282/.360/.615 with sligtly less K’s but never below a 22% K rate. Of course the one unknown factor will be his dedication to conditioning. With his body type he will always struggle with weight issues but he will have to see that it becomes a problem before he will truely see the need to dramatically change his diet and training intensity.
by buccoben on Jun 24, 2009 8:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You're really expecting a .600 slg early in his career?
That’s a very aggressive projection. I mean, so far this year, you’ve got four NL guys over that bar: Pujols, Ibanez, Adrian Gonzalez, and a Coors-inflated Brad Hawpe. No Ryan Braun, no Prince Fielder, no Adam Dunn…
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rocket Science
I guess “rocket science” would have been better served by finding out how Pearce will do while playing first base, not the outfield.
Gotta love it…
by Pirate in Montana on Jun 24, 2009 10:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
please
The issue isn’t his defense. Can he hit enough to play 1b in the majors is the question. He doesn’t actually need to be playing 1b for them to figure that question out.
by mak_DC on Jun 24, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, what's the alternative?
Bench LaRoche outright to take a look at Pearce? That’ll do wonders for Adam’s trade value. Play Pearce once a week? That’ll tell you a lot about his bat.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
start sitting Morgan
and his .682 OPS. That will open both corners for Moss, Pearce, and Young too. Pearce can also spell LaRoche against tough LHers, while Young gives Freddy an occasional day off.
Keep Pearce reasonaboly sharp so that if they do trade LaRoche they can plop him at 1B and let him finish the season there. This isn’t about winning games now, but about sorting through what they have for the future.
Morgan’s not going to be part of the future. Pearce probably won’t be either, but it’s time to find out about him.
by rogero on Jun 24, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are relatively few teams on which Adam LaRoche would be an upgrade at 1B. It will take an injury for any competitive team to even want LaRoche, much less give up anything of value for him.
by chicos_pants on Jun 24, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, the list of teams for which LaRoche would be an upgrade is quite long—I count 10.
Mets—nobody, Delgado due back maybe early August
Giants—Ishikawa, should want to leave Sandoval at 3B if he can play it
Ariz.—Jackson out, Tracy damaged
Atlanta—Kotchman sucks; lacks power
Texas—Chris Davis a mess; Blalock more of a DH
Oakland—38 year old Giambi
Baltimore—Huff
Cleveland—Garko, some of Victor; Hafner a DH
KC—Jacobs; Butler a DH
Florida—Cantu
Unfortunately many of them aren’t strong contenders this year, so they would have to view him as a more than one year option. He could be that for some of them.
Other teams have good prospects near to the majors; they aren’t likely to want LaRoche as anything more than a stop-gap—teams like Cleveland, Florida, and Baltimore.
So there’s lots of possibilities. But probably not a lot of good ones.
by rogero on Jun 24, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's the threshhold for Alvarez
Everyone seems to be taking a view at one extreme or another in this discussion (and in the other thread). He’s either going to fail miserably or be the next Pujols. Both of those things are almost certainly exactly wrong.
The question I have, though, is how will “success” be defined for Alvarez? Does he have to become a legit MVP-contender to be labeled a success? If so, he’s probably doomed already. Part of my problem with the current state of prospect evaluation is that everyone that doesn’t succeed almost immediately is seemingly written off. For me, I don’t think Alvarez is going to be Pujols. He’s probably not even going to be Ryan Howard. But I guess the question is whether or not we can all live with him being something a little short of those guys. I would hope we could all be happy with a guy that puts up 270/350/550+.
by mak_DC on Jun 24, 2009 10:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
OPS
Just for the record, there were only 8 guys in the whole NL last year that had an OPS of more than 900.
by mak_DC on Jun 24, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salt in the wound
How much did Justin Smoak sign for? Anyone have his AA #’s to date?
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 24, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nevermind, I did it myself
He is striking out 20% of the time with about a 1:1 K:BB ratio at AA, but batting 331 with 6HR and .450/.506/.957 I would take that from Pedro. The BA seems to be the biggest difference in the two, besides the level they were playing at obviously.
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 24, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Smoak is in a favorable park/league.
But yes, he’s hitting very well so far.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How's his D at first?
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 24, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was very good in college.
Haven’t heard anything about it either way since then.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pearce
I would like to see Pearce get a decent opportunity, the same way I would like to see Young and Moss get a decent opportunity. I don’t want to see any of them playing out of position to achieve their chances. Pinch-hitting (consistently) and giving LaRoche a few days off here and there could be enough of a chance for Pearce. I would almost like to see Moss and Young fight it out in right field for a while. Crazy idea, but a “platoon system” could help the situation. Moss seems to be the better prospect, but Young, in my opinion, seems to be outplaying him.
By the way (sorry for the negativity), I forgot to say good bye to Cutch. He will look great wearing pinstripes, or the unifrom of serious teams in 6 or 7 years, if the Pirates cheap trend continues.
by Pirate in Montana on Jun 24, 2009 10:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It may happen if they can’t lock him up early. If this continues and they offer him a big time deal as he gets into arbitration then it’s up to him. However, as much as it pains me to say it and I’m sure I’d be upset if happened…say he becomes a superstar and gets close to free agency, turned down say 8-10 mil a year long term, what can they do but trade him for a Texiera (rangers) type haul. If he knows he can get say 7 years, 120 mil from the yankees, there’s nothing a team like the pirates can do. It’s not an issue of being cheap, it would cripple the team financially. This is all complete speculation, as he’s played what? like 20 games? My point is sometimes a team’s hand is forced, and it’s not just an issue of being cheap. What if the Twins had paid Santana or Tori Hunter the contracts that they got in FA? They’d be screwed for the next 7 years.
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 24, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's hilarious...
…that you apparently still think the Nate trade is about the team “being cheap”.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im tired of it.
i am off work today and i decided to go up to erie to catch the curve play. i asked a bunch of people to go, and basically the response i got was “why would i want to see the future Pirates when they are just gonna get traded away”
by BuccoBrigade on Jun 24, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn,
that’s pretty pathetic.
Don’t any of these people like baseball for baseball’s sake?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jun 24, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
apparently not
im very tempted to just go anyway. should be great seeing all the young guys play.
by BuccoBrigade on Jun 24, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know I would. It’s a beautiful day here in Chicago, I’m off work today and tomorrow, and my lower back is in spasm. Gah.
Just in time to watch a Monkees marathon, though, so all is not lost.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jun 24, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just the reality of being a small market team. When you have better players you can get better guys in return. Future studs rather then fingers crossed LHP’s
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 24, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn’t referring to Nate. I’m referring to all the people who would go apeshit if Cutch became a superstar in say the Sizemore mold and ended up leaving for free agency, it wouldn’t necessarily be for lack of trying. If a guy wants to become a FA after 6 years and you know you can’t afford him, there’s nothing you can do.
However, If you thought people got mad about Nate being traded, that scenario would be nothing in comparison. Totally different situation, not a star on that level, team desperately needs talent, signed an extension. Apples and Oranges.
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 24, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That takes....
the cake for the most ridiculous line of the month.
by dtoddwin on Jun 24, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
... It's sad, not hilarious...
That some people get so distracted by numbers and stats that they don’t see, don’t want to see, or don’t want to remember what has been the teams M.O. for quite some time. Not only about Nate, he is just this year’s example of what’s been going on “forever.”
As a Pirates fan who will base his opinions on watching games (not just looking at statistics), I can only hope it will be different this time around with the new ones that could be on their way . I know it’s difficult, but think about this: How high do you think Mr. Nutting & Co. will let the team salary be when/if all those prospects become good players.? Wear any colored glasses you want…
by Pirate in Montana on Jun 24, 2009 11:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why would. . .
the Pirates agree to a contract they were under no obligation to agree to (they could have just went to arbitration) and then 3 or 4 months later decide they need to trade Nate because he cost too much? I understand the Pirates have made financially motivated moves in the past and they are spending less on payroll than they are capable of, but the circumstantial evidence surrounding this one clearly points to this being a baseball motivated trade and not a financially motivated one.
And, I’m not really sure how watching games versus looking at stats allows a person to have more qualified opinions as to the motivations behind a trade. And that view also presupposes that people who look at statistics, those instruments of evil that they are, do not watch the games, which is kinda silly.
by Scranton on Jun 24, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They spent basically the same amount in signing bonus on his long-term deal...
…than they would’ve “saved” by trading him.
That’s certainly quite the penny-pinching approach, there.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re failing to consider that maybe they just completely forgot all about that!!
by CptnAwesome on Jun 24, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When the team is turned around...
…then at a minimum I’d think we’d have a payroll in the vicinity of other teams in similar markets, like Milwaukee and Cincy. As things currently stand, that’d be a bump of $20-25M.
Not the Yankees, but perfectly adequate to field a competitive roster.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That some people get so distracted by numbers and stats that they donāt see, donāt want to see, or donāt want to remember what has been the teams M.O. for quite some time. Not only about Nate, he is just this yearās example of whatās been going on "forever."
Your mistake—but by no means your only one—is thinking that Nate’s trade is a continuation of some overall trend that the rest of us are missing. Charlie and others have spelled out the differences they perceive between past management and this one, and a good chunk of the posters here probably subscribe to those same theories.
The people who don’t are generally in the “why should I bother watching?” camp and probably aren’t following the team all that closely. I know I’m painting with a broad brush here, but I think it’s generally accurate.
We’re not distracted or missing your point. We just believe it’s silly to attribute the past motivations of conduct of people like Dave Littlefield to Neal Huntington.
by CptnAwesome on Jun 24, 2009 12:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Let's say I have a neighbor...
…who never cuts his grass. After a while, he moves away and sells the house to a different guy.
Is it then OK for me to walk next door and yell at the new neighbor about all the months when the yard looked like crap? Why not? It’s the same franchise, er, house…
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
I guess I will just wait a few years, or months, when the parade of good players leave town. Of course, people will be talking about the great returns the Pirates received. Again…
P.S. – So the glasses were rose. I guess it’s easier to be a Pirate fan that way. Good! And, of course, a certain captain is always correct. Of course…
by Pirate in Montana on Jun 24, 2009 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And, of course, a certain captain is always correct. Of courseā¦
What an odd thing to say. I haven’t been posting here all that long.
For the record, the name is meant to be completely silly.
by CptnAwesome on Jun 24, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sooner or later, good players always leave town.
They get traded or released, or they retire, or they die.
Nothing is forever.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your metaphors sure are creative. And so is your ability to tell the future. This is why you don’t run a baseball team.
by ryebr3ad on Jun 24, 2009 2:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
By the time Cutch is a FA
There will be a salary cap in baseball.
Of course that’s just the optimist in me hoping good in man will shine through and do the right thing to save the game, rather than being subjected to the Yankees-Sox Baseball League for another 20 years.
by Mr. E on Jun 24, 2009 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We don't need a salary cap.
We need a salary floor, coupled with 50/50 sharing of game broadcast revenues.
A salary cap just puts more money into owners’ pockets. We need to provide incentive for Nutting to spend, along with access to more robust revenue streams.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salary cap
usually comes with a salary floor I would imagine.
The good thing about a cap is you don’t have Texeira’s making 20 mil, more like 12-15, which makes the 12-15mil players worth more like 8-10 and so on and so on, allowing us to nab better players for cheaper, making us more competitive.
by Mr. E on Jun 24, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cap doesn't automatically come with a floor.
And under a cap, you still have Tex making his $20M. The people the cap puts a squeeze on are the mid-to-bottom tier vets. We’d be paying less for an Omar Vizquel or a Jeff Suppan, and we’d have the option of getting prospects in exchange for taking bad contracts, but neither of those exactly guarantee future dominance.
Plus, there’s no way the MLBPA would accept a cap as anything but a last resort. We’d have to lose at least one season, and maybe two, to get something that would hardly benefit us at all, when we could get a payroll floor with no drama or cancelled World Series at all.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Listen.....
of course there are things that would make the sport more equitable. But, let’s also remember the Marlins recently won two WS. The Twins, the A’s, Rockies and others have been very competitive. Sure it is much more difficult to do it year in and year out on a smaller budget, which is why you have to take risks and hope they work out.
by dtoddwin on Jun 24, 2009 4:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
“much more difficult” ??? It’s impossible and that’s why NO team has ever done it. Sure, you can be a flash in the pan for 1-3 years but none of those teams has enjoyed sustained success like the big money teams.
Also, the Marlins bought a WS with Sheffield and Al Leiter and all those guys and then they hit a perfect storm when Dontrelle, Beckett, Penny, and Pavano led their staff in ’03. You may also notice that none of those guys are on Florida anymore. Even so, their payroll then was still higher than the Pirates of this season with guys like Pudge, Lowell, Urbina taking up dollars.
by Mr. E on Jun 24, 2009 5:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I've been drinking at work again...
…but weren’t the A’s competitive every year from 1999-2006? And St. Louis only has the 18th-largest metro area in the country, but they’re on pace for their seventh playoff appearance in the last ten years.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right ......
And the Cubs and the Rangers and the Angels are in the playoffs every year.
by dtoddwin on Jun 24, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
You win, the A’s did it, but still 1 team in 20 whatever years of free agency? St. Louis spends money so I don’t think they count.
by Mr. E on Jun 24, 2009 6:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Of course they count.
They’re a small market, aren’t they? We could draw and spend like them if we worked at it. We just don’t.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We need to change terms
Market doesn’t necessarily equal revenue. I don’t know how much all these cable deals are, but my sense is that the Pirates are a small revenue team. As popular as baseball is in STL, I’d guess they have more to spend.
by azibuck on Jun 24, 2009 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Revenue is at least in part a function of effort.
The Bonifay/Littlefield Pirates weren’t trying all that hard to build supplemental revenue streams (as such would have cut into their welfare checks), so they didn’t. St. Louis worked a lot harder at it, so they had more success there.
by Vlad on Jun 25, 2009 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn.....
the Yanks didn’t make the playoffs last year and they are no lock this year. What’s your point? It’s easier with tons of money, we all agree.
by dtoddwin on Jun 24, 2009 7:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 













