Bucs Claim Anthony Claggett from Yankees

by Charlie on Sep 24, 2009 4:32 PM EDT Comment 27 comments

The Pirates have claimed reliever Anthony Claggett, 25, from the Yankees. To make room for him, Jose Ascanio has been moved to the 60-day DL. The Yankees got Claggett in the Gary Sheffield trade with the Tigers a couple years ago. He was, frankly, a big mess for Class AAA Scranton this year--he had a 3.07 ERA, which is fine, but he only struck out 43 batters in 82 innings. Claggett also made a pretty memorable big-league debut earlier this year, allowing a full eight runs in one and two-thirds innings against the Indians April 18.

Claggett has put up stronger strikeout numbers in the past, and he hasn't pitched very long (having grown up as an infielder), so I suppose you could make some case that there's a smidgen of upside here, but his performance record is mediocre and, unlike some of the other head-scratching relief acquisitions Neal Huntington has made, Claggett isn't even supposed to have blazing stuff. He does, however, fit into the Pirates' bizarre trend of grabbing every pitcher they can get their hands on from the high levels of the Yankees system--in addition to Claggett, Ross Ohlendorf, Daniel McCutchen, Jeff Karstens, Eric Hacker and Steven Jackson have all come from there. I like a couple of those pitchers just fine, of course, but the overall pattern is still pretty weird. No harm in it, I suppose, but even in an organization that's starved for relief pitching, this is a pretty bottom-of-the-barrel acquisition.

0 recs | Comment 27 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think this is less about Claggett being a Yankees prospect...

…and more about him having been a Tigers draftee around the same time that Greg Smith was their SD.

Given the happy talk about Ascanio that was floating around a few days ago, they must like something about him if it meant losing Ascanio for the rest of the year.

by Vlad on Sep 24, 2009 4:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think/hope they’re just too terrified of having enough arms in the bullpen to let go of any of their awful but healthy pitchers like Bautista or Bootcheck, just in case Ascanio has a setback. The Pirates’ single highest priority always seems to be to manage the bullpen workload. It takes precedence over winning and everything else.

by WTM on Sep 24, 2009 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

smart money savings?

This might be totally crazy because I don’t know the rules regarding contracts and 40-man rosters and waivers, etc, etc, etc.

If we claim a guy from the Yankees, who might have spent an above-slot or, at least, larger amount of money acquiring or developing the player, do we save money? In other words, the Yankees can afford to spend more money on more amateur and minor league players then we can. Is it significantly cheaper for us to claim the 41-50 players from the Yankees who have already doled out the extra money then it would be for us to spend the money directly? Is it right to assume that the Yankees spend more money on more different players because they can better afford for those bets to not pan out and we’re simply picking up assets on the cheap?

If there’s a $200K bonus paid to an amateur to entice them to go pro, and that amateur is then claimed in exactly this way, the $200K has already been paid, correct? The claiming team would only have to pick up the minor league salary?

Could the strategy simply be claiming guys who we would have liked to have picked except their amateur demands were too rich for us at a time when we can acquire them cheaper?

by mattenat on Sep 24, 2009 5:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

When we claim a player on waivers...

…we’re not on the hook for any signing bonus money, which has already been paid.

I’m not sure that your theory would apply in this particular case. As I noted earlier, he was a Tigers draftee, so the Yankees didn’t pay him any bonus, and as an 11th-round pick, he probably wouldn’t have gotten huge $$ anyway.

by Vlad on Sep 24, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My question at this point is...

why even pick him up? Is he going to be better than what we already have…or could pick up over the next couple of months. Unless he is going to pitch in the next 10 days…why pick him up now.

The Pirates are going to have to make quite a few decisions on the 40 man roster over the next 2 months. And this one means that a decision will be made (or has been made) pretty much sight unseen. Must going to be quite a bit of turnover with the pitchers on the 40 man roster.

by Thunder on Sep 24, 2009 8:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

With tonight's start by committee...

he very well may pitch for us, and soon. Unless Karstens can go 4-5, we will likely use 6 pitchers tonight. And I think we used 3 guys yesterday? Actually, I just looked at the schedule – 17 days in a row without a day off to end the season. Even under the best of circumstances, that’s rough on your bullpen. And with Ohlie done, we’re really, really far from the best of circumstances.

WTM above gets it right – this is about managing workload, not about trying to “win” (whatever that is).

by JRoth95 on Sep 25, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only problem being...

as Dejan mentioned in the notebook this morning…that it hadn’t been determined whether he would join the team…and that decision wasn’t going to be made soon. That doesn’t sound like it’s being done for the short term.

by Thunder on Sep 25, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, saw that after I left the comment. If he’s on the 40 man, and Bootcheck is gone to be with his baby, why is there even a decision to be made? I mean, you don’t have to use him, but why not put him in the pen for insurance? Uniform too expensive?

by JRoth95 on Sep 25, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That said

I don’t really get NH’s approach to the bullpen. I mean, am I wrong, or has he acquired exactly one good bullpen guy out of all these low-end moves (Hanrahan is fine, but he was traded for a ML reliever, as was Ascanio; I’m not counting guys like that)? Other than Evan Meek, we’ve seen Yates, Veal, Bootcheck, Jackson, Bautista…. I know I’m missing more bad pitchers; am I missing any good ones? Did NH bring in Chavez, or was he in the system?

Now, I hold to my belief that mediocre relievers can be useful if they’re not overexposed – iirc, Jackson was solid in most of his first dozen or two appearances (with one blowup), but as he’s been used more, he’s been more reliably bad. I think Bautista and Yates have followed that pattern as well. Some of that is simply the league adjusting to new players, and the players need to adjust back, but I also think that, if you have a guy with a limited skillset, he can succeed in very controlled situations but will be lit up if he has to go out there for 2 innings against the heart of the other team’s order. And for the last 2 years, our bullpen has been constantly in that situation. But nonetheless, NH seems really committed to this acquisition model, and its failure rate is really high.

by JRoth95 on Sep 25, 2009 9:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I can only really think of one:

T.J. Beam was pretty solid last year. Chavez was already in the system, picked up in the Kip Wells trade.

The failure rate on relievers (brought in through any means) is always going to be pretty high. They’re generally less talented than starters – that’s why they’re in the bullpen in the first place.

by Vlad on Sep 25, 2009 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To me, the problem is less the failure rate than the inability to recognize failure. They stuck too long with Osoria. They hugely overrate Yates, although his elbow solved that problem for them. They brought back Bautista, for God’s sake. Bootcheck is still hanging around. They still think Jeff Karstens is a major league pitcher. NH is too slow to move on from his failures.

by WTM on Sep 25, 2009 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True.

I guess I can see them not wanting to risk depleting Indy’s pitching depth any further down the stretch if someone like Bootcheck or Bautista got claimed on waivers (stop laughing!), but they definitely stick with some of these guys long after I would’ve cut the cord. And going with Bautista in the first place was crazy if they weren’t just looking for a fresh arm to bring up for a week.

They had a few solid options they never tried, like Juan Mateo and Mike Koplove and Sean Smith.

by Vlad on Sep 25, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rate

I certainly take your point about relievers being inherently more failure-prone. But NH is now averaging finding 1 serviceable pitcher/year, out of what, 6-10 that he’s picked up each season?

He basically couldn’t do any worse (I’m not sure you could select 20 AAA pitchers out of a hat and not find one who can be semi-effective in medium-leverage situations), which scares the hell out of me in terms of talent evaluation. None of this works if the guys we get in trades, drafts, and LA don’t work out, even if the strategy is exemplary.

I’m not giving up; but I’m pretty worried. What’s to say that in 2 years, when it actually matters, he’ll do a better job, even looking at higher quality pools of talent?

by JRoth95 on Sep 25, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He could easily do worse.

You’re talking like someone who’s starting to forget Littlefield and Bonifay. Which is maybe a blessing, all told, but doesn’t help this particular analysis. With a lot of the current guys, there’s at least a rational reason why they were called up in the first place, even if they were kept too long: Bootcheck was blowing people away at AAA this year, for example, and Osoria was a rubber arm coming off a respectable season in 2007. Someone like Jackson may not be a particularly inspiring space-filler, but he’s miles ahead of a guy like 2001 Don Wengert or 2003 Pat Mahomes. I mean, Wengert wasn’t doing much at AAA at the time of his callup, and he was a no-stuff slop-thrower on the wrong side of 30, who came into the season with a 5.77 ERA in 422 MLB innings. What’s the rationale there, beyond simply needing someone to wear the uniform?

by Vlad on Sep 25, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But how many innings did Wengert get? 16 (I checked). I don’t grudge any GM taking a chance on a reliever for a few innings – bullpens are fundamentally crapshoots for all but a select few, so maybe you can get a half season of effectiveness from a mushballer. I’m not worried about guys that NH is taking fliers on – I’m worried about the guys who are getting 50-75 innings but who deserve only about as much of a chance as Wengert got.

by JRoth95 on Sep 25, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You SHOULD be upset...

…about a GM “taking a chance” on a guy like Wengert. There’s no rational reason for doing so, except for a complete and total lack of adequate system depth, in which case the GM has totally failed at a crucial aspect of his job. You could pick a random arm out of the Mecixan Pacific League, and he’d have about the same chance of success that Wengert did. If you’re at a point where you don’t have any better choice than that, then you’ve failed, full stop.

Bautista isn’t a good pitcher, but he’s got good stuff and he was one of the top pitching prospects in baseball as recently as 2005. If you’re going to take a flyer on a guy, he’s head and shoulders above Wengert. Similarly, Bootcheck was putting up 11.6 K/9 at Indy when he got the call, and he’d given up only 1 HR in 42 innings. That’s a dominant performance, worthy of a look.

As I noted, both guys were given too many opportunities to fail, but that’s a different (and significantly less serious) error than not having reasonable options on hand in the first place.

by Vlad on Sep 27, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s a provocative comment, but I’m not totally sure what you’d have them do. Bautista ahead of McCutchen (back when McCutchen wasn’t needed in the rotation) was a mistake, but it’s not like they’ve had a lot of talent in the high minors to work with. And the Bootcheck thing is really no big deal, since rosters have been expanded. With one annoying exception, in September he’s only been used when the Pirates are out of it, or at least down significantly. Do you want the Bucs to cycle through players on waivers more quickly?

by Charlie on Sep 25, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oops, that was supposed to be a response to WTM.

by Charlie on Sep 25, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it was.

It’s just tough to tell when the thread gets splintered by multiple replies.

by Vlad on Sep 25, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vlad had suggestions up above. Koplove was actually had a good ML pitcher for several years, but he had one bad year and hasn’t gotten another chance. Mateo was better in AAA than Bautista and they supposedly want to bring him back next year on a minor league deal. They could give Jeff Sues a shot. He had a poor year, but still better than Bautista’s, and he’s on the 40-man roster already.

The point is, they know Bautista and Bootcheck aren’t major league pitchers. In fact, Russell is clearly afraid to use Bootcheck except in mopup situations. Why not give those opportunities to somebody else?

by WTM on Sep 25, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good question

by JRoth95 on Sep 25, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bullpen imo is a wash. Every year teams assemble a Bullpen and year to year Relief pitchers are good or bad aside from closers. Even closers can have a bad year (see Phillies Brad lidge who has blown 11 saves this year) A RP that has a good year one year can somehow inexplicably have a bad year the following year.

As far As Donnie Veal goes, the reason he’s up in the PBC Bullpen is because he’s required to be there. Rule 5 Draftee is kind of a waste at times, because he loses a year wasting away in the majors. As you might recall, Meek was the same, we hid him in our Bullpen most of last year. When he settled in at AA/AAA and got some more work in, he improved. I’m hoping the same helps for Veal. In addition, it sounds like NH wants him to become a starter. Not sure what is up with trying to convert relief pitchers into Starters lately.

Chavez i think has been overworked a bit. because he’s been so reliable in comparison to the rest of the Bullpen, JR is bringing him in when there’s a remote chance of winning a game.

Last year I think our Bullpen was a bit better than this year’s Bullpen.

by lfhlaw on Sep 25, 2009 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Veal has always been a starter in the minors.

We only had him in the pen this year because he’d get killed as a SP in the majors at this point in his career.

by Vlad on Sep 25, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe claiming Claggett is another shot at furthering the depth in the minor league system. Have as many “near peak” aged RP’s and hope one will improve and stick.

I’d expect Claggett to be DFA’s during the offseason with the hope that no one will claim him, similar to the Meloan thing.

I’d be surprised if Claggett pitches for the Bucs before the end of the season.

by God Loves on Sep 25, 2009 10:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Only one problem...

minor league system season is over. No need to claim someone on waivers that we would be able to sign as a free agent in a couple of weeks. He had been DFA’d by the Yankees.

by Thunder on Sep 25, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was his first DFA.

And if you aren’t claimed on waivers after your first DFA, the DFA-ing team has the right to assign you outright to any affiliate in their system. On the second DFA, you get the right to declare immediate free agency, but if we hadn’t claimed him, he would’ve had no choice but to go to Columbus.

by Vlad on Sep 25, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs