Why Break From the Plan?

by Charlie on Jan 5, 2010 7:19 PM EST Comment 79 comments

The question Dejan Kovacevic addresses today is a good one about why management strayed from its goal of rebuilding by trading Jesse Chavez (who is under team control for the next five years) for Akinori Iwamura (who is only under team control for the next year). I was lukewarm about the trade when it happened, for pretty much the same reasons as the questioner.

I do think there's an important distinction to be made here, though. Focusing on a goal is a good thing. Focusing on a goal so intensely that you're blind to other opportunities is probably not a good thing. Let's say you're 22, are about to graduate from college, and have always wanted to be a lawyer. Would it make sense to take a year off to, say, play basketball? If you're like me and you're skinny and slow and awkward, obviously not: you'd be hanging out on the courts all day, not learning anything about law. But what if, miraculously, you were 7'4", agile, had a killer jumper, and had just been drafted by the Oklahoma City Thunder? In that case it would make a lot of sense to play for a few years, collect several million dollars, and use that money to go to law school later.

I can see why the Pirates thought Chavez-for-Iwamura was worth postponing law school for. Chavez was under control for five years, yes, but non-elite relievers are the last people on the roster who are worth worrying about for five years. They aren't that valuable to begin with, and they aren't especially likely to maintain their value over time, even if they're young. And the Pirates had an enormous hole at second, at least for a while. I don't generally like the idea of deviating from the plan, which is why I wasn't head over heels for the trade, but I do think the opportunity forced the Pirates' hand. They got a big upgrade for a fairly cheap price, and it's pretty unlikely this trade negatively and substantially affects their chances of winning in 2011 or 2012.

0 recs | Comment 79 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Trading relievers for positional players is something I love and wish the Pirates had done more of. Mike Gonzalez for Adam LaRoche being a perfect example, despite LaRoche not being able to ever duplicate his 2006 season. The philosophy was sound.

But I just have to wonder whether Iwamura was the right choice. Some may say he’s inexpensive, but to the Pirates he’s not. Factor in how he’s coming off major knee surgery and how there may be been better options in a number of days had the Pirates simply waited to see who would be non-tendered, and it’s difficult for me to get on board with this deal.

by lrhotspot on Jan 5, 2010 7:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Obviously

I agree with your first point, assuming they get a solid positional player out of it.

As for the Aki best option point, who do you think was out there worth pursuing or ended up being out there worth pursuing? I can think of Felipe Lopez and Hudson as the free agents and Kelly Johnson as the non-tender.

I like Johnson and think he’s very likely to have a bounce-back year, but I don’t think he’s a sure thing and his fielding is average to below. But he is cheaper than Aki and could end up being just as good (his bat could outweigh Aki’s glove).

O-Dawg is better than Aki (even with Hudson’s glove kind of regressing the last couple years) but not sure if Hudson would sign here, especially not for what they’re paying Aki.

And Lopez had a really good year, but overall he seems like he will come back to Earth since this year seemed more like the aberration (and his glove isn’t too hot).

I do think a lot of this is assuming waiting it out for the one non-tender (Johnson) was worth the risk of not getting Aki for a nice cost (and not having to try to get him in free agency). And I also think this is assuming you think Chavez was worth keeping and taking the aforementioned risk (he didn’t impress for the most part so you would have to argue that you think he would have improved, which could be hard given his track record and that of most relievers).

I would also be more concerned with Aki’s injury if he hadn’t come back and played in September — not to mention ACL injuries are not nearly as scary as they once were.

As for the original article, I just wish Dejan had mentioned the years of control as it relates to relievers like you did Charlie. That was the only thing I felt he really left out. And I’m cool with diverting from “the plan” as long as it is not done in the Dayton Moore way of blowing money on bad free agents way.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 5, 2010 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Iwamura was a right choice, at least.

Counting on signing Hudson would have been problematic, as he was a Type A and the Dodgers had not yet (stupidly) declined arb on him at the time we pulled the trigger on Iwamura. Surrendering a high draft pick to sign a stopgap is pretty low on our list of recommended strategies.

Lopez’s peripherals suggest that he is due for a serious dropoff in 2010, making him a poor choice.

Scutaro and Polanco would have been acceptable performers as well. However, Scutaro’s Type A status would have made him unsuitable for the same reason as Hudson, and given Polanco’s age and performance trends I would have been reluctant to go to three years for him.

Johnson is the one player I would have viewed as a value equal to that of Iwamura, and if we had added him instead (or in addition to, as we were apparently attempting last month), I would have been happy about that.

Chavez is a minimal cost to pay, and not worth worrying about. K was happy that it was him, rather than someone like Uviedo.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 10:11 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

ODawg

That was my bad, I got the arbitration dates mixed up with the non-tender dates.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 5, 2010 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So what you’re saying is that I should throw away my law school applications and learn how to dribble?

I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.

by Chester J Lampwick on Jan 5, 2010 7:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Only if you’re 7’4".

by Charlie on Jan 5, 2010 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well then I have to go dig through the trash for wholly unrelated reasons.

I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.

by Chester J Lampwick on Jan 5, 2010 8:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So 5'10"

doesn’t cut it…?

Now I have to finish those applications to law school after all.. dangit.

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 6, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was a fan of the trade...

…and still am. He’s a one-year upgrade that is more promising than DY or LaRoche, especially considering the highest available prospects at the position were still a ways off. NH says if he performs well there’s an opportunity of an extension, and I think that might be a good place to start as far as putting more money back into payroll when the time is right.

What I am NOT a fan of, however, is the constant sniveling and whining. When the Pirates trade a pricey veteran, people cry salary dump and want them to raise the payroll (as if it guarantees some measurable level of success). But when they make a trade for a veteran player that represents an increase in payroll, people ask why the Pirates are deviating from their plan.

I guess what I’m saying is some people just don’t know what they want.

"Straight ball I hit very much, but curveball, bats are afraid." - Pedro Cerrano

by silencerdu on Jan 5, 2010 7:26 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

I think the main reason this trade was done was actually the most important aspect of the plan.

That is, that competition for jobs is going to bring out the best in everyone. I don’t think this can be stressed enough. Andy LaRoche responded very well to bringing up Walker, who was brought up for just that purpose. Now, Aki is brought on board to show LaRoche he is not going to be handed 2B once Alvarez arrives.

This was never done with Adam because there was no one to give him any competition. I would bet that Adam would have performed much better if there had been.

It has taken a couple of years to get the people in place to provide it, but there are now options and competition for every position on the diamond except for catcher and center field.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 5, 2010 7:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Funny how complicated people make this. The Pirates had a simple explanation. They have to put a team on the field and need to improve their record. They have players they think have the potential to play the other positions, but not second, so they had to do something there. The money is irrelevant. It easily fits into what they can afford and is only a one-year commitment, so it does nothing to hurt “the plan.” And Chavez was a fungible part. The people complaining about the trade for the most part wildly overrate him.

by WTM on Jan 5, 2010 8:11 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

That is precisely how I saw it as well.

by element1286 on Jan 5, 2010 10:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

The middle infield was one of my main reasons for doom-and-gloom late last year. Cedeno may yet turn out to be a mirage, but at least with Iwamura I can squint and the Pirates everyday 8 can look like a major league team. With Young at 2B everyday, not so much.

The only real problem with this trade is if you think Chavez is going to become an elite guy, and I don’t think anyone really believes that.

by JRoth95 on Jan 6, 2010 7:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2010 9:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If my plan is to go to law school,

why is learning about medicine a concern?

Formerly known as Econolodge

by Willton on Jan 5, 2010 8:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Because I changed metaphors halfway through writing the post, obviously. :)

by Charlie on Jan 5, 2010 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Are lawyers and doctors fungible commodities?

by MarkInDallas on Jan 5, 2010 8:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t think so hard, Mark.

by Charlie on Jan 5, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny thing is that the same people who were outraged because they traded Sanchez are outraged all over again because they picked up Iwamura, even though they are essentially the same player.

You just can’t please some people.

by maguro on Jan 5, 2010 8:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

…who don’t know any players who aren’t nightly on Sportscenter and who don’t understand how to value players without first feeling empathy for them.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 5, 2010 8:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

People keep saying this

And I’m not sure why. Aki’s best ML season, in 2008, was 2.6 WAR – Andy LaRoche territory. Freddy has had 3 seasons at or above above 3.2 WAR, and he was 2.3 WAR just last year. Yes, over the past 3 season’s they’ve put up the same total WAR, but that’s because Freddy’s 2008 was a complete loss – that doesn’t make them “the same player.”

It’s probably fair to say that people are over-weighting what a younger, healthier Freddy accomplished, but there’s no reason to think that Iwamura, who’s already turned 30 and been injured, is likely to be better than he has been in the past. At age 28, FS was a 4.8 WAR player; AI was a 2.4 WAR player; age 29, FS 3.7, AI 2.6; age 30, FS 0.3, AI 1.3. Those don’t look to me like “the same player.”

It’s entirely possible, even likely, that Aki will be more valuable in 2010 than Freddy – I certainly hope so. But if one of them is going to be worth more than 3 wins, I know which one I’m betting on.

PS – I have no idea what CHONE is basing their batting projections for 2010 on; Freddy’s supposed to have a bad season, I guess because he had a terrible one 2 years ago, but Aki’s supposed to have a career year, because, um, um….

by JRoth95 on Jan 6, 2010 7:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

CHONE:

The short answer is that CHONE weights more recent performances more heavily, and Freddy’s 2006 is too far away at this point to have much predictive value in and of itself.

I don’t see why either projection is supposed to be outrageous. Iwamura hit .290/.355/.390 last year, and he’s projected to hit .284/.365/.393 next year. He’s up 13 points of OPS, which is a pretty small change, and probably mostly the result of changing leagues. Freddy hit .293/.326/.416 last year, and he’s projected to hit .285/.323/.400 next year. He’s down 19 points of OPS, which is a pretty small change, and not really surprising for a 32-year-old who’s suffered major injuries in both of the last two years.

And for the record, the 2010 CHONE projection wouldn’t be Iwamura’s “career year”. It’s not as good as his 2007, or as some of his NPB seasons before that (particularly 2004).

I’m not sure why you think WAR totals show that Freddy is clearly better going forward. Over the last three years, Freddy has 6.3 (with more than half of it coming in 2007, the season with the least forward predictive value of the three), while Iwamura has… 6.3. If anything, Iwamura has been the BETTER player over the last three years, in that he accumulated his WAR in about 225 fewer PA than Freddy needed to accumulate his.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2010 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

CHONE says Iwamura will be worth 4.6 offensive runs next year; in his career to date, he has been worth a total of 4.7. Is a league switch really worth that much?

Over the last three years, Freddy has 6.3 (with more than half of it coming in 2007, the season with the least forward predictive value of the three), while Iwamura has… 6.3.

Wow, I could have written that myself… oh wait, I did. Come on, Vlad. I said that I could see Aki being better next year. But if you want to talk about ceiling, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Iwamura can be as good as Freddyhas been. And, given that Aki is a whopping one year younger and has an injury history, I don’t see the basis for the belief that Freddy has entered terminal decline while Iwamura is on the cusp of a career year.

by JRoth95 on Jan 6, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Except for the fact that Iwamura had one injury – albeit a major one – while Freddy has had many different types of injuries which have hampered him for at least 2 years. In 2008, I don’t even know why they had him out there most of the time. He could barely throw to 1B. Freddy’s skill level probably has not decreased yet, but assuming he will be healthy enough to perform at that level is really iffy at best.

That said, we don’t really know how Aki is going to play after his injury. He did come back in September, but only hit .250/.310/.355. So there is risk there as well.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 6, 2010 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"there’s no evidence whatsoever that Iwamura can be as good as Freddyhas been"

Given the way Freddy has hit the last three years, there’s no evidence that Freddy can be as good as Freddy has been, either.

But if you want evidence that Iwamura was, in the past, as good as Freddy was, in the past, please look at Iwamura’s numbers in NPB, as I suggested earlier. In 2004, his career year, he hit .300/.383/.583 with the Yakult Swallows. Japanese power doesn’t translate linearly to MLB, but even so, that’s a darn good season, and just as valuable as anything Freddy’s ever done.

As for the league shift – most of that is due to the difference in leagues, yes. Both due to the lower offensive baseline in the NL as a whole from the lack of a DH, and from the slightly lower current quality of the league overall.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What are you talking about?

Given the way Freddy has hit the last three years

Three years ago Freddy was 3.7 WAR which, again, is 1.1 WAR better than Iwamura had been in any year of his career.

I figured that the shift was mostly from league switch, but I think it’s problematic, unless every single player who jumps from AL to NL then has his best season ever. It’s a big swing to assume from league effects (and if you say that it’s not an assumption, but an outcome of modeling, then I say there’s an issue with the models).

Anyway, I never had a problem with trading Freddy or acquiring Aki. I just think that there’s daylight between the two (and until Aki does in MLB what he did in NPB, I have to put a discount on his accomplishments there).

by JRoth95 on Jan 6, 2010 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For THE LAST TIME:

The projected 2010 line for Iwamura WOULD NOT BE HIS BEST SEASON EVER. PLEASE STOP SAYING THIS. IT IS NOT TRUE. Even if you don’t want to count any of his Japanese seasons (which is dumb, but we’ll roll with it), his projected 2010 line from CHONE is still lower than his line from 2007 (a .770 OPS and 105 OPS+).

Also, just so we understand what we’re talking about in as clear and unambiguous a fashion as possible, “the way Freddy has hit the last three years” is a .289/.323/.410 line in 1750 PA, good for a 93 OPS+. (The projected 2010 line from CHONE, again: .285/.323/.400.)

Is it possible that a guy who’s a 93 OPS+ hitter will fluke his way into a 119 OPS+ season? Sure. Is it particularly likely? No. Can you make low-percentage bets on longshots with your own money, if you like? Of course – have fun.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2010 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re splitting hairs…despite some differences, they’re still very similar players. Can you seriously dispute that two 31 year old 2B with coming off knee injuries that have both been worth 6.3 WAR over the past 3 years are pretty darn similar?

My point was that there’s no logical reason to be upset because we have Iwamura instead of Sanchez for 2010. It’s pure emotionalism.

by maguro on Jan 6, 2010 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fine

As I say, I agree that, going forward, they’re likely to be comparable. But they are not, careerwise, “the same player.” And, in the context of calling people foolish or emotional for seeing daylight between them, one tendentious statistic doesn’t carry that much weight.

by JRoth95 on Jan 6, 2010 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As I say, I agree that, going forward, they’re likely to be comparable.

Exactly my point. It’s nothing to get worked up about.

But they are not, careerwise, "the same player."

I really don’t care how they stack up about “careerwise”. If you want to say Freddy has had a better major league career that’s fine, but what I’m interested in is who makes the team better in 2010 and maybe 2011. We can talk career value in 2019 or so when Freddy goes on the HoF ballot. And when I say they’re “the same player” that’s a metaphor that means they’re very similar…it’s not meant to be taken literally.

And, in the context of calling people foolish or emotional for seeing daylight between them, one tendentious statistic doesn’t carry that much weight.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that WAR is “tedentious”, as in biased and misleading? I would have to disagree with you…WAR may not be perfect but I think it works pretty well when comparing same-aged guys who play the same position. We could use OPS+ or VORP or something, I guess, but that wouldn’t change their essential similarity.

by maguro on Jan 6, 2010 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that Freddy can have a higher ceiling if he is 100% healthy

However, in reality, he also has a problem that limits his usefulness. Because his OBP is purely batting average driven, if he is not “on”, then his OBP drops through the floor and he is a serious hindrance to the team scoring runs.

Aki has an OBP consistently 20-30 points higher than Freddy in real life, which is why I would prefer Aki.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 6, 2010 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s say you’re 22, are about to graduate from college, and have always wanted to be a lawyer. Would it make sense to take a year off to, say, play basketball?

yes… because you’d have to be more or less insane to go to law school anymore, what with the crushing debt you’re likely to incur and the marginal prospects for employment once you graduate… (granted, the latter may be true of many degrees, but they also don’t come with the law school pricetag)

[/threadjack]

by Captain Easychord on Jan 5, 2010 10:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

So I’ve heard from friends who are currently in law school.

My brother actually went to law school for a semester and then quit. Even better return on investment there!

by Charlie on Jan 5, 2010 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hey, nothing at all wrong with saving 5 semesters of tuition… the first one’s a sunk cost anyway… kinda like ramon vazquez’s contract!

by Captain Easychord on Jan 6, 2010 2:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Story on Law School

I am in the mining industry and had a graduate mining engineer working for me (around 2002). He worked 3 months, then decided he was going to go to law school. His starting salary working for me was about 55k, straight out of college. He went to law school and I kind of forgot about him. 3 1/2 to 4 years later, my wife, who works for a law firm (and sometimes with your dad, Charlie), tells me that a guy that used to work for me is working for her firm. He is answering phones on afternoon shift at minimum wage while he tries to pass the bar. He failed the bar at least once, and continued in that position until he passed. About 6 months after that, I get a call from someone I had worked with in my past, asking about the guy (he used me for a reference). In the end this kid ends up working in the mining industry (legal end) as a result of my reference, like 5 years later. Now, the mining industry (management end) is getting old, so in those 5 years it is reasonable to believe that the kid could have learned and progressed to the point where he was making 80-90k minimum, without even being any kind of superstar. When he went to work for the mining company as a legal guy 5years later, his salary was about 45k to start.

Certainly not a good example for all cases, but certainly a good representation of some to most in this day and age…

by God Loves on Jan 6, 2010 8:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but

alot of people would rather earn 45K doing a job they like than 90K doing a job they hate. Plus, people are more likely to have success in jobs they enjoy. A good lawyer can make a whole lot more than 90K.

by uneasy rider on Jan 6, 2010 9:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He is starting out 5 × 75k (average) behind and incurs the cost of law school, so it’s not unreasonable to believe that he 500k on the table. And he ends up taking a job in the mining industry (where he was in the first place) for less money than he was making at the time he left.

A majority of lawyers will never be able to make up that gap considering reasonable advancement in the mining industry, which is an industry that pays very well.

Lawyers are a dime a dozen. Mining engineers and related fields are not.

by God Loves on Jan 6, 2010 9:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a lawyer . . .

and while it would be tacky to disclose my salary, I will say that if I was offered twice the pay to be in the mining field I would remain a lawyer. Though I do earn a comfortable living, the biggest draw for me was, and still is, the opportunity to beat an opposing attorney. While competition is part of every job, being a lawyer is competition, period. Further, I like the fact that I am in a position to help others and am extremely proud that I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. Also, 45 k is the low end of the 1st year attorney’s pay scale. The average 1st year attorney in private practice is roughly 65 k, and those earning 45 k are generally in public service, and the goverment repays a substantial portion of your law school loans when that is the case. It appears that your friend is the victim of the unfortunate circumstances of your compnay being extremly cheap when it comes to lawyers and a lack of ability/motivation, as failing the Bar does not help your employment opportunities.

And I think your comment that lawyers are a dime a dozen is dumb and misinformed.

by Scranton on Jan 6, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Although I do have to admit. . .

when my fiance parents first found out she was dating a lawyer, they said “couldn’t you marry a doctor or a mining engineer.”

by Scranton on Jan 6, 2010 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what you get for living in Scranton. :)

by Charlie on Jan 6, 2010 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

At least you dodged jokes about a mythical paper sales company

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.

by glass0941 on Jan 6, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

im 50/50 on the trade..

The only way I would’nt end up liking the trade is if it takes away from Andy Laroche logging time at second base. If NH plan was to acquire Aki to compete at the beginning of the year (which I believe it was), and then unload him once we fall out of contention than I think it was a smart move. But if Alvarez arrives mid season, and Andy is producing with his bat (which I believe he will), and Aki is blocking Laroche then I think the trade will have back fired on us. We would then be forced to deal Laroche to another team after we endured his growing pains. Sounds familiar does’nt it…

by FusilliJerry88 on Jan 6, 2010 12:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Of course, Alvarez might not be immediately successful and might need to be sent back down to Indy like Clement was to find his swing his first year. In fact, I’m predicting that will happen if Alvarez doesn’t get his Ks down around 20% before coming up.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 6, 2010 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

backfire?

How is having a surplus of talent a bad thing? If they’re worried about andy getting abs then they’ll bench or trade aki or actually have good depth on the bench.

by johnnycuff on Jan 7, 2010 10:10 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

It's pretty clear that

Aki will be someone to push Andy for playing time if Alvarez comes up. Andy knows that and is going to see that ahead of time. He sees it right now. He knows he has to produce. The FO wants that. Andy can be a very valuable piece of the team going forward if he can hit well and can play 2B.

There’s no doubt that the Pirates would rather see Andy stay and trade Aki if that situation is better for the club.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 7, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No way in hell I go and play for the Zombie Sonics.

by ILLZ on Jan 6, 2010 12:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Little cost

I wasn’t crazy about the trade, but Charlie’s right. Even though the Bucs’ bullpen is in flux, middling relievers are a dime a dozen. Getting Iwamura, even for just a year, is worth a gamble. And it doesn’t deviate from the plan.

by NY Jim on Jan 6, 2010 4:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Did the Pirates ever state that the goal was to literally never trade away or release young players with cheap years of control, even if they were borderline major leaguers like Robinzon Diaz and Jesse Chavez? If not, then this is all silly.

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 6, 2010 7:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think

That your third-best reliever is “borderline”. You have to update your scouting after the season, folks.

by JRoth95 on Jan 6, 2010 7:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea but...

That’s the 3rd best reliever in the Pirates bullpen. That is basically the definition of boderline, right?

"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce

by gorillakilla34 on Jan 6, 2010 8:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

* borderline

"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce

by gorillakilla34 on Jan 6, 2010 8:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know about borderline...

but replacement level sure fits.

by Thunder on Jan 6, 2010 8:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For some teams, third-best reliever is "borderline", and for some, he isn't.

In our bullpen, it’s the former.

Honestly, since Chavez had a 4.85 FIP last year, it’s an open question whether he’s even our third-best reliever.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2010 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why the hell should we care about Jesse Chavez

potentially being under team control for 5 more years when he’ll be lucky to even be a serviceable reliever for a couple more?

The Iwamura trade makes sense for a year.

We have a viable 2B option and a guy who can also play 3B.

With LaRoche, Cedeno, Crosby, and Iwamura, we can at least feel somewhat confident of seeing someone 4/5/6 on the scorecard who can play a little bit, instead of the putrid mess it would be again with Vazquez, Young, Bixler, or if Cruz were still with the team.

Even the Pirates couldn’t pretend picking up a few million $ payroll would hurt their bottom line.

This move also gives the Bucs more publicity in Japan which could really pay off down the road when the team is winning again-i.e. other quality acquisitions of Japanese players.

Good move to pick up Iwamura by NH.

by patthatt on Jan 6, 2010 11:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Unless Jesse Chavez improved significantly over 2008, five more years of him on the Pirates is about as appealing as four more years of…I won’t go there, but you get the idea. :)

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 6, 2010 12:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

*~~2008~~ 2009

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 6, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Emerson summed it up best when he said a “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. Just because the Pirates traded guys approaching free agency for young guys that still have years of control doesn’t mean they always have to in the future, or that when they do the opposite they’re somehow “deviating from the plan”. The “plan” is to rebuild this team from the ground up, and there will be both short term and long term components of that.

by gorillagogo on Jan 6, 2010 12:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

"Best Available"

I think the main factor is Free agents dont have to sign if they dont want to (and most dont) even if they are offered slightly more money by the bucs than another team. Trading for someone assures you they are on their team and eliminates chance or being forced to pay the 10% “bucco tax” that we do with FA’s

RIP NATE. RIP TONY PLUSH.

"I'D BE A CHEF"

-TONY PLUSH

by GTrain on Jan 6, 2010 1:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If you're like me and you're skinny and slow and awkward....

you could be Ryan Braun.

by chodan11 on Jan 6, 2010 2:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good Trade

The Pirates can find multiple players to fill in the bullpen that could end up being just as good as Chavez or better, the point of the trade was to get a stop-gap 2B for the time being and they got a fairly decent one. Also, if things dont work out Iwamora would IMO bring in better prospects than Chavez if we trade him so win win eh?

by C Shint on Jan 6, 2010 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A's interested in andy laroche

Are pirates willing to deal him? Or is he considered the 20111 2b when alvarez is ready?
A’s have depth in pitching, OF’s, etc Maybe infielders adrian cardenas, jemile weeks, eric patterson

http://www.csnbayarea.com/01/06/10/Bay-Area-Hot-Stove-Special/landing_blogs.html?blockID=113160&feedID=4482 As far as third basemen go, I know the team has at least broached the subject of trading for Andy LaRoche, a 26-year-old under contract with the Pirates who has some pop and hits from the right side but made 14 errors last season.

by Asfan4ever723 on Jan 6, 2010 6:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I thought the majority of those errors came in the first 2 weeks before he came good?

by BlindSquirrel on Jan 6, 2010 9:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, and

UZR has him still positive runs in the error department.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 6, 2010 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would deal LaRoche...

…but not for any of those infielders.

by Vlad on Jan 7, 2010 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What are some of the pieces it would take for you to move Andy?

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 8, 2010 1:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dejan mentions again the Bucs

will continue shopping Doumit and probably Duke and Maholm.

Sounds just fine to me in 2010 if it helps us build a better club for 2012 and beyond.

by patthatt on Jan 6, 2010 9:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My issue with trading Doumit now is that I see him having a couple of good years coming up, and if that happens, he’s going to bring something a lot better plus help us win games in 2010 and 2011.

Everything points to Duke being traded during 2010 which I’m fine with.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 6, 2010 10:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With Doumit’s injury history, it’s a real crapshoot. I could see the scenario you outline, where he has a bounce back season and the Pirates are able to get a lot more value from his presence in the lineup and/or trade. I could also see where he continues to have nagging injuries and winds up never living up to his potential or even having as much trade value as he currently does.

by gorillagogo on Jan 7, 2010 9:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There is that risk, but in my mind the possibility of the reward exceeds the risk.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 7, 2010 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we already missed...

…the chance to sell high on Duke. Unfortunately.

by Vlad on Jan 7, 2010 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think that’s really going to depend on how good the defense is next year.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 7, 2010 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably.

Getting Young out of the lineup will help, but we’ve still got to hide Jones’s glove somewhere, and while Cedeno looked good in his tryout last season, the numbers (and rep) on him in past seasons were pretty grim.

by Vlad on Jan 7, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't be surprised...

if we see quite a bit of Crosby playing short this year. Also, I think Duke or Maholm (most likely Duke) will be dealt before the season starts. There are still a number of pitchers on the market. Once guys like Bedard and Sheets sign I would expect interest to pick up in our lefties. If we go into the season with Duke on the team I agree with you. I don’t think his ERA is going to be as high as it was last year.

by Slick1 on Jan 7, 2010 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cedeno

When we traded for him, I read a few posts on LookoutLanding, the mariners’ SBNation blog, and there didn’t seem to be quite as much disapproval of Cedeno’s glove as here. If anything, they rued his complete loss of bat, and it seemed his glove had been steady, if not better.

With someone pushing him, I hope Cedeno finds his mojo, because he has good pop in his bat, if he can control the strike zone better. I don’t know if he’ll hit much better than 0.250 ever, but he has the ability to slug 420-450-ish. If he can get his OBP into the 330 range, he wouldn’t be a liability at all. Here’s hoping a good start, Crosby, and memories of his prospect rating from the Cubs can spur him on.

by BurgherKing on Jan 7, 2010 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a big if on Cedeno’s OBP. Even in his very good VWL stint, Cedeno has been horrible at taking walks. A .330 OBP is a pipe dream for him at this point.

If Cedeno could learn to have better plate discipline, I think he could be very productive. But I think that’s like asking Freddy Sanchez to do the same thing. It’s just not in his nature.

Cedeno is really good at clobbering mistake pitches. He just doesn’t make the pitcher throw that many.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 7, 2010 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, the Mariners’ fans immediate frame of reference defensively is Yuniesky Betancourt, whereas the Pirates’ fans is Jack Wilson. Pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 7, 2010 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not a big Cedeno supporter, but I don’t think he’s bad defensively. I think he’s been a tad below average, just as the UZR shows. Really, the defense in 2010 could be overall quite a bit worse than in 2009. There are many questions. I think Milledge will be highly above average. If Cutch improves, that will make a huge difference.

If Tabata comes up and Jones is at first, then I think the overall defense will be above average. If Clement is a 1B and Jones in right, then it will overall be a bit below average.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 7, 2010 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs