Do You Want 'Accountability' Or Don't You?
by ryebr3ad on Oct 6, 2010 5:13 PM EDT
Email
Print"Accountability" -- the big buzzword thrown around by the masses with regard to the Pirates all of last season, no? Sure, accountability is an important part of any successful organization; if you are unsuccessful at your job, it must not go ignored. I generally agree with this notion, as does anyone else with a lick of business sense.
The Pittsburgh media as well as many fans seem to have this idea that accountability does not exist within the Pirates organization. I must say that this statement makes me laugh -- not only because it's a false claim, but because of the hypocrisy also spouted forth by those who used that statement the most.
Two of the more negative things I have seen used against current management lately are the Jose Bautista situation and how Neil Walker was handled before his call-up. As Pirates fans who know how to read, I'm sure everyone here is aware of the season Bautista had : 50+ HRs, seven kittens rescued from burning buildings and a congressional medal of honor. Oh, and the Pirates used to have him under contract, and he was their starting third baseman for a few years before the acquisition of Andy LaRoche. When Bautista was traded, not one hair was dropped into the proverbial Pirates fan soup bowl. Of course, that all changed once he started to produce.
'The Pirates gave up on him too early! The talent should have been recognized!'
'They traded Bautista for squat! Huntington is terrible!'
Now, lets take a look at Bautista's statistics before the Pirates let him go:
| YEAR | Avg. | OBP | SLU | OPS+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | .235 | .335 | .420 | 94 | -1.4 |
| 2007 | .254 | .339 | .414 | 96 | 0.5 |
Obviously, he wasn't very good while in Pittsburgh. In his age 25 season, he had a WAR of -1.4. He cost the team a win. He didn't look like someone who could cut the mustard. The next year he improved, but only enough to become a replacement lever player. Again, he was not really worthy of a starting third base job considering, among other things, his age of 26 years old.
He was traded next year for scrap, and rightfully so. He didn't do his job well, and was let go from the team. Accountability at its finest, just like the doctor ordered. But, with the benefit of hindsight, it can now be used against the team as a lapse of judgment. Accountability was used to make a decision, so how could it also be the wrong move?
Hypocrisy reared its head again much more recently, with regard to the Walker situation at the beginning of the year. Someone I am acquainted with mentioned that Huntington was a fool for the way Walker was handled this year, being treated as a utility player until he started the year hot. This left me blindsided, as a few other people agreed with him.
Walker's career OBP in the minors is .320. That's below average in the majors - in the minors, it's quite concerning. Accountability was used again, and Walker was demoted from his role as a potential starter to potential super-utility man. Of course, it's all a moot point - Akinori Iwamura busted, Walker hit well, and he is now the Pirates' starting second baseman for, let's say, the next couple of years (this depends on his defense either improving or regressing, obviously).
So Walker was held accountable, he proved himself again, was reintroduced to being a starter full-time, and ran with the role. And yet the Pirates made a mistake somehow - even though Walker is still with the team, which means the effects of the supposed mistake are negligible.
Some Pirates fans just live to complain. Accountability exists in this organization. Just remember to bring that up to the next person who mentions Bautista as he or she boos Andy LaRoche for being a replacement level player for the Pirates.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
155 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
imagine if walker had been cut
i guess we would have to reevaluate nh skills at player evaluation. wait what?
Yeah, how dare he even try to cut a player with a sub .300 AAA OBP!
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Oct 6, 2010 7:01 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Though, in actuality, cutting him last year would have been too hasty, just due to his age.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Oct 6, 2010 7:12 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah. There’s a problem with “accountability” in general. It may be desirable in certain circumstances; it might not be in others. If a player is failing, or a general manager isn’t producing wins, you have to ask if there might be reasons why before you throw them out of the organization. For a player, age is an obvious reason, but so is mechanical problems or injury or any number of other things.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 6, 2010 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
The MLB does seem to define checkpoints on their own terms. Arbitration is a good one — if after four years, a player still isn’t reaching his potential in the majors, there is a good chance it probably won’t be reached. Is it really worth paying someone more than a million dollars a year to see if they can reach their potential, when there is probably some 22-year-old in the minors with the same exact potential they have?
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Amazing
I am amazed how so many of you insist on defending a front office that just lost a record number of games. Been a Pirate fan all my life -
watched John and E O’Brien, Gene Freeze-now that was bad baseball, but so is this. Call a spade a spade.
Since when has 105 games been a record? The team this year was bad, but not record breaking bad.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Oct 6, 2010 7:16 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Well I was wondering if the Pirates record was bad this year
but now that someone who’s followed the team their whole life tells me that it is in fact bad, I no longer have to wonder. I can’t wait till I’m old enough to know how a MLB team should be run, even with no real knowledge whatsoever of how to do so.
Amazing
You forgot George Freese, and Curtis Roberts, Clem Koshorek (sp?) and. . .Lino Donoso.
Lino Donoso
Amazing
I am amazed how so many of you insist on repeating the same things over and over again and never ever read or listen to us folks who are “defending” the front office. The article was written well and speaks clearly to the authors point yet you simply point out that you have been a baseball fan for a long time and the Pirates have a bad record and that somehow makes you feel that the author is wrong. Your lack of an actual thought process is what is truly amazing. Talking to you people is like trying to reason with my dog.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
by PensFan024 on Oct 8, 2010 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
You hit the nail on the head.
Somehow the yinzers expect that accountability only means “blow it all up, sale the team and start over”.
That said, anytime a player like Bautista improves dramatically under a different teacher or approach, there needs to be a full evaluation as to what went wrong and what could have been done differently.
What needs to be understood is that the FO is learning, just like anybody on the job for a short period of time.
The way everyone should be held accountable is not just to fire them or cut them. There needs to be an evaluation as to whether they can improve giving the correct circumstances.
This is what happened with Walker, and unfortunately is not what happened with Bautista and Gorzo.
I always go back to the mistakes Jon Daniels made in his first years with the Rangers. Those are far worse than any mistakes made by Huntington so far. Daniels, like Huntington, was a young GM, and learned from those initial mistakes big time.
Giving away Bautista and Gorzo is nowhere near the mistake that giving away Adrian Gonzalez and Chris Young just before their breakout seasons was.
It seems that Bats was given enough chances with us. Without the benefit of hindsight, I think any competent GM would have traded him.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Oct 6, 2010 7:30 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
He did have plenty of chances. I’m referring to the fact that the Pirates (and others) tried to fix him getting ready to late at the plate, and for whatever reason he didn’t get what they were talking about until they worked with him in Toronto.
I’ve been a violin teacher, so I understand when you have a student that’s not getting what you try to tell them no matter how you do it. At the same time, when you do have a student that goes on to someone else and succeeds, you have to try to learn from that and try to figure out what you could have done differently.
Accountability in that case means analyzing what might have been done differently and then incorporating whatever you might think could catch that player the next time.
The most important thing that is going to make the Pirates the kind of team they want to be is to have great instruction that can help as many players as possible.
Also important
is that you can’t teach/reach alla the people alla th’ time.
Players (both baseball & violin) thrive under different circumstances.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 6, 2010 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions
True. No teacher can reach everyone. I would say that ideally, in the case of Bautista, the GM would get a report from the hitting coach as to what he thinks Bautista has done differently and maybe a guess or report from people close to the situation in Toronto as to how they helped him.
Maybe there is something in there that could be used to help other Pirates players in the future. The last resort is firing someone, because then that institutional knowledge and the ability to learn from it is lost.
Only if it is decided that the coach or staff member does not have the capacity to sufficiently progress should that step be taken.
by MarkInDallas on Oct 6, 2010 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Big difference between improving a trading
At the risk of interrupting the back slapping in this thread, I agree that Bautista was a replacement level player when he was traded. His developmental clock was at least a year and a half behind due to his injury and Rule-V draft year and the Pirates had no internal option to replace him and they traded him for a Triple-A backup catcher.
While its true that no one cried too hard when he was traded, the fact remains that he had untapped potential and the trade made the team worse and it was likely done to save a million or so dollars.
That is simply a bad deal.
Not sure what you mean by
“… the back slapping in this thread…”
?
And “saving the team a million or so dollars” is a bad thing when said player can be replaced by an equal “replacement-level” player?
Not snark, real query.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 8, 2010 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
No, not what I meant
By back slapping, I meant posters who post +1 and I agree on threads. My point with Bautista is that he lost 2 years of development, had actual potential when he was traded, and was replaced by a player who was manifestly worse in all respects, A. LaRoche, one of the reasons was to save 1 million dollars.
I know management thought LaRoche had more potential. They were wrong. There was strong indicators in LaRoche’s major league stints and his last minor league season that he was not good enough to be a starter in the big leagues.
Let me be clear, i am not saying this was a horrible, indefensible decision by management. I just think with Bautista’s power, giving him another year or so to develop, or keeping him as a super utility player would have been worth a million dollars. He would have been one of the better players on our team for the last 2 years.
+1
is an easy way to emphasize agreement, as is IAWTC, rather than typing out “you took the words out of my mouth.”
I disagree that it’s mere “backslapping.”
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 8, 2010 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Or maybe not
Bautista clearly would have been one of the better players on the Pirates in 2010; he was (by B-R WAR) somewhere around the 15th best player in all of baseball in 2010.
In 2009, well, he put up a B-R WAR of 2.0. His replacement, the “manifestly worse in all respects” Andy LaRoche, put up a B-R WAR of 2.4.
Had you taken this picture a year ago, one would have said that replacing the $1.8M, 27 year old, 2.0 WAR Jose Bautista with the $400k, 25 year old, 2.4 WAR Andy LaRoche sounded like a pretty smart move.
At the time of the trade, Andy LaRoche was seen as one of the best prospects in baseball who was never given a fair chance in the Dodgers’ Major League lineup. Bautista was seen as a role player. There was nothing distinguishing about him in the Major Leagues, and he had an unspectacular minor league career as well. That’s why they couldn’t have traded Bautista for LaRoche straight up if they wanted to and LaRoche was part of the Bay trade.
There’s a reason we couldn’t get much back for Bautista, and it’s not because teams around the league were salivating and dreaming over his power potential.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
Nate/LaRoche
Before the season, I think he was a top 40 prospect. That’s good.
But I’m not sure that’s one of the “best prospects in baseball.”
Second, he had failed multiple chances to win a full-time job. Weak defense. Poor hitting.
I’m not sure it’s fair to say he wasn’t given a chance.
I think views were much more mixed on LaRoche.
LaRoche had a grand total of 152 plate appearances with the Dodgers, spread out over two seasons. I’m not sure in what universe that’s considered being given a chance. He was an unknown quantity, but he looked like a damn good prospect.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
“I’m not sure in what universe that’s considered being given a chance.”
A simple google search turns this up:
.
.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 10, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Nate
In that time, the reason he didn’t get to play was that he squandered those opportunities and was riding the Dodgers’ bench.
If you are on the roster, and yet can’t show the manager enough to get an at bat, I think that’s being given a chance.
And when given a chance with the Pirates after the trade, he hit .152 in 164 at bats.
That seems to confirm the Dodgers’ judgment of him.
My point is that he was no longer viewed as an elite prospect.
The idea that the Pirates got top-tier talent in return for LaRoche was questionable even at the time.
Yeah, OK, you’re right. Clearly Willie Mays was a bum too because he went 1-for-26 to start his career. The Giants should have sat him because he didn’t earn his opportunity. You can always tell a lot from small sample sizes.
Look, I know LaRoche has been pretty disappointing for us. My point is that at the time of the trade, the consensus around baseball was that the Dodgers were dumb for not playing him.
When we acquired LaRoche in 2008, Baseball Prospectus had him as the Dodgers’ second best prospect behind Clayton Kershaw. He was graded as a five-star prospect. (Link) PECOTA rated him as the best 3B prospect not named Evan Longoria. (Link)
If BP’s stats-based approach doesn’t suit your fancy, Baseball America’s scout-based approach also rated LaRoche right behind Kershaw, projected him to be the Dodgers’ 3B of the future, named him the best power hitter in their system, and named him to their all-decade team. (Link)
Your attempt to re-write history aside, LaRoche was considered a blue-chip prospect when we got him. As bad as the Bay deal looks now, analysts applauded it when it happened as a steal to get LaRoche AND Morris for Bay, plus “two future role players” from Boston.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
Nate
A Mays comparison hardly makes your case. In fact, it is ridiculous.
Mays wasn’t sitting on the pine for a season and a half because he couldn’t convince his manager he was anything more than a utility guy.
You are looking at his sample from at bats. I’m looking at it from the standpoint that the Dodgers gave him a season and a half to win the job and he failed to earn more than an occasional at bat.
Also, I think your links are old. They are before the start of the season. Not August. (The dates I see on there are old.)
That’s like saying my house is worth what it was before the housing crash. Sorry, but LaRoche’s weak performances in LA lowered his value. His stock was not what it was the season before or even the start of the season.
In fact, the Dodgers thought so little of him that they traded Carlos Santana and cash for an aging Casey Blake because they had given up on him.
Just a disagreement, Nate. It’s not an effort to re-write history.
I think you are ignoring the scouting reports that panned the deal and clearly said he was no longer a blue-chipper.
You are looking at his sample from at bats. I’m looking at it from the standpoint that the Dodgers gave him a season and a half to win the job and he failed to earn more than an occasional at bat.
Because they kept bringing in mediocre vets like Nomar Garciaparra to play in front of him. We did the same thing to Freddy Sanchez for a while. Are you saying Sanchez wasn’t worth playing?
Also, I think your links are old. They are before the start of the season. Not August. (The dates I see on there are old.)
Yeah, they don’t come out with mid-season prospect lists. I doubt LaRoche’s 69 2008 plate appearances did much to change analysts’ opinions of him.
In fact, the Dodgers thought so little of him that they traded Carlos Santana and cash for an aging Casey Blake because they had given up on him.
And everyone in baseball thought it was dumb and used it as another example of Ned Colletti being an idiot.
I think you are ignoring the scouting reports that panned the deal and clearly said he was no longer a blue-chipper.
OK, enlighten me. Show me some. I gave you my links, now give me yours that say that LaRoche wasn’t a blue-chipper at the time we made the trade.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
Nate
I’m not going to debate you point by point all day. But a few things to consider:
1. Nomar was quickly injured. The idea that the Dodgers brought in a series of vets to keep LaRoche on the bench is just wrong. DeWitt was playing ahead of him, not a “vet.”
2. First, you are changing the goalposts You said the links were from “when we acquired LaRoche in 2008.” They weren’t. Second, his 2008 performance clearly affected how analysts viewed him. When an “elite” prospect is riding the pine, when you have a desperate need there, that means a lot. Second, I’ve reviewed articles at the time of the trade. None of them describe LaRoche as an “elite” prospect anymore.
And he certainly wasn’t viewed as “elite” a few months later after his Pittsburgh at bats.
3. Ned is an easy target. But Casey Blake has clearly outplayed LaRoche since the time of the trade.
Second, do you have any links for “everyone in baseball thought it was dumb and used it as another example of Ned Colletti being an idiot?”
I just don’t see them. It was his manager who thought he couldn’t play.
I’ll be happy to find you links later today after I’m done working.
But you haven’t provided anything but links that are outdated or contradict your point.
Quotes/links
Nate,
I can give you other links if you want. But I chose a few simple ones:
“Andy LaRoche was one of the best prospects in all of baseball, and we’re thrilled to get him,” Huntington said.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08214/901137-63.stm#ixzz1264EEVVx
Nearly every article I reviewed talked about how he was once a top prospect. Now he was merely interesting.
In another example, NH declined to say who the best prospect in the deal was, “I’m not sure there really is one guy that we target as the anchor of this trade,” Huntington said.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08214/901137-63.stm#ixzz1264Qu200
Umpbump.com also has a critical review of LaRoche as part of the deal.
Agan, I think the perspective was that he was an interesting guy and a former top prospect.
I’m just pointing out that at the time of the deal, he had lost a lot of value.
Vlad
I’m not using it as an authority. I had 10 minutes to take a break from class preps and watching kids.
In that time, I saw a few links that essentially said that LaRoche had moved from elite prospect, which he was a year ago, to interesting guy.
I think that’s a fair assessment.
The funny thing is that was NH’s perspective.
At the time we traded for LaRoche, he’d put up a .217/.348/.316 line in 152 ML AB. Here’s what some other ML corner players did at the start of their careers:
George Bell: .233/.256/.350 in 163 AB
Adrian Beltre: .215/.278/.369 in 195 AB
Bobby Bonilla: .256/.352/.333 in 426 AB
Jack Clark: .227/.275/.361 in 119 AB
Doug DeCinces: .237/.294/.366 in 186 AB
Carlos Delgado: .194/.300/.378 in 222 AB
Jermaine Dye: .252/.287/.394 in 769 AB
Oscar Gamble: .239/.309/.334 in 761 AB
Ron Gant: .236/.290/.404 in 906 AB
Adrian Gonzalez: .229/.272/.401 in 192 AB
George Hendrick: .209/.229/.298 in 235 AB
Aubrey Huff: .257/.295/.388 in 533 AB
Geoff Jenkins: .229/.288/.385 in 262 AB
Paul Konerko: .214/.275/.326 in 224 AB
Chet Lemon: .247/.298/.327 in 486 AB
Tino Martinez: .211/.286/.311 in 180 AB
John Mayberry: .191/.284/.342 in 298 AB
Larry Parrish: .250/.299/.379 in 1144 AB
Aramis Ramirez: .239/.290/.364 in 561 AB
Brooks Robinson: .232/.281/.313 in 646 AB
Gary Sheffield: .246/.302/.348 in 448 AB
Robin Ventura: .243/.322/.312 in 538 AB
Tim Wallach: .233/.296/.350 in 223 AB
Matt Williams: .188/.240/.339 in 245 AB
That’s not an exhaustive list, either. Just a few names that I pulled together in maybe fifteen minutes.
Had all of those players been given an adequate “chance” to be MLB regulars? Had they “squandered” their opportunities?
Vlad
I’m too tired, and busy, to spar today. Not that I don’t enjoy it.
But let’s draw a distinction between most of the guys you listed and LaRoche:
1. These guys largely came up and had their at bats quickly. They struggled. But they had the confidence of their manager. LaRoche did not. He was spending time on the bench.
2. The fact that the Dodgers didn’t have enough “confidence” in this elite prospect is telling. The fact that the Dodgers brought in Normar and then played DeWitt ahead of him is telling.
3. The fact that the Dodgers, the team that knew him best, traded for Casey Blake is telling.
4. The fact that the Dodgers viewed him as fragile is telling.
Let’s accept that LaRoche was an elite prospect nine months prior. I think that’s fair.
However, if I have a $100,000 sports car, it loses value if it’s in an accident and it doesn’t drive as well.
LaRoche is that crashed sports car.
These guys largely came up and had their at bats quickly.
Some did, some didn’t. Oscar Gamble’s 761 AB, for example, were broken across four years: 71, 275, 280, and 135. And the ‘70-’72 Phillies weren’t exactly using a group of titans at 1B or in the OF corners.
they had the confidence of their manager. LaRoche did not. He was spending time on the bench.
If he wasn’t given regular playing time during his callup, then how can you claim that he “failed…to win a full-time job”? In order to fail, you have to have the opportunity in the first place.
The fact that the Dodgers didn’t have enough "confidence" in this elite prospect is telling. The fact that the Dodgers brought in Normar and then played DeWitt ahead of him is telling.
That doesn’t set him apart from the guys on the list, either. Paul Konerko was originally a Dodgers prospect, for example. The Dodgers knew him better than anyone else, and yet they were willing to trade him (plus another top prospect – Dennys Reyes) for a half a season of a good-but-not-great closer, Jeff Shaw.
Teams are just as capable of misevaluating their own prospects as they are another team’s. Just look at Jeff Bagwell, or John Smoltz, or, Curt Schilling…
The fact that the Dodgers, the team that knew him best, traded for Casey Blake is telling.
Is the fact that the same Dodgers were willing to trade Santana for Blake equally telling when evaluating Santana’s future chances?
However, if I have a $100,000 sports car, it loses value if it’s in an accident and it doesn’t drive as well.
Not a good analogy. Body damage on a wrecked sports car is obvious at a glance, unlike a ballplayer. And sports cars don’t have a top speed of 80 one week and 220 the next – they’re unthinking machines that deliver precisely the same performance every time you turn the key.
Vlad
Again, I’m busy at work and with the family. But I’ll give you quick responses:
1. Nearly all of the guys you mention got their at bats quickly. Oscar Gamble is more of an outlier than the rule here.
2. LaRoche wasn’t given regular playing time because the manager, after watching him in spring training, after watching him in games, felt that he didn’t deserve playing time. It’s not like he was sitting behind Longoria.
3. I think the opportunity to compete for a job in spring training, I think the opportunity to play part time is an opportunity. So yes, base on what the coaching staff saw, he didn’t deserve a full-time job. And it seems, Vlad, that the staff was right.
4. I really don’t find it very convincing that you are citing guys like Konerko, Bagwell and Smoltz. Teams used to regularly trade good prospects for little. It doesn’t happen much today.
5. WTM made a great case for why this happens. Teams see the guy every day. They make ongoing evaluations. That is why teams usually don’t give up a prospect they really like anymore. Instead, you see teams give up guys they’ve cooled on. This trade is a wonderful example of guys whose organizations thought their value was in decline.
6. Casey Blake. I think it mostly shows how desperate the Dodgers were to get a competent player at 3b for a pennant run. They overpaid. It doesn’t happen much anymore. But it did happen here.
7. Disagree on the analogy, Vlad. A car doesn’t have the same value after an accident. It often doesn’t perform as well. If you read the LaRoche article, a theme across most of them: He has lost value, in part, because he was performing worse and didn’t have the same upside he once did.
Again, I just don’t have the time to play anymore.
Thanks for the debate.
Nearly all of the guys you mention got their at bats quickly. Oscar Gamble is more of an outlier than the rule here.
Like I said, some did and some didn’t. If you want, I’m sure I could find more examples like Gamble.
LaRoche wasn’t given regular playing time because the manager, after watching him in spring training, after watching him in games, felt that he didn’t deserve playing time. It’s not like he was sitting behind Longoria.
When you say stuff like this, it becomes harder and harder for me to understand how you can claim that LaRoche received a fair shot at a starting job with the Dodgers. If the team went into the season with the pre-concieved idea that he didn’t deserve the opportunity, as you seem to be suggesting, they were going to look for reasons to bounce him whether those reasons were valid or not.
the opportunity to play part time is an opportunity
Part time play is not going to give you an accurate reading on a young player’s level of ability for an everyday role. Rookies need to play in order to make adjustments and transition into the majors. If you don’t give a rookie PT, you’re setting him up for failure.
I really don’t find it very convincing that you are citing guys like Konerko
You appear to have missed my point in citing Konerko – I apologize if it was unclear. I pointed to him in part as a way of noting that the Dodgers have not, as an institution, done a good job of assessing the abilities of young players that they have traded away over the years. In addition to Konerko, you also have Edwin Jackson, Ted Lilly, Pedro Martinez, Franklin Gutierrez, Cody Ross, and Carlos Santana. Josh Bell is giving signs of being a bad loss, too. As such, the mere fact that the Dodgers were willing to move LaRoche is not evidence that he was a bust in the making. If anything, I would almost consider it to be the opposite.
A car doesn’t have the same value after an accident. It often doesn’t perform as well.
The distinction, though, is that a car is not a human being, and thus not prone to normal human variance. Given the same input, it will perform a given task the exact same way every time it is asked to do so. The only possible reason for a change in performance is some type of damage to the vehicle. Whereas hitters as people will get hot and cold, go on streaks and slumps, lose and find their mechanics, etc. A hitter who isn’t hitting quite as well could very easily go back to his old ways the next day like nothing ever happened – minor performance variations just don’t have the same import in that context.
Vlad
Again, very busy. Let’s just agree to disagree.
Of course, my responses:
1. Yes, I’m sure you can found outliers to support your position. But most of the guys got their at bats quickly.
2. You know well that LaRoche was given the opportunity to take the 3b job for two years. He didn’t. Part of it was performance. Part of it was injury. Bottom line: His manager didn’t see him having much of a future.
3. I’m not suggesting that the team had a preconceived notice. The Dodgers wanted him to be a star. And, until the summer of the Bay trade, gave him opportunities to succeed.
4. A part-time job is an opportunity. Is it ideal for a young player? No. But hit and play defense and you’ll get more of an opportunity. Don’t hit and get injured and you won’t.
5. The Dodgers have missed on some calls. No question. I did miss your point. That being said, was the team wrong here? I don’t think so. I was just reiterating WTM’s argument of why trades for prospects often don’t work out.
6. My point on the car was this: After an accident, much like an injury, it loses value. DK talks about his injury history in the article I cite. Go through them. Clearly they played a role in him moving from elite prospect to interesting guy.
Accountability
is a multi-syllable word that means the opposite of whatever the FO is currently doing. It’s an easy way to sound smart while complaining about every single gall-durned thing.
Nice post by the way…not one single person anywhere even blinked when Joey Bats was shipped off.
Santa Roberto Clemente
Ora Pro Nobis
FireRickReilly
Not far off...
Accountability gets brought up when the front office says they are going to do something…and then they turn around and do the complete opposite.
Well, I blinked ...
but just because the return was a AAA guy out of options.
I thought a 15-15 guy (JB) with some potential growth had slightly more value. Key word there is slightly.
At the same time, it did not ruin my day because I thought he was expensive for those contributions.
It is just my opinion, but I don’t think WAR is fair here. It weights to heavily on defense. JB was horrible at 3b. That has been established.
But I think he would have been a 2 WAR if he had played full time in right field. Nothing great. But better than the return.
Finally, it is silly for even people who thought it was a weak return to say that they saw this coming.
No one did.
His last year with the team...
…was the year Xavier Nady went absolutely berserk. PT in RF would’ve been hard to come by, and it’s not like he was going to push Bay out of LF, either.
Vlad
Throw out salary because I think he was becoming expensive.
But I do think he was a useful utility guy and part-time OF based on Bay’s knees and Nady’s injury history.
And clearly, the team was trading Nady and pissibly Bay. My point is that you could keep him around to see if he was a viable replacement.
I think that was unanswered at the time.
Sure, they could've kept him around down the stretch.
But I don’t think it’s a federal case that they didn’t. Corner OFs are pretty easy to find. I mean, compare Bautista that year to Milledge this year. Bautista’s OPS+ at the time of the trade was 94. Milledge’s this year was 93. Defense is pretty much a wash, by the numbers. And Milledge is two years younger, and likely to get a lower arb award this offseason than Bautista would’ve.
Now think back on how many people on this site were saying that Milledge should be non-tendered this offseason, even though you can make a good case for him being more valuable now than Bautista was when we traded him.
Neither do I think it's a federal case
I’m saying I saw him as slightly interesting.
That’s it.
I’m not trying to claim that I saw him becoming a star. I didn’t.
But I did think the Pirates traded him for very little. That’s it.
I probably would have kept him around one more year because of the uncertainty with Bay and Nady.
But I suspect he would have had another JB year with the Pirates.
15-15
You mean he hit 15 HRs and was hit by 15 pitches? Cause JB didn’t steal 15 bases in his entire Pirate career, let alone in a season.
Keep in mind that if he’d been in RF, he would have had a 1.0 WAR bump to overcome based on positional adjustments (per Fangraphs). So to go from a 0.5 WAR third baseman to a 2.0 WAR right fielder, he would have had to improve by 2.5 WAR in fielding. While I don’t know either the BR or the Fangraphs mapping from advanced fielding stats to WAR, he’s a career-9.6 UZR at 3B and -1.7 UZR in RF; his career Rdrs/yr at 3B is -10 and Rdrs/yr at RF is +6, so I don’t see him as 2.5 wins better in RF.
DG
I’m saying that when he was young, I thought he ran pretty well and could still 15 bases.
I think with the Bucs that his high was 5 or 6. But I thought he could do better.
That’s all. I saw him having growth there (much more than I did in power).
Just a caution: It’s hard to look at his numbers in RF because of sample size. I’m the first to concede it’s unknown whether he would have become a 2 WAR player. I’m saying that’s how I viewed him. My opinion.
RF sample size isn’t all that small — about 1.5 years (209 games), 3/4 in 2009-2010, and he’s been decidedly average — a little better in 2009, a little worse in 2010.
Since you’re actually talking about your view of his ceiling, though, like you said, it’s all hindsight and opinion. Basically, Toronto took him as a reclamation project just like the ones that NH has taken a flyer on, and hit the jackpot.
DG
But his UZR statistic, which is the key one cited here, is based on him playing 3b.
The UZR statistic is why he looks so terrible from a WAR perspective in 2007, 2008.
You are citing later year data on his OF play. I suspected he would be average to slightly above average based on his athleticism and arm. But it was just a projection.
I think if you viewed him as an OF in 2008, you would have wanted more than Diaz.
Bautista also logged a lot of time in CF for the pirates
and was not very good. Face it, he just isn’t a very good defender, either at 3B or corner OF or CF.
At the time, I thought maybe we could keep him as a utility player, especially since he could fake his way at SS and 2B. But to pay millions for a guy who is terrible at every position? No one at the time hated this trade because Bautista’s salary was better used elsewhere, like in draft spending, etc.
CF
How many guys do you know in the league now who could be moved from 3b to CF and play it well?
David Wright? No.
Pedro Alvarez? No.
I don’t see anything that suggests to me that he does not play a corner OF position at an average level.
I was slightly more optimistic than you at the time of the trade. Key word: optimistic.
I thought he was a useful utility guy and because DL yanked him around maybe could get a bit better in RF.
But did I think he was becoming real good? No, of course no.
That’s not my point.
toronto nearly DFA'd Bautista
by aquiring encarnacion. the main reason he was moved to the outfield is because they let Rios go to the PaleSox and had no internal options for the outfield. (snider was struggling and Lind has no glove at all)
Angus
I’m not saying it was a no-brainer to keep JB.
I’m not pretending that I knew he was going to have a great year.
But remember: He went through special circumstances because of DL incompetence.
I’d probably have given him an extra year because of it and because I saw him having value as a utility guy and RF with some upside.
But I didn’t think we’d see a year like this.
I just felt that at the time, he had slightly more value than Robinson Diaz.
and i agree with that
im just playing devil’s advocate, cuz im bored as $#@!
but also remember that the tandem of jaramillo/diaz was
playing so well, the yinzers wanted Doumit gone and the
platoon made permanent
I thought ‘accountability’ just meant firing NH.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 7, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Markio LeCeiuxban
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Oct 7, 2010 3:26 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
What the Pirates need is accountability. Except when they fire the Double-A coach. That makes them a joke, because John Russell is still the MLB manager and he needs to be held accountable. Except when Russell is fired. Then he’s just a scapegoat for Nutting’s failings.
And if they fired Huntington...
It wouldn’t be Huntington’s fault it didn’t work out, it’d be all Nuttings fault and he’s the one who has to sale the team.
by IAPiratesFan on Oct 6, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t even want to imagine the distant future where Nutting does sale the team and they still can’t compete because of baseball’s broken financial structure.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Oct 6, 2010 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, Dorothy and her pals are fixated on the flashing eyes...
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. This is the buried lead from the financial information leak this past summer. We are trying to compete on a cyclic basis — that is the best that we can do. Cuban nor Burkle nor anyone else can fix that short of committing financial suicide. But it’s far easier to focus on a living breathing villain than it is to deal with, often abstract, structural explanations for which there are no simple, pat solutions.
Sale the team and start the movie over again.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
Yeah
Apparently, Walbeck was the only winner in the organization. Once those players he managed graduated to the bigs, they will become losers.
by MarkInDallas on Oct 6, 2010 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
This leads to another frustrating thing:
Huntington gets the blame for the major league roster, but the AA roster, this shining beacon of hope that everyone has heard of now due to the firing, is all the work of a manager that went 62-80 a year prior?
These people can’t even figure out the simple things.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
57-105!
I don’t have to respond to anything you just said. Just put the record of the major league team up and make that my entire argument, as though it’s a great point I just made there.
by IAPiratesFan on Oct 7, 2010 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Bautista
Didn’t anyone in the Pirates organization talk to Bautista about making changes (ie starting earlier) in his swing?
If not, that’s some pretty glaring lack of player evaluation right there, not that it’s anything new to this regime regarding major league talent.
I'm sure they did
Hell, I’m sure the Blue Jays did, and it took him two years to finally understand what they meant.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
No
I heard they just set him up in the batting cage, turned the machine on rapid fire and then spit on him and fired him when he couldn’t hit them.
Bastards.
Santa Roberto Clemente
Ora Pro Nobis
FireRickReilly
Yes, they did.
Bautista said he heard it many times from different people throughout the years. He never understood what they meant until the Toronto hitting coach Dwayne Murphy and Cito Gaston worked with him.
That’s what I was talking about above in my comments. Accountability in this case should mean that the GM does an evaluation with the hitting coach to determine how the organization might best approach that situation the next time.
by MarkInDallas on Oct 7, 2010 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions
A couple things....
- I don’t think the author of this article understands WAR as well as he thinks he does. That’s not to say it’s a bad article at all. Just WAR is used a bit too casually and with little explanation. A player with a .5 WAR is actually a completely capable big leaguer. Yes, Bautista’s -1.4 season was bad, but his season where his WAR was +0.5 was actually solid. We see legendary seasons where a player has 7.2 WAR and we think thats the mark of a good player. The mark of a good player is one where he helps his team win more than he loses. Had the 2007 Pirates started 8 Jose Bautista in our lineup that year and every bench player and pitcher was completely average, the Pirates would have been 84-76. Yes, .5 isn’t significant, but it shows promise.
- That was the thing with Bautista. So many organizations liked him enough to give him a chance. Heck, two franchises even brought him back for a second time. A player of mediocre abilities/potential wouldn’t have received this type of interest. The talent was clearly apparent to multiple eyes. The opportunity to play every day without looking over his shoulder was not. Now in his 3rd season with the Blue Jays, it not only comes together, but he turns into a 54 home run hitter and likely the 2nd runner up to the AL MVP (Hamilton, Cabrera, Bautista). Clearly someone thought he could be a big time player to give him such repeated looks.
- The thing that irritates me is that we gave up on Joey Bats for Andy F-ing LaRoche. LaRoche was overhyped based a very small sample size of success in the Dodgers minor league system. He was overhyped because he had a big brother who was, and still is, a legit 25 HR/year player. His overall mediocrity in the minors was overlooked for a short burst where he ascended to being heralded as a top Dodger prospect. Huntington bought the hype. The trade overall wasn’t a bad one given we got four solid prospects, but I think the three prospects closest to being ML ready were all inflated a bit. At least Moss had hit at all levels, including a decent start to the 08 season while with the big league team. At least Craig Hanson showed the potential to be dominant, despite his control issues. We cut Joey Bats loose shortly after LaRoche arrived based on what? What had Laroche done to deserve that confidence and what had Bautista done to fall so fast? I think the Pirates were confident that Bautista wasn’t ever going to give them more than 18-20 HRS/70 RBI/.260 average and weren’t satisfied with that. Yet, they never gave the guy one uninterrupted season to play one position and see the field most every day. Toronto did and you can see the results. Meanwhile, we have Andy LaRoche, who who has no power, hits for a dreadful average, has below average speed, and goes in hitting slumps that last for months. If Andy LaRoche ever gets to 15 home runs once in his career, I’d be more surprised to see that than J.B’s 54 taters this past year.
Just my two cents.
Quibble
WAR is above replacement, not above average. An average player will post about 2 WAR. If you take your completely average 81-81 team and replace the 8 starters with Jose Bautistas from the year 2007, you’ll win about 69 games, since he is a game and a half below average at 0.5 WAR. Now, Fangraphs WAR puts him at 1.2 in 2007 so if you use their number, you win about 75 games.
Wait what...
.5 WAR is .5 wins above replacement. A team entirely made up of replacement players wins you approximately 48 games I believe. If you had a a team .5 WAR players you end up with a 60-61 win team. How is that anywhere near average? I will have to side with ryeb3ead on this one; .5 WAR is a bad player. Especially for a guy in his 4th season.
why is slick such a popular handle?
I can see why we have multiple piratefanxxyys on the site, but why multiple slicks?
That was Andy Van Slyke's nickname..
he was my favorite player growing up and I’ve just kept the handle throughout the years. Maybe the same reason for slick720.
2007 was my introduction to baseball
its a fascinating sport, and the dynamics of the Pirates’ situation makes it even more so!
it seems we have something in common BK.
I started taking an interest in MLB around when Matt Morris arrived.
I thought this team was suitably dramatic.
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 7, 2010 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions
This explains a lot.
Well, that and the fact that you’re a psycho.
I digress…
;-)
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 8, 2010 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions
ha
I actually started watching the Pirates just before Matt Morris arrived. That was the first big news in my time around the Bucs then!
Have you met ol' Slick?
He love the Thai noodles, he loves the Thai noodles…
www.stealingfirstbase.com
Have you actually looked at Andy LaRoche's minor league record?
Raw full-season OPSes, by year:
2004: .819
2005: .926
2006: .924
2007: .987
2008: .873
That’s not “mediocrity”. That’s not “a very small sample size of success”. That’s a guy whacking the holy beJesus out of pitchers for his entire minor league career.
And yes, a couple of those were good hitting environments, but even after you adjust for that, he was still hitting very well. In 2007 at Las Vegas, for example, he out-hit several other Dodgers prospects who have since developed into solid ML players: Delwyn Young (.955), Matt Kemp (.914) and James Loney (.727).
Vlad
You are correct that LaRoche’s stats are not based on small sample size or mediocrity.
He did benefit from some hitter-friendly parks.
But his collapse this year was pretty surprisingly. He put up a good year last year.
I really wonder how healthy he was.
Certainly took me by surprise.
I have to think the back played a significant part. Particularly with him looking as good as he did at the start of the year, before it acted up.
Of course, if the back’s that bad, there’s no guarantee that it’ll be any better in future seasons, either. It’s a shame.
The obnoxious part of me must come out; who here doesn’t understand WAR, now?
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Oct 7, 2010 2:11 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I like
how all three points are labeled as 1.
The last line would be funnier if you’d said 3 cents.
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 7, 2010 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Andre Agassi Is Really (Not) Sorry (At All)
Tuesday’s Column You Should Read: ‘George Vs. The Dragon’
Predicting The 2010 NCAA Bracket, Based On School Tuition
Sports Illustrated’s Unveils Its March Madness Coverboys
A New And Improved JaMarcus Russell?
John Smoltz Joins TBS, Aims To Outperform A New Group Of Peers
Sell:Ed/POLO tshirt$13,jean$30,handbag$35,jordan shoes$32,coach lv handbag$35,coogi/burberry jean$30 Free shipping!
our price:
bikini $25
coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32
coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15
CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35
jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33
EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15
coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16
(air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb,) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31
Hindsight is so beautiful
During is tenure as a Pirate, Bautista showed is was a consistent 240/330/410 hitter with below average defense.
So he was rightfully traded to make room for a player with better upside.
Let’s look back at BA’s quick take at Bautista the day of the trade :
Perhaps a bit over-taxed as a regular, Bautista could fit as a reserve or semi-regular at third base and the outfield corners, especially when spotted against lefties.
So, sure, every expert saw the 50-HR season coming …
Just one nitpick:
1. Was he really traded for a player with better upside?
I think he means Laroche...
the obvious answer to your question now and then is no but Diaz did fill an organizational need at catcher. We were in a bad way at that point in time so Diaz did fill an immediate need. Him playing so many innings that year is evidence of that.
Slick
Only gripe with that is that you can get a AAAA catcher for almost nothing.
Money. An organizational filler.
Unless, of course, you are DL. You trade a promising RP (Leo Nunez) for one.
I just wouldn’t trade a 15-15 guy who I think can be a utility guy and maybe a starting outfield for one.
gain, I never, ever though he’d be more than a 20-20 guy with a .260 average. But I think that’s more valuable than Diaz.
Diaz wasn't seen at that point as a AAAA catcher.
He was only 24 years old, and had made minor league All-Star teams in four straight seasons and played in the Futures Game twice. He wasn’t seen as a guy with a huge ceiling, but it wouldn’t have been shocking if he’d developed into an everyday player or a long-time backup.
Vlad
With all those accolades you describe, I almost think we are talking about Johnny Bench. But …
He was out of options. He had been passed by better prospects (Arencibia, Thigpen).
In fact, here is his line in 2008 when the Bucs made the deal:
1 HR, .244 average, .602 OPS (a line that is nearly identical to Diaz at Indy this year).
There was nothing in his minor league numbers to suggest anything other than a back-up catcher who could play decent defense and hit for some average.
Also, his 25th birthday was in September, so it’s not like there was a lot of growth going to happen.
He was, as Sickels described him, a C prospect on the decline because of better prospects at the position.
That being said, a long-time back-up assessment I can agree with.
An everyday player, no.
I didn't mean a particularly good everyday player, necessarily.
But as the 20th-best starting catcher in the league for a few years? I think he could’ve managed that, if he’d maxed out his talent. Kind of the catching equivalent of what Bautista had been for us as a 3B.
He was generally ranked behind Thigpen because Thigpen was seen as having a higher ceiling, but IIRC he made the Jays’ chapter in BA’s book pretty much every year (can’t check – I’m at work right now). I don’t think he was a great prospect or anything like that, but neither do I think it’s fair to call him a AAAA player or compare him to a total nonentity like Santiago.
Check out his statistics later
I think you’ll be unimpressed. You’ll see him as the catching equivalent of Diaz. That is my guess, which I agree is not a particularly good everyday player.
I’m making the point that looking at his minor league statistics, it’s not unreasonable to expect AAAA production.
But let me know after you look over his stats.
Yeah, sorry
I liked to throw the Argenis Diaz name in posts whenever I can for you.
I know how fond of him you are.
Don't really see anything in common with Argenis Diaz.
Looking at Robinzon’s pre-trade numbers, he’s showing some offensive component skills: Hitting for average, making contact, running pretty well by catcher standards. Five straight seasons with an OPS above .700.
If that guy got promoted to the majors, I’d see him as a reasonably capable backup, with maybe the potential to hit an empty-ish .270 at peak as a starter if he developed fully.
Whereas Argenis, of course, has no offensive component skills of any sort. He isn’t better at anything than Robinzon was, and he’s significantly behind him in BA, contact, and power.
Vlad
Argenis had a .586 OPS this year. Robinson had a .602 OPS at the time of the trade. Argenis had 0 HR. Robinson had 1.
Best case scenario for me for Robinson was probably .250 with no power
You can make the case that Robinson showed slightly better hitting in the MIL than Argenis. But key word there is slightly.
It also does not consider age for Argenis, however.
I just don’t see what you do: Any evidence he can hit at the MLB level.
In fact, you can make a good case that he can’t hit at the MIL level.
Oh, I see.
You’re only looking at Robinzon’s stats in the year of the trade, whereas I was looking at his entire career up to that point. That doesn’t seem like a very useful method of analysis, though it might create some amount of superficial similarity between the two.
While Robinzon may not have been hitting particularly well that season, the sample in question was small (only 131 AB at AAA that year) and he had enjoyed considerable upper-minors success in a much larger sample in 2007. Players who have mastered a level and are then returned to it will sometimes slump, out of boredom or frustration or something to that effect. Whereas present-day Argenis has been functionally helpless in the upper minors for two whole years now, and has never demonstrated mastery against that level of competition.
It’s a fairly important distinction, IMO.
Vlad
I’m really just having a bit of fun.
I like to use Argenis Diaz as a comparable whenever someone really blows. And I think you can make a case that Robinson really blew offensively for most of his minor league years. Okay average. Zero power.
Just having a bit of fun.
But I would have predicted a pretty bad career for Robinson based on his entire minor league career.
The most you could have hoped for was an okay average.
Accountability...
Weren’t the Pirates supposed to suck this year? Wasn’t that part of the plan? I follow the team pretty casually, but I was pretty certain this was a 100 loss team at the start of Spring Training, and I can’t imagine that anybody in the front office was suprised. So why fire Russell? I mean, if 95 losses was going to be acceptable, was isn’t 105?
Honestly, what am I missing, this team would have lost 90 games (at least) if Joe Torre was the manager. How is firing Russell anything other than a sop to Smizek’s blog?
Beat Illinois.
I think there are two different issues
First issue is whether the team would be bad apart from Russell, and the answer is certainly yes.
Second is whether Russell is a good manager apart from the team record, and to me the answer is no. He isn’t the worst manager ever, but we should be able to do better. Russell’s in-game management is not good at all.
by MarkInDallas on Oct 7, 2010 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Sorry Ryber, but you are comparing apples and oranges. The Bautista and Walker situations have ZERO to do with accountability – anyone who complained did so on the basis of (a) claims of poor talent evaluation, and (b) poor player management. What does THAT have to do with the utter lack of ACCOUNTABILITY by the FO?
As you indicated, the “A” word was a centerpiece of the “Best Management Team In Baseball” from the minute they took over. The fans’ gripes about the hollowness of that mantra is based on (a) the disgusting brand of baseball that was played on the field most of the last 2 years, (b) the seemingly pitiful talent-return on the trades (save for a few exceptions), © the “scholarship” starting positions that players got and kept WAAAYYY past their performances meritted, and (d) the fact that, for most of their 3 years, there WAS NO ACCOUNTABILITY.
The very first inkling of any accountablity was the firing of Varsho and Dave Kerwin. Other than that, the only coach that was “let go” was the Bucs’ best – Perry Hill, who was (Gasp!) ….LIED TO by NH and/or FC.
Nice try.
So holding players accountable does not equal accountability now?
What exactly is ‘poor talent evaluation’ if it’s something that can only be used in hindsight?
Also, I’m not sure how Hill was lied to by management. Unless you follow the idea that if something is said enough times, it becomes a fact regardless of it’s origin.
Surely you kid.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Oct 7, 2010 10:31 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
So holding players accountable does not equal accountability now?
What exactly is ‘poor talent evaluation’ if it’s something that can only be used in hindsight?
Also, I’m not sure how Hill was lied to by management. Unless you follow the idea that if something is said enough times, it becomes a fact regardless of it’s origin.
Surely you kid.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Oct 7, 2010 10:31 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Jose Bautista and the Pirates 101
I won’t argue the Bautista trade other than to say he never demonstrated much consideration as an everday player when he was shipped to Toronto, but could have served useful utility role (decent glove, could play numerous positions).
However, let’s consider the full picture of Bautista and the Pirates. He was unprotected and lost via the 2003 Rule 5 fiasco despite open space on the 40 man, which hurt his development and cost the Pirates a chance to see him progress under a normal development arc. He was released as a Rule 5 player, meaning the Pirates passed on reacquiring him from Baltimore. He was picked up by the Rays, then dealt to KC, At age 24, he “played” for 5 different teams, but he never really joined the Mets on his way back to Pittsburgh. Here’s the real question — why trade for a guy who in a single season you valued so little that you gave away once and then passed on reacquiring him again at marginal cost? It totally defied logic.
After languishing with Baltimore, he was reacquired as part of a weak return on the Chris Benson trade deadline dump – the same deadline period that saw the Mets given away Scott Kasmir for a lesser return (post TJ Victor Zambrano) than the Pirates were offering in Benson. Littlefield touted Bautista as the centerpiece of the deal and promptly proclaimed him the third basement of the future, despite his lack of an established record to then date of meritting that kind of consideration.
Ironically, if you go to Jose Bautista’s Wikipedia page, it still lists him as “Jose Bautista (utility player)”. I may not fault Huntington, but I definately fault the Pirates.
i might add that in spring when we talked about this very incident[s] with joey bats
nobody and i mean nobody expressed a wish for him back, with the possible poster on the pg blog under the same name.theres no use in crying over spilled milk. i expect the guys on this blog to hit or miss. i would hope the professionals would be a leg up.
by karreemofwheat on Oct 7, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
who's crying? (there's no crying in baseball)
let’s be honest — 2009 wasn’t the only time they F@#!ed up with Bautista. Maybe it just took him longer to recover from the earlier F@#! up than most reasonable observers thought he was capable of doing.
If you want to talk about accountability, Bautista (and the 2003 Rule 5 fiasco in general) did nothing to bolster Littlefield’s position or establish the organization as being run by ‘grown ups’. They didn’t give away anything valuable in 2009 (or get anything either), but they had him under control years ago and he could have been a useful player if not for the clusterf@#! that was the Pirates and it’s front office circa 2003.
You DO mean “lol DL,” right?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 8, 2010 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions
One quibble:
He wasn’t “released” as a Rule 5 player. He was placed on waivers, and then claimed by the Rays before he cleared.
Just a minor procedural note.
I can't prove it
But I think idiot DL thought he’d go unclaimed on waivers and have to be offered back to the Pirates for half the price.
But...
he had to be offered to the Pirates at 1/2 $ before being waived. Either Littlefield passed on a free lunch or was stupid enough to think he’d clear. If nothing else, isn’t $25K something most franchises find in their couch cushions? Even for a warm body for AAAA
I don't think
He has to go through waivers first.
Then if he’s unclaimed, you have to offer him back to the original team at half price before you can send him to the minors.
See Raynor this year.
He went through waivers. No one claimed him. But the Marlins wanted him back.
I think you have the order reversed.
Yep.
He goes through waivers, and then if he clears, he’s offered to the team.
And in defense of Littlefield (ick, I feel dirty), Bautista had to first clear waivers in the American League before being sent through the National (under the waiver rules of the time, which I think may have since been changed, though I can’t check from where I am now). So Littlefield didn’t even have a chance to claim Bautista, as all the teams who claimed him on waivers that year were AL clubs. (Not that DL necessarily would have claimed him, anyway.)
Vlad
I think you are right on the waiver process changing. I’ll have to look later as well.
But I doubt DL would have claimed him.
Instead, he would have thought he was smart. He was getting the player back plus having earned the team $25,000.
I’m sure he was feeling pretty proud of himself.
Just a clarification
It was Dave Littlefield doing this nonsense. Who else would you expect?
JB was a legitimate prospect who should have been protected and developed. Then not trading for him back from Baltimore was dumb.
Then you have the Kris Benson deal, where our boy DL passed on Howard for that package.
(I don’t think Zambrano was post TJ, though).
I just need for my BP to settle down as I recall the bleak DL years.
Close.
- in 2003. He was #5 in 2006 as well, but that was after the trade.
A raw numerical ranking is going to exaggerate his status a bit, though. We didn’t have a very strong farm in 2003. The rest of our top 10 that year, in order: Tony Alvarez (6), Bryan Bullington (3), Sean Burnett (2), Jose Castillo (4), JJ Davis (8), Mike Gonzalez (9), Duaner Sanchez (5), Ian Snell (10), and JVB (1).
Every time I hear (or read)
the name Littlefield (or DL), a snippet of the song “You Oughtta Know” by Alanis Morrisette plays in a continuous loop in my head for a short time. Just the “I’m here to remind you of the mess you left when you went away” lyric. Over and over and over and over.
Gah.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 8, 2010 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Haha.
I think of Pretty Fly for a White Guy when I think of Littlefield.
“Our subject isn’t cool, but he thinks it anyway
He may not have a clue, and he may not have style
But everything he lacks, well he makes up in denial”
Angus
Remember, though, that the teams were trying to keep him as a Rule 5 guy. They couldn’t send him down.
The reason he was released wasn’t because he sucked or the teams gave up on him.
The teams needed a 25-man roster spot.
Much like we came close to putting Meek on waivers a few years ago before NH worked out a trade to keep him.
but teams did give up on him
including the pirates twice. if you keep players because you think they have a higher ceiling than bautista means you are giving up on him.
Angus
A couple comments:
1. The Pirates didn’t give up on Bautista twice. After earning a good prospect ranking, DL chose not to protect him. It was immediately seen around baseball as a joke. The Pirates actually had three open spots at the time.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_170159.html
It’s never been confirmed. But several journalists have said that it was part of a DL ploy to get the $50,000 fee and get the player back later.
2. The Pirates admitted they didn’t give up on Bautista because they thought other guys had a “higher ceiling.” Instead, they thought he was too expensive for the production he provided. There is a big difference.
3. Teams aren’t “giving up” on players when they return them in Rule 5. You only have so many slots. It’s hard to put a competitive team on the field when you have a class A guy who you can use in most games.
once again i dig what youre saying
but when you say a player is not protected because of other players in the system need to be, that says “given up” to me. If DL really did have that ploy, he is legally retarded.
new orleans saints Jerseys
http://www.sportsjerseysshop.com
Our website is persisting on best customer service. Please come and enjoy it!
We only provide AAA quality of products. You can make purchases without scrupulosity. All of products can be ordered from our website directly, also, you can contact our professional customer service to get more new orleans saints Jerseys about payment terms, the intention of cooperation etc. The most preferential price: Our competitive price make our customers confident to develop their own business, at the same time, reaping big benefit from this transaction. Our favor tends to the customers who are from United States, Britain, France, Spain, Germany and Australia etc.
www.linecheckout.com
Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.
Here, there’s good news to tell you: The company recently
launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable
and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, please
input:
= http://www.linecheckout.com ====
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
FREE sHIPPING
== http://www.linecheckout.com ====
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
