Pirates Designate Zach Duke For Assignment
by Charlie Wilmoth on Nov 19, 2010 10:19 PM EST
Email
PrintThe Pirates have designated Zach Duke, Andy LaRoche and Delwyn Young for assignment and have added Jeff Locke, Mike Crotta, Tony Watson, Danny Moskos and Kyle McPherson to the 40-man roster, protecting them from the Rule 5 draft. As I've said many times before, I think dropping Duke is a mistake, albeit a minor one, and one that will easily be forgotten in the Pirates are smart acquiring pitchers this offseason. His non-tender marks the end of an era, in a way, but I've already written about the guy way too much and there's no need to start a whole new exasperating set of arguments about him. His non-tender really isn't a big deal. LaRoche and Young were arbitration-eligible and it was hard to imagine they'd be protected.
The adds of Locke and Watson are good calls, I think. Crotta, though, seems like a very marginal talent, and I'm not sure what the point of adding McPherson is, since the Pirates have seemed actively disinterested in him until now. Nathan Adcock is a better prospect than either and was not protected, although it's likely the Pirates will be able to protect him from the Rule 5 process. Starling Marte and Rudy Owens are ineligible for the Rule 5, so we don't need to worry about them.
UPDATE by Charlie. WTM, in the comment thread, on McPherson:
It’s got more to do with stuff than actual numbers. Adcock throws 89 with a good curve, and is mainly a command guy. McPherson throws 93 with a plus change and took a very big step forward this year. Check their WHIPs. Adcock’s been much more hittable throughout his career. The low A K rates are the same and K rate are important, but my sense is that, with low A especially, you have to know what’s producing the Ks.
I’m surprised they protected McPherson, but not that they protected him over Adcock.
123 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yep
Not much chance of him getting taken, though.
by Vlad on Nov 19, 2010 10:26 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
If there’s a bad team that can afford to hide him, they could take him. He has upside and the arm to be a very good reliever. I know relievers are fickle creatures, but still, I can’t grip why they would keep McPherson over him. Nobody would take McPherson, not even the Pirates themselves.
by Suffering Buc on Nov 19, 2010 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
McPherson is a better pitcher.
Better stuff, better command, better results.
Hughes took a step forward this year, but I’ll be very surprised if he’s taken.
by Vlad on Nov 19, 2010 10:33 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
i was asking suffering buc how he knows this info?
mcpherson improved greatly this season (finally) yet everyone harped about him being old for his league. the FO must know something us idiots do not, eh?
anyway, its still really early, the 40 man will look really different once spring training ends.
by white angus on Nov 19, 2010 10:35 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t know anything. Neither does, presumably, any more than five people in the world, those being Huntington, Coonelly, Hurdle, Stark, and Brooks.
It’s called speculation, and it’s fairly common here.
by Suffering Buc on Nov 19, 2010 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
Hughes struck out 7.5/9 and walked 2.4 at AA last year. He has a lively arm that can sit on 94. McPherson’s too far away to get claimed. Hughes is probably going to be at AAA anyway, so isn’t he more likely to be claimed? He also doesn’t stand to lose as much developmentally by sitting in a bullpen all year as McPherson does.
I know McPherson’s numbers were nice and he’s younger, but nobody would have claimed him.
by Suffering Buc on Nov 19, 2010 10:37 PM EST up reply actions
A guy that strikes out nearly 10 per 9 innings as a starter would get claimed; whether a team could keep him for a season would be the question.
Good point. I think he’d eventually come back to us, anyway.
by Suffering Buc on Nov 19, 2010 10:52 PM EST up reply actions
Not a yes man
He must not have run all the drills the FO wanted him to. And now he’ll be gone. What a waste.
I went to Duke's first game.
I left the game kinda pissed that they lost, but was really excited about how good Duke was during the game. And then we got stuck on the interstate behind a car accident and we didn’t get out of Milwaukee until about 2 hours after the game ended.
and I remember Duke's second game
His debut at PNC. He went seven scoreless against the Phillies.
I mostly agree with the additions.
I probably wouldn’t have rostered Crotta, but I can at least understand why they would.
I can also understand cutting the three guys who got cut. It seems very strange, though, to keep roster kipple like Diaz or Burres ahead of any of the three. I’m not sure I can come up with a scenario under which either of the latter two are useful to the team in either 2011 or beyond.
by Vlad on Nov 19, 2010 10:31 PM EST via mobile reply actions
40 man aint set in stone
not even close
by white angus on Nov 19, 2010 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
Diaz
Vlad, it is my understanding that Diaz has a ML-ready glove. He has not hit to save his LIFE, but is solid defensively.
I don’t think the 15 games (82 innings) he played this year were sufficient to give him a thumbs up/down. That would be the FO/JR’s fault…he/Ciriaco should have seen more innings later in the year (versus Cedeno) to better gauge their ability.
by insane_sanity on Nov 19, 2010 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
Diaz has great hands, but his range is very mediocre. He isn’t an asset in any way.
by Suffering Buc on Nov 19, 2010 10:41 PM EST up reply actions
measuring range...
Suffering: simply curious as to what gauge you used for measuring his range?
by insane_sanity on Nov 19, 2010 10:49 PM EST up reply actions
Reports from some of the posters on here I respect most, watching him myself in his stints in Pittsburgh, and a lot of reading over the internet since we’ve acquired him. I don’t know of any substantial UZR data on him, though.
by Suffering Buc on Nov 19, 2010 10:52 PM EST up reply actions
The reports on Diaz's defense that I read...
…were not nearly as positive as yours. And he certainly didn’t look like anything special when I saw him play.
by Vlad on Nov 19, 2010 10:54 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
which is kinda humorous since Diaz was known as a better than average defender while in the sox chain
by white angus on Nov 19, 2010 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
Don't get me wrong.
He’s got good defensive tools, on the whole. It’s just that right now, the defensive package is less than the sum of the parts. And with a bat as limp as his, even in the best-case scenario he ends up as Cesar Izturis.
now, now
Vlad: I’ve been defending his defense. I’m not even ABOUT to give him Cesar Izturis for his offense. We’re talking Mendoza offense here…but, from what I’ve read, +arm, +glove, and even +range (BoSox articles — probably homer articles, and Baseball America).
Again, I think we all should have seen much more of Diaz/Ciriaco at the end of the year…esp. Diaz, seeing as how a 40-man decision had to be made on him. And where is Perry Hill when we needed him most….
by insane_sanity on Nov 19, 2010 11:26 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, like I said:
Good defensive tools. Throws hard, soft hands, covers decent ground. But for all that, he doesn’t make many plays. He isn’t consistent (defensively) from game-to-game, or even play-to-play. Reminds me a bit of Cedeno in that respect.
I don’t know that it’s a matter of coaching. Some guys just never put it together.
Agree Diaz is inconsistent
I spoke to a minor league instructor for the Sox once and his feeling about Diaz was that he was inconsistent and was unlikely to be an everyday player. I was hoping his bat would improve but it really hasn’t.
Yinzers uber alles
Love your work Charlie but I disagree with your statement on Adcock—I think the decision on McPherson shows that he is the better prospect. McPherson led the organization in K/9 this year by a pretty large margin and was 2nd in K/BB. A guy like that has a good chance of being hidden in a pen though it seems a longshot that he would have been drafted.
Adcock is slightly younger than McPherson and was playing a level higher. He also has a much better pedigree in general. It’s probably not a huge deal either way, though.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Nov 19, 2010 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
i imagine the FO
spent significant time and effort on this, and have determined McPherson > Adcock
by BurgherKing on Nov 19, 2010 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
Apparently
But Adcock’s numbers in A ball at age 20 are just about the same as McPherson’s numbers in A ball at age 22, so it’s a little hard for me to fathom. Hopefully they know what they’re doing.
I’m sure they did too, but saying that because the FO determined McPherson was better proves he is better leads us into this weird mobius strip where it’s not possible to disagree with them. They never seemed to care for McPherson much at all before this year, and there’s a much longer track record for Adcock as a real prospect. As I said, though, it probably doesn’t really matter, because I don’t think either of them would have been taken.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Nov 19, 2010 11:03 PM EST up reply actions
It’s got more to do with stuff than actual numbers. Adcock throws 89 with a good curve, and is mainly a command guy. McPherson throws 93 with a plus change and took a very big step forward this year. Check their WHIPs. Adcock’s been much more hittable throughout his career. The low A K rates are the same and K rate are important, but my sense is that, with low A especially, you have to know what’s producing the Ks.
I’m surprised they protected McPherson, but not that they protected him over Adcock.
Ok, fair enough. I haven’t seen McPherson pitch.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Nov 19, 2010 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
However, it's not about the best 40 players.....
I think we’re making the faulty assumption that any team is definitely putting its Top 40 players on the 40-man. When it comes to adding these Rule 5 guys, especially, I don’t think it’s about who is better than who. It’s much more about determining WHO it is more likely they will lose in the draft.
For instance, it is not necessarily true that by putting McPherson on and leaving Adock off means that the Pirates think more highly of McPherson than Adcock. Instead, I assume it means the Pirates are more fearful that McPherson could get picked off in the Rule 5 Draft more likely than Adcock (which isn’t the same thing.)
I would think that their ages might play a part in this. If a team is going to have to keep a guy on their roster the whole year, and potentially have to throw him into a few games here or there, I would imagine they’d often be a little more inclined to keep a 22-year-old, than a 20-year-old, strictly from what holds more value in that roster spot.
My timing is exquisite...
After posting a fanshot w/links to my charts and complaining how nothing has happened, I log back in to find DFA movements. Who is next in line to be our 3B if Pedro falters? What FA pitcher do we sign to fill the void in the Zach/Zack slot in our rotation?
Ah, the irony of it all.
Why don't you knock it off with them negative vibes?!
I am confident the Bucs will sign a MLB UT infielder – they pretty much have to. As far as pitching, I am really hoping for a trade to take on some salary from a team that is looking to get rid of it. Garza seems like a good fit, but the FO should shop around and find the best value. There seems to be no value in FA starting pitching this season.
But tell the FO that a FA pitcher
has to be named Zack, Zachary, or some other version of that name, or my charts will never be the same….
Why don't you knock it off with them negative vibes?!
by Trogluddite on Nov 19, 2010 10:53 PM EST up reply actions
Duke
According to Jenifer Langosch of MLB.com, the Pittsburgh Pirates add Michael Crotta, Jeff Locke, Kyle McPherson, Daniel Moskos and Tony Watson to the team’s 40-man roster and in doing so, they have designated Zach Duke, Andy LaRoche and Delwyn Young for assignment.
GM Neal Huntington said that the Pirates tried to negotiate a contract with Duke, but were unsuccessful. The team felt that he was not worth what he would have made in arbitration (probably around $5 million). The club explored trade opportunities, but were unsuccesful.
LaRoche and Young also were eligible for arbitration.
by RichieHebner on Nov 19, 2010 10:47 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Even if they couldn't
work out a deal with, or a trade for Zach, why cut him now? Other fletsom and jotsom is clogging up our 40-man roster and will eventually be cut. There would still be a chance that some team with a weak rotation could suffer injuries or be unhappy with their options. Or we might be unhappy with our options. Having a Zach in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
I believe we’re a few weeks away from the deadline where we had to offer ZD arbitration.
Why don't you knock it off with them negative vibes?!
by Trogluddite on Nov 19, 2010 10:56 PM EST up reply actions
Well, technically
The early December deadline is to tender contracts to players like Duke who are arbitration eligible, not to offer arbitration(that’s applies more to free agent arbitration). Arbitration is only used if the two teams can’t come to an agreement, and even if they tender him a contract, it would be with the maximum 20% pay reduction allowable under the rules. Duke wouldn’t have been happy with that and would have asked for more, and they would have been forced to go to arbitration as a result.
I think the Pirates didn’t want to wait until early December to non-tender him because by DFA’ing him now, they have 10 days to trade, release, or outright him to the minors. Obviously, he won’t accept an outright assignment, so it’s either a trade or unconditional release(and he becomes a free agent).
There’s probably not much hope of a trade, seeing as how the source above said they already shopped him around, but you never know. Maybe some team offers a minor league player of little significance, which would be at least something in return. If they waited until early December to non-tender him, then they would get absolutely nothing in return at all.
Plus, if he’s released, they can then re-sign him to a minor league contract, unless another team comes by with a better offer. ;)
any chance the Pirates can still keep Kristen Duke?
by BadAndy on Nov 20, 2010 7:50 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Rule 5
Folks,
With McPherson being in A+ last year, would he have been in the AAA/AA Rule 5 Draft?
I’m aware that there are 2 different portions of the Rule 5 draft – the MLB portion and the minor-league portion. Does anyone know if McPherson would have had to be in the MLB portion, or the AAA/AA portion?
I mean, if they could have drafted in him the Rule 5 and put him in AAA instead of the majors, this would have made sense to protect him, right?
No, he only would have been eligible for the major-league portion. It’s really hard to lose a player with any sort of upside in the minor-league portion.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Nov 19, 2010 10:56 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure I understand your question...
…though I think you may be operating under a mistaken impression as to how the minor league phases of the draft work.
by Vlad on Nov 19, 2010 10:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
quite honestly
I’ve never paid attention to the minor league portion of the Rule 5 draft — what players are available in the minor league portion?
Any general explanation would be greatly appreciated.
by insane_sanity on Nov 19, 2010 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
Basically, organizations get to protect a huge number of players from each team, so the selections are mostly like, “Oh, our low-A team needs a utility infielder next year,” that kind of thing. The Pirates found a loophole a couple years ago where they could pick interesting players straight out of Latin America, but that approach really hasn’t born fruit. It’s really just a draft for organizational players. The Pirates did manage to lose Chris DeMaria, who actually became major leaguer, that way, but that’s just because Dave Littlefield really was that bad.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Nov 19, 2010 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
They also lost Henry Owens that way. He was actually a closer in the majors briefly, until injuries intervened.
Eligibility in the minor league phase is the same as the major leagues. Guys can be selected in the AAA phase if they’re not on the AAA roster, then repeat the process at the AA level. I forget what the roster limits for AAA and AA are, 23 maybe, but it’s usually not hard to protect the guys you need to protect. Most minor league phase selections, as Charlie says, are org. type players. The very few exceptions are Littlefield-type blunders.
Oh yeah, Henry Owens. Wow, was that a dumb player to lose in the minor league Rule 5. I can’t fathom losing, for absolutely no reason, a guy who throws that hard.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Nov 19, 2010 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
It was DL ...
that’s all you need to say.
No personnel matter was beyond his stupidity.
question
Charlie/WTM/Vlad:
The 40-man protects players from the ML Rule 5 Draft.
What protects them (or how many can be protected) from the minor league version?
by insane_sanity on Nov 19, 2010 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
Guys who are protected:
*Players on the 40-man roster.
*Players whose signing date makes them ineligible for the ML portion (i.e. five years for guys 18 and under on draft day of their signing year, four years for guys 19 and over).
*Players who at the time of the draft are assigned to a level equal to or higher than the name of the minor league phase in question (i.e. the AAA portion only allows you to select guys from AA or lower, and the AA portion only allows you to select guys from A+ or lower). Note that this is NOT the same as the highest level in which the players in question played – teams will often temporarily stash all their otherwise-eligible prospects at AAA until after the draft, then re-assign them to a more skill-appropriate level.
*Players who are unsigned, or under contract with independent or foreign leagues.
Eligibility for the minor league portions...
…is determined by signing date and roster position, just like the ML phase. For the AAA portion, you can take guys from AA rosters and below, and for the AA portion, you can take guys from A+ and below. Prior to the draft, teams temporarily transfer their best date-eligible prospects who aren’t on the 40-man roster to their AAA team, to make them ineligible for the minor league portions.
Once you take a guy in the AAA or AA portion of the draft, you pay a fee to the team that lost him, just like in the ML portion, although the fee is smaller. You aren’t under any restrictions as to where you can assign him, though – a player taken in the AAA portion can be sent to AA, or A, or short-season ball, or whatever you want, without any repercussions. He’s just your property.
As WTM and Charlie said, you will mostly see organizational players and space-fillers going in this phase, though occasionally a fringe prospect in a deep system will go. They mentioned Henry Owens below, as an example of such. Eugenio Velez (taken in the AAA portion in 2005) is another one who went on to have a reasonably substantial ML career.
thank you all
Thank you all for the clarification.
Vlad – I was missing the “teams temporarily transfer their best date-eligible prospects who aren’t on the 40-man roster to their AAA team, to make them ineligible for the minor league portions” piece - if that DIDN’T exist, and the Pirates would NOT transfer a player from A+ to AAA, he could be taken in the minor league potion…if he met the other requirements of Rule 5 eligibility, right?
by insane_sanity on Nov 19, 2010 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
Minor League Portion of the Rule 5 Draft.....
I went all around the internet looking for info on how the minor league portion of the Rule 5 draft works, and here’s what I can gather.
There are 2 phases to the minor league portion of the Rule 5 Draft: AAA & AA. The idea is supposed to be that players are drafted up a level. For instance, in the AAA level, you’re supposed to pick someone from the other team’s AA level and in the AA level you’re supposed to pick someone from somebody’s A rosters.
Players protected: everyone on the major league 40-man, players on the 38-man AAA reserve list (for the AAA phase) and players on the 37-man AA reserve list (for the AA portion). So basically, you’re talking about 115 players in your organization being protected!!
The team who loses a player receives $12,000 (AAA phase) and $4,000 (AA phase). Oddly, the players do NOT have to remain on the roster of the affiliate that picks them.
For instance, last year, the Pirates (well, actually Indianapolis) picked SS Rodolfo Cardona from the Baltimore Orioles Delmarva affiliate, but Cardona played the entire year down in Bradenton as he was not required to be on the Indy roster (which seems really strange to me).
Last year, 21 players were picked in the AAA phase.
4 players were picked in the AA phase (the Pirates didn’t pick anybody)
early look
Thanks to ElDuce’s link and looking around team pages, it appears that Kasey Kiker has been left off, although he probably wouldn’t stick on a ML roster all year, but the ceiling’s all there…
Matt Lawson, 2B Seattle- came over from Texas, has been left off too. He should start next year in AAA, so he’s def closer…
Somehow
I’m collecting players’ best (maybe*) games for the Pirates. I was at Duke’s infamous 8 2/3 innings game, which also happened to be the game Andy laRoche went 5-for-5 with two homers and two doubles. I attended a 3-hit shutout by Ollie Perez in his magic year, and many years ago I saw Zane Smith give up a hit to the leadoff batter and none the rest of the way.
*—I didn’t really research whether Duke had a better game, it makes a better story for me.
Drat
I had to look:
5/2/2006: 9.0 IP, 5 H, 1 BB, 0 ER, 2 K
9/5/2008: 9.0 IP, 6 H, 2 BB, 0 ER, 4 K
4/7/2009: 9.0 IP, 4 H, 2 BB, 0 ER, 5 K
My game: 8.2 IP, 4 H, 1 BB, 1 ER, 6 K
Still, arguably better than the six-hitter or the five-hitter.
Ooops, I have the date wrong
on the 2009 shutout, it was 4/13.
If the Zane Smith game was ths one, I was there too. Probably my all-time favorite baseball night at Three Rivers (as I was too young to appreciate the 1978-79 heroics…).
That's the one.
Great night. I have a hard time thinking of a better night at the ballpark either (except I went to a World Series win in 1971).
The extra inning no hitter
Not only was that an amazing game, with all the Freak Show relevance, but it was also a full house for Jackie Robinson Night. Best sporting event I’ve ever attended.
Not selling high on Duke after the 09 season is the biggest mistake with him. Now, there’s not much you can do. Dropping him is a minor mistake even now, and it could become, as Charlie says, even less consequential depending on who we sign this off-season.
by Adam Reynolds on Nov 20, 2010 12:42 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Actually,
I’m not so sure that dropping Duke was even a minor mistake now. In Jenifer Langosch’s article at MLB.com, she mentions a few things.
Adam, you mentioned that not selling high on Duke after the 09 season was a mistake. However, Langosch says:
Industry sources confirmed that in the Pirates’ attempts to trade Duke this offseason, none of the other 29 teams showed any interest. The sources said there was also no interest in Duke at the Trade Deadline and that no one asked about the cost of acquiring the left-hander last offseason either.
I mean it explicitly says that NO ONE asked about him last off-season. So I can’t call it a mistake that they didn’t trade him then.
It sounds like the Pirates have been willing to listen to offers for Duke for 2 years now, and the only time even a single team showed any interest was at the 09 trade deadline, and not ONE since then.
So, if not a single team in baseball has asked about Duke in the last year and a half, I can’t imagine there’s going to be too much interest in him as a free agent. In fact, I wonder if after Duke tests free agency, if no team offers him a contract, could the Pirates offer him a minor league deal, or a really small major league deal (under $2 million)?
That’s why I don’t think it’s even a minor mistake. They tried to move him. They tried to sign him to a contract. He would have received way too much in arbitration. It seems that he wants to test free agency. I’m not sure what more the Pirates could do, at this point.
Duke could get his $4-5 million just because the buyer’s market is weak. But certainly the evidence is damning that nobody wanted him in trade. And even the Pirates never cared for him much, given they spread around fat extensions to Snell, Doumit, Maholm, and Duke never got in on that.
by Adam Reynolds on Nov 20, 2010 9:16 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
2009 trade deadline
I remember NH saying it would take a gaggle of prospects to move Duke/Maholm in 09. That would imply there was some trade interest at that point
Or posturing ...
which is probably what it was.
Duke ...
will get a MLB deal. It’ll be for less than he would have gotten with the Pirates.
But I think he just wants out.
40-man roster
The guys I’m surprised are on the 40-man roster:
1. Diaz
2. Jaramillo
3. Burress
4. Crotta
5. Joe Martinez
6. Daniel McCutchen
7. Chris Leroux
I suspect three or four will be gone in the next week as the Pirates pick someone and sign a free agent or two.
Reports from the New York Pen(itentiary) League
says he’s been working on his change and his FB has been hitting 94 consistently.
by Wizard of Woz on Nov 20, 2010 9:11 AM EST up reply actions
Typed at 2:05 while checking on the kids ...
if I don’t have 10 misspellings late at night, it’s a decent post.
But it does show there is still plenty of garbage on the roster.
There are another five guys who could go without much anxiety.
That is a sad list of 40-maners
At least we won’t care too much about who we have to cut when we sign a few free agents.
Hector Gimenez has been added to the Dodgers 40-man roster. Not a big deal, but he might have played better than Jason Jaramillo.
by Adam Reynolds on Nov 20, 2010 9:11 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I watched him play last year
He’s head n shoulders over Jaramillo IMO…better arm plus a heck of a better swing…he was better that Kratz too w/ the bat…arm about the same.
you saw him play in altoona
not even in Indy. a guy his age SHOULD be fairly good in AA
by white angus on Nov 20, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
I see that BA...
indicates he has signed…but no indications that he has been added to the 40 man roster on the Dodgers MLB link or in the ESPN.com transactions.
It does raise the question of who will be doing the catching at Indy this season. Although that isn’t exactly an earth-shaking issue at this point of the offseason. We’ve had Kratz, Carlin and Gimenez all go their own ways. Guess we will be picking up an “organization man” (one that has almost no chance of making the majors) to catch at Indy, unless they are going to jump Sanchez over AA.
We all figured Duke would walk the plank.
He just wouldn’t be worth the money. There’s no reason to keep someone like him with the “D” we’ll probably have too.
Maybe his wife can film a good-bye/thanks a bunch CM that FSN plays sometimes to keep some here happy til the memory fades.
duke downfall
has always been a bit puzzling. I know that this past year, the loss of velocity didn’t help him.
Was it just that in his rookie year, he was getting away with a “first time around the league” smoke and mirrors? Were umpires for whatever reason giving him the corners, especially when he was pistol-hot (like how good hitters get benefit of the doubt on close pitches), and they started squeezing him in his second year, and thereafter when he was nibbling?
Was it Colborn’s “window cleaning”? He also messed with Maholm after PM’s solid rookie year, and he’s never been all that much since.
I’m a Pirate fan. I’m used to pitchers regressing, often in a spectacular way (hello, Ollie). Duke never had great stuff, even as he blew thru the minors. Did he just reach the point where he couldn’t get away with it any more?
I recall in his second year (I quit paying attention thereafter), he would almost invariably get lit up in either the first or fourth innings. So, either he had nothing to start the game, or he had just enough to get thru the other team’s lineup one time.
I never saw Duke pitch. I read about his knee buckling curve and the ability to set batters up brilliantly in his rookie year. Again – was that all just a mirage?
I’d love to see what others who’ve seen Duke pitch have to say. Were he and Maholm twin sons of different mothers (two big guys who couldn’t break a pane of glass)? It really doesn’t matter, I guess, but it’s always been curious to me.
duke's ability was not a mirage. its called batter's learning how he pitched and adjusted.
but this knee buckling curveball? ive never seen that either.
by white angus on Nov 20, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
I saw it,
and it was fookin’ wicked.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Nov 20, 2010 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
curveballs...
Duke, and Maholm for that matter, must rely on control…something NEITHER of them appear to have now. Too often both missed spots, unable to control the ball within the strikezone. It wasn’t these 2 guys alone, either. If you’re throwing mid-80s, you MUST control where the ball is placed. Hitting your spots allows you to better set-up the next pitch, and even the one after that.
One thing that REALLY has concerned me the past few years is these two pitchers pitching from the middle, or even the right-side, of the rubber. I don’t know what others think about that, but I don’t understand why they are both not throwing from the arm (left) side of the rubber. You create unfavorable angles for the hitters. Now Duke has a tendency to throw across his body, and it seems that rather than fixing THAT issue…they’ve moved him to the right on the rubber. That is the lazy fix. It seems that more and more pitchers, especially ours, are working from the middle of the rubber…and even the non-arm side of the rubber. Not a fan of that.
With respect to Duke vs. Maholm, at least Maholm goes after batters. He battles. Something about Duke, including his body language, makes me feel like he’s a sissy….puts his tail between his legs and is done (reminds me of what happened to Ian Snell — he went from “mean” on the mound…to a baby. I’ll never remember him patting Ryan Howard on the butt, WHILE ON THE FIELD, being all buddy-buddy with him).
by insane_sanity on Nov 20, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
Duke's mentality
The points in your last graf are interesting, and they kind of get back to what White Angus said about hitters adjusting. A pitcher with mental toughness adjusts, he doesn’t just give up. Of course, lack of control in the strike zone makes adjustments tough, I guess.
not only tough on the pitcher...
Lack of control also is tough on the defense — you can position players however you want…middle infielders can shift for pitch location and type…and if you miss your spot, it’s all for naught.
I really don’t know if any pitching stats/metrics are kept on pitchers hitting their spots, but I CAN tell you that from watching the games this year…Pirates pitching was BRUTAL. If you have swing-and-miss stuff, you can afford to miss in the zone sometimes. If you throw 85 and miss in the zone…it hurts bad more often than not.
by insane_sanity on Nov 20, 2010 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know....
I still think there’s some overmagnification of his bad games in peoples’ minds. I’m not saying he had a stellar 2010 by any stretch, but people are making it sound like he fell off of a cliff.
If his control was that bad….
Would he still have only given up 2 or less runs in 12 of his 29 starts last year?
Wouldn’t a lack of control also show up in walks? Despite 2 games in April where he gave up 4 walks, he never surpassed 3 in any other game last year.
Plus, for our minds, Duke’s worst games pretty much all came at the end of the year, when they are most on our minds: In his first 24 starts of the season, he only didn’t at least finish the 5th inning ONE time. In his last 5 starts, he didn’t make the 5th 3 times (talk about falling off a cliff.)
Obviously, he’s not a dominating pitcher, but I think he’s a little more dependable than we remember or give him credit for.
I agree partially...
impliedi: lack of control does not only show up in the walk column. If you’ve set up an outside fastball, but you catch the middle/inside of the plate…you’ve put the ball where the batter is expecting it. One “stat” that could really inflate is the BABIP, as your fielders are positioned for one thing and you deliver something else.
I’m not saying Duke was the only one either. When you don’t have strikeout stuff and you miss in the strikezone, you get hit…hard. You’ve heard of “mistake hitters”? Well they feast on the Pirates…too many spots got missed all season.
One good example (of a non-Pirate)? Cliff Lee vs. SF – his masterful control in the previous series was not there and he caught the middle of the plate too often — got hit hard when he did.
by insane_sanity on Nov 21, 2010 10:14 AM EST up reply actions
It really wasn't lack of control
His first year up…Duke’s wind up and delivery was unique…
If you guys remember, he used to throw across his body…more so than just about all MLB’ers. His fastball had tremendous movement down and away to righties…the delivery itself enhanced the sink/tail to his pitches. It also caused his curveball really “COME ACROSS” the lefties at quite an angle.
The buc’s pitching coaches changed his complete delivery for fear that he was an injury waiting to happen (from throwing across body). As usual, our beloved coaching staff proved to a liability once again.
When a guy’s thrown w/ the exact motion for many years…your shoulder/arm muscles are built/ strengthened in a way that sustains that motion…when they changed his delivery ect…he began having health issues…
His problem in 2010 was the sink and tail shrunk…along w/ velocity…and his curve wasn’t biting, it was a gravity break…he was hit hard…
video
Dan, if you search for video, you tube has a slow-mo video of Duke’s mechanics. He is in the middle of the rubber, throwing across his body.
I’m curious as to if he pitched from the arm-side of the rubber when he came up? Typically they’ll change where a pitcher stands on the rubber, esp. if they throw across their body, because they have a problem getting the fastball outside to LHB. I do recall him having great movement his rookie year.
by insane_sanity on Nov 21, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
insane
The first year he was up…he was 3/4 of the way to his pitching arm side on the rubber….that plus he threw much more across his body than he does now…I’d say his front foot landed an addl 8-12" toward first base side…he really threw against his body that rookie year.
These past few years they moved him closer to 3rd base (when his actual delivery takes place) and squared his body w/ the plate (less against his body).
The throwing across the body puts a natural sink/tail on a pitch… plus a huge factor most dont realize…I’ve played vs a few guys like this…the ball is really hard to pick up right away…it is hidden VERY well.
have to run now but I’ll add more later
absolutely
Dan,
You are pointing out EXACTLY the point I’m making: they’ve squared his boy with the plate + moved him to the 3rd base side! WHY?!?!?!?!
Even if they did square him up more, they should have moved him CLOSER to the 1st base side of the rubber! It would NATURALLY hide the ball from RHH more, and change the angle the ball is delivered to all LHH as well!
The closer your release point is to the center of the rubber, the better the hitters (from either side) can gauge where the ball is being worked. If he would work from the 1st base side of the rubber, and throw slightly across his body, he would have a 1st base-to-home angle on both the inside- and outside-corners of the plate.
I can’t say for sure, but I’ll bet that someone thought he was having problems pitching to the outside corner on LHH (inside to RHH), and to fix it they squared him up and moved him to the center (or 3rd base side) of the rubber.
It’s a shame – I don’t think a lot of people realize the advantage that pitching from the arm-side of the rubber gives to pitchers.
by insane_sanity on Nov 26, 2010 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
Except for his first year,
ZD was never less than 5 games below .500 in any season.
Just not worth $5MM, IMO.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
But to be fair....
I think the W-L record is much more of a reflection of the Pirates’ play, as a whole, then being completely Duke’s fault.
I think the problem with Duke is that because we’ve seen him for so long and expectations were a little but high, so his bad games were magnified. People have grown tired of him. And there’s so much alike between his career path & Maholm’s.
I still like Duke and I think when someone gives him a chance again, he’ll be a decent starter. I think there’s a tendency to forget, that while he was stellar in 2005, he also had pretty solid years in 2006, 2008 & 2009. The win-loss record was pretty bad (naturally), but he did have ERA’s of 4.47, 4.82, 4.06 in those years and WHIPs of 1.50, 1.497, & 1.315. This isn’t a terrible pitcher, he’s just not a top-of-the-line pitcher. Of course, 2007 & 2010 were just plain awful. But when you have decent numbers for 3 out of 5 seasons in the major leagues, I definitely think he’ll latch on somewhere and has a pretty good chance to be successful.
Also, find it interesting, that the 2 years where he had his lowest ERAs (not counting the rookie campaign), were the 2 where he pitched over 200 innings.
If the Duke of 2009 reappears, he’s probably worth 4-5 million in this crazy over-priced world of starting pitching.
If the Duke of 2009 reappears, he’s probably worth 4-5 million in this crazy over-priced world of starting pitching.
Just not to the Pirates
There ya go.
I’m as disappointed as anyone about Duke not being more successful, but the money doesn’t justify his performance – with the Pirates, as you note.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Nov 20, 2010 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
Duke
I hope he does well somewhere else. Maybe if goes to a pitcher’s park like San Diego or Seattle, then he will do OK. I don’t think he would do much with the Pirates’ defense behind him. Looking back, we should have traded him in mid-season 2009 when he had an ERA of 3.3 or so. Oh well.
But, is the roughly $5 million he would have gotten in arbitration going to go to Millwood or some other mediocre veteran? If so, then I would have rather kept Duke.
Anyone remember this in january 2010
I know A’s now have kouzmanoff an encarnacion at 3b, also arby eligible, and they offered 5 yr/$64 mill to beltre. But Beane loved laroche since he was with dodgers. I could see some back end 40 man roster, AAA SP like banwart or mortnensen offered
Since I’m (oddly) having trouble finding it on the web, does anyone know the exact date of the Rule 5 this year?
Same day it always is...
the last day of the Winter Meetings. In this case…December 9th.
There goes my favorite. Zach Duke is on strike now. The team Pirates has assigned Zach Duke along with Delwyn Young and Andy LaRoche in the roster to avoid the Rule 5 Draft. Zachy is surely going to pitch hard and real fast this time. He simply looks pumped up for the play offs.
Jordan: Questions to God
by christopoulosgeorge on Nov 21, 2010 10:32 AM EST reply actions
Obligatory DY comment
As has been noted above, there are a half dozen guys left on the 40 man who are undeniably less useful than DY; I wonder why he’d one of the ones who got cut. I suppose it may have to do with the timing of tendering and trading, as someone speculated for Duke above. But is DY due so much in arb that he wasn’t worth keeping/negotiating with? I agree he’s not worth much $$, but if he’s comfortably under a million, he seems useful enough a bench piece.
A mill is a tough line
Because that’s where you start to be able to pick up older bench players who can bring a better – or at least different – suite of skills. For $800k, I think the only way we do better than DY is pure luck (essentially a scrub having a career year), but for $1.1M, we can probably find a guy with less bat, but much more glove, who gives Hurdle more flexibility in exchange for a handful of offensive runs.
Is it still too early
to grade the Bay trade?
It's kind of funny
From Day 1, that was the real question, and 2.5 years later, we’re still waiting to find out.
It’s still not great – any contending team will happily trade even a pretty good SP 3+ years in the future for a lot of wins over the next 240 games. IOW, the Sox clearly won; if Morris turns out to be pretty good, then we will have not-lost.
Well, I'd still wait on Morris
But it wasn’t the best.
It’s ironic. The scouting community loved that deal at the time and hated the Nady trade.
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
