Trying to Close the Books on the 2008 Trades
by zogger on Nov 21, 2010 6:58 PM EST
Email
PrintIn mid-2008, the Bucs traded Jason Bay, Xavier Nady, and Damaso Marte for Andy LaRoche, Brandon Moss, Jose Tabata, Craig Hansen, Bryan Morris, Dan McCutchen, Jeff Karstens, and Ross Ohlendorf. Bay and Nady were to be FA at the end of 2009. For Marte there was an option for 2008 with him also eligible to be a FA after 2009. Basically the Bucs traded 3 players who they probably would not have kept after 2009 (maybe Marte after 2008) for 8 prospects.
As of Nov 2010, LaRoche and Moss are gone from the organization. Tabata is starting in LF and Ohlendorf is possibly the Pirates best starter for the last 2 years (yes you can argue about that!). Karstens is also in rotation and has pitched well at times. McCutchen looks like a spot starter and long relief but is not a key player. The other prospects have yet to establish themselves.
If we look at the salaries (some I had to guess at) and WAR for all the players in the trades since they were traded, the totals are:
Players Traded (Bay, Nady, and Marte): $22M for 9.6 WAR in 2 months of 2008 and all of 2009.
Players Obtained: $4.5M for .6 WAR in 2 months of 2008 and all of 2009.
So the Bucs would have won 9 more games (6 in 2008 and 3 in 2009) for ~$18M.
What about draft picks since Bay was a Type A FA? The Red Sox got Bryce Brentz (pick 36) and Brandon Workman (pick 57) for Bay. The Yankees got nothing for Nady or Marte, however the Pirates might have gotten at least one more pick.
Bryce Brentz is a corner OF with power. Brandon Workman is RH SP with a fastball in the 90-95 mph range with plus movement, average curve, and good control. These are both college players. The Bucs might have picked other players, but probably of the same quality. Brentz cost $892K to sign and Workman got $800K for a total of $1.68M. Add this to the $18M they did not pay Bay, Nady, and Marte for a total of ~$20M saved.
My summary? Winning a few more games in 2008 and 2009 would have meant nothing and it would have cost us $18M. Instead of two draft picks costing us $1.8M, we have a starting LF and two SP. I’d say having $20M in the bank and 3 players at the ML level was a good deal. Maybe you could make a case that the $20M was used to sign Alverez, Sanchez, Tallon, and Allie, etc.
I'd give Neal a thumbs up for these deals.
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.
114 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
unfortunately
the two SPs and the LF were all acquired in the Nady deal, so maybe it should be more like a thumbs up for that deal and a thumbs down for the Bay deal.
(I don’t personally think the Bay deal was bad, because I feel like you have to judge a trade based on how it appeared at the time.)
you have to judge a trade based on how it appeared at the time
Not at al. The purpose of trades is to make the team better in the long run, and can only be judged down the road. I understand your point, but so far the Bay deal has been terrible.
agreed.
The Nady trade has been, and continues to be, an excellent one.
The Bay trade has been very nearly been an unmitigated disaster, with only Bryan Morris remaining to redeem it.
That said, Morris could make up all that value by himself (since it’s beginning to look as though Bay’s best years are well behind him), but the chances of that are low. Hansen’s fate can’t really be blamed on NH, but then he wasn’t the major piece of the deal anyway.
Redeemed.
Morris could make up all the value by himself, but the chances of that are low? How do you figure? If Morris is an above average pitcher, as his stuff suggests, for 4-5 years, with 3 minimum salary seasons, that probably eclipses the 1 1/4 year Bay value, especially given salary. Even if Morris is merely league-average, you’re still probably beating one season of a poor left-field defender with probably the league’s worst throwing arm.
by Adam Reynolds on Nov 21, 2010 10:29 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I wish...
people would quit using “stuff” as a descriptor or predictor for an above average pitcher. You can have “great stuff”…but still be a terrible pitcher. See also… Morton, Charlie…Snell, Ian, and Perez, Oliver.
I wish… people would quit using "stuff" as a descriptor or predictor for an above average pitcher. You can have "great stuff"…but still be a terrible pitcher.
Which is exactly why “stuff” has value as a descriptive term. It gives us a way to talk about pitchers who aren’t currently good, but should be.
"Stuff"...
Is also kind of a baseline for being an above average pitcher. Having “Stuff” might not make you an above average pitcher, but it is much harder to be an above average pitcher if you dont have it.
by goodtymes31 on Nov 22, 2010 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
I was cleaning my room today
I have lots of stuff AND things. I guess I better get down to Bradenton
Hehehe.
“Have you noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?”
by IAPiratesFan on Nov 23, 2010 12:57 AM EST up reply actions
The chances are low
because frankly any pitcher who hasn’t yet pitched above AA has a low probability of putting up 5-6 WAR in their whole career. Morris looks good and could obviously put up much more than that, but there’s also a substantial probability that he gets hurt or never pans out.
Maybe my estimation isn’t correct, but I would say that even from a promising group such as the AA guys (Owens, Locke, Morris and Wilson) it is safe to bet that we’ll get one guy who reaches or exceeds his potential, one who is mediocre, or perhaps becomes a reliever of some value, and two who flame out or never exceed replacement value by much at all. Obviously it could turn out better than that, or worse than that, but that seems like the middle of the road expectation.
Redeemed.
Doesn't the possibility of Morris
make it a mitigated disaster at this point?
by MarkInDallas on Nov 23, 2010 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
correction
The purpose of trades is to make the team better in the long run, and can only be judged down the road.
This may be true for the Pirates … but for the Yanks and Sox it’s about the immediate. So I think epoc is right. At the time the Bay trade showed promise for both teams.
Overall since time has passed it appears Boston got the better of us, which should be kept in mind for future dealings with them.
by Pensburgh Pirates on Nov 22, 2010 8:24 AM EST up reply actions
right
from the Pirates point of view, those trades can only be judged around now… of course, teams that gota ML player, it was right then
by BurgherKing on Nov 22, 2010 10:10 AM EST up reply actions
The Sox also gave up Manny Ramirez
who was the best player in the whole trade. I think Moss and Hansen were more throw ins than anything else. LaRoche and Morris were supposed to be the key parts.
(I don’t personally think the Bay deal was bad, because I feel like you have to judge a trade based on how it appeared at the time.)
Appeared at the time to whom? I usually haven’t had a great look at the other team’s minor league prospects in the weeks and months before they were traded. If you have, then great. I’ve watched plenty of Pirates, other major league games, Altoona, and State College.
But other team’s minor league guys?
That’s why I think we have to judge the trade based on results. They’re battles between one team’s scouts and the other’s. The people working for each team have a front-row seat. They are most capable of seeing whether LaRoche or Alderson are damaged goods right before the trade, or whether they are strong bets to recover. Most fans, on the other hand, just see those types on top 100 lists from months or years beforehand. If you’ve seen everyone in a deal recently, then you’re in a much better position. But otherwise? I don’t know. It’s a good question.
by Adam Reynolds on Nov 22, 2010 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
They’re battles between one team’s scouts and the other’s.
It’s not much of a battle. The team trading prospects has an enormous advantage because they see the player every day and know everything that’s going on with him. An opposing team isn’t likely to have scouting reports covering more than a handful of games. If you’ve got a scout covering, say, the Florida State League (and I doubt most teams have one scout devoting all his time to each of the 16 leagues in the US), that means he’s going to see each team maybe a dozen or so times. Each starting pitcher on each opposing team he’ll see 2-3 times, and that’s only if the pitcher stays healthy and in the same league all year. It’s not like you know in April that you’re going to be discussing a deadline trade with a particular team. At most, you may have a few days to send somebody out to look at a potential trade partner’s prospects. There’s a huge informational disparity between teams in prospect trades.
The Bay trade is going to turn out terribly regardless of what Morris does, unless he becomes a number two starter or something really great like that.
Bay was a premier hitter at an important offensive position. He has a lot more value than what the Pirates got for him. Hansen and Moss were both lousy and hard to see being successful at the times they were acquired. Morris had a lot of upside and still looks fine, and LaRoche seemed like a reasonable piece. He’s since turned into the same disaster that Moss and Hansen are.
Hansen and Moss were both lousy and hard to see being successful at the times they were acquired.
That’s not true. Hansen was a mess by then, but Moss had hit 291/348/456 in brief time with the Red Sox. He looked like he’d be an OK starter or very good 4th OF.
+1
I was vacationing on “the Cape” (said w/my best William F. Buckley airs) at the time of the trade and the Boston papers and airwaves were upset with the loss of Moss. At worst, they felt they had lost a valuable future OF/4th OF. Many felt he should have been called up to replace Manny.
Why don't you knock it off with them negative vibes?!
Hansen ...
still had value then.
He looked like if he could be a possible closer if he cleaned up his mechanics.
He may not have been a key piece. But he was a nice throw-in who, unfortunately, has a rare medical condition.
still dont see why we are still talking about the Bay trade
honestly, 2 1/2 years ago. cant we just move on already?
it is weird
how much Pirate fans talk about whether or not the trades they made were good. Twins fans don’t talk about how terribly the Santana trade worked out every couple of weeks. Mariners fans don’t talk about the Bedard trade all the time. I think Pirate fans are so desperate to win that it seems a matter of dire consequence to determine whether or not NH is a good enough GM to field a winner; hence, the constant analysis and re-analysis of his moves, especially the big ones
im just really amazed that even after 2 1/2 years that they still dont realize
that the pirates were never going to recieve a huge star in return for Bay. they constantly chime in that we shouldnt ever trade talent for “prospects” even though Bay was a prospect the PIRATES traded for!!! arghhhhh!!!!!!!!!! enough!!!
by white angus on Nov 21, 2010 11:15 PM EST up reply actions
thats not the argument at all
the argument is that the Pirates should trade Bay for prospects, but they should pick them correctly.
And 3/4ths of the return has been washed out…
In any case, as I argued before too, this is, in fact, the right time to evaluate a trade that was made for prospects.
by BurgherKing on Nov 21, 2010 11:18 PM EST up reply actions
but it was 2.5 years ago. we should let it rest now.
look at what the twins got for santana. absolutely nothing. look at what the marlins just got for uggla. the pirates got 4 players for 1 whom was going to leave the pirates no matter what. at the time of the trade, it looked like a good one. it didnt pan out. it happens more often than one would think.
When you take prospects you are picking guys with a 50-80% chance of making the bigs, in most cases. Sometimes ending up on the short side of those odds is just bad luck. Not that a player didn’t have talent, it just didn’t work out once he moved up. It is just like when we say a prospect has great “stuff”. Stuff is a good predictor of future success, but not a gaurentee. If the guy never puts it together then the stuff doesn’t matter.
Sometimes looking back at these trades is like looking back at a poker hand. If you go all in with KK and get beat, you have to assess the move at the time, not the result. It was a good move if you were pretty sure the other guy didn’t have AA. An even better move if you KNOW he doesn’t have AA. Sometime you will still lose to 7-2, but you’ll take those odds every time.
by Wizard of Woz on Nov 22, 2010 9:30 AM EST up reply actions
unlike Poker
you aren’t playing against someone… well, you’ll be compared to someone, but that isnt really the game. When trading someone like Bay, you know what the other team is getting with reasonable certainty. It’s only your return that’s in doubt, because you’re picking prospects, who are quite likely to bust. So, the trick is to choose well.
by BurgherKing on Nov 22, 2010 10:12 AM EST up reply actions
and from what ive read
not many teams were pushing us to add Bay to their roster. same thing as adam laroche. boston didnt even try to resign bay, they would rather have mike cameron and his glove.
by white angus on Nov 22, 2010 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
that may or may not have been the case
IIRC, NH openly admitted to there having been a better deal on the table, in hindsight…
Also, what Boston did 1.5 years down the road is a different question altogether, at which point too, there was at least one other team willing to pay a big chunk of money to Bay.
In any case, it’s good that you appear to have shifted from the stance that the trade is not worth discussing now.
by BurgherKing on Nov 22, 2010 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
lol @ not worth discussing
tricked me, ya bastid!!!!
by white angus on Nov 22, 2010 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
IIRC, NH openly admitted to there having been a better deal on the table, in hindsight…
He was talking about the deal we tried to make with Cleveland (Bay and Paulino for Lee, Gutierrez, and Shoppach), which was killed by Coonelly.
So while there technically was a better deal that we turned down, it wasn’t a deal that was still on the table at the time we dealt Bay to Boston.
Oh, sure.
It’s just not a particularly relevant consideration when determining whether the Bay package that we accepted was the best offer on the board or not. It’s not like we could go back in time and retroactively accept the Indians’ offer. We had to pick the best of the deals that were in front of us, or take our outfielder and go home.
Listen to what I am saying:
Within the scope of the specific topic under discussion (i.e. whether or not the Boston/LA offer was the best one on the table), it is not a relevant consideration. You were responding to a specific post where white angus said, “not many teams were pushing us to add Bay to their roster”. At the time of the Bay trade, Cleveland was no longer pushing to add Bay. As such, they weren’t an option for us, regardless of what they had offered us at a distant point in the past. We couldn’t just revisit their old proposal and retroactively accept it. We had to go with the offers that were being made at that time, or keep Bay if we decided that none of them were sufficient.
not sure why i should care about your arbitrarily defined scope
if we want to evaluate the management on the trade, we should be evaluating the decision they made.
Further, did anyone come out and say the better deal available was the one with Cleveland? Or is that another assumption that fits in?
I am not the one...
…who arbitrarily defined the scope of the discussion. Angus was, when he made the remark in question, and you implicitly agreed to his framing when you replied to his comment without changing the terms of the discussion.
It was never explicitly stated that the better deal was the Cleveland deal, but…
a) There isn’t a person alive who, in hindsight, would not prefer the Cleveland package.
and
b) Huntington’s quote referred to a better deal in the singular, not better deals in the plural.
QED…
lol @ QED
You have many assumptions- if you want to use QED, you really want to add that it’s QED in your opinion…
Your argument is terribly hole-y.
Here’s a quote from Huntington: (Link)
As we look at other deals on the table, there was probably one other deal that we looked back on that in hindsight would have been a better deal.
Huntington is referring to deals on the table at the time.
Wanna retract your QED, and rework the proof?
Huntington is referring to deals on the table at the time.
I don’t see how that follows from the quote in question. Are you saying that in hindsight, there was another known offer that was even better than the Cleveland one? I can’t think of which one it could possibly be.
he is referring to other deals on the table, and one of them as being better. It seems likely that he is referring to deals on the table at the point in time when he pulled the trigger on another deal.
Are you saying that in hindsight, there was another known offer that was even better than the Cleveland one?
I am not. There is no reason for all deals to be known. It’s quite possible that there were deals that were unknown, or perhaps, even a known one, just that not all the details were known.
I was simply pointing out that its very far from being proven that there was no better deal than the Cleveland offer.
also
neither myself nor white angus specified the timeline under discussion as being after the Bay trade, so I have no clue as to why you keep bringing it up. It’s not relevant to my reply to white angus, and isn’t particularly relevant to the entire topic of the Bay trade.
clarification
my first reference to the Bay trade in the above comment refers to the actual Bay trade as it happened.
The second reference (the last 2 words in the above comment) refers to the concept of Bay being traded
neither myself nor white angus specified the timeline under discussion as being after the Bay trade, so I have no clue as to why you keep bringing it up.
If you re-read his remarks, there is no other possible timeline to which he could be referring. He explicitly referred to “2.5 years ago” twice, and then talks about his belief that “not many teams were pushing us to add Bay to their roster”. Other than Cleveland, NO other teams were pushing to add Bay in the 2007-2008 offseason, so if he were talking about that time, his use of the plural would be nonsensical.
yes he was
although he was hardly talking about it from the perspective of evaluating the trade.
In any case, you seem to be referring to bringing things up from 6 months back as unacceptable on a discussion forum, which is funny (not that I brought it up in the first place!)
im not saying its unacceptable
im saying that anyone whom has anything bad to say about the pirates always brings up to same old ass stories. if someone is going to bitch, find some new $#@! to bitch about. thats all.
i was referring to Vlad in the comment
but in any case, one of the biggest positives of the current FO is that there have been fewer and fewer things to bitch about…
The Bay trade, too, is not a very obviously bad one, even though it seems to be turning out that way. It’s defensible…
Vlad
I think that quote is open to interpretation.
I tend to believe he was talking about the TB offer.
If not, he has guts slamming FC.
I know my boss would be pissed ...
if I said that.
Atlanta, NY, Boston, TB, FL and the Dodgers ...
were all linked to Bay.
There was plenty of interest.
interest and actual pursuit are two different things
the only trade i heard about was the deal with the indians for lee, shoppach and gutierrez, which FC shot down. lots of teams showed “interest”, hell thats what the pirates are doing right now. doesnt mean an actual deal is in place
by white angus on Nov 22, 2010 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
Other than the Cleveland negotiations, which occurred at a different time, I don’t remember rumors of serious negotiations with any team other than the Rays and the Sox/Dodgers. I don’t remember any rumors that the Dodgers wanted Bay for themselves. I recall some vague rumors about the Marlins, but they were unwilling to part with any of their top prospects. The Mets at the time had only one prospect (F-Mart) who was worth anything and he was off-limits.
WTM
Remember that the Yankees wanted Bay, not Nady, but choose to go with the one with the lower pricetag.
Atlanta thought it had a deal in place.
Florida also went back and forth on a deal. Essentially, the deal fell apart of money, not prospects from the reports I’ve seen.
Bay was not Jack Wilson.
The Yankees want everybody who has a 3-for-4 day.
What was the Atlanta trade that supposedly was in place? And the Florida deal?
Bay was not Jack Wilson.
Really? But they looked so much alike after Jack got his teeth fixed . . . .
WTM
Here is a story from DK about the Bay trade offers. It doesn’t have everything. But it’s a nice overview.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08214/901137-63.stm
Living in Birmingham, I heard the Braves say that they had a deal in place but FC killed it.
I think it’s the one Vlad links to above.
wow
Huntington sounded plenty satisfied with the Pirates’ take - and that was echoed by most national analysts, unlike with the Nady-Marte trade -————- talk about backasswards, eh?
Actually.
I’m sure if you asked Jeff Pearlman, he still hates the Nady trade….
by IAPiratesFan on Nov 23, 2010 1:09 AM EST up reply actions
So the Marlins’ main interest was grubbing money from the Red Sox, hence:
Doubts were raised as to whether Florida was serious in its negotiations
And Atlanta backed out, the Rays refused to part with any of their top four prospects, and the other teams who called never made serious offers. Sounds like the Pirates were inundated with a one-team flood of serious suitors.
WTM
I think that’s one interpretation. Not the right one.
Atlanta, for example, told NH to screw off after the outlines of a deal were in place and he backed out.
Vlad notes above that the Ray offer is open to lots of speculation.
The Marlins had significant talks for a few days. Then they backed out because of $2 million. That’s not to say that they wouldn’t have made the deal had Boston agreed.
As for the other teams, the Bucs wanted Rasmus from St. Louis.
I’m not sure we’ll ever know all the deals.
But I think you make it sound like there was no interest in Bay.
And I don’t believe that is the case.
The Marlins had significant talks for a few days. Then they backed out because of $2 million. That’s not to say that they wouldn’t have made the deal had Boston agreed.
As noted below, money was emphatically not the only sticking point w/r/t the Marlins. They, too, were reluctant to surrender any top prospects for Bay.
Reluctant to ...
is a different thing from “never will.”
I just wish I knew the deal being discussed and what would have happened if Boston had ponied up the money.
There are also other reports that say money was the key issue.
Obviously, it’s not clear.
Just like it’s not clear what TB players were on the table.
Oh, sure, there was interest, but from everything I’ve been cited to it looks like teams that were hoping the Pirates just wanted to dump Bay’s salary and didn’t care about the return.
And if this trade with Atlanta was so great, where are the details? The only proposal I’ve seen is the one Vlad recounted, which was an awful trade for the Pirates. I have yet to see any evidence that, other than the earlier Cleveland offer, any team made any offer that was remotely competitive with what NH ultimately got.
WTM
I’m agreeing with you that it was a bad deal with Atlanta.
I love outside Atlanta. The players Vlad cites are the ones. There were some other iterations but nothing dramatically better.
But after there were reports of a tentative deal, which seems to be accepted here, the Braves would not “increase” their offer because they felt a deal had been agreed to but blocked by ownership.
Angus
TB was aggressive.
NY was aggressive.
Atlanta thought it had a deal.
Florida thought it was part of a three-way deal.
nope-ity nope nope nope
not buying into it. ALL teams knew bay was being made available. PLENTY of teams enquired about him. BARELY ANY actually put up or shut up.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08214/901137-63.stm
Check this out Angus.
There was at least modest interest, I think.
My inner 12-year-old
is giggling at “3-way.”
Sorry.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Nov 22, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
Let's look at those one at a time:
We already know what Boston and LA were willing to give up, based on the deal that actually came together. LA was extremely reluctant to go even as far as they went, and Boston was only interested in Bay if they were able to move Manny at the same time. Tampa’s package included Niemann, and may or may not have also included Brignac (reports have been published both ways on that one). Florida wasn’t willing to give up substantial prospects – they backed out after we asked for Stanton and Tucker. Atlanta’s offer was pretty crappy – Locke, Brandon Jones, Brent Lillibridge, and Concepcion Rodriguez. I’m not sure which NY team you’re talking about, but I never heard anything about either the Yankees or Mets being particularly serious about Bay at the deadline.
So I’m really not seeing a lot to rue there. Brignac-and-Niemann might be a better package, assuming that it was on the table at all, but Niemann was an extremely risky acquisition at the time due to his history of arm problems, and any fair accounting of the trade would have to include that risk.
I thought the reporting after the deal finally went through was that, not only weren’t the Rays willing to part with Brignac and Niemann, they actually weren’t willing to part with either.
Despite the fact that they’ve often been in the position the last few years of having a very good team with a couple key holes, and despite having plenty of high-end minor league talent, the Ray’s current FO has never made a big prospects-for-vet type deal. They’re even talking now about not wanting to trade any of their pitching depth to fill the holes in their lineup. This is not a team that trades its good prospects.
I believe the best offer was from Atl
though I dont know who was involved…but I believe that was what NH was referring to.
A good friend works for ESPN in ATL…he said the Braves were shocked that the bucs took the 3 way over their offer…again he didn’t even know the players involved.
Maybe it was the Cleveland offer…unfortunantly we’re not mind readers…I’d love to have known who ATL was offering thou.
Thanks..didn't see it before
that’s a bunch of garbage offered…I wonder why atl brass would think the buc’s would jump at it…
though being blunt, I watched enough Laroche and Hanson to know those two hadn’t a chance…and Lillibridge who we traded previously was well thought of … either way, both deals were pretty much crap IMO.
Atlanta "offer"
That was no offer. That was more like the “our competitors” segment of a “Can You Hear Me Now?” commercial.
Vlad
I’ll find a link later. But the Yankees pursued Bay before Nady.
The names never leaked. But there are reports that they wanted Bay more.
Florida, the articles I read have Florida backing out over money, not $s. If you have a link, please provide it because, as we know, my memory fails.
Atlanta’s offer was terrible.
FInally, I’m not sure we know what TB’s final offer was. I think it probably was Brignac and Niemann. But it’s hard to judge that one without knowing.
Re:Florida
Multiple sources with knowledge of the talks said Thursday that Boston, Florida and Pittsburgh so far have not been able to advance the general parameters of a deal they on which they worked much of Wednesday night and Thursday morning. It is believed that part of the hangup is that the Marlins steadfastly refuse to part with two of their top prospects, outfielder Mike Stanton and pitcher Ryan Tucker. -Scott Miller, CBS Sportsline, 7/31/08
Got to love ...
that passive voice “it is believed that part of the hangup.”
I think the $2 million above was a bigger issue.
But that’s certainly not definitive.
There are lots of other sources...
…saying that Stanton and Tucker were the hangup. This was just the first one I found.
I know
That’s why it is harder than hell to evaluate NH and how the Bucs did.
I know it’s easy to say now, but I did like the Cleveland deal at the time because I thought Lee would be a solid #2 in the National League. I had no idea what he’d become.
Oh well!
By the way, I signed on yesterday looking for the Rule 5.
When is the ETA? That’s a must-read and I’ve been promoting it for you.
It's up.
I tried to do nice writeups (with video!) for the guys this year, which was probably a mistake, because it took a lot longer than I wanted/expected. And now I’m going to be out of town for the entire holiday, starting about noon tomorrow, and unable to answer any questions about players.
One of these days, I really need to buckle down and get my shit together…
Vlad, WTM
You really do a good job and it’s appreciated.
Much like WTM’s draft profiles are really useful.
One of these days ...
I need to stop being the lazy commentator and write a piece.
I only worked as a journalist for eight years.
I’ll find a link later. But the Yankees pursued Bay before Nady.
They were interested in acquiring an outfield power source, for sure, but I never heard about them making a concrete offer for Bay. And even if they did, what are the odds that it would’ve been more beneficial to us than the package they surrendered for Nady?
Depends on whether ...
the prospects being discussed were Kennedy, Jackson, Chamberlain or Hughes.
Based on what NH asked the Cards for, Rasmus, I suspect that he wanted one of them plus more back.
Not saying it was realistic.
Just speculating based on the limited information out there.
I read repeatedly at the time that the Yankees weren’t offering any of those guys to anybody. They later softened up on Kennedy because he started looking less and less good, and on Jackson because they were thrilled to get a good centerfielder.
I think you are right
I do think the Pirates could have gotten Kennedy or Jackson for Bay.
I think the Yanks would have flinched at the deadline.
Just speculation.
But once they got Nady, there really was no need to come back (other than to stop Boston from getting him).
could have doesnt mean would have
most of the trade you are talking about sounds like it make have been initiated by NH, and not the other teams. rasmus, stanton, etc… thats whom the Pirates wanted, and thats probably where the talk ended as well.
by white angus on Nov 22, 2010 10:53 PM EST up reply actions
Probably
Though I still think the Bucs could have done better.
the poker analogy
is an excellent one. In both cases, you are dealing with a certainty about your own hand and an uncertainty about your opponent/partner’s. You make your decision based on an accounting of the odds, and whether or not it ends up working out for you is beside the point.
You can evaluate a poker hand after the fact and say, “It sucks that my KK got beat heads up by 7-8 suited,” but you shouldn’t say based on the results, “I shouldn’t have gone all in with KK.” Similarly, you can say about a trade after the fact, “That deal didn’t work out for us,” but you shouldn’t say based on the results, “I shouldn’t have done that.”
because those trades
were made with an eye 2.5-3 years down the road. If anything, it makes more sense to talk about it now than it did then…
by BurgherKing on Nov 21, 2010 10:57 PM EST up reply actions
Just My Point!
Thanks BurgherKing for seeing my point. SOme trades are made to impact now, other in a few years. These trades were done to get prospects now who could help us sooner and alos save $s that could be spent to sign draft picks.
While the trades overall were OK, your analysis is very weak. According to your logic, any trade that saved money would have been acceptable, since no two players could have brought us into contention.
Not What I was Trying to Say!
I was not trying to say that any trade that saved money was OK, just that when you look at the results now we did get 3 ML players for 3 ML players plus saved $s we could spend to sign quality draft picks. And the impact on our overall record was minimal.
FA considerations
Jason Bay was to be a FA at the end of 2009 and no amount of money would have kept him losing in the ’burgh
The FO
got something for Bay other than one more year of service. FWIW
Well yeah...
And the Red Sox got Anthony Ranaudo and Brandon Workman for him in the draft. I wonder if the Pirates would have been better off letting him leave through free agency and getting the two draft picks for him.
by IAPiratesFan on Nov 23, 2010 1:27 AM EST up reply actions
We could trade Morris right now for 2 low A prospects if we really wanted. That should answer your question…
not sure of this
rather not sure of the quality of low A prospects.
Ranaudo might already be able to do what Morris is doing. Or do in 1 year, in any case…
by BurgherKing on Nov 23, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
I think "might" is the key word
Someone would do the trade because Morris is already doing what others are “projected to do”. Just like we would trade Taillon and Kingham for the David Price of a year ago.
heh
as IAPF points out, what they got didnt need to be what its turned out to be. Morris could make it still work, but that they got “something” is a silly argument…
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
