Pirates Were Right Not to Keep Old Players
by Charlie on Feb 18, 2010 10:33 PM EST
123 comments
It's not a big deal, but this piece in State College's paper, whether it's supposed to be a piece of journalism, or an editorial, or what, is kind of amazing, from the sarcastic headline all the way through.
Coonelly is difficult to detest, even if his team makes some curious moves. The Pirates could have started 2010 with an outfield of Andrew McCutchen, Jason Bay and Nate McLouth, and infield of Adam LaRoche, Freddy Sanchez, Jack Wilson, Pedro Alvarez and Ryan Doumit. Bay, McLouth, LaRoche, Sanchez and Wilson now play elsewhere. No matter how many homers he cracks in spring training, Alvarez will begin this season at Triple-A for financial reasons.
Well heck, if this is the game we're going to play, then forget McLouth--the Pirates could have started 2010 with an outfield of Bay, McCutchen and Barry Bonds, who had about as good a chance of sticking with the Pirates until now as Bay did. I bet Bonds could still hit some homers!
Even after that, there's so much going on in that paragraph that it's hard to know where to start. One might point out that the Cipriano could have written the same paragraph back in 2004 about how the Pirates could have started the season with Brian Giles, Jeff Suppan, Scott Sauerbeck and Jason Christiansen on their team. But they didn't, because even Dave Littlefield knew enough to go through the motions of trading way older players on a bad team to get new ones who might one day help the team contend. That's just Running A Bad Team 101. It's not rocket science. Littlefield flunked all the other courses (except 363: Advanced PR Technique, and 426: Awesome Hair), but at least he appeared to remember the principles of 101 for his first couple of years.
Or one could point out that the reason most of those players got traded was because they weren't good enough to form the core of a competitive team. Or one could make the obvious point that keeping all those players would have been extremely expensive, based on the contracts to which they're now signed:
| Player | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
| Jason Bay | $15 mil. | $16 mil. | $16 mil. | $16 mil. | $17 mil. ($3 mil. buyout) |
| Freddy Sanchez | $6 mil. | $6 mil. | |||
| Adam LaRoche | $4.5 mil. | $7.5 mil., $1.5 mil. buyout | |||
| Jack Wilson | $5 mil. | $5 mil. | |||
| Nate McLouth | $4.5 mil. | $6.5 mil. | $10.65 mil. ($1.25 mil. buyout) | ||
| Ryan Doumit | $3.55 mil. | $5.1 mil. | $7.25 mil. ($.5 mil buyout) | $8.25 mil. option |
Just for the record, I think that McLouth, LaRoche and Doumit are worth their contracts. And the price of this bunch in 2010 is manageable. But all of them (depending on how you look at LaRoche's contract) are guaranteed money in 2011. Sanchez and Wilson are already arguably pretty close to their expiration dates now. Of the others, Doumit still plays for the Pirates, not even the Huntington-is-Lucifer crowd cares about losing LaRoche, and the Bay deal is the sort of massive stinker that can ruin a team like the Pirates for years, even if they raise their payroll. That leaves McLouth as the only guy there's any kind of case for here, and that's even before considering the players the Pirates got in return for those who departed, or the question of who would have been willing to re-sign with the Bucs in the first place.
I understand fans have strong connections to some of these players. When I see McLouth in a Braves uniform, it still feels weird. But mostly I'm glad to move on to something new, and my connections to the old guys aren't that strong, because frankly, they weren't that good, and mostly I just associate them with losing game after game. The way some folks pine for these guys is kind of strange, as if 2008 were some golden era of Pirates baseball.
Also, there is no reason to craft some kind of conspiracy theory for the reason Alvarez is likely to start the year in AAA. He'll be there because he hasn't played there, and because it's generally incredibly stupid to rush prospects through the minors, no matter how talented they are. And if the Pirates were holding Alvarez in AAA for two months for financial reasons while beginning what's likely to be a non-contending season, I'd admit it, because frankly I don't think that's bad business practice.
* * *
Sorry to those of you who posted in the Joe Sheehan thread, which I removed because, as some of you figured out pretty quickly, the Joe Sheehan who works for the Pirates does not appear to be the same Joe Sheehan who wrote for Baseball Prospectus. I decided it wasn't worth it to keep such a FAIL pasted to the front page. Sorry about that, and thanks to those of you who did the detective work. Relatedly, you should go vote for Bucs Dugout in the Pittsburgh Sports Blog Tournament, because this site is unerringly accurate and would never steer you wrong.
0 recs |
123 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
This is a great post, Charlie.
Not to be too Branch Rickey-esque, but the Pirates can finish last with or without players like the ones they’ve traded. Until NH has his core — the right core — players will be traded.
I can see it now, circa July 2010: Tyler Yates is traded for an A-ball left fielder.
“Prospects!? We don’t need no stinkin’ minor leaguers. We’ll be lucky if this kid turns into half the warrior Tyler Yates was! I’M DONE WITH THIS TEAM!!!”
—random yinzing Bucs fan.
Don't Forget
The Pirates also could have started a rotation of Paul Maholm, Zach Duke, John Van Benschoten, Virgil Vasquez and Kris Benson!
Honestly?
Bay in 2010? We’re supposed to be able to have resigned him? I think even if we offered him as much money as anyone else he would have chosen another team.
Jason
The Hanging Curve
It is hard to know that we could have had that roster going into this year, but at the same time we basically did have that roster, and they could never put it together consistantly to win enough games to make a playoff push let alone actually make the playoffs.
I personally think we could have, and should have kept a few of the older players around instead of having a complete fire sale. If you look at our lineup now, and the holes it has they were’nt exactly holes before the trades. I feel like we traded to many players away for strengths we already had, and organizational depth…
Obvisouly in hind sight the Nady deal was a no brainer, and a steal for the Pirates. All along I thought we should have given Bay a long term deal, and looking back I still think we should have; trading him away for Moss, and Laroche when we already had Walker, and Alvarez in the system at third was stupid I thought. The deal for McClouth was fine with me, because I don’t believe hes going to keep up the success, and I really like Morton. The Jack, and Freddy trades to me were pretty much pointless; I really like Alderson, and his upside, but think that we did’nt get enough in return for either. I would’ve liked to see us make all the other trades minus the Bay, Wilson, and Freddy trades. Those 3 were the biggest fan favorites and it would’ve been nice to see an outfield of Bay, McCutchen, Tabata/G.Jones, and an infield of Doumit, Alvarez, Jack, Freddy, and anybody other than Adam Laroche at first…..
In fairness though I really just did’nt like the Jack, and Freddy trades…I really like what those 2 had going with team chemistry, and locker room guys. We could’ve batted them 7th, and 8th with any production we got out of their bats would’ve been a plus…I don’t know that Ian Snell was as bad as everyone made him out to be…hes the first guy in Pittsburgh that actually cared about winning for a change…watch for him to have a big year in Seattle.
by FusilliJerry88 on Feb 18, 2010 11:45 PM EST reply actions
I can't beleive I'm typing this...
But the more I think about it, the more I think maybe Adam LaRoche was the one guy we should have kept. As we sit here today there is still a gaping hole at first base, and it’s not like we got anything for him anyway…
At the same time I am looking forward to seeing Clement. Seeing as how he hasn’t failed miserably yet I still have some hope…but then again that’s the way I feel about this entire team every spring…
I should clarify...
Even if we kept him for most of 2010 and traded him this year to avoid paying him 7.5 next year, I still don’t see us getting much less than we got for him in the first place. At least we could have had a decent 1B for 2010. And who knows, maybe he hits in April and May…
" And who knows, maybe he hits in April and May…."
Thats the same line of thinking that keeps me playing the lottery twice a week. =)
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Feb 19, 2010 12:43 AM EST up reply actions
Lets put it this way
I’ll take the LaRoche hits in April and May odds over the Argenis Diaz finds a role on the Pirates odds. Truth be told, I don’t care that LaRoche is gone, but I think out of all the players traded you could make the best case for keeping him around in 2010.
Maybe I’ve had a bit too much to drink though…
Some projections such as CHONE prefer Clement’s bat over LaRoche. Plus, while we can probably write off Argenis Diaz, Strickland is still a bit of a sleeper. Young and low Ks but very good control as well.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 19, 2010 1:11 AM EST up reply actions
I like Clement as much as the next guy...
But I would hate to see him rushed into a job at first base if he isn’t ready for it. I don’t doubt that his bat could play better than LaRoche, but that’s not really what I’m worried about. To take it a step further, I wouldn’t mind seeing us go north with Church in RF and Jones at 1B either. It just seems like Clement is being penciled in barring a catastrophic failure in spring training.
I wanted LaRoche out of here just as much as the next guy last year, but in hindsight I wouldn’t mind if we held onto him either.
As former president of the Chris Duffy Fan Club
and despiser of all things lottery-related, I give this comment a big +1.
Thanks
You might get along well with my brother-in-law…..former president of the Ian Snell fan club.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Feb 19, 2010 7:28 PM EST up reply actions
I think
There’s no point in keeping an option that is giving you 2.5 WAR when you have 2 options that have a good chance of giving you more than either in that year or next year. Between Clement and Garrett Jones, there’s an excellent chance that first base is going to give us more than Adam LaRoche gives the Diamondbacks. Point is, we already know who Adam LaRoche is. He’s a guy that gives you between 2-3 WAR. We need someone to give us 4-5 WAR at first base. Who cares if we lose a half game more in 2010?
by MarkInDallas on Feb 19, 2010 1:55 AM EST up reply actions
We could have batted them both..
7th and 8th for maybe 80-90 games per year. I understand your point but I personally liked both of those trades. We were able to get Iwamura who I think will make us forget Freddy. I do think we will miss Jack and wouldn’t mind having him around for a couple of years but it was obvious he wanted out of Pittsburgh if Freddy wasn’t staying.
“it would’ve been nice to see an outfield of Bay, McCutchen, Tabata/G.Jones,…”
As many others have pointed out, there was no way in hell that Bay was going to sign with the Pirates after he became a free agent, so why even talk about it? Even if that was a possibility, do you really think he’s worth $20 million to the Pirates this year? I really like Jason Bay, but he’s just not that good, and it’s highly probably that he’s not going to get better.
" (Snell) was the first guy in Pittsburgh that actually cared about winning for a change…"
I’m pretty sure that’s not remotely true, but, if it is, why the love for Bay, Freddie, and Jack? If they didn’t care about winning, why moan about getting rid of their complacent asses?
by brooklynpirate on Feb 19, 2010 12:12 AM EST up reply actions
I remember back in mebbe 2007?
Snell chucked a hissyfit after losing a few games in the clubhouse and then the team went on a bit of a winning streak.
by BlindSquirrel on Feb 21, 2010 11:05 PM EST up reply actions
snell
I used to be a big fan of snell too; this is a really interesting read about what went wrong with him: http://www.baseballdailydigest.com/2009/12/30/what-happened-to-ian-snell/
I grew up in Williamsport, PA...
which I believe is where this guy started his journalism writing for the Williamsport Sun-Gazette. He was regarded there as one of the worst writers on staff for stuff exactly like this. In other words, it’s no use getting bent out of shape because of something he wrote.
Pirates, Vikings, Hokies. I'm used to heartbreak. At least I have the Penguins....
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-The Great One
by blackjackfishtaco on Feb 19, 2010 12:40 AM EST reply actions
journalism career*
Pirates, Vikings, Hokies. I'm used to heartbreak. At least I have the Penguins....
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-The Great One
by blackjackfishtaco on Feb 19, 2010 12:41 AM EST up reply actions
He murders his credibility just for endorsing the idea that we should have topped the Mets with a franchise-crippling (for us) Jason Bay contract.
Even if we would have signed Mike Cameron instead (better player than Bay for less) along with say Jon Garland and Randy Wolf, and kept the rest of the band together, there are still several problems. Marginal improvement at best over real-world ‘10 Bucs, fewer young MLB building blocks, thinner minor league system, Freddy/Jack getting worse by the day, and so on. These people moaned about us trading Nady as well, so in this situation the team doesn’t have Ohlendorf and Tabata either.
whats funny is
they couldnt win with those players to begin with, but since they were veterans and had a credible name in the mlb people think they were good. people need to hop off the pirates dicks for getting rid of these guys. they couldnt win here when they were here, so why pay losers to keep losing? gosh, people need to do some research before they say things nowadays
The trade that hurt the Pirates the most is the trade they didn't complete
During the Winter Meetings in December of 2007, the rumor was that Shapiro and Huntington had worked out a deal to send Jason Bay and Ronnie Paulino to Cleveland, for Cliff Lee, Franklin Gutierrez, Kelly Shoppach, and Jeremy Sowers.
And Frank Coonelly nixed that deal, claiming it wasn’t enough.
Now, Lee was coming off a bad, injury-filled 2007 season, Gutierrez was more prospect than player, and Shoppach only had 286 MLB ABs, at that point.
But still, that was a trade that I was hoping, at the time, would go through. And I was disappointed that it didn’t.
And triply so, in retrospect. Lee’s contract was very reasonable, even his 2010 option. And even if, like the Indians and Phillies, the Pirates felt they’d sooner trade Lee than try to extend him, he could have been dealt for a very good package of prospects, himself (as has already occured twice in the last 12 months).
Trading Bay for Lee + 3 others could have been a double-dip, of sorts.
Let alone the player Gutierrez has become. He and McCutchen in the same outfield would have been worth the price of a ticket, just to watch them play defense.
Not making that trade, at the time, not only hurt, it hurt it coming and going. And. like the rumored Kip Wells-for-Ryan Howard deal that Littlefield never pulled the trigger on, became another instance where opportunity knocked, and someone in the Pirates FO didn’t answer the door.
Sometimes the best trades are NOT the ones you didn’t make.
But still, that was a trade that I was hoping, at the time, would go through. And I was disappointed that it didn’t.
If that’s the case, you can pat yourself on the back, because you were the only Pirates fan in the world who thought that. Lee, at that point, was a 29-year-old pitcher with a bad contract and a 6.29 ERA in the previous season. If you honestly thought he should have been the centerpiece of a deal for Jason Bay, you must be a heck of a lot more prescient than I am. That would have looked like a disaster.
Yeah I thought it sounded horrible at the time, but hindsight’s 20-20… sure would have worked out well.
It’s funny that one of Huntington’s most impressive moves was something that he ended up not getting permission to do.
"sure would have worked out well"
That assumes Lee would have become a Cy Young winner with the Pirates’ coaching staff and players behind him, rather than an actual good team. I have my doubts.
Impossible to know for sure. I’m pretty certain that at the least he would not have had so many wins, but that’s also not a very good statistic to assess the quality of a pitcher.
Would he have won the Cy Young with Pittsburgh? No. I don’t think so. Therefore, his return would probably not be as good as it was. But it will be interesting to follow the return of those players and speculate years down the line.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 19, 2010 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
No, definitely not
Of course his return wouldn’t have been as good as it was, but the point is that Lee became an ace pitcher, a true number one. To get that back as a return in any trade is quite a feat.
And as you say, it will merely be interesting to follow the possible return of that trade for the next years to think about what might have been.
When was the last time Cleveland was good?
Lee won a Cy Young in a 65 win team. Its pretty clear to see Lee went though a bit of rough stretch after 2005 due to some heavy workloads. Pretty similar to what a lot of Pirate pitchers have gone through recently.
Its also worth noting Guttierez is the best defensive CFer in the game and a guy like Shoppach would not look bad on the Pirates right about now.
I don't think it was too impressive
considering what Cliff Lee was then. It only becomes impressive when you see what Lee has done. I don’t think Cleveland was expecting Lee to do that either, or else they probably wouldn’t have been trying to trade him.
Jason
The Hanging Curve
by poorboywilly on Feb 19, 2010 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
What would be impressive would be if he had some sort of confidence that Lee could get things turned around. Taking into account that he had just come out of the Indians’ system, one would think that he’d have a pretty good handle on their players. Of course the same can be said for those who remained in Indians management. The fact that he could have potentially gotten a huge steal at a downpoint in Bay’s value is there. Whether it was dumb luck or some superior player evaluation we cannot know.
Well, Charlie, there are a number of posts
on a board I know you don’t frequent, from me, from 2007, extolling Neal and Frank to make that deal. And I wasn’t alone…although I was in the minority, at that time. Most were against that deal.
by Midnight Moose on Feb 19, 2010 3:02 AM EST up reply actions
Here it is...
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Feb 19, 2010 7:42 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know...
There were questions about the return for Bay, but there were questions about Bay’s down 2007 (by his standard) and the health of both of his knees. Not get into relative hypotheticals, but what if Bay had not improved in FA stock with his 2008 bounceback? The real return on Bay has been meh but it’s not a closed book. The only given would be Paulino continuing to suck.
The Pirates were right to shop him in 2007 and ultimately deal him in 2008. The relatively value of return is largely conjecture. Let’s put down our crystal balls for a moment
by chicos_pants on Feb 19, 2010 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
Not me
I did not like that trade return at all for the Pirates and the only reason I even might have done the deal at that time is because I wasn’t sure if Bay was finished (I never thought him that good to begin with) such that we’d never get anything for him.
I was wrong and so were the Bucs. However, while I expect the Pirates management team to be able to make better baseball decisions than I would if in their shoes, I’m not going to fault them for passing on that package.
Good day.
I can understand that.
It’s still frustrating, nonetheless, to speculate what might have been. Lee would have gone a long way towards fixing some of the problems in the 2008 Pirates rotation. Yet, at the same time, Bay’s bat would have been a huge subtration to that good pre-trades Pirates offense. An outfield of Morgan, McLouth, and Nady would not have been nearly as impactful as the Bay, McLouth, and Nady outfield was.
Of course, the other side of that coin is that Morgan may have become a much-improved defensive player, a year before he did, had Bay been traded before the 2008 season opened.
And, to speculate further, had the Nady deal still occured, and Gutierrez had stepped for Nay, the Pirates OF could have been Morgan, McLouth, and Gutierrez. Which could have morphed into Morgan, McCutchen, and Gutierrez.
Not a lot of power there, but that might have become the fastest, best defensive OF in baseball history. And a ton of SBs, to boot.
It would have been interesting to see, at least.
by Midnight Moose on Feb 20, 2010 5:16 AM EST up reply actions
unless Clement makes something of himself
The Seattle trade I think is the one we should have never made…At first I liked it, because I thought that meant a Doumit deal was going to happen, and Clement was going to catch. But after hearing that he will be made into a firstbasemen I did’nt like it at all. I think Clements going to have a good year with the bat, but the numbers hes going to put up would look alot better as a catcher. The three pitchers are all good pitchers, but I don’t see any of them having any major upside, and probably will never have a huge impact on the big league club although they are nice organizational depth. Cedenos the wild card in the trade; if he can continue to play like last year, and play up to his potential that he once had in the Cubs organization then I think it’ll work out for us. If not I would’ve rather seen us re-call Snell after his 17 K day or whatever, and keep Jack as our shortstop…
Well, it seemed that, at the time
Ian Snell had not only alienated most of the Pirates fanbase, but a lot of guys in the clubhouse, as well. Snell has a live arm, and a lot of talent, but you’ll notice that no one was lighting candles in the Pirates clubhouse, when Snell got dealt. It was time for him to go, talent or not.
by Midnight Moose on Feb 19, 2010 3:11 AM EST up reply actions
I like this trade
There’s always the chance that Snell will get it together and make us regret it, but I think that Cedeño and Clement both have a good chance to be average contributors with some upside in the next few years and the pitchers they got all have some upside and a realistic chance to make it to the majors.
“… as if 2008 were some golden era of Pirates baseball.”
to be fair, the pirates’ 2008 lineup was one of the better ones that they’ve sent out in the last while… I mean, compare it to some of the non-2003 lineups they sent out over the decade that were filled with the likes of chris duffy, ronny paulino, humberto cota, jose castillo, tike redman, daryle ward, and randall simon… joey bats fits in nicely with this group, but the rest of the guys at least were capable of posting back-to-back 100+ OPS seasons (save jack wilson, but he brought similar defensive value)… I don’t think the pirates had more than two guys in a lineup all decade who could make that claim…
the real problem with the 2008 team was the godawful pitching, featuring over a third of the innings thrown by guys posting performances worse than replacement level…
by Captain Easychord on Feb 19, 2010 9:12 AM EST reply actions
To be realistic...
The 2008 Pirates lineup only existed in an idyllic paradise of chance for the first 4 months. Consider that Bay was the fourth best hitter on the team during those 4 months.
Doumit was 1st in OPS, Nady 2nd, and McLouth was 3rd. All three were hitting at least 100 OPS over what would normally be expected, and what they’ve ever done since then.
In addition, I put the starters’ stats at the trade deadline into the lineup analyzer, and they were actually producing more runs than they should have during that time.
Click here for the 2008 lineup which should produce 4.5 runs.
So, even if that team had been kept together, they would have pretty much immediately regressed the rest of the season and everyone would be wondering where all the magic went.
Most people consider me to be overly optimistic, but I put the stats for the 2010 projected lineup into that same tool…with Andrew McCutchen and Garrett Jones producing at the same level as they did in 2009, and Doumit hitting at his 2008 level.
That comes out to 4.53 runs – slightly more than the 2008 Pirates should have generated.
Now, maybe that’s a little too optimistic. I myself don’t expect Jones to duplicate those stats. But, is it more unrealistic to think Jones might duplicate his 2009 performance than to think Bay would be the 4th best hitter on the Pirates’ 2008 team?
No, I don’t think so.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 19, 2010 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
Or tears of laughter, like when he got caught at Primer vouching for his own credibility under a different name.
Check the posts by “4seamer” touting Jake’s blog, then check post # 13. 4seamer = Jake.
Post #21 is funny, too.
I know there’s some mlb Pirates blog that’s supposedly written by an idiot – is it this one? ’Cause it might be this one.
Classic.
Can't tell the players without a scorecard!
So – lemme get this straight:
4seamer = Jake = NutHo, right?
and, as you all remember:
lumberco = mspirate = wareag1e…
WTM – what other name do you post under?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 19, 2010 6:42 PM EST up reply actions
You think Jake is NutHo?
I always thought that NutHo was slightly more coherent than Jake. At least I’ve never seen him spell “2nd” as “2cd.” That’s always a giveaway.
But I’ll happily admit that I’ve pretty much only seen NutHo’s posts on BucsDugout and am not privy too his whole PBC reign of terror.
No way Jake is NutHo. The style of writing is completely different and the thought processes behind them are very much different. NutHo also doesn’t pretend to know anything other than what is widely reported.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 19, 2010 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
I’m sorry I didn’t start reading Pirates blogs until about a year ago. So much I missed!
This killed me:
Bucco Blog is embarrassing to Pirates fans, to baseball fans, to humans for whom English is a first, second or third language and to the concept of logic itself.
by CptnAwesome on Feb 20, 2010 12:15 AM EST up reply actions
You missed a lot. One of Jake’s big theories a few years ago was that all the team’s problems were due to Jason Bay’s arm.
He also thought Brad Corley was a great prospect, and this was after Corley had been in the org. several years.
Jake's crowning moment of awesome:
To call Moskos an overdraft is ludicrous. If you want to question anything, start questioning why Friday was selected third. Now THAT was a serious overdraft which sent my head spinning.
Those that know me from pirateball.com know I have hammered this ownership group harder than anyone since 2002. But there are just some things that are down right silly to be fussin over, and the Bucs taking Moskos is certainly one of them — EVEN if he goes down needing TJ surgery one day.
He was a perfect pick for the Bucs and why I had him #2 on the odds chart based on all the conversations I had with folks in the industry. He’s a perfect fit.
Now, those of you who want to whine about the pick, go to one of the irate boards and cry your eyes out.. don’t do it here unless you whine about something that makes sense, like some of our current play.
I’ll say it again and then move on, good job Dave. -Jake, June 7, 2007
I didn’t know ANYONE defended Moskos on those grounds given the infamous “we project him as a back-end guy,” comments.
Never saw that one before
That’s on a level with the music critic who said Beethoven would never amount to anything.
Thanks you WTM and Vlad...
for those links. Those were freaking hillarious! I can’t he had the balls to go back and keep linking to his blog after the beating he took. Priceless.
The trade I hated when it was made,
hate now and will most assuredly continue to hate is the Grabow-Gorzelanny trade. I just cannot see any reason behind trading Gorzo. He was putting up good numbers at AAA when we dealt him and had a fine season a few years ago before Tracey ran his arm into ground. Chances are legit that Tom can once again become a legit, quality starter. To package him with a legit lefty set-up man for a utility-infielder-at-best and two pitchers who, while promising, profile as relievers, if all goes well, was dumb. And that’s giving NH the benefit of the doubt that there were no warning signs about Ascanio’s arm.
Love the overall plan, am very confident in the FO and support the vast majority of their moves, but I cannot endorse this one.
do you think gorzo would beat out dan mccutchen for the 5th starter spot? that’s the only way he makes the pirates this year. (personally i think no) otherwise he, as you say, only “profiles as a reliever” on our team since he’s out of options.
If you phrase the question as. . .
whether I think Gorzo is a better starting pitcher than Dan McCutchen right now than my answer is absolutely. If the qustion is if I think Gorzo is a better bet to be the more effective starting pitcher in the future, than the answer is absolutely.
The reason for trading Gorzo
was that Kerrigan did not think he had it in him to improve. He had worked with him on making his delivery “repeatable”, and he just wasn’t getting it. Kerrigan gave up on him and wanted to work with someone else with more aptitude.
Time will tell whether Kerrigan was right or not, obviously.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 19, 2010 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
what had Gorzelanny been doing with us?
wasn’t it long relief? Sorry, a guy who has a career 1.55 K/BB ratio in 421 innings just doesn’t make me salivate, regardless of what he can do in AAA.
Jason
The Hanging Curve
by poorboywilly on Feb 19, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
"I just cannot see any reason behind trading Gorzo"
Your fourth sentence answers the question that’s implicit in your second. You can’t see any reason to trade him because you’re assuming that he’ll bounce back to becoming a quality starter, when that’s actually fairly unlikely.
Your analysis of my post . . .
oversimplifies it and is incorrect. I’m not assuming anything. I’m stating my belief that the chances of Tom Gorzelanny becomes a productive starter in the future is more valuable than our return in the trade when the potential value of the players and chances of reaching that value are considered. I think Harrison never becomes an asset at the ML level and Ascanio and Hart top out at relievers if all goes well with those two, and that isn’t close to a certainty. Throw in parting with a competent left handed reliever and I think it was a bad trade.
I also stated that I like Gorzo’s chances better than McCuthcen’s when the question posed is who has the better chance of being a productive starting pitcher. I believe that to be true.
So, I appreciate your breakdown of my thinking and argument structure, but I actually meant the above and believe that is a more accurate reflection of what I said,
I agree
with the dislike of the Gorzo trade. I really liked all the other trades Huntington made last year but this one just baffled me. Its not even like he was signed to a Snell-like deal either. Just weird to give up on cost controlled arms.
I think it comes to
Huntington liked Hart better than Gorzo. We’ll see if that proves the correct move as time goes by. But…like I said, it was Kerrigan who pretty much gave up on Gorzo. So, when they saw they could get someone else that was talented but a work in progress, they took it.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 20, 2010 12:20 AM EST up reply actions
You said you don't understand why other people don't dislike the trade as much as you do...
…so that’s why I focused on the points that I did: Other people think less of Gorzo than you do, ergo the package we surrendered is less valuable to them than it is to you, ergo the trade looks better from their perspective.
It’s also worth noting that while you believe Hart and Ascanio to be relievers at best, the team holds a different opinion. They obviously favor Hart for the 5th starter’s job this year, based on recent comments, and prior to Ascanio’s injury Huntington was talking about him as a rotation option as well (link, for example). So from the team’s perspective, they traded a reliever and a starter who wasn’t good enough to start in the bigs, and got back two guys who could start or relieve, plus a low-minors MIF prospect. They may be right or wrong in this evaluation, but it’s what they were thinking.
Is the problem (for that portion of the fanbase that’s upset) that the Bucs traded away a bunch of good players, that they turned over their roster too quickly, or that they don’t understand the value of cheap, average players? I think it would be interesting to compare what the Mariners did over the past two years to what the Bucs have done. I think both front offices had a similar plan, but the M’s had more money to play with and M’s fans were more frustrated with their team. The M’s are the darlings of the off-season, and very few people seem to be talking about the Pirates.
Jack Z also inherited a system...
…with significantly more talent in it. Following the M’s approach simply wasn’t a realistic possibility for us, with our system as totally bare as it was when Huntington took over.
Not to mention...
The players the Mariners are relying on aren’t guys just coming up that might break out (you might argue Kotchman could finally do something) and CHONE does a pretty good job of getting those teams right. CHONE picks Seattle last in the division and under .500.
CHONE has the Mariners winning 4 more games than the Pirates.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 19, 2010 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
Jayson Stark
is talking about the Pirates, in his preview for the season. They are discussed several times including – least improved team for 2010.
If you read his book, “The most overrated and underrated players”, you’ll understand my lack of faith in him. Nevertheless, he doesn’t think much of the Pirates this year and in the near future.
I meant to add that this most/least improved spring ritual is one of the dumbest institutions in sportswriting. Guys like Stark base it entirely on who signed the most or least recognizable FAs. The one time a lot of sportswriters rated the Pirates as one of the most improved teams was when DL brought in Casey, Randa and Burnitz.
Stark picked the Mets as the most improved NL team for 2009.
Cleveland was the 3rd most improved in the AL.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 20, 2010 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
Just to clarify, it's actually not a college paper
The Centre Daily Times is State College’s local newspaper; it’s not a Penn State paper.
wilson
Did wilson have an option year left on his contract or was he a free agent?Also the bay trade was rushed maybe could have waited until the off season.
yes, management probably should have waited
I know when your as bad as the Pirates are its smart to obtain as much talent as possible regardless of their position, but I just don’t see why we traded Bay for an outfielder, and a thirdbasemen when those were really already our only 2 strengths in the organization. At the time we already had Alvarez, and Walker in the system at third, and we already had McCutchen, McLouth, Tabata, a couple other high ceiling single A prospects (Marte, Grossman). I’m just mad that trading Bay did’nt net us any highly touted pitching prospects, or a different positional prospect other than outfield, and thirdbase. We now have a logjam at those positions, and a ton of other holes throughout the lineup…
by FusilliJerry88 on Feb 19, 2010 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
Bryan Morris was indeed a highly touted pitching prospect. BA said Hansen had the best fastball and best slider in the Boston system. He had been their #4 prospect. Andy LaRoche was the Dodgers #2 prospect, and was expected to be a .385-.300/25-30 HR guy.
At the time, the Bay trade was generally considered to be excellent for the Pirates, while the Nady trade was considered to be much less so. Now, the trades are viewed in the opposite light. Hindsight is 20/20.
What really increased Bay’s value was him playing for Boston. I don’t think that Huntington could have increased his value any more than it was when he was traded.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 19, 2010 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I DON'T THINK SO
With names like Manny Ramirez and Jason Bay involved in the same trade , you may have to get a sure thing can’t miss prospect. The trade came down to the final minutes and I think our novice leadership panic and got played. It happens. Also anyone had to think by putting Bay in great lineup his numbers would go up. Laroche was horrible in his first taste of mlb pitching. Morris like many power pitcher mow down single A hitters and Hansen has had long history of arm troubles.
by wishiewashie on Feb 19, 2010 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
“…Also anyone had to think by putting Bay in [sic] great lineup his numbers would go up. …”
And what “great lineup” was there to surround him with in Pittsburgh? Joey Bats? Freddie?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 19, 2010 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
Actually
The prevailing concern is always if you take a guy out of the NL and put him in the AL East, his numbers will go down. So you are just blatantly wrong on that count.
Lots of very good players struggle in their first couple of months in MLB. Plus, he was just coming off thumb surgery. His numbers in and of themselves were no cause for alarm. Adrian Gonzalez hit .227 with the Rangers in 43 games at 23 yrs old. So they traded him.
Andy was actually a higher rated prospect by BA than AGon.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 19, 2010 7:36 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry
Boston better lineup = more fastballs =better numbers that just baseball 101. I always thought Laroche was a middle infield type and you don’t trade Bay for a second baseman who is the primary player you get in return.. Just let say pending morris’s outcome we got Laroche for bay. So we are losing this trade.
by wishiewashie on Feb 19, 2010 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
i agree on Bay in Boston
I don’t think going to the AL East necessarily implies a drop in numbers (or a concern) as MiD implies. Bay would have better protection n Boston, and would likely hit at least as well, if not better.
The whole trouble was that Boston was giving up Manny and paying for him and wouldnt want to give up more prospects (of the elite variety). So the prospects would come from LA, and they gave up 2 premier ones. The consensus at the time was definitely in favour of the trade. Maybe we could have had more, if we’d pressured Boston some more, maybe not.
The other issue is though- LaRoche for Bay: 2009 WAR (assuming you believe the stat) has Laroche at 2.5 and Bay at 3.5. For someone who is under team control for 5 more years (or is it 4?), that’s pretty good, since you’d expect him to get better. Especially if Laroche adds power in the next year or so, he could easily be at least as good as Bay. If he is, and if Morris reaches the bigs (far from a given) we win the trade in itself. Of course, you could argue that you want potentially 2 stars from such a trade, and that might not work out quite as well.
by BurgherKing on Feb 19, 2010 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
I should be clear that I didn't think Bay would have a drop off in Boston.
I fully expected Bay to have a good year and a third in Boston, and I also expect him to have a good several years anyway in New York. When it comes to Bay’s hitting ability, I am one of his biggest supporters. Except the year he was injured, Bay has been an amazingly consistent hitter.
That said, you should realize that the majority of people – be they sabremetric geeks or east coast bias sportswriters or the GMs that listen to both of them – believe that the American League East is the hardest division with the highest level of competition, and that a guy like Bay who comes from a weaker division probably has inflated numbers from feasting on the poor wretched scrubs of that weaker competition. Then there are the people who question whether a guy that thrives without the spotlight on him like Bay would do as well in the pressure cooker that is the AL East.
On Andy LaRoche, we’ve got now the next 4 years of him and I think he’s got a good chance to make the trade worthwhile all by himself. I don’t think you can expect to get more than 1 above average player from a trade like that. If you do, that’s gravy.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 20, 2010 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
none
we have received zero above average players so far.
by wishiewashie on Feb 20, 2010 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
Whether you like it or not...
…LaRoche was a league average regular last year, and is likely to be above average from this season forward, given natural aging trends.
Just to put this in perspective
The Texas/Atlanta Teixeira trade is held up as a model of what you should attempt to do. That trade was in 2007, one year before the Bay trade. 2009 was the first year they received a performance of 3.0 WAR from a player that they received in the trade, with Elvis Andrus. Saltalamacchia has been as much a disappointment as Moss has been for the Pirates. 2010 is the year they expect to see results from Neftali Feliz, who was the main arm in the deal.
So, that is considered the cream of the crop steal of a deal. They got what looks to be 2 above average MLB players (although Feliz has yet to do anything really substantial yet), and the supposed big catching stud has petered out. We’ll see if he can resurrect his status this year.
If Andy LaRoche can continue to develop normally, it’s really not a big stretch to see him being an above average player in 2010 and for the next several years. And if he does, we will actually be ahead of the value the Rangers’ have gotten from their deal in the same time frame following the respective deals.
If Morris or Hansen can come back and have productive years, that’s just gravy.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 20, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
I should also note...
That there’s no doubt that Teixeira is the much better player compared to Bay, so the Rangers’ return should have been more lucrative.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 20, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
Laroche
here a stat, manny 23-million bay 16 million, so do really think laroche will approach 16-23 million dollars a year in his career.
by wishiewashie on Feb 20, 2010 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
You STILL haven't answered my question...
"…Also anyone had to think by putting Bay in [sic] great lineup his numbers would go up. …"
And what "great lineup" was there to surround him with in Pittsburgh? Joey Bats? Freddie?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 20, 2010 5:02 PM EST up reply actions
People still believe that "lineup protection" stuff?
Right-handed power hitter goes from playing in a home park with a mammoth left field to playing in a park with the Green Monster = better numbers.
line-up protection
A better line-up means man on base and better hitters count and thus better numbers , also the green monster does not hurt.
by wishiewashie on Feb 20, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
It was still
a quantity over quality type trade
No...
…it was a quantity AND quality trade. We got four guys who were ranked among their team’s top 10 prospects that preseason, including a consensus top-50 guy and a live-armed first-round pick. Guys like LaRoche and Morris are just about as good of prospects as you’re going to see in trades these days. Nobody’s going to move a Tommy Hanson or a Jason Heyward for an expensive veteran anymore. Even the huge haul that the Rangers got for Mark Teixeira (a much better player than Bay) was superior to the Bay package not because it had a truly elite prospect in it but because it had several additional guys on LaRoche’s level.
The difficulty with holding onto Bay...
…is that he was a depreciating asset. As the amount of time remaining on his contract decreased, so did his market value – for an illustration of the principle at work, look at the package the Braves gave up to get Tex, and the package they got to flip him a year later.
Waiting until the offseason would’ve also decreased the margin between Bay and the best available alternative option for an interested team. There weren’t a lot of strong-hitting corner outfielders available at the trade deadline, but there were a significant number available as free agents that offseason. Why would a team have traded significant young talent for Bay when they could have gotten similar expected production from a player like Manny or Ibanez or Dunn or Burrell or Bradley by surrendering only money.
And that’s without even considering that Bay’s knee was in shaky shape, and holding onto him entailed running the risk of it blowing out while he was under our control and knocking his trade value down to nil.
Somewhat if not totally off subject
But after hearing him on Madden’s show today are we sure Sean Casey isn’t actually NuttingHostage?
The funny part is
Nutting is “ruining” the team by focusing on building from the ground up, through trades, the draft, etc. rather than spending money on guys like, ohh, I dunno . . . Sean Casey.
I avoid listening to Madden whenever possible. I like to listen to the X either at work or on the rare occasions I’m on the car during his shift, and I always regret not immediately turning him down until the music starts again.
A few weeks ago I heard him berate a caller for asking Madden’s opinion on whether the Penguins should fire their power play coach. Madden’s entire point during this tirade was that the Penguins weren’t going to do it so talking about it was pointless and a giant waste of time. That was his entire argument about why it’s not worth talking about. As if he doesn’t speculate endlessly about things that will plainly not happen. I’m willing to bet he discussed the Lemieux-Burkle story, for example. I almost punched the radio in rage.
How he got so popular is beyond me.
by CptnAwesome on Feb 20, 2010 12:26 AM EST up reply actions
Hey - don't badmouth Casey
He’s such a great guy . . . the kind of person you want around the clubhouse.
build all you want
but until the pirates getting pitching, they will be no better than average. pitching wins championships and the pirates have no Ace/#2 guy in their system. I’m not complaining about getting to .500 but if thats the goal, then something is wrong becuase with a rotation full of average pitchers, .500 is the best we will get.
That’s why we’ve drafted a boatload of young pitchers recently.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 19, 2010 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
Pitching wins championships...
…no more or less often than hitting wins championships or defense wins championships. Whatever gives you the best run differential is the best approach to take.
The Yankees won the World Series last year, right? They were tied for sixth in the AL in ERA… but first in runs scored.
yeah well
anytime you add Tex, CC, and Burnett to an already all-star team, it kinda puts you over the top no matter what. but the key was finally getting the pitching to match the redsox
I don't think I can sign off on that.
In 2008, they were seventh in the AL in runs/game (pitching), with 4.49 (vs. a league average of 4.68). In 2009, they were tied for sixth in the AL in runs/game (pitching), with 4.65 (vs. a league average of 4.75). Their rank within the league hardly changed at all, and their edge above league average actually decreased.
To me, it looks like most of the ground they gained came on the runs scored end of things. In 2008, they were seventh in the AL in runs/game (hitting), with 4.87 (vs. a league average of 4.86). In 2009, they were first in the AL in runs/game (hitting) by a fairly wide 0.20 margin, with 5.65 (vs. a league average of 4.82). Going from a basically-average offense to an elite one is a pretty big bounce – they added an elite bat in Teixeira, had a much healthier season from Posada, and saw significantly inproved performances from Cano, Melky, Matsui, and Jeter, among others.
hmmm
Does a piece by the “journalists” at the CDT really rate such an absurd response? I think my niece wrote a paper in her 3rd grade class about the Bucs being her favorite team…Want me to post that so you can comment on it?
And for the record, saying that the team could have started 10 with the players he mentioned is not the same as saying they could have had Bonds in the OF. That’s a ridiculous comparison, and you know it.
That being said, I’m not entirely sure why LaRoche is worth his contract in your estimation.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
