Pirates Designate Dana Eveland For Assignment
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jun 24, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
Email
PrintWell that sure turned out to be a pointless waste of Ron Uviedo, didn't it? When the Pirates made the weird prospect-for-veteran deal that brought Eveland to Pittsburgh just a few weeks ago, Neal Huntington actually cited "years of control" as one of the reason they made the move. That is, Eveland wasn't supposed to be just a stopgap, but someone who could be kept around for several years if things went well. Well, after just 9 2/3 innings, the Pirates have resigned themselves to losing him if someone else decides to claim him. It's probably not a huge deal, but Bucs fans will have every right to be angry at Huntington if Uviedo turns out to be any good. Right now this just looks like bizarre, Littlefield-esque roster management.
So why did the Pirates do all this? Dejan Kovacevic reports that one reason for getting rid of Uviedo in the first place has to do with the fact that the Pirates have a ton of prospects they'll have to protect on the roster after the season, but what if Uviedo had been lights out the rest of the season? He was already in Class AA, so it isn't much of a stretch to think that in two months he could have been at least as helpful as Eveland at the major league level anyway. Dumping him for a player they didn't really want was premature, regardless of the roster crunch that could happen five months from now. (About which Tim has more detail, and thanks to BigB2323 for pointing that out. Basically, the Bucs will have to protect Starling Marte, Rudy Owens, Jeff Locke, Nate Adcock, Diego Moreno, Daniel Moskos and perhaps Brian Friday. However, there's also a ton of waste already on the 40-man roster that will likely come off. So for the Pirates to decide that Uviedo wasn't going to make the cut five months from now and that's that seems strange, to say the least.)
118 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree it's looking like a pointless trade
but I think you mean to write Eveland the second and third times Uviedo is mentioned in the article.
Strange move.
I didn’t understand the trade from the day it went down. Now I really don’t get it.
Uviedo
I hate to say I told you so ….
But this was just a bizarre trade. Not Morris bizarre. But still bizarre.
I’m convinced the Pirates would have gotten Eveland on a waiver claim. If not, no loss.
I understand Uviedo was an RP for the Pirates and was not an elite prospect. But he looked like an MLB caliber pitcher. You don’t just throw assets away.
Moreover, Uviedo has transitioned back to the rotation in Toronto.
I just don’t know NH’s logic on this one.
It was reported after the trade...
…that the Brewers were prepared to trade for him. As such, he wouldn’t have made it to us purely on waivers.
That said, if a player as good as Uviedo was going to be the price, I would’ve just let them have him.
Vlad
I have never seen a definitive link that said the Brewers were prepared to trade for him.
I’ve seen Pirate officials suggest that in defense of the trade. But I have not seen anything out of Milwaukee that says the Brewers were prepared to trade for him.
Second, I agree that the Bucs should have let the Brewers have him (if they wanted him).
I suspect this is a case where Toronto created the impression of competition when it didn’t actually exist.
Finally, I’m unconvinced that the Pirates would not have found room for Uviedo on the 40-man roster. That seems like a weak defense for a poor trade.
If you are going to remove him from the 40-man roster, wait until the season is over and evaluate your options.
What’s the rush?
You’re right. 36 is what Kovacevic reported, but I think he got it wrong.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jun 24, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
what if a 6 turns out to be 9
i don’t mind
if electricity comes from electrons
does morality come from morons?
by karreemofwheat on Jun 24, 2010 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Pirates web page...
shows 37 names on the 40 man roster web page…with Ascanio on the 60 day DL…so the actual count is 36. Note that Hart and Veal are NOT on the major league DL and they could be called up and placed on the major league 60 day DL if they ever get in a 40 man roster crunch.
Shades of Littlefield, indeed...
This seemed to be a face-saving gesture toward stabilizing a rotation that was, has been, and continues to be atrocious. Uviedo was a very interesting prospect. Losing him for Eveland makes no sense toward the future. There was nothing in his immediate past to make it seem that he was anything but a failed starter.
Dejan says...
both callups today to be pitchers. One is CERTAIN to be Charlie Morton…as Indy’s starter tonight is now TBA. And I imagine the other to be DCutch, to start Saturday night. This raises the question…when is Pearce coming back?
Interesting.
Where is Morton going to pitch, though? The only player that can really be taken out of the current rotation and put in the bullpen is Karstens, and I can’t see Morton providing better results out of the rotation than Karstens.
Hey, an out is an out - unless you're Mario, in which case it's probably two outs. -UtesFan89
Hard work always beats talent if talent doesn't work hard.
Karstens earns...
another start each time he goes out there really. Going back to bailing us out of our problems with Milwaukee, he’s been as good as the other SP options especially now in light of Maholm’s meltdown last night. I think Karstens needs to keep going every 5th day until he shows otherwise.
I'm waiting for the Pearce answer myself...
he could be helping the big league club right now but if we are waiting around trying to figure out what to do with the garbage that is blocking him I’m going to be pissed off (garbage = Church or Young).
If you read on bucco fans.com
He talks about how Dejan was saying that Uviedo would have prob been cleared next year off the 40 man roster to make room to protect all are rule 5 eligible prospects…which include…… Daniel Moskos,Tony Watson, Brian Friday, Tom Boleska, Nathan Adcock, Jeff Locke, Rudy Owens, Starling Marte, Diego Moreno according to Buccofans.com
which it makes a lil more sense to me now
hmm, I wonder how many more spots will open up after the 2010 season?
Of the pitchers, you gotta figure Burres, Donnelly, and maybe Jakubauskas will be gone… of the others, Church and Iwamura are gone for sure, if they even last that long. so there’s 4-5 more spots that will open up, along with any veterans that are traded at the deadline.
and as Thunder points out, both Hart and Veal could be moved to the 60-day DL to open up a roster spot.
Which still doesn't explain, of course...
…why they didn’t just try to trade Uviedo for something of value, instead of Eveland.
Maybe, they did, Vlad.....
How do you know they didn’t?
Maybe the rest of baseball believes, like the Pirates, that Uviedo isn’t nearly as good as the clear majority of Bucs Dugout.
Realistically, if they could get something better than Eveland….why wouldn’t they? The most logical answer is that they couldn’t get anything better than Eveland.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Jun 24, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
thats weird
surely the Bucs werent trying to figure out a way out of the roster crunch in this manner!
Eveland came up as someone you could trade for, and they picked Uviedo rather than the other way around. There was plenty of time to go. There was also the possibility that if he was left unprotected and therefore picked, the other team may not have been able to keep him in the ML club and would have offered him back…
OK, I'll play along.
Assuming that no GMs out there were willing to trade anything more valuable than the definitionally worthless Eveland for Uviedo, then they should’ve tried to slide Uviedo through waivers. If he gets claimed, they get the waiver price for him, and if he doesn’t, they get to keep him.
Both Uviedo and the waiver price are more valuable than Eveland. So it’s still a bad move.
Even in roster sense, it's very dubious.
Hard to imagine that Eveland brings anything greater than what Burres did.
Hey, an out is an out - unless you're Mario, in which case it's probably two outs. -UtesFan89
Hard work always beats talent if talent doesn't work hard.
It made no sense in any universe
and is one of those moves that makes me wonder what he’s thinking at times. This was just pointless.
by RichieHebner on Jun 25, 2010 12:42 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I wonder...
Is this a similar move to the Hayden Penn DFA? Eveland likely will not be claimed and will be assigned to the minors.
Penn got clobbered and DFAd quickly, went down and is starting to look decent again.
What if they are looking to correct something in his mechanics? Let him suffer in the bigs for a few outings so that he slips through waivers and they can get him working on changes in the minors or EST?
Or perhaps I am nuts…
This is the only defense I could think of too, but doesn’t sending him down now run the same risk as trying to pick him up off waivers in the first place, only now you’ve given up an asset to get to this point?
elvishasleft.com
bestweekever.tv
Depends whether...
they might have seen something before they acquired him or after? I buy the Penn theory which I have argued multiple times. Doesn’t justify the trade by any means, but I find it unlikely anyone is going to open up a 40 man spot at this point.
Hopefully he goes through and we can see what happens.
The other side of this is...
I dont really see how a couple more bad outings make him anymore likely to get through waivers this time. If they did this because they were confident he would get through waivers and they could assign him to AAA, they could have just waited their turn on the waiver wire, then claimed him and done the same thing. Wouldnt have lost a (marginal?) prospect in the process that way.
Doubt it.
Eveland can be a FA at the end of the year if they don’t add him to the 40-man roster. And if they were planning on carrying Eveland on the 40-man, they wouldn’t have talked about roster pressure as an impetus behind the trade of Uviedo, since they’d both take up the same number of roster spots (i.e. one).
Regardless of the future 40 man
This has been baffling at best and embarrassing at worst.
I sometimes wonder if the Pirates are not implementing a...
….run for 71 or some such thing. Bringing Aki, Church, Penn, Eveland, Donnelly and Dotel, etc. all have that useless veteranosity quality that made the Littlefield years so pleasant.
Steve Z
Penn isn't a veteran
And for the other guys every team always has at least a couple veterans to supposedly mentor the young guys.
by thecheeseisblue on Jun 24, 2010 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn't he?
He’s currently on his third organization, his fourth season in the majors, and his eighth season in pro ball. At a minimum, I’d say that he’s a young veteran.
He’s still only got a career 82.1 innings pitched. Baseball veteran yes, MLB veteran, not by my definition.
by thecheeseisblue on Jun 25, 2010 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Personally, I think that just makes him...
…a relatively unsuccessful major league veteran. But it’s subjective, and I can agree to disagree.
Word is......
that Eveland was “frustrated”……..The universal term used by baseball players who are evidently told to,or are unable to……think of anything else to say when they stink it up.
When I read Eveland's quote this morning
attributing his performance to rust, the heat, and his legs going to “jello” because of having to field a couple of grounders, I thought it was a bit odd as he didn’t seem to accept any responsibility (compare to Maholm’s quote where he simply said he stunk without blaming the heat, etc.). Probably had nothing to do with the DFA, but it does make me wonder.
He has stunk for quite some time regardless of uniform
I am all for bravado but at some point you gotta get real.
by eyeofhorus777 on Jun 24, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Acknowledging that Eveland isn't any good...
I still have to question the way the team tried to use him. It really seems like he was just set up to fail. His first start came after 15 days off. He wasn’t very good, but ended up with a 5 IP 3 ER start that actually should have been 5 IP 1 ER if Delwyn Young wasn’t trying to play right field in the game. He wasn’t all that good, but it wasn’t a complete disaster. They used him in relief a few days later and he was fine with 2 scoreless. After that he doesn’t appear for 11 days.
What do you expect to happen when a guy goes 11 and 15 days between appearances? Remember that this team has often mentioned that they like to keep their starters on normal rest since they usually aren’t as effective with one extra day off. Imagine them with 11 and 15 days off.
Yeah I have to agree that this is not one of Huntington's best moments
But as DK has pointed out, it could be the Pirates were looking to the future moves needed to protect rule 5 eligible guys. I guess they thought Uviedio was likely to be cut from the 40 man and in the process get claimed thus guaranteeing no return. At least trading for a guy like Eveland they have a small chance of getting something.
In the end I’m not too worried about it, it’s not like the Pirates are short of arms in the lower minors which will eventually move through the system.
I don't know...
like Charlie said, let Uviedo keep pitching and maybe he puts up some fantastic numbers and in turn builds seem trade value. There was no reason to move him when they did and there was no reason to think that Eveland was anything than what he was. At least Penn has “stuff” so I understand taking a flyer but Eveland…not so much.
Mabye, they Uviedo isn't any good, either?
I agree DFA’ing a guy after trading another guy looks strange, to be kind, but some of you guys are obviously inflating Uviedo’s potential/performance. If the Pirates thought he was any good…….or had any potential of helping them/acquiring something better than Eveland, they simply wouldn’t have traded him.
Most of you guys think he is better than the Pirates do. That is fine, and, you may be right. But, they obviously think he stinks and is an equivalent/slightly-less-player than Eveland.
So, it’s a trade. Let’s see what Uviedo does.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Jun 24, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
If they think Uviedo isn't any good...
…then they’re terrible judges of talent.
More importantly, if they didn’t think Uviedo was any good, then why did they add him to the roster last offseason in the first place?
Couldn't you say the same thing of about 30 players?
They obviously thought Eveland was better, or at least comparable, and now they have cut him. They thought Justin Thomas was worth picking up….and now he is moving to the Majors.
Maybe, like Eveland, they saw him pitch over the course of this year and decided he isn’t worth protecting, he is worse than Eveland (or less valuable), and they don’t see the potential that you see.
“Terrible judges of talent” because they don’t think a fringe/bit prospect is worth as much as you think he is? Pretty harsh, in my opinion.
What was started out as a ‘minor trade’ and ‘no big deal’…..has now taken a life of its own. The way some of you make out Uviedo to be…..I am simply wondering why we didn’t get Kelly Johnson for him or why we didn’t make him our closer.
Seriously…..the inflation of Uviedo’s skills on this board is weird.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Jun 24, 2010 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
with the braves about to non-tender him
we could have gotten Kelly Johnson for him, in all likelihood!
This year, King....
On the D-Backs, not the Braves.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Jun 24, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
in any case
Uviedo had some value and def more than Eveland… he wasnt a prized prospect, but there was no reason to throw him away…
They thought that Eveland was better...
…and they were evidently wrong, given that the Blue Jays still seem happy with Uviedo on their 40-man, while Eveland is on his way out after three whole games in black and gold.
Uviedo isn’t a “fringe prospect”. He’s a quality cost-controlled power arm with options remaining. That has significant value, despite people’s bizarre and illogical attempts to run him down.
And for the record, I’ve never called it a minor deal. I’ve consistently taken the position from the moment the deal went down that it was a bad move and that it represented a substantial waste of resources by the organization. If you don’t believe me, go back and check the trade thread.
Well said ...
I would have categorized Uviedo as a C+ prospect using Sickels’ system because of his age. But I don’t quite understand why he was moved from the rotation to the pen. I also think it’s possible he would have been a B- prospect if he had stayed in the rotation at AA this year. He looked, at worse, to be an 8th inning guy. He looked, at best, to be a mid-rotation guy or closer.
That’s certainly worth far more than Eveland.
I just wonder if NH is in more trouble than we believe. These are the kind of last-ditch efforts DL made to keep his job.
Moreover, I can’t believe Mr. Nutting is thrilled with NH’s job this year. His moves have largely been disasters. Look at the money the Pirates have swallowed or invested poorly:
1. Iwamura
2. Church
3. Vazquez (poor signing two years ago, released this year)
4. Eveland
5. Donnelly
I’d put Crosby, Dotel and Lopez into the okay but not great category.
D.J. Carrasco is probably the only move I’d say that has worked out as expected.
Finally, it’s time to clear out some scouts. What guys are recommending these guys? I know NH is ultimately responsible. But I think the scouting at the MLB level is terrible.
I just wonder if NH is gone after the draft deadline.
None of those acquisitions is a big deal from a financial standpoint.
All together, they add up to maybe one real player, in terms of actual $.
I think the Uviedo deal was more about them not liking short righties, and/or being worried about his durability going forward (he had some nagging injuries last year, which are supposedly the reason they bumped him back out of the rotation), than it was about NH looking for a DL-esque job-saving fix.
Vlad
I’d offer a slightly different take on the contracts.
These contract figures are off the top of my head. But …
Iawmura, $5 million
Church, $2 million
Vazquez, $2 million
Eveland, $300,000
Donnelley, $2 million
That’s $11.3 million wasted. Essentially, that’s the Pirates’ entire draft budget.
You are right that they are one real player. But when D.J. Carrasco is your best move, I think you have poor talent evaluation.
I would have to say right now Meek was his best move, followed by a long list of guys that aren’t D.J. Carrasco. You can’t just be counting this year because you added in Vasquez, and you can’t be talking about only signings because you added in Eveland. So I guess by D.J. Carrasco being the best move you must mean the best of bad moves, which is kind of a self defeating argument. Either way that’s still only five mistakes, none large enough or long term enough to make much of a difference. I mean yeah, when you look at only bad moves, the result is, well, bad. But when positive moves are taken into account, and weighed against very minimal negative moves, you get a pretty positive result.
by thecheeseisblue on Jun 25, 2010 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Vasquez, Eveland and money wasted
I’m counting money wasted this year alone on players waived or performing poorly.
RV fits that category because he was a mediocre utility man signed to a two-year contract. He was then waived during this year’s spring training. Wasted money.
I’m counting Eveland as wasted money because NH traded for him and DFAed him weeks later. The Pirates are on the hook for his contract unless another team puts in a waiver claim or he declines to go to AAA.
Essentially, the Pirates have wasted about 40 percent of payroll this year with poor free agent signings, a poor trade and releasing a player who never should have been signed to a two-year contract to begin with.
Seriously, I think Carrasco was NH’s best off-season move.
What positives moves have been made since last year’s trade deadline?
I agree that this is not big money by MLB standards. But it is by Pirate standards.
Moreover, what team has wasted such a high percentage of its payroll this year.
"What positives moves have been made since last year’s trade deadline?"
He signed Dotel, who’s done pretty well for us in the closer’s role. He brought back Karstens on a minor league deal, and that’s turned out fairly well. He unloaded Bixler on the Indians in exchange for an actual prospect.
That’s not a large number of positive moves, but then again, we aren’t talking about too many transactions in total, either.
Vlad
Dotel has done average. That’s not an elite signing. One you look at and say wow. Dotel is pitching about as expected. He also will either be traded for little or not brought back.
As for Karstens, you aren’t seriously citing that as an example of a good move. NH removed him from the 40-man roster. Karstens could have been claimed by any team in desperate need of pitching. Karstens could have signed with another team. That’s luck, not brilliant roster management.
Finally, I’ll acknowledge that Bixler was useless. But your “actual prospect” the Pirates received is hitting .196 at West Virginia, at age 22. I wouldn’t plan the Hall of Fame ceremony yet. (Just joking.)
Seriously. though, I think NH and the front office have done a terrible job since Aug. 1. And I can’t think of any move that I look at and say that the front office really nailed that move
He got lucky.
And the Bixler trade. Yes, he got rid of a useless player for a possible prospect. But that’s it. He got a modestly interesting prospect.
It's a two way street Bernie...
One you look at and say wow. Dotel is pitching about as expected.
When you acquire a player, and that player performs as expected, then I would say that in that case the player was evaluated properly. If you are going to use Aki, Vasquez, Eveland, Church, etc., as evidence for poor player evaluation then you must use Dotel, Meek, Hanrahan, Carrasco, Jones, etc. as evidence for good player evaluation. I think right now NH has demonstrated that he and his team do an average job of evaluating talent. I do give he and Starks props becaue it looks to me like they are pretty good at player development.
Slick
Don’t disagree with most of what you said.
My point was that since Aug. 1 of last year, the Pirates really have no homeruns in transactions (trades, free agent signings).
They have some singles (Dotel, Carrasco).
They have lots of strikeouts (listed above). It really is a pretty miserable record over 11 months.
As you note, I think the team is far better at player development than evaluation.
But I think these moves demonstrate a shake-up is necessary in player evaluation. Does that mean firing some scouts? I think that’s a start.
How many opportunities for "home runs" did they really have, though?
Since the date you named, we traded for one significant veteran, signed a few bit players to ML deals (utility infielders, fourth outfielders, middle relievers, and the like), and added some upper minors system depth through minor league deals.
How often do inexpensive utility infielders suddenly emerge as significant building blocks? And given the kind of odds we’re talking about, how reasonable is it really for you to expect NH and the front office to have made a move of that nature last offseason?
Why doesn't Karstens count?
NH assessed (correctly) that Karstens wasn’t going to be claimed, and brought him to camp on an inexpensive minor-league deal.
If that counts as “luck”, then why don’t some of the other players’ disappointing performances also count as “luck”? Either you evaluate moves based on the results or on the process – you can’t use one method for some, and the other method for the other.
For NH and the team to have done a “terrible” job since August 1, they would have to have done something that would impact the franchise negatively going forward. And they haven’t. Doing a “terrible” job is to pull a Jim Hendry, and saddle your franchise with nine figures’ worth of bad contracts going forward into the future. They’re going to be trying to dig their way out of that hole for years.
Vlad
Two weeks ago, you were convinced that the Pirates were going to release Karstens and keep JT.
I said you were wrong. You disagreed.
You are now citing him as an NH personnel success story.
Come on. He’s a #5 starter and swing man. He has shown more value this year than many on here thought.
But he’s hardly proof of NH’s ability to handle personnel.
Moreover, I’d disagree that the bar should be set at not saddling your franchise with bad contracts.
I think the bar should be you get more personnel decisions right than you get wrong. That you improve your franchise. That you spend resources wisely.
When you look at the off season moves, NH did not get the job done.
Bottom line: They missed on most personnel calls. They wasted money.
I was convinced of what now?
Show me this, because I don’t remember ever posting anything like that. I did post that Karstens would probably slip through waivers – but that’s a totally different thing from predicting that he’d be released.
I don’t understand your objection to calling Karstens a success. He was signed to a tiny contract, and he’s been more useful than we expected at the time he signed? Is it a small thing? Sure. But your entire case is built around equally small things – low-salaried fourth outfielders and utility infielders and the like.
The bottom line is that the team missed on a few fairly trivial personnel calls and wasted a relatively small amount of money. I don’t understand why you seem determined to make a federal case out of it.
You are confusing....
me and Vlad. I thought, before his start against Strasburg in Washington, that their was a chance the Bucs would DFA Karstens. They chose Taschner instead. I don’t have a problem with that. But, let’s be realistic about what Karstens is. I respect the heck out of the guy and think he knows how to pitch, but he is a fringe guy on a horrible starting rotation.
My bad
Thanks DT. My mistake.
Vlad, I’m not making a federal case out of it. I’m pointing out that it appears that $11 million was largely wasted. I’m pointing out that the team continues to struggle with player evaluation at the MLB level.
When you sign players and DFA, such as Aki, that was a mistake.
When you sign Church and keep him in the lineup while he’s batting .180, I’d argue that was a mistake.
And I don’t think these are cheap or throw-away mistakes.
They were the Pirates’ key offseason moves.
"I don’t think these are cheap or throw-away mistakes"
Which is exactly why I’m saying that you’re making a federal case of it. Because you are. Eleven million dollars in ‘dead money’ over an offseason isn’t some kind of scandal. It’s par for the course for MLB teams, even frugal small-market ones. Christ, Oakland’s spending $10M this year on Ben Sheets alone!
If they were our “key offseason moves”, it was by default, because we had already radically reshaped the roster at the deadline, and the only unfilled roles were ones that were largely inconsequential, fourth/fifth outfielder and middle reliever and utility infielder and such.
Vlad
My point is simply that the amount involved should have been better spent.
I think we can agree that Aki, Church, Eveland and all were not the best use of resources.
I think we can agree the front office needs to see how these mistakes happened. Because they do happen more often than a fan would like. Moreover, I think they happen more than a small market team can allow to succeed. TB, for example, made a mistake with Pat the bat. But TB doesn’t make too many mistakes.
Finally, I think when you present these as key transactions to fans—and they blow up the way they did—you can see the disconnect with the fan base growing.
"Moreover, what team has wasted such a high percentage of its payroll this year."
Um, lots of them?
Just to pick one off the top of my head, the Orioles:
*Kevin Millwood, $12.0M, 0.6 WAR
*Brian Roberts, $10.0M, 0.0 WAR
*Mike Gonzalez, $6.0M, -0.1 WAR
*Miguel Tejada, $6.0M, 0.7 WAR
*Koji Uehara, $5.0M, 0.1 WAR
*Garrett Atkins, $4.5M, -1.0 WAR
*Cesar Izturis, $2.6M, -0.7 WAR
*Mark Hendrickson, $1.4M, 0.1 WAR
*Julio Lugo, $0.4M, -0.4 WAR
On an Opening Day payroll of $73.8M. So that’s $47.9M for nine players who’ve contributed an aggregate total of -0.7 WAR to date. 64.9% of their payroll is getting them below-replacement-level production. And that’s only counting veteran free agents and trade acquisitions, and using a fairly conservative sort when determining “wasted” money.
Vlad
Well, I hadn’t considered the Orioles when I posted that late. Good point.
The Orioles are wasting a ton of money. No argument here.
At the same time, let’s be fair. Roberts, Gonzalez and Uehara have been injured nearly the whole year.
Lugo is making the MLB minimum, or 20 percent of what we are paying RV not to play for us.
Hendrickson is a slightly overpriced swingman, lefty arm.
I agree there are lots of bad moves (Milwood, Tejada, Atkins, in particular). But I think you need some context as well.
You can't look at % of payroll...
when evaluating a team with a $30 million dollar payroll. None of the players we signed were expected to be major impact players anyway and they are all short term contracts so no long term damage was done. The short term contract is how NH limited his risk. We had plenty of payroll space this year so taking a couple of flyers was not a big deal. I don’t get your point with this one.
Slick
My point is that the Pirates missed with nearly all of their moves over the past 11 months. Aki. Church. Donnelley. Eveland. These aren’t flyers. A flyer is a minor league contract with an invitation to spring training (Joe Beimel and Colorado). We either traded a reasonably interesting prospect or committed $2 million to $5 million to guys we are putting on waivers mid season.
The Pirates wasted a lot of money that could have gone to the player development side.
I also think that when you look at these moves, combined with NH’s trade record, it is legitimate to look at the process. Why have these mistakes occurred?
A one-year deal for a million bucks...
…for a veteran reliever isn’t an inexpensive flyer?
You have a very strange definition of “flyer”.
And no, the money couldn’t have gone to the player development side. The Pirates are reluctant to spend much more than they’ve been spending on the draft in order to avoid provoking other teams into blowing up the system entirely. And they had (and continue to have) plenty of money for signings of foreign talent.
It’s important to look at the process with Iwamura, because he was a significant financial commitment. And it’s important to look at the process with Eveland, because the team appears to have drastically misread Uviedo’s value. But the other moves were inexpensive short-term signings, depth moves and low-percentage bets. For those types of moves, “failure” is a high-percentage result. It’s just the way things work.
We just disagree
You are forgetting the incentives in the deal. As I recall, BD could double that contract with appearances.
For what he’s provided, that’s a big waste of money.
The Pirates may have money for these international signings. But what significant international signings have they made? I missed the Sano press conference, I guess.
Seriously, they have not been players on any of the top international players except for Sano.
Aki v. Sano, I’m going to take Sano.
Also, the draft system is getting blown up anyhow under the new CBA. I don’t see the Nationals worrying about blowing up the system.
Finally, I think it’s a mistake to call these “low-percentage bets.” That’s certainly not how the team presented it to the fan base.
Incentives that Donnelly now...
…seems unlikely to reach. If he gets close to them, they’ll just cut him. The fact that he received incentives rather than guaranteed money actually supports my point, in that they provide a means for the player to earn additional compensation without extending the team’s downside risk – exactly the kind of behavior you’d expect a team to exhibit on a player they considered to be a flyer.
The Sano thing, as has been pointed out repeatedly on the site, was not about money. The Pirates are documented as having been prepared to go a minimum of $500k above the offer that Plummer accepted, and they would have done so if Plummer had not not gone back on his word about them having a chance to match-or-exceed. They could’ve been prepared to spend $100M on their last/best bid for Sano, and it still wouldn’t have made a difference if they never got a chance to make their best offer (which, indeed, they did not). So why bring it up here? It’s totally irrelevant to your point.
The Nats have spent less than us over the last two drafts, despite having comparably high picks (including the most expensive prospect ever). So evidently they must be at least a little worried. If not, why wouldn’t they have matched our record of expenditures?
As for your last point, you’re honestly surprised that the team didn’t describe the signings of guys like Donnelly and Crosby as largely irrelevant moves at the fringe of the roster? Have you ever even heard of marketing? And how would blunt honesty have gone over with the players in question, for that matter? Would Donnelly have been properly prepared to go out and do his best if after signing him, we said, “Well, he’s old and fragile and has a history of drug use, but we needed a warm body for the pen, and his pulse was a little less feeble than Antonio Alfonseca’s”?
The incentives ...
are based on appearances, I think. From what I recall, I think he’s likely to earn most, if not all, of them.
Also, if they cut him as he gets close to them, the players union will file, and win, a grievance. You know that.
You also misstate the Sano situation. Why did the agent not give the Pirates a chance to make a bid? He told them not to have contact with the player. He told them not to make an offer until the age was determined.
The team ignored it.
I think the agent is a jerk. But let’s not suggest that the front office handled Sano well. It didn’t.
Also, I think you are wrong on the Nats and draft spending. Are you telling me Stras and Storen and the rest of their picks came in under $9 million.
http://www.mlbbonusbaby.com/2010/02/04/2010-draft-preview-pittsburgh-pirates/
I don’t think so.
Yes, I’ve heard of marketing. I actually teach some marketing. But when you claim you’ve made significant signings—and haven’t—you lose the trust of the fan base.
Right now, as you noted earlier, he's not pitching well.
Incompetence is an absolute defense against the union in cases like this. They can just point to the ERA right before they wave goodbye.
Your recollection of the Sano situation is flawed. Plummer didn’t skip us because we had early contact with the player. Plummer skipped us because the Twins were only willing to make him a firm offer if he gave them his word not to shop it to other clubs. It wasn’t a punitive measure – just a short-sighted one.
I said that over the last two years we’ve spent more than any other team on the draft, and that’s absolutely true. We’re about a million bucks ahead of the #2 team, KC. Washington’s 2009 signings were expensive because they had two first-rounders, but their 2008 signings were very cheap because they didn’t sign their first-rounder Crow (which is how they got the pick they used on Storen), and if you add the two years’ spending together they spent much less than us.
Anyone dumb enough to think that a utility infielder or a middle reliever is a “significant” signing is probably not someone whose trust you need to worry about losing, because they’re evidently also too dumb to understand how much players are worth (and therefore have no ability to recognize that they’ve been taken). Not that the team was saying that guys like Donnelly or Church were going to put us in the postseason in the first place…
Vlad
There are sources to support your view over Sano. There are sources to support my view over Sano.
But it’s not as definitive as you post. Sorry.
If you think they can release BD without paying as he nears his incentives, you are wrong. The Pirates will lose a grievance. Guaranteed.
Example: Magglio Ordonez was playing horribly last year.
Did the Tigers release him to avoid a vesing option? No. Boras made clear the consequences.
One of the sources supporting my view of Sano...
…is Plummer himself, who commented extensively on the subject on the PBC blog the day it went down. He stone-cold admitted to everything that I said, and Dejan confirmed the poster’s identity as Plummer.
I don’t know who your source is, but when both the front office and Plummer are saying the exact same thing here, it seems pretty clear to me that they’re telling the truth.
Your recollection of the Ordonez situation is skewed. The Tigers successfully platooned and then benched Ordonez when he was struggling, and then were forced to re-insert him back into the lineup as a regular after he heated up in part-time duty and they couldn’t justify keeping him on the bench. They cut his role back in June (.572 OPS) and July (.735 OPS), and then he wedged his way back into regular duty by putting up a .961 OPS in August and a 1.057 in September and October. If they’d tried to claim incapacity as a reason for the benching in either of those months, they wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on.
A more germane example would be the Blue Jays benching (and then waiving) Frank Thomas in 2008 (Link). The Jays didn’t get in trouble over working to avoid Thomas’s $10M option because he was playing badly enough that the move could be justified on its own merits: a .167/.306/.333 batting line for a player unable to field a position.
So there are two possibilities with Donnelly: Either he continues to suck, and the team will be justified in cutting him (like Thomas), or he’ll perform well and the team will not be justified in cutting him, but his strong performance will take him out of the “waste” column (like Ordonez). Either one will be fine for us, as far as the incentives are concerned.
Vlad
Read all the articles DK put out on it. Read the posts DK had that night.
Did the Pirates contact Sano when they were asked to by the agent? Yes.
Did the Pirates make offers when they were asked not to by the agent? Yes.
Did the Pirates acknowledge incredible tension with the agent? Yes.
This is far more complicated than you say. For example, DK reported that the agent gave all teams, except for the Pirates, a chance to make a final bid.
I think you need to look at why that happened.
FInally, the Ordonez situation is more complicated than either of us have time to post.
Yes, he started out slowly and was put in a platoon position.
But his move back into a full-time position was a combination of injuries and his improved play.
But it’s clear the team tried to keep down his at bats.
And Boras met with the team over it.
If the Pirates are releasing BD, now is the time. if you wait until he starts to meet key incentives, I think they will lose a grievance.
Again, just my perspective.
Disagree...
they are flyers. 1-2 million dollars for a veteran FA is a flyer. You get what you pay for. I also stated that I don’t think Donnelly belongs in that group yet. He is still performing and has done well in a couple of higher leverage situations. I just don’t see those moves, outside of Aki, as the “major” mistakes that you do.
Why don't injuries count?
You named Iwamura as one of our team’s biggest wastes of money. If you want to cross off Baltimore’s players who aren’t at full health, you should be consistent and cross off ours, too.
And if near-minimum-salary players like Lugo don’t count, then why did you list Eveland? Lugo was an ill-advised veteran trade acquisition, just like Dana…
Vlad
I’ll respectfully disagree on the counting of injuries.
Gonzalez pitched effectively last year. He actually passed a physical. Baltimore did its due diligence. It turns out they were wrong. But at least they checked the medical records. The Pirates did not with Aki. They went with scouting reports.
Roberts and Uehara were in the middle of contracts. I see a bit of a difference between that and not bothering to give a physical to a player you are trading for who is coming off a significant injury.
Finally, with Lugo, the Orioles traded nothing. We actually gave up a prospect for a player we released weeks later.
Let’s just call it a good-natured disagreement.
I haven't seen any reports...
…that indicate that the Pirates didn’t check Iwamura’s medical records. (It’s possible that they didn’t, of course, but it hasn’t been demonstrated.)
They didn’t conduct an in-person physical, but since one would have been logistically impossible given the time frame of the trade and the fact that Iwamura was physically halfway around the world at the time the move was made, that isn’t surprising.
The fact that Roberts and Uehara were in the middle of contracts is central to the point that I’ve been trying to make for several hours now. When you sign a veteran to a multi-year deal, you are assuming significant risk in the form of injury and/or age-related decline. All of Huntington’s “failures” on your list were one-year deals, where our downside risk was limited to 2010. Roberts is going to be earning eight figures per season through the year 2013. All of Huntington’s “failures” combined matter significantly less than the Roberts signing in and of itself, never mind the rest of Baltimore’s appalling track record.
Vlad
Let’s just respectfully disagree. Okay?
I think the Aki process was botched. I think the handling of the trade was terrible. I think a player coming off serious injury should always be given a physical. I suspect they could have found a doctor in Asia to examine him. What do you think?
I think the off season moves were bad. You think they were reasonable risks.
Just a difference of opinion.
And yes, it’s well established that older players are riskier. But signing Roberts, for example, is hardly a terrible judgment.
And I’d take Baltimore’s young players over ours. Any day. They’ve made lots of bad moves. But they do have much more young talent to build around than we do now.
They don't have a standing relationship with any Japanese doctors.
So how would they know how much to trust the opinion of the doctor in question? To say nothing of the fact that the trade went through in the very early morning at local time in Japan – was this mystery doctor going to get out of bed at 2 in the morning and make a house call on a guy who doesn’t know that he’s even coming? And then they both drive to a hospital in the dead of night so that Iwamura can get his knee scanned? It just seems wildly implausible.
You misstate my position when you describe the offseason signings as “reasonable risks”. I’m saying that they were trivial expenditures, and therefore not really “risks” as such at all. When you deal with fringe players at the bottom of your roster, there’s always going to be a certain amount of breakage.
Singing Roberts to that extension could turn out to have been a terrible judgment if he fails to make a full recovery from his injury. I don’t understand why you’re so willing to give Baltimore a pass for the risks they assumed, while castigating us for the ones we assumed.
And what does Baltimore’s young talent have to do with anything?
Vlad
That’s just silly. I know you try to liven up the board. But that’s a ridiculous posting. You make the trade conditional on Aki passing a physical. The physical can take place a day later. It can take place a week later.
Just a guess, but I’m pretty confident the baseball teams in Japan have orthopedic surgeons on staff. They could have even had him fly back to the United States for it.
I also guarantee that the Pirates’ orthopedic surgeon could have recommended someone. He also could have reviewed an MRI taken in Japan in minutes if the Pirates wanted to confirm the findings.
So the idea that you had to ID a mystery doctor and go to the hospital immediately and rely blindly on the findings is silly.
Second, I don’t think $11 million is trivial with the team’s payroll. The team itself didn’t describe these players as fringe or trivial. The team described them as important acquisitions. Aki was identified as a key starter. Church was identified as a potential starter. BD was going to solidify the pen.
As a result, I don’t accept your position that these are “fringe players.” That’s certainly not what the front office said when the moves were made. That’s why I think it’s fair to judge the front office on them. And it’s not a good grade.
I just have a different opinion than you do. I respect yours. I hope you respect mine.
Enough playing for today. You can have the last word. But I got to go to my daughter’s birthday party.
The trade was made as quickly as it was...
…because Tampa was facing a deadline to either pick up or decline Iwamura’s 2009 option. They were contractually obligated to make a decision one way or the other by one day after the end of the 2009 World Series. As such, there was not a lot of time available for fucking around with the medical stuff, logistically speaking. If the physical could not have been completed by the deadline, Tampa would have had to abandon trade talks and pay Iwamura’s $550k 2009 buyout rather than risk getting stuck with a $5M+ player that they didn’t have any place to play (or any money to pay, for that matter). For more info, see this link.
I’ve already indicated that Iwamura was one of only two exceptions to my statement about your list (with Eveland being the other, due to the Uviedo matter). The rest, on the other hand, seem to be pretty clearly fringe players to me. They were expected to compete for jobs that spring, but weren’t expected to win them in the absence of some catastrophe that’d wipe out the top options at their positions. I mean, Donnelly was entirely out of organized baseball for the entire first half of 2009, not signing with the Marlins until July 5. Does that sound like a guy who’s going to be anybody’s key acquisition?
Happy birthday to your daughter.
Vlad
Let me try to explain why I feel that way. I think we are talking past each other. I was well aware of the deadline.
But if I called you today and said, I can sell you a house. It’s $20,000 under market value. Only problem: I have another possible buyer and you don’t have time to thoroughly examine it with a home inspector.
I doubt you’d buy it. I don’t think you’d put resources into something you weren’t sure about. I know I wouldn’t.
That’s my problem with the transaction. You have to do your due diligence when you are a small market team.
If the Pirates were going to trade for Aki, they should have made a move weeks before and insisted on the physical because of the severity of the injury.
You don’t allow a deadline to force you to cut corners when you are talking $5 million.
Moreover, just something for you to think about. The Pirates, after the Aki/physical story surfaced, mounted a reasonable defense. But at no time has the team ever said it looked at medical records.
I think a reasonable assumption is that the team did not. You are right that we don’t know for sure. But I find it odd that the team says it scouted him as a defense. But the team never says, “We went over every medical record.”
Thanks for my daughter’s birthday wishes. Enjoy your weekend.
I think you're overlooking an important factor:
With the exception of Vazquez (who was in the final year of his contract when he was cut this spring), those are all one-year deals. So while it sucks to have spent the money without getting much in return, there aren’t going to be any consequences going forward.
Compare, for example, the money we wagered and lost on Donnelly with some of the offseason’s other unsuccessful reliever contracts. A lot of people here wanted us to try and bring back Grabow. But he unexpectedly blew up (just as Donnelly did, and just as relievers often do), and now Hendry’s not only wasted several million dollars of money in 2010, he’s also put the team on the hook for $4.8M in 2011 for a player who’s no longer in the team’s plans.
Vlad
No, I understand your point.
I just have a different take. Yes, these were one-year deals this off season. We only wasted money for one year instead of two or three. Okay.
But we still wasted it. And by Pirate standards, the team wasted a lot.
Which scouts recommended these guys? Why hasn’t there been a big success? Does this mean that the Pirates process of evaluating MLB players needs to be changed? I think these are all legitimate questions and ones I think Mr. Nutting is asking.
I think that the Pirates are much better off putting more money into international signings and the draft than fringe MLB players.
One budget does not affect the other.
There was clearly " a lot" of payroll money left on the table because NH wanted to go with the young guys instead of free agents. Both Nutting an Coonelly have said so. None of these moves you refer to will affect the draft or international budgets. You also threw Donnelly on your listed and I think it is too soon to put him in that pile yet. I think NH is being questioned by Nutting for missing on these guys and he should. But I also believe that Nutting understands that these moves are small potatoes and irrelevant when looking at the big picture. Now, Nutting may hold NH to the coles if he goes out and has his “Jeff Suppan” signing. That is the type of signing where player evaluation becomes a question. Not a swingman, 4th OF, utility player, etc.
Slick
Well, the Pirates have publicly been all over the place on whether they are separate budgets. Specifically, they have said that if the MLB budget is small, the team will invest more internationally and into the draft. They also said the same thing to the players union.
At a pragmatic level, if the MLB budget is small, you either put that money into other investments or you have a profit.
If they had signed none of the players on your list...
…they would not have spent significantly more on the draft or on international amateur talent. Because they didn’t reach their bag limit in either area. They had money left over when they ran out of players who were willing/able to sign.
Imagining that we would’ve spent $30M on the draft if we hadn’t frittered it away on that darn Iwamura is a pipe dream.
Maybe ...
Just maybe, they would have put the money into a player who could actually play.
Maybe they would have talked an extension with Cutch.
But I believe the money could have been better spent.
I don’t care how you use it. I’ll always believe that it was money wasted. And based on what Mr. Nutting has said, I believe he feels the same.
They talked an extension with Cutch last year.
He said “No, not yet.” So again, you’re talking about pipe dreams.
Nutting can fire Huntington any time he likes. The fact that he continues to refrain from doing so suggests that he has a much more reasonable perspective on the situation than you do.
Cutch
Please show me a link that shows the Prates talked an extension with Cutch.
In fact, FC says they didn’t discuss an extension.
You don't talk extension....
one year in. Longoria has assured that by signing a six-year $17.5 million contract with two team option years. He got some money but it is now looked at as the least player friendly contract in baseball.
It isn’t happening.
There was a PG article...
…where Cutch was asked by the reporter whether he was interested in a long-term deal, and he said “No, not yet.”
It was an approach by a non-team-affiliated individual, but there’s no reason to think that he was lying, right?
Link
Where is the link to your version?
I can’t evaluate or respond without having something to read.
FC gives a different version than you do. I tend to trust his information more than yours. No offense. But he says the team chose not to consider an extension for Cutch.
Can't find it, sorry.
I remember reading it as clear as day, though I obviously don’t expect you to take my word for it.
Vlad
I’m just giving you a hard time.
He may have said it. His quote in my link suggests that he might be open to it though. But …
My point was that all our memories fail, mine, yours, every poster on this site.
And I couldn’t find it either.
Maybe someone else can find it.
But I do wonder how he’d react if he were approached with one.
I happen
to think he is good, and if they didn’t think he was good enough to keep on our 40 man roster, then maybe they really aren’t all that after all. No one can ever know, but my money is on this kid embarassing Huntington sooner than later.
by RichieHebner on Jun 25, 2010 12:47 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
doubt it will be a major embarrassment
imo, Uviedo isnt too likely to be a starter in the big leagues, and a reliever has some value, but not enough to be embarrassing, in most cases. Still its a potential ML piece thrown away…
But ...
This is just a bad defense of a dumb move. As Vlad noted above, Uviedo and Eveland both would require a roster spot. It’s not like the Pirates traded him for a guy who wouldn’t have to be on the 40-man roster.
That just doesn’t make sense.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
