Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Diego Sanchez and the Dangers of Fame in MMA

A Meme Is Born: Iwamura + Vazquez + Cedeno = Matt Morris

CINCINNATI - MAY 26:  Akinori Iwamura #3 of the Pittsburgh Pirates is pictured during the game against the Cincinnati Reds at Great American Ball Park on May 26, 2010 in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Reds won 4-0.  (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)

As you all know, when Dejan Kovacevic talks, Pirates fans listen. And so when I find myself disagreeing with him, I often feel the need to say so even though I like his writing a lot, because I know that things he says can become the conventional wisdom pretty quickly.

Here's something I'd like to nip in the bud, from an article I otherwise thought was good:

Busted investment: Iwamura's $4.85 million + Ramon Vazquez's $2 million + $3.3 million sent to Seattle for Cedeno, Clement and three modestly promising Class A prospects = Matt Morris' salary.

It came up again in his chat on Monday (from a reader, not from Kovacevic himself):

If this team doesn't have some kind of second half turn around, no matter the extensions, are Neal and Russell is big trouble? I thought the theme of this regime was to do away with the Randa and Burnitz type signings, yet as you pointed out the other day, they wasted Matt Morris money on Iwamura and others, traded prospects away for the likes of Eveland, and wouldn't go the extra mile to get talent like Sano and Scheppers? Isn't this exactly what to old regime did??

Well, no. It's not quite right to blame the Pirates' current management team for not "going the extra mile" to get amateur talent when they outspend just about everybody in the draft. This isn't at all a Matt Morris / Matt Wieters situation, where the Dave Littlefield Pirates skimped on the draft as a matter of course and then dropped $13 million on Matt Morris. (Then there's also the fact that Scheppers was injured during the window the Pirates had to sign him, and that they were willing to spend on Sano if Sano's agent had let them. I do agree, however, with the broader point that the Neal Huntington Pirates still have yet to sign a real blue-chip player from Latin America. And I'll be furious if they don't sign 2010 top pick Jameson Taillon.)

Also, while it's certainly true the money paid to Iwamura and Vazquez plus the money paid to the Mariners does equal the salary the Pirates paid to Morris in 2008, I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. For one thing, the prospects acquired from the Mariners (plus Clement and Cedeno) easily have much more value to the Pirates than Matt Morris ever could have. Nathan Adcock has quietly put together one of the better seasons of any Pirates prospect, in fact. And the money the Bucs sent to the Mariners wasn't just cash the Pirates randomly threw in - that money covered most of the rest of Jack Wilson and Ian Snell's 2009 pay. Wilson and Snell did very little to earn that money with the Mariners, but if they'd stuck with the Pirates, the Bucs would have been on the hook for it anyway, and without getting prospects in return. (Snell probably would have stayed in the minors, providing no value whatsoever.) Oh, and the Pirates got the Mariners to pay the $4.25 million they would have owed Snell in 2010. The Wilson/Snell trade was a clear win for the Pirates, and the $3 million or so they shipped to the Mariners wasn't wasted in the least.

As for Akinori Iwamura and Ramon Vazquez, yes, that was wasted money. But come on - Vazquez's deal was for $2 million. Show me a team that hasn't had a busted $2 million contract in the past two years. The Iwamura acquisition was bad, particularly if the Pirates could have given him a physical and didn't, but comparing him to Morris seems harsh, particularly since he cost less than half as much. It's pretty easy to add up a couple of bad contracts and equate that with one really awful one. In fact, you can do it with nearly any team. Here, watch - the 2010 Rays:

Pat Burrell - $9 million for a .625 OPS

Dioner Navarro - $2 million for a .576 OPS

Gabe Kapler - $1.05 million for a .596 OPS

-------------------------------------------------------------------

= Matt Morris

The reasons the Matt Morris trade were so bad were that the Pirates had just had an opportunity to spend that money in the draft and they didn't, and also that the trade that brought him to Pittsburgh made no sense. He was acquired for a stretch run in which the team had no chance of making the playoffs, and he already had so little value that the Giants couldn't believe how lucky they were to clear his salary from the books. 

In contrast, while I wasn't a huge fan of the Iwamura deal when it was announced, it did at least make some amount of sense - the Pirates needed a second baseman, and they paid the going rate for one who figured to be roughly average. Again, if the Bucs could have given him a physical and didn't, that's on them, but even in that case, they didn't skimp on the draft to pay for him, the way the Pirates did with Morris.

The Vazquez deal at the time also made some degree of sense: he was coming off a good year in Texas, and the Pirates needed a spare infielder. And again, the Jack Wilson money wasn't wasted money at all. Lumping these three transactions together and saying they add up to the ridiculous, indefensible mess that was the Matt Morris trade just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. 

A final point: veteran free agents go bust. This happens all the time, even when a team does its due diligence before signing or trading for one. If we're serious about wanting the Pirates to spend money, and we should be, we have to accept that these things will happen. Again, the Rays are a good example - their opening day payroll was around $73 million this year, and they completely blew $12 million of that on Burrell, Navarro and Kapler. It's never good to waste money, but every team will waste some if it's serious about winning. The Pirates wasted $7 million on Iwamura and Vazquez, but I won't fret much about a sum that small. That's just the price of doing business, and there's going to be more where that came from if the Pirates start really spending money.

Comment 52 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

The good franchises spend money to make money. The Pirates have done a good job spending money in the draft for the last couple of seasons BUT

this season we will see if they are for real about improving this team or if they are still blowing smoke up our ass’s. I feel that the buc’s HAVE to sign their top 2 pics this year to give this organzation a much needed shot in the arm. The Sarno signing still pisses me off as a fan because I feel that the pirates could have signed this kid if they would stop pinching penny’s together here and there. What’s the point in having this state of the art facility in the DR if they are not going to sign impact kids down there.

As far as the small market “BS” I have never bought it. How come the buc’s are the only team this affects. I know that there are alot of teams who suck right now with the pirates but come on……….THIS HAS WENT ON FOR TO DAMN LONG. Pirate fans…….we need to pray for two words……………………………..MARK CUBAN!!

Kenneth Lewis Moore

by lightskin350 on Jul 14, 2010 2:05 AM EDT reply actions  

If you want to get mad about the Sano result. . .

get mad over NH’s and Gayo’s inability to play the game with his agent. That was not about penny pinching, it was about egos and going over an agent’s head. All reports indicate the Pirates would have paid more than the Twins.

by Scranton on Jul 14, 2010 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

lightskin

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

by BuccoBrigade on Jul 14, 2010 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

This is a classic case of two homeless people fighting over a prized shopping cart.

That is, when you’ve got very little, small things multiply in importance in the sight of those fighting for the scraps. Dejan has somehow lost track of the fact the all teams sign guys who don’t pan out as they hoped.

You hit the nail on the head in that you could go right on down the list of 30 MLB teams, and I’ll bet you that almost every single one of them has $10M or more of wasted payroll on the team. The Mets are still paying Bobby freaking Bonilla for Chissake.

The fact that $10M is a larger percentage of the Pirates payroll than it would be for other teams is immaterial. The Pirates don’t get to pay under market prices on free agents. They have to compete with all the other teams.

To illustrate that point further…

The Brewers are paying over $20M this year to players no longer on the team. Plus $8M for Trevor Hoffman and $5.25M for Doug Davis, both of which have ERAs over 7.50.

The Brewers payroll is $90M, and the above $30M is a third of that.

The Cubs have tons of dead weight this year with Lee and Ramirez having poor years, not to mention Zambrano, etc.

The main difference between Matt Morris and the moves that haven’t worked out this year is that Littlefield looked at acquiring Matt Morris as a serious strategy that would help the club long term. There’s little doubt that the decision to acquire Aki and Vasquez was only about plugging holes at what appeared to be reasonable MLB rates.

I’m afraid that Dejan has followed the Pirates exclusively for so long that he may have lost touch with the reality of most of the other 29 MLB teams.

by MarkInDallas on Jul 14, 2010 2:54 AM EDT reply actions  

The main difference between Matt Morris and the moves that haven’t worked out this year is that Littlefield looked at acquiring Matt Morris as a serious strategy that would help the club long term. There’s little doubt that the decision to acquire Aki and Vasquez was only about plugging holes at what appeared to be reasonable MLB rates.

Huntington has mentioned Iwamura, Church, and Eveland as potential multi-year solutions when he acquired them. He may not have been serious, but at least he said it.

by Adam Reynolds on Jul 14, 2010 5:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Sure, and who knows, if things had gone a different way, Aki and Church could have been a part of the future. The point is, we needed a backup outfielder and a second baseman at the time, and those players were hired at decent rates for the production that could have been expected from them.

Littlefield traded for Morris specifically so he could mentor the young pitching staff and teach them how to win.

That’s the difference.

by MarkInDallas on Jul 14, 2010 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

Really?
The Mets are still paying Bobby freaking Bonilla for Chissake.

Wow. According to Baseball-Reference his last game was in October of 2001 and he hasn’t played with the Mets since 1999. How the hell do they still owe him money?

by IAPiratesFan on Jul 14, 2010 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

Actually the Mets aren’t paying him a cent. They owed him X dollars at one point and he chose to have the Mets buy him an annuity. He’ll be receiving a million dollar check annually for the next decade or two, but it’s an insurance company that’s sending it, not the Mets.

by gorillagogo on Jul 14, 2010 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

Over $1 million until 2035.

And I read it’s because the Mets didn’t want to pay him $5.9 million for one season.

by IAPiratesFan on Jul 14, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

I read that too somewhere, but whoever wrote it was misinformed. The Mets bought him an annuity. It was a pretty savvy move by Bonilla, forgoing a lump sum payment for a much larger sum spread out over a few decades.

by gorillagogo on Jul 14, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t know how savy that really is. I would think anyone with a functioning brain would rather have $25 million spread out over 25 retirement years than $6 million over one year.

by IAPiratesFan on Jul 14, 2010 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Pretty savvy, actually.

He got a fixed rate at a little over 8% per year, rather than a flex rate pegged a few points above LIBOR or something like that. As such, the deal he took represented a long-term bet on low interest rates, and he’s absolutely cleaning up in the current economic climate.

by Vlad on Jul 15, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Sigh...

It doesn’t matter what points you make, what research you dredge up, or what alternatives you suggest. Every discussion of the pirates in almost every media forum degenerates into an ownership debate. I’m getting rather burnt out on it, unfortunately.

The two sides of the argument just beat together ceaselessly.

Argument #1- the Pirates front office has a solid plan in place. The ownership group will eventually spend money to be competitive, but it must build a framework for amateur and minor league talent first. Unfortunately this plan is going to take another 1.5-4 years to come to fruition. Meanwhile the 2010 team is on pace for a season that may go down in the annals of baseball history as one of the statistically worst.

Argument #2- the Pirates front office has been and still is the worst in baseball. The owners are bums and are diabolically and deliberately screwing Joe Yinzer from seeing the beloved pirates win more games than they lose. Mark Cuban, Mario Lemieux, and Donnie Iris should lead a coup on Federal St. and seize control of the Pirates. They will then spend $120 million a year on payroll, we will have Cliff Lee and Albert Pujols in a Pirate uniform, and we will have the title in 2011.

It’s like beating your head off a concrete wall again and again and again. But nice article, anyway. You can’t just throw money away. Ask the Brewers about the $10 million they’re paying Jeff Suppan this year. I’ll take Aki and his $4 mil over that every year.

by zdye724 on Jul 14, 2010 3:03 AM EDT reply actions  

Man, you said it...

The two sides are so entrenched, It’s like a devout Christian arguing with a Darwin-loving Atheist. It makes for really lame message board wars.

by SloshyJ on Jul 14, 2010 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

The funny part...

…is that I don’t even know how many of the supposedly “pro-ownership” posters necessarily believe that Nutting is going to open the wallet once the team gets a young core in place. We just don’t think it’s fair to punish him before he’s actually committed the crime…

by Vlad on Jul 15, 2010 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with you here, Charlie.

The names being thrown around here do beg an interesting question to me, though.

How much better off would the Pirates be today with Rajai Davis, Matt Wieters, and Miguel Sano in their organization instead of Matt Morris and Dan Moskos?

by Suffering Buc on Jul 14, 2010 3:14 AM EDT reply actions  

You mean if Wieters and Sano were the 3rd and 4th best talents in the entire organization now?

I’d say significantly better, but you can’t do anything about them now, and I wouldn’t take Wieters over Dave Littlefield keeping his job any longer than he did.

by Adam Reynolds on Jul 14, 2010 3:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Hah . . .

I never thought of it that way. It’s like we traded Dave Littlefield and Matt Weiters for Danny Moskos. I’d make that trade every time.

by Scranton on Jul 14, 2010 8:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

Good article Charlie, although I do have one small quibble. Iwamura passed his physical at the start of spring training, so I’m not sure how giving him one prior to acquiring him changes the way things ultimately played out. To me, the lack of a physical is more of an optics problem for the Pirates — it makes the team look bad but it’s something that probably wouldn’t have had any effect had they given him one.

by gorillagogo on Jul 14, 2010 9:04 AM EDT reply actions  

Evidently

Their ST physical didn’t include having him step on a scale.

by JRoth95 on Jul 14, 2010 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

You're exactly right here.

Giving him a physical a month after the season … when he was clearly well enough to play the previous month … would have told them nothing they didn’t already know.

by MarkInDallas on Jul 14, 2010 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

BTW

DK has responded to this post in his morning links roundup, and he says:

Frank Coonelly said in a group interview last month that improving the quality of those pitching prospects was the primary motivation to include that cash.
Point being, you’re saying the $3.3M goes towards getting Snell and Wilson off our books, but the President of the Pirates said it went towards the 3 prospects. I don’t think DK is wrong to take Coonelly’s comment seriously.

You may want to argue that Alderson and 2 other guys are worth $3.3M, but the other salaries are, essentially, irrelevant to the equation, per Coonnelly’s statement.

by JRoth95 on Jul 14, 2010 9:28 AM EDT reply actions  

This seems like a game of semantics. For all we know, the initial deal could’ve involved $2M instead of $3.3 and 2 or 3 lesser pitchers. Or perhaps nothing at all if the money wasn’t included. Only the Mariners and Pirates know for sure.

What we do know is that the actual trade was Jack Wilson + Ian Snell + $3.3M for Ronny Cedeno + Jeff Clement + 3 minor league pitchers. Dejan might want to break it down as Wilson for Cedeno + Snell for Clement + $3.3M for 3 minor leaguers but that’s an arbitrary assessment created by Dejan.

by gorillagogo on Jul 14, 2010 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

In hindsight, you can assign that money to whichever part of the deal didn't work out, I guess.

It could have been, “You can take these pitching prospects OR Clement for Snell and Wilson, or BOTH if you throw in $3.3M”.

Who can blame the FO for wanting to increase their chances of success by paying that money? It’s not like there was something else we could have done with that money that didn’t get done because we didn’t have it.

by MarkInDallas on Jul 14, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’ve jumped up ownership’s backside on spending, but I don’t understand turning around and saying the team shouldn’t have kicked in cash to get a better prospect return in exchange for two awful players.

by Adam Reynolds on Jul 14, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

But then it comes back to scouting

And we’re back to the issue of whether this org is any good at identifying the best prospects in trades.

To be clear, I don’t really have a problem with including the money to improve the MiL return; I just don’t want that money treated as if it was part of the ML aspect of the trade because, per Coonelly, it was not.

PS – I don’t know why I wrote “Alderson” above, as he wasn’t part of the Seattle trade, and of course is looking worse, not better. I chalk it up to being away for 2.5 weeks

by JRoth95 on Jul 14, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, I don’t exactly think Felix Hernandez was on the table for Seattle here. 2 of the 3 pitchers acquired have performed well, which is about what we can expect for junk parts.

by Adam Reynolds on Jul 14, 2010 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

To be clear, I don’t really have a problem with including the money to improve the MiL return; I just don’t want that money treated as if it was part of the ML aspect of the trade because, per Coonelly, it was not.

This is beside the point. There’s no major league part of the trade and minor league part of the trade. There’s just a trade. The money covered the bulk of Wilson’s and Snell’s contract, and if the Pirates hadn’t included it they would have gotten fewer or less valuable prospects.

by gorillagogo on Jul 14, 2010 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is my take on it, too.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jul 14, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Shame that’s not Coonelly’s take on it.

Look, guys, you can talk about fungibility and your “take” all you want, but the President of the fucking team says that they added $3M+ to the deal in order to sweeten the A-level return – not to pick up Jack’s contract, not to deal with headcase Snell, but to get better prospects. In other words, the President of the fucking team says (implicitly) that the deal could have happened with Snell/Wilson for Cedeno/Clement, straight up (give or take a few $100k or a PTBNL). You don’t want to talk about the deal that way because it doesn’t fit your preferred take, but I kind of tend to think that Frank Fucking Coonelly might have more insight into how the deal went down than a couple guys on a blog.

Sorry to be rude, but I cannot believe that you’re clinging to your “takes” in the face of Coonelly’s straightforward statement. I’m not sure why Adam Reynolds above thinks that $1.1M is the going rate for an A-level “junk part,” but whatever for that. At least he’s looking at the return that the FO itself says it was chasing, not changing the measuring sticks.

FC says that the Pirates could have gotten Clement/Cedeno for Wilson/Snell, essentially straight up, or they could have gotten Clement/Cedeno/3 A-ballers for Wilson/Snell/$3.3M. The debate is between those two deals in evaluating the FO’s decisionmaking, not whether you think that deal C (Clement/Cedeno for Wilson/Snell/$3.3M) was worth doing. Deal C never existed (thanks to Mr. Z’s poor talent evaluation).

by JRoth95 on Jul 14, 2010 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

FC says that the Pirates could have gotten Clement/Cedeno for Wilson/Snell, essentially straight up, or they could have gotten Clement/Cedeno/3 A-ballers for Wilson/Snell/$3.3M

Did he really say that? I don’t have PG subscription and cant see most of this stuff, so can someone give a link to the article?

by BurgherKing on Jul 14, 2010 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

DK's paraphrase

“Frank Coonelly said in a group interview last month that improving the quality of those pitching prospects was the primary motivation to include that cash.”

Which reads to me as prospects heading from SEA to PIT regardless, and the cash improving their quality. But I don’t think that’s critical; I think it’s clear (and obviously it would be helpful to read the original FC quote, but I trust DK not to be utterly twisting it) that the deal could have happened with only C/C and W/S, plus incidentals to make the 2 sides happier. The $3.3M was to acquire worthwhile prospects for the Pirates; I don’t see another interpretation unless you think that A. DK is full of shit as to FC’s meaning or B. FC doesn’t know what happened in the trade.

by JRoth95 on Jul 14, 2010 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can see how it can go the other way too

Wasn’t Clement in the minor leagues at the time? Was FC counting him as part of the minor league return…

In any case, it doesn’t seem worth obsessing over :-) I m not even sure what the original argument is anymore!

by BurgherKing on Jul 14, 2010 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

I still don't see how this supports DK's argument...

I remeber FC saying that as well but that doesn’t change the fact that this transaction is nothing like the Morris trade. Organizations kick money in deals all the time to sweeten the return. The Pirates weren’t just looking to dump Wilson and Snell they were looking to acquire players to strengthen the organization. The kicked in 3.3M to make that happen. I don’t see anyone crying that the Bucs are wasting money when they sign HS players to above slot deals and there is a high probability that most of those players won’t pan out. So the question is, should the Pirates have spent that much money to acquire Lorin, Adcock and Pribanic. Given that they had the money and needed talent I say it was a good deal. This is also a trade that Littlefied wouldn’t have made in a million years. I just don’t see how it is relevant at all when evaluating the Morris trade. DK missed the mark with this point. I think he was trying to say that this front office is no better at evaluating talent than Littlefield. This Wilson/Clement trade does not support his argument because for all any of us know one of those three pitchers could turn out to be a 20 game winner. DK’s article was pretty good but I had to laugh when I came to this point because it was so ridiculous. Why didn’t he include Joe Randa and Burnitz as money wasted? I can’t think of three more Huntington transactions to add up to that mistake. Church’s $1.5M + Rivas ?M + ? + ?… nope that doesn’t quite get there. The thing that is funny to me is that this front office gets attacked when they don’t spend money and then they get attacked when they do.

by Slick1 on Jul 14, 2010 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, without dropping the f-bomb like 18 times here (which hardly seems necessary, since this seems to be a semantic debate more than anything else):

The Pirates’ motivation for making the trade does not really matter to me. What matters is the result, which is that the Pirates actually saved money on that deal by getting a player who was virtually worthless to them (Snell) off their payroll. If you want to criticize paying $3 million for the prospects, then fine, but you then also have to praise the Bucs for getting $4 million or so of dead money off the books. It doesn’t make much sense to me to consider them separately, since it was all the same transaction, and what matters is the result.

I’m also fine with paying $3 million for Lorin and Adcock, in a vacuum.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jul 15, 2010 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

Jeez, you don’t have to throw a hissy fit just because someone sees things differently. Chill out.

Regardless, your entire argument rests on how you choose to interpret Dejan’s paraphrasing. I highly doubt there was a Cedeno + Clement for Wilson + Snell deal, but knock yourself out if you choose to believe there was.

by gorillagogo on Jul 15, 2010 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

Let me get this straight

If you think through Huntington’s bad acquisitions, they actually make sense and were not long on wishful thinking. The problem is that these acquisitions did not pan out.

So, these Huntington criticisms make no sense at all save, I suppose, as outlets for some fans to vent.

I wished Hunting had refused to sign players like Aki and Church, Donnelly and Crosby. But, to be frank about this, one reason the Pirates might have signed these guys was to have players on the team that the common fan had heard of or could look up his career stats on ESPN.

What is one of the first things one must do when building a new home? Dig a deep hole! The foundation is the most important and least appreciated part of a building. The Pirates are now building a foundation. It ain’t pretty. It’s a muddy, smelly hole in the ground. And it’s good that it’s there.

Steve Z

by steve_z on Jul 14, 2010 3:57 PM EDT reply actions  

It's never NH's fault, huh

   laroche’s .180 avg should not have been a clue he stinks.
   Clements .220 avg the same
   Hanson’s 5 plus era the same
   Evelands 6 plus ERA
   Aki 5 million for a 1 year injury ridden and about to be released 2B. plus gave up one of your best, cheap and hardest throwing rp on top of it.
   Cedeno at .170 avg
   Crosby at .220 avg
   Morton’s almost 6 ERA for Atl w/ Loche’s almost 7 ERA

   Yeah your right, how was NH to know they all stink? There really wasn’t any clues. it was just bad luck. Nice call steve Z
   
   Yeah your right

by Dan Jenkins on Jul 14, 2010 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

NH has made a lot of mistakes...

but not all of the examples you pointed out are mistakes. Some were good decisions that didn’t pan out. On your list above I agree with Eveland and Aki. Other mistakes IMO: 1) Sano 2) not getting Church out of the lineup 3) Tyler Yates trade 4) Solomon Torres trade 5) Grabow/Gorzo trade 6) inistence on batting Aki leadoff 7) Vasquez 8) Rivas. I can’t think of any others right now and most of these mistakes are minor with little to no long term, or short term, impact. The Sano mistake hurts and the Grabow/Gorzo trade were the only ones that had any significant impact.

by Slick1 on Jul 14, 2010 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

You seem to be big on...

…small samples of ML performance as predictors of future ML performance for prospects.

It’s strange, then, that you never seem to point out that Ohlendorf had a ML ERA of 6+ when we traded for him. I wonder why that is?

by Vlad on Jul 15, 2010 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

Here’s the thing though. Morris wasn’t wasted money. Neither was Aki, nor was Wilson salary. Why not??? Because we wouldn’t have spent this cash anyway. We don’t waste money because we would have never spent it in the first place.

Until ownership spends some cash, I don’t consider anything they do wasteful, because what else would they have spent it on?

by Tintin049 on Jul 14, 2010 8:53 PM EDT reply actions  

That's not entirely correct...

it’s pretty well known that DL went for a slot signing and went cheap in the draft because he wanted to acuire a ML starting pitcher at the trade deadline. His failure tp recognize the market for Morris prevented him from properly allocating his resources to the draft; where it should have gone. If he had any balls at all he would have got SF to throw money in the deal and he could have used that savings to draft Wieters over Moskos. He was an utter joke of a GM and didn’t have a creative bone is his body. This front office does not compare in anyway to Littelfield’s organization. They are far from perfect but DK’s attempt to make them look foolish by comparing them to Littlefield is way off base IMO.

by Slick1 on Jul 14, 2010 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Talent acquisition...

Pirates record since last year’s trade deadline…through the ASB…48-99…a .326 pace…and ASB to ASB…54-108…a .333 pace. This season…30-58 so far…a .340 pace…a pace that would have them 55-107 at the end of the season. Which would be the 3rd worst Pirates team in the last 115 years…behind the 52-53 Pirates. This team IS historically bad…and has spent a lot of money unwisely.

It’s telling that Dejan confirmed this morning on PG+ that there have been NO changes in the scouting department. Watching this team…that’s not difficult to believe…at all. This management and scouting group has given no indication whatsoever that they are any good at assessing or developing talent. Remember…even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

by Thunder on Jul 15, 2010 5:09 AM EDT reply actions  

No changes since when?

If you mean since NH took over, that isn’t right at all. Chris Kline, for instance, was hired away from BA under NH in 2008, and since he was the main guy pushing for Tony Sanchez last year, it’d be tough to argue that he hasn’t had a significant impact on the franchise since he was added.

by Vlad on Jul 15, 2010 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think he’s referring to this blurb from Dejan:

Blogger Bob Smizik wonders if those who scouted Aki Iwamura have been fired. My unsolicited answer: No one has been fired out of Neal Huntington’s pro scouting department.

by gorillagogo on Jul 15, 2010 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

completely disagree on the player development comment...

 I think have shown the system is working: Morris, Wilson, Owens, Moskos, Hughes, Crotta, Moreno, etc. Even Walker, Cutch and Tabata performed better in this org. I think your comments on
player development is way off base.

by Slick1 on Jul 15, 2010 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
A Meet & Greet with Joel Hanrahan
Smiling_small
Pedro Alvarez first in at-bats, Josh Harrison second in fWAR
Small
BD Community Top 30 Prospects
Small
Community Prospect #30

Recent FanPosts

Olz8s2gvbdn15zpl08hlumbr_500_small
Kevin Goldstein's Top 101 Prospects (Taking ?'s on Twitter Now)
Smiling_small
Did you know that Bryan Bullington was an All-Start last year?
Small
Point System Rankings
Towell_small
Color me skeptical, the sad story of Oswalt, Burnett and GFJ
Olz8s2gvbdn15zpl08hlumbr_500_small
Keith Law's Top 100 Prospects
Small
Best and Worst Free-Agent Signings In the Infield
Smiling_small
A look at some guys who didn't sign last year.
Small
Hopes for pitching

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Charlie_small Charlie Wilmoth

Editors

18470r_small Vlad

Authors

Davidtodd_small David Todd

Img_1692_small WTM

Mark_profile_pic_small MarkInDallas