Braves Send Nate McLouth To Minors
by RichieHebner on Jul 27, 2010 5:34 PM EDT
Email
PrintFrom the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
The Braves optioned struggling center fielder Nate McLouth to Triple-A Gwinnett on Tuesday...General manager Frank Wren told AJC reporter Carroll Rogers that the club has activated Brent Clevlen from his rehabilitation assignment with Gwinnett...Braves manager Bobby Cox held struggling McLouth out of the starting lineup for Sunday’s game before using him as a late replacement. He has failed to produce in his return from the disabled list and done little to show the Braves that he’s the answer for center field down the stretch. They have been keeping a close eye on McLouth as the July 31 trading deadline approaches.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
181 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Maybe...
..he’ll get to face Morton down there lol. Or, if he keeps struggling, Locke!
Sean Burnett is building another monument to Nate McClouth.
Poor Braves will have to eat or find some team to take on the $15.75 million contract extension…
Wow.
Considering how good he was in April and May of 2008, it’s hard to believe that he’s being sent to AAA. I’ve kind of thought that Garrett Jones nickname should Fluke instead of Legend. Maybe Nate can have that name too.
Jones
Really, isn’t Jones just about what everyone should have expected? People who thought he was going to hit 40 HR were delusion.
He’s serviceable and will end the season with stats comparable to Adam LaRoche for a lot less money and frustration.
Yeah, serviceable...
I guess my point is that he is not that legendary. He’s just a guy who got a late start and had a flukey first season.
by IAPiratesFan on Jul 27, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I know what you're saying...
But baseball needs its Legends, its Joseph Charboneaus, its Mark Fidrychs…
"Super Joe" Charboneau
is the archetype — poor Tribe fans.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
Is it bad I had to google him?
Or does it just reveal my age?
by IAPiratesFan on Jul 28, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I spent a fair amount
of time working in northeast Ohio back then. His doing things like you mention made him a role model for a lot of folks. He had a “regular-guy-down-at-the-plant” charisma that was very likable.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
And then drink them through his nose.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 30, 2010 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Nah,
it speaks more to just how briefly this shooting star was in the sky.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
Actually...
I was less than a year old when he won ROY. I was 2 years old when he played his last Major League game.
I was just now looking through the list of the ROY winners and there’s a lot of players, pre-1980 that I don’t know.
by IAPiratesFan on Jul 29, 2010 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t live anywhere near Pittsburgh. Has there been any credit given to Neal – from the typical fans – for getting rid of McLouth at apparently just the right time. Or any mention that Jack Wilson has been terrible and Ian Snell awful. Or that Freddy Sanchez is having a lousy season, that Jason Bay is having a bad year and that Adam LaRoche is pretty mediocre…
I guess Gorzelanny’s been the only one to have a good year. And he’s been lucky, given the high walk rate.
Any credit?
Not really, no. Unfortunately.
As Branch Rickey used to say, better to sell a year too soon than a year too late.
by Vlad on Jul 27, 2010 6:02 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Too bad...
He missed the boat on Ralph Kiner. Pretty much got nothing useful for him.
by IAPiratesFan on Jul 27, 2010 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
NH gets credit
He gets credit all the time. Just like he gets credit for the failures of Charlie Morton, Tyler Yates, Craig Hansen, Robinzon Diaz, Brandon Moss, Jose Bautista, Jeff Clement, Akinori Iwamura, Ronny Cedeno, Daniel McCutchen, Tom Gorzelanny, Andy LaRoche, Ryan Church, Ramon Vazquez, Brendan Donnelly, Dana Eveland, and Jack Taschner. Yeah, he gets lots of credit.
Morton – Way too early to give up on him.
Yates – who cares?
Hansen – Yeah, why didn’t they see that injury coming?
Diaz – Wasn’t supposed to be good.
Moss – Was supposed to be a 4th outfielder. Is a 4th outfielder.
Bautista – He sucked and was traded. A flash in the pan season in one statistical category does not a failure make.
Clement – Too early to give up on him.
Iwamura – Failure.
Cedeno – Was seen as a stopgap shortstop. Is a stopgap shortstop.
McCutchen – Seen as a low ceiling starter. Is a low ceiling starter.
Gorzelanny – Could be a failure, depends on what Hart and Ascanio can do.
LaRoche – Didn’t turn into what he could have, is still young, and will be a good utility infielder.
Church – Too little money to matter, let alone be considered a mistake.
Vasquez – See Church, Ryan.
Donnelly – See Church, Ryan.
Eveland – Failure.
Taschner – See Church, Ryan.
That’s two, possibly three failures if you count LaRoche. I would say the successes far outweigh the legitimate failures at this point.
by thecheeseisblue on Jul 27, 2010 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions
If you don't count LaRoche, then you're in the tank
The only people who expected LaRoche to be this useless were the ones who hated the move from Day One. Saying that, if he turns into a tolerable UT, then it was an OK acquisition, is prodigious goalpost moving.
Also, while I don’t entirely disagree about the various Churches, that’s an awful lot of swings-and-misses to discount entirely. You’re supposed to occasionally hit on cheap FA acquisitions. Granting that the BP is as variable as NH believes, I’ll give a wash on Donnelly and Taschner for Dotel and Lopez, but getting Church and Vazquez and Monroe and Hinske all wrong adds up to at least one Eveland.
Also, and this is similar to your LaRoche excuse-making, it was the skeptics who labeled Moss a 4th OF. NH, your Pittsburgh Pirates, and a hell of a lot of people around here all insisted that he could be an acceptable starting OF.
A flash in the pan season in one statistical category
Dude, he’s OBPing .360 and has a wOBA of .391. This season may be his one and only excellent one, but let’s not pretend he’s a one-off Dave Kingman*, all longball and nothing else.
- Bautista’s 2010 is about as good (or better, depending which metric you pick) than Kingman’s very best year, while he plays better defense at a harder position.
I count a useful player as not being a failure with LaRoche, though it’s fine if you want to classify him as a failure.
There have been some bad free agent signings, but no worse than any other team. I don’t think NH should be knocked for making the same small mistakes everyone else is.
Personally, I didn’t hear people talking about Moss as a starter. If that’s the case, then yes, that would be a small failure, but I didn’t hear it much.
I didn’t see his OBP prior to ten minutes ago (stupid on my part). So yes, he’s been good this season, but that’s no reason to count losing him as a failure, since last year people would have classified keeping him as a failure as he had his usual terrible season.
All I was saying is that failures have been few, and certainly not the list presented.
by thecheeseisblue on Jul 27, 2010 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
And I’m not going to nitpick, if someone thinks something is a failure that I don’t, so be it. But, trying to pick every little tiny move that didn’t work out and count it against NH as a GM is ridiculous and unfair to him.
by thecheeseisblue on Jul 27, 2010 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
And they were, I’m a very rosy thinker in general. The unfair comments weren’t aimed at you, you were being very fair. They were aimed at the original thing I responded to that tried to list a bunch of non-issues and not-done-yets as failures.
by thecheeseisblue on Jul 27, 2010 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
(And I like Andy LaRoche for no real reason)
by thecheeseisblue on Jul 27, 2010 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Go back to last June
and look at discussions here about Moss. His defenders (and there were a lot of them) insisted that he was starter quality, on the basis of his defense (inflated by a few early season successes with his arm) and an insistent belief that his bat would come around (he was supposedly recovering from a power-sapping injury).
As I said, I thought he was a 4th OF, and the Sox thought he was a 4th OF, but NH acquired him to be a starting OF and a lot of people around here insisted that he was more than a 4th OF. You simply can’t use a guy falling to his minimal value as a basis for calling his acquisition a non-bust.
A lot of people thought Donnelly was done, but that doesn’t make it OK that NH signed him because he was supposed to be done. A big part of NH’s job is to find guys (like Meek) who aren’t supposed to be good, but are. You can’t expect a high rate of return on such guys, but you also can’t dismiss failure after failure (name me a position FA who’s been a successful signing). He doesn’t have to bat 1.000 in trades or signings, but he needs to do more than roll one through the right side occasionally (his first two BPs were abysmal, don’t forget, and it wasn’t just because the farm system was weak).
If any of these signings were supposed to contribute significantly to the team, that signing a failure. However, they have all been bench players of minor bullpen arms. I can see how missing on a starting outfielder, or starting pitcher, or closer can be considered a failure, but I can’t fault a guy for whiffing on bench fodder.
by thecheeseisblue on Jul 27, 2010 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
But they've all been DFA'd
Or traded for nothing*. I mean, I agree with you fundamentally, but useful bench pieces aren’t the rarest of commodities – DY came for a dollar. I just think it’s striking that NH is 0-for-4 on FA position players (I’m not sure how to count Crosby – he’s about what you’d want, but he hardly counts as a success. He’s the baseline of what I’d call a non-failure for that kind of pickup – he’s competent enough, he does what you hoped for when you signed, but didn’t exceed anyone’s expectations. He’s like a groundout to 2B that moves the runner over – better than nothing, but not by a lot).
As with the bullpen, NH could change this perception with just 1 or 2 good signings. But so far, it’s a pretty bleak picture.
- Church’s DFA is a matter of time, I think we can agree
I mean I see your point of view, and have no problem with it. I’m just a less harsh critic, personally. My original point was to the guy pointing to things I cannot see as failures whatsoever, and saying they were. That was unfair, your points are all valid.
by thecheeseisblue on Jul 28, 2010 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
That 0-for-4 would be a bigger deal...
…if the money and time commitments concerned weren’t totally minimal. Church got $1.5M for one year, plus a few minor incentives. Monroe got $750k over one year. Vazquez got $4M spread across two years. And Hinske earned $1.5M for one year. So together, that’s what? $7.75M, minus the cost of four MLB minimum salaries at $400k per (since we would’ve had to use those roster spots on somebody, in the absence of the signings in question)… and we’re left with a little over $6M.
And this is worth rending garments over? Big freakin’ whoop. There probably isn’t a team in baseball that isn’t “wasting” that kind of money on one or more veterans this year alone.
No kidding
You want to see wasted money? Go to Wrigley Field. This is a ridiculous discussion, whether it is an absolute or a relative analysis. You want people to take risks? Well, they’re gonna fail every now and then. If they aren’t failing, they aren’t trying.
by RichieHebner on Jul 28, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Moss was seen as a guy...
…with the floor of a 4th OF and potentially the ceiling of a starting OF. Which is why people wanted to see him start: To find out whether he could handle it or not.
And the glove thing wasn’t just about arm runs at the start of one season. Moss also graded out as having above-average range in 2007 and 2008, which is why we gave him a look in CF this spring. He’s an above-average glove, plain and simple.
And the glove thing wasn’t just about arm runs at the start of one season.
No, but the arm runs at the start of the season gave him a positive WAR long after his bat had failed. He ended the year with about half a win as a defender; he had reached that by May.
And so what?
The argument was that he was providing above-average defense to compensate for his bat – and he was. The argument also was that he was likely to continue providing above-average defense in the future, based on his past performance – and that was true, too.
So where’s the beef?
"name me a position FA who’s been a successful signing"
Garrett Freakin’ Jones, for one. If you get to count Monroe as a failure, then Jones counts as a success, since they both got a minor league deal with a NRI, and had no guarantee of making the roster out of ST.
And of course, Hinske was a success on the field. 100 OPS+ (107 if you look at the year as a whole) with above-average defense at his primary position. That’s perfectly acceptable bench-player performance. Is it NH’s fault that Hinske got his panties in a twist over playing time, and requested a trade? A trade in which we received back two relatively interesting lottery tickets (who are both playing fairly well in 2010), I might add?
It seems like you’re using an unreasonably broad definition of “failure”, in order to cast as poor a light as possible on NH’s FA signings.
This I buy
I didn’t realize/had forgotten that Hinske played that well for us (perhaps because he saw so little playing time). This is also the most positive spin I’ve heard on the trade return, but of course time will tell.
Well, let's check the tape.
We got back two guys for Hinske: Casey Erickson and Eric Fryer.
Erickson moved up to Bradenton this year, where he’s put up a 3.88 ERA and 1.35 WHIP as a swingman. Still getting a ton of ground balls: 54.2% this year, 58.3% for his career. He’s still old for his league (he was when we traded for him – not much to do about that at this point), so he’s not a great prospect, but he might make it as a GB reliever. He certainly hasn’t done anything this year to damage his status.
Fryer got hit in the face in June and is out for the year with a broken orbital bone. But before that, he was playing very well as Bradenton’s regular catcher: .274/.373/.487 batting line in 233 PA, with good defensive reviews (including a 45% CS).
Neither one is a future stud, but both look at this point like useful parts to have on hand in the system, and either or both could end up as role players for the big club a few years down the road. Which is a solid return for a half a season of a 4th OF.
Was just checking the GCL Pirates boxscore and
Fryer is back. It looks like today is his 3rd game back.
While I agree with your general points, it's hard to classify LaRoche as anything but a failure.
The guy was the number one prospect in the Dodgers’ system for a few years, tore up the minors, was considered a steal for Jason Bay, and was supposed to be one of the best young third basemen in baseball immediately on gaining a starting job. Now we’re HOPING he’ll be a useful utility infielder. It was a failure in every way.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
And...
John Grabow is on the DL, Xavier Nady is a bench player, Nyjer Morgan can’t hit,
by IAPiratesFan on Jul 27, 2010 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
No. Just a lot of crap for giving up on Bautista. Of course, these same fans want Alvarez off of the team already.
Seriously. Stay away from Facebook.
Bautista
OK, speaking of credit and crap: how many people here were gloating when Bautista briefly stalled at 18 HRs? It was “anyone can have a good couple months” and “no one should miss that flash in the pan.” Well, he’s up to 30 in 99 games.
I’m not saying I wish we had him instead of Pedro – or anything like that – but the same crew that trots out “SSS!” whenever someone questions NH was mighty quick to jump on a 2 week cold spell to pronounce doom on the season of your 2010 HR leader.
Just today, I brought that point up to a guy at work who thinks Huntington is awful. He said Neal gets no credit, because Nate had value at the time of the trade, and since we didn’t get anyone of consequence (ignoring Locke, assuming Gorkys will fail—which may be true, but not a guarantee-etc.), it’s still a big ol’ failure.
This seems to be the dominant position of most people I hear talk about how bad some of the trades (this one in particular) have been. For many people to consider any trade the pirates make a success, I think they believe the Pirates must immediately upgrade the major league club and the trade must look like a steal at the time of the trade, at the present, and for the foreseeable future to them. Also, I believe payroll must be added.
Pretty much, yes.
I forgot to mention a friend of mine told me that this trade is in no way an indictment of the Braves, because they traded three terrible players for McLouth. So, the trade doesn’t hurt them and they shouldn’t be blamed, because they “knew” the three guys weren’t worth spit.
I think it’s just bias / rational ignorance. He’s actually pretty intelligent.
by CptnAwesome on Jul 27, 2010 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Well....
It’s the same argument Pirates fans make with McLouth. But the jury is still out on all the guys we got. I’m may be reaching a verdict on Nate.
We mostly knew...
Going into that season, that McLouth was not a 25 HR, gold glove CF. He was very mediocre after the all star game, and had a very poor glove.
With that said, NH made the mistake of holding onto McLouth for too long. In the offseason, when McLouth was probably worth the most, Brian Cashman offered Robbie Cano for McLouth straight up. NH said it wasn’t enough. That was our chance for a legitimate franchise 2B (and we had no prospects after Sanchez), and NH decided to hold out.
I’m hoping that Huntington learns from things like that. He tries to be a tough negotiator, but if a good offer comes along, he really shouldn’t try to negotiate any higher.
I agree
Its just like the Bay Trade Rumors and the trades we could have made..it would have been nice if we dealt Bay for Lee, Gutierrez, Shoppach But at the time it didnt seem like enough and Cano had a mediocre season that season and McLouth was a all star…I would have liked to see him make that trade now too but idk i still think he got a nice return for an over achiever like McLouth, Locke and Gorkys were both top 10 Prospects
Cano was coming off a season...
…where he hit .271/.305/.410, good for an 86 OPS+, and in which he’d been criticized/benched several times for a lack of effort. He was also under contract for three more years at $29M guaranteed.
It’s nice that Cano has bounced back, but turning down that offer was probably the easiest decision NH ever made.
And New York NEVER offered Cano...
That was a rumor that was debunked by people within the Yankee organization.
Dubunked by the Yankees?
“Hey, did you almost trade this really good player for this player who turned out to suck?”
“Uh…. (shifty eyes) no.”
I heard they offered Phil Hughes in the offseason. Hard to verify either way, though.
by Adam Reynolds on Jul 29, 2010 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Eh, you always have to look at the offer at the time it was made.
I agree that the offseason was the time to sell high, but Cano had a WAR of 0.2 that season as compared to McLouth’s 3.7. Cano would have been an awesome buy low, and there was reason to believe his 2008 numbers weren’t his true talent level as he’d had 4.7 and 2.9 WAR seasons the two previous years. Still, if I were Huntington, I’d have asked for more as well. You don’t trade your biggest chip for a buy low and only a buy low unless they’re way more established than Cano was at the time.
Same with Bay. Selling him in the offseason would have been a sell low, as he’d come off the worst season of his career to that point. While the Lee, Shoppach and Gutierrez package would look like highway robbery now, at the time Shoppach was a mediocre backup catcher, Lee had one good season and four horrible ones, and Gutierrez wouldn’t have been enough by himself.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
I still have trouble
finding the “truly bad” NH trade. Bay, McLouth, Sanchez, and Wilson all brought back pieces that were worth looking at (and some that are still worth looking at — e.g., Morris) in exchange for pieces that were quickly becoming irrelevant to the Bucs. The Nady/Marte deal has been great. I just don’t see where he has been beaten by anyone.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
well right now
Alderson isnt worth looking at… that might be the only one that looked better during the trade than after.
The Bay deal definitely looked better during.
Andy LaRoche was supposed to develop into one of the best 3B in the Majors.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
"Completely," no
But someone just quoted a contemporary account that had LaRoche becoming, immediately, a top-notch 3B. I’d be happy now if he can stick as a UT.
I was actually talking about Alderson, but I would like to see LaRoche get a chance as a utility guy. I really think his back derailed him this season, so I would like to see him come back and have a nice spring next year.
Andy has a very small window to prove he’s a major leaguer, though.
Oops
I do suspect that Andy’s back played an outsize role in what happened, but A. he wasn’t exactly an All-Star before his back went out, and B. it’s not like athletes can succeed with bad backs.
Alderson is young yet, but he’s got no more than a season left to prove something, IMO.
Gorzo and Grabow.
is the only trade I can think of right now that I’m not content with
by BlindSquirrel on Jul 27, 2010 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
yep.
that one sucked the time it was made, it sucks now and it will continue to suck into the future.
Hart and Ascanio...
are hurt. Don’t write it off yet. The must be hating the contract they game Grabow.
Beginning to hate the Sanchez trade.
Alderson has just taken a huge step backwards.
by IAPiratesFan on Jul 27, 2010 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions
NH gets no credit at all.... his best moves by far as i rank them in order
1. The Meek Rule 5 pick
2. Selection of Pedro Alvarez (2nd Overall 2008)
3. The Hanrahan and Milledge for Burnett and Morgan,
4.Tabata, Ohlendorf, Karstens and McCutchen for Nady/Marte
5. The Minor league free agent signing of Garret Jones
selection of Alvarez likely
pretty much a no brainer…
Nady trade may be ahead of the Milledge trade… I agree with the 5 too, in a diff order
by BurgherKing on Jul 27, 2010 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if he screwed the pick up,
He could have still taken Posey, Smoak, Ike Davis, Hosmer, Matusz, Gordon Beckham, Yonder Alonso, Brett Wallace, or Aaron Hicks.
Including Alvarez, that was 10 names I’d be happy with. Come to think of it, that was a really good draft class.
Ya
wow. I think it’s gonna end up with
Posey and Alvarez fighting for the best player to come out with a 2nd tier of
Smoak and Matusz
3rd tier – Davis, Beckham, Hosmer and below that
Hicks, Wallace, and Alonso.
Personally I love Posey, but I will never complain about Pedro (assuming he keeps doing what he’s doing, which is getting better)
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 28, 2010 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I'd go....
1) Tabata trade
2) Pedro – yes no brainer but they still made the pick and got him signed. We need impact talent and that’s what we got with Pedro
3) Hanrahan and Milledge
4) Meek pick
5) Jones
how does he get no credit?
that’s a pretty darn good top 5. or were you being facetious?
I think
It was a
“He doesn’t get any credit as far as the regular fans” which is a response to a post way up by bolton, followed by a “but that’s ridiculous, look at his top 5 moves, they are great.”
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 28, 2010 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
oh i see
he’s statin that NH gets no credit from the fans, not from himself. gotchya
yea lol i like Neal
I was saying i think he has made good moves but ppl dont look at the good moves… they just harp on about Bay trade and the Jose Bautista’s..and say Neal should be fired which is ridiculous
No, but just about every Joe Pirates-fan predicted most of these declines due to age, injuries, and/or track record (except for McLouth falling this hard, although arguably there was a sense that 2008 was a career year).
Figuring out that Xavier Nady and Nyjer Morgan were having career years, or that Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez were injury-prone and past age 30, took more obvious common sense than hardcore detective work by Huntington.
by Adam Reynolds on Jul 27, 2010 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Really now? Tell that to 90 percent of my friends and every one else in Pittsburgh who clamor for Jack.
Jack was the greatest Pirate Shortstop EVER!
Wait… Honus who? No way he was better.
Tell you who was good
who no one remembers. Gene Alley was really good. At best an OK hitter, but he and Mazeroski performed magic together until Alley got hurt. From 1966 through 1969, he was just a terrific defensive shortstop.
by RichieHebner on Jul 28, 2010 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
You're right! I don't remember
I was -20 years old. Old timer =p
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 28, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
You ain't kiddin'!
Alley was awesome.
My other favorite 2B/SS combo from that general time was Beckert & Kessinger from the Cubs. Beckert was very, very underrated, IMHO.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 30, 2010 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
BS. NH shouldn’t get credit for just the idea of trading a Nady or a Sanchez (since due to their career year and injury prone status, respectively, those were easy calls). That’s not discrediting NH, just addressing reality.
Didn’t Huntington also want to extend Freddy and Jack before trading him? That was his original plan.
NH should get minimal credit at best for just trading those guys, because outside of McLouth, the concept of dealing them was an easy call. He should get full credit for the return. Besides Tabata/Ohlendorf and Hanrahan/Millecge, the trade returns have been around average or worse given who was traded in each.
by Adam Reynolds on Jul 27, 2010 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't entirely agree
But the basics here are correct. Just because Joe Buccofan didn’t like a move doesn’t mean that 90% of the GMs in baseball wouldn’t have made it. I do credit NH for the Morgan/Milledge trade because it was, in many ways, close to an even swap, with no particular reason to move Burnett or Morgan (yes, they were likely having career years, but they were being swapped for guys having shit years – Hanrahan could have been Alderson and Milledge Moss, for all NH knew). And he’s made other smart moves as well (no doubt), but I think his fans tend to treat his every move as a bold, counterintuitive stroke instead of basic roster building.
Yes, he’s a better GM than Cam and Littlefield, but so is my dog (and he’s more of a hockey fan).
Trading Nady was such an easy call...
…that the P-G was running opinion pieces calling for the team to extend him, and the national media at the time of the trade was nearly unanimous in calling it a steal for the Yankees.
Somebody’s using 20-20 hindsight here. And it ain’t me.
by Vlad on Jul 27, 2010 11:26 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
As you may have noticed, Vlad
Not everyone thinks the same thing at the same time. I thought it was obvious that Nady should be moved, and I thought it was an obviously good trade. The fact that the national media missed that Nady was at peak value is their problem, not mine.
Anyway, that’s one example. Everyone knew Bay was likely to be moved. Everyone knew Wilson and Sanchez were likely to be moved (as you may recall, Wilson and every single person in a sold-out PNC Park thought his final game as a Pirate was in September of 2008). That’s a hell of a lot of snark to hang on a single instance.
The fact that the national media missed on Nady...
…was also NH’s problem, in that he was blasted up one side and down the other by that very same national media for giving away a star-caliber player for a bag of crap. To the Yankees, no less. It was a smart play, but it was also a gutsy call, in that he was willing to do the unpopular thing and take the PR hit in order to improve the team. Lots of GMs wouldn’t have done it. Littlefield certainly wouldn’t have.
Similarly, while everybody knew that Wilson and Sanchez were likely to be moved, not everybody felt that they should have been. There was a sizable contingent calling for both to be extended – including, once again, the P-G.
So the standard
Is being better than the worst GM in modern baseball history, and being gutsier than a know-nothing editorial staff?
Anyway, the question isn’t whether NH is courageous (there’s no doubt that he is; the man is pathologically adverse to good PR), it’s whether he’s good. And making unpopular yet obvious moves that bring back poor talent isn’t actually the definition of “good.”
It’s fine to argue that NH’s haul has been as good as it could have been; it’s worthless to argue that he’s some sort of unique baseball genius when he trades expensive, aging veterans for young talent.
Incidentally
The Steelers have a long history of getting rid of aging but popular players before they lose value (because of the nature of the NFL, it’s usually letting them walk rather than trading, but that’s irrelevant). The Steelers get away with it because they have a winning tradition and a track record of being right about these moves (Rod Woodson’s probably the biggest exception). But no sane person would laud the Rooneys for letting go of Woodson, Porter, Thigpen, etc. if they lost afterwards or replaced them with lesser talents.
Of course it’s not Huntington’s fault that the Pirates have a losing tradition and that they haven’t won yet with his acquisitions. Context matters. But he’s hardly unique in making moves like this, and until he has a clear track record (as do the Steelers) of winning these moves, he’ll be under suspicion, and rightly so.
"no sane person would laud the Rooneys"
You don’t think so? I’ve seen a hell of a lot of pieces along those lines over the years, regardless of what the Steelers did the next season. They got credit for letting Randle El walk after 2005, for instance, even though they went 8-8 and missed the playoffs the next year.
That's his point
the history and tradition of winning and success breeds trust.
YOU ALL ARE AGREEING!!!!!
Few nits being picked, but y’all are both basically saying that
NH has been smart. He hasn’t been some revolutionary as far as trades (he MAY – read a big MAY – be on this way in the draft, same way Beane was 10 years ago), but he’s gotten the job quite well and with three EXCELLENT drafts that even with average luck the Pirates should get markedly better in the next few years than they have over the last 2 odd decades.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 28, 2010 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
It's a lot easier...
…to say that a guy doesn’t deserve credit for doing the right thing and getting screamed at by know-nothings as a result when you aren’t the guy getting screamed at.
No, being better than Littlefield isn’t enough in and of itself. But I would’ve thought that watching Littefield and Bonifay would’ve taught you that there are a hell of people in the business who suck at getting out of their own way and doing the “obvious” thing. You can’t simply assume that guys are going to get those things right, because even the best GMs sometimes don’t.
Also, in what world did the Nady trade “bring back poor talent”? We got a legitimate building block in Tabata and a solid starter in Ohlendorf. That’s not enough for you? And where did I describe him as “some sort of unique baseball genius”? You’re arguing with people who aren’t there…
This whole board....
seemingly wanted Wilson and Sanchez back. I took a lot of flack for saying get rid of them.
True.
MANY of us didn’t mind losing either one of ’em.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 30, 2010 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Trading Nady was such an easy call (if you, at minimum, follow baseball and understand career years for 30 year olds)…yes.
The real question, as you point out, was whether the particular package was good or not.
by Adam Reynolds on Jul 28, 2010 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions
You want bullshit . . .
but just about every Joe Pirates-fan predicted most of these declines due to age, injuries, and/or track record
That’s bullshit
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
still working on the quote thing
sorry
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
I don't really agree with all of this...
No, but just about every Joe Pirates-fan predicted most of these declines due to age, injuries, and/or track record (except for McLouth falling this hard, although arguably there was a sense that 2008 was a career year).
Figuring out that Xavier Nady and Nyjer Morgan were having career years, or that Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez were injury-prone and past age 30, took more obvious common sense than hardcore detective work by Huntington.
Predicting career years is one thing but no one could have expected nearly all of these players to drop off the face of the earth. And playing semantic is kind of silly. Should neal get minimal credit, maximum credit, marginally better than minimal credit…who gives a shit. He deserves credit for sticking to his plan in the face of adversity and tons of criticism. He very easily could have decided to make a run at .500 and tried to support the Bay, Nady and McLouth cast instead of doing what needed to be done. That is not something every GM is willing to do. Jack Z went in to Seattle and tried to rebuild by trading for veterans and signing free agents. We bitched because DL didn’t seem to do anything that was obvious to all of us and there are a lot of GMs out there who do the same: Wade, Hendry, Moore, etc. Now we have a GM who is making good decisions for the most part and we only want to give him “minimal” credit because he’s doing what we think a GM should do. Doesn’t really seem fair to me.
Justin Welton, Pirates free press writer's article, is exactly what you are talking about
Article on recent trades by Huntington that he doesn’t get credit for.
http://piratesfreepress.com/2010/07/22/pittsburgh-pirates-recent-trades
Dude, Justin Welton = you. If you’re going to hype your own stuff here, at least be honest about it.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jul 27, 2010 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t live anywhere near Pittsburgh. Has there been any credit given to Neal – from the typical fans – for getting rid of McLouth at apparently just the right time. Or any mention that Jack Wilson has been terrible and Ian Snell awful. Or that Freddy Sanchez is having a lousy season, that Jason Bay is having a bad year and that Adam LaRoche is pretty mediocre…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
…No.
No, they do not get credit for that from yinzers.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
I didn’t have much company, but I loved the McLouth trade from the moment I heard about it. McLouth always was and is a fourth outfielder who had a hot four months. The Pirates traded him at the absolute peak of his value. (And yes, although I’m not that often right when I spout my opinions, I’ve been saying this since about two or three weeks before the McLouth trade.)
I wouldn't gloat about Sanchez
He was worth 1 WAR in his first ~30 games back from the DL. He’s since regressed to 0.4 WAR in 58 games, but until the season’s over, I wouldn’t presume that this is what he’ll provide.
Honestly, at this point...
…I’m almost tempted to see whether the Braves would dump him plus some large portion of his salary for a fringe prospect.
He almost has to bounce back at least a little, right? Be a better 4th OF than Church, I bet.
by Vlad on Jul 27, 2010 6:05 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
That was probably what the 2-hour meeting was about.
NH: “Dejan, how can I make you happier?”
DK: “I want Jack, Freddy, McLouth, and Josh Fogg back.”
NH: “I’ll try to get Jack and Nate back, and maybe Kip Wells, but I’m not sure if teams really want our injured catching prospect Tony Sanchez.”
you know what messed him up?
the eye tests! Maybe he hits better when he cant see clearly!
by BurgherKing on Jul 27, 2010 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
was thinking that also.
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on Jul 27, 2010 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions
You're on to something...
My baseball career peaked in little league… right before I was told I needed glasses.
I'm not a big believer in Young.
And he’s not an ideal OF backup, in that he can’t even pretend to play CF.
by Vlad on Jul 27, 2010 11:28 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Tabata
Why do people keep pretending that Tabata is at least as good a defensive CF as Cutch? We don’t need 3 CF-grade OFs on the roster.
That’s separate from the DY issue – I know that Vlad will dislike DY no matter what he does – but it’s come up in other discussions of backup OFs. As long as Tabata is healthy, having a backup OF who can play CF is an extremely low priority.
"I know that Vlad will dislike DY no matter what he does"
Not true, on either count. I certainly don’t dislike him on a personal level, and there are things he could do to get into my good books (hit like a corner outfielder, play defense anywhere, etc.). He just isn’t able to do them. Which is why I place the valuation on him that I do.
Did you take your cranky pills this morning, or what?
Just for reference:
Young has played in 303 MLB games, and in that time, he’s accumulated a princely total of 0.9 WAR. Less than one win more than his teams would’ve gotten from replacement-level talent.
Why is it unreasonable for me to not value such a player particularly highly?
Nice stat, Vlad
Those 303 games equal 718 PAs. So, do you use the number that sounds like “almost 2 full seasons” or the one that sounds like “a bit more than one full season”?
And you wonder why I’d accuse you of being unfair to the guy.
To be clear: DY is, for all practical purposes, a replacement-level player: he makes the league minimum, he was acquired for nothing, and he isn’t blocking anyone more talented. But he produces more than a replacement-level player. I’m not sure why that bugs you so much. Should the 10th or 11th position player on our roster be a 4 WAR guy?
650 PA per year...
…is pretty normal for a durable everyday player. Giles had seven seasons in that range out of ten years as a full-timer, for instance (six over 650, including two over 700, plus a 644 in 2002). Kendall did it five times in six years between 2000 and 2005.
So he’s about 60 PA over one full season as an everyday player. I magnanimously gifted him a few extra PA, saying that those 60 don’t matter. If it bothers you that much, we can prorate his career #s down to 650 PA. Would that be better? Then, in a precisely-measured full season as a regular (650 PA, 591 AB), he’d be a .260-ish batter with 14 HR and a 50/151 K/BB. Is that more to your liking? More “fair”?
Dy’s production doesn’t bother me at all. I don’t understand why you’d think it would. But he is, as you note, “for all practical purposes, a replacement-level player”. And as such, if we need a roster spot, there’d be no great harm in cutting him. And if we have a chance to get something back for him in trade, then there’d be no great harm in dealing him.
He has value. But it’s a small amount of value, and due to the limitations in his skill set it’s difficult to deploy tactically. I’m not sure why saying this is so controversial. It’s just the way things are.
Even if he was worth 0 WAR
We need a 4th OF.
And with the recent experiments of Ryan Church and Eric Hinske, I hope we don’t try to find a FA 4th OFer, rather than just keep DY.
The much-maligned Hinske...
…was worth 0.5 WAR solely in the half-season he spent with us in 2009. That same season, in two-and-a-half times as many games played (and more than three times as many PA), Young was worth 0.4.
This is the sort of thing I’m talking about, when I say that Young is not a particularly valuable commodity, or any kind of building block going forward.
If you’d like another similar example, Dougie Ballgame was worth 1.2 WAR in 2008 – more value than Young’s generated in his entire professional career combined.
Out of curiosity...
What is the average WAR of the 25th man on the MLB roster? Because that’s clearly the position Young has been used in thus far.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
God, maybe it was better the Pirates didn't do proper eye exams.
I lost a lot of respect for Nate when that lame story came out.
I never had McLouth fever
I’m glad he had his moments, putting up some respectable power numbers, throwing a guy out in the ASG, Gold Glove and all. But, I was always, ahem, suspect of his power numbers if you know what I mean.
I hope for his sake he’s been careful with his money because it wouldn’t surprise me if he were to be OOB in a year or two.
BAHAHAHAHA.
That is all.
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.
McLouth was just an overachiever
If you remember every time Nate did anything good, it was maximum struggle and anguished face. The talent never came naturally, he always had to be on overdrive to make anything work. Not surprising at all that he tanked, just glad it was in Atlanta and not here.
I liked Nate
I was ok when they traded him after the shock wore off, but I liked him as a player. I don’t care about the eye exam thing, I have said my share of dumb things. It’s sad that he’s struggling so much IMO. That has got to be tough to take.
Yinzers uber alles
Yinzers will never give Neal any credit
Even when credit is due. They’re too focused on Nutting bein cheap and that nothing will ever change.
by BadAndy on Jul 27, 2010 8:15 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
At the time I thought
it wa a good trade for both teams. The idea is to make deals that help both parties, so those teams will want to trade with you again. If you keep trying to screw the other guy, like Littlefield always seemed to do, why would anyone want to deal with you?
Just never saw Nate or Morton falling off the planet.
Did you read the
article where he lambasted the Pirates. He deserves some of what’s going to come his way.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 28, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
IIRC...
…he was more complaining about the franchise and management, rather than the city.
That’s not great, but I can live with it. Players usually don’t have the big-picture view of that kind of stuff.
True
my point was it’s not like he’s been the perfect Pirate/person that makes him immune to a bit of jesting. He may be crying into his gold glove but its still a gold glove that he’s crying into on top of a pile of money. I think he’ll be okay :D
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 28, 2010 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
He did openly root for the Red Wings when they were playing arguably Pittsburgh’s most popular team in the finals of their sport. I’m sure that rubbed more than a few people the wrong way.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
Hard for me to hold that against him, either.
He grew up in Michigan. You can’t expect someone to get rid of boyhood loyalties like that on a whim.
Yeah . . .
I’m a Pens fan and don’t hold that against him. It’s his snarky eyer comment thing that I hold against him. Grow up, man.
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
if i'm the only one, then i'll shut up
but i wouldn’t mind seein this guy get banned.
not you vlad
the one to whom you replied right there
His
caps are certainly annoying but he/she(?) generally has reasonable arguments and avoids trolling/trying to piss people off.
It’s really that his opinion is always really loud and that he calls everyone “son”. My two cents.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 28, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Here's my question
Did anyone foresee this kind of dropoff from Nate?
I mean, I know that a lot of people were happy to see him moved at peak value. But I also know that a lot of people pointed to Nate as an example of how stoopid DL was, not even noticing a solid CF in his own organization. I feel as if perhaps Nate wasn’t underestimated by DL, any more than Bautista was unfairly dismissed by NH.
Of course, DL retains plenty of rope independent of how he treated Nate. But that was certainly a significant charge against him when he went. Suddenly, everyone’s chuckling to see him fail, even as they exulted in his success 2 years ago.
Joe Sheehan of and Keith Law saw McLouth as a 4th outfielder even after the 2009 season.
McLouth’s demise is a triumph of scouts over statisticians. Dan Szymborski and some contributors at BPro loved McLouth to be a productive starter for 2010 and beyond, according to projection models.
His detractors saw a short, unimpressive 5’10’’, 180 build that wouldn’t hit for power in the long run, and never hit for average even in the good times. He had a max-effort swing that wasn’t adequate for future production.
I didn’t see him getting this bad, because I follow the stats more than the scouting perspective. But there are some analysts who were never sold on Nate as a starter.
by Adam Reynolds on Jul 28, 2010 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Bleh, I’d like to blame the concussion, but he stunk before, too.
Hmm, does anyone buy Over 220 PA, ZiPS gives McLouth a 0.9% chance to hit as poorly as he hit or worse? I’m guessing no?
by D.Szymborski on Jul 28, 2010 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Hey, Dan.
Just for fun: If Nate doesn’t play in the majors again this year, what would ZiPS see for him in 2011?
If the season ended today, ZiPS has McLouth at 247/331/419.
by D.Szymborski on Jul 28, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Sheehan and Law aren’t really old school scouts though, so I don’t think it’s a scouts vs. stats type of thing.
Law may not be an "old school scout"...
…but he did get paid by an actual MLB team to scout players.
For the record.
True
But he’s definitely not of the “old school” mindset. Uses advanced stats in his analysis and the past week or so has been desperately trying to convince people that Omar Vizquel is not a Hall of Famer (an argument I can’t believe he actually has to make.)
www.stealingfirstbase.com
That's one that I don't get, either.
You’d think that some of the old scouty types would remember what Ozzie Smith looked like out there, and know better than to compare the two.
Not this kind of dropped, no
Every part of his game went to hell. He couldn’t hit the ball hard anywhere, anytime. His arm is completely gone. He may be hurt, but whatever it was, it was pretty bad stuff to watch.
by RichieHebner on Jul 28, 2010 12:38 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I saw a dropoff coming,
I hated McLouth (mostly because of that awful haircut), but I saw him as a 10-15 HR, .250-.270 avg, left fielder.
I am surprised that he became a .170 guy with Nyjer Morgan power, but I can’t help but smile when I see his stats. If he hadn’t trash talked the Pirates about that eye-exam, I might feel bad for him, but all I can say right now is “Guess the Braves’ vision tests are REALLY working, huh?”
I definitely didn't see him falling this hard.
I thought he’d stick around as a 4th OF type that would be passable as a starter. Definitely didn’t see him falling into sub-replacement level territory.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
From the notebooks of opposing GMs…
NO LONGER ACCEPT VETERANS FROM THE FOLLOWING:
- Andrew Friedman
- Neal Huntington
The Rays are probably the only team better at trading players who turn out to be total duds. Just this past year, they ditched Iwamura and got Sean Rodriguez out of the Angels for what were apparently the remains of Scott Kazmir.
Had to laugh at this
“Honestly, it’s something I can’t fathom at all,” Colorado manager Jim Tracy, formerly of the Pirates, said. “I can’t even wrap my head around it. The Nate that I knew and the one I’ve seen this year … it’s tough to get.”
Tracy is the guy who benched a red-hot McLouth for Nyjer Morgan in Sept. 2007. He didn’t like the Nate he knew. You’d think he’d say, “I knew all along.”
Do I think Tracy would say that? I do. Do I also think that Jim Tracy would revise history to cover up his mistakes? I think that’s obvious. Do I think that he generally sticks to throwing his own players under the bus, though? Yes. Yes I do.
by matskralc on Jul 28, 2010 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm contemplating an important life-decision
now that I’ve finished this thread. I think I want to change my name (real name) to Joe Buccofan.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
DO IT!
I mean whats the downside?
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 28, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
