Bad News On Steve Pearce

From last night's PBC Blog Liveblog:

"9:38: NEWS UPDATE: The late-July injection into the left knee of first baseman Steve Pearce didn't work, so he is scheduled for surgery by team doctor Patrick DeMeo on Wednesday."

I assume this means he's done for the year.

UPDATE (8/4): Out for 4 months. So that means he can start getting back into shape at the beginning of December. Too late for winter ball? I'm not actually sure there's anything for him to do other than get back in shape and revive his swing, so maybe minicamp and an early arrival at ST would suffice.

almost 2 years ago JRoth95 30 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Can we blame this entirely on Deleyn Young?

by ryebr3ad on Aug 3, 2010 1:59 PM EDT via mobile reply actions

Not entirely. It’s not his fault they stuck him at third base after he made it clear he couldn’t play the position.

by ElDuce on Aug 3, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

I was at that game

not 50 feet from Pearce when he got hurt. I cursed Young and Russell as soon as Pearce went down. You could just tell from the look on his face that it was bad news.

by RichieHebner on Aug 3, 2010 7:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Sucks...

this could possible spell the end of his career and Pittsburgh. I was real curious to see what he could do this year with his new found approach. Maybe it’s possible they could get him another option year.

by Slick1 on Aug 3, 2010 2:20 PM EDT reply actions

Sorry to point out that

Pearce was at best a platoon against lefties. He never performed at the major league level much anyway, was a bench guy and undersized for a first baseman, while oversized for a middle infielder. Pirates can cut him loose and never have to worry about him breaking out anywhere else…

by BucsFaninCA on Aug 3, 2010 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions

You don't have to be sorry...

to have a different opinion which very well may be incorrect. I happen to think he is more than a platoon player at had taken a major step forward this year. Major sample size warning but his wOBA is still near tops on the team.

by Slick1 on Aug 3, 2010 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions

He showed enough with the club this year...

…that barring a total catastrophe with the knee I’d expect him to at least make it to spring training next season and fight for a 1B/OF job.

by Vlad on Aug 3, 2010 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions

I disagree

I think Pearce only looked good for a brief time because everyone else was so mediocre. He overachieved in low minors and was below average at AAA and majors. That makes him a marginal prospect. Given many opportunities he never showed himself to be a major leaguer.

by BucsFaninCA on Aug 3, 2010 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Other than 2008, when he was roughly league average, Pearce has been a very good Triple-A hitter.

Pittsburgh Lumber Co.

by MBandi on Aug 3, 2010 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions

I like him

and would love to see him crank it up again next spring. Not like we are chock full of sluggers that we can afford to blow him off, especially when he was hitting well when he got hurt.

by RichieHebner on Aug 3, 2010 7:06 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

In the majors, to date...

..Pearce has an 87 OPS+ (yes, including all his “struggles” from past seasons). Delwyn Young, about whom there appear to be a fair number of man-crushes on this board, has a career 92 OPS+.

And of course, Pearce is younger. And was the better hitter in 2010. And has a position where he’s not a minus defender.

Just sayin’.

by Vlad on Aug 3, 2010 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions

What man-crushes?

You hate him, I make fun of you for hating him, and no one else ever mentions him except when he’s playing.

by JRoth95 on Aug 4, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't hate him.

I just think (correctly, IMO) that he’s not very good. If I hated every past/present Pirate who wasn’t very good, I’d pop a blood vessel and die on the spot.

When Young hit those home runs last month, there were a bunch of people who came out of the woodwork and started making calf’s eyes at him over his pinch hitting and his versatility and all that claptrap, and suggesting that he should have a more prominent role on the team.

by Vlad on Aug 4, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Ah

I missed that adulation. Although those HRs did make me think of you, Vlad.

I know you don’t hate him; you just harp on him disproportionately to his bad influence on the roster. He’s not blocking anyone, he’s not taking valuable PAs from anyone, and he’s above-average at his primary role (PH).

In another thread you just mentioned the potential offensive dropoff from Pedro to a typical UT. Well, bad as his glove is, DY represents the least offensive dropoff of any backup option. His ML RC+ is almost 20 runs (!) better than Andy’s. While it once appeared that LaRoche was infinitely more likely to turn into an everyday player, it’s no longer clear that that’s true at all, and you’re left with picking a PH with a bat and no glove or a PH with glove and no bat. Given that either will see more PAs as a PH than as a starter, it’s not crazy to pick the bat that will be used over the glove that won’t.

As I said, if it comes down to a DFA, I keep Andy over DY, but it’s simply not night and day between them.

by JRoth95 on Aug 4, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions

To Add

One thing that hurts Andy is that his defense is so variable. If I felt certain that, every time LaRoche goes onto the field, he’ll play impeccably, than I worry about his (probably better than he’s shown) bat. But there’s a decent chance that Andy goes out and boots them just like Delwyn. Why, I don’t know, but we’ve seen a lot of it. And I don’t think it’s only his back – he’s had stretches of awful fielding for as long as he’s been here.

by JRoth95 on Aug 4, 2010 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions

By impeccable

I really mean “up to his potential.” When he’s good, he’s very good, but when he’s bad….

by JRoth95 on Aug 4, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions

"ML RC+ is almost 20 runs (!) better than Andy’s"

Sure. LaRoche has underperformed at times in the past, in part due to injury, and those numbers drag down his RC+. But if he’s capable of recapturing his 2009 level of performance (and I think that he is), then there really isn’t any offensive gap between the two. And the defensive gap at 3B is huge, even if LaRoche does run a bit hot-and-cold with the glove.

by Vlad on Aug 4, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions

My biggest concern

is that I don’t think LaRoche can hit in a bench role. He’s been extremely hot and cold as an everyday player; there’s no reason (at all) to believe that he can thrive in a 1.5 PA/week situation.

Point being, I agree that a healthy Andy who’s starting 5-7 games/week probably hits as well as Delwyn Young does… in a bench role. We know that DY doesn’t need a lot of regular PAs in order to produce. The evidence says that LaRoche, if he does produce, will do so only with a lot of regular PAs. So when I’m looking at a bench guy, I’m looking at DY.

I’ll just repeat it one more time, lest I be accused of a man-crush: if it comes down to one spot on the roster, and no one will give us a real player in a trade, then I keep Andy, because I think that he is a more valuable total player (including likely future trade value or NW turning into a pumpkin). But in terms of whom I want sitting on my bench, getting to pinch hit every other game or so, I want DY, because I think he’ll produce more in that role. The role in which Andy is more valuable – playing in place of NW or PA – is a bad situation for the team anyway.

I guess the analogy would be between 2 marginal pitchers, 1 of whom is a better reliever, the other of whom is a better (but still bad) SP. If I feel certain that I can keep either of them from starting, then I want the guy who’s better out of the pen, even though the guy who’s a better SP has more total value.

Anyway, all possibly a moot point, as Andy may well get traded and DY non-tendered if he threatens to approach a $2M award.

by JRoth95 on Aug 4, 2010 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t like Young a lot less than Moss or Bowker in an OF role. I agree he’ll be non-tendered. LaRoche might be as well (whether we agree with that or not).

by Adam Reynolds on Aug 4, 2010 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Andy and DY are apples and oranges. One is an infielder, the other is an outfielder who should be nowhere near the IF under any circumstances whatsoever.

by Adam Reynolds on Aug 4, 2010 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Bull

“any circumstances whatsoever”? So if Walker goes down, you want to see Argenis Diaz play 2B?

Look, I’ve already said that I don’t want to see DY start at 2B or 3B – I’m talking about him there purely in terms of emergency. But what I also don’t want to see is a guy with a career OPS+ of 74 (and a glove that, at 2B, is going to be below average at best) taking a start a week from a 150 OPS+ guy and from a 110 OPS+ guy. LaRoche provides little to no value as a PH. He hurts us if he’s taking PAs away from Pedro and (knock wood) Walker. The only way he benefits this club, aside from bringing back value in a trade, is in the event of a lengthy injury to PA or NW. And, frankly, if LaRoche is playing in place of Pedro for any length of time, 2011 or 2012 are lost anyway.

by JRoth95 on Aug 4, 2010 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions

I’d probably rather see Ciriaco at 2nd than Young. I agree on LaRoche, but who says he’d get 2 starts a week if kept?

I think LaRoche might be borderline to make the roster. Maybe you only want one 2B/SS/3B player (Diaz or Ciriaco) as the infield backup.

Either would provide more overall vale than Crosby or Young in that particular role. But Young should strictly be in the outfield mix, along with Moss/Bowker/whoever.

by Adam Reynolds on Aug 4, 2010 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Diaz, no.

Because Diaz is a sub-replacement-level infielder.

But if Walker were going to be out for two weeks or more, I’d rather see the PT go to Friday or Ciriaco or D’Arnaud. Or any other semi-competent UT IF. Because Young’s glove at 2B/3B is bad enough that he almost totally neutralizes his offensive value there, and he’s especially damaging to our low-K starters like Duke and Karstens.

by Vlad on Aug 7, 2010 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Pearce has had 416 PA at the major league level to show what he can do. It’s not a lot, you could argue for more next year. But 416 isn’t exactly a little bit, IMO.

by Adam Reynolds on Aug 3, 2010 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions