Mr. Gorzo goes to Washington
by Brakeman8 on Jan 17, 2011 2:53 PM EST
Email
Print
MLB Trade Rumors and ESPN Chicago are reporting that the Chicago Cubs have traded Tom Gorzelanny to the Washington Nationsl for THREE prospects. No word yet on who the exact players are, but word is it is two pitchers and an outfielder. Gorzo became expendable when the Cubbies traded for Matt Garza. The Nats have been looking to add a pitcher after missing out on Cliff Lee and Zack Greinke.
I wonder if Pittsburgh gave any consideration to bringing Gorzo back to the Burgh.....
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.
83 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It will be interesting to see what prospects the Cubs get back, but I’m glad Gorzo is out of the NL Central. Not that he’s great but I thought he’d be an effective pitcher with the Cubs this season. And even if he isn’t one of their top 5, nobody goes through a season without needing a 6th or 7th starter.
Those two alone
just let me know that we got killed in the Gorzo/Grabow deal.
its amazing to know that the padres wanted Hart in the original peavy trade but the cubs wouldnt part with him
gorzo was the lefty we should have kept, but alas, its in the past
We only got “killed” due to the injuries. Ascanio had a good arm; hopefully he can bounce back. And I wouldn’t write-off Harrison yet.
Yeah.
I think this is just a case of being incredibly unlucky.
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 17, 2011 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
and we've been incredibly unlucky for how long now?
by BadAndy on Jan 17, 2011 6:22 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I would say it's pretty unlucky
when you have the best record in MLB for once and the World Series is canceled.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2011 9:41 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not so sure
I think Gorzo was the best guy in the deal.
And Grabow had value as an RP at the trade deadline.
I hammered the deal at the time. And I dislike it even more today.
Yes, the Pirates got unlucky. But it wasn’t an enormous haul to begin with.
Right, it wasn’t enormous. I thought at the time that it was a pretty fair trade. I liked Gorzo better than Hart but Ascanio better than Grabow once you factored in years of control. Harrison was a bonus, and I like Harrison more now than then. Nobody thought we got killed at the time, and if it looks that way now it’s because of the injuries.
alot of people
hated the deal at the time. Alot of people felt we moved him due to personal issues between him and the front office and not for baseball reasons.
I felt once he called out the FO on the injury issue he was gone just a matter of time.
by eyeofhorus777 on Jan 17, 2011 7:23 PM EST up reply actions
I thought we got killed ...
because I really didn’t like Hart.
I thought Ascanio looked like a 7th inning guy.
I viewed Harrison somewhere between an organization guy and a prospect.
I thought we traded Gorzo at the nadir of his value and he was getting healthy again.
Unfortunately, injuries to Hart and Ascanio do make it hard to evaluate it.
But I put this in the loss column immediately.
Correct
We shouldn’t give trades final grades based on potential but on actuality (word?) and the real results of this trade have been piss poor.
by eyeofhorus777 on Jan 17, 2011 7:25 PM EST up reply actions
Either grade it at the time based on potential or wait 5 years or so and grade it on “actuality”; grading it now does neither.
Seems odd, though, that we’d be claiming the Cubs got a steal from us when they just let that same guy go for prospects that don’t even make an average system’s top 10.
Actually
2 of the 3 players we got are basically injured goods and most likely will never pan out so its pretty easy to say the deal sucks.
I disagree with your assessment of Burgess, he is the type of prospect we need right now, OF with power potential. We have basically 0 of that in our system
by eyeofhorus777 on Jan 17, 2011 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t know enough about Burgess to really assess him, I’m just saying that BA didn’t have him in the Nationals’ top 10, and my understanding is that the Nationals are considered to have an average system. That doesn’t mean he’s not a good prospect, but just that he’s far from being a sure thing to just make the majors let alone become an above-average player. But yes, I’d like to have him in our system—the more of these kind of guys you have, the better the chances that one pans out.
He is an OF, and he does have some power potential...
…but that low BA is a very bad sign. He could easily end up as a .230 hitter in the majors, and he doesn’t walk enough to make up for that.
Decent trade for the Nats.
Gorzo isn’t anything special, but neither are the two known guys they gave up. Guys here may remember Burgess as the outfield prospect who fell out of the first round of the draft after receiving hitting instruction from Derek Bell and immediately going into a horrendous slump.
As long as the second pitcher isn’t a real prospect, like Cole or Solis, none of these guys project as more than placeholders.
yet Gorzo's ceiling is maybe a 4 or 5 starter IMO
Burgess is only 22 years old, reached AA last year, and has shown some good power hitting a combined 61 HRs over the past 3 seasons. He also is a former Supplementary 1st round pick.
Morris is a 4th round pick in 09 who doesn’t seem like a high-upside player, but he looks like he could be a solid placeholder IMO because he has put up solid stats over the course of his minor league and NCAA careers.
Overall, their is an argument that can be made saying that the Pirates got a better return for Gorzo, but I think that the Cubs potentially have a better return, especially with Burgess who I really like
by 2010 will be the year on Jan 17, 2011 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
I like the progress in Burgess's K rate...
…but he’s undersized and limited to an OF corner, and the low BA is a concern. He was a sandwich pick on the strength of his bat, but I don’t know that he has a star-level ceiling at this point.
based on his statistics and a few scouting reports alone, burgess seems to me the type of player who has the POTENTIAL to be a power hitting corner outfielder who could hit 20-25 homers per year, yet could very likely be held completely from even seeing the majors because of his poor average. I feel that the Pirates got a starting pitcher who can be a #5 at best (Hart), a relief pitcher who can’t stay off the dl but if he could stay healthy it would be interesting to see how much he could help us (Ascanio), and a small third basemen, who hits for average but no power which isnt good for his position (Harrison). To me the Pirates got quantity by getting three players who could conceivably help out in the majors as role players, while the Cubs are trying to hit a home run with Burgess and then two minor league depth pitchers
by 2010 will be the year on Jan 17, 2011 6:32 PM EST up reply actions
Burgess could end up as a 20-25 HR guy, but that doesn’t necessarily make him more than an average-ish regular even in the best case. Adding him is more like trying to poke a double to the gap than it is like swinging for the fences.
The guy in the deal who’s a real boom-or-bust player is Hicks, in that most of his value (such as it is) rests on projected improvement in his fastball.
Agreed. I am just accustomed to mediocre corner outfielders here in Pittsburgh. I agree with you about hicks as well. Like I said before it seems to me the cubs went fir the home run with this trade, it will be interesting if any of the prospects pan out.
by 2010 will be the year on Jan 18, 2011 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
Federal Baseball (The Nats page)
seems to like the trade, in part because Gorzo has 3 years of arbitration left. If he does well, he’s an asset to control or trade for someone else’s prospects.
"[T]o hold the body of women in our arms is ... the one ecstasy granted to the race of men."
"Guys here may remember Burgess as the outfield prospect who fell out of the first round of the draft after receiving hitting instruction from Derek Bell and immediately going into a horrendous slump."
Is Operation Shutdown a free man or incarcerated at the moment?
Nyj, Burnett, Gorzo, LaRoche...
It just keeps getting better and better for the Nats.
Graham Hicks
is the third player included, which MLB Trade Rumors just tweeted
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
To answer Brakeman's question...
Did the Pirates consider bringing Gorzo back?? If the Pirates thought he was good enough to bring back, they shouldn’t have let go of him in the first place. So, the short answer is…No, they didn’t consider bringing him back.
What if we could've gotten him for
Steve Pearce and throw in Donnie Veal (or choose your combo). Just because we traded him 2 years ago doesn’t mean we can’t bring him back now.
"[T]o hold the body of women in our arms is ... the one ecstasy granted to the race of men."
Rumor was that he’d pissed off the FO by showing up out of shape for ST 2008, and it seemed like after that, he could never please the FO, even by trying to pitch through his elbow problems. The 2008 trade was NOT a trade that needed to be made. The FO wanted him gone, just like Snell. And if you want someone gone, you aren’t going to bring them back…just like Snell, Wilson and Sanchez, all of which they probably could have had back at several times over the past 18 months.
youre making it sound like the FO is to blame
gorzo worked for the pirates, not the other way around. a player needs to look like a player, not a molina… and for the record, we should have never traded Gorzo.
by white angus on Jan 17, 2011 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
FWIW (maybe not much...)
Gorz has ADD, and while that’s not his fault, it can make someone difficult and frustrating to deal with from an instructional standpoint.
I think that it's often overdiagnosed.
Particularly among MLB players, who like being able to take the meds that are prescribed for it as a legal alternative to “greenies”. But in Gorz’s case, at least, I think it’s legit.
to me, ADD is +
ADD is as real as the boogeyman and western religion. however, if Gorzo contracts cooties, then he has some serious issues.
by white angus on Jan 18, 2011 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
I know what you mean.
I also don’t believe in lymphoma.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 18, 2011 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
Didn’t Adam LaRoche have something to that effect also?
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.
ARE YOU F#$%ING KIDDING ME!!!! ADAMS!!! JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST YOU HAD 24 SQUARE FEET AND YOU MISSED IT ALL!! - OlenWhitaker
Went away to Leafland for a day. It was nice, even though they lost. And I became a Certified Grabbo Lover.
Yes.
He was also diagnosed with ADD/ADHD. In his case, he’s been on medication to control it since high school.
It was pretty well-documented
Although I can’t remember when or where I read it, I do recall an article about how he had stopped taking his medication while with Atlanta, then began to take it again in Pittsburgh.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
I remember that too. I believe he started taking his meds with Atlanta when he was booed for spacing out in the field and he either forgot to cover first base or just let a ball go by him.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 20, 2011 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
2 C+ prospects and one 20-year-old lefty
They will be equal to Brock Holt and Tony Watson at least, or Starling Marte and Bryan Morris?
Hated the Gorzo trade from day 1.
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
Not sure how accurate it is
But Bleed Cubbie Blue posters seem to think that the three they picked up are head and shoulders above H, A, and H. Then, someone interjects reason (i.e., you can’t compare opposite ends of trades made 2 years apart) and it digresses into battling statistics, dueling observations, and grumbling.
The only fair way to make that comparison is if we had traded Gorzo and Grabow to the Cubs and they immediately flipped them to the Nats for these three prospects.
"[T]o hold the body of women in our arms is ... the one ecstasy granted to the race of men."
by Trogluddite on Jan 17, 2011 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
I would say that the values at the time of the deals...
…are pretty close. Maybe a slight edge for the Cubs if you like Burgess, but I mostly don’t.
well, this is an interesting deal
I think I’d still pick Hart, Harrison and Ascanio over Burgess, Hicks and Morris. Of course, my main assumption is that we wont lose Hart/Ascanio to 40 man room. I dont think the Cubs got all that much back for Gorzo (of course, we also had Grabow in the deal). I would have liked to have Gorz back- I suspect the FO doesnt, unfortunately. Anyone care to guess what it would take to put together an equivalent package to the Nats one?
At the time
The press I read seemed to think it was more or less Grabow for Ascanio and Gorzo for Hart.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 18, 2011 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
I think I’d still pick Hart, Harrison and Ascanio over Burgess, Hicks and Morris.
I dunno if I’d do that now, but I’d certainly take 2008 Hart et al over 2011 Burgess et al. The Hart/Ascanio injuries just murdered that deal.
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.
ARE YOU F#$%ING KIDDING ME!!!! ADAMS!!! JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST YOU HAD 24 SQUARE FEET AND YOU MISSED IT ALL!! - OlenWhitaker
Went away to Leafland for a day. It was nice, even though they lost. And I became a Certified Grabbo Lover.
I think he meant it that way, though I obv can’t speak on his behalf. Just saying that’s how I read his answer.
Pirates, Vikings, Hokies. I'm used to heartbreak. At least I have the Penguins....
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-The Great One
by blackjackfishtaco on Jan 19, 2011 12:31 AM EST up reply actions
i think i meant that too
although reading it now, i m not sure what I meant by the “main assumption is that we wont lose Hart/Ascanio…”.
I suspect I meant that if we got the guys in the 2009 (8?) trade at the same point in their development now, I’d take them over what the Nats gave up.
Perhaps, to hedge my bets, I should say that if Ascanio and Hart can recover from their injuries and remain Bucs, they’d be preferable. (But I was definitely thinking of the first point, originally)
by BurgherKing on Jan 19, 2011 12:43 AM EST up reply actions
That NH didn't feel the need to bring Gorzo up
despite the fact he might had been the best pitcher in all of AAA for a 2 month stretch…and while I dont remember the exact streak he was on…I do remember it was a mid 1 ERA for a stretch of 10 games w/ rediculous BA against.
It’s called carrying a grudge IMO…w/ the pirates pitching shortage along w/ the knowledge Gorzo performed well previously when motivated and in shape…
good left handed relief pitchers are worth quite a bit at the deadline…that bounty for both was pitiful.
We need to stay away from the cubs when dealing…bad karma
Let's not forget Hart was the cubs #7 prospect going into 09
by 2010 will be the year on Jan 18, 2011 4:38 PM EST reply actions
The rest of that list is awfully encouraging too...
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
#6, in fact.
Number 7 was Starlin Castro. (Too bad we didn’t trade for him instead of Hart, huh?)
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.
ARE YOU F#$%ING KIDDING ME!!!! ADAMS!!! JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST YOU HAD 24 SQUARE FEET AND YOU MISSED IT ALL!! - OlenWhitaker
Went away to Leafland for a day. It was nice, even though they lost. And I became a Certified Grabbo Lover.
Thinking more about this trade, I don’t think it’s consistent with the Cubs trading for Garza. On one level it’s an attempt to replenish their farm system after giving up prospects for Garza (a smaller scale version of the Phillies trading Lee for prospects after trading for Halladay). But the trade for Garza implies that they’re going all out to win in the next 3 years, and they had Gorzo under control for those years. You can never have enough SP depth it seems, and Gorzo has shown the ability to work out of the pen if necessary. Maybe they got a decent return, but I think they would have been better off keeping Gorzo unless they feel certain that he has peaked.
And then the Nats go ahead and release J.D. Martin, who doesn’t seem to be a big dropoff from Gorzo. So they’re out three prospects for a minor upgrade to their staff. Clearly the Cubs and Nats are valuing Gorzo and/or the prospects very differently.
Obviously,
Gorzo rocks in ways unbeknownst to but a very few.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 20, 2011 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Gorzo vs. Garza
ESPN wonders if it’s One Step Forward, One Step Back for Cubs?
.
But perhaps the more pressing issue is whether the recently acquired Garza is even an upgrade on Gorzelanny. That question might seem ridiculous at first glance — the Cubs gave up a rich package of prospects to acquire Garza while trading Gorzelanny for a much lesser return — but the numbers seem to suggest otherwise.
…….
As the chart shows, despite throwing roughly 70 fewer innings, Gorzelanny was actually more valuable in 2010 than Garza. Gorzelanny recorded a higher strikeout rate, had stronger peripheral numbers overall and, when looking at Fielding Independent Pitching, actually pitched better in the areas that were under his control.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
Interesting. Either the Cubs know something about Gorzo that we don’t, or they can’t decide whether they’re really all in for the next three years. Maybe they should have kept Gorzo and traded Zambrano for a bigger return and salary relief.
The Cubs never know whether they are all in for the next 3 years. They just throw money around and try to buy a championship. Their talent evaluation skills aren’t very good…and haven’t been. Remember…this IS the team that hired Dave Littlefield after he got fired here.
Salary relief
I think they’re still trying to find someone to take Fukudome off their hands…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 22, 2011 12:33 AM EST up reply actions
They also said Maholm and some other stiffs were better last year too
I must’a only watched all the bad maholm games (which is almost all) and watched Garza when he threw good games (I believe it was 3 outta 4 that I watched)…and even in his bad game, he looked better than Maholm…hey what do I know…ERA,WHIP,BA against,…watching w/ my eyes look pretty dominant and the other look very average (stuff-wise)…yeah, I’ll believe in Santa before I’d believe Maholm’s the better pitcher.
ERA,WHIP,BA against
All of which can be significantly influenced by the quality of the defense behind the pitcher.
Defense behind...there's an influence for sure but not a aberration like that
Pittsburgh’s defense wasn’t good…the idiot shift included…but Maholm doesn’t pitch vs a DH or does he face the Yanks,Bost,Tor a bunch of times in a season.
If you seriously cant watch the 2 and discern who the better pitcher is….I dont think you watch baseball then…if you trust a computer’s word over watching an 89 MPH fastball get belted all over the park, Maholm had alot of luck last year vs a OLLY or even Duke for that matter…the team played it’s best ball for his games usually.
Maholm doesn’t pitch vs a DH or does he face the Yanks,Bost,Tor a bunch of times in a season.
A fair point, which is part of why I give Garza at least a slight edge. But on the whole, I think Maholm would be much more highly-regarded if he played for almost anyone else.
i agree, but
maholm has never stepped up his game on his own either. guys like greinke, or halladay, or cliff lee, they can excel despite who plays behind them. cliff lee may not win many games pitching for us, but i can almost guarantee that he would still be a fantastic pitcher… oh, and hes a pitch to contact guy, right? barely walks anyone, not a huge strikeout guy. (all pitchers are pitch to contact, technically)
Maholm's stuff isn't good enough
His strength was command, being a smart pitcher and keeping stuff down…he’s regressed the past 2 years…2010 in particular, his pitches were thigh high instead of at the knees and he rarely came inside…when a smart team faced him, they generally kept going the other way consistently….his better games had the opposing team trying to pull the ball.
He needs to regain that focus/command and start going inside more frequently.
same could be said about Morton
if anyone can bounce back on our rotation, it would be maholm. but the fact that he didnt attend the minicamp after his rough year may show that hes not “all in” right now
I would agree though good fielding
gets his ERA into the mid 4’s…where he’s probably at talent wise
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Will Smith shows why making your big league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
- The Juice: Brandon Phillips flip sets up Todd Frazier walkoff for Reds
- Josh Hamilton makes great catch, destroys part of fence at Safeco Field
- Something’s amiss at the Big 12 championship
