Pirates Could Lose Out On Nathan Adcock
I wasn't a fan of the Pirates' November decision to not to protect Nathan Adcock from the Rule 5 draft by adding him to the 40-man roster, but Dejan Kovacevic's take on the possibility that Adcock will make the Royals out of Spring Training seems a bit overboard to me. My disagreement probably mostly boils down to some subtle differences in tone, but maybe they're worth exploring here.
All this can change, of course, but it looks terrible for the Pirates right now. And not just because of Adcock, either.
You might recall that the Pirates left Adcock off the 40-man roster in large part so they could have vacancies to make their own selections in the Rule 5. Well, even in the days leading up to the Rule 5, Neal Huntington was telling us in Orlando that neither he nor his staff were all that excited about their options with the first overall pick ...
And now that Josh Rodriguez, the player the Pirates took with that pick, probably will not make the 25-man out of spring training -- Pedro Ciriaco looks much stronger for the middle-infield bench role -- it could look even worse in about a week.
This isn't to suggest Adcock is all that. In doing my prospect research over the offseason, he rated no better than the 25-30 range in the Pirates' system ...
But be really sure that the Pirates aren't in position to give away big guys with heavy sinkers who profile as major-league starters.
A couple of things here:
1. The idea that the Pirates left Adcock off the roster primarily so that they could take players in the Rule 5 is a little confusing. There were several roster changes after the Bucs had to select which players to protect, but before the Rule 5 draft itself. And as far as I can tell, there were several roster spots available then, which were used shortly after to grab Lyle Overbay and Matt Diaz. At the time of the Rule 5 draft, there were also players on the roster like Wil Ledezma and Joe Martinez who the Pirates obviously didn't care much about, because they dropped them in late December. The ability to select a Rule 5 player might have played some role in the decision not to protect Adcock, but at best it was one factor among many.
I'm not sure what the Pirates' real reason for not protecting Adcock was, but probably the best explanation is that they thought Adcock's current ability and upside were marginal enough to risk the possibility that some team would select him and have him stick on their team the whole year. And they're quite a long way from being proven wrong about that.
2. The number of backup infield spots available might be something Kovacevic has more direct knowledge of than I do, and this article seems to back up his claim that it looks like it will be either Ciriaco or Rodriguez, but not both. But I see no reason why Rodriguez and Ciriaco can't both make the team, given that the Pirates have often carried two backup infielders to start the season. In 2009, for example, it was Ramon Vazquez and Luis Cruz. In 2010 they carried Bobby Crosby and Delwyn Young, although I suppose it's debatable whether or not you'd count Young as an infielder. While I agree that Ciriaco appears to be in, I'm not sure that means that Rodriguez is out. And frankly, I think Rodriguez should make the team, since he can hit and Ciriaco can't.
None of this is to say, obviously, that the decision here was either Adcock or Rodriguez. The Pirates could have had both, and if I were GM, I would have protected Adcock and taken a Rule 5 pick. The focus on Adcock vs. Rodriguez seems like a red herring. But if you want to focus on Adcock vs. Rodriguez, it's far from clear to me that Rodriguez won't make the team, and that he won't turn out to be just as useful as or more useful than Adcock. Rodriguez at least has a fair amount of experience in the upper minors, and appears to be much better prepared for the leap up to the big leagues.
3. Maybe I'm just being oversensitive to the word "terrible," because I didn't really agree with the Bucs' decision either, but on what grounds is it terrible? That the Royals, master evaluators of major-league talent that they are, appear close to deciding that Adcock is good enough to make the team? Leaving Adcock off the roster does appear to have been a mistake, but it doesn't look likely that it will have major consequences. In the end, I think it's still pretty likely that Adcock will be offered back to the Bucs at some point, whether that's in a week or in a couple of months.
123 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Conspiracy
Theorist in me wants to say Dejan just worded it a bit too harshly since he probably aggravated some anti-Nutting people by crapping on the Forbes numbers.
I also wouldn’t shape it as Rodriguez vs. Adcock, although there was a majority opinion that leaving Adcock unprotected wasn’t a great move — even though it’s surprising if a guy jumps from A ball to the majors and sticks for the whole year with less than great stuff.
Based on this performance
There’s not much of an issue. Plus, four BB and three K in 11 innings. The ERA looks good, but not the peripherals.
Viva Clemente!
still better than what most of the Royals pitchers have put up
their top pitching prospects like montgomery and duffy had horrible outings
Funny how ST numbers are used.......
depending on the situation.
People who are looking to criticise the Pirates point out Adcock"s with KC.
If he put them up with the Pirates the same person would ignore them or just say “it’s only spring training and he’s putting them up against minor leaguer’s.”
I guess it just depends who is the hammer and who is the anvil.
by oldfrothingslosh on Mar 24, 2011 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
It seems to me that ST numbers are used to support preconceived notions. No one ever learns anything from them, but a lot of people use them to support a position that they already hold.
by Wizard of Woz on Mar 24, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
its not that the Royals think Adcock deserves to make the team...
the royals know they are going to be bad this year. just gawd awful. their rotation is probably the worst in the majors, their bullpen has a closer and nothing else, their top pitching prospects are probably at least 1/2 to 1 season away…
maybe they think so highly of Nate that they feel like he wont hurt them this season any more than anyone else that takes the mound
Worst in the majors...
is going to take some doing…considering our pitching staff hasn’t made many changes.
Theirs
got rid of their only decent SP. Plus, our bullpen should be mid-pack; it sounds like theirs will be significantly worse.
bruce chen is their top starter
jeff francis doesnt look ready, mazzaro, hochevar… wow
by white angus on Mar 24, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
yet many baseball people consider him one of the weakest #1's of the last twenty years
and im not trying to diss any of the royals players, im just telling how i see it. the royals are going to stink this year because of 99% of their pitching staff…
You haven’t looked at ours over the last 20 years…we’ve had several much worse than Hochevar…like Ron Villone.
interesting point
at the time of the Rule V draft, the Royals’ 2011 rotation included Zach Grienke and Gil Meche. what are the odds Adcock makes the team if the Royals didn’t trade Greinke, or if Meche didn’t retire?
My guess...
what are the odds Adcock makes the team if the Royals didn’t trade Greinke, or if Meche didn’t retire?
A tiny bit less than they are right now IMO.
speaking of rule 5 guys, I believe i read that John Raynor asked for his release from the Marlins yesterday
I agree with Charlie's point
It seems likely that the Bucco brass simply decided that Adcock’s talent was marginal enough to leave him exposed. It seems he has had a hot streak with the Royals, probably pitching late inning relief where thousands of pitchers look like Cy Young in the spring, and might make the roster.
IF he turns into a 15 game winner or a late inning reliever ala the guy we traded for Benito Santiago, than the FO really messed up their evaluation of Adcock. and will have to be held accountable, because they certainly could have kept him over Martinez, Leroux and a few others.
Classic made-up crisis
Regardless of Adcock’s bad outing yesterday, which Dejan seems to have missed, we’re talking about a whopping 11 spring innings. Mark Johnson is amused.
As for Rodriguez, the Pirates gave him a shot at a job, which is the point of Rule 5. Ciriaco had a surprising spring and, it appears, won the job fair and square. (Unless they keep both, which is another issue.) There’s a reason a large majority of Rule 5 picks don’t stick. That doesn’t make it a bad pick. I guess we should rip NH for acquiring Ciriaco.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Precisely......
11 innings is now the metric for determining a bad move or a good move. I guess that implies, as it seemingly would have to, that the Bay trade has been a huge success for the Pirates (based on B. Morris having a great 135 innings or so last year), the Nate McClouth trade was a steal for us (based on J. Locke having a great season in A/AA last year), and, whatever stupid small-sample-size combination you can come up with.
The absurdity of this article is much more…..absurd than when DK called Jason Bay a ‘superstar’. This, my friends, is the nail in the coffin of anyone taking DK seriously in his ‘opinions’ of strategy/baseball operations. As it should be…..
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 24, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
WTF?
DK is not saying that 11 innings by Adcock prove that he was some great talent. He’s saying that it means the Royals are a lot more likely to bring him north. Which would mean, at the very least, stalled development for a guy with some sort of future in exchange for keeping absolute bullshit players on the 40-man for an extra 3 weeks.
Would you care to try to refute that, or are you too busy pummeling straw?
Yep - I would refute that
He called letting Adcock being exposed a ‘terrible’ decision, based on what? 11 ST innings that DK says have been great. He also says that Adcock ‘profiles’ to be a Starting Pitcher, whatever that means, and, that the Pirates can’t afford to let someone with a heavy sinker out from underneath their control. Again, this is based on his 11 ST innings.
Show me the articles where DK was enamored with Adcock prior to ST with the Royals?
And, how do we know that he has ‘some sort of future’? DK is of the opinion that 11 ST innings tells us, that’s how.
It isn’t straw…..it is a bullshit conclusion based on a small sample size, not to mention a ST small sample size.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 24, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Not to mention
ST small sample size with most innings coming at the end of ST games.
by Wizard of Woz on Mar 24, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
But he called losing Adcock...
and Rodriguez a blunder. So either Adcock is a talent we can’t afford to lose or DK exaggerated in the title of his article. But I suppose “Another inconsequential mistake?” is attention grabbing.
Did you bother actually reading what Dejan wrote?
Another Rule 5 flub? . . . . it looks terrible for the Pirates right now. . . . it could look even worse in about a week. . . .But be really sure that the Pirates aren’t in position to give away big guys with heavy sinkers who profile as major-league starters.
He’s making a big fuss about a guy that he himself concluded, based on his interviews with scouts, was no big deal. The only straw here is between your ears.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Per DK's chat...
Well, no, they actually did let Adcock throw the sinker in high Class A last year, which was a big reason he did as well as he did. They do make exceptions. Aaron Pribanic was another down there, and Pribanic’s sinker is even better.
For those who don’t know the reference, click the blog link above. I questioned the Pirates’ Rule 5 process, mostly because Adcock is looking pretty good in the Royals’ camp.
It would seem that WTM is not the strawman after all…pot.
DK overvaluing 11 innings of ST performance........?
I think so….
And, anyways, did Adcock really do “as well as he did” last year? Uh…no, he didn’t. But, DK wouldn’t know that because he doesn’t know how to properly evaluate pitchers, as I have stated ad nauseam.
His point gets worse and worse as he talks more and more.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 24, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes
You nailed the point exactly. Adcock is not a top prospect, but he is a young asset. This org cannot afford to waste assets, the GM and President have stated as much many times. There was plenty of room on the 40 man to protect him, and even if they get him back a few months into the season, that is a few months of development lost. Also, say what you will about the Pirates development staff, I’m sure Huntington believes in the instruction being provided by that staff. Why risk losing control of a prospect’s spring training?
There was plenty of room on the 40 man to protect him…
Plenty of room as of this minute, maybe. When you add a guy to the 40-man roster, though, you’re locking him onto that roster for years into the future, and we’re going to have a serious roster crunch over the next few years as our mass of prospects starts becoming R5 eligible. We’ve pretty much passed through the Creech Valley at this point.
this
Here’s a partial list of players who will become Rule 5 eligible next year: Lambo, Mercer, d’Arnaud, Hague, Harrison, Owens, Wilson, Farrell, Latimore, Marte, Alderson, Leach, Pribanic, and Lorin. Plus, Avila and Fryer will be Rule 5 eligible again. They had to make a choice between protecting Adcock and preserving flexibility going forward. They decided Adcock didn’t have enough upside to worry about and/or wasn’t polished enough to stick. That’s a justifiable position and it’s far from being proven wrong.
wow
time to start swinging some trades with those guys!
by BurgherKing on Mar 25, 2011 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
what would it hurt
to keep him for one more year, not risk losing a spring and maybe the beginning of the season and see what happens. Maybe he develops into a candidate that could be traded.
Maybe we shouldn't ask...
why can’t the Pirates keep Rodriguez and Ciriaco. Maybe the question that should be asked is: do the Pirates like Rodriguez enough to keep him on the roster all year? It’s possible that after having had time to evaluate him they just don’t think much of him.
Also, I’m not going to worry about Adcock yet. Charlie correctly points out that there is a long season ahead of us. I just don’t see him making it through an entire season unless he added some velocity to his fastball during the offseason. I suspect that once KC’s injuries start to mount, Adcock will be shipped out.
see, i disagree with this
the royals have pretty much written off 2011 already. they lost meche and greinke and are still waiting on the youth movement to arrive. i can totally see them using Adcock the whole season.
im not saying its right, but it wouldnt surprise me if it happened.
by white angus on Mar 24, 2011 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
We have been in similar positions...
We had to work out a trade for Meek because we couldn’t afford to keeo him on the roster. Maybe you’re right but I would be surprised; if for no other reason than I think Adcock is going to get eaten alive.
And for the recod...
DK’s tone in this piece sucks. He comes off has extremely and unecessarilty, if not unjustifably, negative. The implication from his headline is that Huntington has had as many Rule 5 blunders as Littlefield. I guess after bashing the Forbes article yesterday DK has to keep the anti-Nuttings happy today.
my 2 cents...
about Adcock: I think the Bucs have enough depth to take the risk of losing him, if he still came with us what the best scenario is? a good reliever in the pan or a little piece in a trade? that will help but not a big deal imo.
about Rodriguez: I still try to believe that he is not competing for an UT spot , but a future SS answer. Ciriaco will be a decent UT guy but an everyday SS? not likely. However JRod has the potential to be an everyday SS, and I think this is the reason they acquired him and should be the reason to keep him in the roster for this season.
Good points...
I think the Bucs have enough depth to take the risk of losing him
Maybre true but you never want to lose talent for nothing; wich could be the case with Adcock. Unfortunately we won’t know the answer for several months.
However JRod has the potential to be an everyday SS
Doesn’t look like that’s the case anymore. Dunlap reported that the front office doesn’t believe he is capable SS. They barely want him playing there as a UT guy let alone every day. This is most likely why he will be returned. For the record I do not think he is a more interesting prospect than D’Arnaud so after contemplating it I’m not sure I’d even want to trade for him with the idea that he would be a SS. Just my two cents.
You might be able to justify keeping Rodriguez as a 2B/3B backup even if he doesn’t pay short.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 24, 2011 12:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
True...
I just think they want as many spots to go to the Pearce, Marte and Bowker group as possible but I could be way off.
if rodriguez makes it, pearce and marte go to the minors
i now believe that bowker has a good chance of sticking.
bench- bowker, ciriaco, rodriguez, diaz, doumit
???
Depends on if you like Bowker and Rodriguez. If their games translate to the MLB level, it’ll be OK. The other three players are known entities.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 24, 2011 3:45 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Personally...
I like JRod in AAA but I like him better than Ciriaco because I prefer offense off the bench. If there was a need for significant time at SS due to an injury or something I would call up Ciriaco. I like Bowker on the bench but I also would like Pearce or Marte there too. So I guess my bench would be Doumit, Diaz, Rodriguez, Bowker and Pearce/Marte.
its not terrible
all of diaz, bowker, doumit and rodriguez bring some pop. Ideally, I’d rather not have both ciriaco and rodriguez, but its not awful…
Well it's better than last year...
but yeah I don’t like Ciriaco and Rodriguez. I don’t expect Rodriguez too hit much this year and I expect Ciriaco too hit even less. The only thing I like about Rodriguez is that he brings some upside to the table from a MIF position.
I don’t expect Rodriguez too hit much this year…
Not that much should be expected of Marte or Fields, either.
Touche...
I don’t expect anything from Fields and he would not make my roster. Call me crazy but I think there is a nonzero chance that Marte could have a breakout season. I like his chances of breakout this season better than Rodriguez but JRod does have the positional edge being that he can play the MIF.
And when that happens,
you’ll remember who has been your very best friend on BD, won’t you?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Mar 25, 2011 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
agreed
this is what worried me the most about giving him back. trading jrod for jaramillo is a definite downgrade.
i dont see us carrying 3 catchers
how difficult is it to fly Jaramillo from Indy to Pittsburgh in half a day???
I don't want to see it...
but I keep hearing murmurs. Dunlap has indicated that he believes Hurdle wants 3 catchers. Probably because of how brittle Doumit and Snyder are. Dunlap also said that the Bucs will not use Walker as an emergency catcher in any situation. That to me indicates 3 catchers. Now 3 catchers is fine be my of you carry 6 bench players.
Dunlap also said that the Bucs will not use Walker as an emergency catcher in any situation
Crap. I hadn’t heard that before. I’d been assuming all along that Walker was the emergency catcher
When I interviewed....
Hurdle yesterday he explicitly said there is zero chance they will ever use their starting second baseman as an emergency catcher. Matt Diaz on the other hand…..
The Hammer Speaks
Twitter: @hammerspeaks
That's really interesting...
if Diaz is an emergency catcher that changes the landscape pretty dramatically. I would think the chances of carrying two catchers > three catchers. Good to know.
In which case, he'd better cut the last man from the pen.
Carrying JJ plus a twelve-man pitching staff is significantly dumber than anything Russell ever did.
but it doesnt make any sense to carry 3 catchers
you can have jaramillo/brown waiting in AAA for an emergency flight to the game. if one player goes down, chances are you wont lose the other catcher on the same night.
Looks terrible for the Pirates right now?
The only way it looks terrible for the Pirates right now is if you are of the mind that Adcock actually will become a MLB starting pitcher, as DK purports that Adcock "profiles" to be.
It’s tough to say in practically the same breath that Huntington got practically nothing for his trades, and then believe a minor piece of one of those trades is suddenly going to be a good starting pitcher in MLB!
This moves could look like a major mistake in hindsight, but only if Adcock becomes a much better MLB starting pitcher than we otherwise would have and we don’t have enough other good pitchers that the system has produced by then.
That’s really the only way this decision would be terrible for the Pirates. Seems a long way off from that point right now. I guess if you squint real hard and just believe the worst is always going to happen to the Pirates, then yes.
This is what I don't understand -
the Pirates organization carries a lot of what appear to be excellent young arms above and below Adcock’s level. What they lack is middle infielders near the MLB level. If I’m protecting or acquiring anyone, it would be a promising nearly-ready SS.
That said, I still don’t understand why Ledezma and a couple others were on the 40-man. Roster management counts.
My heros have always been Steelers...
Well, if 11 Spring Training innings (or more) are now the standard......
I cannot wait for DK, and others, to start singing the praises of NH and the FO for evaluating, identifying, and signing Lyle Overbay in the off-season……
Pardon me if I doubt that article will be coming around soon…..
PS: This simply reinforces what I and others have said about DK: He doesn’t know how to properly evaluate players. Exhibit 1: ‘Profiling’ or ‘projecting’ a ‘terrible move’ based on 11 Spring Training innings. Hilarious…..
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 24, 2011 10:56 AM EDT reply actions
See above
The evaluation of Adcock’s ability is not based on 11 ST innings. The evaluation of his chances of sticking with the Royals is.
It’s hilarious that so many of you are righteously attacking DK while completely misconstruing his point. So I’d say that Cabrera doesn’t know how to properly evaluate the written word. I’d add that Slick1’s tone in his comment sucks. Also, WTM’s comment is a classic made-up claim.
How is it not based on 11 innings?
Would this article have been writted if not for the 11 so-called great innings by Adcock this year? If so, where was the numerous articles by DK PRIOR to the 11 innings saying how much he ‘profiles’ to be a big league starter, how it was a ‘terrible’ decision, and how he has such a ‘heavy sinker’?
Do I even have to point you to his season last year – you know, the FULL season, against Class A players, in which he far from dominated and got worse as the season progressed?
I don’t think anyone is saying that he wasn’t worth keeping around, particularly in light of some of the other dead weight that we did keep on the 40-man roster. What people are saying is that such a basis for a decision shouldnt be based, in my eyes entirely, on 11 ST innings, while ignoring the fact that he is far from reaching the Major Leagues, it is far from certain he will ever amount to anything, and it is far from guaranteed that we won’t get him back for 25K within a few months.
Therefore, writing the article or voicing the opinion, at this stage in the game….is not only hypocritical (as there are many other Minor Leaguers that we could point to that ‘profile’ to be a SP and look real good now, much better than Adcock) but unnecessary and jumping the gun, to say the least. Mixed with his tone and nature of the diatribe…..it was a piss-poor effort from a guy who is leaking credibility by the second.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 24, 2011 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I'd also say that JRoth95...
is taking another opposing position just to be on the other side. Not sure how one could read DK’s post and not pick up on the negativity. How in the hell do you explain the title of the post Roth? “Another Rule 5 Blunder?” certainly implies that the front office F’d up doesn’t it? I guess in addition to my tone my reading comprehension sucks but then again so does your argument; and DK’s point.
The answer is that JRoth didn’t even read DK’s post. Dejan refers to Adcock as profiling as a major league starter, which isn’t how he evaluated Adcock when researching the BA book. So, yes, in fact Dejan’s view of Adcock has changed significantly based on eleven—oh, wait, Dejan missed the last two innings, so actually nine—spring innings.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I think NH cut DK out of the loop......
It’s the only thing that explains his irrational reporting over the last several months. Either that…..or when the Post-Gazette finally gave him the leash to offer his opinion, his ignorance of baseball has been exposed.
Personally, I think it is a bit of both.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 24, 2011 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Based on Karsten's first 9 innings with the Pirates,
Karstens must have profiled as a CYA winning, HOF destined hurler.
by MarkInDallas on Mar 24, 2011 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions
And for the record...
I posted basically the same criticism on DK’s blog that I did here (minus the suck) he Dejan responded that I had a fair criticism. I guess maybe you shouldn’t act like you’re the final authority on all things DK.
The bottom line
is that Adcock doesn’t need to be lost forever to the Royals for this to be a bad outcome. Maybe I’m just scarred by JBautista’s developmental delay, but I see nothing good coming from a low-minors guy wasting any length of time on an MLB roster, getting who knows how much instruction, being told different things by a different org, and, if he’s getting any work, getting it in the form of occasional ass-kickings.
Even if Adcock is returned in mid-June and never makes it to Pittsburgh, we’ll never know how much his development was hurt by being sidetracked. But we’ll sure know that it wasn’t helped.
Any guy that you let go in the Rule 5 who ends up working out.....
Is going to look bad, not to mention possibly stunt his development.
Like NH said, “(You) can’t keep them all.”
I thought they should have kept Adcock, not entirely based on his potential but by the lack of intrigue in guys they did keep (Leroux, comes to mind). But, that hardly makes it a ‘terrible’ decision, especially not based on DK’s general argument – that being of some 11 innings in Spring Training. And, yes, it must be that – because his full year, last year was hardly reason for PGH to be expecting Adcock to be some ML starter in a couple of years, let alone impactful.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 24, 2011 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
It would be a lot easier...
…for us to assess the likelihood of Rodriguez making the roster and the validity of the reasons behind him doing/not doing so if the P-G had actually spent any time covering him this spring.
With the dead weight on the Pirates 40 man roster losing Adcock was unnecessary
I don’t think the above point can be debated. is it a horrible loss? Probably not.
Are the odds better that Adcock goes on to contribute to his future teams more than Gallagher, Leroux, Martinez and Ledezma? I believe Adcock is more valuable than each of those four relievers. Therefore not protecting him was a mistake, directly attributable to Huntington. Will it come back to haunt us? Probably not, but its indicative of poor roster management.
Not sure why this was a reply to me.
It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I was saying about Rodriguez or the P-G’s coverage.
dead weight
The decision to protect or not protect Adcock isn’t as simple as just whether he has more potential than guys like Gallagher, Leroux, and Martinez (which, honestly, is very debatable anyway). We have a lot of guys who need to be added to the 40-man over the next couple years, so there are a lot of players who are going to have to come off the roster. It would be worse to have protected Adcock this year only to DFA him next year to make room. In the latter case, any team could claim him without having to keep him in the majors all year. Complexities like that are part of the reason why I think it’s pretty stupid to get upset about this. If DK weren’t complaining right now he’d just complain next year when we had to DFA Adcock or leave some equally promising prospect exposed. It’s a dumb complaint. Like I said below, every team loses rule 5 picks now and then for a variety of reason. Adcock isn’t the type of guy you complain about having to give up.
by epoc on Mar 24, 2011 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Very good points.....
And, some that I completely didn’t think about.
Those are the best posts, in my opinion.
Well done….
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 24, 2011 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
i agree
you cant just put adcock, or whomever, without considering that 25 of those spots are on the active MLB roster. then you have to consider the really talented guys on the bubble who need the 40 man spots.
look at next season: marte, owens and quite a few others will need to be put on the 40 man. chances are that alot of current pirates players will be left out in the cold, and probably even Adcock himself.
And, I don't think Adcock (in 2011).....
Has more value than a Gallagher or a Martinez, or at least it is debateable.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 24, 2011 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a good point, I agree.
Now that you have mentioned it, I have hardly heard a word about Rodriguez this spring.
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
As a righty who works under 90 when starting, Adcock profiles as more of a reliever.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 24, 2011 12:05 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
a couple points
First off, aside from any of the points that Charlie makes, all of which I think are valid, the basic fact of the matter is that every team loses a Rule 5 pick from time to time. It’s not a big deal, let alone terrible.
Secondly, as AR just wrote right above, Adcock does not profile as a starter. I personally don’t think he even profiles as a major leaguer. He doesn’t have a strikeout pitch for A ball, let alone the majors, and his best secondary offering is a downer curve, which is not a good complement for the sinker. He’s just not a good prospect; hence the reason DK couldn’t place him higher than 25 when researching the BA top 30.
Third and relatedly, I’d take Adcock back if the Royals don’t keep him, but I don’t think losing him is a big deal, and I don’t think not protecting him was either. He’s not ready for the majors and he doesn’t have a high ceiling. I probably would have protected him, but it’s certainly not a mistake for the Pirates not to have done.
I agree, I soured on Adcock when his K rate took a huge nosedive at the end of last year.
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
i did too
although i m not entirely sure that it wasnt fatigue… still, not a huge deal, imo. Although the fact that the Royals liked him gave his image a boost, in my eyes! :-)
I agree with Charlie’s take on DK’s piece…
by BurgherKing on Mar 24, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
[A] It’s Adcock, fer chrissakes. Who is really that upset over this?
[B] DK – WTF? Hangin’ with Mr. Smizik?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
I'm sticking by my earlier observation . . .
that DK became a lot more negative after the Bucs traded Nate.
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
dejan kovacevic
former pirates beat writer for the post-gazette
by gorillagogo on Mar 24, 2011 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Former Bucco beat reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette...
Dejan Kovacevik. He is a terrific beat reporter and fine bear writer who seem to go from objective to sligthly more critical, IMO, of the front office in his writings. He claims that he just reports the facts and never takes sides but since the McLouth trade, as Scranton says and I agree, you can see his true feelings creep through in his work from time to time. I don’t think he is as bad as some make him out to be and overall I think he is really good at what he does.
by Slick1 on Mar 24, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Funny how DK’s biggest strength is his ability to consistently outscoop the competition as a beat reporter, so the PG rewards him by taking him off the beat and giving him an opinion column.
by gorillagogo on Mar 24, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Nail. Head.
It’s almost as bad as employing Smizik in any capacity…..
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 24, 2011 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah...
I had mixed feelings with his new assignment. I like the Steelers and Pens so I was interested when I first heard but the truth is I’d much rather read about the Bucs and I think Buccos coverage has suffered a bit. I expect it will be vastly improved though coms summer when hockey and Pitt basketball are over.
It was a necessary risk
There is no way the Pirates could have known that Ciriaco was going to look so good in Spring Training. It is also possible that adding a Rule 5 middle infielder helped push Ciriaco to be better. DK ignores that fact.
by SojourningPirate on Mar 24, 2011 2:18 PM EDT reply actions
Borderline prospect
1. Losing Adcock will not be the end of the world! I wish him success if he makes it to the majors. However, NH did what most GM’s would do with a “A” ball pitcher, that you take the risk! He will be returned…. Count on it!
2. Ciriaco will make the club as a defensive replacement and PR. Hurdle likes that speed off the bench. I also like the fact that Hurdle will able to work with him on a daily basis with his hitting. Ciriaco will be Hurdle’s pet project this year.
3. It appears that someone in the FO ticked DK off and his recent articles reflect that! I will be interested in his future columns…. This FO does not have many media members on their side! DK had been pretty fair to the PBC in the past and I hope he goes back to being more objective than this Adcock article.
by Krid on Mar 24, 2011 7:21 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
You know, Spring Training really separates the knows from the know-nots. I never see dedicated baseball fans look at Spring Training numbers and actually be affected by them.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Mar 24, 2011 7:36 PM EDT via mobile reply actions

by 



















