Jose Bautista: Was The Pirates' Decision To Trade Him Defensible?
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 15, 2011 11:30 PM EDT
Email
PrintTwitter-scrum! Who doesn't love a good Twitter-scrum, where lots of people argue back and forth, one sentence at a time? I know I do! This one centers around Dejan Kovacevic, and it concerns Jose Bautista, who hit three homers today and now has a ridiculous, Bondsian line of .368/.520/.868 - and yeah, that .868 is for slugging percentage, not OPS.
A quick observation, first: Bautista hit 54 home runs last year. The fact that he's doing even better this year doesn't really add anything to the why-did-the-Pirates-trade-Bautista-for-nothing arguments that we all discussed ad nauseam last year, so I look forward to not really listening to them anymore if they continue. It's not that I don't acknowledge that the trade turned out really badly. It's just that I'm sick of hearing about it.
This one time, however, I'll go with it. Kovacevic:
For zillionth time, it's not about envisioning Bautista would become Babe Ruth. It's about seeing more potential than third-string catcher ...
The Bautista who hit 15 HR with .360 OBP, good eye, multiple positions in field was good enough to keep over third-string catcher.
My initial reaction to the trade when it happened was similar to the one in the second paragraph there, but I think I was wrong (and I said so a couple days later). I don't think Kovacevic is making a very good argument. For one thing, Bautista never had an OBP higher than .339 with the Pirates. He was also a defensive liability, which means that even given the modest pop and on-base skills, he was a replacement-level player when he was with the Pirates, or maybe a little better. He was also 27 and about to enter his second year of arbitration.
Generally, that's exactly the sort of player a rebuilding team shouldn't bother with, because that player type gets in the way of building a winner. In 2008, the Pirates had Doug Mientkiewicz around to stand at third base and in right field occasionally. Mientkiewicz was better, and cheaper, than Bautista, and after the season, the Pirates let Mientkiewicz go, and that was fine. Players who provide the type of production that Bautista did then are a dime a dozen, and when a rebuilding team intentionally carves out opportunities and multimillion-dollar salaries for aging, replacement-level players, it's shooting itself in the foot.
It's one thing if that kind of player is needed to fill a role and can fill it cheaply. But with the addition of Andy LaRoche (who turned out to be terrible, yes, but was a much better option than Bautista at the time), Bautista wasn't really needed, and he wasn't particularly cheap either. Teams who wait around for players of that type to achieve their "potential" usually might as well be waiting for Godot. So the argument that Bautista should have been kept based on his statistics (15 homers a year, etc.) doesn't hold much water with me.
If there was anything wrong with the Pirates' decision to drop Bautista, it was that they didn't figure out how to harness Bautista's power, while the Blue Jays did. Should the Pirates have been able to figure Bautista out? I'm not sure, and I don't know if anyone is. But this article has some insights:
The Toronto Blue Jays outfielder was getting started too late in the batter's box, forcing him to use his shoulders rather than his hands when attacking the ball, making his swing long and wild. Rather than going through the ball, he was going around it, leaving him vulnerable on the plate's inner half.
Bautista had heard similar criticism from coaches before, but was never really sure what they meant, or what to do about it. So one day in the Rogers Centre weight room last July, [Dwayne] Murphy pulled Bautista aside, gave him a bat and told him to swing in front of a mirror.
It was there the 29-year-old's slow transformation from journeyman bench player to unlikely big-league home run leader began ...
For the first time in his career, what he was hearing from his coach made sense to Bautista.
Emphasis mine. It sounds like Bautista's coaches before he was with the Blue Jays recognized the timing problems that were holding him back, but for whatever reason, Bautista didn't understand what they were saying. It's possible that Murphy is just a better communicator, in which case the Pirates deserve blame for not figuring things out. But often, when I'm learning a new skill, my ability to implement changes has less to do with the person who's communicating them and more to do with where I am in the learning process and what else I might know.
It's possible the Pirates deserve blame for failing to reach Bautista. But I'm not sure we can know that, and I don't think anyone really saw his power surge coming. And based on the type of player Bautista was - the 15-homer guy who played poor defense at third and in the outfield and had to be paid at arbitration rates - there was nothing wrong with the Pirates dropping him. And the Jays were a .500 team in August of 2008 and they had to put in a waiver claim to get him, and they're also in the American League, which means that every NL team and half the AL teams saw him on waivers and simply passed. The Jays also used him very sparingly down the stretch in 2008, which suggests that they weren't ultimately all that interested in him, either. Nobody was.
UPDATE 1:49 AM: WTM in the comments:
Honestly, this Bautista stuff aggravates me no end because the arguments about the trade bear no relation at all to the real world. As we all know, absolutely nobody, including the Jays over a year after the trade, had the faintest clue Bautista was this type of player. Worst of all is Kovacevic’s criticism of Neal Huntington in his blog entry tonight for thinking Andy LaRoche had a higher ceiling than Bautista. Everybody in MLB thought LaRoche was a far better player. That’s not remotely a valid criticism because it doesn’t reflect anything that was relevant to this plane of existence at the time of the trade. Really, the only valid criticism of the trade is that Huntington should have gotten a return equivalent to what everybody on the planet thought Bautista was—a run-of-the-mill corner utility guy. So the Pirates should have ended up with something like a decent backup catcher instead of a third-string catcher. Big deal.
But it is perfectly sensible to wonder why the Pirates never find their own version of Bautista. Or lesser version, because there’s probably been nobody similar in MLB history. Players come out of nowhere or return from the dead all the time, but the Pirates are never on the receiving end. What exactly is wrong with their evaluations that we keep ending up with the Ryan Churches and Lyle Overbays? That’s the real issue, in my opinion, but I guess it’s too abstract and lacks the emotional satisfaction of whining endlessly about Bautista.
515 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not only were the Jays a .500 team
They’re an AL team, so every team in the NL, and about half the teams in the AL passed on him.
In any case, DK is being disingenuous here – this is all about the player Bautista became in 2010, not the Jose Bautista of 2006-2009 who was a slightly below league average hitter and played a bunch of corner defensive positions badly. They have a guy like that, his name is Steve Pearce, so that is not the issue. The only thing that matters is the fact that Bautista became a superstar someplace else.
As for whether the Pirates should have been able to fix him, who knows? DK certainly doesn’t. What I find particularly tiresome about this whole discussion is that it seems to me that DK wants to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking without looking like he’s engaging in Monday morning quarterbacking. Say what you mean, Dejan, enough of this intellectually dishonest misdirection.
engaging in Monday morning quarterbacking.
They’re an AL team, so every team in the NL, and about half the teams in the AL passed on him.
Right, thanks. I meant to put that in there.
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 16, 2011 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
DK makes a ....
completely different argument when discussing the McLouth trade. Not the “you have to be able to evaluate your own players” argument. He says “they should have gotten so much more” because he was an all-star.
McLouth since going to the Braves .235/.333/.378 .712 OPS.
Bautisa in Pittsburgh .249/.329/.403 .733 OPS
I also really don’t get his repeated reference in twitter and his original article to a .360 OBP. He never broke .350 until last year. It was a central fact in his argument and wasn’t close to reality.
The Hammer Speaks
Extra Innings
Twitter: @DTonPirates and @hammerspeaks
I also really don’t get his repeated reference in twitter and his original article to a .360 OBP. He never broke .350 until last year. It was a central fact in his argument and wasn’t close to reality.
I see it as a telling example of how so many people who lament the trades remember the departed players as being much better than they were.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
That or he is using the Fox News technique...
Put out the message 1st because once it’s out there it will be remembered. Whether the message is completely factual doesn’t matter so long as it supports the agenda. You can always retract it later but the damage is done at that point because no one pays attention to retractions.
This technique amounts to crappy journalism. Use a headline to create a story. Next, find facts to support the story or, lacking those, interpret the known facts in such a way that the interpretation suggests that they could be true.
Hence: Rendon has a serious structural problem with his shoulder.
Hence: Saadam collaborated with al-Qaeda.
Hence: Sidney Crosby will return in time for the playoffs.
Hence: …..
s.zielinski
Not Rendon’s shoulder (we don’t know that)…but significant problems with his ankle (which we do know).
All reports about Rendon’s ankles and legs are positive. He’s running and moving well, according to the scouting reports passed along by the media. It’s his shoulder that scares people. But Rendon’s shoulder would be no concern at all if he was hitting as well as he had last year and the year before. He’s not. Therefore….
s.zielinski
WTM
You mean like thinking Mientkiewicz and his 2 HR and 30 RBI was “better” than Bautista
103 OPS+, 1.7 WAR in his one year here.
Again, more productive than Bautista’s entire career.
God damn, do people think defense doesn’t exist?
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Or OBP
At which Mientkiewicz, at that point in time, was much better at than Bautista.
Oddly enough, given Dejan’s reference to Bautista’s supposed .360 Pirate OBP, Mientkiewicz’s career OBP was . . . .360!
I guess I should amend my statement above to say that so many fans not only remember the departed players as being better than they were, but also that they seem to remember only the stats they find convenient.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
DIRTY DOUG
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
you mean like.....
Mientkiewicz’s .918 Fld% at 3rd base in 2008 vs. Baustista’s .959
I also really don’t get his repeated reference in twitter and his original article to a .360 OBP. He never broke .350 until last year. It was a central fact in his argument and wasn’t close to reality.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
So trading a "replacement level" player for nothing is fine?
And let’s be clear – Diaz was nothing.
All I’m going to say on the matter is that the problem isn’t failing to hold on to Bautista until he “got it”ª; it’s deciding that the guy who’s already here and not producing is worthless, while the guy that some other org had given up on was worth a bunch. That’s a decision that NH made a number of times in his first couple years here. You can defend each individual event all you want, but that’s the pattern. And it was a pattern with very, very, very few successes.
PS – 1.2 WAR (that was Bautista’s 2007) ≠ “replacement level”. By definition.
PPS – How’s Tom Gorzelanny pitching these days?
ª although, if it’s correct that Pirates coaches saw his mechanical problem, then they had an obligation to tell the FO that, while JB appeared to be only somewhat above replacement level, he was just one mechanical adjustment away from being significantly more. The logic laid out in this post (and no doubt 95% of the comments) says that Charlie Morton should have been traded for nothing sometime in the past 10 months.
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Diaz was “nothing.” There was at least some chance he’d turn out to be a decent backup catcher. But yeah, I think dumping an aging, replacement-level player is pretty much fine if he’s getting expensive. That’s what teams do every year at the non-tender deadline.
I’m not sure why you’re only concerned with Bautista’s WAR in 2007. The trade took place in 2008, when his WAR was .4. From 2006-2008 he had a WAR of .8, which is pretty much exactly as I described it – replacement level, or maybe a little better.
Not sure what the Gorzelanny thing has to do with anything – the Pirates traded him and John Grabow not for nothing but for two pitchers they liked, only it turned out both of them had major, career-altering injuries. That’s a problem, certainly, but a problem of an entirely different species.
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 16, 2011 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
(Although Fangraphs’ 2008 WAR includes his Toronto totals, which probably bring the number down a bit. Still, he was reasonably close to replacement level for the period of three years before the trade.)
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 16, 2011 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
When....
the argument becomes “It’s just that I’m sick of hearing about it” you should just accept the fact you’re a Pirate apologist and will do and say anything to excuse and justify what is quickly becoming one of the most lopsided trades in the history of baseball. Any fan with an ounce of objectivity and honesty would admit as much.
That was one line in a 900-word piece, most of which had little to do with me being sick of hearing about it. If that’s all you took away from the piece, you’re the one with the objectivity problems, not me.
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 16, 2011 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Don’t get upset with me because you argument and defense of the trade is silly. If you didn’t want people to criticize the line about you being sick of hearing about the trade, you shouldn’t have included it in your article. If I had responded to something you didn’t write, perhaps then you could accuse me of not being objective.
Your conclusion that he is a Pirates’ apologist due to him saying he’s sick of hearing about a player who found his stroke elsewhere is, by all means, an idiotic conclusion.
You know this quite well, which is why you got defensive so quickly. Everyone is sick of hearing about it except those who enjoy piling on (Dejan)
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Really?
Had Garrett Jones become the next Barry Bonds, would you become sick of hearing about that? Of course not, so you’re only sick of hearing about deals that paint the Pirates in a negative light. Ergo…..you’re an apologist.
And you're not capable of realizing that everything is not black and white...
Ergo, you’re simple minded or a troll. Damnit I hate it when people like you have to lump everyone into one of two categories. It’s so annoying. Quite frankly I’m getting to this point with Dejan. If you criticize him anymore you’re in the “all trades are good” group but if you critcize a piece that is pro-front office you are in the “all trades are bad category.” Why can’t someone just have an opinion on a particluar topic without being FN labeled? Is it too difficult for you to believe that someone can like a trade the front office has made at the same time not liking a different trade the front office has made? Or would you’re little head explode to find out that there are people out there like this?
Last I checked we weren’t evaluating any other trade. The discussion I’ve particiapted in was only about the Bautista trade. Which in my opinion was a historically bad trade that has the potential to be discussed for years and years as one of the single worst trades in the history of the game. For the life of me, I can’t see how it’s viewed any other way unless someone is clearly making excuses. Which you clearly are doing.
historically bad trade
If, by that, you mean that it happened in the past, so it is a part of the history of baseball, I totally agree with you statement of the obvious.
If you meant that it was historically significant, enough to rank with the worst trades of all times, then you sir are an ignoramus.
by Wizard of Woz on May 16, 2011 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re right, trading a player who is following a season where he hit 50+ homeruns and had an OPS of .995 with a season only matched by guys names Ruth and Bonds shouldn’t be considered one of the worst trades of all time.
For the record, I said "potentially’. But I’m the ignoramus.
You said, and I quoted it, “historically bad trade”, then went on to define another parameter that seems to line up with the standard usage of “historically” for no apparent reason. Maybe our issue here is your labeling it as historically bad.
by Wizard of Woz on May 16, 2011 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Let’s say Jones did become Bonds, which would obviously had made me happy.
P: “I am sick of hearing about BadPirateReport(x)”
Q: “Person(y) is a Pirates apologist”
R: “Person(z) defends the Pirates in any instance”
R → Q, obviously.
Does P → R?
Let’s assume ABadPirateReport(x). Obviously, then, P → R, since any bad information about the Pirates would set the apologist into action. But, lets assume -ABadPirateReport(x), which means not all instances of x annoys the proverbial ‘I’, and set it into P’ Therefore, one cannoy derive R from P’. Therefore, P’ does not transitively derive into Q, because there is an instance of negative Pirates press that does not annoy the person.
Since this is your first time here, you can’t even come close to concluding that anyone here is an apologist.
Myself, I hated the McLouth trade at first, but have grown to like it. Now I’ll defend it from those who say that the value of a trade should be derived from information had at the time of the trade; the exact opposite of the Bautista trade, to be specific.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Had Garrett Jones become the next Barry Bonds, would you become sick of hearing about that?
I certainly got sick of hearing it in 2009…
+1
The Pres. of the GJ is God in 2009 fan club approves this message.
The Hammer Speaks
Extra Innings
Twitter: @DTonPirates and @hammerspeaks
Probably one of the most ignorant, and just plain stupid posts ever on BucsDugout...
So we should ignore history and facts just to make you feel better/smarter??? My vote on that is NO, we should not vacate reality. The fact that people (i.e. YOU) do not know the meaning of the word “objective” does not support ignoring facts.
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on May 16, 2011 3:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Look alive everyone! It’s Captain Hindsight, here to bless us with wonderful anecdotes!
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on May 16, 2011 9:22 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
i guarantee that when bautista was let go
you didnt even bat an eye. nobody did, including about 22 other MLB teams. bautista was destined for baseball oblivion, and miraculously righted himself. nobody saw it coming.
Why?
What does it matter what fans thought of the trade at the time? We are not getting paid 6-7 figure salaries to evaluate talent. So it doesn’t matter whether any fan thought it was the best trade in the history of baseball or the biggest injustice since the Aramis Ramirez trade or loaded up their DVD player and watched an Ally McBeal marathon with their girlfriends while sipping appletinis.
As far as other teams having a chance for him and also not believing Bautista was capable of what he’s doing, they also didn’t have him around their organization for over 7 years and watch him every day as he received over 1300 at bats.
This trade is indefensible. Period. End of story. Anyone stating otherwise is being dishonest and failing to accept logic and fact as it flies in the face of what they want to believe.
It sure is defensible. We’re defending it now, don’t you see? Obviously you can’t comprehend the value of a player at the time of a trade vs. what he becomes.
And yes, the fact that we had him for seven years and he still held a negative WAR for his Pirates career made the trade even more defensible — it seemed like he would never reach his potential.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
How many players get 1300 at bats with an organization
have a negative WAR with no position on the field that they don’t butcher defensively and still get an opportunity with that organization?
Yes Jose had some value offensively, but he is not worth whining about based off of what he offered at the time.
You may have to explain the WAR concept to him first...
He seems like a guy who is pretty set in his ways. Black or white, right or wrong, good or bad, etc. Good luck if you try.
So because Bautista wasn’t able to live up to his potential with the Pirates, which the Pirates should take some responsibility for, it’s perfectly acceptable to:
1. Trade him for nothing.
2. Replace him for essentially the same abount with an aging and inferior Ramon Vazquez.
Perhaps had the Pirates equally evaluated and developed Bautista, they would be the ones benefitting from his current production rather than paying Ramon Vazquez 2.2 million dollars to not play for the Pirates in 2010.
This is an embarrassing failure for an organization. Had it happened to anyone other than the infallible Neal Huntington, there wouldn’t be this absurd justification.
I don’t even know what you’re attempting to prove. If I’m able to locate some, does it change your opinion of the trade? Is there a certain number of examples that need to be made?
I’m saying it’s ridiculous to think that the Pirates should have held on to someone who was a replacement level player for longer than they did because of some untapped potential that no other team saw (not even the Jays since they were going to give up on him too until he finally fixed his swing). The fact that he got even 1300 at bats with the Pirates is amazing in itself. If you can find one guy who was starting with the same organization after 1300 at bats of negative WAR value then I’ll rethink my position.
You hang onto him because at 27 he had an infinitely higher ceiling than Ramon Vazquez, even if no one within all of baseball could predict his current level of production. Replacing younger players with a measure of upside with aging older players with zero upside is dumb. Jose Bautista proves that.
Now this...
was one of the more sensible things you said. If you could make these arguments without throwing labels on people I think you would find more people taking your opinion seriously. I agree with you on this point. I would have preferred Batista as a utility player but I didn’t think the trade was a big deal at the time. Clearly I was wrong but I think you can make the argument you did have that be a reasonable position.
Vazquez was brought in partly because he can play middle infield, which Bautista really can’t. One wasn’t a replacement for the other.
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 16, 2011 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Vazquez was brought up because he was a bench player the Pirates were willing to pay 2 million a year. Roughly the same about they were unwilling to pay Bautista.
Cept he could play the middle infield, while Bautista could barely stand straight at third base. But if position doesn’t matter, I guess we could always move Doumit to SS. His bat plays well there, remember that.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
In fairness...
Vasquez could play 2nd. Incorrect talent evaluation led the front office to believe he could play an acceptable SS. Same with Gomes. Same with Crosby.
like i said below, vazquez was NOT brought in to replace Bautista
Laroche took over 3B. vazquez was signed to be a utility player, which Bautista was not. Jose, all due respect to him, could field ANY position well.
put Vazquez into this conversation is wrong. you can say that NH picked the wrong 3Bman by choosing Laroche over Bautista, but Vazquez had nothing to do with this roster transformation
If you don’t like me bringing up Vazquez as an example of a bench player in 2009, then replace him with Hinske. You’re still talking about an aging player who only made 900k less than Bautista.
Good example there...
and I agree with you. Besides I’m not sure why Batista couldn’t play RF or 1B at an acceptable level had he been given more time there.
Well...I can come pretty close...
Andy LaRoche had 1044 plate appearances with the Pirates and had a 0.1 WAR according to BBRef. Bautista may have been a butcher with the glove, but LaRoche was a butcher with the bat. You might notice that he’s got a .624 OPS in Oakland. And he had a -0.9 offensive WAR in 2 seasons worth of AB in Pittsburgh.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
The Morton comment almost invalidated your entire post, since we’ve only been working with him for a year and a half. Gorzelanny/Bautista had many years.
LaRoche also had a 2.4 WAR in 2009, more than any season Bautista ever generated here. It was worth it to trade Bautista since LaRoche had a brighter future and he had better results in Pittsburgh.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
1.2 WAR (that was Bautista’s 2007) ≠ "replacement level". By definition.
Nothing like cherry-picking. Charlie referred to his time with the Pirates, not just his best year. His WAR for his Pirates career was 0.4 if you go by Fangraphs, -1.1 if you go by bb-ref. Sounds pretty replacement level to me.
In any event, you’re essentially arguing here that NH should have gotten a 0.4 (or at best 1.2) WAR player instead of Diaz. Well, holy mackerel, imagine where we’d be now if we’d had a one-win player over the past three years!
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I’m not sure Gorzelanny is much of an argument against Huntington. He’s got a shiny ERA for 2011, but his FIP is almost 5, and his xFIP is 4.2, which should come up to his career average, and with it will go his ERA. He’s been really lucky, especially with a LOB% that’s 12% higher than his career average. This Fangraphs piece sums up pretty nicely how tough a guy Gorzo is to figure out. He has some years where his ERA is way, way lower than it should be, and he has others where it’s way, way higher. The Pirates traded him when his ERA was high in 2009 but backed up by low peripherals, coming off of a 2008 where he was terrible in every way imaginable.
Gorzelanny was pretty ambiguous for a lot of reasons, is the main point. Bautista at least was a simpler case. He was always a decent utility player with a little power and bad defense. He got on base okay enough, but he didn’t appear to have much upside. I think of Bautista back then sort of like I think of Edwin Encarnacion today; he was serviceable, had posted high .100s ISOs, and sucked in the field. If the Jays cast off Encarnacion today, nobody would think anything of it.
I’d love to find some fault in the Pirates for this, just because it really, really sucks to think that this Bautista could have been ours. But I’m not sure there’s any blame to be found. He just got good. Good for him.
by Suffering Buc on May 16, 2011 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Reality
Some guys never get it! While some guys get it after being traded or when they are just about out of chances. Bautista was an at best average utility player when he left the Bucs. No one could have predicted he would have become a solid starter never mind a guy who hit fifty plus homers.
even the Jays nearly DFA'd the mighty Joeybats before he figured things out
it was reported a few times by Toronto writers/bloggers that he was on the way out, then BOOM.
The reason they kept him around
Was that he agreed to a deal on the arb-deadline that paid him the exact same amount as the previous year ($2.4 million). Had he not agreed to that deal and tried to get more money through the arbitration process they would have non-tendered him.
So if the mclouth trade was so bad....
because it needs to be evaluated in terms of info available at the time (according to DK), why is it OK to judge the Bautista trade in hindsight?
Redeemed.
by escroll on May 16, 2011 1:00 AM EDT reply actions 5 recs
Because it's pretty clear that DK...
enjoys taking shots at Huntington. He defintely plays both sides when evaluating the trades. He has lost his objectivity in that repect despite claiming that’s all he days. I like DK a lot as a writer but again it is clear to me that he has lost his objectivity when dealing with the front office, Huntington in particular. Also, you can also hear some distaste from Huntington in regards to DK at times. It’s pretty obvious to me that they do not like each other at this point.
that's been my general impression...
thus my rhetorical question. It really wasn’t a great trade, but if not for the frankly unfathomable, never-before-seen resurrection of JB’s career, this would be almost a nothing, a minor blemish on NH’s record.
Redeemed.
Never-before-seen?
I dunno … is Mike Easler a decent comp? Or did Hit Man just need a chance to play somewhere?
In any case, JB isn’t the first guy bounced around from organization to organization with a spotty or worse MLB track record who finally caught fire in his late 20s.
see Jayson Werth
a backup outfielder until he hit it big with Philly… eventually will be the most expensive 4th outfielder in the business
by white angus on May 16, 2011 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Werth was plagued by injuries, including missing the entire 2006 season. He hit it big once he stayed healthy.
Easler always hammered the ball, but he wasn’t much defensively and that was the days of carpet, when everybody wanted speedy outfielders. He got tagged as a AAA guy and it just stuck until the Pirates gave him a chance.
Bautista had plenty of chances and was healthy. He just didn’t peform.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
This.
I was late to the thread, but posted something similar above.
The Hammer Speaks
Extra Innings
Twitter: @DTonPirates and @hammerspeaks
Hindsight is 20/20.
On April 1, 2010 in his six year career, he had an OPS+ of 91 and hit 59 home runs.
For a year and a month after he was traded, he didn’t do much with the Blue Jays. They almost let him go. I’m still more upset at them trading Aramis Ramirez than I am Jose Bautista because Ramirez was younger, had a more promising future and they did it just to dump salary. They traded Bautista because they weren’t going to bother playing him because they wanted to see what they had with LaRoche and Alavarez, both of whom seemed to have a brighter future than Bautista did in 2008.
Furthermore, where is the blame for Baltimore, Kansas City, Tampa Bay and the New York Mets? How terrible is the evaluation of their own talent if they all gave up on Bautista so soon? They all gave him a lot fewer chances than the Pirates did. There was a lot better chance that he would continue to be a replacement level player than turning in to a bigger HR threat than A-Rod.
There is no love in the World. There's only pain.
by IAPiratesFan on May 16, 2011 1:09 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Honestly, this Bautista stuff aggravates me no end because the arguments about the trade bear no relation at all to the real world. As we all know, absolutely nobody, including the Jays over a year after the trade, had the faintest clue Bautista was this type of player. Worst of all is Dejan’s criticism of Huntington in his blog entry tonight for thinking Andy LaRoche had a higher ceiling than Bautista. Everybody in MLB thought LaRoche was a far better player. That’s not remotely a valid criticism because it doesn’t reflect anything that was relevant to this plane of existence at the time of the trade. Really, the only valid criticism of the trade is that Huntington should have gotten a return equivalent to what everybody on the planet thought Bautista was—a run-of-the-mill corner UT guy. So the Pirates should have ended up with something like a decent backup catcher instead of a third-string catcher. Big fucking deal.
But it IS perfectly sensible to wonder why the Pirates never find their own version of Bautista. Or lesser version, because there’s probably been nobody similar in MLB history. Players come out of nowhere or return from the dead all the time, but the Pirates are never on the receiving end. What exactly is wrong with their evaluations that we keep ending up with the Ryan Churches and Lyle Overbays? That’s the real issue, IMO, but I guess it’s too abstract and lacks the emotional satisfaction of whining endlessly about Bautista.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on May 16, 2011 1:40 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
This is going back aways but Brian Giles ended up doing pretty well in Pittsburgh. Probably had the best four year stretch of any player in Pirates history since Willie Stargell’s 71-74 seasons. I bet Indians fans were pretty upset about that trade by the end of the 1999 season….
There is no love in the World. There's only pain.
by IAPiratesFan on May 16, 2011 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions
do i dare mention "the juice" in my comment?
nahhhhhh, but good comparison
by white angus on May 16, 2011 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
This is Dejan-generated tempest in a tea pot. Dejan cannot think analytically at all. That part of his brain does not work. He was a good beat writer, but as an analyst he’s just a more readable version of Bob Smizik. He may actually hate NH more than Smizik does because Dejan feels personally dissed by NH. No analytical skills plus personal animus will get you this kind of thing on a regular basis.
Why can’t the Priates find their own version of Bautista? They are exceedingly rare. It’s not for lack of trying: Clement, Jones, Milledge, Bowker, Wood. Any one of them could have turned into a “Bautista.” I still have hopes for Bowker and Wood. I think NH is always finding interesting reclamation projects but doesn’t always play them enough. He must think his job is safer having some veterans in the mix. I wonder if this behavior might change if NH gets a contract extension.
you may see Bowker in September
but he will be a free agent come next season, so i would bet youve seen the last of him
by white angus on May 16, 2011 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Players come out of nowhere or return from the dead all the time, but the Pirates are never on the receiving end.
Why do people always say things like this and ignore Garrett Jones? Sure, he’s not beasting like it’s 2009 anymore, but he’s a productive player that we got from a minor league contract.
So far, Veras has looked quite good as well. In fact, we’ve had a lot of bullpen successes from the scrapheap (and a lot of failures, too, but still.)
But it IS perfectly sensible to wonder why the Pirates never find their own version of Bautista. Or lesser version…
Isn’t that Garrett Jones?
Jones’ career OPS+ as an offense-only corner guy is 109 and that’s largely due to a couple months in 2009 that he’ll never repeat. Yeah, he’s a nice find, but I don’t think that, by himself, he validates NH’s player evaluation skills.
Once you get past Jones, there really isn’t anything aside from Meek and maybe eventually Resop. It’s way too soon to reach any conclusions about Correia. I don’t count Hanrahan because NH gave up real value for him.
As I said in the piece I wrote here a couple weeks ago, I don’t think NH has done much with the extraordinarily large number of opportunities he’s had to find diamonds in the rough. He deserves credit for trying, something DL never even did, but he hasn’t had an adequate level of success.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I’d include Morton. Huntington had to trade McLouth for Morton and company, but Morton’s stuff is no fluke, but his ability to harness and use it effectively is new. The Braves would not have traded Morton if they knew Morton would do what he’s about to do this season and beyond.
Huntington has tried to find those hidden gems. But they are rare by definition.
s.zielinski
If Morton becomes
the pitching version-lite of Bautista it will be interesting to see DK spin it.
The Hammer Speaks
Extra Innings
Twitter: @DTonPirates and @hammerspeaks
This surely would be a tough problem for DK.
Critics of GMs and, to a lesser extent, managers have an easy time of it. After all, one team of thirty wins the World Series each season; the game is rigged to favor high-revenue teams like the Yankees, Sox, Cubs, etc.; position players of the greatest and rarest quality fail most of the time; pitchers need a MASH unit of their own; etc. Even the Yankees and Red Sox fail to win the World Series every year. So, a critic does not need to work too hard to find something to criticize.
I have a lot of confidence in Morton. He’s been the most promising Pirates pitcher since Ollie’s great season. If Morton’s stamina holds steady for a complete season and he avoids injury….
s.zielinski
Morton’s peripherals argue that his current success level is not sustainable.
His GB/FB rate has almost doubled. His base groundball percentage has jumped from a usual 50% to 62%…he’s got a 1/1 K/BB ratio, he’s walking almost 5 batters per 9 innings.
That’s a recipe for disaster with our weak infield defense.
His current success isn’t sustainable with the same peripherals, but that doesn’t mean that the peripherals won’t change.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
This
And in fact they already have. I think after his first two starts he had 3Ks and 10 BBs.
GB rate is different because he is a different pitcher.
The Hammer Speaks
Extra Innings
Twitter: @DTonPirates and @hammerspeaks
If Morton can maintain a consistent mechanics, he’ll gain better control over his pitches. The whiffs will come because he has great secondary pitches. Still, Morton can overuse his sinker because it is so good that most hitters find it difficult to center his sinker on their bats.
Morton will have an off-day, just like every other player. His sinker won’t sink; his curve will hang; his fork ball will roll. That said, the high ceiling is obvious. And a good comp for Morton includes more than Halladay. One can also see a lot of Kevin Brown in Morton.
Hopefully, Charlie’s not a hot head like Brown!
s.zielinski
I think you...
are underselling GFJ a little. 146 OPS+ in three months in 2009. 124 OPS+ in six weeks in 2011. He may not exactly “repeat” 2009, but doesn’t mean he hasn’t or won’t be successful.
The Hammer Speaks
Extra Innings
Twitter: @DTonPirates and @hammerspeaks
As a platoon...
Jones has a chance to be a useful piece. When he faces LHP…he’s pretty much unsuccessful.
Like I said...
as a platoon piece he’s useful. Full-timer…he should not be one.
Bautista
Let’s keep in mind that Bautista was obtained, lost, and re-acquired by the Pirate front office.
Apparently, they saw something in him twice.
Yes, that can happen sometimes without the player ever blossoming, but it is note worthy.
I don’t believe that Andy LaRoche was as highly regarded (when the Pirates acquired him) as some still state.
LaRoche was having alot of problems at the plate in his (a little over) 150 AB’s with the Dodgers.
150 AB’s does not leave a definite trail, but it is a fairly significant flag when it is spread over two campaigns.
As far as Bautista goes, he was (as mentioned) pretty highly regarded by the Pirate front office in (roughly) ‘04 & ’05.
This is where it becomes a bit clearer that he did not receive the proper guidance to get the most out of his (now seen) potential.
At the time of him being traded, 15 HR’s was not that low of a total for that particular offense.
With his salary rising, I believe him to be looked at as a mediocre talent and therefore cut loose with financial concerns being a major part of the swap.
The acquisition of Diaz was never more than a body and/or (at best) potential back up catcher in my opinion.
As Bautista proves his point for the second season in a row, this becomes a huge, ever growing black eye on Neal Huntington.
This type of thing happens to everyone, but it seems to happen much more to the Pirates.
They can’t continue to afford these kind of misevaluations.
Every team in the league made a poor evaluation on Bautista by your reasoning.
So, even with your logic, it makes no sense to bash Hungtington for this move. I also highly doubt it was a financial “concern” so much as “there’s no reason to pay this guy $1.5mil more for the same production.” I’m pretty sure you would make the same exact decision if you were running a business and if you didn’t then you wouldn’t be running it very long.
all of our players are "highly regarded" by the FO, or they wouldnt be playing for us...
Bautista was re-aquired by us because of the rule5 draft. not one of those other teams really tried to work out a trade to keep Bautista, now did they?
I don’t believe that Andy LaRoche was as highly regarded (when the Pirates acquired him) as some still state.
Maybe not, but he was certainly more highly regarded than Bautista.
Laroche was a former #1 prospect of the Dodgers... Bautista was looked upon as a soon to be journeyman
amazing how things have turned around
by white angus on May 16, 2011 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I hate to point this out...
but Bautista was obtained, lost and re-acquired by the PREVIOUS Pirates FO. That was enough for the current FO to want to get rid of him. The list of players that were on the 2007 major league roster that remained with the Pirates to the 2010 season was rather short…Doumit, Maholm and Duke.
Don’t fucking lie — you’re a contrarian and it validates your existence it seems.
I’m sure reason number one for dumping Bautista is the Littlefield brand on his backside.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on May 16, 2011 9:34 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
So turning over 90% of a roster in 2 years doesn’t indicate that the current FO had little or no use for the players that the previous FO had in place??
Personally, I have little or no use for a roster of players who lost 95 games every year. Only an utter idiot would NOT have gotten rid of nearly all those guys.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Shall we go to the wayback machine??
Hell, even Charlie panned the trade when it happened. I didn’t comment in the thread 4 days later when Diaz was announced as the PTBNL, mainly because we were preparing to deal with a little thing down here named Hurricane Gustav. I think I made one or two comments in another thread that day.
Minky, Gomez, Bautista…all interchangeable parts…and all expecting 7 figure salaries next year. Pirates had to make a choice. -Thunder, August 21, 2008
Your faith in Bautista’s abilities virtually leaps off the page.
Yes…and if you take the WHOLE comment…it says Minky, Gomez, Bautista…all interchangeable parts…and all expecting 7 figure salaries next year. Pirates had to make a choice. Right or wrong.
I never indicated the Pirates made the right choice and I certainly questioned whether the choice was correct.
I never indicated the Pirates made the right choice and I certainly questioned whether the choice was correct.
Did I skim past the part where you indicated whether the choice that the team made was right or wrong? If so, can you link to it?
I questioned it...
I sure didn’t sign off on it.
even Charlie panned the trade when it happened.
I changed my mind about panning it within a day or two in one of the stories I linked to above.
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 16, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
they had litle or no use for the players thprevious FO had in place
because most of those guys sucked.
not one of our better trades.
the pirates do have somewhat of a history of giving up on guys too soon. Jason Schmit anyone? as well as trades for money reasons like the rameriez trade. We just have that history of bad trades. i know, different owner, different gm, different era. or even for the Bay trade( i know Morris is the key, and he could be very good). Its just to the casual fan these are reasons not to support the team.
While i do agree that no one really could have seen this coming it still reflects poorly on NH and the team in general. I’m sure the coach who changed his swinging motion, would have never guess this was possible.
For all the bad trades, NH has been good at atleast getting some usable people into the organization. Diaz was bad, a non-prospect and we were all somewhat disappointed. My point being that we traded a replacement level player, we should have atleast gotten a replacement level player back.
Schmit
was about to become a free agent.
The Hammer Speaks
Extra Innings
Twitter: @DTonPirates and @hammerspeaks
what i meant was
What i was saying with the Schmidt comment was that, as far as i know, no one with the pirates really felt that he had that much of a future, let alone a Cy Young season in him.
Gorzo at least showed some flashes of talent with the Pirates good movement and such but he couldn’t put it together. Bautista showed nothing. I hated the guy. Good for him now but no one knew he was gonna be the best homerun hitter. I never thought he would start.
by Joey Mooney on May 16, 2011 7:39 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
the sad thing is, NH is gonna be judged by this Bautista nonsense unless he wins a world series
if joeybats keeps this insane offense going, NH will be known as the Tie that let the big one get away. people will actually think that not only would Bautista put up those same huge numbers for Pitt, but he possibly could have helped us win 81 games.
shame, really.
You are correct and only fans who had to see Jose bat here for the years he was here understand. I remember being happy with Andy LaRoche at third. Crazy to think that!
by Joey Mooney on May 16, 2011 8:22 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Why does anyone listen to what DK has to say?
The guy is a known front office hater, and knows close to 0 about how to run a baseball team. Where are his articles complaining of the trade at the time? Oh that’s right, there are none.
Stop giving this fucker air time, your only feeding into his plan of writing overly negative pieces because he realized his normal pieces won’t sell.
by Kosstic518 on May 16, 2011 8:48 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
You’re even less reasonable when it comes to Dejan than you believe Dejan to be on matters related to the FO.
Funny how Dejan’s pieces about the team’s finances, which generally validate the FO’s stance, usually produce accusations of being a FO shill from the FO haters.
Dejan has points of view that I disagree with and some that I don’t, but the only people I see with agendas are the ones accusing him of having one.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on May 16, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think he has an agenda either...
but I do think he does not like Huntington professionally and it has carried over to a personal level. NH has been pretty vocal in his distaste for DK as well: 1) blamed him (DK broke the story that the Pirates were looking to release Capps if no trade was made) for ruining Capps’ trade value 2) blamed him for making up the John Russel getting fired rumor 3) and stated sarcastically that he spends time evaluating the major league club despite what some in the media say (clear shot at a DK piece last season). My guess is the Dejan is flexing a little media muscle at times to show Huntington that he can be a dick too. It’s pretty clear they don’t like each other.
Vlad
Kosstic said yesterday how much he “hates” DK. He’s just wasting space on this site.
It's unfortunate.
When he’s not talking about Dejan, he’s not a bad poster.
We all have our hot buttons, I guess.
Yeah, mine's Pearce.
I think yours might be Overbay.
But the “hate” and “fucker” things about DK are over the top.
I was gonna suggest
that Dejan be forced to rerun what he wrote about the trade the day after, and point to where it says, “My God, the Pirates just traded a 50-HR guy for a third-string catcher!”
I do hate DK, its no secret no need for 10 posts the explain it.
Still, no one produced what DK wrote immediately after the trade. Why? Because he and the other 6.8 billion people on this planet didn’t know Jose would turn into a 50 HR guy. DK is providing 0 value with this article and opinion.
Here’s to the demise of the PG!
by Kosstic518 on May 16, 2011 12:56 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Still, no one produced what DK wrote immediately after the trade. Why? Because he and the other 6.8 billion people on this planet didn’t know Jose would turn into a 50 HR guy.
That’s not an entirely fair standard. At the time of the trade, Dejan was a beat reporter, and as such didn’t write opinion pieces for the P-G.
So do you believe he knew what Bautista would become at the time of the trade?
What do you think DK is, a sooth sayer?
by Kosstic518 on May 16, 2011 1:40 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
No he did not...
but he also wasn’t in favor of the trade at the time. He felt Batista had the talent to be a major leaguer but knew his days were numbered in Pittsburgh. With the gift of hindsight it would seem that DK was correct. Batista is definitely worth of being on a major league roster.
So do you believe he knew what Bautista would become at the time of the trade?
I don’t have any idea what Dejan did or didn’t believe at the time, since he didn’t share his opinion back then. As such, I’m trying to refrain from retroactively putting words in his mouth now.
I kind of wish you’d do the same.
I cant remember any opinion of his I agree with.
Why write the article now after the 3 HR game? Why not any time before or after this? Its not random, he’s trying to pile on with hindsight because his normal writing doesn’t sell, he has to take overly polarizing ridiculous opinions because the company he works for is going financial insolvent. He shouldn’t be taken seriously at all.
by Kosstic518 on May 16, 2011 4:46 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
It's not hindsight..
to point out that Bautista was GIVEN AWAY for nothing. Diaz was not some great grab when they acquired him. In fact, he was a PTBNL…and wasn’t named for 4 days. When they acquired him, he was not even a remote possibility as a significant major league player. The most games he caught in a MINOR league season in his career was 88. He’s caught 202 games in the minors above Class A…and 82 of those were in the last 2 seasons, after the Pirates released him.
The fact that Bautista pounded 70 HR in the last 13 months is irrelevant. Even if he was a bench piece and not a starter doesn’t eliminate the fact that the Pirates gave away something for nothing. Trading Bautista for LaRoche would have been defensible (had we not done the Bay trade)…for Diaz…no. In fact, the Pirates already had seen almost 3 weeks of LaRoche hitting .160 when the trade was made. Never mind the fact that LaRoche wasn’t 100% healthy.
So what would you expect to get for a guy that 2/3 of baseball couldn’t even be bothered to claim on waivers?
Yeah, they should have gotten TWO buckets of balls!!
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
You really think..
the Pirates could havce acquired a Laroche type player for the Batista the Pirates had?
No…I’m saying that a defense could be made for trading for a guy that was hitting .160 as a regular in the majors (which LaRoche was in about 150 AB when Bautista was traded). A defense can’t be made for trading Bautista (a decent bench guy) for a guy that wasn’t even a full time starting catcher in AA or AAA.
Not even to mention that the Dodgers had just traded for Casey Blake to play 3B ten days before the trade where the Pirates got LaRoche. The Dodgers had NO use for LaRoche. They gave him away.
Yet you seem to be making that argument that we should have known LaRoche was a bum because the Dodgers were willing to let him go.
He sure wasn’t a capable ML 3B at the time…or they wouldn’t have traded for Casey Blake…and gave up their potential future starting catcher (Santana). Remember, this was 10 days BEFORE the Ramirez trade. The Ramirez trade that involved LaRoche had nothing to do with acquiring Blake.
He sure wasn’t a capable ML 3B at the time…or they wouldn’t have traded for Casey Blake…and gave up their potential future starting catcher (Santana).
Not sure that logic necessarily follows. Ned Colletti is spectacularly bad at his job.
And you say it takes at least 5 years to judge a GM…this is early in Colletti’s 6th season. Do we need to wait another 2 years to decide that NH is spectacularly bad?? The LaRoche trade was in Colletti’s 3rd season. Neal’s 3rd season was last year.
And you say it takes at least 5 years to judge a GM…
Not always. When the GM in question has a sufficiently broad and deep reservoir of fuckuppery, it’s OK to accelerate the timetable.
I’d say Huntington has developed a pretty significant reservoir himself.
If you actually think that Huntington and Colletti are comparable, there’s no rational way for me to respond to that.
Colletti gave Juan Pierre a five-year deal for $44M. Colletti gave Jason Schmidt three years and $47M even though he knew at the time that Schmidt had a torn rotator cuff. If you had a GM who was hired to deliberately run a team into the ground, even he wouldn’t pull that kind of stuff, because he’d think it was too obvious.
Nope, not comparable.
But NH isn’t Einstein compared to Colletti either.
Sometimes taking a chance on an injured pitcher works though. One case in point…Chris Carpenter. The Cardinals signed him to a FA contract before the 2003 season knowing he had a torn labrum. Turned out pretty well for them.
Then again…Carpenter is a freak. He’s the only pitcher I am aware of that has come back from a torn labrum to become successful AND TJ surgery and been successful.
So can we just admit that Chris Carpenter/Jose Bautista are the MLB equivalents of winning the Powerball and move on? There is a due process in baseball, and sometimes players get cut. But sometimes all it takes is signing a guy that no one wants.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
We can agree on that
where we may not agree is that getting rid of players just to get rid of them is not an effective way to improve a team. It’s nice to replace a player that has some use with some sort of asset. Diaz never qualified as an asset.
When the GM in question has a sufficiently broad and deep reservoir of fuckuppery, it’s OK to accelerate the timetable.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on May 16, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Damn you McClatchly
or how ever you spell your last name
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Jack Butler, Greg Lloyd, Andy Russell, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene, Curtis Martin, Willie Roaf, Andre Reed and Jerry Kramer
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." Wes Westrum
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
by WVPiratesfan on May 16, 2011 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
A defense can’t be made for trading Bautista (a decent bench guy) for a guy that wasn’t even a full time starting catcher in AA or AAA.
The reason that Diaz wasn’t starting full-time at AAA in 2008 is that the Jays also had another solid catching prospect at the same level (Curtis Thigpen), so they had the two players in a time-share.
Diaz was seen as a decent C-grade prospect. I don’t have my old BA guide in front of me, but they had him in the Jays’ top 30 the year we traded for him. He’s exactly the sort of guy you’d expect to get for a guy like Bautista (whom, incidentally, the Jays seriously thought about non-tendering at the end of the year).
Diaz also filled a system need for us. We hadn’t traded for Jaramillo yet, and had no other upper-minors catching of any quality whatsoever.
And we still don’t have any upper minors catching of any quality beyond Sanchez. Just because a player is in the BA top 30 prospects for a system doesn’t make him a piece that has to be acquired. We’ve had quite a few in our top 30 the last few years that have almost NO prayer of being a significant piece in the major leagues.
And we still don’t have any upper minors catching of any quality beyond Sanchez.
We have Fryer as well, since you’ve apparently forgotten.
In late 2008, we had Doumit and Joggin’ Ronny in the majors. To fill space at AAA, we had a coalition of the old and underwhelming: Raul Chavez, Michel Hernandez, and Carlos Maldonado. AAA was a three-way timeshare between the equally uninspiring Miguel Perez, Milver Reyes, and Steve Lerud. Today, we have two starting-caliber catchers on the ML roster in Snyder and Doumit, and two solid upper-minors prospects in Sanchez and Fryer. There’s simply no comparison between the two situations.
Just because a player is in the BA top 30 prospects for a system doesn’t make him a piece that has to be acquired.
No, but it does mean that he’s not a commodity of no value, which is what you tried to portray him as being.
We’ve had quite a few in our top 30 the last few years that have almost NO prayer of being a significant piece in the major leagues.
Which would be a much better point if Toronto’s system had been as bad at the time of the Diaz trade as ours was under Littlefeld/Creech/Graham. Unfortunately for your argument, it wasn’t.
Well, he’s a good defender, he hit .296/.395/.466 last year, and he’s hitting .317/.418/.476 so far this year. Old for his leagues, but that’s still pretty good offense once you remember that he’s a catcher. What else would you call him?
I don’t think he’s a future star or anything, but if we had to break the glass and use him as a regular next year, he wouldn’t make me pull my hair out.
Yep...
100 PA at AA as an almost 26 year old.
100 PA at AA
Plus all of his hitting last year, of course, which I mentioned and you apparently ignored.
as an almost 26 year old
When intellectually honest people talk about an “almost-26-year-old” who’s going to turn 26 in a little over three months, about a week before the end of the 2011 minor league season, they usually say “25”.
Just as a FYI, in case you want to be taken seriously.
Fryer got set back by a miserable 2008 season that doomed him to repeating high A, then further set back when he missed half of last year after getting hit in the face something like two days after Sanchez did. His career minor league OPS is now over .800, which is very good for a catcher.
His age leaves his ceiling as a hitter in doubt, but he’s a good defensive player and athletic for a catcher, so he should age well. I can’t see him as a starter in the majors, but he could become a good backup.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Perhaps
the Pirates had a need for a backup C?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions
i remember very well...
fans, so tired of doumit, actually wanting a platoon of Jaramillo and Diaz in the show instead of Ryan.
by white angus on May 16, 2011 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
And...
when they had it in early 2009 when Doumit was hurt…the fans weren’t particularly thrilled with Jaramillo and Diaz as a platoon.
Yes, and....?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
As soon as Doumit came back...
Diaz was pretty much done as a Pirate. So much so that we had Kratz as a 3rd catcher.
It's like the backup QB on the Steelers.
Fans always love the guy, right up until it’s time for him to actually start.
unless its Charlie Batch
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Jack Butler, Greg Lloyd, Andy Russell, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene, Curtis Martin, Willie Roaf, Andre Reed and Jerry Kramer
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." Wes Westrum
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
by WVPiratesfan on May 16, 2011 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not hindsight to point out that Bautista was GIVEN AWAY for nothing
Yes it is. Now, if you linked to a complaint you made at the time the trade was made, that would not be hindsight.
At the time the trade was made...
we didn’t even know what we were getting. Diaz was a PTBNL…and not named till 4 days later. It’s a little tough to comment at the time the trade was made when we didn’t even have a name to check out.
I don’t consider it a necessity to speak in every thread here. Evidently, you do. And I didn’t comment in the thread that the PTBNL was announced. That’s my fault. I certainly didn’t give the trade wholehearted approval. I indicated that an interchangeable part had to go. Over the next few months…ALL of the interchangeable parts went.
My point is that you gave no sign at that time of believing that Bautista had any significant untapped potential – which is surprising, given some of the other things you’ve said in this thread (about how he was “given away for nothing”, etc.).
Where have I indicated that we should have seen Bautista was going to hit 50 HR?? Or even that he had untapped potential. That has NEVER come from me. Should we have had a place for someone capable of hitting 15-20 HR and able to fill in at numerous positions?? And his numbers with the Pirates proved that. We haven’t had that since he left. And we got rid of him instead of Doug M, Luis Rivas, etc, and spent the same amount of money on Ramon Vazquez.
Instead, we ditched him for what ended up being a AAA catcher…and not a regular one at that.
Should we have had a place for someone capable of hitting 15-20 HR and able to fill in at numerous positions?
It depends. Can this mystery man field even a little bit at any of these positions where he’s filling in? Can he get on base? Can he hit RHP at all? Is he healthy, or does he frequently miss time with stupid little injuries? How much money does he want?
We haven’t had that since he left.
This is probably the part where I remind you that LaRoche’s 2009 was more valuable than any one of Bautista’s seasons with us (or, indeed, all of them put together).
We haven’t had a performance in that shape since Bautista left, but we’ve had lots of replacement-level guys who happened to do it in a slightly different way.
Trade Marc-Andre Fluery
And Aram, Terry Bradshaw, Plaxico Burress, Evgeni Malkin, etc.
It’s not too hard to fill out an All Star team with the Pittsburgh players Pittsburgh fans wanted to run out of town.
Pirates fans did not want to run Batista out of town. They didn’t even care. Yet, some fans and some members of the media want to run Huntington out of town because he failed to predict a singular event: The instant transformation of a replacement level player into the best hitter in baseball.
These criticisms of Huntington are silly. Only crazy people and publicity whores predict miracles. Jose Batista’s game-changing batting adjustments were not a miracle, but they were as close to that kind of event as human beings can manage.
s.zielinski
I was way more upset
they let Ty Wigginton walk away for nothing (and I’ve seen Ty Wigginton play third base) .
Letting Wigginton go was a bad move....
…but I hated his game. So, I didn’t squawk about it when he left.
s.zielinski
My notion at the time
was to try him at first base. He couldn’t possibly have been any worse an option there than Daryle Ward.
bucdaddy
IIRC, McClendon thought we’d caught “lightning in a bottle” with Ward.
The average lightning flash
lasts what, 3-4 seconds, tops? So I’d say Lloyd was right.
I was too
I assume they liked him when they traded for him, but they gave up pretty quickly. He struggled for probably 80 games after they got him (the end of that season and the first 2 months or so of the next), but hit really well in AAA, then came up and mashed in August and September, then he was gone. They could have at least brought him to spring training to try to win a job.
“…the defense that comes from most usually amounts to this: Who knew he’d be this good…But that’s not the point. Never has been…no one saw him turning into a slugging sensation…But the old Bautista was worth far more than a third-string catcher who would get released a few months after the trade…That’s the point.” – DK
Trying to sum up the point that DK was trying to make. Seems that despite the fact that he consistently states that the trade doesn’t look bad because Bautista is playing amazingly; it looks bad because he was serviceable and given up for a PTBNL that NOBODY thought would be serviceable.
The one thing that Charlie said that I had the most problem with (and consequently the part of the argument that I find most pertinent) is this…
“But often, when I’m learning a new skill, my ability to implement changes has less to do with the person who’s communicating them and more to do with where I am in the learning process and what else I might know.” – Charlie
Regardless of Mr. W’s opinion of whether a student failing to learn is that fault of the student or the teacher (I disagree with where the blame lies, at least to the degree that I would say one can be just as likely as the other), the issue here, imo, is that the Pirates failed to catch on to the fact that their instruction wasn’t working. If the coaches has identified the timing problem, then they clearly knew there was a potential for more. Mind you, I said “potential”, not “guaranteed lock to mash like a wooly mammoth.” They had an idea what the issue was, and had attempted to impart that knowledge to Bautista. He didn’t pick it up.
Charlie asserts that in his experience, the fault would be his own for failing to learn. And frankly, save for one important FACT, I wouldn’t be able to argue with him. The fact that is missed is that Bautista DID learn, and what it took wasn’t a different student, but a different teacher. In other words, Bautista clearly could learn to improve (to whatever degree), but he wasn’t being taught correctly.
Regardless of how much Bautista would have or could have improved, the fact is that one of the reasons our team has little to no success through trades or reclamation projects is an inability to coach on an individual basis. The organization has a system, and you either fit the system, or you hit the road. That is all well and good…if the system is proven.
So my complaint isn’t that we missed a power bat, it’s that we continuously come up short on being able to coach the talent we are evaluating.
in regards to hindsight
I believe someone mentioned this above, but while judging based on hindsight is not necessarily fair, it can help to discern patterns.
Also, the hindsight I’m using isn’t whether anyone should have known what Bautista’s ceiling was. The hindsight I’m using is that they should have been able to discern that their method of instruction to fix a problem that they had identified AT THE TIME was not working.
Pretty good points.
I’ll just add the possibility that Bautista himself had to change his mindset over time, and with the benefit of his own hindsight, to be able to change his approach at the plate. We’ve probably all been young (I kinda remember it) and full of ourselves and thought we knew everything about everything, and then life smacks us a couple times and we STILL think we know everything, because everyone else has always been wrong, until that time when we come close to bottoming out and finally wake up and realize that if we’re ever going to get where we want to go, we might have to start listening to what other people are telling us.
It seems entirely possible that Jose’s problem isn’t that he “didn’t understand” the instruction he was getting, but that he wasn’t willing to listen until he reached a point in his career where he had everything to gain and nothing to lose by finally trying a different approach. It looks like he was getting pretty close to the end of the line, with his 20s running out and the Jays ready to let him go.
It took him fully a year to to come around after we dealt him. Maybe he would have come around in a year if we had held on to him too. Or in two years. Or in five years … But maybe he also had to get traded for a third-string catcher to begin to accept the idea that he was about a year from being out of baseball.
Funny how things can finally sink in
when you’re about to be released from yet another organization.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
again, that is a hypothesis...
And while it is certainly a possible contributing factor, as I have agreed that it might be, the FACT that nobody seems to be able to argue against is that one thing we actually KNOW that attributed to his success is a different approach to coaching.
Funny how things can finally sink in when you’re given different advice…
He wasn't given "different advice" to my recollection.
He just hadn’t listened to the same things he’d been told before ad infinitum.
If you want to believe the Jays are great because of the magic mirror, so be it.
mea culpa
“Bautista had heard similar criticism from coaches before, but was never really sure what they meant, or what to do about it. So one day in the Rogers Centre weight room last July, [Dwayne] Murphy pulled Bautista aside, gave him a bat and told him to swing in front of a mirror.”
Ok, if you would like to play semantics, we won’t call it advice. You still can’t argue that different instructions (whatever you would like to call it, I’d be more than willing to call it the same thing, if you could acknowledge that this was an approach that the Pirates apparently didn’t try, unless you can prove otherwise that they did try that approach) allowed him to understand “what they meant, or what to do about it.”
You sir, are hearing the facts and only hearing what you want to hear. I am not arguing over whether the Pirates had told him that he had X problem, and had told him ad infinitum. I am not arguing over whether the Pirates had tried more than one approach. I’m arguing over the fact that there was a different approach that was not tried, and as it turns out, that different approach worked in this case.
You're only arguing that the Jays stuck him in front of the mirror after one try after the other to get him to understand
and follow-through on coaching advice. After many years of trying, this is not a “different coaching method” to be praised, it was simply luck.
Maybe what some of this comes down to is that Bautista is stupid and it took what we believe to be way too much time for him to take some simple coaching advice to heart and put it into practice.
“You sir, are hearing the facts and only hearing what you want to hear.”
The same could be said about you, JimiL, which is why there is quite a disagreement here between a number of people.
to quote the raven, JFC
Ok, call it luck. You can call it dumb luck, I really don’t care. I’m not hearing facts and only hearing what I want to hear. Allow me to break it down as simply as I can, so that when you try to argue with me, at least perhaps you can try and only use my own words, and not put them in my mouth for me…
1. Jose Bautista was not a very good player for the Pirates.
2. Jose Bautista, “was getting started too late in the batter’s box, forcing him to use his shoulders rather than his hands when attacking the ball, making his swing long and wild. Rather than going through the ball, he was going around it, leaving him vulnerable on the plate’s inner half.”
3. Jose Bautista, “had heard similar criticism from coaches before.”
4. “One day in the Rogers Centre weight room last July, [Dwayne] Murphy pulled Bautista aside, gave him a bat and told him to swing in front of a mirror.”
5. Bautista had not received that coaching from the Pirates.
Now, again, whatever else you would like to say about that coaching, feel free. Call it stupid. Call him lazy. Say that nobody should be blamed for not trying that approach. I’m NOT blaming the Pirates for not fixing Bautista’s mechanical issues. I’m simply saying that apparently Bautista had a mechanical issue that had been known for some time, and a coach with the Jays helped him fix that with an approach that Bautista had not heard before.
Don't be a wanker, Jimi.
The only person that believes you have irrefutably stated your case is the one you see in that magic mirror every morning. The basic premise of your argument is that the Pirates should be criticized for not figuring out how to get Bautista to understand what they wanted him to do differently at the plate. They tried their best, from all reports.
- simply means the Jays got lucky, if this is exactly how it happened. It was not a new coaching method, as you have maintained from the get-go, it was simply a matter of them standing in the weight room together.
Other players get things through work on the mound, in the cages, in the vid room etc. I guess Bautista needed a dumbed-down version of the whole thing.
what am I wanking exactly?
Was Jose Bautista a bad player? Yes.
Is Jose Bautista now a good player? Yes.
Had he been told what his problem was before? Yes.
Did someone with the Jays find a way to help him? Yes.
Did someone with the Pirates find a way to help him? Yes.
Was part of the problem related to attitude, humility or maturity? Maybe.
Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
FFS
Did someone with the Pirates find a way to help him? No.
from my original post
“So my complaint [is] that we continuously come up short on being able to coach the talent we are evaluating.”
Am I right, or are we continuously having success being able to coach the talent we are evaluating? I am defining success very basically here, as in winning.
Because Bautista didn't listen and/or was too dumb to get it.
The Jays simply got lucky-nothing more. Case closed.
luck
Luck is hitting the mid-court shot for a prize at a basketball game.
Lucky is not the same thing as unexpected.
No, the Jays were lucky to have Bautista break out, unlike the five other teams that had him.
His break-out was unexpected.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
but there was more to it than luck
I mean, everyone here has pointed out that he went to the Jays and sucked. They didn’t get lucky. They found a way to fix the problem through by finding a way to communicate it to him that he understood.
Incidentally,
start using “fuck” in abbreviated form to show your childishness because you may very well be wrong in your opinions from time to time, and I’ll resort to calling you an out-and-out wanker.
wait...
where did i drop an f bomb in abbreviated form…
triple post FTW
by the by, the FFS was me smacking myself on my head for typing that line wrong in the post above it, not me trying to reinforce my point…as you did when you called me a wanker above that
Is that a hypothesis to explain your mistake
or just an excuse?
mistake...
The mistake of saying FFS, or the mistake of typing, “Did someone with the Pirates find a way to help him? Yes,” instead of, “Did someone with the Pirates find a way to help him? No.”? Because honestly, I’m not clear on what I’m supposed to be hypothesizing about, or making an excuse for.
You seemed to suggest that there was some offense to be had when I said FFS, so I was merely trying to say that, despite you calling me a wanker, I wasn’t trying to resort to “childish” behavior, that it was in fact another way of saying “mea culpa”, as I have used before in this thread.
Don't get your panties in an uproar, Smizik.
Join in a game thread or two soon. I’m sure we’d all like to here what you have to say.
no offense...
Or maybe there is some, I don’t know…
But you called me a wanker. So don’t get your panties all in a twist.
They're not twisted, per se,
but I do have a bit of a wedgy from sitting here too long today.
for the record
I subscribe to DK on twitter, and I read whatever comes up on Yahoo Sports, but to my knowledge, I don’t know who Bob Smizik is, other than that apparently he writes about the Pirates, doesn’t like the FO, and people here don’t like him in return.
He’s an idiot. He’ll make blanket statements about our farm system, then admit he doesn’t pay attention to A ball. But before that, he’ll judge drafts where the majority of it’s players are in the A levels. Just a real contradictory idiot.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
no i get that
I was more just laughing to myself that among other insults he has leveled, he called me smizik, which I found pointless. I’m typing so much to so many people that honestly, I typed what I was thinking out loud.
like you said, you dont know who smizik is
it’s pretty high on the offensivemeter on a pirates board.
It wasn't a hypothesis.
It was a statement.
And your assertion that “a different approach to coaching” is one that worked out in this case for Joey Bats.
You don’t know how many times that “approach” was used on Toronto players and didn’t work.
So there.
Neener, neener, neener.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
that's ridiculous
No, it was a hypothesis, or a guess if you like. An opinion, a postulation, and assumption. However, it is not a statement of fact. You are suggesting that what changed was his attitude. I am not disagreeing that it did not contribute, though neither of us can prove that it did or did not. I am simply pointing out that the fact, the thing that I’m not guessing on, the thing that isn’t just my formed opinion, is that a different approach to coaching was successful, and the Pirates did not try that approach.
It is preposterous to suggest that I am arguing that this is the approach that the Jays take to every struggling hitter. There is an undertone in my arguments that perhaps one standard form of coaching for every player on a team (as you try to say that I am suggesting) might not be the best approach.
Let me re-state.
It wasn’t a statement, it was an observation.
Feel better?
JFC.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
an observation...
That is still made based off of your opinion of the matter, not the facts at hand.
I’m arguing with you over a specific fact. You can ridicule that fact all you want, but it doesn’t make it false.
And I'm done arguing with you over a flippant remark / observation / hypothesis / staement.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
because
You are incapable of disproving my point.
Yeah.
Yeah, that’s it.
You found me out.
You win at the internet.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
but i guess
you aren’t done arguing with me over a flippant remark then…
cocktailsfor2
PROVE that I didnt have a pastrami on rye sandwich yesterday.
by titanlord91 on May 16, 2011 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If in fact you did not have one, it could be proven. I might not be able to prove it because I can’t sift through your stool, but it could be proven.
He hasn’t been able to actually argue against any of my points, but has rather attempted to argue that I am saying more than I am, or tried to change what the point I’m making is.
its gotten to the point
where you’re arguing semantics, not baseball.
What he’s saying is obvious by this point in the thread. You just don’t seem to grasp it.
ok...
He is saying that Bautista finally understood what coaches had been trying to say to them because of a change in his mental approach to the situation, i.e. he figured that he should listen finally before he was out of the league.
I get that, I grasp that. I even allowed that he could possibly be right.
The point that is not being grasped is that based on what Bautista and his coaches have said, that either isn’t the case, or at the very least, they attribute it to teaching it to him different than it had been taught to him before. It is cocktailsfor2’s opinion that the teaching method doesn’t really factor in, but it is an opinion that is disputed by the actual people involved. It might be a great opinion, but it still is an opinion, and it would still appear to be wrong according to Bautista and his coaches. I said that I am disappointed that our team can’t seem to coach success.
except
you don’t know that. The pirates and jays coaches might’ve been teaching the exact same thing. One anecdote about “looking in the mirror” doesnt mean the jays coaches suddenly had something revolutionary to show him. It might’ve been blind luck.
I think he makes a good point that the situation had a lot to do with it. Bautista was at the end of the line career-wise: if he didnt make some adjustments, he was going to be out of a job.
Maybe the pirates and jays both had tried to get him to make the same adjustment. You don’t know either way, so there’s no reason to jump on cocktails over his opinion, when your opinion is something else, but just that… opinion.
I think he makes a good point too
And I have repeatedly said as much.
The problem is that his point is an opinion of the situation. We aren’t arguing what his opinion is versus my opinion. We are arguing his opinion versus what Bautista and his coaches say happen. I mean, as good of an opinion as it sounds like, I’ll have to allow Bautista and his coaches know what they are talking about if they are talking about what they changed.
Everyone keeps trying to suggest that my point is more than it is. I’m not calling the coaching “revolutionary.” I’m just saying that it was apparently different, according to the player and the coaches involved, and it apparently worked. We can postulate as much as we like on what other details might be involved, but it doesn’t change facts.
think back
to when mclouth got his eyes fixed, and blamed the pirates for some stuff right after he got traded to the braves. Players tend to say nice things about the people they work for currently.
No one will say “well, the pirates had been telling me to do this for years, but i didnt start until now.” This mirror story sounds like an easy excuse for bautista to say “i just needed it EXPLAINED better…” when really he may have been just too stubborn/stupid/whatever to make the changes.
If the pirates coaches had been saying the same exact thing to him for years, I don’t think it’s their “fault” he didnt have an epiphany in a weight room mirror while in PIT. For all we know, the pirates coaches might have had him in front of mirrors the whole time, he just didnt make the change.
again...
That’s all well and good, but again, you are speculating. I am merely pointing out that it is speculation. Do you disagree? Are you quoting fact?
you said above that:
the FACT that nobody seems to be able to argue against is that one thing we actually KNOW that attributed to his success is a different approach to coaching.
It isn’t a fact that a different approach to coaching helped him. It’s FACT that a different approach at the plate is helping him. How he made that adjustment, whether it was the magic mirror session or him just finally listening to what both pirates and jays and other coaches had been telling him for years, is speculation.
So you are saying that Bautista and his coaches are wrong, and that you are right?
You say the fact is the different approach at the plate. Do we not lend at least SOME credence to the statements of those involved? Or only when it doesn’t hinder our own points?
I'm saying look at the mclouth situation
sometimes, a player credits his current coach for improvements, or blames old coaches for problems. Bautista credits his new coaches for helping him. But even he admits that pirates coaches had told him this too.
Is it really the mirror session that caused him to finally “get it?” Or did he finally just figure out that he needed to make these adjustments or kiss his career goodbye. Those are both speculation. Quoting something in the media doesn’t necessarily mean its truth.
The only FACT is that Bautista’s new approach is making him a better hitter.
What the fuck are you talking about? He said that Bautista improved, and thats a fact; how he improved, though, is totally up to speculation.
Players, coaches give excuses all the time when a player breaks out. Some credit ‘being in the best shape of their lives’.
It happened, and that’s fact. How it happened, no one will ever know. But hell, if everyone knew how to make players great, there would be no need for scouting
Thank you Ned Colletti.
anyone remember that the quotes...
Are coming from Bautista and Murphy…
http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2010/05/31/going_deep/
Bautista is the player who improved. He says he improved due to a change in his mechanics and his approach at the plate. He says he made that change because of what Murphy showed him. He admits that he had heard the criticism before, but unfortunately for him, he had not understood what it meant.
That is not speculation. That is straight from the horse’s mouth.
“The only FACT is that Bautista’s new approach is making him a better hitter.”
No, there are lots of facts. He is a Blue Jay. He plays baseball. He has dark hair.
He also says that the new approach, that FACT, is because of coach Murphy. It is a FACT that he says that. You can say that isn’t true all you want, but it’s kind of pompous to dismiss his own words.
It’s not that Murphy “knew how to make players great”, and I’ve never said that. I’d guess that Murphy didn’t know it would work even as far as fixing his swing. I would bet just about anything that he didn’t expect it to make Bautista a HR machine. What I do know, based on the words of those involved, is that Bautista understood the problem after getting Murphy’s help, and now he hits a lot of HRs.
Okay - hafta jump back in here...
First – My remark was just that… a remark. In my business experience, sometimes it takes a “shape up or ship out” talk to get someone to produce.
So, let’s look at it this way: suppose the coach in question put JB in front of a mirror and said, “Look at the way you’re swinging. If you keep it up, you’re gonna get dumped. Try it this way (showing him in the mirror what he means).”
Do you think the first sentence of that is what is going to be stated to the press, or something along the lines of what is being said?
PLEASE NOTE: ALL of this is “what if.” Just like everybody else’s opinions here.
ALSO: I appreciate other posters “getting my back” on this, and I have no animosity toward JimiL. I just didn’t want to play anymore, based on an off-handed remark I made.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
to think i'm getting sucked back in as well...
So suppose that what you are saying DID happen. The fact is, the Jays got results out of him. Bautista himself credits a new way of being shown what he was doing wrong, regardless of what we speculate may have been said along with it.
People keep trying to insist that something else HAD to have been going on, and maybe that’s just because the breakout was so unexpected.
We can speculate he said she said all you want, but at the end of the day, it is disingenuous to devalue Bautista’s own statements on this one, just to make your own point.
I’m not saying the Pirates could have gotten results. I’m not saying the same exact approach would have worked. What I’m saying is that the Blue Jays got results where we failed. I don’t care if he hits 75 HRs or just becomes a serviceable player for them. They got better results, and I think that happens more often than not.
By the way, that’s the part of my argument that is opinion. You might not believe him, but I think it’s only fair to take Bautista at his word and consider his statement fact. It is, however, my opinion that we are bad at talent evaluation and coaching, as an organization.
bonds says
he never did steroids. obviously an apples to oranges examples, but keep in mind people dont always tell the whole truth
by titanlord91 on May 17, 2011 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
and...
Not everyone lies either. That’s not really a great support to your point, to suggest that because some people lie, we no longer have to allow that someone’s statements of facts regarding a situation they took part in are not true. Bonds also has essentially been charged with lying in court, so it’s more like comparing apples to pigs if you ask me.
Or, if that doesn’t do it for you. Sometimes people have opinions that are wrong. So therefore, your opinion must be wrong. Sound logic, yes?
Maybe if you have the logic drive of an alcoholic. But if you read titanlords statement and automatically assume that he’s using Bond’s handling of a steroid situation to mean that everyone is lying, you’re just baiting for answers.
How’s this for a revamp?
“Sometimes people have opinions that are wrong. So therefore, your opinion might be wrong”.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Until Sept. 3, 2009
the Jays were doing a pretty sucky job of coaching Jose too. His slash line on that day, the day he started to go nuts, was:
.216/.351/.301
With 3 homers.
FWIW
my point, however...
Is that however long it took the Jays to teach him to fix the problem, Bautista was clearly able to be coached to fix the problem. It would be one thing if Bautista just suddenly started mashing with no coaching. But his success has been LARGELY attributed to the coaching.
You certainly make a good point about the possibility that a change in his attitude was a factor. I won’t deny that it isn’t possibly a factor. Regardless of what he thought his future was, simply aging often allows people to change their POV, and it doesn’t even necessarily have to do with maturity or humility.
However, the article in question points to a specific approach that a Jays coach took to teach Bautista. The message was the same, but the way it was being delivered was changed. Whatever other changes anyone would like to postulate on, this fact remains. Bautista didn’t understand the explanation of the problem with his mechanics, so a Jays coach put him in front of a mirror so he could see it. I’m sure there are lots of other ways that he could have been shown that anyone could bring up, but again, the FACT of the matter is that this approach, this form of coaching is what allowed Bautista to understand.
Now, if someone can providing a link to how the Pirates tried this SAME approach without results, I’d be willing to say that the coaching from the Pirates wasn’t at fault.
Also, because I feel like it needs to be said again, I am NOT saying that if the Pirates tried the same approach that Bautista would have hit 50+ HRs for the Pirates. I am saying that the Pirates had identified a problem and failed to find a way to correct it.
oh...
And whether anyone believes me or not, I did not like getting rid of Bautista at the time. NOT because I thought he was destined for greatness. I just liked him as a corner outfielder for our team. I had a soft spot for him and thought he had potential (in the vague sense, not in a specific “hit 1 billion home runs” sense). I didn’t like him at 3B to have Freddy play 2B, because I thought it was a bad idea to move a reigning batting champ to a more dangerous position. I also didn’t like benching him for LaRoche. Not that I had a problem benching him, just that I never liked LaRoche because I thought his brother was worthless and I thought he would be as well.
I’m not saying that I expected Bautista to shine, and I’m certainly not an expert, I just felt like mentioning that not EVERYONE wanted to get rid of him, bad as he may have been at the time.
its not that everyone wanted to get rid of Bautista, i believe i can freely say for most everyone that no one cared if bautista was let go
by white angus on May 16, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
i will agree
I did not care at the time, despite having a soft spot for him. And truthfully, I still don’t have an issue with him being let go. To be quite frank, our coaching was not working, and he would not have become this player in Pittsburgh. Like I said, my issue is with our ability to coach a problem that we identified.
These are grown men, JimiL, and pro baseball players.
At some point when you’re paying a lot of money to a guy and he doesn’t get better and doesn’t follow what you try to tell him to get better, decisions have to be made as to whether or not he’s worth keeping around.
Your idea is that if the Pirates had put him in front of a mirror a couple of years before that everything would have been O.K. I tend to think the whole thing came down to Bautista realizing that his livelihood was on shaky ground and finally, after a number of years and many coaches, he listened.
Until the end of ‘09 he was nothing other than an overpaid scrub. And if he hadn’t finally gotten his head out of his arse, he would have been gone, possibly without an MLB job in ‘10. The old Bautista reminds me a bit of Freddy Garcia. A guy with a ton of potential who never listened and never got anywhere in MLB-other than picking up some nice checks for a few years. The year he was in Japan he didn’t listen either.
I had no problem with Bautista being sent to the Jays. I just wish the team had gotten a bit more for him.
And let’s see if Bautista can keep it up for anywhere near another 4.5 years to justify $10 million or so each season.
FFS
“Until the end of ‘09 he was nothing other than an overpaid scrub.”
I agree. I have never said anything to the contrary, and my point, as I have stated over and over, even when nobody asked, has nothing to do with his current or former production.
“keep it up for anywhere near another 4.5 years”
I also doubt that he will. Again, I am not arguing over his current, past, or future production.
“Your idea is that if the Pirates had put him in front of a mirror a couple of years before that everything would have been O.K. I tend to think the whole thing came down to Bautista realizing that his livelihood was on shaky ground and finally, after a number of years and many coaches, he listened.”
That’s a wonderful theory. As I stated, I definitely think it is possible that his attitude played a part. However, coaching DEFINITELY played a part, and you can’t really argue that it didn’t. Regardless of how you want to hypothesize about how other factors contributed, the one fact here that we can actually point to without guessing is a different method of coaching.
My point isn’t specifically the idea that the Pirates should have put him in front of a mirror. My point is that, “when you’re paying a lot of money to a guy and he doesn’t get better,” one OPTION is to try a different approach. Another option is certainly to trade him for what you can get, but that doesn’t mean that the Pirates didn’t have the option to try a different approach that they had never tried.
If you can show me where the "different method of coaching" occurred, I'd be interested to read it.
After one coaching failure after the other in more than one organization, the Jays seemingly in exasperation told a guy who was near the end of his chances with them, “Hey, look at yourself in this mirror while we are in here. For the umpteenth time, can’t you see what we’ve been trying to tell you?”
I’m sure someone in the Jays’ organization will soon write a book, “MirrorBall-The Key To A Batter’s Success.”
to pull a dan jenkins, when i played...
i looked in the mirror at my swing all the time. it can help you with balance, wasted motion, etc…
but to put up Bautista numbers now??? i have no idea how hes getting it done.
people say he started into his swing a little earlier; so the pitchers should be trying to throw more offspeed junk to counter this, right?
his explosion is not only unprescedented, its unfathomable
by white angus on May 16, 2011 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
No...
Brady Anderson is the one that meets that description (Unfathomable). Bautista was always known to have significant power. Most of the time Bautista was with the Pirates he was described in stories as having the most power on the team. Now, using that power didn’t necessarily occur very often, but he did have the reputation.
Ruth went from 29 to 54.
Carlos Pena went from 18 to 46
Adrian Beltre went from 23 to 48 (13 to 48 if you go back one year more)
Bonds? Sosa?
Statistically, this may be unique. But I wouldn’t call it unfathomable or unprecedented.
Pena and Beltre were top prospects at one time, not Bautista
you cant mention Ruth because he was the only one even hitting home runs back then. Almost every other team was playing small ball.
Bonds, Sosa, Anderson… product of the new generation of dopers…
should we lump Bautista in that last group???
for someone who argues semantics like you do
you sure made a mess… i dont see anyone going from 16 —> 54, ergo white angus’ point holds. It’s unprecedented!
(I dont have any interest in arguing the semantics of unfathomable)
I guess...
the 24 HRs he hit at Altoona in 2005 were a mirage.
And didn’t he have a broken hand at some point during the Rule 5 fiascos?? I can’t find a reference to it right now…but I seem to remember it happened somewhere among all the team hopping.
didnt Pearce hit 31 homers in a minor league season?
didnt Eldred knock nearly 40 dingers in a season? for crying out loud, Overbay’s career average in the minor leagues is
.341.
the 24 homers got Bautista noticed, thats all. Noticed enough to be a starter in Pitt, and did absolutely nothing.
in fact, he hit more homers in 2010 than he did his entire minor league career…
UN-PRESCE-FUKIN-DENTED!!!
unfathomable...
You can’t really say that something that has happened is unfathomable. You can call it unexpected if you like.
I believe it has more to do with just starting earlier. It sounds like starting earlier has allowed him to produce a more mechanically sound approach at the plate, which has allowed him to harness power that was apparently there (not that ANYONE knew it was there).
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
you should probably cover your ears and shout "i can't hear you"...
You yourself, no matter how much you downplay it, point out the different method of coaching. I’m not suggesting that it was some genius move. As a matter of fact, I’ll go on record and state that I don’t think that it was special at all. It sounds a lot like watching tape of yourself to me. However, for whatever reason, this approach worked.
You can call it stupid. You can call me stupid. You can call Bautista stupid. I am challenging you to prove that the Jays didn’t try an approach the hadn’t been tried with Bautista, and that it worked. I can prove that they DID try a new approach with Bautista, and that it DID work. I have to look no further than to your condescending post above.
Pirates Trade Jose Bautista to Jays
Thunder references this article and it contains some interesting reads:
IllinoisPirateFan:
“I liked Joey Bats… and I think he’s got more value than "0-for-three-vas", Gomez, and MInky combined. Plus, he can play all of those positions. So, who’s going to play 3B next year? LaRoche? I wonder if he’ll hit his first HR by then? They’ll never bring up Walker and Alvarez can’t possibly be ready by then. I sure wish we would have kept him and dumped the three guys I mentioned earlier.”
dtoddwin:
“Come on…this is just silly. Who cares that he can play "all those postions" when he doesn’t play any of them very well. And when is he going to play them. You want him playing center rather than Nate or McC? He plays third and he can stand in the outfield just like anyone else. Christ, DM has never played there until this year, Pearce had never done it. It isn’t that difficult.
He is also making $1 million more roughly than each of the guys you mentioned and was going to get more next year. Clearly not worth it. And boy am I gonna enjoy watching you and all the guys on PBC blog eat your hat on Andy LaRoche next year. That’s gonna be fun. And just for the record he’s already hit two homers with the Pirates in 50 at bats. Translates to 20-25 over the course of a full season.”
Maybe IPF should have his own radio show.
Yep...
Missed on LaRoche. Here is the article I wrote on Bautista on August 15 last year discussing what the Jays should do.
Keep the shots coming. Keeps me on my toes.
The Hammer Speaks
Extra Innings
Twitter: @DTonPirates and @hammerspeaks
Don't get me wrong...I wasn't trying to take a shot at you.
When I read through the comments from Thunder’s link, it struck me how we all thought IPF to be off his rocker-with quite a bit of justification-and he actually made some sense in this case with the benefit of hindisight.
One of the mistakes I think the Pirates made with LaRoche, and I can’t be sure of this without detailed knowledge of his medical records, is how much of an effect his injuries-namely to his back and hand/wrist-would affect his play. I really think they sapped some of his power and his ability defensively. I’m not sure how good he could’ve been, but I’d like to think somewhat better than what we got. I also thought that LaRoche looked like he had some shaky confidence at times, perhaps not something anyone could predict til they saw him for an extended period with the Pirates.
BA on Bautista, at the time of the trade:
Bautista figures to see plenty of time at third base for the Blue Jays, who are playing without injured regular Scott Rolen for the rest of August. Perhaps a bit over-taxed as a regular, Bautista could fit as a reserve or semi-regular at third base and the outfield corners, especially when spotted against lefties.
Link.
Instead of blaming the Pirates for Bautista's hum-drum time with the Bucs,
maybe we should blame Bautista for not listening to his coaches and being maddeningly inconsistent-kind of like Cedeno.
It took Bautista quite a while to get things going with the Jays. And I swear I read somewhere on BD in the past year a quote from Bautista that the Pirates wanted him to make the same adjustments, but he just didn’t.
NOBODY thought Bautista would become a preeminent power hitter in the game. NOBODY. Not even close.
Maybe, then again.....
when you’re working with someone in a one-on-one situation and the student is not getting your message, you change your delivery and approach. I agree that I never saw 54 HRs but I did see 30 in his future. The difference is I thought the the Pirate managers(Lloyd) put so much pressure on him to be perfect, that he could never meet their expectations.
With the new managment team, I’m thinking he thought he might have gotten a fresh start, but no, it was the same old stuff, so it took a new organization, a new approach, and a new relaxed atmosphere to allow him to flourish.
you can honestly say you saw 30 HRs in his future??? seriously???
this would be a perfect time to prove that, but alas, ya cant.
by white angus on May 16, 2011 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah
bullshit… if someone tells you 30 for anybody on a consistent basis, take the under!
by BurgherKing on May 16, 2011 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
With a few exceptions...
like Pujols and Dunn.
both arguments are stupid by that logic...
You can’t prove that he didn’t think that, he can’t prove that he did.
Personally, I would have thought 15-20 most years, with a possibility of 25 for 2 or 3 years around this age.
my logic makes sense though
and you cant prove yours either… so there!
by white angus on May 16, 2011 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
true
But you still can’t prove yours. I was simply pointing out that your attack on his point should be made against yours as well.
ya see, i didnt make a bold statement saying that i knew the guy would be hitting 30 dingers
i asked him a question then put my opinion on the back end of it. i have nothing to prove because i didnt state an obvious hindsight prediction
by white angus on May 16, 2011 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
it was a bold statement
That’s not my point. You essentially called BS that he thought, X years ago, that Bautista could be a 30 homer guy. You challenged him, “to prove that, but alas, ya cant”, and I’m merely suggesting that you can’t prove that he didn’t think it, either. CAN you prove that he didn’t think that?
y'know
if I spend my time predicting 30HR on every guy let go by a team, eventually, if I’ve done it long enough, one will hit. That doesn’t make me any good.
oh...
I wasn’t saying he was any good at predicting that kind of thing. I was just trying to say that it is not impossible for one person to have thought he would have hit 30 hr a season, although I too (as I have stated before) doubt that many, if any, predicted it.
not true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#You_can.27t_prove_a_negative
Actually, by providing the link to how to prove a negative, I proved a negative.
by JimiL on May 16, 2011 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
yeah, and that's exactly the argument that is no good
Personally, I would have thought 15-20 most years, with a possibility of 25 for 2 or 3 years around this age.
He actually hit between 15 and 20 HRs with the Bucs twice (06 and 07). His net WAR in those years was 0.4. That’s exactly why you move on and look for others to replace him.
his WAR may have been bad
But I was simply offering what I remember think his HR potential was, not what his WAR potential was…
well
he lived up to your HR potential, and was zilcho good, coz he couldnt keep it together in the field worth anything. As people here like to say, runs are runs, and whether they come via HRs, walks, lots of hits, or by great fielding- they are all the same.
"It took Bautista quite awhile to get things going with the Jays."
.216/.351/.301, 3 HRs on Sept. 3, 2009.
Hands up out there who predicted what happened next? No, Dejan, I don’t think so …
well, screw it
i’d much rather hear more about Bundy.
We’ve already spent too much time on this… DK needs to find a way to stop himself channeling his inner Smizik.
Leaving out the elephant in the room...
Let’s hop into the Delorean, go back to 2006 and 2007 and see that Bautista was not given the same latitude that the other players were.
First, he was moved around defensively. Does anyone here actually see him as a centerfielder? Then he wasn’t allowed to make an error at third base. If he made one, he was singled out for it in post-game interviews. I wouldn’t have minded it as much, but Jack Wilson could get the hometown scorer giving his miscues away as hits, but JB’s, would go down as errors and brought to the attention of the media. Does anyone here not think that didn’t affect his offensive numbers?
Second, when he did start to show signs of good defense, they would bring up his offensive numbers. JB was a streaky hitter in Pittsburgh, so when he would start to get on a hot streak, it would be “Scrub Sunday” and they would bench him to allow someone else a chance. We’ve seen this for the past four managers, so it should come to no surprise that Hurdle pulls the same thing, "to keep the guy fresh " and “to keep everyone alert”.
Third, JB and Castillo seemed to the calling out boys for whenever management wanted to point the fingers at the players. They didn’t hustle, like Jack. They didn’ hit HR, like Bay. They didn’t X, like Y. Sorry, but if you remember, Castillo was given some goals one off-season, go to winter ball (Check), to lose weight (Check), increase range (according to reports, Check), increase contact (according to reports, Check) and right before PirateFest, a Pirate starter called him out for not doing what the Pirates wanted him to do, even though, the P-G reported a week earlier that he had. Not one Pirate official came to his defense. Why?
Fourth, LaRoche failed in two attempts with the Dodgers, but the Pirates history of successfully turning these guys around, warranted such a move? Sounds to me like the multi-failures of Bobby Hill with the Cubs. The Pirates will gladly take on someone others reclamation project, than one of their own. People forget that JB had a developmental year+ lost due to being lost via the Rule 5 draft and bouncing around the Majors until being brought back. Just like the quick trigger to get rid of playing time for Garrett Jones for Matt Diaz and Lyle Overbay (and isn’t that working out great), the Pirates always want to replace the guy they have with a guy of equal or worse talent. At some point, you’d think they’d get lucky and one of these trades, they’d get someone actually better than they traded away.
Sorry, I’m wondering why you traded away a multi-positional, .260 / 15 / 70 player for a catcher that you cut after one season.
First, he was moved around defensively.
He was moved around defensively because they were trying to find a position that he could actually play. Without notable success, I might add.
Fourth, LaRoche failed in two attempts with the Dodgers, but the Pirates history of successfully turning these guys around, warranted such a move?
Know who else “failed” in his first ~150 AB with the Dodgers? Paul Konerko.
AGAIN
The Pirates have such a huge success in turning these players around. Let’s create the list, Um there’s, no wait, then there is, no, uh. What’s his face, but that only lasted three games, so, ummm, oh there’s….
As for finding a position for him, you don’t put someone who played a handful of games in the OF in the minors in CF in the Majors, then call him out for not being able to play the position.
It seems most of you forget that in 2006, Jack Wilson couldn’t advance a runner on first (11 times), even though he had Freddy Sanchez, the batting title champion hitting in front of him. We’d take bets on where’d he pop up to. BTW, 1b was 3-2 favorite, C was even money, 2B was 2-1, SS was 3-1, 3B was 5-1. Yet, JB was called out for not advancing runners, while he was successful 24 times. Neither were great numbers but why wasn’t Jack called out for it, but JB was, even though be was twice as succesful?
I'll just throw out
that Jack could play hella good shortstop, so his other flaws were minimized.
Jose in the field? Not so much. So even his small successes get ignored.
Not saying it’s fair.
Put down the sippy cup
Jack made some nice plays at SS, but please, he was marketed well beyond his talent. He was given the benefit by a hometown scorer on at least two balls each homestand. C’mon, remember back and count the number of times you saw him slip on the outfield grass and go, “My what a nice play to even get to the ball”. You know what they call those in the box scores, singles.
I’ve been to games where Jack makes nice play, then screws the pooch two consecutive innings and seen the batter given hits. I’m not saying he didn’t make some nice plays while he was here. I’m saying he was not given the errors on a consistant basis, that other were. It would have to be demoralizing to have every mistake you make maginfied to the media and the guy working next to you getting a pass for the same mistakes or worse, being touted for a GG for it.
I'm game...
C’mon, remember back and count the number of times you saw him slip on the outfield grass and go, "My what a nice play to even get to the ball".
Four! Did I win?
Nope...
the mountaing climber is going higher….higher…higher…….oh no, he fell off the cliff. But you do get to come back and spin for a chance at the Showcase Showdown.
You know what they call those in the box scores, singles.
Yes, because the rules don’t allow the scorer to give a player an error if he didn’t touch the ball. If there was a play like the one you describe, it’s not like Jack was getting some kind of hometown break.
Sure they do
Ball rolls between a guy’s legs because he comes up early, he gets a error every time, touch it or not.
The Hammer Speaks
Extra Innings
Twitter: @DTonPirates and @hammerspeaks
I hear that Charlie Morton guy seems to have started a nice little comeback.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
Great sample
What is it, a whopping seven starts so far. Look, I hope I’m wrong, but please, can we wait before we start to melt the bronze for his plaque in Cooperstown. Two of his last four starts have not been QS, so the Charlie of old may not be returning, but it’s not the roided-up Clemens either.
I've got to agree here. I still have little confidence in Charlie Morton over the course of the season.
I don’t see how he can be successful over 30+ starts with all the walks.
I think the walk...
thing is being overstated a bit. Last five starts:
9 IP 2 BB
5 IP 3 BB
6 IP 3 BB
5.1 IP 5 BB
7.2 IP 1 BB
33 IP 14 BB 3.8/9
Not great, but not terrible
The Hammer Speaks
Extra Innings
Twitter: @DTonPirates and @hammerspeaks
Quality Start...
is at least 6 innings, with no more than 3 earned runs.
5/7/11 – 7.2 IP, 1 ER – QS
5/1/11 – 5.1 IP, 4 ER
4/26/11 – 6 IP, 1 ER – QS
4/20/11 – 5 IP, 6 ER
So like he said, 2 of his last 4 have not been QS. Belittle him all you like, but at least be accurate.
Nice try but like the rest of your life, a failure
May 7 against HOU a 6-1 W, he went 7.2 and gave up one run for a QS
May 1 against COL a 8-4 W, he went 5.1 and gave up 4 runs for a non-QS
Apr 26 against SFO a 3-2 L, he went 6.0 and gave up 1 run for a QS
Apr 20 against FLA a 6-0 L, he went 5.0and gave up 6 runs for a non-QS
While this is a huge improvement over last year, it’s still the middle of May.
So, the only point you have showing, is the one on your head.
All while his walk rates are decreasing and his K-rates are increasing. Players can have a bad start from time to time, but his ERA is still in the low 3s all while his peripherals are starting to level out.
It’s quite interesting that this conversation about a bad player suddenly tweaking something and becoming good is happening in a thread about a bad player who tweak something and became good.
But you’re a dick, so I shouldn’t even be responding.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
name calling?
The pillar of any solid argument, for sure.
Are you suggesting that Charlie Morton is having the same level of success as Jose Bautista? Morton is serviceable I suppose, but I don’t see him leading the league in anything.
Putting words in my mouth? The pillar of any solid argument for sure.
In the words of Vaffanculo, ‘Nice try but like the rest of your life, a failure’.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
it was a question...
I was asking you if that was what you were saying, not telling you what you had said.
oh...
and I was responding to this specifically
“It’s quite interesting that this conversation about a bad player suddenly tweaking something and becoming good is happening in a thread about a bad player who tweak something and became good.”
Well, of course I wasn’t. No one will ever accomplish that again. I just find it funny that Morton’s resurgence generates doubt since he’s on the Pirates. God, if he had this kind of start on, say, the Astros, we’d never hear the end of it.
What I’m trying to say is, the grass is always greener on the other side — but it doesn’t help that the Yinzers are spilling their Arn all over the lawn in disgust and rage over every move.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
except in this case
The grass literally IS greener on the other side. I know it’s a cliche argument, but 18 years? Where is the grass NOT greener?
relatively speaking
I think brown or black grass is still technically greener…
regardless
Even if I conceded Houston, that’s 28 other places where the grass is greener
reminds me of a lewis black joke
Where he made fun of Clinton for bragging about his success in education reform by raising arkansas from 49th to 48th.
Maybe it was just
West Virginia diving from 48th to 49th. ’Round these parts, we thank God every day for Mississppi. Or should.
I’d debate that even the Orioles have a bleak outlook, or at least an even outlook — their top prospects are hurting too at the major league level, and they have the misfortune of competing against four capable powerhouse teams.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
can we at least agree
That we do not have especially green grass, and leave it at that?
The Pirates have such a huge success in turning these players around. Let’s create the list…
Garrett Jones
Charlie Morton
Ross Ohlendorf
Joel Hanrahan
Jose Tabata
…
As for finding a position for him, you don’t put someone who played a handful of games in the OF in the minors in CF in the Majors, then call him out for not being able to play the position.
He had spent large amounts of time in the outfield in winter ball. That’s one of the reasons why he was taken in the Rule 5 in the first place – he wasn’t tied to one position.
EXCEPT.....
One, Jones was as FA signing, who since he had his one year breakout, they’ve tried to replace, or haven’t you met Mr. Diaz or Mr. Overbay this year.
Two, Morton is seven games into a season. A little pre-mature to call it a huge success or even a success, but if that what you need to get yourself out of bed in the morning, I’ll giv, nah, I can’t even give that to you yet. I hope you’re right, but c’mon now, seven starts and you’re calling it a success.
Three, Ohlendorf? Really. So you’re on my side now. Oh wait, you’re serious for your argument. This is what you’re putting up. Why not Correia? We’ve had him for a month and a half? Please, just put the keyboard away. You’re embarassing yourself.
Four, Hanrahan. One for you. Should I call Ripley’s? Oh wait. I said guys that failed at the Majors and Hanrahan did succeed at one point, before falling into the doghouse in Washington. I’ll give you a half.
Tabata? Must you continue to reach. I like the kid, but do remember the initial claims, Manny Ramirez-like. Do you see anything Manny-esque in Tabata, short of Spanish skills? Me neither. Plus, if it’s too short for Morton, it’s too short for Tabata right now for being anything but a one year-wonder. Again, I hope I’m wrong, but right now, it’s way too early.
One, Jones was as FA signing, who since he had his one year breakout, they’ve tried to replace, or haven’t you met Mr. Diaz or Mr. Overbay this year.
None of that is material to the question you asked. You wanted examples of players whom the team was able to successfully turn around. Jones was a AAAA lifer who’s developed into a useful platoon 1B/OF. His career turned around.
Two, Morton is seven games into a season. A little pre-mature to call it a huge success or even a success, but if that what you need to get yourself out of bed in the morning, I’ll giv, nah, I can’t even give that to you yet. I hope you’re right, but c’mon now, seven starts and you’re calling it a success.
Morton was widely seen as a busted prospect by Atlanta when we acquired him, carrying a 6.15 ERA and 1.62 WHIP in a half season in the Braves’ rotation. He gave us 18 productive starts in 2009, and has been a productive starter in 2011 as well, after a hiccup in 2010.
Three, Ohlendorf? Really. So you’re on my side now. Oh wait, you’re serious for your argument. This is what you’re putting up. Why not Correia? We’ve had him for a month and a half? Please, just put the keyboard away. You’re embarassing yourself.
At the time we acquired Ohlendorf, he had a career 6.02 ERA and 1.64 WHIP in parts of two seasons in the Yankees’ bullpen. Since we acquired him, he’s given us 57 starts’ worth of league-average pitching, a substantial improvement on his past performance.
Four, Hanrahan. One for you. Should I call Ripley’s? Oh wait. I said guys that failed at the Majors and Hanrahan did succeed at one point, before falling into the doghouse in Washington. I’ll give you a half.
Actually, you didn’t say anything about limiting a list to guys failing in the majors in the post to which I was replying. If you meant to write something other than what you wrote, that’s fine, but it’s not my fault that you can’t express your ideas clearly.
Tabata? Must you continue to reach. I like the kid, but do remember the initial claims, Manny Ramirez-like. Do you see anything Manny-esque in Tabata, short of Spanish skills? Me neither. Plus, if it’s too short for Morton, it’s too short for Tabata right now for being anything but a one year-wonder. Again, I hope I’m wrong, but right now, it’s way too early.
At the time we acquired Tabata, he wasn’t being compared to Manny Ramirez. He was seen as a struggling malcontent and a bust-in-the-making. Since he came here, he’s been nothing but happy and productive.
[Incidentally, when you scoff about whether or not I’m serious in lieu of providing actual evidence to support your position, it only highlights the weakness of your underlying argument. You may want to work on that in the future.]
Hmmm.....
“Morton was widely seen as a busted prospect by Atlanta when we acquired him, carrying a 6.15 ERA and 1.62 WHIP in a half season in the Braves’ rotation. He gave us 18 productive starts in 2009, and has been a productive starter in 2011 as well, after a hiccup in 2010.”
His 2010 was more like a roaring belch that cleared the room. Otherwise, there’s still hope with his improved 2011 thus far. Bucco fans have got to keep their fingers crossed.
It was supremely ugly pitching, no doubt...
…but only a total of eleven starts. He was just fine in September/October, after he got straightened out: 4.09 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 22/9 K/BB.
HUGE success?
I realize that huge is a subjective term, but Garrett Jones is supposed to be no better than a platoon player, the pitchers have all had success, but would you call it HUGE, and I would be willing to give you Tabata next year maybe.
As it turns out, Bautista is the exception. Reclamation projects typically end up turning into Jones/Hanrahan types more often than not (by that I mean being servicable for a good three to four years, or finding their niche in the bullpen).
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Well
The Twins knew that Jones line was going to similar to what they had in their system and he wasn’t beating any of them out for playing time. As a minor league FA, he came to Pgh and the Pirates really had nothing to do with his development. If he doesn’t get hurt last year, short of BA, his number would probably have been similar to the year before.
Pirate fans come to greet these numbers happily but they should be support numbers, not leading numbers. Remember, 26 HR is only one a week. In band box parks and watered down pitching, 26 HR suck. It’s not like we’re in the NLE.
Well, there are about 100 comments here explaining why. Why not ask why the dozen or so teams that passed on him on the waiver wire why they didn’t claim a multi-positional, .260/15/70 (nice shit-stats, by the way) player for absolutely nothing to give up.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Wonder what “productive outs” should be called . . . . . .
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Those were
the 11, I was talking about. Jack had about 7 – 9 actual sac hits that year.
260/15/70
When I average Bautista’s Pirate stats into a 150-game season, I get .241, 16 HRs and 60 RBIs. It’s funny how these off-the-cuff references to his performance in Pgh. seem to exaggerate so consistently.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
when a guy creates an account on the day
its likely he’s here to troll.
by BurgherKing on May 16, 2011 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
So then...
did they pulled the plug too soon on Andy LaRoche? Even his best year, he never approached the shit-stats or even the WTM averaged numbers below, but the Pirates got cheaper payroll and lesser production. Hmmm!!! Seems like the grass isn’t always greener with the other teams cast-offs.
Remember when the Pirate PR machine went to work to pump up Andy when he had a good April in 2010? Vanished, along with his stats in May, June, July, when you’d kill for somebody, anybody with shit-stats.
Good lord...
I know you are trying to make a point but your losing me. Can you explain what exactly shit stats are?
He’s saying Laroche clogged the clubhouse toilet more than anyone else in April 2010. After that, not so much
by gorillagogo on May 16, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
shit-stats
ryerbr3ad said,
260/15/70 (nice shit-stats, by the way) player for absolutely nothing to give up.
did they pulled the plug too soon on Andy LaRoche?
I would’ve probably brought him back for one more year, as a UT IF. Though as with Bautista, I think the decision to cut bait was justifiable.
Even his best year, he never approached the shit-stats or even the WTM averaged numbers below…
Unlike Bautista, though, he could actually play third base. As a result, he was much more productive in 2009 than Bautista was in any of his Pirate seasons, even with less impressive counting numbers.
BTW
Was my arguement against Kendall as a good defensive catcher. When he was injured and the Bucs brought in Joe Oliver, the team ERA for the rest of the year was close to a run lower. Unfortunately, they also scored close to a run less.
Are you arguing for cERA now?
There is no correlation between catchers and improved pitcher ERA in the majors.
by Wizard of Woz on May 16, 2011 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Jason Kendall?
WTF are you talking about? The post to which you replied doesn’t have anything to do with Kendall.
Referring to the time he argued about Kendall under a different name.
by Wizard of Woz on May 16, 2011 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmm
Laroche 2009: .258/12/64
Seems a lot like .241/16/60 to me. Especially when you factor in plus defense as opposed to awful.
by thecheeseisblue on May 16, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Again
I go with the favorable hometown scorer for some of this. I agree that Andy had what appeared to be more range, it can be glossed over with with an error given on a play versus a hit. A ball hits off Player A glove, who looks like he hustles, batter given a hit. A ball hits off Player B glove, who doesn’t look like he hustles, Player B given an error.
If you would look at plays / stats objectively, you would have noticed that once the Pirates stated that Cedeno was not really in the Pirate future plans at the end of last season, he made 8 errors the last homestand. That he made only 10 up to that point and all of a sudden, his defense became an issue. Sorry, but an error every 2.5 weeks to one every 2.5 plays. Doesn’t something scream out to you?
Favorable hometown scorer, eh?
Funny then, how his defensive line was much better on the road than at home, in both range factor and UZR.
by thecheeseisblue on May 16, 2011 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Simple
Pirate PR Machine. Ever hear of them? They put together a media guide for each team to follow and belieive it, they pump certain players over others. It’s not like the Pirates had a lot to talk about, SOOOOO, they mention the sparkling defense of one Andy LaRoche. you don’t think that the media person, who is the official scorer gets that. Are you that naive? Also, does it not help their player to get a hit, than to get on base via an error?
God, it’s funny how some of you people don’t trust the government, the press, or your own mothers, but believe ever darn thing an official scorer puts in their book.
UZR and Range Factor are judged by independent sources.
You need to quit invalidating every point you make.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Ok
so he got to the ball, big whip if he does nothing but eats it or flings it into the first base stands? Even the UZR people admit their’s is not a perfect system, why do you keep trying to hold it up as such?
Do you remember Frank Taveras? Range like Ozzie Smith, but could make the freaking easy plays hit right at him. If ESPN was around, he’d be a GG candidate, with a .932 FPct. Because of him, we’d never have the contribution of Mario Mendoza and his line.
It’s not just UZR, every statistic points to Laroche being good defensively in 2009. The only people who don’t think so are those like you, who apparently think there’s a massive conspiracy where the Pirates have every official scorer in their pocket to make Laroche look good. Funny how they didn’t do that the next year then, eh?
by thecheeseisblue on May 16, 2011 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually
It’s kind of hard when you throw the ball into the stands to call it a hit.
Even the UZR people admit their’s is not a perfect system, why do you keep trying to hold it up as such?
And what is your point here? That fielding percentage, a much worse system, is what we should go by? Or even better, some guy’s memory of plays (SGMOP)? I hear that’s pretty reliable.
by Wizard of Woz on May 16, 2011 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
The point is
you have to include them all. Yes, even SGMOP. They stand out because they are just so obvious. You can stay in your little bubble world and let somebody tell you what to think because some organization put together a stat, to tell you that Player B is better than Player F because they went through all the records and could tell you exactly who should have caught what, based on a [perfect positional baseball, but what about a guy who cheats one way over another? What about a 3B who plays with LH fastball pitcher in the high 90’s versus a guy who plays 3B with a LH fastball pitcher who throws in the high 80’s? Do you allow for that? Metrics sound nice, until you put other actual numbers into play?
its obvious
that lyle overbay is better than ryan howard. I don’t want to hear any stats that some “organization” put together, because it’s obvious. Just because someone watched all the games they played and charted their hitting and defense, I dont care.
Are you imagining a situation where a 3b plays only when one of those 2 pitchers throw? I’m not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that different pitchers pitch for different teams, so each 3b has a different set of pitchers providing balls to be put into play? A screamer up the line is the same whether you hit it off of Lee or Karstens.
They sound nice, then they are put into play, and sound nicer. They are not perfect, but much better then selective memory and official scorers. I believe you just made an argument about not trusting official scorers, and now you support them?
by Wizard of Woz on May 16, 2011 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I know, which is why I told him that we aren’t. His argument about home-town scorers? Exactly why.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Hey were not
talking blue paint versus green, but if you keep bringing up defense, how can you not bring up errors. Vlad said that Andy was better defensively, and as with UZR and Range Factor, you have to include errors and scoring. If you don’t you might as well be talking Global Warming and exclude Solar Flares and Sunspots.
Range is a factor of defense because it should either get an out or hold a runner to one base. If you get to the ball and commit an error when no error is charged, a runner is put on base. The result is a higher ERA for the pitcher and you get away a false defensive rating in FPct.
Range factor has nothing to do with scoring
It’s total chances, putouts+assists divided by games played. Errors and hits are the same in Range Factor, they’re just outs not made.
So...
we get to ignore his (laRoche) 2008 and 2010 stats?? Nice.
We did Jose a favor! If he stayed with the Pirates his numbers may have stayed the same or even got worse. Tip your hat off to the guy he hasn’t been a Pirate for years!
by Joey Mooney on May 16, 2011 11:00 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Let’s hop into the Delorean, go back to 2006 and 2007 and see that Bautista was not given the same latitude that the other players were.
Let’s also remember that Jim Tracy was the manager, and threw lots of people under the bus, not just JB.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Welcome to my world.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 16, 2011 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
It's amazing...
how many people are running to NH’s defense when it comes to assessing major league talent. Or even that of players in the high minors. Evidently…we can’t look at standings or statistics of acquired players to assess NH’s skills. Great, we’ll wait 10 years…until the streak is at 28 seasons, to decide he sucks at his job.
Better suggestion…no baseball…rent out PNC Park on alternate Saturday nights…charge $5-10 and have a fireworks display. They’d still get the 25,000-30,000 people to come out and buy concessions.
there's plenty of doubt
but Jose Bautista is not it. As someone who claims the proof is in the results, I’d be willing to admit there’s a problem if NH was consistently whiffing on guys who went on to have productive careers. A sample size of 1 does not cut it.
by BurgherKing on May 16, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Nope...
he just whiffs on most of the guys he acquires.
It is interesting, though, that our best start in years can be attributed majorly to Huntington acquisitions (I’m looking at the pitching staff specifically).
Thank you Ned Colletti.
ummm
We are 18-22. Last year, at 40 games, we were 18-22. Our average number of wins at 40 games since ’93…17.8. So, best start in years……..
once again, please read the comment above before inserting sarcasm
he was talking about the pitching staff
by white angus on May 16, 2011 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
honestly, I don't know what made me look at this
But our starters have 19 quality starts, and we have 18 wins. 1 game out of 40 difference. Our start is also just as bad as always because the starting pitching has not been great, despite NH’s pickups.
Yeah...
the whole way since 2009…
Pirates April ERA in 2011 3.74
Pirates April ERA in 2009 3.41
LOL
Although I’m sure the next argument is how ERA isn’t a good stat because it blah blah blah.
If you want to look at the pitching staff, fine. We are still losing at the same pace we have for 18 years. This is not a good start.
Also, will you go on record as stating that you think that the pitching staff is NOT playing over their heads and will NOT regress?
I agree with you, JimiL
I was pointing out to ryebr3ad that pitching was only an issue early in 2010…it wasn’t necessarily the problem in previous slow starts.
Ok, I was a bit premature with my statement. However, I do think Morton is legit, and McDonald can only get better from now.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
No,
Morton’s control problems will be his undoing, and a fragile psyche will accelerate it. I hope he can be “decent” for us this year, but I wouldn’t count on it.
I wouldn’t count on J Mac being much for us either as a starter.
I’d like to see a decent record this year, so I hope to be wrong.
It is possible that Morton could be legit…but I’d like to see his peripherals move a little bit from where they are at currently. If he’s going to keep the current GB rate, I’d like to see a fairly low walk rate, due to our defense. And his strikeout rate is currently along the lines of a Zach Duke.
Until our defense improves, I think the ERA is more smoke and mirrors with his current strikeout level.
As to JMac…I’m of the opinion that WYSIWYG.
sorry...
I knew you were agreeing with me. I was laughing along with you, at ryebr3ad. I got the impression that you were suggesting that not only is this start no even the best in 2 years when it comes to pitching, but that you were also agreeing that this start in general hasn’t been all that great.
Pirates 2009 April rotation
Maholm, Duke, Snell, Ohlendorf and Karstens.
And it is sort of difficult at this point for the Pirates to have anything but Huntington acquisitions as pitchers…since there is only one that doesn’t fall into that category.
This is a bit of a non-sequitor, don’t you think?
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on May 16, 2011 12:23 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I could have phrased it better.
With the exception of Maholm…all 2011 starters are NH acquisitions. That was not the case in 2009 where Maholm, Duke and Snell had about 60-70% of April starts.
The pitching being decent in either April didn’t give the Pirates a better start. And NH has whiffed on most of his acquisitions.
There's plenty to pick over
in his assessment of MLB talent. Just not necessarily in this case. Lots of teams had a chance to assess Jose’s talent and decided he wasn’t worth it, even for free.
What do you figure Jays fans were thinking about their team’s ability to assess MLB talent on Sept. 3, 2009, when Jose was slashing .216/.351/.301 with three homers? Probably that they gave up too much for him.
This is pretty much the argument you make when you’re losing on the specific issue at hand. Why not just say, “19 losing seasons!!!” and be done with it?
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on May 16, 2011 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It’s amazing how often you pretend the people you disagree with are saying something that they aren’t.
by gorillagogo on May 16, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Jose Bautista hit .241/.329/.403 (91 OPS+) in 1520 PA and was 27 when we traded him. Even if you throw out ‘04-’05, JB’s OPS+ was just 95. Lastings Milledge hit .282/.332/.386 (93 OPS+) in 651 PA and was 25 when he let him go.
How many people were flipping out when we gave up Milledge for literally nothing?
There are lots of reasons to be critical about NH, but the Bautista trade isn’t one of them.
milledge
I don’t think that anyone was flipping out over Milledge, but I definitely heard arguments that he was worth the bench spot.
I wasn’t a fan. He’s still young.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on May 16, 2011 12:44 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
MIlledge is still young but has always been overhyped from his Mets' prospect days.
He’ll be playing overseas or in an independent league in a couple of years.
i was OK then
and still am. But if it was Milledge who;d broken through instead of JB, you’d have heard about how everyone and their families just knew it was a mistake to let him go.
There were plenty of us that didn't think it would be a wise move in the short term.
Unless they were able to replace him with a useful piece. And at this point, Matt Diaz does NOT qualify as a useful piece.
Not exactly, no.
They offered him a specific dollar figure, he declined it because he preferred to go to arb, and then they non-tendered him.
Well, sort of.
It’s not like he flat-out told them to cut him. He just wanted more money than they turned out to be willing to pay.
My conclusion is that Jose Bautista is dumb
and it took years and years for him to grasp something simple that successive coaches told him and undoubtedly demonstrated to him in the cage and through vid instruction.
The Jays were just lucky that it finally got through his thick skull.
regardless of his intelligence
It’s a shame that Pirates coaching has not turned around any reclamation projects, or nurtured a well regarded prospect into a productive MLB player.
One of the examples of Bautista-lite (I really hope I don’t start calling him JoeyBats) that has been tossed out on here is GFJ. I think one of the things being missed here is that when Jones burst on the scene, there hadn’t really been any murmurings of how that kind of thing was a possibility because of the work the team had been doing with him. It seems to have been just as much of a surprise to the team as it was to everyone else. In Bautista’s case, it is being attributed to coaching (even if it is coaching for a dumb player), and it’s a shame that we aren’t hearing about the great results that our coaching is producing, or the results that our great talent evaluation is producing.
there hadn’t really been any murmurings of how that kind of thing was a possibility because of the work the team had been doing with him. It seems to have been just as much of a surprise to the team as it was to everyone else. In Bautista’s case, it is being attributed to coaching
As flimsy arguments go, this one is pretty much top of the list. I mean, we are deciding based on what someone said to the media, or even better, did not say! I mean, whew, please, move on.
so basically...
If a fact gets in the way, and I disagree with the FO, I need to look at the facts. But if a fact gets in the way and I agree with the FO, it is flimsy.
To be quite frank, I really don’t understand. Is it that unfathomable (this is the situation where you use that word, btw) that we didn’t do our best here, even if we weren’t the only ones?
no really
a flimsy fact is a flimsy fact.
Is it that unfathomable (this is the situation where you use that word, btw) that we didn’t do our best here, even if we weren’t the only ones?
No, really, it isn’t. I have argued the position many times that results rule all. And I still maintain the position. Could they have done better? Certainly. But to claim that Bautista’s success is a measurable that you can use to say the Pirates FO is worse than the TBJ’s or their coaching staff or whatever is disingenuous, at best. It’s certainly possible that they have a better hitting instructor, who tried some new things. But at this point, it should be clear that whatever it was that clicked into place for Bautista happened essentially as a result of random chance. Naturally, there is some probability the FO messed up. IMO, it’s not very likely.
so if results rule all
Isn’t the team even worse at talent evaluation and coaching than I’m suggesting? The results that rule all here are that now Jose Bautista hit 54 HRs last year and leads the majors so far this year. The other result is that the team didn’t see that coming, and trading him. Another result is that the player the Pirates received in return amounted to essentially nothing. Those are all results, and by your supposed standard, they rule all. No other argument needs to be made then?
I wasn’t trying to claim that Bautista’s success is a way to measure the team. I am, however, suggesting that I feel like it is yet another indicator.
Random chance, by the way, would be that Bautista goes to Toronto, makes no changes (mechanically, mentally, whatever) and wins the lottery.
Garrett Jones:
The Twins have said they knew Jones had talent but he didn’t fit in for much playing time because of other players they had in ’07 and I believe he had injury problems in ’08.
IIRC, Jones has said he really wasn’t ready for the majors the first time around.
The Pirates identified a player as a six-year minor league FA(correct?) they thought could play and have gotten a lot out of him. I think they deserve some credit here. They found another useful player the same way in Al Martin back in ’93.
i'm not trying to say GFJ has no value, or had no value...
I’m saying it’s a shame that coaching talent evaluation from our team doesn’t seem to really be a factor in the improvement of the team. What we gave Jones was playing time. Can you point to something else? It has worked out well (I personally wouldn’t even platoon him, especially with our options), but that doesn’t really mean that our organization had much to do with it, besides giving him a chance (which we’ve definitely given to a lot of players).
JimiL
So the Jays get lucky in front of a mirror one day with Bautista and you want to extol their new and improved coaching methods, yet you completely disregard the chance the Pirates have done some good work the past two years+ making Jones a better player?
Show me where Jones has said anything remotely similar to the Pirates just gave me time on the field. I figured out everything else myself.
ok...
http://www.buccosbuzz.com/20110403-garrett-jones-interview/
http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/for-rookie-garrett-jones-a-july-to-remember/
“"You think about it," Jones said. "You just hope that you stay healthy and try to take care of your numbers and play hard and hopefully you’ll get a shot. You stay positive; you’re playing baseball every day."
He credited a positive approach and a lack of awe with his success in his second spell in the majors. "It comes down to relaxing and trusting in myself," he said. "It’s the same game regardless of whether you’re in the majors or Triple A.""
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=sh-garrettjones040810
“"Before, I’d just go up to the plate and swing as hard as I could and hoped I’d hit it," he said. "I really didn’t have a plan of attack and that’s what hurt me.
"Now I’m going up there and picking a side of the plate, expecting the pitch either inside or outside. Especially in the big leagues where there is great pitching, you have to pick a side of the plate and hunt that side. Then if the pitch is there you have to capitalize on it.""
“"Some guys develop later than others and some guys just need an opportunity with the right team," Jones said. "It’s a combination of things. It’s just a matter of time for some guys. For me, it came down to having an approach and a plan at the plate."”
“"I felt that if I’d had a shot I definitely could have competed for that spot," Jones said.”
“"I always believe that if you do well enough the team you are with will call you up, and if not another team will see you and like you and give you a shot," he said. "So I always had that in my mind and never really got too stuck in a rut."”
Glowing praise for the approach to coaching players. He mentions getting time at the plate, and having a more relaxed approach, but doesn’t sound like the Pirates had much to do with it. I could surely be wrong, but it’s not what I’m hearing.
This simply points to the fact that Jones started to understand what he'd been told over the years
by Braves and Twins coaches, and also that he’d improved upon his mental approach to the game, which we already know and have discussed.
I’d say the Braves and Twins deserve criticism for not coming up with a new coaching method to make him successful.
You haven’t shown that the Pirates didn’t do a good job from spring training ’09 with a new player and helping him to improve.
You want to praise the Jays for getting lucky with Bautista, while giving the Pirates no credit for Jones’ bit of success.
Sounds like a Bob Smizik disciple to me.
you asked me
“Show me where Jones has said anything remotely similar to the Pirates just gave me time on the field. I figured out everything else myself.”
Well…
“Some guys develop later than others and some guys just need an opportunity with the right team”
and…
“I felt that if I’d had a shot I definitely could have competed for that spot,”
and…
""I always believe that if you do well enough the team you are with will call you up, and if not another team will see you and like you and give you a shot,"
all sound “remotely” like it, and he definitely doesn’t credit the coaching staff for that new approach at the plate.
Jones is simply commenting on the things he needed to do to improve as a player
and that he did those things, all the while finally getting a better chance outside of Minnesota.
He never says the coaching staff in Pittsburgh did nothing to help him. You’re just ASSUming the Pirates got lucky with Jones and deserve no credit for his contributions, while saying the Jays deserve credit for Bautista and the magic mirror.
If you want to praise the Jays for Bautista for the past 1.5 years, you have to give the Bucs credit for Jones during the past 2.
LOL
At least capitalize the right letters…or am I an ASSU?
It’s interesting that you belittle Bautista by only allowing for 1.5 years (which is truthfully the correct timeframe), but want to compare it to TWO years for Jones. I mean, TWO years, I can hardly imagine!
That aside, I did give the Pirates credit for Jones…through playing time. You only challenged me to show where he said something remotely similar to, “it was just time on the field, I took care of the rest,” and I showed you where he said that he felt he needed a new approach, and an opportunity to play (time on the field). Now, I’m not suggesting that Pirates didn’t help in terms of that approach. I’m saying that Jones doesn’t credit them for changing his approach, but he does infer that they get credit for giving him playing time.
With this information, we could really assume any involvement or lack of involvement from the coaches. The difference is (and my point) that Bautista specifically credits the Jays coaching, and Jones doesn’t.
What you should have done was ask me to prove that Jones has never credited coaching. But all you asked for was a situation remotely similar to crediting playing time and changing his approach.
If the reports are true, and it probably was not some momentous occasion for someone to later recall when Bautista was given instruction
for the umpteeth time, the Jays had a serendipitous moment with Jose Bautista in front of a mirror in a weight room that led to his unbelievable success over the past 1.5 years.
Fine, I’ll give them some credit ‘cause it finally happened on their watch. But I’m not going to criticize the Pirates at the same time. They did their best with the guy, as far as I’m concerned. (The trade return was admittedly disappointing.)
And the Pirates deserve some credit for Jones’ improvement on their watch. Yes, he seemingly made a lot of changes himself after many years, but nowhere that I’ve seen does he say that the Pirates did not help him.
The game starts in a few hours. Join in on some real discussion.
basically
As I’ve unsuccessfully tried to explain, I credit a coach on the Jays for helping Bautista. If I didn’t have Bautista’s words to go on, I’d probably assume a lot of other things as well. But I’m not going to discredit his words for no reason.
However, I have a broader point that I’ve been trying to get across, which is that we don’t seem to have much success with our talent evaluation and coaching.
I’d argue that any success currently by the prospects of the current FO in the minors is still unproven talent evaluation, as I would assume the goal is success at the majors. Unfortunately, we have been involved in a lot of trades that, while seemingly smart at the time, returned little for us, if anything. I think DK was trying to make that point, that we had what HE considered a servicable bench player at worst, and received what amounted to nothing in return. Throw out Bautista’s success, but there still aren’t many examples of how this team properly evaluated talent and put it to consistent use at the major league level.
maybe because the FO has been, since day one, building this team from the farm system up?
you can say whatever you want about the overbays, the diaz’, the crosbys, even the correia’s… not one of these players came up through our system yet also none are looked up as franchise saviors.
the pirates of now, and the near future, are being built from the ground up.
you cannot have stud YOUNG home built talent at every position. you are going to have to have some veterans thrown in there.
and since the pirates are the LEAST valued team in MLB, which is a fact by the way, you cant expect them to get the upper echelon players.
this is why you get the Churchs, the Dotels, the Lopez’, the Beimels.
its not that the FO is bad at evaluating MLB talent, they are absolutely not. the promotions of the core players, even ones they didnt draft, prove they know MLB talent.
what makes them smart is that they are not spending a fortune to do it.
ummm.....
“its not that the FO is bad at evaluating MLB talent, they are absolutely not”
“the overbays, the diaz’, the crosbys, even the correia’s… not one of these players came up through our system”
If they didn’t come up through our system, and at least some of them were already playing in the majors, then we were evaluating their MLB talent, were we not, especially in the case of the ones we expected to start or contribute heavily. And if they then do not perform, have we not evaluated them poorly?
Unless of course our evaluation was that they would not perform, but that get’s into another can of worms that I doubt anyone would like discussed.
It has worked out well (I personally wouldn’t even platoon him, especially with our options), but that doesn’t really mean that our organization had much to do with it, besides giving him a chance
I dont know what you’re saying here. Are you saying it was universally recognized he could produce this kind of value and never got the chance? If that’s true, somebody or the other would have traded for him, or they should certainly hear it from you!
no...
I’m not trying to say that Jones was universally recognized as a high value player. I never said that, and I don’t believe that anything I wrote suggests that. I merely wrote that Jones has attributed his success, on more than one occasion, at least partly to being given playing time.
I was challenged to, “Show me where Jones has said anything remotely similar to the Pirates just gave me time on the field. I figured out everything else myself.” I think that is remotely similar, in that he mentions playing time being a factor, and does not mention any outside coaching assistance. As I said later, had I been challenged to prove that Jones NEVER attributed his success to coaching, I very likely could not have done that, or at the very least would have no interest in taking the time to do so. But that is not the point that was made. As Vlad so wonderfully put it, “If you meant to write something other than what you wrote, that’s fine, but it’s not my fault that you can’t express your ideas clearly.”
Good Grief
This is a ridiculous thread.
Summary
Bautista was not a good player when he was traded and no one could have predicted what he would become.
With that being said, he very likely should have been traded for something slightly better than Diaz. (not that we could have known that Diaz wouldn’t even be a serviceable backup).
Other teams did not like Jose either as evidenced by him being passed over by so many teams without a claim.
It sounds like the Pirate coaches made an attempt to tell Jose what he was doing wrong, but it took Jose seeing it himself to fix it.
In the end, not a good trade, but not a trade that’s worth arguing so much about as no one could see 50 home runs or even above a 350 OBP for a guy that couldn’t play defense.
Man
I declared myself president of the Jose Bautista Fan Club and I don’t recall being too terribly upset when he was traded away.
Haha I remember that! You were psyched whenever he came to the plate.
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 16, 2011 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, I'm not reading all these comments. I have to head back to work.
Look, Pirates did the wrong thing. They had no idea what would happen. There was nothing to indicate that things would turn out this way. If you wanna complain, go right ahead, but I think I’m done with the Jose Bautista thing for now.
If you think this is the worst trade ever made, See: Atlanta Falcons, Brett Favre, 1992, Green Bay Packers….
There is no love in the World. There's only pain.
Something that hasn't been mentioned
Is if Jose can sustain this production for very long. He has basically had one and half terrific years only (not to downplay that they are very good).
someone mentioned
and I agreed that he won’t keep it up for the 4.5 years of his big contract (or whatever the remaining length is).
i buy it though
i dont think he’s going away soon. And if he keeps up this pace for 2 years, he’ll have justified his contract!
So, everyone, I have a question! Should we hold onto every replacement level player from this point forward even with a highly regarded prospect in the wings, because there is a chance he breaks out? No? Alright then.
Bautista is a bad trade now, and no one here is stupid enough to argue that. However, whether the trade was bad at the time the trade is the main issue.
Lesson learned, sure. But that doesn’t mean that every damn Jose Bautista deserves a shot until the end of time. Sometimes shit doesn’t work out. For some teams it does. Let’s all agree that it was a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon and just get off of the subject, before this derives into name-calling (mostly done by me :P)
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Does Charlie get paid extra if we top a certain amount of posts in a day?
Maybe he’s saving up to hit the casinos.
SALE THIS THREAD
NUTTING IS TOO CHEAP TO PAY FOR THE SERVERS TO CONTAIN THIS THREAD’S TRAFFIC
by titanlord91 on May 16, 2011 2:52 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
usually we get good players from the dodgers
for nothing. We could probably trade this miserable thread for 1-2 solid prospect threads.
The Bautista case is at least 80% luck and 20% talent evaluation, right? Same with the Garrett Jones story. Casey Kotchman is having a big year. Who knew? Guys nearly the whole league had given up on, breaking out, is due to chance IMO.
by Adam Reynolds on May 16, 2011 3:39 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Bautista Derangement Syndrome
There is such a thing
Lino Donoso
I make no promises...
the forecast is not great. In fact, I’d say the chances of seeing both games tonight and tomorrow escape without at least one delay…is pretty darn small.
holy nuts
I’ve been arguing for over 6 hours…I’m out as well. Feel free to declare me vanquished in any arguments I was having with you.
Let’s hope for a win tonight!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
