Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Win or Lose, Boston Celtics' New Big 3 Era A Success

Ryan Ludwick's Walk-Off Hit Carries Pirates

Ryan Ludwick's walk-off single in the ninth carried the Pirates to a 4-3 win over the Reds in the Bucs' last homestand of the season. The win was their 70th of the year.

The Pirates got out to a 3-0 lead early, with an incredible two-run homer by Garrett Jones over the center field bleachers and an RBI single by Ryan Doumit. The Reds got runs in the fifth and sixth, though, and then one more in the ninth as Joel Hanrahan hit Todd Frazier with the bases loaded.

In the bottom of the inning, Jason Jaramillo doubled with one out. Chase D'Arnaud pinch-ran, and Ludwick pinch-hit for Pedro Alvarez (sadly). Ludwick knocked a ball over the head of Drew Stubbs in center to win the Pirates the game.

*     *     *

This is kind of off topic a bit, but since Hanrahan figured in the game tonight, I'll mention it. I was thinking about this on the way home tonight: What if the Pirates had traded Hanrahan at the deadline? We discussed the possibility at the time, and we looked at some of the prices veterans like Mike Adams were fetching in the trade market and wondered if Hanrahan might have brought back a top prospect.

As it turned out, the Pirates folded down the stretch, and didn't really need Hanrahan. It's easy to look back now and say that the Bucs should have traded him. But they were doing what they had to do at the time.

Unfortunately, the Pirates found themselves in a situation where the fans' opinions really mattered. Let's say the Bucs had dealt Hanrahan, then went on the two-month slide they've gone on since late July. Then, instead of blaming Jerry Meals or Clint Hurdle or whoever they're blaming for the Pirates' poor play right now, fans would have blamed Neal Huntington for trading Hanrahan and waving the white flag. I shudder to think what this coming offseason might have looked like if the Pirates had done that. Huntington would have been accused of taking the Pirates' one chance at contention and blowing it on yet another prospect.

Now, obviously, Huntington doesn't really care what the fans think. But if he had made that deal, it would have been nearly impossible to convince most of them that he was serious about winning. The ensuing storm of bad PR would have been incredibly intense, probably the worst in modern Pirates history. Huntington, to his credit, doesn't generally care about bad PR, but this particular storm of bad PR would have been biblical.

You can't be a good major-league GM if you're constantly fretting about worst-case scenarios. But there is an excellent chance that a deadline Hanrahan trade that would have had terrifying results. For example: what if the Pirates had traded Hanrahan, then missed a playoff spot by two or three games, particularly with someone like Jose Veras blowing saves down the stretch?

It's too bad the Pirates have collapsed as they have, and the Bucs may have missed an opportunity to deal their closer in a great market. But I don't think they really had a choice. The potential uproar over what would have been an incredibly controversial move could have had a huge effect on fan morale and ticket sales, and it certainly would have squandered the modest amount of goodwill the Pirates had built up after a few months of winning. A couple years ago, the Pirates had no choice but to alienate the fans. That was the only path toward making the franchise better. This year, things were more complicated. It would have been nice to get a top prospect for Hanrahan, but I can't fault the Pirates for not doing so.

Comment 29 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

You play to win the game

C’mon, Charlie. I really don’t like your conclusion that not dealing Hanrahan was about PR. They were in 1st place in late July! Unless we get to a point like the 1990s Braves (where making the playoffs becomes mundane), then our strategy should always be to maintain (if not add) when approaching the deadline within spitting distance of 1st.

I suppose if we had great depth at a position (such as having a healthy/effective Meek right behind Hanrahan) then trading in a sellers market isn’t the worst. But at some point, we’re going to need to get out of this prospect-first mindset and focus on winning as many games as possible.

Obviously, as you point out, in hindsight keeping Hanrahan didn’t help us, but it was the absolute right move not because of fan reaction but because Hanny gave us the best chance of winning the most games.

by Fat Jimmy on Sep 24, 2011 5:59 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Rec'd

I love the focus on the prospects, but let’s face it — a lot of that is because the major league club still isn’t very good.

Lino Donoso

by Lino Donoso on Sep 24, 2011 7:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think the Pirates’ front office is smart enough to know that the Pirates were playing well over their heads prior to the trade deadline and expected significant regression.

by matskralc on Sep 24, 2011 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not trying to put words in Charlie's mouth

but I don’t think his point was that Hanrahan was only kept for PR reasons. He (correctly) pointed out that if Hanrahan had been dealt, the PR backlash would have been overwhelming even if the return was Profar and Perez.

The team’s surprising play for the first 4 months put the front office in a position where they had to try and make a move. They had a shot (albeit a small one) at making the playoffs and they had to try and take advantage of it. Having said that, you could make a case that that start was one of the worst things that could happen to the team from an organizational standpoint.

When you look at the returns for Edwin Jackson and Mike Adams, it seems likely that the Pirates could have gotten an absolute haul if they had dealt Maholm and Hanrahan. In late July, the team had a record that it was unlikely to sustain. They didn’t keep it up. They held on to a couple of key producers which is probably what they should have done. However, if they had made the unpopular and risky decision to be sellers again this year, the organization could quite possibly be in better shape going forward.

by KentuckyPirate on Sep 24, 2011 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

My main criticism of Huntington is acquiring players at the deadline and not trading players away.

That being said I know why he did it, we gave away little and received little. I would not have made the deals at the time, but the bottom line is they are basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and it boosted yinzer moral by a factor worth more than what we gave up. In an ideal situation not only would Hanrahan have left at the deadline, but so would any combination (or total) of Maholm, Correia, Doumit, Veras, Karstens, Resop, and Jones. None of these players are likely to contribute by the time we compete, and we are still not that close to competing.

That being said, we dont know what the offers were for any players, and some of the players I listed above, contrary to popular belief, are completely worthless. We have no idea the offer for Hanrahan. Potentially we could get even more for him next year IF he has snother solid year. We may also get a lot less or exactly the same. I wouldnt have taken that risk and pending a Mike Adams offer would have traded him immediately, or even for less than a Mike Adams offer. Huntington, obviously didnt make that decision, and we dont know why.

Also like Charlie said there is the factor of the yinzer portion of the fanbase revolting. If trading Hanrahan or whoever would have caused Huntington to not be extended, then I wouldn’t have wanted those trades made either. A prospect or two with less than 50% chance of making it is worth less than Huntington is to me.

I’m still not pleased with Huntington about the way the deadline went down, but the bottom line is this is a clear case in which none of us know enough of the variables in play to do anything besides speculate.

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Sep 24, 2011 9:04 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

You both gt rec'd.

It’s good to be the King.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 24, 2011 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

I knie you're joking, but I'm not.

Its unfortunate Neal caved to the pressure.

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Sep 24, 2011 1:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

*know

Corrective typing gone bad.

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Sep 24, 2011 1:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

"caved to the pressure" ?

From whom?

The fans?

If he did, it’d be the first time that I know of…

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 24, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's a great question, I have no idea.

But there is no way any rational person thought we were competing this year, and I have no idea why he didn’t trade players at the deadline. I am under the assumption that Huntington is very rational, and I want to know why he mad such a seemingly irrational decision. There has to be another variable that we don’t know of, and I have no idea what that is.

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Sep 25, 2011 9:15 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

"That's a great question, I have no idea."

I’ll politely suggest you not make a comment like that w/o a caveat, then.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 25, 2011 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

I thought it was obvious I was implying either management or the fans.

Im saying I dont know which of the two it was.

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Sep 25, 2011 6:35 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

And he, in turn was saying that until you do know, you might want to refrain from cavalierly throwing around accusations that way.

by Vlad on Sep 26, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

$$$$$

He avoided being tared and feathered and having 8k fans show up per game the rest of the year. That was worth more than whatever we could have gotten for Paul Maholm and Garrett Jones.

by Mr. E on Sep 25, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

This year, things were more complicated

+1

Here’s to hoping 2012 is even more complicated.

by lambert58 on Sep 24, 2011 9:19 AM EDT reply actions  

Well,

I wanted Hammer traded at the time, while he was still perfect and his fetching price would likely never be higher, and I stand by that now. The fans? Haters gonna hate, yinzers gonna yinz.

by bucdaddy on Sep 24, 2011 11:12 AM EDT reply actions  

The Pirates mid-season record presented the team with a problem: every probable outcome produced by the decision the team made generated losses.

1. Trade Hanrahan for good prospects —> PR loss (team still regresses)
2. Trade Hanrahan for bad prospects —> double PR loss and weaker organization (team still regresses)
3. Keep Hanrahan —> PR gain but loss of good prospects (team still regresses)

The best possible but unlikely outcome for the Pirates was to keep Hanrahan and have Hanrahan contribute in to a team Divisional Championship run. A championship run would have been a massive PR gain for the team. Realists, however, knew the Pirates were not that good, especially with the disappointing seasons some of the hitter had. I’m assuming the FO had a realistic assessment of the team’s chances of effectively competing for the Division title this season.

Happily, the Pirates can trade Hanrahan this off season if the return is worthwhile. But it may become clear that the best returns for Hanrahan were available at the 2011 trade deadline.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Sep 24, 2011 1:15 PM EDT reply actions  

Unfortunately...

Neal’s track record when acquiring other teams’ top 10 prospects isn’t exactly sterling. See also, LaRoche, Clement, etc. I’m not confident that he would have traded for the right one.

by Thunder on Sep 24, 2011 1:39 PM EDT reply actions  

While you cherry pick the busts, let me cherry pick McDonald and Tabata.

Thank you Ned Colletti.

by ryebr3ad on Sep 24, 2011 1:47 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Or if you want McDonald...

I’ll take Lambo…who actually WAS in the Dodgers Top 10.

by Thunder on Sep 24, 2011 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

McDonald pitched 63 innings in 2009 and would not have qualified for those lists. McDonald was ranked No. 2 by Baseball America heading into 2009.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2009/267509.html

by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 24, 2011 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

and if Jose Ascanio had turned into Pedro Martinez, would we really have complained that he wasn’t in the Cubs top 10? If he’s a success, he’s a success.

by Mr. E on Sep 25, 2011 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

IMO,

unsaid in all of the Hanrahan / team regression talk is the fact that Hurdle pretty much didn’t use Hammer for the better part of a month, choosing to use the current “book” of only sending your closer in in save situations.

There were certainly times he could have been brought in and perhaps won a coupla games. Which may or may not have helped stem the tide.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 24, 2011 3:08 PM EDT reply actions  

Congrats on 70

I agree the goal isn’t 70 but I think we should recognize that this is more than almost anyone thought was possible coming into the season. I would love to see us get to 75 but I know it’s a stretch. It’s a good first step.

Yinzers uber alles

by BostonBuc on Sep 24, 2011 5:31 PM EDT reply actions  

i believe a 73 win season would be second best at pnc park, i think that is a very realistic goal

Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott

by C Shint on Sep 24, 2011 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Mlb_photo_1367_small
Fixing the Pirate offense: Plate Discipline

Recent FanPosts

Small
Who'd of "Plunked" it? Shades of Jason Kendall
Small
Runs . . . Any way you can get them
Pirates_1908_small
gamethread vs cubs 5/26/12
Smiling_small
A little background on the offense
Insetcommodoreperry_small
Guess the Score Game 47: Cubs @ Pirates
Insetcommodoreperry_small
Guess the Score Game 46: Cubs @ Pirates
Small
A cheerful look at our offseason additions
Small
Pedro's Defensive Contributions
A_red_spider_web_on_a_black_background_0071-0911-1622-1329_smu_small
A couple guys that could help the Buccos offense
178896_499126548441_596563441_5939410_7960015_n_small
The Pirates Pitchers Have Adopted Their Own Sign: The FU!

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Charlie_small Charlie Wilmoth

Editors

18470r_small Vlad

Davidtodd_small David Todd

Authors

Img_1692_small WTM

Mark_profile_pic_small MarkInDallas