Comments on: Revisiting the Nate McLouth trade http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html Your best source for news on the Pittsburgh Pirates and their minor league system. Sat, 20 Sep 2014 09:36:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Will http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html#comment-5919 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:20:45 +0000 http://pittsburghlumberco.com/?p=1911#comment-5919 A player being younger than another player is no guarantee—in and of itself—that he will be objectively better on the field. McLouth is still in his prime, and will be for another 2 to 3 seasons at least. He was signed for very reasonable dollars for that entire time frame. Milledge (again, please correct me if I’m wrong here) will be arbitration eligible after 2010, and could conceivably cost more money than McLouth will over the next 2-3 years if Milledge has a big season in 2010 and cashes in.

Again, this should not be read as bashing Milledge. If he continues his good soldier behavior, and if he is healthy (to be fair, he had the wrist injury last year), there’s still a chance he will be a decent-to-good starting outfielder. He hasn’t been over 1200 at bats to this point in his career, and that’s not a small sample size. I’m just saying, McLouth is better, Milledge might actually end up being more expensive to hold onto than McLouth would have been, and in any event I’d much rather have had McLouth and McCutchen together than just one or the other.

Thanks for the good discussion and debate.

]]>
By: Matt Bandi http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html#comment-5918 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:21:04 +0000 http://pittsburghlumberco.com/?p=1911#comment-5918 Milledge was a 1 win player in 239 plate appearances with the Pirates. Over a full season, that’s an average 2.5 win player. McLouth was worth 3.6 wins in a full season. “Marginally better” was probably an exaggeration, but it’s not a giant gap when you consider McLouth is 3.5 years older.

]]>
By: Will http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html#comment-5917 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:53:24 +0000 http://pittsburghlumberco.com/?p=1911#comment-5917 And the bit about McLouth hitting .233 is a canard. Nate didn’t get regular playing time “when he was Milledge’s age” thanks to the managerial genius of Jim Tracy and Dave Littlefield. Milledge was run out there every day upon coming up to the Pirates, while McLouth was used as a pinch hitter and occasional starter. Any and every time McLouth got to go out there every day, he produced, pure and simple. So the “comparison” with Milledge at the same age is bogus, too.

]]>
By: Will http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html#comment-5916 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:48:55 +0000 http://pittsburghlumberco.com/?p=1911#comment-5916 Milledge was a “league average” outfielder? I don’t think so. Is 4 HR and 29 RBI in nearly 300 at bats a “league average” outfielder? Milledge’s batting average was definitely respectable (.291) and he definitely hustled. But his career OPS is a sickly .729. That’s not very good for a middle infielder, let alone a corner outfielder. And he was supposed to be a “five tool player” when he was drafted.

And I wasn’t talking about when he’s eligible for free agency. I was talking about when he is eligible for ARBITRATION.

Yes, McLouth missed time due to his own hamstring injuries, but he was still a 20-20 man for the second consecutive season. FAR superior to what Milledge did for us, and it’s not close.

]]>
By: Matt Bandi http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html#comment-5915 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:51:01 +0000 http://pittsburghlumberco.com/?p=1911#comment-5915 Milledge was about a league average player with the Pirates last year. McLouth, three years older and in the middle of his prime years, was only marginally better. Milledge has four more years before free agency. McLouth has two, plus a $10 million option in 2012. When McLouth was Milledge’s age, he hit .233/.293/.385. Personally, I would prefer to have Milledge moving forward.

I’m not very high on Gorkys, but the fact that he has been traded twice has nothing to do with his future. Lots of players are traded. Jason Bay was traded three times before he reached the majors.

Morton had a 4.15 FIP last year (league average – 4.32). Morton was worth maybe half a win less than McLouth to the Pirates. And Morton is two years younger. If we keep McLouth in 2009, we are weaker in the rotation and Garrett Jones never gets a chance to play regularly. And Jones greatly outplayed McLouth.

Also, Morton missed 16 days to a hamstring injury in 2009, compared to the 22 days that McLouth missed with a hamstring injury.

]]>
By: Will http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html#comment-5914 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:47:15 +0000 http://pittsburghlumberco.com/?p=1911#comment-5914 Don’t agree at all.

First, why does everyone assume it was either McLouth or McCutchen? I for one would MUCH rather have had BOTH of them in the lineup. McLouth in left, McCutchen in center, and Jones/Tabata in right would be an INCREDIBLE all around outfield. Further, Nate was already signed for very reasonable dollars for another two seasons before the ridiculous balloon-payment option on the back of his contract. Milledge, if I’m not mistaken, is arb-eligible after THIS SEASON. Where do we win there? And while Milledge definitely has some ability and has definitely said and done all the right things since coming here—all very much to his credit—I’d much rather have Nate’s proven lefthanded power, far superior basestealing, and significantly better defense than Milledge’s overrated-to-this-point righthanded bat. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.

Don’t even get me started on Gorkys Hernandez. Most “elite prospects”, quote-unquote, are definitely NOT traded TWICE in two seasons! We should count our blessings if he ends up being anywhere close to Nyjer Morgan, let alone Nate McLouth.

I’ll concede that Charlie Morton definitely has electric stuff, but Morton alone does NOT come anywhere close to replacing what we lost in McLouth. And the idea that the trade “didn’t hurt us last year” is just not so. We took a proven 20-20 guy with a plus defensive game out of the everyday lineup and replaced him with an promising but unproven every-fifth-day pitcher who himself missed lots of time with hamstring injuries—and I don’t have to tell you that that is frequently the kiss of death for pitchers.

Nope, I wasn’t on board with this trade then, and I’m not now. At minimum, we traded Nate a year too soon and for a much too speculative return.

]]>
By: PhillyJake http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html#comment-5913 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:17:04 +0000 http://pittsburghlumberco.com/?p=1911#comment-5913 Very true. Note that I said at the time. :-)

Actually, I’m intrigued by the salt man. I looking forward to seeing what he can do. The broadcast team last year was gushing about his *stuff*. Let’s see him show it.

]]>
By: Matt Bandi http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html#comment-5912 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:48:21 +0000 http://pittsburghlumberco.com/?p=1911#comment-5912 Good point. Gorkys is likely to play an elite CF, while the bat is still a question mark. I would say Gorkys’ floor is Nyjer.

]]>
By: Matt Bandi http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html#comment-5911 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:44:59 +0000 http://pittsburghlumberco.com/?p=1911#comment-5911 It may have been a trade for the future, but it still didn’t hurt the Pirates at all in 2009. The outfield was upgraded by replacing McLouth with McCutchen and Garrett Jones, and the rotation was upgraded by adding Morton.

]]>
By: e poc http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/02/revisiting-the-nate-mclouth-trade.html#comment-5910 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:24:26 +0000 http://pittsburghlumberco.com/?p=1911#comment-5910 Plus, if you view the two trades together, the Bucs seem to have exchanged Nyjer for a newer model (G Hernandez).

]]>