Comments on: Revisiting the Trades of the Last Few Years Part 2 http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/07/revisiting-the-trades-of-the-last-few-years-part-2.html Your best source for news on the Pittsburgh Pirates and their minor league system. Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0 By: Anonymous http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/07/revisiting-the-trades-of-the-last-few-years-part-2.html#comment-7968 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:10:00 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=13261#comment-7968 We lost a cheap, mid-rotation starter for nothing. If we had him we could still deal Maholm, or we wouldn’t have needed Correia in the offseason. Gorzo is on the same tier as KC and Paulie and probably slightly better than either.

]]>
By: Brian Allen http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/07/revisiting-the-trades-of-the-last-few-years-part-2.html#comment-7950 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:31:00 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=13261#comment-7950 With the Gorzo trade, ask yourself this: who would he replace in the current rotation?  Nobody.  In fact, I wouldn’t even say it’s a sure thing he’d be 6th in line with Lincoln showing promise and Ohli coming back someday.  What did the Pirates lose moving him?

]]>
By: Anonymous http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/07/revisiting-the-trades-of-the-last-few-years-part-2.html#comment-7908 Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:56:00 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=13261#comment-7908 My only problem is you give too much of a pass on the Gorzo deal. I don’t think he was anything like Snell at the time; he was succeeding in AAA but NH clearly had a problem with him when he wouldn’t call him up. That trade is a black eye for Huntington all the way.

]]>
By: McCard http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/07/revisiting-the-trades-of-the-last-few-years-part-2.html#comment-7832 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:16:00 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=13261#comment-7832 Why trade anybody? Keep doing what  you’re doing with the talent you have. Why get rid of Maholm? He is pitching decent and these guys need a five man rotation right now for the rest of the season to give them the rest between starts. I say hold the cards you have to play with and bring up some minor leaguers when the time comes along with some DL players when they are once again healthy.

]]>
By: brendan http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/07/revisiting-the-trades-of-the-last-few-years-part-2.html#comment-7830 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:01:00 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=13261#comment-7830 You’re correct he was still a prospect of some note, although his status was in decline was it not? Regardless I would have preferred they target higher ceiling players further from the majors but I understand they went with the players they did. I think people also have the expectation that when you trade Jason Bay you’re going to get a Bartolo Colon like return (Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips, Cliff Lee) but even that was particularly lopsided and in general teams are less likely to give up high upside prospects in those kinds of trades than they were a decade ago, I think returns for Johan Santana or CC Sabathia and Cliff Lee (when they were traded to Brewers an Phillies respectively are an example of that). Sure the Rangers got a nice return for Teixera, who was younger than Bay, when they traded him in 2007 ( Feliz and Andrus were both several years from the Majors) but look at what the Braves got when they traded him during his free agent year. Casey Kotchman and Steve Marek.

]]>
By: Tim Williams http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/07/revisiting-the-trades-of-the-last-few-years-part-2.html#comment-7829 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 20:50:00 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=13261#comment-7829 On the Bay return, a lot of people forget that LaRoche was a top 40 prospect when he was dealt.  They also went with Morris, who was in A-ball.  Those two were the key to the deal.  They were the Tabata/Ohlendorf part of the return.  Moss/Hansen were the Karstens/McCutchen part of the return.  I don’t think they settled for lesser players at all.  As for how it turned out…that’s a different story.

As for McLouth, I think what Huntington said was correct in how they felt.  They were linked to those prospects before in the Bay deal.  If they wanted to trade Bay to get a return that included guys like Locke, Morton, and Hernandez, then it would make sense that they would deal McLouth to get a similar return.

]]>
By: brendan http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/07/revisiting-the-trades-of-the-last-few-years-part-2.html#comment-7828 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 20:40:00 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=13261#comment-7828 I think you’re analysis is correct the perception that Huntington has been unsuccessful when making trade stems largely from the Bay deal. When I evaluate a GM’s tracking record, trades, free agents, the draft, etc. I look both at the return and the overall philosophy behind their player acquisitions. The reality is that no GM is going to have perfect track record with respect to results but if their philosophy is consistent and appropriate for improving the team I can’t quibble too much unless the results of the trade begin to lean overwhelming to negative results and I don’t think that’s the case with Huntington. The problem with the Bay trade philosophically is that he chose to acquire players (LaRoche, Moss) who were closer to the Majors but had lower ceilings as opposed to higher ceiling players who were several years away. I think this was probably because the Pirates were bereft of candidates in their own system to to replace those they were trading. In retrospect they probably could have found players on the waiver wire who would have provided similar value to those two in the short term.

I think reaction to the McClouth trade was so negative in part because the Pirates had both implicit and explicit stated that he was a player who would have value over the next few years by signing him to a new contract and labeling him a cornerstone of the franchise (or something to that effect). Thus fans and writers concluded that the Pirates had dumped a valuable player at the point which they would actually have to pay him commensurate to his performance, which easily fit with the narrative that Pirates were a team who would send a player packing as soon as they had to ‘pay him’. At the time Huntingon was quoted as say they had no previous plans to trade him but that they simply couldn’t turn down the deal as they felt it improved the organization in the long term. I’d be curious to know if the Pirates feelings about McClouth changed in between the contract and the trade. If they decided that he was at peak value and it would be wise to trade him or they simply liked the return and thought that while McClouth would have value the players they received in return would be more valuable.. Regardless the trade has evolved to be a clear success at this point.

]]>
By: Anonymous http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/07/revisiting-the-trades-of-the-last-few-years-part-2.html#comment-7825 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 20:17:00 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=13261#comment-7825 Hopefully the Cubs will send us help like we’ve done for them in the past with a lop-sided deal.

NH should get recoginized for his ability to deal Hinske, Church and Crosby-even if he was the one who acquired them.

]]>