Pirates Outright Daniel McCutchen, Jeff Clement, and Eric Fryer

The Pittsburgh Pirates have outrighted Daniel McCutchen, Jeff Clement, and Eric Fryer to Triple-A Indianapolis. We previously heard that Clement and Fryer had been designated for assignment when the team created room for the waiver claims of Chad Beck and Ali Solis. This is the first we’ve heard that McCutchen was removed from the 40-man roster.

Fryer has already elected free agency, while Clement and McCutchen can both elect minor league free agency on Friday.

Tim Williams

Author: Tim Williams

Tim is the owner and editor in chief of Pirates Prospects. He started the site in January 2009, and turned it into his full time job during the 2011 season. Prior to starting Pirates Prospects, Tim worked with AccuScore.com, providing MLB, NHL, and NFL coverage to various national media outlets, including ESPN Insider, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, and the Wall Street Journal. He also writes the annual Prospect Guide, which is sold through the site. Tim lives in Bradenton, where he provides live coverage all year of Spring Training, mini camp, instructs, the Bradenton Marauders, and the GCL Pirates.

Share This Post On
  • leadoff

    Players that probably would not figure in the Pirates plans any way.

    • http://twitter.com/beatembuccos21 beatembuccos21

      It’s interesting that Fryer is likely not in the Pirates plans. He was traded for a guy who out hit his Pirate counterparts for a couple of seasons and did so while making less money. It wasn’t all that long ago that this site was touting Fryer’s acquisition as a ‘huge victory’ simply because Fryer made the Majors.

      http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/07/revisiting-the-trades-of-the-last-few-years-part-1.html

      The fact that DCutch is also likey not in the team’s plans, that Ohlendorf is gone, that Karstens might be non-tendered and that Tabata as of right now might be justifiably squeezed out of a starting spot makes the Nady/Marte trade look a lot less promising than it has in the past.

      • http://www.piratesprospects.com Tim Williams

        The fact that the Pirates got someone who reached the majors in return for Hinske was big. Hinske had no trade value at the time.

        You’re pointing out that Hinske’s numbers were better than his replacements the next two years. That speaks poorly about the replacements, but doesn’t change the fact that Hinske had no trade value as a bench player with a .741 OPS and one homer in 106 at-bats.

        • http://twitter.com/beatembuccos21 beatembuccos21

          Hinske hit 28 homers in his next ~650 PAs after the trade. How is it ‘big’ to get a catcher with no extra base hits among his eight career hits in exchange for Hinske?

          It is easy to argue that he had no trade value since his OPS+ was a mere 99 when he was dealt and that he apparently wasn’t happy here. But he clearly had value. It’s a shame that the front office was unable to get value in return for a player with some mileage left. Especially when they had inadequate replacements.

          This isn’t the worst of Huntington’s trade gaffes by any stretch. But getting Fryer for Hinske certainly wasn’t a ‘huge victory’ nor is it ‘big’. You could take the stance that this trade was minor or insignificant. But to declare this trade a victory for Huntington? No way.

          • http://www.piratesprospects.com Tim Williams

            What Hinske did after the trade has no impact on his value. What impacts his value is what he was doing at the time of the trade. He wasn’t producing and didn’t want to play here. His value was shown when they had to pay to get anything in return at all.

  • http://twitter.com/beatembuccos21 beatembuccos21

    Tim – For some reason I can’t reply right back to your comment above.

    I’m not sure how you can say Hinske’s value is only based on what he was doing right then and there. I would think GMs look at past performance to gauge if the current mediocre performance can be improved upon in the future.

    I have a hard time calling this a win for Huntington when:
    1. Hinske was good enough to hit nearly 30 homers in part time duty over the next 2+ years and the player he was acquired for has less than 10 career hits

    and

    2. Someone (Ryan Langerhans) of lesser value than Hinske was in the same time frame traded for someone (Michael Morse) who has hit 60+ homers in the last two seasons.

    This was simply not a win for Huntington. But, again, I’m not carrying a pitchfork for Huntington over this in particular because in the scheme this was a fairly minor trade (although this is a small case that points to a larger problem). But I disagree that this can be called a win or that getting a player with eight major league hits was ‘big’. I see this as either a loss or – at best – inconsequential in the whole scheme, but a continuation of Huntington’s inability to extract value in trades.

    • http://twitter.com/beatembuccos21 beatembuccos21

      That should be last 2 plus seasons for Morse’s homer total…