Comments on: First Pitch: The Five Players That Represent a Microcosm of Neal Huntington’s Abilities http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html Your best source for news on the Pittsburgh Pirates and their minor league system. Mon, 28 Jul 2014 06:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.1 By: Kerry Writtenhouse http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html#comment-23709 Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:09:25 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=45492#comment-23709 Prospects weren’t valued as highly as they are today. The players being traded were better than the players Huntington was trading with the exception of Bay, who;s value was diminished somewhat because of injury. That being said, we will be facing the possibility of trading players coming up. I don’t see Alvarez signing any kind of extension, so I see him being dealt in the not so distant future. Hopefully, Huntington or whoever it may be, will have the guts to make those type of deals when the time comes.

]]>
By: Tim Williams http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html#comment-23707 Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:18:58 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=45492#comment-23707 They could have still signed LaRoche as a free agent, even after dealing him. Keeping him and offering arbitration would have been risky. He would have received a raise on his $7 M salary. He ended up getting $6 M guaranteed.

]]>
By: Ecbucs http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html#comment-23706 Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:14:00 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=45492#comment-23706 LaRoche didn’t have to be a two month rental but NH decided that was the time to deal him. He could have considered bringing LaRoche back or offering him arbitration. But the Bucs probably because of their own internal financial constraints felt the best return on LaRoche was trading him when his value had declined (sort of like Hanrahan although less excusable since the team was not close to competing).

]]>
By: Tim Williams http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html#comment-23704 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:42:31 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=45492#comment-23704 “You look at the above and say “Huntington had good reason not to deal him until when he did. Therefore, LaRoche was a two month rental and you can’t expect a much in return for a two month rental.””

Nope. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m simply pointing out that LaRoche was a two month rental and didn’t have much value.

That brought up your debate that they should have traded him earlier and didn’t. And to each of your “and didn’t” examples, I pointed out valid reasons why he didn’t deal him. To go over them again.

2. They were shopping him. Why do you think he didn’t make a deal? Could it be because another team didn’t pay the price?
3. Waiver deals come with horrible values, which I’ve shown in this discussion. I doubt a waiver deal gets a better return than Diaz/Strickland. So that’s kind of moot.
4. Hindsight. Most of the trades came after LaRoche was injured. This is where your argument gets ridiculous. Anyone who is reasonable about this could see that LaRoche was injured at the deadline, which is a valid reason why he wasn’t traded.

“I look at the above and say “the only reason he was a two month rental is because Huntington didn’t deal him earlier.””

Again, that’s a very simplistic approach. That’s not my style. I looked into all of the chances they had to deal him. The only argument that could be made would be the 08-09 off-season, and we had reports that they were shopping him. If you go deeper than “he didn’t trade him before the 09 deadline”, then you see that they either couldn’t trade LaRoche due to injuries, or they didn’t trade him presumably because no one was offering any value during the off-season.

]]>
By: beatembuccos21 http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html#comment-23703 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:29:01 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=45492#comment-23703 I’m looking at facts, just like you are:
1. Huntington traded LaRoche at the trading deadline in 2009.
2. Huntington could’ve traded LaRoche in the 2008-09 off season and didn’t
3. Huntington could’ve traded LaRoche in a waiver deal in August 2008 and didn’t
4. Huntington – who was active in the trade market in the weeks leading up to the 2008 trading deadline – didn’t trade LaRoche before he went on the DL just ahead of the actual deadline.

You look at the above and say “Huntington had good reason not to deal him until when he did. Therefore, LaRoche was a two month rental and you can’t expect a much in return for a two month rental.” I look at the above and say “the only reason he was a two month rental is because Huntington didn’t deal him earlier.”

]]>
By: beatembuccos21 http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html#comment-23701 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:19:51 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=45492#comment-23701 When Huntington traded his vets, he didn’t get anything comparable to Bonilla, Drabek or Van Slyke. Worse yet, the second line of talent that those veterans from another last place, cashed strap team brought in return – Bream, Bell, LaValliere, etc – were better than what Huntington has brought in. As I’ve noted elsewhere in these comments – I don’t think it is too much to ask for one impact player in return for a major league roster.

]]>
By: Daryl Restly http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html#comment-23699 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 22:07:17 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=45492#comment-23699 I have to agree. GM Syd Thrift did most of the drafting and wheeling and dealing that built the three division championship teams from ’90-’92. I believe he was gone. He brought in an unknown Jim Leyland as the Pirates manager, picked up Bobby Bonilla from the White Sox, drafted Barry Bonds and Jeff King, traded established veterans Tony Pena, Johnny Ray, Rick Reuschel, Rick Rhoden and picked up Andy Van Slyke, Mike Lavalliere, Mike Dunne, Jim Gott, Jeff Robinson, and Doug Drabek, all key contributors to either the 1988 second place finish or the three division championship teams.

That said, I do believe that the Pirates are on the cusp of doing some great things. They just need a few more pieces in place. The ideal situation would be for Marte, Snider, Tabata, Presley, Jones and G. Sanchez, Sands to all play well in 2013 along with McCutchen, Walker, Alvarez, McKenry, Martin, Burnett, Rodriguez, Liriano, McDonald, Grilli, to the point where one of the current question marks could be a bargaining chip to fill a void elsewhere. I realize that isn’t likely given there probably aren’t enough at bats for all of them.

I personally think we see a scenario where one of them will do very well (I’m thinking Marte) while the others will battle it out between right field and first base, with Jones or Sands likely winning the 1B job and Tabata, Snider, Presley, and possibly Jones battling it out in RF. All this said, I’m not even considering 1B Clint Robinson into the equation.

]]>
By: Tim Williams http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html#comment-23694 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 20:05:40 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=45492#comment-23694 “But claiming the timing of his being on the DL – the trading deadline – is a reason why he wasn’t dealt for more is misleading. It wasn’t like LaRoche had been out for six weeks with a serious injury. Huntington had the bulk of the month of July to work out a deal.”

First, I’m not being misleading. I’m pointing out a fact. You’re arguing in hindsight. The basis of your argument is that they had the entire month to work out a deal. But this is an argument in hindsight. The only reason they would have made a deal before the injury is if they knew the injury would take place. That’s impossible.

“Among players dealt in August 2009 included Ivan Rodriguez, Aubrey Huff and Billy Wagner. So, waiver wire deals were being worked out with players who had name recognition.”

And as I said, the return in those deals is small. Look at the players Rodriguez landed. Neither will make the majors. Huff landed Brett Jacobsen, who had a 7.50 ERA in AA at the age of 25. Wagner got two players. One washed out. The other, Chris Carter, made the majors but looks like a 4A player. So are we just giving credit to other teams for making trades without considering the return?

“There might be good reasons why he didn’t deal him ahead of time. But you aren’t exercising objectivity when you claim ‘what do you expect in return for a two month rental.’ He was a two month rental because Huntington waited to trade him.”

I don’t think you know what “objectivity” means. I’m looking at the facts here. He had very little value because he was a high priced two month rental. He was injured the previous year at the deadline. To my knowledge, he didn’t clear waivers, which is the only way he would have any value in an August trade. They were asking for top prospects in return that off-season, which suggests they didn’t get any takers. If anyone isn’t exercising objectivity, it’s you. You’ve had the same argument from the start. I keep bringing up facts which prove your argument wrong, yet you ignore them and keep the same argument. When your argument is boiled down to citing other players who were traded without considering the return, or clearly arguing in hindsight, then you’re not being objective. Objectivity is where you argue without a bias. In this case you’re showing a bias. The facts are proving your argument wrong, yet your argument remains the same.

“But don’t you think it is reasonable to expect one impact player in return for a roster full of MLB players (even if they come from a last place team)?”

I don’t look at them as “a roster full of MLB players”. That’s a very simplistic approach. I prefer to look at the quality and value of each individual player.

“Are you honestly happy with the returns that NH got in these deals collectively?”

I don’t think I’ve said I was happy with the returns, so I’m not sure where this question comes from. Pointing out that they didn’t have much to trade from has nothing to do with my feelings on the trades.

]]>
By: NorCal Buc http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html#comment-23693 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:54:56 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=45492#comment-23693 107 losses; then contending the next July, and the following August?!
I’m merely looking at the players, the improvement, and expecting more of the same.
This ain’t molecular astro-dynamics.

]]>
By: beatembuccos21 http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/01/first-pitch-the-five-players-that-represent-a-microcosm-of-neal-huntingtons-abilities.html#comment-23692 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:48:20 +0000 http://www.piratesprospects.com/?p=45492#comment-23692 Of course NH can’t know when players are going to get hurt. But claiming the timing of his being on the DL – the trading deadline – is a reason why he wasn’t dealt for more is misleading. It wasn’t like LaRoche had been out for six weeks with a serious injury. Huntington had the bulk of the month of July to work out a deal. He had the entire off season to work out a deal.

Among players dealt in August 2009 included Ivan Rodriguez, Aubrey Huff and Billy Wagner. So, waiver wire deals were being worked out with players who had name recognition.

There might be good reasons why he didn’t deal him ahead of time. But you aren’t exercising objectivity when you claim ‘what do you expect in return for a two month rental.’ He was a two month rental because Huntington waited to trade him.

I agree I’m looking at this in hindsight. But don’t you think it is reasonable to expect one impact player in return for a roster full of MLB players (even if they come from a last place team)? It’d be much easier to excuse some of these trades if one of them had delivered something of value (not a closer) to the major league team. Are you honestly happy with the returns that NH got in these deals collectively?

]]>