Pirates Outright Daniel McCutchen, Jeff Clement, and Eric Fryer

  • 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


    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.

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

    • 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.

      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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.