PDA

View Full Version : Freddy Sanchez traded to Giants



Benihana
07-29-2009, 07:26 PM
For Tim Alderson. No money exchanged. VERY impressive haul for the Pirates.

Highlifeman21
07-29-2009, 07:28 PM
I can't wait to see how the Pirates will continue to screw up their team over the next 2-3 years with their recent additions.

savafan
07-29-2009, 07:28 PM
How long before the Reds are looking up at the Pirates in the standings?

Highlifeman21
07-29-2009, 07:30 PM
How long before the Reds are looking up at the Pirates in the standings?

2011 definitely, unless the Pirates find a way to continue to screw things up.

Falls City Beer
07-29-2009, 07:30 PM
How long before the Reds are looking up at the Pirates in the standings?

I'll give it 5 games.

This team could make the Pope contemplate suicide. They're terrible in so many ways.

CTA513
07-29-2009, 07:33 PM
How long before the Reds are looking up at the Pirates in the standings?

If the Reds don't finish in 1st or 2nd then it doesn't matter.

savafan
07-29-2009, 07:34 PM
If the Reds don't finish in 1st or 2nd then it doesn't matter.

Oh, it matters. Finishing behind the Pirates is...I can't even think of how to describe it, because I never thought it would be possible.

Falls City Beer
07-29-2009, 07:36 PM
If the Reds don't finish in 1st or 2nd then it doesn't matter.

In terms of symbolism though, it does say something. Dead last. Dead last in the weakest division in baseball.

Put that in their pipes and smoke it.

I'd say firesell everything, but no one wants the crap the Reds are peddling. So not only are they awful, but they're ungodly expensive and ours for the life of their contracts.

Stormy
07-29-2009, 07:38 PM
In terms of symbolism though, it does say something. Dead last. Dead last in the weakest division in baseball.

Put that in their pipes and smoke it.

I'd say firesell everything, but no one wants the crap the Reds are peddling. So not only are they awful, but they're ungodly expensive and ours for the life of their contracts.

That pretty much sums it up. Wayne misfired a little too frequently, and Walt's kept his powder so dry that it's evaporated.

RedsManRick
07-29-2009, 07:42 PM
This is how a firesale works. Trade everything you have that isn't part of the future for as much future value as you can get. Shame the Reds couldn't do this 5 years ago when it was clear they needed a full rebuild.

Benihana
07-29-2009, 07:45 PM
That pretty much sums it up. Wayne misfired a little too frequently, and Walt's kept his powder so dry that it's evaporated.

Yep. If the Reds can't move Harang or Arroyo by the end of the summer, 2010 is DOA.

I can't believe how fast Harang has fallen off a cliff.

Falls City Beer
07-29-2009, 07:46 PM
This is how a firesale works. Trade everything you have that isn't part of the future for as much future value as you can get. Shame the Reds couldn't do this 5 years ago when it was clear they needed a full rebuild.

At this point, I think the question to ask isn't "who's not part of the future?" rather "Is there a single MLB talent on the 40 man roster?"

This franchise is a disgrace that even the sharpest of statistical minds couldn't fix.

CTA513
07-29-2009, 07:47 PM
In terms of symbolism though, it does say something. Dead last. Dead last in the weakest division in baseball.

Put that in their pipes and smoke it.

I'd say firesell everything, but no one wants the crap the Reds are peddling. So not only are they awful, but they're ungodly expensive and ours for the life of their contracts.

Finishing last shouldn't be what the Reds need to know they haven't been good for a while.

Falls City Beer
07-29-2009, 07:48 PM
Yep. If the Reds can't move Harang or Arroyo by the end of the summer, 2010 is DOA.

Who the hell would want them? You can eliminate the contenders from that list.

No one's going to take a flyer on them because they're too damn expensive.

savafan
07-29-2009, 07:51 PM
Who the hell would want them? You can eliminate the contenders from that list.

No one's going to take a flyer on them because they're too damn expensive.

And why would a contender want to start a guy who gives up 5 runs in 5-6 innings nearly every time out?

jojo
07-29-2009, 07:55 PM
At this point, I think the question to ask isn't "who's not part of the future?" rather "Is there a single MLB talent on the 40 man roster?"

This franchise is a disgrace that even the sharpest of statistical minds couldn't fix.

Votto, Harang, Phillips, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, Cordero, and Rhodes are all easily legit major league starters or high leverage pen options.

PuffyPig
07-29-2009, 08:02 PM
Votto, Harang, Phillips, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, Cordero, and Rhodes are all easily legit major league starters or high leverage pen options.

To be fair, FCB did ask if there was a "single" major league talent on the team.

I'm sure some of those guys are married.

Query why FCB was curious, not that there's anything wrong with that.....

OnBaseMachine
07-29-2009, 08:20 PM
To be fair, FCB did ask if there was a "single" major league talent on the team.

I'm sure some of those guys are married.

Query why FCB was curious, not that there's anything wrong with that.....

:laugh::thumbup:

btw, nice deal by the Pirates.

RedsManRick
07-29-2009, 08:25 PM
At this point, I think the question to ask isn't "who's not part of the future?" rather "Is there a single MLB talent on the 40 man roster?"

This franchise is a disgrace that even the sharpest of statistical minds couldn't fix.

Ah, yes. The good old Stuart Little approach is always a reasonable one.

We could be a respectable organization simply by stopping shooting ourselves in the foot. We just can't get seem to get out of our own way. We sign Taveras to a two year deal when he doesn't deserve a 1-year deal. We bring back Hairston and Lincoln after fluke career years. We extend a bargain-priced Arroyo when he has nowhere to go but down. We devote 20% of our payroll to a guy who pitches 5% of our innings.

Simply get rid of all of the sub-replacement junk and clear out the clearly stupid contracts (i.e. we knew it was bad as soon as it was signed) and we'd be a near .500 team. There's a lot of talent in this organization, if not a playoff team's worth. It just isn't used very well. We have mediocre resources and use them poorly.

MrCinatit
07-29-2009, 08:27 PM
This is how a firesale works. Trade everything you have that isn't part of the future for as much future value as you can get. Shame the Reds couldn't do this 5 years ago when it was clear they needed a full rebuild.


This is very true - the perfect fire sale is selling off the guys nearing not only a higher salary, but whose best years could be behind them.
The only problem is, it is the Pirates, who will most likely be repeating this in about two years, four years, six years...

RedsManRick
07-29-2009, 08:31 PM
This is very true - the perfect fire sale is selling off the guys nearing not only a higher salary, but whose best years could be behind them.
The only problem is, it is the Pirates, who will most likely be repeating this in about two years, four years, six years...

Considering that this fire sale is taking place under new management, I think you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. These aren't the Cam Bonifay/ Dave Littlefield Pirates. People were saying similar things about the Rays and Brewers 3 years ago when they embarked on their youth movements. Not all fire-sales are created equal. What's equally important is how you capitalize on the infusion of talent.

M2
07-29-2009, 08:32 PM
The dirty secret with Alderson is he's all curve with a show-me heater, kind of like a RH Dennis Rasmussen.

OnBaseMachine
07-29-2009, 08:33 PM
Freddy Sanchez for... Who?! Seriously?
by Marc Hulet - 7/29/2009 -

One of the most enjoyable parts of writing for a site like Fangraphs is "hearing" the banter between writers behind the scenes. After news broke of the Pittsburgh-San Francisco deal that saw second baseman Freddy Sanchez head from the Pirates to the Giants, these comments were made from some of Fangraphs' finest:

"What the hell?"

"The best pitching prospect of the day doesn't get traded for Cliff Lee, but for Freddy Sanchez. Awesome. Nice job, Cleveland."

"My lord, Sabean, what are you doing?"

Just when you thought it was safe to love San Francisco prospects again, general manager Brian Sabean tossed away the club's second best pitching prospect for an injury-prone, veteran second baseman in his free agent year (although he has an $8 million option that is way too high). Oh, and the Giants organization just gave away its third best pitching prospect (Scott Barnes) to the Indians for a league-average first baseman. Madison Bumgarner is suddenly very, very lonely.

Alderson is just 20 years old and he's holding his own in double-A. The 6'6' right-hander also has above-average command and control for his age. He can throw in the low-90s and has a plus curveball and a developing changeup. In 13 double-A starts, Alderson allowed 76 hits in 72.2 innings of work, while posting a walk rate of just 1.73 BB/9 and a strikeout rate of 5.70 K/9 (which will no doubt rise as he gains experience). The 22nd pick of the 2007 draft had hit a rough patch lately with three straight "meh" starts, but, again, he's 20 years old and pitching in double-A with exceptional command and control for his age.

Sanchez is currently hitting .296/.334/.442 with six homers and five RBI in 355 at-bats. The 31-year-old could slot into the No. 2 hole in the lineup for San Francisco. Defensively, he plays a solid but unspectacular second base, which will help fill a season-long hole for the Giants. Sanchez definitely has an edge on defense, but is his offense really that much better than current second baseman Juan Uribe's triple-slash line of .284/.314/.431? Is the slight offensive edge plus Sanchez' glove really worth Alderson?

Sanchez is a nice complementary player, but he definitely should not have cost an A-level pitching prospect. In five years, this (panic?) trade is going to hurt.

P.S. The Pirates just got more value for Sanchez than Ricciardi could drum up for Halladay. That has to burn.

http://www.fangraphs.com/

RedsManRick
07-29-2009, 08:37 PM
While I like the deal for Pittsburgh, you have to take the value of any A ball prospect with a massive grain of salt. Even the best ones aren't a sure thing to even make the majors, let alone be a regular contributor. What's sad is that the Pirates were able to get such a good prospect when they had essentially no leverage.

Falls City Beer
07-29-2009, 08:40 PM
Votto, Harang, Phillips, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, Cordero, and Rhodes are all easily legit major league starters or high leverage pen options.

My anger reaction aside, every team, no matter how awful, has 7/25th of a major league roster. And really, as cores go, this is a pretty underwhelming bunch.

Brutus
07-29-2009, 08:46 PM
I actually liked this deal for Pittsburgh. In a market where hardly any top prospects have been parting ways, they actually got one for a middle infielder with very little power. Not bad.

However, am I alone in not liking what Pittsburgh has done the past year as a whole? To this point, they've gotten a ton of quantity in the past one year, but not a lot of quality until today, in my honest opinion.

I thought they got a very disappointing return for Nate McLouth.
They were, in my opinion, fleeced in the Jason Bay trade.
The Xavier Nady trade was decent, but I'm not a big Jose Tabata fan.
Did not get too much for Adam LaRoche, though I would not expect them to.
I guess I understood the Nyjer Morgan and Sean Burnett trade, but not high on Milledge and I did not like the fact they threw in Burnett, who is finally pitching well.

So really, other than the deals with Seattle and and San Francisco today, I'm just not all that convinced they did themselves a huge favor with the players they got in return. They'll find in a few years they have a roster full of solid players, but I'm not seeing much upside with too many of these guys. They definitely turned the roster over and replenished the system with depth, I'll give them that. But in terms of prospects' ceiling, they didn't get as much with that core of players as I thought they might have. At least they finished strong with these last two deals. I definitely am impressed with that.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-29-2009, 09:16 PM
I predict the Pirates will be back (finally) contending well before the Reds.

They finally seem to have a plan.

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 09:51 PM
My anger reaction aside, every team, no matter how awful, has 7/25th of a major league roster. And really, as cores go, this is a pretty underwhelming bunch.

What really stings is that, take Harang/Cordero out of that 7/25ths and don't extend Arroyo and that is a very solid and very, very cheap 20% of a roster.

You'd be going into next year's offseason with some money in your wallet and a fun core of young players.

But now we are paying 40% of next year's payroll to 2 starters obviously on the wrong side of the hill and a closer.

That, my friends, is pure brilliance. And everyone wonders why I was so negative about what Krivsky was trying to accomplish. Now should have been the time to start thinking about spending money. Not when the team was still a few years away.

Caveat Emperor
07-29-2009, 09:55 PM
How long before the Reds are looking up at the Pirates in the standings?

Never.

This is the same song and dance from the Pirates. The names change (Brian Giles --> Jason Bay --> Jack Wilson --> Freddy Sanchez) but the story remains the same.

They're every bit as pathetic as the Reds, the only difference is they won't even occasionally drop coin on a big signing to give their fans false hope the way the Reds do.

HokieRed
07-29-2009, 09:57 PM
What really stings is that, take Harang/Cordero out of that 7/25ths and don't extend Arroyo and that is a very solid and very, very cheap 20% of a roster.

You'd be going into next year's offseason with some money in your wallet and a fun core of young players.

But now we are paying 40% of next year's payroll to 2 starters obviously on the wrong side of the hill and a closer.

That, my friends, is pure brilliance. And everyone wonders why I was so negative about what Krivsky was trying to accomplish. Now should have been the time to start thinking about spending money. Not when the team was still a few years away.

About all you can say that's good on the contract side is that we'll finally be saying goodbye to Gonzalez, whose contract frankly, IMHO, rivals Milton's.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-29-2009, 09:59 PM
Never.

This is the same song and dance from the Pirates. The names change (Brian Giles --> Jason Bay --> Jack Wilson --> Freddy Sanchez) but the story remains the same.

They're every bit as pathetic as the Reds, the only difference is they won't even occasionally drop coin on a big signing to give their fans false hope the way the Reds do.

I don't agree. I think they have a plan.

And Littlefield no longer being associated with them helps as well.

They are also players now in Latin America.

I would buy stock in their franchise way before I'd consider buying anything with the Reds.

I(heart)Freel
07-29-2009, 10:09 PM
I don't agree. I think they have a plan.

And Littlefield no longer being associated with them helps as well.

They are also players now in Latin America.

I would buy stock in their franchise way before I'd consider buying anything with the Reds.

Yorman Rodriguez and Juan Duran say "hola!"

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 10:09 PM
About all you can say that's good on the contract side is that we'll finally be saying goodbye to Gonzalez, whose contract frankly, IMHO, rivals Milton's.

Yeah, I guess that's a plus.

savafan
07-29-2009, 10:17 PM
Never.

This is the same song and dance from the Pirates. The names change (Brian Giles --> Jason Bay --> Jack Wilson --> Freddy Sanchez) but the story remains the same.

They're every bit as pathetic as the Reds, the only difference is they won't even occasionally drop coin on a big signing to give their fans false hope the way the Reds do.

They did bring in Matt Morris and Sean Casey...not that it did them any good.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-29-2009, 10:22 PM
Yorman Rodriguez and Juan Duran say "hola!"

Hola, mis amigos!

The Reds are in on L.A. too, but unlike the Buccos, they don't seem to have a plan with their roster.

savafan
07-29-2009, 10:34 PM
The Pirates are also scouting cricket players in India. May not work, but they're thinking outside the box, and it may prove to be genius in the end.

RED VAN HOT
07-29-2009, 10:46 PM
I noticed that after pitching only 5 innings in the rookie leagues at age 18, the Giants moved Alderson to the A+ California league the following year and allowed him to pitch 145 innings. Despite the glowing reports about his potential, this year his numbers are down....H/9 up and K/9 down. I am not certain that this was a steal for the Bucs.

LINEDRIVER
07-30-2009, 02:39 AM
The Pittsburgh organization will only be happy when the payroll gets down to what? 4 million? 3 million? Shoot for 2 and settle for 3???

redsfandan
07-30-2009, 07:22 AM
I noticed that after pitching only 5 innings in the rookie leagues at age 18, the Giants moved Alderson to the A+ California league the following year and allowed him to pitch 145 innings. Despite the glowing reports about his potential, this year his numbers are down....H/9 up and K/9 down. I am not certain that this was a steal for the Bucs.
The year that he pitched only 5 innings was also after his senior year in high school had just ended. So, while 145 ip may have been excessive the next year, it's not like he only pitched 5 innings total the previous year when you include his senior year. He's still really young and, by most accounts that I've seen, a good prospect.

On a sidenote, Randy Johnson may not start another game for the Giants. Combine that with overpaying for an overpaid Sanchez and it makes me wonder what they'd give up for an overpaid Arroyo.

edit: Not positive but Alderson maybe one of the 10 youngest players in AA. Not saying there isn't anything for the Bucs to be concerned about. Just that it could be that almost everyone else in AA is older than he is.

membengal
07-30-2009, 08:09 AM
Everyone knew the Giants were in the market for a 2b. Everyone knows that the Giants will actually deal prospects.

I remain befuddled why Brandon Phillips isn't in SF this morning for a haul of talent from SF. They would have paid it.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Still spinning tires, year after year, in Cincinnati.

Benihana
07-30-2009, 09:41 AM
Everyone knew the Giants were in the market for a 2b. Everyone knows that the Giants will actually deal prospects.

I remain befuddled why Brandon Phillips isn't in SF this morning for a haul of talent from SF. They would have paid it.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Still spinning tires, year after year, in Cincinnati.

I wonder if we could have gotten Bumgarner and Posey for Phillips, considering they're willing to deal Alderson for Sanchez. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I really like what the Pirates are doing.

jojo
07-30-2009, 11:07 AM
I wonder if we could have gotten Bumgarner and Posey for Phillips, considering they're willing to deal Alderson for Sanchez. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I really like what the Pirates are doing.

The Pirates found themselves at the bottom of the barrel from top to bottom with an unfixable 25 man roster that really had no chance of competeing. They have been trying to infuse their system with as much talent as possible since cleaning out the FO.

Most youngsters will flame out of course but the Pirates have got to start somewhere and free agency/investing heavily in payroll is the wrong fork in the road for them.

membengal
07-30-2009, 11:14 AM
Benihana agrees Jojo. As do I.

My point was, which benihana was agreeing with, was that IF sanchez pulled Alderson, then the haul for Phillips might have been stout.

We will never know.

IslandRed
07-30-2009, 12:03 PM
I don't agree. I think they have a plan.

And Littlefield no longer being associated with them helps as well.

Well, you might be justified in assuming the current management will execute the plan better than Littlefield did, but up to this point, it's the same plan.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-30-2009, 12:06 PM
Well, you might be justified in assuming the current management will execute the plan better than Littlefield did, but up to this point, it's the same plan.

I'll believe you when they start doling out contracts to the Jack Wilson's and Matt Morris's of the world.

Until then, I think they are in full rebuild mode.

Must be nice to have a plan.

IslandRed
07-30-2009, 12:41 PM
I'll believe you when they start doling out contracts to the Jack Wilson's and Matt Morris's of the world.

Until then, I think they are in full rebuild mode.

Must be nice to have a plan.

The occasional feign-competitiveness free-agent sign aside, the Pirates have been on the rebuilding plan since Bonds left. Maybe Huntington will get it right, we'll see.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2009, 12:43 PM
The occasional feign-competitiveness free-agent sign aside, the Pirates have been on the rebuilding plan since Bonds left. Maybe Huntington will get it right, we'll see.

I agree. This is definitely grass-is-greener thinking. Huntington is getting the benefit of the doubt not because of what he's done, but what he hasn't done. That doesn't strike me as the most solid logic.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-30-2009, 12:46 PM
I agree. This is definitely grass-is-greener thinking. Huntington is getting the benefit of the doubt not because of what he's done, but what he hasn't done. That doesn't strike me as the most solid logic.


Nah, Huntington is getting the benefit of the doubt (by me at least) because he's Huntington and I truly believe that Pittsburgh is lucky to have him as a GM.

We'll see.

My bet that they are relevant before the Reds are still stands. Feel free to book mark this thread.

jojo
07-30-2009, 02:29 PM
Isn't Huntington getting a pass because he's doing what he should be doing?

Nobody is saying that he's been perfect but rather it's not appropriate to conflate a decade and a half of incompetence with a year and a half of pouring cement for a foundation so that something sustainable might actually be built.

It's kinda early to criticise the color scheme in the master suite.....

Falls City Beer
07-30-2009, 02:35 PM
Isn't Huntington getting a pass because he's doing what he should be doing?

Nobody is saying that he's been perfect but rather it's not appropriate to conflate a decade and a half of incompetence with a year and a half of pouring cement for a foundation so that something sustainable might actually be built.

It's kinda early to criticise the color scheme in the master suite.....

I'd say it's best not to have an opinion one way or another. And that means not giving someone a pass or criticizing them. It means observing but not reaching a conclusion.

TheNext44
07-30-2009, 02:42 PM
Isn't Huntington getting a pass because he's doing what he should be doing?

Nobody is saying that he's been perfect but rather it's not appropriate to conflate a decade and a half of incompetence with a year and a half of pouring cement for a foundation so that something sustainable might actually be built.

It's kinda early to criticise the color scheme in the master suite.....


Completely agree.

They key to rebuilding a team like the Pirates is to get rid of anyone not part of your future, and get whatever you can for them. If you look at successful rebuilding projects, the future team that competes rarely has more than one or two players that were acquired in the fire sale, if any.

With the risk attached to all prospects, the best a GM can do is to get as many as he can and hope he gets lucky. The important part of the rebuilding process is what is done after the fire sale, in the draft, free agent acquisitions, and trades.

Huntington has done the first part fine, but the key is what he does from now on.

IslandRed
07-30-2009, 04:23 PM
My point was, which benihana was agreeing with, was that IF sanchez pulled Alderson, then the haul for Phillips might have been stout.

We will never know.

Except Sanchez is a rent-a-player and Phillips has some real coin coming over the next two years.

I'm not sure why MLB has entered this bizarro phase where even reasonable future obligations are poison to a player's trade value. The flip side of the prospect bubble, I guess.

Rojo
07-30-2009, 08:09 PM
Except Sanchez is a rent-a-player and Phillips has some real coin coming over the next two years.

I'm not sure why MLB has entered this bizarro phase where even reasonable future obligations are poison to a player's trade value. The flip side of the prospect bubble, I guess.

Teams used to want reasonably locked-up guys because ball-players just kept getting more expensive. Now were in a deflationary spiral.

savafan
11-04-2009, 06:56 PM
http://www.burbankleader.com/articles/2009/11/04/sports/blr-freddysanchez110409.txt

By Charles Rich
Published: Last Updated Tuesday, November 3, 2009 10:07 PM PST
BURBANK — Former Burbank High and Glendale Community College standout Freddy Sanchez will be staying put on the West Coast.

Sanchez, a three-time All-Star and the 2006 National League batting champion, signed a two-year extension Friday with the San Francisco Giants. Terms of the deal weren’t announced, though mlb.com reported that Sanchez’s salary package might exceed the two-year, $10 million deal the Pittsburgh Pirates offered him shortly before trading him to San Francisco on July 29.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Sanchez, a second baseman, will be paid $6 million per year.

San Francisco General Manager Brian Sabean issued a statement late Friday afternoon on the Sanchez transaction: “We are pleased to have Freddy in a Giants uniform for at least the next two years as we continue to improve our club. We saw a glimpse of him this past season and will look forward to his All-Star caliber play at the top of our lineup and in the middle of our infield. He provides a steady veteran presence and professional approach.”

Sanchez, who participated in the All-Star game in 2006, 2007 and 2009, was acquired from Pittsburgh in exchange for minor league pitcher Tim Alderson.

The Giants, his third major league team, brought him aboard with the thinking they would contend for the National League West Division championship and/or wild card spot.

Sanchez batted .284 with one home run and seven runs batted in with the Giants. Overall, Sanchez batted .293 with seven homers and 41 RBIs in 111 games.

The Giants finished in third place in the division behind the Los Angeles Dodgers and Colorado Rockies, both of whom qualified for the postseason.

Sanchez missed significant time after being acquired by San Francisco. He played 25 games for the Giants, but missed time because of shoulder and knee injuries.

He suffered a season-ending knee surgery late in the season in a game against the Arizona Diamondbacks and was expected to have surgery that would put him on schedule to return for the beginning of next season.

In 733 career games, Sanchez is batting .299 with 38 home runs, 178 doubles and 300 runs batted in.

Sanchez was a standout at Burbank high, playing four years in the Bulldogs’ program.

After earning All-Foothill League Player of the Year honors at Burbank in 1996 and a Western State Conference Southern Division Player of the Year award at Glendale Community College, Sanchez earned National Assn. of Intercollegiate Athletics All-American accolades at Oklahoma City College. He was drafted by the Red Sox in 2000 in the 11th round.

He was originally selected in the first-year player draft out of Burbank by the Atlanta Braves in the 30th round. However, instead of singing a contract, Sanchez decided to attend GCC.

lollipopcurve
11-01-2010, 10:11 AM
Bumping this from mid 2009.

Giants on the verge of a World Championship, Pirates with the #1 pick in the draft.

(Of course, some will call this part of Huntington's master plan and bemoan the Reds aren't more like the Pirates....)

FWIW, Tim Alderson has bombed as a prospect... and Freddie Sanchez has had a real good World Series.

Slyder
11-01-2010, 10:18 AM
Bumping this from mid 2009.

Giants on the verge of a World Championship, Pirates with the #1 pick in the draft.

(Of course, some will call this part of Huntington's master plan and bemoan the Reds aren't more like the Pirates....)

FWIW, Tim Alderson has bombed as a prospect... and Freddie Sanchez has had a real good World Series.

YouTube - Red vs. Blue...Zombies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFLtUxncZcU)

*Moaning.... Moaning....*

jojo
11-01-2010, 10:36 AM
Bumping this from mid 2009.

Giants on the verge of a World Championship, Pirates with the #1 pick in the draft.

(Of course, some will call this part of Huntington's master plan and bemoan the Reds aren't more like the Pirates....)

FWIW, Tim Alderson has bombed as a prospect... and Freddie Sanchez has had a real good World Series.

In stead of twisting context to make some strawman philosophical bent, why now make it about the the wisdom of the Pirates paying what would've been $11M for their remaining control of Sanchez so that he could post 2.7 WAR this season versus the wisdom of paying league minimum for 2.0 WAR from his replacement while also getting a pretty good pitching prospect to aid in your retooling?

Is your argument really that the Pirates should've kept Sanchez?

Homer Bailey
11-01-2010, 10:39 AM
Hilarious re-read. I'd imagine that many of the 2009 threads are.

lollipopcurve
11-01-2010, 10:55 AM
In stead of twisting context to make some strawman philosophical bent, why now make it about the the wisdom of the Pirates paying what would've been $11M for their remaining control of Sanchez so that he could post 2.7 WAR this season versus the wisdom of paying league minimum for 2.0 WAR from his replacement while also getting a pretty good pitching prospect to aid in your retooling?

Is your argument really that the Pirates should've kept Sanchez?

A few points of interest, at least from my perspective:

1. The Pirates, while lauded for years here as "having a plan," are in the midst of a nearly 2-decades long skein of losing seasons.
2. Many posters in this thread felt the Reds were rapidly falling behind the Pirates.
3. The Giants picked up an important piece for their 2010 team, now on the brink of a World Series title, yet no posters -- not one, including me -- praised the Giants for the trade.
4. Alderson was highly praised as a prospect. He had a godawful 2010.

You can bean-count the deal all you want. The Pirates have been stripping their roster of good players for years and pocketing profits. If you, as a fan, find that an intellectually satisfying approach, that's fine by me. But I doubt there's an organization that has given their true fans less in the last 20 years.

On the other hand, the Giants have put together a lineup of mostly veteran retreads. There's an approach that won't get a lot of praise here. But look where they are.....

There are bigger lessons to be learned about roster building than how to get your WAR numbers in a row. One of those would be, totally tearing down your roster promises nothing, unless it's a few extra beans for the bean-counters.

jojo
11-01-2010, 11:11 AM
There are bigger lessons to be learned about roster building than how to get your WAR numbers in a row. One of those would be, totally tearing down your roster promises nothing, unless it's a few extra beans for the bean-counters.

Another would be that the Pirates essentially replaced Sanchez, an expensive roughly league average player who they had zero use for given the current state of their franchise with a minor league retread for league minimum while adding another arm to their farm in the process.

Again, why not let the facts inform the philosophy instead of using the philosophy as a filter for the facts?

Is your argument really that the Pirates should've kept Sanchez?

westofyou
11-01-2010, 11:27 AM
On the other hand, the Giants have put together a lineup of mostly veteran retreads. There's an approach that won't get a lot of praise here. But look where they are.....

There are bigger lessons to be learned about roster building than how to get your WAR numbers in a row. One of those would be, totally tearing down your roster promises nothing, unless it's a few extra beans for the bean-counters.

http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archives/2010/10/now_you_know_wh.html



Rebuilding plans are inexact. They disappoint. Two years can easily turn into three or four. If a team has enough solid major league players, if a team really is close, why not patch here, patch there and see if something magical developes.

That's the beauty of this World Series. The Rangers and Giants weren't put together with the notion they'd stay together three or four years. Both general managers saw this season as an opportunity to win, and they went for it.

lollipopcurve
11-01-2010, 11:31 AM
Another would be that the Pirates essentially replaced Sanchez, an expensive roughly league average player who they had zero use for given the current state of their franchise with a minor league retread for league minimum while adding another arm to their farm in the process.

Again, why not let the facts inform the philosophy instead of using the philosophy as a filter for the facts?

Is your argument really that the Pirates should've kept Sanchez?

I don't see how it would have hurt the Pirates to keep Sanchez. Unless we're back to counting beans.

Here are the pertinent facts:

At the time the trade was made, it was greeted with much praise for the Pirates, and none for the Giants.

Now, filtered through time, we find the Pirates have ended 2010 with the worst record in baseball, and the Giants on the verge of winning the World Series. Not to say the trade led to either outcome. Yet it is to say the trade is symptomatic of the starkly different approaches to roster building that has characterized the two franchises in recent times. And it is also to say that those two approaches have generally received far different reviews on this site -- reviews that would suggest a somewhat misguided view of how to successfully build baseball teams.

Naturally, folks are not quick to revisit their views and revise them. Cuz it's all about being right, and "making an argument." And too often, folks think arguments are to be won on some kind of quickly reckoned scorecard.

I suggest you take a step back and look at the Pittsburgh and SF franchises as a whole, and think about what's made them consistent winners or losers. Have any of your assumptions been incorrect?

jojo
11-01-2010, 12:05 PM
I don't see how it would have hurt the Pirates to keep Sanchez. Unless we're back to counting beans.

Exactly how would it have helped the Pirates to keep Sanchez? It would've cost them $10-11M not to trade him (paying the rest of his '09 salary and picking up his option) as well as the opportunity cost of not adding Alderson to their system. What is the argument for keeping Sanchez?


At the time the trade was made, it was greeted with much praise for the Pirates, and none for the Giants.

The Pirates made a smart move.


Now, filtered through time, we find the Pirates have ended 2010 with the worst record in baseball, and the Giants on the verge of winning the World Series. Not to say the trade led to either outcome. Yet it is to say the trade is symptomatic of the starkly different approaches to roster building that has characterized the two franchises in recent times. And it is also to say that those two approaches have generally received far different reviews on this site -- reviews that would suggest a somewhat misguided view of how to successfully build baseball teams.

San Francisco isn't a franchise emerging from something akin to the NCAA's death penalty and Sabean also has the luxury of a payroll of roughly $100M. These kind of details are really important for context. Why aren't we also talking about the Rangers' approach?


Naturally, folks are not quick to revisit their views and revise them. Cuz it's all about being right, and "making an argument." And too often, folks think arguments are to be won on some kind of quickly reckoned scorecard.

Is this a mea culpa? You have yet to argue why the Pirates' shouldn't have traded Sanchez.

Also the statement in quotes seems predicated on characterizing the Sanchez trade as the poster board move that defines why the Giants are in the world series and the Pirates aren't despite, by your own admission, it doesn't seem likely the move actually is the underlying reason.


I suggest you take a step back and look at the Pittsburgh and SF franchises as a whole, and think about what's made them consistent winners or losers. Have any of your assumptions been incorrect?

Which of your assumptions have you rejected recently? Again, why not let the facts inform the philosophy instead of using the philosophy as a filter for the facts?

Also, are you actually arguing for the Sabean approach in Cincinnati?????? BTW, this was the first season in which the Giants finished better than 3rd in their division in the last 6 seasons having a .488 winning percentage during that span.

RedsManRick
11-01-2010, 12:12 PM
I don't see how it would have helped the Pirates to keep Sanchez. Let's be honest, he's a nice little player -- a more athletic Jeff Keppinger -- but his presence on the Pirates wouldn't have made a lick of difference one way or the other. Maybe the prospect will pan out. Maybe not.

But the Giants are running with a $96MM payroll this year and haven't been below $75MM since 2001. We can talk approach all we want, but since the Giants gained popularity (attendance) through the Bonds era, they've been able to sustain a payroll level that the Pirates simply cannot. And even then, they've hardly been great.

The point is, every situation is different. The Pirates and Giants are operating under very different conditions. Any claims about the intelligence of their respective approaches based on the outcome of their 2010 seasons ignores this reality. Neither the Pirates nor the Giants position provides unique insight on the "best" approach to building a winning team. They are merely one more data point and should be taken as such, with their full context considered.

marcshoe
11-01-2010, 12:12 PM
I might argue that the Pirates have zero use for anyone given the current state of their franchise.

If you look at Sanchez as an individual player, there's no reason the Pirates should have kept him. The problem is that sooner or later you have to realize that looking at each player individually doesn't work unless you have some kind of a plan to build a team.

kaldaniels
11-01-2010, 12:18 PM
I'm looking at this deal and seeing a win-win (which cost the Giants some money, but if they can handle it, more power to them). Is that possible?

westofyou
11-01-2010, 12:22 PM
I'm looking at this deal and seeing a win-win (which cost the Giants some money, but if they can handle it, more power to them). Is that possible?

Zoltar says unpossible

http://www.bmigaming.com/Images/fortuneteller-zoltar.jpg

camisadelgolf
11-01-2010, 12:24 PM
Tim Alderson is a bust? He had a rough year at the age of twenty-freaking-one. At that age, Randy Johnson was looking like a disaster in low-A. I guess he's a bust, too.

lollipopcurve
11-01-2010, 01:24 PM
Tim Alderson is a bust? He had a rough year at the age of twenty-freaking-one. At that age, Randy Johnson was looking like a disaster in low-A. I guess he's a bust, too.

Alderson doesn't break 90. How does that compare to Randy Johnson?

lollipopcurve
11-01-2010, 01:35 PM
Funny how the payroll numbers are now trotted out....

Excuses Huntington and the decades-long Pittsburgh "planning" from blame, and denies credit to Sabean, whose "vet-love" has always garnered repudiation here.

How often has this crowd excused the Reds GMs on the basis of payroll restrictions?

camisadelgolf
11-01-2010, 01:47 PM
Alderson doesn't break 90. How does that compare to Randy Johnson?
How does breaking 90 have anything to do with this? So you need to consistently break 90 to not be considered a bust now?

jojo
11-01-2010, 01:49 PM
Funny how the payroll numbers are now trotted out....

Excuses Huntington and the decades-long Pittsburgh "planning" from blame, and denies credit to Sabean, whose "vet-love" has always garnered repudiation here.

How often has this crowd excused the Reds GMs on the basis of payroll restrictions?

Why does Huntington keep getting conflated with decades of Pirates' history? His first season wasn't until 2008 and frankly, there was no board when he came on board.

It seems like an inherently unfair narrative to force onto the facts given all of the context such a narrative has to ignore..... this is especially so when the narrative suggests all kinds of other incongruities at every turn like the latest that Sabean should be a role model for the Reds...

I'm not sure who "this crowd" is and what defines "here" exactly....

lollipopcurve
11-01-2010, 01:57 PM
Why does Huntington keep getting conflated with decades of Pirates' history? His first season wasn't until 2008 and frankly, there was no board when he came on board.

Because the Pirates keep losing. Why should he be given the benefit of the doubt -- wait, don't answer... I know what you'd say anyway.


this is especially so when the narrative suggests all kinds of other incongruities at every turn like the latest that Sabean should be a role model for the Reds

Who said Sabean should be a role model for the Reds? Fact is, there is no one-size-fits-all approach that any of us should be recommending. That would be akin to thinking that some GMs are "smart" and some are "stupid," an attitude that wafts across through here all too often, IMO.

Chip R
11-01-2010, 01:59 PM
But the Giants are running with a $96MM payroll this year and haven't been below $75MM since 2001. We can talk approach all we want, but since the Giants gained popularity (attendance) through the Bonds era, they've been able to sustain a payroll level that the Pirates simply cannot. And even then, they've hardly been great.

Attendance, attendance, attendance. You can't stress enough how important it is to teams without huge cable TV deals. Of course it was built on the needle (as was St. Louis') but drawing like they do helps sustain a large payroll. Meanwhile, the Reds are fortunate when they draw 2 million a year.

westofyou
11-01-2010, 02:02 PM
Attendance, attendance, attendance. You can't stress enough how important it is to teams without huge cable TV deals. Of course it was built on the needle (as was St. Louis') but drawing like they do helps sustain a large payroll. Meanwhile, the Reds are fortunate when they draw 2 million a year.

The Giants also funded their own park, knowing they'd be able to generate more revenue in that business model.

But let's not forget when they played at the Stick they were lucky to draw anybody, much alone a cable TV contract.

If anything the Giants should have had a superstation years ago, but they were house rich and pocket poor.

jojo
11-01-2010, 02:08 PM
Because the Pirates keep losing. Why should he be given the benefit of the doubt -- wait, don't answer... I know what you'd say anyway.

I'll answer anyway-because its (letting the facts inform philosophy) a fair and balanced way to view NH's job performance which seems like a critical component when discussing.....his job performance.

lollipopcurve
11-01-2010, 02:20 PM
I'll answer anyway-because its (letting the facts inform philosophy) a fair and balanced way to view NH's job performance which seems like a critical component when discussing.....his job performance.

Facts you might find helpful:

Under Huntington, the Pirates are:
67-95
62-99
57-105

Surely this will be judged brilliant in some way....

Under Sabean, the Giants are:
90-72
89-74
86-76
97-65
90-72
95-66
100-61
91-71
75-87
76-85
71-91
72-90
88-74
92-70

Surely this will be judged a function of ownership, so that one can continue to consider Sabean lost in the Dark Ages, or something....

RedsManRick
11-01-2010, 02:32 PM
Funny how the payroll numbers are now trotted out....

Excuses Huntington and the decades-long Pittsburgh "planning" from blame, and denies credit to Sabean, whose "vet-love" has always garnered repudiation here.

How often has this crowd excused the Reds GMs on the basis of payroll restrictions?

I'm not excusing Huntington from anything. I'm saying you are grossly oversimplifying things and using the same standard to judge to GMs in extremely difference circumstances.

GMs have to be judged based on how well they did given what they had to work with. Comparing the performances of the GMs based solely on W/L ignores this fundamental reality.

That's not to say Huntington has done good and certainly not that Sabean has done poorly -- merely that they should each be judged on the decisions they made given their circumstances.

Something tells me that if Sabean had taken over the Pirates in 2007, they would not have been in the playoffs if 2010. Similarly, had Huntington taken over SF 14 years ago, I doubt they'd have spent each season in the cellar. The statements are silly on the face of it.

RedsManRick
11-01-2010, 02:35 PM
Facts you might find helpful:

Under Huntington, the Pirates are:
67-95
62-99
57-105

Surely this will be judged brilliant in some way....

Under Sabean, the Giants are:
90-72
89-74
86-76
97-65
90-72
95-66
100-61
91-71
75-87
76-85
71-91
72-90
88-74
92-70

Surely this will be judged a function of ownership, so that one can continue to consider Sabean lost in the Dark Ages, or something....

Sabean has done a good job over 14 years in San Fransisco.

Huntington has had 3 years trying to turn around one of the worst organizations in professional sports and the team has yet to improve at the major league level.

What is your point? Trying to compare the two is just a waste of time.

jojo
11-01-2010, 02:36 PM
Facts you might find helpful:

Under Huntington, the Pirates are:
67-95
62-99
57-105

Surely this will be judged brilliant in some way....

The Pirates cashed in some parts from a 95 loss 25-man roster for an infusion of players into their minor league system and have since gone young. Brilliant? Ummm, i'm wondering what the brilliant alternative is actually. Pouring cement for a foundation is a first step to building something that can stand up to the weather. Wouldn't not pouring a foundation be the irresponsible thing?


Surely this will be judged a function of ownership, so that one can continue to consider Sabean lost in the Dark Ages, or something....

Seriously, why not let the facts inform philosophy? The devil is in the details. Also, why not engage actual counterarguments? That said, Sabean could not run the Pirates or Reds like he's ran the Giants-it's a curious, contorted focus from which to form the argument being made....

lollipopcurve
11-01-2010, 02:41 PM
I remember, too, that Pat Gillick was routinely dismissed on this board as a GM whose time had long since passed him by.... then his teams in Philly started winning pennants, and a World Series, and people stopped talking about Pat Gillick.

All of this may have a little bit to do with how we should, and should not, see Walt Jocketty.

jojo
11-01-2010, 02:56 PM
I remember, too, that Pat Gillick was routinely dismissed on this board as a GM whose time had long since passed him by.... then his teams in Philly started winning pennants, and a World Series, and people stopped talking about Pat Gillick.

All of this may have a little bit to do with how we should, and should not, see Walt Jocketty.

Here's a little context....Gillick inherited a team that had a .537 winning percentage over it's previous three seasons. The team that won the WS for him was driven in large degree by guys he inherited...

Would the Pirates be the 2010 Giants if they had hired Gillick or Jocketty instead of NH? Why don't those guys ever seem to want to interview for rebuilding teams?

lollipopcurve
11-01-2010, 03:23 PM
Would the Pirates be the 2010 Giants if they had hired Gillick or Jocketty instead of NH? Why don't those guys ever seem to want to interview for rebuilding teams?

.537 -- powerhouse! (the refusal to give credit to Gillick for a World Series winning team is almost comic, but totally predictable)

And Jocketty took over a team obviously on the brink of great things? Come on....

jojo
11-01-2010, 03:35 PM
.537 -- powerhouse! (the refusal to give credit to Gillick for a World Series winning team is almost comic, but totally predictable)

And Jocketty took over a team obviously on the brink of great things? Come on....

Who is refusing to give credit? It's a simple argument-Jocketty, Gillick and Sabean have had dramatically different charges than NH and it's confusing why the four would be conflated in support of a narrative that seems to be attempting a commentary on the use of sabermetrics by a FO though admittedly, the argument is contorted and unclear. As part of this narrative, things like huge payroll disparities, state of the organization and resources available at the time of hire, and context of decisions when they were made are simply bean counting points that shouldn't be considered. Ignoring these things don't seem to jive with intuition.

Seriously, why not just let the facts inform the philosophy?

TheNext44
11-01-2010, 04:37 PM
I will say this about the Pirates.

They may have lost 100 games in 2010, but they clearly have more young talent on the team than they have had in manny years. Not sure that will translate to wins, but it definitely is there.

traderumor
11-01-2010, 05:50 PM
Here's a little context....Gillick inherited a team that had a .537 winning percentage over it's previous three seasons. The team that won the WS for him was driven in large degree by guys he inherited...

Would the Pirates be the 2010 Giants if they had hired Gillick or Jocketty instead of NH? Why don't those guys ever seem to want to interview for rebuilding teams?The Reds were in perpetual rebuild when Jocketty took the reins. They were in year 9 of the lost decade. He also took over the Cards when they were scuffling. I'd say including him to make your point about Gillick is conflated narrative and does not inform your philosophy.

traderumor
11-01-2010, 05:54 PM
I will say this about the Pirates.

They may have lost 100 games in 2010, but they clearly have more young talent on the team than they have had in manny years. Not sure that will translate to wins, but it definitely is there.I'm not sure that I see that. Position players of any worth are limited to McCutheon and Alvarez. The rotation is awful. The bullpen has Meek and Hanrahan as keepers, the rest are fodder. That is not much talent, esp. considering 20 years of top 10 draft picks.

kaldaniels
11-01-2010, 06:08 PM
Something in Pittsburgh ain't working (decades of baseball back this up). If anyone thinks the present franchise is on the right track...tell us by what year we should expect a winning record.

westofyou
11-01-2010, 06:15 PM
I'm not sure that I see that. Position players of any worth are limited to McCutheon and Alvarez. The rotation is awful. The bullpen has Meek and Hanrahan as keepers, the rest are fodder. That is not much talent, esp. considering 20 years of top 10 draft picks.

My take too, incredibly empty basket after all those prime picks.

jojo
11-01-2010, 06:25 PM
The Reds were in perpetual rebuild when Jocketty took the reins. They were in year 9 of the lost decade. He also took over the Cards when they were scuffling.

Jocketty inherited a Reds organization that had a lot of building blocks and a strong foundation. He's been much more an interior designer than an architect or contractor of the current team.


I'd say including him to make your point about Gillick is conflated narrative and does not inform your philosophy.

Not really sure why you'd say this given the obvious parallels....

TheNext44
11-01-2010, 07:18 PM
I'm not sure that I see that. Position players of any worth are limited to McCutheon and Alvarez. The rotation is awful. The bullpen has Meek and Hanrahan as keepers, the rest are fodder. That is not much talent, esp. considering 20 years of top 10 draft picks.

First, mcCutchen and Alverez themselves are more talent than I hsve seen in years on a Pirate roster. Lol

Second, Tabata, Milledge, and Walker have nice futures, and McDonald, who they got in the Dotel trade, could be their best starter next year.

I never said they had a lot of talent, just more young talent than before.

*BaseClogger*
11-01-2010, 08:03 PM
lollipop, have you been spending too much time with osuceltic?

RBA
11-01-2010, 08:15 PM
If anything the Giants should have had a superstation years ago, but they were house rich and pocket poor.

I think I remember in the 80's KTVU in Oakland tried to make it as a Superstation. Were the Giants not on board with this?

westofyou
11-01-2010, 09:08 PM
I think I remember in the 80's KTVU in Oakland tried to make it as a Superstation. Were the Giants not on board with this?

No out of market games IIRC, around that time Channel 36 was slumming the A's games.

M2
11-01-2010, 10:03 PM
A) The Giants baffle me. I don't know how that team scores, ever. Yet it does and it's just about to win its first World Series since moving west.

B) Freddy Sanchez can hit for average, smack some balls into the gaps and plays good defense. He's got his uses.

C) I don't know that anyone could do a good job as GM of the Pirates, but Neal Huntington has been terrible.

D) What Sabean and Jocketty have done is run a bit counter to the groupthink in MLB at the moment. They've picked up ballplayers (no joke, real, live guys who can play this game) from franchises obsessed with prospects. It's actually very Money Ball - the new undervalued thing is solid ballplayers.

Brutus
11-01-2010, 11:22 PM
A) The Giants baffle me. I don't know how that team scores, ever. Yet it does and it's just about to win its first World Series since moving west.

B) Freddy Sanchez can hit for average, smack some balls into the gaps and plays good defense. He's got his uses.

C) I don't know that anyone could do a good job as GM of the Pirates, but Neal Huntington has been terrible.

D) What Sabean and Jocketty have done is run a bit counter to the groupthink in MLB at the moment. They've picked up ballplayers (no joke, real, live guys who can play this game) from franchises obsessed with prospects. It's actually very Money Ball - the new undervalued thing is solid ballplayers.

I'm going to tread carefully when I say this both in fear of what might follow and also because I want to state it to accurately represent my true feelings and not have it come across too far...

I think this trend of picking up ballplayers is almost a countermeasure to the sabermetric movement. That is to say that I think we've become so stats-dependent as a baseball culture, many GMs too, that we're now finding we've given ourselves paralysis by analysis.

I think we're learning that we've reached a point where we know as much as we can know for a while -- at least until the technology supports advances in pitch f/x and the analysis of defensive data.

Until then, it seems like guys that might lack a few runs created here or there will make up for it in the intangibles and bringing the something missing in the clubhouse. We're remembering they're not robots, but rather human beings that are subject to the highs and lows-the emotions-of playing the game. It seems for 10 years that we have been trending so far toward statistical analysis, that now we're seeing a slight shift toward the middle, just like we've seen in the past with speed/defense to power and now back to speed/defense.

blumj
11-01-2010, 11:48 PM
A) The Giants baffle me. I don't know how that team scores, ever. Yet it does and it's just about to win its first World Series since moving west.

B) Freddy Sanchez can hit for average, smack some balls into the gaps and plays good defense. He's got his uses.

C) I don't know that anyone could do a good job as GM of the Pirates, but Neal Huntington has been terrible.

D) What Sabean and Jocketty have done is run a bit counter to the groupthink in MLB at the moment. They've picked up ballplayers (no joke, real, live guys who can play this game) from franchises obsessed with prospects. It's actually very Money Ball - the new undervalued thing is solid ballplayers.
A bunch of those ballplayers that Sabean picked up? Their last teams couldn't wait to get rid of them because they played so poorly, it had nothing to do with being obsessed with prospects. Burrell, Uribe, Huff, and Renteria did nothing for the last teams who had them, and they got no prospects in return for them, they were let go so their teams could try to replace them with players they hoped would play better.

mdccclxix
11-02-2010, 02:29 AM
A bunch of those ballplayers that Sabean picked up? Their last teams couldn't wait to get rid of them because they played so poorly, it had nothing to do with being obsessed with prospects. Burrell, Uribe, Huff, and Renteria did nothing for the last teams who had them, and they got no prospects in return for them, they were let go so their teams could try to replace them with players they hoped would play better.

I think Walt's similar acquisitions for the Reds are Ramon, Ocab, and Rolen, although I think Rolen is elevated further among all these mentioned. But these are all guys that "had it" for a period in their careers. They have a certain pedigree, an air of professionalism, an earned reputation among baseball people. They usually have a few, or maybe just one ASG, some GG's maybe, maybe not, but they've been considered fringe elite at some point. And they give you good quality at bats.

I like these pickups more than in the past 3 years because I've seen the benefit they brought the Reds first hand. When you consider the FA market has flushed these fringe types out from the bigger pay scale (2006 was ugly, for example), there are deals to be had now.

I guess the key is knowing when the gig is up for these kinds of players. Players do just have bad years. Rumors, then, of their demise turn out to be much exaggerated.

This year there are a lot of "former stars" that are marked by questions of their decline (Berkman is my pick to click). Nevertheless, many of these declining stars will find their way on to a team and ultimately their floor (hey, that's a prospect term!) is much higher than roster filler or unproven players (I still like letting them prove it though!)

As for the Pirates, perhaps they needed a Juan Uribe type here and there. But often times these kind of players in that losing situation get the life sucked out of them and they are dragged into the funnel of suck. Actually, Ramon was a good example in Baltimore. And those big contracts really start to weigh on everybody.

The one thing people should talk about first and foremost with the Pirates is pitching. They haven't had an ace starter since, like, Doug Drabek or something. It's been ages. That's why they're the bottomest of the bottom right now. If they had one now, I'd feel better about McCutcheon and Alvarez not going to waste like so many others, but they don't! So the beat will likely carry on for Pittsburgh.

bucksfan2
11-02-2010, 08:41 AM
D) What Sabean and Jocketty have done is run a bit counter to the groupthink in MLB at the moment. They've picked up ballplayers (no joke, real, live guys who can play this game) from franchises obsessed with prospects. It's actually very Money Ball - the new undervalued thing is solid ballplayers.

The Giants were an interesting team. They were a lot of average offensive ball players who I would call scrappy. They made themselves tough outs and put the ball in play (sans Burrell). A lot of them were acquired off the scrap heap or traded for when their value was very minimal. Its the kind of team that over the course of a season you will see their offense regress to the norm, but in a playoff series does anyone really care if they were incredibly lucky? Or if their BABIP was too high?

Sanchez reminded me of percicely that guy. Not a Chase Utley or BP at 2b but a serviceable defender. A guy who made himself a tough out, put the ball in play, and had a great series. He is the type of player who you always see making an impact in a short playoff series.

Chip R
11-02-2010, 10:06 AM
C) I don't know that anyone could do a good job as GM of the Pirates, but Neal Huntington has been terrible.

The problem any GM is going to have in PIT is that they have to rely on revenue sharing proceeds and luxury tax proceeds to get any revenue whatsoever because they sure aren't making any money by people coming to their games. The time is going to come when these guys are going to get paid and PIT won't be able to afford them. Their only hope is to sign guys like Alvaraz and McCutcheon and anyone who looks like they will be any good to 7-8 year deals now at way below market value. Of course these guys have agents who aren't dumb and they know that once a guy gets expensive in PIT, they get traded.

blumj
11-02-2010, 10:30 AM
I think Walt's similar acquisitions for the Reds are Ramon, Ocab, and Rolen, although I think Rolen is elevated further among all these mentioned. But these are all guys that "had it" for a period in their careers. They have a certain pedigree, an air of professionalism, an earned reputation among baseball people. They usually have a few, or maybe just one ASG, some GG's maybe, maybe not, but they've been considered fringe elite at some point. And they give you good quality at bats.

I like these pickups more than in the past 3 years because I've seen the benefit they brought the Reds first hand. When you consider the FA market has flushed these fringe types out from the bigger pay scale (2006 was ugly, for example), there are deals to be had now.

I guess the key is knowing when the gig is up for these kinds of players. Players do just have bad years. Rumors, then, of their demise turn out to be much exaggerated.

This year there are a lot of "former stars" that are marked by questions of their decline (Berkman is my pick to click). Nevertheless, many of these declining stars will find their way on to a team and ultimately their floor (hey, that's a prospect term!) is much higher than roster filler or unproven players (I still like letting them prove it though!)

As for the Pirates, perhaps they needed a Juan Uribe type here and there. But often times these kind of players in that losing situation get the life sucked out of them and they are dragged into the funnel of suck. Actually, Ramon was a good example in Baltimore. And those big contracts really start to weigh on everybody.

The one thing people should talk about first and foremost with the Pirates is pitching. They haven't had an ace starter since, like, Doug Drabek or something. It's been ages. That's why they're the bottomest of the bottom right now. If they had one now, I'd feel better about McCutcheon and Alvarez not going to waste like so many others, but they don't! So the beat will likely carry on for Pittsburgh.
I don't really think it's the same. Ramon was traded for the same reason the Giants traded Bengie Molina, Rolen and Cabrera had both played pretty well for the Jays and Twins, both teams probably would have been happy keeping them if circumstances had been different. Burrell, Uribe, and Renteria were each that one guy that Rays, White Sox, and Tigers fans just wanted to go away, really badly, the sooner the better. Huff was kind of in between, he'd been pretty good for a few teams, and pretty awful for a few, I don't know if he was a Tiger long enough for them to hate him, but he was bad when he was there. I see Freddy Sanchez, and Cody Ross, in a completely different category. They come cheap in trades once they're making decent money because just about every contender has, or at least thinks they have, a reasonably similar player who's still cheap, or even better players already playing the positions they can play well.

Jpup
11-02-2010, 12:41 PM
Giants one for a couple reasons:

1. Pitching.

2. Bruce Bochy

That guy can manage.

Rojo
11-02-2010, 12:59 PM
D) What Sabean and Jocketty have done is run a bit counter to the groupthink in MLB at the moment. They've picked up ballplayers (no joke, real, live guys who can play this game) from franchises obsessed with prospects. It's actually very Money Ball - the new undervalued thing is solid ballplayers.

There was a Slate article saying something similar. Its an interesting point. Some vets are now devalued after their first past-30 bad season.

I also wonder if Sabean looks at health. That seems to be undervalued as well. Veteran teams are going to be kids in short seasons, if they stay healthy.

mdccclxix
11-02-2010, 02:24 PM
I don't really think it's the same. Ramon was traded for the same reason the Giants traded Bengie Molina, Rolen and Cabrera had both played pretty well for the Jays and Twins, both teams probably would have been happy keeping them if circumstances had been different. Burrell, Uribe, and Renteria were each that one guy that Rays, White Sox, and Tigers fans just wanted to go away, really badly, the sooner the better. Huff was kind of in between, he'd been pretty good for a few teams, and pretty awful for a few, I don't know if he was a Tiger long enough for them to hate him, but he was bad when he was there. I see Freddy Sanchez, and Cody Ross, in a completely different category. They come cheap in trades once they're making decent money because just about every contender has, or at least thinks they have, a reasonably similar player who's still cheap, or even better players already playing the positions they can play well.

The fans wanted Ramon gone. They were happy to get Freel and give cash to do it!

The fans here didn't want Rolen for the price that was paid, that says something. And Rolen was nearing the scrap heap for 2-3 years before his 2009 season.

Ocab may be without a team this year again.

Burrell averaged about 30 hr for 8 years then hit hard times in TB.

Renteria has 2 rings, a WS MVP, 5 ASG, 3 SS, and some gold. He was elite.

Sanchez has a batting title. God he was a tough out.

The point I'm making is these vets have a high, proven talent level. Whether you get them from a supportive or non-supportive fan base or organization isn't what my point was. I'm sorry for riffing on your original post about how teams wanted to get rid of those players and weren't concerned with prospects per se. Not arguing that at all.

I am agreeing with M2 and others that are acknowledging the value of scrap heap vets, while underlining what I think makes for good risk taking - vets with pedigree and reputation. Overall, it shouldn't be overly surprising the Giants were able to scrap it out with a veteran offense and amazing pitching. Makes you wonder what that SF staff would have done with the 2005 Reds. Make no mistake, though, it was the young guns that won that world series. I didn't see Barry Zito on the mound, but maybe once in the postseason?

Jpup
11-02-2010, 02:50 PM
Barry Zito was not on the postseason roster.

westofyou
11-02-2010, 03:00 PM
Barry Zito was not on the postseason roster.

And Rowland had 11 ab's, together they made 30.5 million bucks, or exactly 8.5 million less than the Pirates whole roster.

camisadelgolf
11-02-2010, 03:34 PM
And Rowland had 11 ab's, together they made 30.5 million bucks, or exactly 8.5 million less than the Pirates whole roster.
I doubt that's exact. :p:

Spitball
11-02-2010, 09:54 PM
I doubt that's exact. :p:

It's probably exactly about $5 million more. :)