A big game of telephone

Trade season is equal parts fun and frustration for fans. All kinds of interesting possibilities float around the media soup, but without any kind of inside access, there's no reliable way to determine the provenance and relative truth of any particular piece of spin. The only real thing you can do is pay attention and keep yourself informed, so that if a particular possibility comes to fruitition, you'll already understand the ramifications by the time it goes down.

A bunch of different Pirate rumors have hit the internet over the last few days, and I'm going to take a quick look at them (in no particular order). First up is a Sports Illustrated piece by longtime Baseball Prospectus writer Joe Sheehan. Sheehan selected eight high-profile trade targets and then tried to extrapolate a fit
for all of them, with the third of his eight players being Jason Bay. He considers and rejects the Diamondbacks and Mets as potential suitors, before settling on Atlanta as the most likely destination. Unfortunately, he seems to be focused more on a move that would make sense for Atlanta than one that would help the Pirates, preemptively discarding Jason Heyward, Jordan Schafer, and Tommy Hanson as potential pieces, and settling on a package of Brandon Jones and undefined "young arms" in a "package of second-tier prospects".

I would be worried if this were something that might actually happen, but the idea of trading Bay for slop is pretty obviously dumb on the face of things. That being the case, why did Sheehan write it? My guess is that you can lay the blame for this one on his editor. I think Sheehan was given a list of eight players and told to write about trade destinations for them, regardless of what he might've actually thought about the chances of those players being traded. If you look closely, the entire bit on Bay is about why none of the teams that might want him are actually going to trade for him. Sheehan tabs the Braves as the best fit (and they very well might be), but he's saying that they aren't convinced that they can really contend this year, and as such are reluctant to trade anyone they might concievably miss in 2011 for some extra wins right now. I can understand not wanting to trade Heyward, because he's awesome, but Schafer? He got suspended for PEDs, and he's really struggled at AA this year, striking out in almost a third of his ABs (anything over 25% is cause for concern) while hitting .221/.365/.390. If you aren't willing to move someone like that, then you're just looking for excuses to not make a deal. That's probably the take-home lesson from Sheehan's piece: the Braves may flip from buyers to sellers at any moment, so we can't count on having one of their offers in reserve during a different set of negotiations.

The second article is a John Heyman piece about the Yankees, where he looks at possible replacements for Matsui. He doesn't think the Yankees are willing to pay the price for Bay, but almost as a throwaway, he mentions that the Cardinals are willing to use Colby Rasmus in a deal. Rasmus had been mentioned as a player the Pirates like before, but this is the first real indication that St. Louis might actually move him. If this is true, it's good news. A package headlined by Rasmus (a 21-year-old power-hitting lefty CF) is competitive, and it's really the only way the Cards could get into the game here. Even if we decide not to take that deal, it'd only increase any other offers for Bay that we might receive from other teams.

In an article about potential deals for the Padres, John Maffe of San Diego's North County Times floated an idea that I hadn't heard before: Third baseman Kevin Kouzmanoff to Pittsburgh in a deal for Bay or Nady. I still think the Padres are more likely to sell and go young than to buy a veteran OF, but I can sort of see what Maffe's thinking here. The Padres have been interested in ex-Padre Nady since the offseason, Kouzmanoff was a former Indians prospect who might interest Huntington, and a Kouz trade bringing back an OF would let the Padres shift Chase Headley back to his natural position of third base. I'm not sure exactly what role Kouzmanoff would play in Pittsburgh in this scenario. He's an upgrade on Bautista, but probably not a huge one, since his glove is pretty poor. He might be a candidate for a switch to first base or an outfield corner, but doing that would just re-block Pearce (who appears to be rounding back into his usual offensive form after getting over his disappointment at not making the team this spring). Still, you never say never, and the more suitors the merrier as far as Bay and Nady are concerned.

Last, but certainly not least, John Perrotto has a big rundown of potential trades in the Beaver County Times. There's too much to quote, so just read the whole thing - but do it quickly, since BCT articles go behind a pay wall in fairly short order. He has a lot of stuff that's been reported in other places before, plus a report of Boston being interested in Bay if Ortiz's injury doesn't look good at the deadline, and a really interesting Dodgers rumor that would send Wilson and Bay to LA in exchange for Matt Kemp, Chin-Lung Hu, James McDonald, and Lucas May. Hu and McDonald were mentioned in the earlier set of Wilson rumors, Kemp is a young five-tool CF who's being run out of town by the LA media, and May is an interesting third-baseman-turned-catcher. For me, the May thing is what gives this rumor the ring of authenticity. May would immediately become the best catching prospect in our system, probably a good idea since Doumit hasn't exactly been bulletproof in the past. Meanwhile, the Dodgers are set behind the plate for the forseeable future with Russ Martin, and a May trade would let them bump Carlos Santana (who has been terrorizing the pitchers at A+ Inland Empire) up to AA. The whole thing just seems to pass the smell test.

Perrotto also has a list of players in whom we've displayed recent interest. They are, as follows:
*STL: Anthony Reyes and Chris Duncan. Reyes is potentially a good buy-low candidate, in that he's performed a lot better in the minors than the majors, and isn't on good terms with the Cardinals' coaching staff. I don't like Duncan as much, since he's burned through almost all of his pre-arb time and he's got a real iron glove (and iron legs to match).
*DET: Jeff Larish and Matt Joyce. Larish was a top lefty college power hitter, and he's continued to hit very well in the minors thus far. Probably limited to first base, he's basically ready right now, but blocked by Carlos Guillen. He had a fairly tepid cup of coffee earlier this season, covering for Gary Sheffield's injury, but he should hit pretty well. Joyce is a lefty-hitting right fielder (almost good enough for center) who appears to be enjoying a breakout season. He was well regarded by scouts, but until this season, the performance hadn't been up to the level of the tools. He just got a shot with the Tigers and has been really mashing, with 9 HR in only 99 AB. Either one would be a good acquisition.
*NYY: Ross Ohlendorf. A former Arizona propsect, Ohlendorf is a groundball pitcher with decent but not exceptional stuff as a starter, and a bit more than that if used in relief. He won a spot in the Yankees' pen this spring, and then lost it after problems with both throwing strikes and the long ball (not a good sign). He also has some issues with lefties. I don't like him as much more than a bottom-of-the-rotation starter, and I don't like trading for "relief prospects" on principle.
*ATL: Brent Lillibridge and Brandon Jones. Lillibridge, whom we sent to the Braves in the Gonzo/LaRoche deal, is a leadoff-type hitter, a "baseball rat", and a good defensive shortstop. Runs well, good arm, just enough power to get himself into trouble. He was quite well-regarded before this year (BP's PECOTA in particular loved him), but he has really struggled at AAA and his stock is way down right now. Jones, mentioned earlier in this post, is a lefty corner outfielder. A football guy, he runs well, and has more of a line drive bat than a real power stroke.
*TB: Jeff Niemann. A first round pick out of Rice, Niemann is probably fourth-best among Tampa's SP prospects at the moment, behind Price, Davis, and Hellickson (with McGee being injured, and thus ineligible). He's a big righty (6'9"), fastball/curveball, with a history of arm problems (Rice doesn't have a great history there). At 25, and in his second season at AAA, he's pretty much ready right now.
*NYM: Jon Niese (mistakenly called "Matt"), Eddie Kunz, and Rob Parnell. Those three are, more or less, the best upper-minors arms remaining in the Mets' ravaged farm system. Niese is a good-looking lefty. Inconsistent stuff, but he's probably a mid-rotation starter if things go well. Parnell is more of a developmental guy. He has issues with his changeup, and on paper his stats aren't anything special, but scouts think he's got about the same ceiling as Niese if he can get it together. Kunz is a righty college reliever. As previously noted, I refuse to consider any minor league reliever as a serious prospect unless he's putting up absolute PlayStation numbers, and Kunz so far has been closer to OK than true dominance.

Assuming that these rumored players are largely accurate, the meta-trends are interesting. Everyone is at AA or higher, and as such fairly close to the majors. If we're rebuilding, we're trying to do it in a hurry (and maybe trading some ceiling for immediacy in the prospects we're targeting). All of the hitters except Lillibridge are lefties, which makes sense given the nature of our park, and most are power-hitting corner bats. I might've expected a little more focus on C/2B/SS, but honestly, we need everything right now. The pitchers don't fit any real template in terms of stuff, approach, or body type. We've got groundball guys and flyball guys, curveball guys and slider guys, big guys and not-so-big guys, lefties and righties, control guys and wild guys, even starters and relievers. If there's a trend, it's that three of them (Reyes, Ohlendorf, and Niemann) all struggled a bit in their initial look at the bigs.

Anyway, lots of food for thought there. Further bulletins as events warrant.

Today's secret word is "Surreal"

Sometimes, when I'm hauling my nets across the web in search of a fresh catch of links for my readers, the stories of the day will all seem to cluster around a theme. It is, of course, just an example of the human brain playing tricks on its owner/operartor, but if you'd still like to take today's false pattern recognition for a test drive, read on:

*This isn't really a new story, but it was new to me, and since I managed to miss it despite a pretty substantial interest in both baseball and politics, I figured I might as well repost it here anyway in case it slipped past any of you guys, too. In the early 1950s, Honus Wagner was living in Carnegie, winding down his career as hitting coach for the Pirates. At that time, he had his milk delivered by a teenager from Greentree, the fifth son of a German immigrant who opened a dairy farm. And that young milkman grew up to be... Texas congressman and fringe presidential candidate Ron Paul. Huh.

*It's been a while since we've seen a good trade rumor, and while this next item isn't a rumor (or, for that matter, good), it's still kind of entertaining. Belleville News-Democrat writer Scott Wuertz thinks that it'd make sense for the Pirates to trade Bay to the Cardinals for Chris Duncan or Skip Schumaker, Anthony Reyes, and either catching prospect Bryan Anderson or a "prospect pitcher", because such a move "would give the Pirates an infusion of young talent". For the record, Reyes is 26, Duncan is 27 (and in his final pre-arb year), and Schumaker is 28. Bay is 29. When you're trying to make a package of young talent, I've generally found that it makes sense to focus on players that are actually, y'know, young. And in the case of Schumaker, some talent wouldn't hurt, either.

*From the mouths of babes:

A few days ago, Gunnar came home from kindergarten and had this conversation with his mother:


Gunnar: "Mom, Josh said something mean today."

Mom: "What did he say?"

Gunnar: "He said the Pirates stink."

Mom: "Well, honey, they do."

Gunnar: "They do?

Mom: "Yep."

Gunnar: "Oh."

-John Steigerwald, The Observer-Reporter

*The previous three items were kind of funny. This one isn't funny at all. Remember what I said about MLB slamming Forbes's numbers without ever providing any of their own? Right on cue, here's Frank Coonelly providing the requisite lies-and-slander quote (via Rob Biertempfel at the Trib). He also spun out a pretty bizarre explanation for the team's planned use of their annual welfare check:

The Pirates expect to receive about $35 million this year through Major League Baseball's revenue-sharing system, Coonelly said, adding that it's incorrect to believe that money must be used only to increase player payroll.

"The revenue-sharing plan says you have to use those proceeds to improve your performance on the field," Coonelly said. "That's written extraordinarily broadly, and we did that on purpose. Paying down debt can help you improve on the field. You can't get any better while you're taking a (huge) interest hit on all the debt you have."

I'm sure that Coonelly's process interpretation is probably correct - if there's one guy you can trust on the rules of baseball, it's probably a lawyer who's the former VP of MLB. Still, any standard that includes debt service as an approved use for the money is so vague as to be completely meaningless.

Jayson Stark at ESPN wrote a column during the labor troubles a couple of years ago that does a really nice job of addressing some of the same issues addressed by Coonelly's quote. I'd like to crib a bit of Stark's work here:

[T]he only meaningful issue in this labor tug of war is competitive balance. And any attempt to harp on anything else is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, an indication that the competitive-balance talk is nothing but a smokescreen.

"What you're seeing," says one longtime baseball man, "is inconsistent messages. On the one hand, Bud's saying, 'We need more revenue sharing so we can have competitive balance.' On the other hand, you're hearing him talk about all this debt.

"But if these clubs are going to spend that revenue-sharing money on their debt, how does it allow them to spend money on players? If it's about competitive balance, the money has to be spent on the players. And if it's not, what this really is all about is increasing franchise value."

If the industry as a whole is losing money, says another baseball person with no ties to the union, then more revenue sharing doesn't solve that problem. It only changes the problem -- because it doesn't bring any more money in. It just redistributes the money that has already come in.

Emphasis mine. So, like J. Wellington Wimpy, the Pirates will gladly give you a competitive club on Tuesday for another $5 today. It's just a con game. Don't be the mark.

Clubhouse friction?

Last offseason, there was a lot of hand-wringing over comments by Jack Wilson about his preference for Freddy Sanchez at second base over Jose Castillo. Sanchez, of course, ended up at second, and Castillo spent the year as a little-used backup after losing the third base job to Jose Bautista. When I read Jason Bay's Friday comments about the franchise's direction, I started to wonder whether we're on the cusp of a similar situation this offseason.

Most of the discussion about his comments has focused on his (probably accurate) belief that the team isn't going to contend in 2008 without getting all kinds of breaks, and his criticism of the lack of significant moves this offseason, but I think that another portion was even more significant:

"You talk to people at these things and everyone is in the best shape of their life - all that's great, but it's your job to be in the best shape of your life," Bay said. "I really don't know if that carries a ton of weight. Ultimately, if a guy reports in the worst shape of his life and goes out and performs, nobody cares."

I don't think that Bay went off on a riff about conditioning because he was up late watching World's Strongest Man reruns on ESPN2. I think he was taking an implicit shot at one or more teammates who came to play in poor shape last year, turned in a lousy season, and then tried to turn things around by buffing up the chassis this winter.

I don't have any inside sources of information here, but a quick look at the newspaper archives suggests a couple of likely candidates. Ronny Ballgame received a lot of coverage for his offseason weight loss, and Chris Duffy has been claiming that he's "in the best shape since before [he] came into professional baseball". Maybe Bay wasn't so much upset about a general lack of moves as the lack of one specific move: a deal that would put the guy in question out of a job, if not on a flight to another city.

Catching rumor of the day

With us linked to basically every veteran catcher on the market at this point (Michael Barrett, Johnny Estrada, Damian Miller, Miguel Olivo, etc.), I was kind of intrigued by the latest possibility floated in the San Diego papers:

The Astros gleaned that the Padres were willing to swap Double-A catcher Nick Hundley for corner outfielder Luke Scott, later dealt to the Orioles. Hundley might fetch Pirates corner outfielder Xavier Nady, whose right-handed power appeals to Towers. -Tom Krasovic, San Diego Union-Tribune

Hundley was San Diego's second-round pick in 2005, out of the University of Arizona. Coming into the season, Baseball America rated him as the Padres' #8 overall prospect, though he didn't make their Top 10 for 2008. He spent last season in AA, where he hit .247/.324/.475, and his defensive skills are regarded as strong (particularly his throwing arm). To my knowledge, he's not related to ex-ML catcher (and steroid cheat) Todd Hundley.

We can probably substitute Pearce for Nady in RF without missing much, if anything, and between Josh Bard, Colt Morton, and Mitch Canham, the Padres have enough catching depth to deal Hundley. I'm not sure that it's entirely equitable as a 1-for-1 swap, but it's not a bad starting point for discussions, and it's certainly more interesting than some ideas I've seen floated in the press.