PBC Blog

Authors

Post-Gazette beat writers Dejan Kovacevic and Chuck Finder blog about the Pittsburgh Baseball Club.

Register to comment
Guide to commenting

Syndication

Nationals' view on the trade

By Dejan Kovacevic | 6:20 p.m. Tuesday

Mike Rizzo, acting Washington general manager, on the Nyjer Morgan/Sean Burnett/Lastings Milledge/Joel Hanrahan trade:

> On Morgan: "He's a high-energy speed type of guy, very plus-plus defensive capability. We see him as an everyday center fielder for us
hitting somewhere at the top of the lineup. It gives us the defensive center fielder that we've been missing here. His attitude, makeup and
high energy level are really party of his package as a player."

> On Burnett: "He's a two-way pitcher. He's not strictly a situational type of guy."

> On the trade in general: "We addressed two of our biggest needs, athleticism and defensive ability in center field and a bullpen guy
we'll have control over the next three years." He called called Burnett and Morgan "two cornerstones of the organization."

> On Milledge's performance: "I wouldn't say it's a disappointment. I don't think things went right for him this season. I think we asked him to do things he possibly wasn't capable of doing at this point in his career."

> On Hanrahan: He "tried his best and competed well. He never gave excuses, never whined about it. He's got the stuff to be a competent
major-league bullpen guy."


Posted Jun 30 2009, 06:20 PM by Dejan Kovacevic

Comments

BayAreaBuccaneer wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:32 PM

Nyjer Morgan, cornerstone of an organization.

If that's true, the Nationals are worse than I even realized.

darylethepiratefan wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:35 PM

We need a win for MORALE,

We need a win to stay in the RACES

We need a win to MAKE JACK HAPPY

We need a win to MAKE ME HAPPY

We need a win to make the ASYLUM HAPPY

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS I AM BEING SI LLY

Demery44 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:36 PM

An acting GM schooled Neal.

We have a midget in RF tonight.

FormerSoxFan wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:38 PM

That's a good point BAB.

People who are asking why the Nationals would be so quick to trade Milledge have to remember they are the NATIONALS.

madturk2008 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:38 PM

@BayAreaBuccaneer wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade

on Jun 30, 2009 6:32 PM

Nyjer Morgan, cornerstone of an organization.

If that's true, the Nationals are worse than I even realized.

_______

Ditto

Demery44 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:38 PM

Delwyn Young is short and fat. But at least he is slow.

stealer6 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:41 PM

why did we trade burnett?

FormerSoxFan wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:41 PM

In a Twitter post, Joel Sherman of the NY Post points out that Hanrahan pitched for the US in the WBC this year.  Guys who pitch in the WBC have a history of struggling in the majors afterwards.

macsinthebox wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:42 PM

"Delwyn Young is short and fat. But at least he is slow."

My guy Demery, a voice of reason in challenging times:)

uglyken wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:43 PM

Daryle  << We need a win to make the ASYLUM HAPPY >>

You sure got that right1

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:46 PM

WOW--The posts keep coming--glad to be away from the last ones as the insults kept coming.

uglyken wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:46 PM

Demery  << Delwyn Young is short and fat. But at least he is slow>>

Don't forget he also has a glove.....I'm not convinced he understands what it's for, but.....

He also has a bat, and I don't think anyone needs to explain what he's supposed to do with that.

;-)

boruboru27 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:47 PM

DY might be short and fat, and slow, but he crushed that changeup to deeeeeeeeep center field the other night.

this is a classic trade that benefits both teams.  Morgan is a CF.  he would never achieve the value we need in LF.  Milledge is exactly what we are looking for in LF, but Moss provides a great fall back in LF because he is a decent fielder.  DY represents the type of RF we can use because you can hide his defense out there and he has a solid bat.  

i certainly do not want to trade jack or freddy because we have nobody to replace either one of them.  

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:47 PM

BAB and Mad

Having been to several Nats games this season, they are really bad.

FormerSoxFan wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:48 PM

So this is a bad trade because DY is going to have to play RF for a couple of weeks until Milledge is healthy?

That's reaching Littlefieldian levels of shortsightedness.

darylethepiratefan wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:48 PM

@ NUHO

Honestly, you are GM OF THE BUCS, what is your next move if any??

bjm wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:49 PM

Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

boruboru27 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:51 PM

heck, next year, milledge might be our best player.  he was the #1 prospect in the Mets organization before the Nats got him.  he's has more upside than McLouth did, let alone Morgan.

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:52 PM

"We need a win to make the ASYLUM HAPPY"

I thought an asylum was also known as a "Laughing Academy". Wouldn't making the Asylum happy be redundant, like something from the Department of Redundancy Department?

Just askin'

Demery44 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:53 PM

The trade has nothing to do with DY being short and fat and slow.

That stands on it's own merit.

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:53 PM

BTW Demery, good call on DY, LOL

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:55 PM

BEAT 'EM BUCS

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:55 PM

stealer

No idea why Burnett except that they seemed to really want Milledge and the Nats probably would not make the trade without getting Burnett.

DMac wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:56 PM

For anyone wanting PBP...it will be in the pre-game lineup thread.

:-)

dmc wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:56 PM

i haven't read through all of the posts as i'm in a hurry, but after reading about burnett crying its got to be stated (if it has been already, forgive me), "Are you crying? Are you crying? ARE YOU CRYING? There's no crying! THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL!"

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 6:58 PM

Here is what the Nats President said in a speech at the National press Club 4 days ago

npc.press.org/.../article.cfm

roxtar wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:00 PM

daryle:

You didn't ask me, but any plan that doesn't include middle infielders (either extending Freddy and Jack or trading for new blood) is a non-starter.  Maybe I've been spoiled by the quality of our middle infield defense, but the future looks mighty bleak.

BayAreaBuccaneer wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:00 PM

dmc

You are the first with that post, and I second it!

roxtar wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:01 PM

@ bjm:

"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

Bravo! Well played, sir.

macsinthebox wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:03 PM

@ KEN,  from the other thread , i get where your coming from on Jack, i just believe in a few days it will be a blip on the radar.

Ya'Zhynka wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:03 PM

Demery

Delwyn Young is hitting 50 points higher than Nyjer Morgan.

darylethepiratefan wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:03 PM

LETS GIVE A ROUND OF APPLAUSE TO DK,

I mean this guy worked his tail off, I felt like I was in the PIRATE BOARD ROOM, great job DK, you kept us abreast:) 1 step ahead...Again great job today...

stealer6 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:06 PM

Jal, This is going to be an interesting July. They may just get rid of everyone and start from scratch.  I wonder if they can get a lot for doumit?  I know they want to trade him now that we have 2 solid catchers.

we may have to get a few free agents at the end of this year one way or the other.

countdown to SANO signing as well.

darylethepiratefan wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:07 PM

@roxstar

You are so right, I am perplexed, I mean with that said , You have to beleive that FREDDY NOR JACK can get traded, I mean you have NOTHING to replace them with...

BayAreaBuccaneer wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:10 PM

daryle

You're absolutely right. I think hap caps, and other awards, should be granted to DK. Masterful performance today.  The thread-management aspect of his game has really gone to another level.

boruboru27 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:11 PM

i agree with last three posts....

@Ya'z...  DY much better hitter than Nyjer.  i love nyjer, but i want to win a champeenship.

@macsinbox...  Jack will get over it and it will be like it never happened.

@Daryle...  DK rules!

CullenH wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:13 PM

One player I do NOT want to see traded is Doumit... Not because it is or is not a good deal, but bc Doumit is by far my favorite Pirate, injuries and all.  I think with the exception of Adam, we need to be done trading. Keep Jack and Freddy, Duke and Maholm, and move from here.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:15 PM

Delwyn Young -34 H 28 singles.Short chubby slow bad arm.Teams WILL run on him.You do not see the extra base they get off his weiny arm in the box score OR  the extra base they get on his misplays either.If I'm the pitcher I wear a rabbits foot.

                                               yes   Wabbit

macsinthebox wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:18 PM

"Here is what the Nats President said in a speech at the National press Club 4 days ago"

@ JAL, I Met Kasten in Atlanta when Turner field opened vs the Yankees.

He's an engaging fellow and a good baseball man.

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:19 PM

Stealer

It will be interesting.  Doumit is the  least of their problems.  They have to trade Adam or sign him or lose him for nothing.  Then what to do with Jack and Freddy.  Doumit is locked up for awhile so they there is less urgency.  If someone comes asking fir him I am sure they will listen or they could package him in deal with one of the other 3.  It will be interesting to watch.

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:21 PM

maz

I did not forget you on the last thread when listing who was ahead of JH--I was just listing  those who had already posted on the tread because I could click on them and see the number.  You had not posted on that thread yet--or I missed it if you did.

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:22 PM

macs

I have met him too, and he is engaging and a good baseball man.

BayAreaBuccaneer wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:22 PM

          EVEN WITH JACK'S FRONT OFFICE BLASTINGS, I'M HAPPY THAT WE HAVE LASTINGS!

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:27 PM

Maz

Young is an adventure in the field--made to be a DH

Milledge may be similar --Nats gave him CF and lead off and he failed at both--that is why they sent him down.  Misplayed balls in the field and swung at everything pitchers threw.

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:31 PM

"DY represents the type of RF we can use because you can hide his defense out there and he has a solid bat"

I beg to disagree.  MLB hitters are good enough to find the weak spot in your defense, and that describes DY IMHO. His bat is good, but he is sorely lacking in glove and speed skills.

wozzle wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:31 PM

Sorry, but I don't care what JW thinks about the situation.  He's been upset at every trade made.  And we're no worse off than we were last year.  

Some seem to think that this was the best trade made by the FO; I disagree strenuously.  The Yankees got Marte and Nady; we got Ohlendorf, Karstens and Tabata.  Anyone want to reverse it?

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:34 PM

Re: Sano, Could be the PBC is waiting to see the results of the age testing, or does the year suspension for age irregularities not preclude a team from signing him?

Bizrow wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:36 PM

JAL re - packaging,

IMO, and no offense or shots at any FO, I think some of our pitching, Maholm, Duke, Capps and of course Grabow will be going, as well as Adam, teams now know that NH will deal, pitching is needed by several teams that have a chance this year, Paulie, Zach and Matt are reasonable and signed for a while.

Re - Milledge and upside

Seattle was willing to give us Ken Griffey for Jason Schmidt and Hermanson, so much for potential

And nary a word on Sano or draft picks today, interesting in many ways

marty34156 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:40 PM

Wow the Nats must be much worse off then I thought if Nyjmo and Burnett are "cornestones of the franchise"

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:42 PM

Biz

No offense taken--you may be right.

marty34156 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:43 PM

Ohlie sure is looking good so far.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:45 PM

Ohlie 37 P 23 ST after 3 very good.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:49 PM

Indy and lLncoln losing 200 top of 3.Cruz in CF.His BA is .248 and has been going down.Ford batting 8th at .166.

DMac wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:49 PM

FYI>>>  March to the pre-game lineup thread if you want PBP.  :-)

pipecock wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:49 PM

"Some seem to think that this was the best trade made by the FO; I disagree strenuously.  The Yankees got Marte and Nady; we got Ohlendorf, Karstens and Tabata.  Anyone want to reverse it?"

i mean, taking out any injuries that may or may not have occured had those players stayed with the Bucs and that one is still good but not nearly as good as it is right now. this trade is one that could be awesome even if Burnett and Morgan go on to be even a little better than they are now.

radio wave wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:49 PM

Good evening inmates near and far. The most shocking thing to me isn't the trade, it's the fact that Hostage likes it...

I couldn't understnad giving up a relief pitcher, best wishes to Nyger , hope he does well in DC.  A strange quirk to this situation is most players feel like they're going downhill to the MLB basement being traded here, but the Nats are so bad, this is a step up for these players.  I still think many more moves are coming, possibly Freddie, Adam, Jack, Grabow, and Capps.  Jack's reaction was a glorified "get me out of here." Unfortunately, we all know there is no one to replace him, unless we get a ss in a trade.  So if anyone is dissapointed today, or with the previous trade, this is only the beginning.  I suspect it will be a drasticlly different team Aug 1st. Whether it's a better or worse team, I leave to the bloggers.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:50 PM

I would not be surprised to see Ford demoted to AA.Struggling badly.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:51 PM

Altoona 5-0 top of 2 .No PA

Bizrow wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:52 PM

@Marty - re cornerstone

That still burns my rear, worse than jalapeno peppers, Nate was a cornerstone, so is Ryan, Snell, Paulie, anyone that gets a press conference, or so it seems

IMO its the MLB buzz word for today, the meaning is not what one reads in the dictionary, much like the corporate speak, buzzwords we are fed at work,

Didn't Forbes also have their last game on June 30?  For some reason that sticks in my head, a doubleheader sweep vs Cubbies  Say 1970??  I remember I was in summer school at Slippery Rock and was really disappointed I couldn't make that game, did make the second game at TRS against the Reds, we lost of course....

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 7:53 PM

Lynchburg losing 3-0.Locke  3R  0ER his own error cost him 3 runs.

darylethepiratefan wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:00 PM

where the hell did our bats go ????

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:01 PM

radio

Yes, Hostage did like it--shocked many. :)

Cajun Thunder wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:02 PM

Last game, actually a DH, at Forbes Field, was 6/28/70. Pirates actually won their last seven games at Forbes...including 3 with the Cubs and the last 4 of a 5 game series with the Cardinals.

Then went 10-4 on a road trip through most of the National League East division. First game at TRS, was a 3-2 loss to the Reds on 7/16/70.

That 17-4 stretch took them from 3rd place, 4 games out...to 1st place, a game and a half ahead. The Pirates would be no more than a half game out of the lead (and that for only 2 days) the rest of the season.

Bizrow wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:08 PM

Thanks, Thunder, I knew it was Juneish, we also talked about going to the game Roberto hit No 3000, two of many things in my life I wish I had a mulligan on

Bizrow wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:22 PM

@darylethepiratefan - re- where did our bats go?

To the Redsox, the Braves, now the Nats, and I may forget others

Its rebuilding, my friend, and the pitchers are starting to adjust to McCutcheon, the ball is now in his court

Lilley ain't no slouch on the mound, IMO

Thunder the last game at Forbes was a twinbill on Sunday vs the Cubbies, if memory hasn't failed me again

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:22 PM

My dog was sleeping at my feet and when Moss was arguing the 3rd strike I yelled  GO and the the dog woke up and ran to the door.Musta scared the poo outa him.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:23 PM

Ohlie 64 P 41 St after 5

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:26 PM

Biz

The piece in Sunday's paper was interesting on the Pirates and Cubs--First NL game played in Pittsburgh was against the team that would become the Cubs,  1st and last games in Exposition Park  were against the Cubs, 1st and last games in Forbes were against the Cubs.

Cajun Thunder wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:29 PM

Bizrow...I missed being at Roberto's #3000 by a scorer's decision. I was at the Friday night game with Seaver pitching when he hit the ground ball to Boswell. I was sitting down the first base line...and Davalillo screened Boswell a little. The ball was hit slow enough that I don't think that Boswell gets him even if he fields it cleanly. The scoreboard at TRS actually flashed hit first...then error.

He also hit a line drive down the right field line in the bottom of the 9th...that Rusty Staub had to make a running catch on.

The game that Seaver pitched that night might be the best pitched game I've ever seen in person. Complete game 2 hitter (Oliver and Hebner with the hits)...2 walks (Davalillo and Clines) and 13 strikeouts (including Stargell 4 times).

Only run the Mets scored was a bloop double...sacrifice and single in the top of the 9th against Briles...who threw a CG 5 hitter.

darylethepiratefan wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:30 PM

AMAC is starting to worry me, I mean we gave him CLEMENTE status after 2 games and now I am noticing alot of k's.....Not jumpn ship but man ,

ROSS IS BOSS

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:36 PM

I had to make a choice, watch the game on FSN Pit and see mostly auction interrupted by periods of baseball, or watch the Chicago feed. BTW DY's 2-out RISP is .200, or was before that last K.

Just for clarification, I am not saying the charities auction is a bad thing, but why not show it between innings in lieu of commercials?

uglyken wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:38 PM

maz  <<  I yelled  GO and the the dog woke up and ran to the door.Musta scared the poo outa him.>>

LOL

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:40 PM

Make that DY's 2-out RISP BA is .200 (which I bet wasn't shown on the Pgh feed)

DMac wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:48 PM

@Maz...lol.  Sounds like the time I was watching on my computer in Lincoln, while babysitting my then 2-yr-old niece.  Something happened and I yelled "NO!"...just as she was reaching for a cookie.  Her face clouded up just before she burst into tears.  

radio wave wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:48 PM

A thought crossed my mind. I heard there was a poll that indicated generation gap in this country is wider than ever. People under 49 think much differently than those over 65 about almost everything.  I wonder if this same situation is reflected on this blog.  If you're old enough to remember the great Roberto and Forbes field, your opinion and view of the current situation would be much different than someone who only has seen three rivers or PNC. If you think Ken Griffy Jr. is the best you've ever seen, and didn't see Mays, mantle, AAron, etc. and you didn't see mlb prior to the dh, your perspective will be different than the older poster.  That's not to say one group is right or wrong, just that I wonder if the age group differences are being reflected on this blog?

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:52 PM

daryle

Clemente's first year he hit .255 with 5 HR in 122 games. Don't worry about Cutch yet.

BFGrad wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:56 PM

Could it be more ironic the Buccos are holding a charity auction on TV tonight? I guess they did their part by helping out the little sisters of the poor Nationals by giving them two serviceable major leaguers and taking a problem child off their hands.

BTW, for those of you who were trashing Jack Wilson... It was his hustle that got the Bucs their second run. First dropping a beautiful bunt, being moved over to second and then scoring on Sanchez' single.

wakerider429 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:56 PM

I like how Moss is so bad, the only way he can knock in runs is by striking out (not unusual) and having a subsequent error on the play.  Luckily they didn't give him an RBI.  

Hopefully Milledge can be up soon and take Moss' place, although I wish Neal just threw him in that trade.

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:56 PM

Uh oh, base hit and an assist in the same game for Moss. That means  a place on the pine tomorrow for the lad for sure

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 8:59 PM

If my memory serves, the Pirates used to start every year vs the Cubs, or at least it seemed that way at the time.

wakerider429 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:00 PM

I think the bigger problem than finding a replacement for Jack if we trade him is finding a team that would want him as a starter. The Bucs won't get much if other teams view him as a defensive replacement or bench player.

wakerider429 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:01 PM

I hope you are right tedkin.

Does the assist go to Moss or Soto?

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:02 PM

wqke,

We get it, you hate Moss. Please forgive those of us who don't share your view.

wakerider429 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:06 PM

I'm just stating, in case other Pirates, like Snell, read this blog haha.

The Moss thing is a pretty consistent thing given his level of play.

At least Moss could rival Derek Bell as worst Pirate of the decade.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:08 PM

Moss with a NL leading 8 th assist.

socaldonn wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:08 PM

Thunder,

I, too, was at the game that Friday night.  Seaver was incredible.  I went back the following day with the idea of buying a couple cheap seats.  When getting off the bus a gentleman offered my cousin and me two seats in 243, Row A, which was in the loge level directly behind home plate.  What a great day.  One of my fonder memories of that day was Willie Mays going over the Pirates dugout between innings to congratulate Clemente.  It was a great moment and the crowd cheered Mays' classy gesture.

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:08 PM

Radio

Good post-- Different age groups have different experiences thus they see the world through a different lens.  There has been a lot written about how those who grew up in the great depression see money much differently than those who grew up the 50s or the 80s.  You can gain perspective by studying history but for many history is what they have seen.  

wakerider429 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:10 PM

Hahaha, maybe I'll have to learn the hard way about how much Jack's defense helps us...

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:10 PM

Wake- give it a break or grow up.This is very tiring.We know you hate Moss!

RichW wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:15 PM

was just thinking, had it been Littlefield at the helm, he probably would've have traded the same guys for "Smiley Gonzalez".

darylethepiratefan wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:15 PM

GRABOW MARRY ME

WhyStanBelinda wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:16 PM

Katsen most likely views Nyger as a Otis Nixon-type, w/o the off field problems.

macsinthebox wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:16 PM

Jack's having a rough day, first the emotional quotes then he makes a tremendous stop and the unfortunate throw. At least Grabow picked him up!

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:17 PM

Wake-I've heard  smart is ....when OTHERS say you are.Dumb is when YOU are the only who says it.I've heard people say that...how about you?Ever heard that?

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:17 PM

wake,

"I hope you are right tedkin.

Does the assist go to Moss or Soto?"

You are the ONLY one who that could possibly matter to.

boruboru27 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:17 PM

poor Jack.  Saves a hit with a great dive and then caught Freddy flat footed barely throwing it over his glove.

i never like how Grabow reacts to a defensive miscue.  too demonstrative.

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:18 PM

wake,

I guess the 429 has nothing to do with 420, does it?

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:19 PM

Wake

Moss got a hit and threw out a runner at third--he is a very good defensive Of and is hitting .264 with a .310 OBP--now go study some history and you will find Derek Bell hit .173 with the Pirates.  Moss already has more RBI than Bell had that season.  In logic you have made a faulty comparison.

boruboru27 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:21 PM

wow Grabow!   i apologize!  yuduhman!

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:22 PM

Oh dear--Moss just got another hit--up to .268 now

radio wave wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:23 PM

It's early, the Brewers and Cards are both losing 2-1. The Reds are down 6-0 to the DBacks. Astros play at SD.

boruboru27 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:24 PM

i like Brandon Moss and DY.  i'm willing to wait until i see each play more before being so definitive on where they'll progress.  i think both have the ability to be above average players.

i really like what NH has done with the building this team this.  look at our starting pitching!  we actually have five starters who give you a chance, one in the bullpen, and one in AAA (and maybe three if you count Snell and Lincoln).

wakerider429 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:28 PM

Give him time, Bell's best years were behind him.  Who knows if Moss could get worse as he goes along.

nhurley wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:29 PM

If this trade was made last year everybody would have been very happy about it. Don't let this years stats dominate your opinion of this trade. It is the type of trade that needs to happen in order for a team like the Pirates to substain winning for any length of time. I for one applaud NH for having the guts to pull the trigger on a trade that clearly would not be popular. This obviously was not a money driven trade so it was done in what he beleived to be the best interest of the team.

macsinthebox wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:29 PM

@WAKE, First Jack Wilson is not a major league short stop

                 Now you have came up with

"At least Moss could rival Derek Bell as worst Pirate of the decade."

Partner you need to give the comedy a break:)

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:30 PM

Hope Capps isn't going to channel his inner Mike Williams tonight. NOPE !!

Nice win Bucs !!   Very good game by Ohlie, and we beat the almighty Cubbies.

boruboru27 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:31 PM
BondsInjector wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:32 PM

This changes daily, but here's my wish list 2010 lineup:

1. McCutchen CF

2. Milledge LF

3. Alvarez 3B

4. Doumit 1B

5. Tabata RF

6. LaRoche 2B

7. Jamarillo C

8. New SS Found Somewhere

9. Maholm / Duke / Morton / Ohlendorf / Lincoln

wakerider429 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:32 PM

NH still probably has a long way to go.  As Jack said, 80% of the team won't be around when these trades mean something.  I doubt Moss or Young will be with the Pirates when they are ready to contend.

Hopefully the outfield of Milledge, McCutchen and Tabata is as scary as has the potential to be.  Even Milledge's production with NY would be a welcome addition here.  Now NH needs to make the moves to get the pieces in place for the middle infield and pitching staff.

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:33 PM

All,

wakerider 429 is obviously a troll who is trying to bait us, and he is very good at baiting us. One might even call him a master______

Nahhhhh   too easy.

JAL wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:35 PM

ants marching to post game thread===========================

mazfromiowa wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:37 PM

Ohlie was pitching like butter.

wakerider429 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:37 PM

If Moss becomes even half the players Bell was in his prime, he'll find a job somewhere.  He has a way to go to catch Bell's home run totals with the Bucs.  Just saying.  

Anyway, if Jack Wilson isn't traded, we'll know whether or not he has the ability to start for another team. I'm guessing he's be a defensive replacement, but you don't get much return for that, so NH probably won't do that.

tedkin43 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:38 PM

sheesh, talk about crybabies, the Cub announcers are boo-hooing all over the place about how poorly the Cubs played, downplayibg Ross's great game. Sheesh!

wakerider429 wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 9:43 PM

-they did play pretty poorly...

UnclScrewtape wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Tue, Jun 30 2009 10:14 PM

So let me get this straight:

Morgantown is out, now the left field fans are going to be.. what?  The Milledge Idiots???  The Milledge People????

PressKyle wrote re: Nationals' view on the trade
on Wed, Jul 1 2009 1:02 AM

It hit me tonight, I finally figured out why every time the Bucs start making headway and looking a little like a major league team, which would, of course, raise the fans' expectations for a possible .500 season or better, the front office makes a trade to rid the team of another of its leaders and most popular players, assuring another rough patch while players become familiar with new roles in the field and in the batting order.

Those raised expectations would force the Pirates to get better sooner. When, of course, that didn't happen, the current "brain trust" would be that much closer to being gone.

So, the front office does their level best time after time, year after year, to lower expectations, pushing the projected date by when the Pirates are expected to become competitive back, back, and further back with each trade.

It's all about job security for Huntington and Coonelly. The longer they can put off the expectations of competitiveness, the longer they will be able to justify one mediocre season after another, and they'lll be able to excuse the team's dismal performance as not poor performance on their part but rather as just another part of the building process.

Nothing they have done since their installation has done anything to enable the Pirates to contend any sooner than 2013 at best, if then. Today, they traded a younger lefty pitcher with a far better ERA for an older righty with declining statistics. They traded a high character guy who has become their team leader and spark plug for an injury-prone underachiever who failed with the Mets despite being surrounded with talent and has had a number of personal issues, including missing team meetings, and is cursed with the dreaded label of "having potential". Now the Pirates have 2 fast leadoff hitters who bat right-handed with little power and who are about the same age (McCutchen, Hernandez), and 2 right fielders who both bat righty of about the same age with yet-to-be realized potential on the field and personal problems off it who both failed in New York (Tabata, Milledge). That goes with 2 catchers that are about the same age who are slightly above average defensively and below average offensively, and now 2 righty closers of about the same age. Impressive, eh?

Doesn't sound like the Bucs got any closer to contention today to me.