One of the more arrogant positions I hold is the idea that just because you have or had the talent to be a major league player, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you have the talent to evaluate players. You can extend this to “have the talent to evaluate teams” or any number of ideas that require a grasp of analysis, both skills and statistical. It’s the difference between being an airline pilot and being an airline mechanic-both jobs are critical for keeping a plane in the air, but they’re not interchangeable in any meaningful way, and they require competely different abilities. It’s not an insult to say that a pilot probably couldn’t fix an engine, and it’s not an insult to say a shortstop probably couldn’t run a roster.
“It’s just hard for guys who have been here and seen these exact same trades happen and seen it absolutely do nothing. I’ve been here nine years. I’ve seen two or three of these trades every year and still haven’t had a winning season.”
That’s Jack Wilson, who you may remember from such classics as “consecutive .312 OBPs” or “diminished range after his age-27 season,” or-my favorite-“1.4 WARP per season in a nine-year career.” If you’re Jack Wilson, and you’re wondering why you’ve never been on a winning team, do you think that he would you ever think, “maybe it’s because I have a career .312 OBP, 36 steals, and have been taking down about 10-12 percent of the payroll for that production”?
Neal Huntington didn’t make the Jason Bay, Nate McLouth or Nyjer Morgan trades because he doesn’t want to have winning seasons. He did it because he knows that the Pittsburgh Pirates, as currenty constituted, don’t have winning seasons. He did it because he knows that they’re not going to unless he turns over 20 or maybe 22 of the guys in uniform for new ones, Jack Wilson inclusive. He’s not breaking up the 1984 Tigers here; if you’re part of a group of players that never finishes above .500, you forfeit the right to whine when you’re treated as such.
Wilson, again, speaking of Morgan, who has 614 major-league plate appearances at the age of 28:
“What you saw on the field wasn’t even close to what he brought to the team. That’s the type of player, guys of that caliber, like Jason Bay, Nate McLouth …”
This may be true, and it points to the blind spot that players have that makes them bad general managers, from either the front or the back seat. Players care a lot about intangibles and personality, because it makes their day-to-day lives better to work with people they like. All baseball personnel overrate soft factors because of this, even though it’s been shown time and again that ephemera like “character” and “chemistry” are labels distributed as much after the fact as before, and as fleeting as the next losing streak. It’s the GM’s job to ignore the effect of a trade on Jack Wilson’s job satisfaction. It’s human to want to think that a positive workplace is a successful one, but in baseball, talent is paramount.
That’s why this trade is such a great one for the Pirates. Lastings Milledge is more talented than the other three players in the deal combined. Perhaps he doesn’t crack jokes or buck up the boys the way that Morgan does, but then again, Morgan had never even played for a .500 team, so how much value could that possibly have to winning? And as far as the reason for Milledge even being available is concerned, his reputation as a “bad guy,” I’ll take my chances on Lastings Milledge maturing into a better person over Nyjer Morgan’s shot at becoming a great baseball player, and I’ll so every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
This all sounds like I’m down on Morgan. I’m not. He’s a good defensive outfielder who has some on-base skills, and he can be a sort of Gary Pettis clone for the next few years. I’d advocated him for the Pirates’ job in center field, even when they had McLouth, and he’ll be an asset for the Nationals, who have put some brutal outfield defenses out on the field this season. It’s just that he has no upside, and the Nationals have no business trading upside and not getting some in return. The argument for acquiring Morgan is that good defense helps young pitchers develop, and the Nats’ most important task right now is turning Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmerman, and others into a rotation. I just think they could have gotten a comparable talent without giving up on Milledge.
The Pirates aren’t a very good baseball team. They’re under .500, and while they’ve outscored their opponents by four runs, there’s no looking at the talent here-or the talent here three weeks ago-and concluding that they’re a contender. This same group of players, more or less, has failed year after year, and the veteran core here has no business whatsoever complaining about the direction that Neal Huntington has taken. Wilson is an overpaid mediocrity. Adam LaRoche is an adequate first baseman in the Paul Sorrento mode, and is probably the team’s best player; if your best player is Adam LaRoche, you have no hope of contending. Freddy Sanchez is 31 and working on the fourth good season of his career, batting .315 despite a 45/14 K/BB in 302 ABs. Matt Capps is 25 but looks as if he’s peaked. The decent ERAs put up by the soft-tossing starting rotation, probably the biggest reason why the Pirates are good enough to create this controversy, are likely to rise with the temperature. Every single Pirates starter is overperforming his peripherals right now-some of that was Morgan’s defense-and when that changes, the Pirates will go away.
Huntington and Frank Coonelly have a difficult job, turning around a franchise that spent a decade in the woods. They’re doing the job well so far, and that the players they inherited-the core of those .440 juggernauts-don’t like it is perhaps the best indicator of their success. It’s Neal Huntington’s job to make Jack Wilson unhappy, no matter what the short-term ramifications of that are. Jack Wilson isn’t a part of the future in Pittsburgh. Lastings Milledge is.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
This is nothing new for the Pirates. They've been doing this for years and so far it's gotten them nowhere.
They finally have a reasonably competitive team and they do it again. Oh maybe this trade is better (Millege has been hyped for years, yet he keeps getting traded - I have my doubts), but the point remains. Maybe the Rangers did it this way but that's solely really from one trade: the Texiera trade.
But I ask you this - how long has it taken them? A decade? And how good are they?
Rebuilding is for suckers. Ask Pirate, Reds, Indians Blue Jay fans.
Your examples are not relevant because the circumstances of each is different from that of the Pirates, even the Pirates themselves who did not rebuild so much as squander resources on mediocrities.
It seems the Pirates are trading mediocre vets for a lot of dice-rolling minor leaguers. They're not getting a ton of quality back and it is reducing the payroll slightly, but if even one person in each trade gets some value, then they'll have another person to flip. At worst, at least they save cash on a team that isn't really a sustainable contender right now.
Two organizations that this site routinely scoffs at and ranks as bottomm tier organizations at are competitive 4/5 years: the Astros and the White Sox. They don't rebuild.
The Jays, As, Pirates, Reds, Padres constantly rebuild.
The Cardinals, BoSox, Phillies, White Sox don't rebuild - they win world championships.
Most importantly, you have to have an actual plan, stick with it, and get some luck. The Pirates have never really shown much of a plan or dedication to one until now. They're basically starting from scratch.
Just as thought snark was played out.
Milledge was. And then they traded him.
"Maybe it says something that two teams have dumped him for 50 cents on the dollar now."
Yes. It says that two teams have let perceived character problems drive poor decisionmaking.
"And he hasn't yet produced anything."
This is not true at all. There was nothing wrong with his performance as a 22 yo CF for the Mets, or with, say, his performance as a 21 yo CF in AAA. The last year+ has been disappointing, but there's still upside here.
For the Nats... Rizzo's supposed to be the great judge of talent, right? Two teams have now sold Milledge for peanuts, so I have to think that might be informative of something. Still, if you're the Pirates, it only cost you peanuts, and if there's a 25% chance Milledge becomes a steak, then it's well worth it.
In short, I think Joe is dead on in theory, but probably too high on Milledge. There's at least an even chance that none of these players are relevant in 2011, a la the CIN/WAS Kearns trade.
I'm also sure that language is not English.
I love this trade for the Pirates. Its probably horrific for the Nats, but they haven't shown much anyway. (shifting deck chairs more or less).
One commenter mentioned "perceived character problems", as though they may be illusory. I doubt they are. Anyone who has watched him in DC and listened to Acta can see that he has ignored coaching. He is a wild swinger despite long emphasis on discipline, but Vlad Guerrero he ain't. He is an anti-instinctual and often atrocious outfielder who cannot handle CF despite his physical gifts, and seems unlikely to hit enough to carry LF even if he develops.
Sure, he could mature. That's what it comes down to. Is there a long list of success stories for guys like this?
At some point, you have to produce, and if Milledge can't behave himself or stay healthy enough to stay on the field, you can take all the upside you want, but it ain't equaling production.
Also, what's the upside, exactly? A .280/.360/.470 leftfielder? Sounds like Nate McClouth, a guy everyone on here just praised the Pirates for trading away.
Maybe I'm thinking of the Braves or Yankees here, where most of the top prospects that they trade off don't develop... and if that's the case, is it worth trading a vet for one "great" prospect (who still might not pan out), or two "good" prospects, especially if you have as many holes in their organization as the Pirates have?
One of the problems in Buccoland is that the fanbase (such that it is) has no idea what an effective offense in 2009 looks like. They see players like Nyjer Morgan, Nate McLouth, Jack Wilson, and Adam LaRoche and think they can be the core of a division winner. In other words, the fans see outfielders with an OPS of .800 or first basemen who hit 24 home runs and think those are cornerstone type players. And I don't blame them because the Pirates haven't been competitive since before the PED/bandbox/expansion/juiced ball offensive explosion began in 1994. So if you squint, McLouth's numbers look a hell of a lot like Andy Van Slyke's numbers, Jack Wilson does a passable Jay Bell inpersonation, and Adam LaRoche might as well be Jeff King. The problem is that 2009 is a vastly different offensive environment than 1990.
Mix in some impatience and a healthy and well-earned dose of skepticism and there is no wonder why these trades don't play well in Pittsburgh.
I think Jack Wilson is entitled to gripe and/or whine for a day or two, like the rest of us Pirates fans. Then he'll go back to work and wonder if this once proud franchise will ever turn things around...., like the rest of us Pirates fans.
Perhaps he was/is overpaid, but he plays hard and is one of the few Pirates who seems invested in how the team is doing. Isn't he allowed to get annoyed once in a while?
Who among the BP staff and readership would turn down his paycheck?
A person who's part of the problem is not entitled to whine.
You'll know when the once great franchise is turning around when Wilson and his bloated contract are gone.
Just because no one would turn down $7 million a year doesn't mean it's OK for a ballclub of limited means to give a slightly better than replacement level player that kind of money.
Good thing we don't judge BP's ability to evaluate talent based on 10 of 12 writers picking the Cleveland Indians to win their dvision.
Jack Wilson might just be having a better year than that pick ....
"Neal Huntington will never achieve that goal because he trades away all his young talented players for minor league trash."
"Instead, Huntington wants to give away Nyjer's ability to steal bases and high on base % and great clubhouse chemistry"
"16 years of losing baseball because of Neal Huntington"
The summary of all the comments there: The Pirates will never win because they traded away Nyjer Morgan and all the losing can be blamed on Neal Huntington. Nyjer Morgan, the 2009 World Series MVP, ya know if the Pirates kept him, of course. There was no way he was going to be on the next winning Pirates team. If he was a Red Sox, Dodger, Yankee or Brewer, he'd be a AAA player. Also, when he was sent to AAA early last season, I didn't hear a single complaint from anyone about that. Send him to AAA because he can't hit above the Mendoza line, nobody says a thing. Trade him for a player five years younger with more upside, it's the end of the World!
Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it ... and the Pirates are exhibit A.
Why would you trade a very good fielder and very good human who will hit .270 and swipe 35-45 bags each of the next three seasons for a questionable character who was just dumped by the worst team in the majors. Youth equals what?
If Milledge can't play for the Gnats now and doesn't project to be in their future, why should the Pirates want him?