Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:41 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:19 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
This is for the people who don't think the Nate trade was good for the team. I have disagreed with most moves management has made like the Bay trade. This is for Rod and others who believe the Nate deal was bad.

1. Nate is not a great player. He had one good season which fell apart down the stretch of the season. His 3 year average over the last 3 seasons is .261 ba 15 homeruns and 18 steals. It was apparent his speed was declining this season. He has speed like Jason Bay had before he developed into a better power hitter. Nate stock is high as it's going to get trading him now got us the best return possible. Nate was 28 years old meaning a slow decline is in the future.
2. We got a good return. Morton is highly prized and could help this Pirate team today. Gorkys has extreme potential an outfield with Hernandez, McCutchen, Tabata really looks great for the future. Locke is a project, but he could at some point be a major league player.
3. McCutchen is better then Nate. People say we lost the season by trading Nate, but McCutchen is more talented then him. Andrew brings more speed, covers more outfield ground, can hit for higher average, and can deliver some power.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 3138
I didn't even have a big issue with the trade but I take exception with a lot of this.

Quote:
He had one good season which fell apart down the stretch of the season. His 3 year average over the last 3 seasons is .261 ba 15 homeruns and 18 steals. It was apparent his speed was declining this season.


That one good season was his first season starting every game. We had not seem in that full time position longer than one season. This year he was moved down to the 3-spot which was of course going to take time to get accustomed to, unlike last year for example when he started the season with a 19-game hit streak. He could flat out get on base. This year, he is showing a lot more power, already hitting the double digits in HRs. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Pirates haven't hit a HR since he was dealt away. I have never thought of McLouth for his speed, even though he has had a great success rate when he attempts to steal. He just doesn't that much, which is fine.

Quote:
Nate was 28 years old meaning a slow decline is in the future.


This is a pretty broad statement that you certainly can't just depend on being true.

Quote:
McCutchen is better then Nate. People say we lost the season by trading Nate, but McCutchen is more talented then him. Andrew brings more speed, covers more outfield ground, can hit for higher average, and can deliver some power.


This is an extremely premature evaluation based on McCutchen's quick success so far. I believe in McCutchen and that he will have continued success, but you're ready to say he's better than Nate already, after 4 games? Please. I'm not even going to comment any more on this mind-boggling evaluation.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4270
Location: Zelienople, PA
Shark,

Nate will be in his optimum position in Atlanta. He is a real assest in the leadoff role because of his power and smart baserunning ability. He is misplaced in the 3 hole here, and I suspect staying here he would continue to hit about .250-ish with some HR power. In Atlanta in the leadoff spot, I can see him getting back close to a .280-.290 hitter with power.

While 4 games does not the player make, McCutch is certainly more talented than Nate. Of course, that has to translate to production, but its a good start.

Its like watching Dave Parker for the first time. He fouled two pitches in his first 25 BP swings as a Pirate, but everyone watching him "knew" he was a star. Same with Alvarez. Same with Cutch.


ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 3138
ZelieMike wrote:
McCutch is certainly more talented than Nate.

ZM


Based on what? AAA numbers and his first four games with the Pirates? He has had a good start. Great start in fact. And I believe he will keep it up. But until I see that I am not going to say he is already (having not even played FIVE games in the MLB yet) better than a player who accounted for 46 doubles, 26 homers and 94 batted in, all of these coming from the lead-off spot which is now Andrew's job. Do I think he's capable? Yes. But I need to see it before I already consider him better than the latter player who has done it for a full season.

I will say that I can I already judge that his defense and (of course) speed are better, and I do agree with your evaluation of McLouth in his Braves role.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4270
Location: Zelienople, PA
I don't see how the talent is in question.

McCutcheon. Faster, quicker, covers more ground, has hit better than Nate at every level he's played. I don't see how anyone can question that he has superior physical tools.

More subjectively, he has the "IT" factor that I tried (poorly?) to back reference to Parker and Alvarez.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:40 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Plus Cutch is younger and still developing. Just got to the Bigs. Much more upside.

Just no comparision.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:54 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
TheShark wrote:
ZelieMike wrote:
McCutch is certainly more talented than Nate.

ZM


Based on what? AAA numbers and his first four games with the Pirates? He has had a good start. Great start in fact. And I believe he will keep it up. But until I see that I am not going to say he is already (having not even played FIVE games in the MLB yet) better than a player who accounted for 46 doubles, 26 homers and 94 batted in, all of these coming from the lead-off spot which is now Andrew's job. Do I think he's capable? Yes. But I need to see it before I already consider him better than the latter player who has done it for a full season.

I will say that I can I already judge that his defense and (of course) speed are better, and I do agree with your evaluation of McLouth in his Braves role.


McClouth's season was somewhat of a fluke. He has pop and is an above average player but Mcutchen is better. More speed, more range, he can get a better batting average then McClouth and could develop as much power. And he is 6 years younger.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 3138
Ryann wrote:

McClouth's season was somewhat of a fluke. He has pop and is an above average player but Mcutchen is better.


You have nothing to prove that McLouth's season was a fluke considering it was his first full season as a starter, nor do you have any proof that McCutchen is better based on four games in the MLB. Simple as that. Do I believe McCutchen can become better and has that potential? Of course. But I am never going to say a guy is better after FOUR GAMES.

It should be known that, as I stated in the original response, I was mostly supportive of the trade, feel McCutchen was ready to debut, and displayed interest in the prospects. I am simply just not going to say he is better than McLouth right now.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
TheShark wrote:
Ryann wrote:

McClouth's season was somewhat of a fluke. He has pop and is an above average player but Mcutchen is better.


You have nothing to prove that McLouth's season was a fluke considering it was his first full season as a starter, nor do you have any proof that McCutchen is better based on four games in the MLB. Simple as that. Do I believe McCutchen can become better and has that potential? Of course. But I am never going to say a guy is better after FOUR GAMES.

It should be known that, as I stated in the original response, I was mostly supportive of the trade, feel McCutchen was ready to debut, and displayed interest in the prospects. I am simply just not going to say he is better than McLouth right now.

Have to agree w/ Shark. McCutchen clearly has more upside, but that says nothing about who is better right now, and such a judgment cannot be made based on such a small sample size.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:07 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 384
Good post Ryann.

Althought I disagree, you make some good points, credit earned..


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:10 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 384
Willton wrote:
TheShark wrote:
Ryann wrote:

McClouth's season was somewhat of a fluke. He has pop and is an above average player but Mcutchen is better.


You have nothing to prove that McLouth's season was a fluke considering it was his first full season as a starter, nor do you have any proof that McCutchen is better based on four games in the MLB. Simple as that. Do I believe McCutchen can become better and has that potential? Of course. But I am never going to say a guy is better after FOUR GAMES.

It should be known that, as I stated in the original response, I was mostly supportive of the trade, feel McCutchen was ready to debut, and displayed interest in the prospects. I am simply just not going to say he is better than McLouth right now.

Have to agree w/ Shark. McCutchen clearly has more upside, but that says nothing about who is better right now, and such a judgment cannot be made based on such a small sample size.


And yet you made your judgment, the very second BoB Nutting green lighted the deal. :lol:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:14 pm 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:05 am
Posts: 44
As an outsider, I was shocked by the trade. I was pleased when he signed the extension in March. However, I must say that McLouth is not an elite player. He's good, but not great. He is probably the worst center-fielder to win a Gold Glove in recent memory.

I like to compare him to David DeJesus, with more speed and power. McLouth also bats for a much lower average, and draws less walks. They both signed club friendly extensions, and are one of few guys who actually panned out from the last front office regime.

McLouth is "on pace" to have more home runs (33), RBI (119), and stolen bases (29) than he did last year. Everything else is down.

If the Royals got anything close to as much for DeJesus as the Pirates did McLouth, I would ecstatic...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Rod Serling wrote:
And yet you made your judgment, the very second BoB Nutting green lighted the deal. :lol:

Is this how you engage in arguments? You just make shit up?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:11 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
You cant prove McLouths season wasn't a fluke though. He has some pop and a little speed but his batting average was not very high last season and he tailed off big time.
McCutchen obviously is faster and covers more ground in center. He will steal more bases. He also has shown great bat speed and many of the outs he has recorded this year have been deep fly outs or sharply hit balls that fielders made great plays on. McCutchen has more talent then McLouth and more room to grow.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:32 pm
Posts: 3173
Location: Darlington, Pennsylvania
Willton wrote:
Rod Serling wrote:
And yet you made your judgment, the very second BoB Nutting green lighted the deal. :lol:

Is this how you engage in arguments? You just make shit up?


Damn Rod i will say it again. Nutting has nothing to do with the trades. He is just the owner. Huntington and Coonley have say over the trades.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:12 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
Colin you may be wrong. I am sure Nutting greenlights many major moves made by the pirates. It was his fault we couldn't resign Aramis.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4270
Location: Zelienople, PA
Ryann wrote:
Colin you may be wrong. I am sure Nutting greenlights many major moves made by the pirates. It was his fault we couldn't resign Aramis.


Get your facts correct. Rameriz was already signed to an extension. MLB stepped in and told the Pirates to get their debt to equity ratio in line with the league.

McClatchey... got it.. .McClatchey... the CEO and MGP ordered cost cutting and Benson and HIS 6mm contract were all but traded to Philly(??) until Benson came down with an injury and was put on the DL. Failing that trade, and under pressure from MLB, Littlefield traded Rameriz to the Cubs.

That was a salary dump, but not the type you love to spout about.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:29 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
Ownership didn't have funds to provide the Pirates money they were pocketing money.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Last edited by Ryann on Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4270
Location: Zelienople, PA
In fact, since those are foreign to you, Bob Nutting was not involved at that time, and Ogden was most assuredly a minor partner.

The Rameriz trade was the impetous for Nutting to ADD capital to the team.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Nate McLouth Trade
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 3138
Ryann wrote:
You cant prove McLouths season wasn't a fluke though. He has some pop and a little speed but his


I would have never used the word "fluke" like you did. I would just look at the numbers and base my evaluation off of that. Nothing about McLouth's numbers, which I find impressive, do I find "fluke-ish", especially for a guy hitting out of the lead off spot. Had he had a couple of full seasons starting in CF in previous years which were significantly lower than they were last year, I might consider it. But that wasn't the case. That was his first season starting every game, and he produced.

Quote:
his batting average was not very high last season and he tailed off big time.


Sure he tailed off and didn't finish as hot as he once was. I don't consider a .276 BA (w/ 26 HR, led the league in doubles) as awful as you apparently do. That average was the best on the team among starters not counting Bay and Nady who were dealt away and Doumit who played 40-some less games.

You have made the assumption that McCutchen is better than McLouth, and the fact is, that is just that, an assumption. You cannot prove a guy who has played less than five games in the league is already better than a player who put up McLouth's numbers, despite how un-impressive you may think they are. If you were strictly referring to potential, you and I would agree. But otherwise, I'm a bit more of a realist.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], nad69dan, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits