Marlins DFA Pinto

[jersey cubs fan]

Nolasco...hasn't been all that great, and Pierre's comp pick helped us get Harden

 

that trade, and even more so Pierre's tenure, has been so stupidly sensationalized

 

I think people are stuck on the one good year that Nolasco has had as a major leaguer in 2008, so yeah, Nolasco has essentially been crap as a ML pitcher. Hidsight suggest that the Cubs got a pretty bad OF, for a pretty bad starting pitcher.

 

And wasted money plus opportunity cost in the meantime.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The Pierre deal isn't bad because Pinto, Mitre, and Nolassco would have been good Cubs. It's bad because we could have likely gotten a much better player than Pierre for them at the time we traded them.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Pierre deal isn't bad because Pinto, Mitre, and Nolassco would have been good Cubs. It's bad because we could have likely gotten a much better player than Pierre for them at the time we traded them.

 

At the time, or over the next couple years.

[dew1679666265]

The Pierre deal isn't bad because Pinto, Mitre, and Nolassco would have been good Cubs. It's bad because we could have likely gotten a much better player than Pierre for them at the time we traded them.

 

I don't know either way, but I wonder what their trade value was at the time. I would think the three of them could have netted more, but Hendry has proven to be very good at not overpaying for players. It just makes me wonder.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Pierre deal isn't bad because Pinto, Mitre, and Nolassco would have been good Cubs. It's bad because we could have likely gotten a much better player than Pierre for them at the time we traded them.

 

I don't know either way, but I wonder what their trade value was at the time. I would think the three of them could have netted more, but Hendry has proven to be very good at not overpaying for players. It just makes me wonder.

 

Hendry really really wanted a speedy leadoff hitter. His own personal valuation of the situation was clearly askew.

[Sammy Sofa]

The big "woulda coulda shoulda" before 2006 for me was the desire by Hendry to get both Pierre and Furcal as the 1-2 of the lineup. Pierre, eh, but Furcal would have been a nice pick-up and who knows what that would have meant for Lee since his wrist injury wouldn't have occurred.

[dew1679666265]

The Pierre deal isn't bad because Pinto, Mitre, and Nolassco would have been good Cubs. It's bad because we could have likely gotten a much better player than Pierre for them at the time we traded them.

 

I don't know either way, but I wonder what their trade value was at the time. I would think the three of them could have netted more, but Hendry has proven to be very good at not overpaying for players. It just makes me wonder.

 

Hendry really really wanted a speedy leadoff hitter. His own personal valuation of the situation was clearly askew.

 

Very possible. Even for guys he's really wanted, though, he generally hasn't traded a huge amount (didn't he hold out for a while to get Michael Barrett, even though he really liked him?).

[dew1679666265]

The big "woulda coulda shoulda" before 2006 for me was the desire by Hendry to get both Pierre and Furcal as the 1-2 of the lineup. Pierre, eh, but Furcal would have been a nice pick-up and who knows what that would have meant for Lee since his wrist injury wouldn't have occurred.

 

Picking up Furcal would have been really nice.

[jersey cubs fan]

Very possible. Even for guys he's really wanted, though, he generally hasn't traded a huge amount (didn't he hold out for a while to get Michael Barrett, even though he really liked him?).

 

But again, it's not that he gave up future hall of famers. He gave up valuable trade pieces for a useless player.

[CubColtPacer]

Very possible. Even for guys he's really wanted, though, he generally hasn't traded a huge amount (didn't he hold out for a while to get Michael Barrett, even though he really liked him?).

 

But again, it's not that he gave up future hall of famers. He gave up valuable trade pieces for a useless player.

 

I question how valuable they were in trade talks. Nolasco was the 7th best Cubs prospect in a year where only 3 Cubs made BA's top 100 list. Pinto had a very good AA run for most of 2005 but had a wildly inconsistent minor league career and also had control problems and had fallen off the Cubs top 10 list. Mitre had put up very poor numbers in the majors 2 years in a row and was seen as at best a fringe #5 pitcher.

 

Obviously just the fact that they were traded for Juan Pierre made it a poor move. But I don't think they really had a ton of trade value either.

 

At the same time, judging it to be a decent move because of getting Donaldson out of it isn't fair either. The Cubs got very lucky to get compensation out of Pierre. It has turned out ok in hindsight, but that doesn't mean it was anything but a poor move at the time.

[dew1679666265]

Very possible. Even for guys he's really wanted, though, he generally hasn't traded a huge amount (didn't he hold out for a while to get Michael Barrett, even though he really liked him?).

 

But again, it's not that he gave up future hall of famers. He gave up valuable trade pieces for a useless player.

 

CCP made the point better than I did. I'm not advocating trading those players specifically for Juan Pierre, but I wonder how much better of a player they actually could have brought.

 

I'd like to think much better, but I'm not sure Hendry's ever been fleeced in a trade and it seems odd that he'd give up way more than he should have there.

[jersey cubs fan]

Very possible. Even for guys he's really wanted, though, he generally hasn't traded a huge amount (didn't he hold out for a while to get Michael Barrett, even though he really liked him?).

 

But again, it's not that he gave up future hall of famers. He gave up valuable trade pieces for a useless player.

 

CCP made the point better than I did. I'm not advocating trading those players specifically for Juan Pierre, but I wonder how much better of a player they actually could have brought.

 

I'd like to think much better, but I'm not sure Hendry's ever been fleeced in a trade and it seems odd that he'd give up way more than he should have there.

 

You didn't have to trade those exact same three players for another guy. You could have used one or all of them in a package for somebody better. They were useful chips, and they were wasted on a useless player who fit a perceived need.

[sneakypower]

Very possible. Even for guys he's really wanted, though, he generally hasn't traded a huge amount (didn't he hold out for a while to get Michael Barrett, even though he really liked him?).

 

But again, it's not that he gave up future hall of famers. He gave up valuable trade pieces for a useless player.

he was a consistent 3 win player, far from useless

[jersey cubs fan]

Very possible. Even for guys he's really wanted, though, he generally hasn't traded a huge amount (didn't he hold out for a while to get Michael Barrett, even though he really liked him?).

 

But again, it's not that he gave up future hall of famers. He gave up valuable trade pieces for a useless player.

he was a consistent 3 win player, far from useless

 

Except for the fact that he did that twice, sure, very consistent. He had a couple year window of usefulness, which makes sense given his only skill was speed.

[sneakypower]

he totaled ~18 wins in value over 6 seasons, with his worst two years being only slightly below average as a player

 

i don't know how i can phrase that for you without getting caught in a fruitless semantics argument, but nonetheless it's more than fair to call him a consistent 3-win player

[dew1679666265]

You didn't have to trade those exact same three players for another guy. You could have used one or all of them in a package for somebody better. They were useful chips, and they were wasted on a useless player who fit a perceived need.

 

My question again, though, is how useful were they? If the three of them combined legitimately could only net Juan Pierre, then I can't imagine any of them individually were all that valuable. However, if Hendry could have gotten more for them, but his perceived value for Pierre was higher than it should have been, then their individual value was likely higher than the trade indicated.

 

My question is, how much value did they actually have individually at the time? You keep saying they (or a combination of some of them and others) could have netted someone more valuable than Pierre. I wonder how you know that for sure. I'm thinking their individual value simply wasn't all that high since Hendry is generally very good at getting value for minor leaguers.

[jersey cubs fan]

he totaled ~18 wins in value over 6 seasons, with his worst two years being only slightly below average as a player

 

i don't know how i can phrase that for you without getting caught in a fruitless semantics argument, but nonetheless it's more than fair to call him a consistent 3-win player

 

Right, except for the fact that he wasn't a consistent 3 win player.

[jersey cubs fan]

You didn't have to trade those exact same three players for another guy. You could have used one or all of them in a package for somebody better. They were useful chips, and they were wasted on a useless player who fit a perceived need.

 

My question again, though, is how useful were they? If the three of them combined legitimately could only net Juan Pierre, then I can't imagine any of them individually were all that valuable.

 

There's just no point in asking that question. Jim Hendry wasn't shopping around those three players and seeing what he could get. Jim Hendry was going after Juan Pierre.

[dew1679666265]

You didn't have to trade those exact same three players for another guy. You could have used one or all of them in a package for somebody better. They were useful chips, and they were wasted on a useless player who fit a perceived need.

 

My question again, though, is how useful were they? If the three of them combined legitimately could only net Juan Pierre, then I can't imagine any of them individually were all that valuable.

 

There's just no point in asking that question. Jim Hendry wasn't shopping around those three players and seeing what he could get. Jim Hendry was going after Juan Pierre.

 

I think there is a point in asking the question, though, if someone is stating that he certainly could have gotten more value than he did for those three players. I'm wondering how you know for sure he could have.

 

For Hendry's struggles as a GM, he's been pretty close to excellent at getting good value for players he trades away. I'll agree that he does value "leadoff type" hitters more than he should, but did he value Pierre so much that he would give away very valuable trade chips to acquire him and, thus, vastly overpay – something he very rarely does in trades? Or were those players really just not that valuable, he knew that, and got the max value he could (even if the player wasn't the best to target)?

 

If you're going to unequivocally state that those players were more valuable than Juan Pierre, then I think you have to know the answer to those questions.

[jersey cubs fan]

You didn't have to trade those exact same three players for another guy. You could have used one or all of them in a package for somebody better. They were useful chips, and they were wasted on a useless player who fit a perceived need.

 

My question again, though, is how useful were they? If the three of them combined legitimately could only net Juan Pierre, then I can't imagine any of them individually were all that valuable.

 

There's just no point in asking that question. Jim Hendry wasn't shopping around those three players and seeing what he could get. Jim Hendry was going after Juan Pierre.

 

I think there is a point in asking the question, though, if someone is stating that he certainly could have gotten more value than he did for those three players. I'm wondering how you know for sure he could have.

 

For Hendry's struggles as a GM, he's been pretty close to excellent at getting good value for players he trades away. I'll agree that he does value "leadoff type" hitters more than he should, but did he value Pierre so much that he would give away very valuable trade chips to acquire him and, thus, vastly overpay – something he very rarely does in trades? Or were those players really just not that valuable, he knew that, and got the max value he could (even if the player wasn't the best to target)?

 

If you're going to unequivocally state that those players were more valuable than Juan Pierre, then I think you have to know the answer to those questions.

 

Well then nobody should ever talk about trades because you never unequivocally know what else could have happened.

[dew1679666265]

Well then nobody should ever talk about trades because you never unequivocally know what else could have happened.

 

I don't have a problem talking about trades, but you're speaking in certainties when none of us know the certainty. Saying we shouldn't have traded for Juan Pierre because he sucks or because he doesn't have the right approach at the plate is quantifiable and we know that's the case. However, arguing that trading those three players for Juan Pierre was stupid because we could have gotten so much more for some combination of those players may or may not be accurate.

 

I'm not a fan of the Pierre trade at all, but not because of the perceived value of those three players. It's simply because I don't value Pierre all that highly as a player.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well then nobody should ever talk about trades because you never unequivocally know what else could have happened.

 

I don't have a problem talking about trades, but you're speaking in certainties when none of us know the certainty. Saying we shouldn't have traded for Juan Pierre because he sucks or because he doesn't have the right approach at the plate is quantifiable and we know that's the case. However, arguing that trading those three players for Juan Pierre was stupid because we could have gotten so much more for some combination of those players may or may not be accurate.

 

I'm not a fan of the Pierre trade at all, but not because of the perceived value of those three players. It's simply because I don't value Pierre all that highly as a player.

 

"could have gotten so much more" is how you choose to characterize it.

 

I feel they could have used their assets in a more constructive manner. I didn't say they could get Arod.

[dew1679666265]

"could have gotten so much more" is how you choose to characterize it.

 

I feel they could have used their assets in a more constructive manner. I didn't say they could get Arod.

 

The "could have gotten so much more" is how I interpreted your posts. I took your terming of Juan Pierre being "useless" as thinking they could get somebody of use – i.e. a better player – for those three or some combination of them.

 

If you just mean a different, yet not better, player then that's a different subject.

[jersey cubs fan]

"could have gotten so much more" is how you choose to characterize it.

 

I feel they could have used their assets in a more constructive manner. I didn't say they could get Arod.

 

The "could have gotten so much more" is how I interpreted your posts. I took your terming of Juan Pierre being "useless" as thinking they could get somebody of use – i.e. a better player – for those three or some combination of them.

 

If you just mean a different, yet not better, player then that's a different subject.

 

Of course I'm saying better. Not necessarily "so much better', but better, more useful, less Pierre-ish.

[dew1679666265]

Of course I'm saying better. Not necessarily "so much better', but better, more useful, less Pierre-ish.

 

It's certainly possible that Hendry simply overrated Pierre enough to get fleeced by Florida, but given his very good history in not overpaying in trades - even for players he wants badly - makes me think he didn't see much value in Nolasco, Pinto and Mitre.

 

And given their careers to this point, any feeling he had in that regard appears to be justified.