2012 Michael Pineda Performance Thread

[bomber999]

I feel the need to point out that not all of the criticism of the Pineda-Montero trade is second-guessing with the benefit of hindsight. I admit that some of the criticism of Cashman's moves- by present company included- hasn't always been completely fair for this reason. The trade was hardly universally received as a slam-dunk for th Yankees at the time it was made. This was not only due to the high cost (Montero) but also due to the fact that there was a drop off in Pineda's velocity and efficacy in the second half last year. Three times in recent history, the Yankees have chosen to blow off velocity drops in young pitchers as nothing, and all three times it has proven to be at least something, and in the case of Joba and Pineda, signs of serious arm problems requiring major surgery. Additionally, Cashman himself admitted that Pineda, to his full knowledge, was a pitch away from being a true front-end starter, and it seems that a prospect of Montero's caliber was an awful high price to pay for a work-in-progress pitcher. Typically, when young prospects like Montero are dealt, it is for "sure thing" players.

It is clear to me that this was a deal made for the goal of having a cheap, potentially high-end young rotation in 2013 and beyond. With Pineda potentially never going to pitch at a high level again and our top prospects not lighting the world on fire, and Hughes essentially a bust at least in terms of what he was initially projected to be, that goal may need re-evaluation. It was a tremendous roll of the dice that did not come up aces, and now the Yankees will need to deal with this.

[LIYanks]

Dude, this thread (and every other thread) isn't about you and your feelings and impressions of other posters, or how and why your way of thinking is the right way. Nobody really gives a flying fawk.

It's really starting to get annoying, especially at a trying time like this when every Yankee fan is feeling bummed. Enough already.

Very well put.

Why is it not allowed to dislike a trade? While I totally agree no one should be jumping to conclusion, I and many others were disappointed with Pineda's health issues. What's with all the snarky remarks? Sure we don't have any inside information but neither does any poster here. Can we just stick to the topic, Pineda's performance.

BTW, I really hate this "you spoiled Yankee fans are the reasons why other fans despise Yankee fans". Fans from other teams hate the Yankee fans because Yankees always win. As far as I am concerned, they can hate all they want.

[BxBomber44]

I am a bit upset about all of this - mostly because we traded our best prospect for a big question mark. However, it's done and now I have to hope for the best.

[snapple]

You had me until the last little bit. The Pineda deal isn't a bust, yet.

[spikeowenfan]

There will soon be a "Pineda rule" to go with the verducci rule. Something tells me very few GMs will repeat this mistake from now on.

what was the mistake? trading for young pitching?

I'd much rather have Montero for the long term, but I do think there's a chance that there won't be that much difference in their performnace (Yankee DH vs. Montero) this year.

Yeah, that's a better argument than "he had no position." Unless he does turn into Frank Thomas, they can approximate his numbers (they'll probably beat it this year) with a platoon. The team seemed reluctant to have him catch and they seem to be committed to catcher defense, but I'm assuming they would have gotten over it and he would have been a regular in the lineup.

[Byron]

I feel the need to point out that not all of the criticism of the Pineda-Montero trade is second-guessing with the benefit of hindsight. I admit that some of the criticism of Cashman's moves- by present company included- hasn't always been completely fair for this reason. The trade was hardly universally received as a slam-dunk for th Yankees at the time it was made. This was not only due to the high cost (Montero) but also due to the fact that there was a drop off in Pineda's velocity and efficacy in the second half last year. Three times in recent history, the Yankees have chosen to blow off velocity drops in young pitchers as nothing, and all three times it has proven to be at least something, and in the case of Joba and Pineda, signs of serious arm problems requiring major surgery. Additionally, Cashman himself admitted that Pineda, to his full knowledge, was a pitch away from being a true front-end starter, and it seems that a prospect of Montero's caliber was an awful high price to pay for a work-in-progress pitcher. Typically, when young prospects like Montero are dealt, it is for "sure thing" players.

It is clear to me that this was a deal made for the goal of having a cheap, potentially high-end young rotation in 2013 and beyond. With Pineda potentially never going to pitch at a high level again and our top prospects not lighting the world on fire, and Hughes essentially a bust at least in terms of what he was initially projected to be, that goal may need re-evaluation. It was a tremendous roll of the dice that did not come up aces, and now the Yankees will need to deal with this.

Fantastic comment.

[snapple]

Fwiw:

mark feinsand
also in baseball
dr. Chris ahmad, on the severity of pineda's tear: "this is an injury where we feel very confident that this can be treated arthroscopically and will not require an open procedure. In general, when surgery requires an open procedure, it means it is much more severe and the prognosis is different. This will be arthroscopic and it does have a better prognosis than injuries that require open surgeries."

[BennyTheJetRodriguez]

what was the mistake? trading for young pitching?

in a word, yes. It would be one thing if they traded young pitching for young pitching, but they traded a very polished, immensely talented hitter for a player at an age/position with a much greater injury risk. It's not hindsight, guys. Young pitchers get hurt.

It wasn't a terrible idea, but it was risky.

[Torre Must Go]

Maybe Cashman shouldn't make trades on Friday the 13th anymore.

Couldn't help but check out how Montero is doing. I see he's 2 for 3 with a run and RBI already hitting in the middle of their order. Damn it.

[spikeowenfan]

I don't see Pineda getting hurt having any ripple effect on how young pitchers are valued. Brett Anderson getting Tommy John a few weeks after signing an extension didn't stop teams from trying to lock up their young pitchers. It's always been known that they get hurt and it's often determined that the reward justifies the risk. That's why the cost for Pineda was a player with one month experience. If they had the same type of injury risk, it would have taken much more than Montero to get him.

[dave8274]

Can someone provide a definitive answer on how the arbitration clock works here? Assuming Pineda misses 2012 and pitches in 2013, how long is he under team control?

It works exactly the same as if was pitching every 5 days. He is accruing service time just like everyone else and will be arbitration eligible after next year.

[rajah]

The way I see it, for whatever its worth ...

If the Yankees were getting the young flame-thrower from Seattle I watched last year, and when you make the trade you have to assume thats what you're getting, it was a good deal for the Yankees because THAT GUY, the one I saw last year, had legit dominant ace potential.

This is just bad luck

Exactly. It was bad luck. I don't see the difference from the kid getting injured in a car accident or, like Taylor, from a fight in a bar. Cashman can no more be blamed for one than for the other

If the trade was a good trade in January, it is still a good trade. If Montero loses a leg in an accident, and it was a bad trade in January, it is still a bad trade regardless of whether Pineda becomes the ace pitcher he might still become.

Bad stuff happens. Why must we look for someone to blame?



I

[b-ball-lunachick]

Roger Clemens (1985), Curt Schilling (1995), and Chris Carpenter (2002) are among the small minority of starting pitchers who made a full recovery from a torn labrum.

I posted this article here a few years ago so obviously it's pretty old..it was about Dr Andrews and it had a blurb about Clemens' surgery:

That's how Andrews came to examine a scared-to-death kid named Roger Clemens in 1985.

Then a second-year pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, Clemens would get shoulder pains and lose velocity after three or four innings. Local doctors couldn't diagnose anything, so his agent recommended seeing Andrews.

Clemens was amazed, not just at how quickly Andrews put his finger on the physical problem -- a torn labrum -- but at how quickly he reduced his mental stress.

"We hit it off," Clemens says. "His approach made me extremely comfortable. He gave me a CliffsNotes version of a course about the shoulder and how the big muscles and small muscles related."

Andrews both cleared up Clemens' problem with a then-novel arthroscopic surgery and lectured him on preventing recurrences.

"He gave me a stern father talk about doing shoulder exercises," Clemens recalled.

The regimen Andrews prescribed, with 3- to 5-pound weights, has been a major contributor to Clemens' longevity -- as, of course, was the operation. Eight months after it, Clemens set a major league record by striking out 20 Seattle Mariners.

He and Andrews have remained close since. The Rocket has been a huge referral source. He has returned for periodic checkups on his arm and to have his delivery analyzed at ASMI's biomechanics lab. He has not only endured on the mound but followed Andrews into his field. Last year, in conjunction with a Houston hospital, he opened the Roger Clemens Institute for Sports Medicine & Human Performance.

of course the last line is more interesting now, post steroid era...but it did make me feel better to re-read it..interestingly enough, it was in Clemens second year..

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3024046

[teknetic]

Our strategy is to find a GM who is better at that part of the job because Brian isn't.

This is interesting. How does trading for a power arm coming off a rather terrific season and him subsequently getting injured while rehabbing, put into question one's ability to gauge talent? The best he can do is stockpile them and potentially get lucky (ala Matt Moore -- jury is still out on him, though). He's done that and hasn't found hit the jackpot.

Really, what are you looking for? You definitely don't want him buying FA talent like Darvish because then that would make you a hypocrite should he wind up DiceK v2.

Indulge me, thanks.

[rajah]

I am a bit upset about all of this - mostly because we traded our best prospect for a big question mark. However, it's done and now I have to hope for the best.

I do not understand how Pineda can be called a big question mark after his tremendous rookie year while Montero is not considered at least as big a question mark.

I am no expert on the potential of these players, but I cannot understand a sentence like the one quoted. It makes no sense to me.

[bomber999]

Exactly. It was bad luck. I don't see the difference from the kid getting injured in a car accident or, like Taylor, from a fight in a bar. Cashman can no more be blamed for one than for the other

If the trade was a good trade in January, it is still a good trade. If Montero loses a leg in an accident, and it was a bad trade in January, it is still a bad trade regardless of whether Pineda becomes the ace pitcher he might still become.

Bad stuff happens. Why must we look for someone to blame?




I

Rajah, with respect, I completely disagree that Cashman should not be held accountable for this trade. I outlined my case completely several posts up. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

[jcarey]

This thread is a train wreck. The logic behind the trade was solid.

Coffee's original point about Montero not having a place on this team is actually a good one. It doesn't matter when an argument is made (after a trade) or by whom (only Yankees people). The fact is that Montero's value is diminished if he can't catch and other hitters are blocking him in the DH position. Of course, the Yankees would never say he can't catch (why deflate his value?), but I believe most scouts thought he wouldn't be able to stick behind the plate. So some, though not nearly all, of his value is lost based on that assumption. His value is also marginalized if other nonmovable pieces will also be vying for the DH spot. A-Rod (and maybe Tex and Jeter to a lesser extent) will need days at DH over the next few years. Montero is only as valuable as his production beyond those options.

Montero's value to the Yankees would likely be less than his value to the Mariners, plain and simple. Pineda, on the other hand, represents a huge value increase over the likes of our 3-4-5 starters, and was generally a rarer commodity.

The injury risk for young pitchers obviously exists, and Cashman hedged his bets by grabbing another elite arm in Campos. It's disconcerting how many people praised the Rays for locking up Matt Moore (much less proven than Pineda), but are now upset about this trade. What's the difference?

[rajah]

in a word, yes. It would be one thing if they traded young pitching for young pitching, but they traded a very polished, immensely talented hitter for a player at an age/position with a much greater injury risk. It's not hindsight, guys. Young pitchers get hurt.

It wasn't a terrible idea, but it was risky.

I understand this. Never trade a great young hitting prospect for a great equally young pitcher because the pitcher is the greater risk.

Given what I think about the importance of pitching, I disagree and I think most baseball GMs would as well, especially when the hitter is a defensive liability, but I understand the position.

[Torre Must Go]

Thank you for being so polite. You didn't have t,o but I appreciate it, thanks!

Cashman's track record speaks for itself when it comes to acquiring pitchers from other organizations through trades and free agency. It's well documented and we know the big names (Pavano, Igawa) to even the less ones (Hammond). He has not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to developing pitchers as Joba and Hughes have not been handled properly by this team and the results and their current situations speak for themselves. Chances are a GM who is better in terms of dealing with pitching probably would've given the Yankees at least one more championship since Game 5 of the 2000 WS, especially when you look at all the advantages Cashman has over his rivals with payroll. As for the Pineda trade, it was a red flag that his great rookie season came in a pitcher's ballpark, on a team with no expectations, and had a really bad second half where velocity was down. These are all fair concerns. Now that doesn't mean Seattle or Cashman knew Pineda had an injury or it's fair to blame Cashman for this deal either. I'm not, but given Cashman's overall track record with pitchers, it's very shaky at best. Then you factor in giving up Montero, one of our most hyped position player prospects, off to a pretty good start hitting in the middle of their order, well, it's tough.

Fair?

[snapple]

Everyone forgets Nova

[Yankee Fan in Boston]

I understand this. Never trade a great young hitting prospect for a great equally young pitcher because the pitcher is the greater risk.

Given what I think about the importance of pitching, I disagree and I think most baseball GMs would as well, especially when the hitter is a defensive liability, but I understand the position.

I agree with you because I still think it's harder to acquire top-tier starters in their prime, so the risk is going to be taken.

[LIYanks]

I agree with you because I still think it's harder to acquire top-tier starters in their prime, so the risk is going to be taken.

I don't think anyone would dispute the importance of pitching. We are debating whether or not the process of acquiring Pineda was done properly.

[jcarey]

I think you made a correct diagnosis there.

Boss is right (like he often is). Montero hasn't lit the world on fire through 16 games so let's giggle and point out how "great" he is doing sarcastically when our side of the trade is about to have his shoulder cut open.

I have pointed out Montero's early struggles, but only in response to people that have annointed him a sure-fire HOF hitter already while simultaneously declaring Pineda's career over. If you can't see that I'm simply pointing out blatant hypocrisy, I don't know what to tell you. My gut feeling is that Montero will be fine, but obviously it's no sure thing.

Some people are quick to cry foul and scoff that it's only been 16 games for Montero, but in the same post they judge this trade, the results of which are equally nascent.

[Black Sabbathia]

If the trade was a good trade in January, it is still a good trade. If Montero loses a leg in an accident, and it was a bad trade in January, it is still a bad trade regardless of whether Pineda becomes the ace pitcher he might still become.

Trades don't happen in a vacuum. You can't separate the trade from the results.

Also, most people here who approved of the trade did so with concerns and caveats. The consensus was that it was fairly even, we were assuming more risk, and we had to wait and see before we could declare winners and losers. Right now, in the short-term at least, we look like big time losers.

[snapple]

What dictates Montero as a success?