Huntington Snags Iwamura

Don't know much about this pitcher they gave up, but it seems like a good deal for Neal.

3 months ago westbrook 43 comments 0 recs |

Comments

Interesting move. Not sure what Huntington thinks he needs with an above-the-minimum rental player in 2010, but this does give him some options. If he can’t extend him, he can trade him at the deadline, probably for a lot more than that reliever dude.

by Jay on Nov 3, 2009 7:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, this a deal you make if you think you’re close. Maybe he knows something we don’t. Maybe he doesn’t.

The once and future

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 3, 2009 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have a friend who works for the Pirates and he raves about Neal Huntington. But this one leaves me scratching my head and wondering if I had let my friend poison my mind a little bit because lately I had been thinking highly of Huntington. This sounds too much like signing Sean Casey, Doug Mientkiewicz, Joe Randa, or any other veteran “name” the Pirates might have picked up over the last decade. The fans (that haven’t traded their Pirates jerseys for Steelers gear) recognize his name a little, but Iwamura really doesn’t help the ball club all that much.

My uncle says you've got a screw loose.
Your uncle molests collies.

by gorilla_baller on Nov 3, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We talk about how we wish Shapiro didn’t do everything like intelligent bloggers would.

Huntington does something that seems hard to understand.

Does this mean LGT prefers Huntington?

Personally, who cares if this move is for this year or not. Chances are, he got more than he gave up. And “[i]f he can’t extend him, he can trade him at the deadline, probably for a lot more than that reliever dude.”

Finally convinced my dad that Jeter is immensely hatable.

by westbrook on Nov 3, 2009 8:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly like that, except Iwamura isn’t a “veteran name,” and is good.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 3, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He’s not terrible. But it’s a stretch to call him good. Slightly above average hitter, mediocre defender. He would be a good backup for most teams and would get a few starts because he can play a couple infield positions.

And yeah, he’s probably not a veteran name. In my head I heard “Iwamura” and think Rays and World Series. There’s some kind of name recognition going on there.

My uncle says you've got a screw loose.
Your uncle molests collies.

by gorilla_baller on Nov 3, 2009 10:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He’s at least average as a fielder according to any accounts I’ve ever looked at. Probably depends on what stats you’re looking at.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 3, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He also is slightly above average offensively as a 2B.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 3, 2009 10:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and can play 3B.

Finally convinced my dad that Jeter is immensely hatable.

by westbrook on Nov 3, 2009 10:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He was a butcher in the postseason last year, but that might’ve been nerves.

I like the move for the Bucs.

by JulioBernazard on Nov 4, 2009 9:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Huntington has a thing for collecting guys I’ve always liked who don’t entirely warrant my enthusiasm.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 4, 2009 9:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, the more I think about it, this isn’t such the radical overpayment I thought it was. A replacement-level player for the Pirates isn’t the same as replacement level for the NL. It’s Iwamura or Delwyn Young. I’ll take Iwamura.

Plus their big league roster has like five guys getting paid more than league average. So I reverse my stance.

My uncle says you've got a screw loose.
Your uncle molests collies.

by gorilla_baller on Nov 3, 2009 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So, Mark DeRosa.

I like Iwamura and I like this deal.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 3, 2009 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Beat me to it.

Look what DeRosa fetched in the offseason, and then what he fetched at the deadline.

by Jay on Nov 3, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but we didn’t get DeRosa with the intention of doing that.

The once and future

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 4, 2009 7:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just seems a lot riskier, is my point.

The once and future

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 4, 2009 7:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How can it be riskier?

by Jay on Nov 4, 2009 8:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If his market tanks, you end up paying $3 million for the privilege of trading for Jimmy Hamilton. I misspoke when I said it was riskier when you didn’t plan on contending… it’s not the risk that changes, it’s the potential reward. With DeRosa, the Perez/Todd thing was the second-best of three alternatives. If you’re not planning on winning, that’s your plan A.

The once and future

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 4, 2009 9:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know, in terms of just this one asset, you actually end up getting a better return if you trade him than if you keep him. It’s just that you’d rather win, because winning is the whole point.

by Jay on Nov 4, 2009 10:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, I was always disappointed that the Indians just missed out on Iwamura.

by Roger Dorn on Nov 3, 2009 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, to be a reliever dude.

by afh4 on Nov 4, 2009 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs

Just remembered! Huntington worked for us when we almost signed him.

Finally convinced my dad that Jeter is immensely hatable.

by westbrook on Nov 3, 2009 8:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That was an example of the Indians’ institutional difficulties in identifying skill. They were in the running for Iwamura, and then, voila, he was gone. Just like Alexei Ramirez.

by odradek on Nov 4, 2009 9:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and then, voila, the other teams offered more money.

by Brick. on Nov 4, 2009 9:59 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs

Not much money. I don’t remember the specifics of the posting terms with Daisuke Matsuzaka, but teams submitted sealed bids (I think they were sealed) for the right to negotiate with Iwamura. The Rays had the winning bid of $4.5 million. Other teams might have been scared off by the insane amount of money tendered to negotiate with Matsuzaka, but I remember (perhaps incorrectly) that teams were surprised by the low winning bid. Iwamura then signed a three-year contract with the Rays worth $7.7 million, with a club option for a fourth year at $4.25 million. If I read that right they got him for three years for $12.2 million. That’s roughly equivalent with the Dellucci contract. So I don’t think it was a matter of a team coming in and throwing around money.

by odradek on Nov 4, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. Lots of teams reportedly were interested in Iwamura, but none of them, Indians included, seemed to value his rights very highly.

by Jay on Nov 4, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that guy they gave up has a pretty serious homerun problem in the majors

by APV on Nov 3, 2009 9:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I always wonder how differently things would have played out if we had out-bid the Rays for Iwamura post 2006; we never knew how it went down but i thought the word was we were really close to top bid.

It became kind of moot with the 2007 ALCS run, but All of the Marte crap, maybe they trade Peralta earlier, etc. Probably never make the Valbuena trade. Would have been interesting.

by cheech99 on Nov 3, 2009 11:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I remember one of the reasons I was so high on Iwamura during the posting process was because he could apparently play left field. This has turned out to be either untrue or, more likely, just unneccessary in Tampa. But we ended up with Dellichaels instead. Both were subpar offensively for a corner spot.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 4, 2009 5:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs