• Jose Tabata

    Posted by on April 19th, 2011 · Comments (14)

    On July 26, 2008, Brian Cashman traded Tabata, Jeff Karstens, Dan McCutchen and Ross Ohlendorf to the Pittsburgh Pirates for Damaso Marte and Xavier Nady. At the time, because of his injury history and attitude issues, I wasn’t sweating the Yankees giving up on Tabata. But, now, it looks like I was wrong – and that Jose may turn out to be a very nice player.

    Three years later, given how Marte and Nady went bust for the Yankees, this deal is not looking so good, is it?

    Comments on Jose Tabata

    1. clintfsu813
      April 19th, 2011 | 11:35 am

      A player who has attitude problems is thriving in no pressure Pittsburgh. How would said player perform in NY and the AL East? No way to know.

    2. MJ Recanati
      April 19th, 2011 | 11:43 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Three years later, given how Marte and Nady went bust for the Yankees, this deal is not looking so good, is it?

      This comment brings up two points:

      1) For those from very recent threads that were lamenting the fact that the Yankees don’t develop anyone, Jose Tabata seems to be fulfilling his promise as a solid athlete with some baseball skills. It remains to be seen what kind of career he’ll have but, so far, he doesn’t suck.

      2) For those that bitterly complain whenever the Yankees don’t win a World Series every year but also complain that the Yankees should win every year (especially with their payroll), this is what happens when you try to win every year. You make trades that address your short-term needs and sacrifice the unquantifiable upside of a young player or two.

      With respect to the Tabata-for-Nady/Marte trade, I was solidly in the “against” camp, only because I felt the Yankees were selling low on a good athlete and weren’t getting back anything befitting a prospect ranked 27th overall in 2007 and 37th overall in 2008.

    3. Raf
      April 19th, 2011 | 11:44 am

      Whatever issues he had, glad that he got them squared away. Everyone knew that he was talented, the question was if he would be able to put it together.

      With Garnder-Granderson-Swisher, I’m not really sweating the loss of Tabata. I do wish him a long and productive career.

    4. MJ Recanati
      April 19th, 2011 | 11:45 am

      clintfsu813 wrote:

      A player who has attitude problems is thriving in no pressure Pittsburgh.

      I’ve always disagreed with the too-harsh and too-broad label of “attitude problems.” That Tabata was immature is absolutely true. But it was worth holding on to him to find out if that immaturity would turn into an attitude problem or if he would eventually grow out of his behavior.

    5. MJ Recanati
      April 19th, 2011 | 11:49 am

      Raf wrote:

      With Garnder-Granderson-Swisher, I’m not really sweating the loss of Tabata. I do wish him a long and productive career.

      I’m not really sweating it but, despite Gardner proving me wrong last year, it does look like he’s back to being a fourth outfielder and having Tabata with the same skill-set and more pop playing LF wouldn’t have been a bad thing either.

      I have no idea if Gardner can get back to where he was last year but a part of it is that he’s apparently freakin’ terrified of swinging at strikes.

    6. Corey Italiano
      April 19th, 2011 | 11:51 am

      I don’t mind the trade…Marte eventually helped win a world championship, while Tabata has had rumors circle about his age being incorrect and has in the past abducted his own 2 month old child from his wife, who is 23 years older than him. Sounds like a train wreck that goes unnoticed in Pittsburgh, but would certainly cause problems here.

    7. Raf
      April 19th, 2011 | 12:11 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      having Tabata with the same skill-set and more pop playing LF wouldn’t have been a bad thing either.

      True, but with Melky, Jackson, Gardner, Abreu & Damon (along with whatever established ML’er that would’ve been targeted via trade or FA), I can see why the Yanks would’ve given up on Tabata, especially with the attitude problems and injuries he had. Not saying that it’s right, and in general I would agree that they sold low, but that seems to be the way things are when it comes to young players. Maybe he would’ve imploded in NY, maybe not. IIRC I think his manager @ AAA mentioned the trade was something of a wakeup call for Tabata.

      The thing that bugged me the most from the trade was that Girardi thought that Nady was worthy of starting in RF ahead of Swisher.

    8. Greg H.
      April 19th, 2011 | 12:18 pm

      There’s nothing inherently wrong in looking at a trade in hindsight, but unless it turns out to be some unbelievably lopsided deal, it’s not that informative or meaningful.

      At the time of the trade Marte and Nady were league ready at positions where we arguably needed support. Tabata was a question mark with an attitude. By the time we start getting a clue about Tabata we won the World Series two seasons ago.

      Say what you want about Marte’s deal being a clunker and I’ll probably agree. But he surely pitched better in the 2009 World Series than Jose Tabata could have.

    9. Evan3457
      April 19th, 2011 | 2:24 pm

      At the time of the trade, I said all the following:

      2. Marte and Nady addressed current needs on the Yankees roster.

      1. Tabata had a good chance of making this a good deal for the Pirates in the long run, and a small chance of making the deal look lop-sided in the Pirates’ favor.

      Both of these things have come to pass.

      Having said this: it is unlikely the Yanks win the title without Marte getting key outs throughout the post-season, but especially against the Phillies in the series. Because of this unless the Pirates can win a title or two before Tabata prices himself off the team, the deal is a success for the Yankees.

      Flags fly forever, and the 2009 flag is very iffy without Marte.

    10. Corey Italiano
      April 19th, 2011 | 4:24 pm

      Raf wrote:

      The thing that bugged me the most from the trade was that Girardi thought that Nady was worthy of starting in RF ahead of Swisher.

      To be fair, Swisher was coming off the worst year of his career, and Nady was coming off his best.

    11. MJ Recanati
      April 19th, 2011 | 4:32 pm

      Corey Italiano wrote:

      To be fair, Swisher was coming off the worst year of his career, and Nady was coming off his best.

      All the more reason that Girardi should’ve known who was a better bet for the future since Nady overachieved (and Swisher had the better spring).

    12. Corey Italiano
      April 19th, 2011 | 4:58 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      (and Swisher had the better spring).

      Welp, I have no idea how the hell you remember that. I don’t even remember what happened this past Spring. Anyway, if that’s the case, then you’re right.

    13. LMJ229
      April 19th, 2011 | 11:50 pm

      The Nady/Marte trade was a good trade at the time for the Yanks. Its not really fair to judge the trade in hindsight IMO.

    14. MJ Recanati
      April 20th, 2011 | 9:55 am

      Corey Italiano wrote:

      Welp, I have no idea how the hell you remember that.

      I only remember it because Nady was my #62 before #62 was my #62.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.