Talk:Dave Littlefield

Untitled

As I recall, Littlefield had originally wanted Jake Peavy with Xavier Nady, not simply Nady instead of Bay, but the Padres refused, so Littlefield settled for Bay and Perez. One could argue that the former would have been a better trade, so I don't agree with calling the trade dubious. Mickeyg13 05:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Littlefield's interest in Nady instead of Bay is cited in the article, and while I haven't bothered to look it up, it was also well-documented at the time that he had Sean Burroughs ahead of Bay in his list of preferences. Either of those trades would have been disastrous for the Pirates, and I think it's a fair point to include it here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed Jeff Suppan's name from the list of trades where the Pirates received "little or nothing in return." The Pirates acquired Freddy Sanchez in that trade. Sanchez has been to two All-Star games as a Pirate and is the reigning NL batting champion, so he hardly qualifies as "little or nothing in return." Mickeyg13 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's probably reasonable to remove Suppan's name. He's not all THAT good, compared to some of the other players Littlefield has "lost", and the trade in which he was moved is sufficiently complicated that it deserves its own separate treatment. The initial trade, which occurred at the deadline, called for the Pirates to trade away Scott Sauerbeck and Mike Gonzalez to the Red Sox, and get back Brandon Lyon and Anastacio Martinez in return. The Red Sox were excited about the deal, and they started using Sauerbeck out of their pen right away. The Pirates received a bunch of negative fan reaction to the trade, and then several days later it emerged that the Pirates were unhappy with the condition of Lyon's elbow. The fact that he'd had elbow problems earlier in the season was well-documented, and the Pirates didn't request information about the elbow at the time that the deal was made, or make it contingent upon him passing a physical, but they still raised a stink. Either they felt that they should've been protected against themselves, or they wanted to use the elbow thing as a pretext to reverse/revise the deal. Finally, the Red Sox agreed to alter the terms, which included all of the original four players except for Sauerbeck going back to their original teams, and Sanchez and Suppan being added to the deal. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Suppan sucks -- just one example of why all of the suppositions about who is going to be good should not be in a Wikipedia article. gohlkus (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

POV problems

I've removed/fixed a bunch of sentences with blatant POV problems. Please try to keep a neutral tone! I'm sure most people agree Littlefield wasn't a good GM, but please don't turn this into an attack article. Avoid using POV/subjective adverbs ("stunningly", "unbelievably", etc...) Wikipedia articles are not editorials, even if you can cite the opinions! When opinions are used, you should at least say who are they coming from (eg. "Rob Neyer called the move blah blah..." instead of "The move was blah blah..."). Even after all this, the article still reads like a laundry list of Littlefield's failings and still needs more work to become acceptable. I may take on this task in the near future... Wickethewok 05:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done the same thing again. My solution was to add disclaimers such as "Many people have criticized him for . . ." before these types of statements. Corey 06:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of the preceding comments. Despite those efforts, this article continues to be little but a hit piece, and all of the edits by 66.211.238.79 are vandalism that makes it even worse. I have no particular love for Littlefield, but now that I've noticed the article, it strikes me that it is really not a credit to Wikipedia at all. - gohlkus (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I took a few minutes to comb through, make everything past tense, and alter the outlandish, accusatory, and unsubstantiated statements. I think you'll agree that it's now a much fairer piece. Corey 12:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.121.204 (talk)

I got rid of a couple more -- neutral yet? gohlkus (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

His record has been failure

Dave Littlefield did in fact ruin the Pirates with some of the worst trades and signings in the history of major league baseball, and the record shows that. The Pirates are now on the verge of tying the record for most number of losing seasons, and that is NO accident. The passages may seem to be a laundry list, but that is FACT- it IS a record of failings and it cannot be done any other way. You can remove the unacceptable POV problems, but to try and create positives where there are none is not credible. Monsieurdl 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if that is true (which is up for some debate) it does nobody any harm to write "Many believe that Dave Littlefield was a bad GM" instead of just saying "Dave Littlefield was a bad GM." I know it's hard to remove passion from the equation, especially after 15 losing seasons, but Wikipedia is for facts -- not your personal feelings.Corey 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong- I fully agree with you! All I was saying is that there has been very, very few positives to come out of the Littlefield era. Monsieurdl 00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, moves can't always be judged immediately. Is anybody really crying about losing Jeff Suppan now, for example? All I'm saying is that all these details aren't really all that encyclopedic. Just the facts. gohlkus (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)