Skip to content

Marco Scutaro traded from Rockies to Giants

Jul 28, 2012, 12:09 AM EDT

Marco Scutaro Getty Getty Images

The Rockies just announced that they have traded Marco Scutaro and cash considerations to the Giants for infielder Charlie Culberson. Yes, Brian Sabean loves his veteran middle infielders.

Troy Renck of the Denver Post notes that Scutaro is owed $2.2 million for the rest of the season before hitting free agency, but it’s not known how much of his remaining salary the Rockies are covering.

Scutaro, 36, is hitting .271/.324/.361 with four homers, 30 RBI, seven stolen bases and a .684 OPS in 94 games played this year. Coming into play tonight, he had a .794 OPS at home compared to a lowly .570 OPS on the road. He figures to be worked into the mix at either second base or shortstop. It’s even possible he could play some third base if Pablo Sandoval is placed on the disabled list, though he hasn’t played there since 2008 with the Blue Jays.

Culberson was a supplemental first-round pick of the Giants back in 2007. The 23-year-old second baseman had his first cup of the coffee in the big leagues earlier this season and is a .258/.309/.379 hitter over parts of six seasons in the minors. He was ranked as the organization’s No. 11 prospect by Baseball America during the offseason.

  1. butchhuskey - Jul 28, 2012 at 12:30 AM

    Brian Sabean loves him some mediocre veteran infielders

    • proudlycanadian - Jul 28, 2012 at 7:26 AM

      Sabean metrics!

  2. jimtron11 - Jul 28, 2012 at 12:47 AM

    Hardballtalk needs to examine the official scoring in the A’s-Orioles game tonight. Ryan Cook got the last out in the bottom of the 8th inning (on an outfield assist by Cespedes). Down 9-8 going into the 9th, the A’s rallied for six runs and won the game 14-9, with Jerry Blevins retiring the final three batters. After the game, Blevins, not Cook, was awarded the win. According to the post-game writeup, this was because Cook was “ineffective.” I’ve seen plenty of “ineffective,” closers who’ve vultured wins. I’ve never seen a ruling like this. Baseball doesn’t make sense to me any longer. Please look into this.

    • buddaley - Jul 28, 2012 at 6:48 AM

      It is unusual but such decisions do happen. Ordinarily they happen in high scoring games that swing back and forth. The official scorer may then ignore who was pitching when the actual “winning run” scored and award the victory to the pitcher who was most effective for the winning team. I have seen it happen, rarely, but on occasion.

      In this case, Cook came into a game with 2 outs and 2 men on and his team winning, faced 4 batters and did not retire a single one. That resulted in his team falling behind. The one out recorded was not even his. In such cases, the official scorer has the prerogative of choosing a different winning pitcher. It does make sense and is not unprecedented.

      • dan1111 - Jul 28, 2012 at 7:00 AM

        Not only does it makes sense, the alternative (awarding Cook the win) makes no sense, even though it is common.

    • paperlions - Jul 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM

      If not awarding a win to a pitcher that didn’t record a single out and allowed every hitter he faced doesn’t make sense to you, you might want to re-evaluate what you think pitcher wins are supposed to measure.

  3. smcgaels1997 - Jul 28, 2012 at 1:08 AM

    Seriously? An A’s complaint in a Giants post…..insecure aren’t we

    • APBA Guy - Jul 28, 2012 at 12:48 PM

      Agree completely.

  4. gotmelk - Jul 28, 2012 at 1:22 AM

    Boy I can’t wait to get Huff back! He and his .155 average are crucial to the Giants as they make a playoff stretch. When he does get back, you can finally sit Belt who’s been an ok offensive first baseman, with an above average glove and decent speed. When Huff gets back the Giants will experience these following things, a 24 man roster, a way overpaid veteran, a .155 batting first baseman, a average defensive player, and zero speed… fun

    • temporarilyexiled - Jul 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM

      I doubt we’ll see Huff again. If nothing else, there may be a couple more minor moves in the works so that players like Huff and Burriss can be quickly forgotten. One can only hope…I’d be more concerned with what the team ends up with for corner infielders in the next week or so. God forbid both of them could hit well enough to actually show up in the opposing team’s scouting report.

  5. redux23 - Jul 28, 2012 at 1:30 AM

    classic sabean.

  6. koufaxmitzvah - Jul 28, 2012 at 2:11 AM

    I liked how the Dodgers 3rd baseman hit the ball a little bit harder to left field than the Giant’s 3rd baseman. Hey, I wonder if Scutaro can play 3rd base? Maybe he can hit the ball hard to left field. We’ll have to see!

    • delchef9 - Jul 28, 2012 at 2:43 AM

      No, Scutaro cannot hit the ball hard anymore, hence the 361 slugging% and terrible numbers away from Coors Field……..sorry, Fontentot could hit harder!!!!!

    • temporarilyexiled - Jul 28, 2012 at 11:42 AM

      Good one. It must be nice to now have ownership willing to spend. The Giants will do so again, but I’m guessing it won’t be until a bunch of bad contracts end in the next couple of years. That said, it’d also be nice to have a farm system that actually produced more than a handful of good hitters in the last two decades AND an ownership that realized that they can make money with long-range thinking as well as their get-it-while-you-can-cash-grab way of doing business.

  7. baseballisboring - Jul 28, 2012 at 2:25 AM

    I mean, it can’t hurt to have some infield depth. Scutaro is versatile and in most years he gets on base at least. Maybe he’s done at 36, maybe he’s just been slumping, but all they gave up to get him was a guy with a career .687 OPS in the minors.

    • paperlions - Jul 28, 2012 at 11:42 AM

      The valuable thing they are giving up is the roster spot.

      Scutaro can play an average 2B/SS, but he can’t hit a lick anymore, he is still hard to strike out…putting up such crappy numbers while putting the ball in play 85% of the time is amazingly bad.

  8. sisqsage - Jul 28, 2012 at 2:38 AM

    What is with all of the Sabean-bashing?
    Like we win the series in 2010 without all of those deals he made.
    This is a solid pickup. Scutaro can help at multiple positions, and will be a positive in the heat of a pennant race.
    Culberson was lost at the plate when they called him up and will always strikeout a ton with that huge hole in his swing.
    It’s a good trade.

    • dan1111 - Jul 28, 2012 at 7:20 AM

      Sabean has made a bunch of questionable deals and signings. He deservedly takes heat for trading away prospects, signing old, decrepit players, and seemingly purposely giving up first round draft picks in some years. Without the World Series win (something which always involves a lot of luck), 2010 would have been a good-but-not-great season surrounded by a lot of poor seasons. I think it is safe to say that Sabean has been uneven at best in recent years.

      Still, I agree that in this case the complaints are a case of making the story fit the narrative. Scutaro came cheap and should be a useful complement to a team making a playoff run.

    • paperlions - Jul 28, 2012 at 11:46 AM

      Sabean got lucky once when a couple of guys got hot at the right time while the pitching was lights out. Otherwise, this has been a team that can’t hit and has relied on the pitching staff for a long time….and that is with a lot of turnover in the lineup, mostly over-the-hill scraptastic players that didn’t look like good moves when they were made.

      • paperlions - Jul 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

        An addendum….that Melky trade was fantastic, gotta give him credit for that….I guess….but it does feel a little like a blind squirrel endeavor.

      • temporarilyexiled - Jul 28, 2012 at 12:23 PM

        Were the Zito signing and Beltran trade Sabean’s fault? We may never really know. In general, he seems to have a good track record with trades. As for signings, yeah, much of it has been from the senior (as in really old) circuit. I just wonder how much financial rope he’s been given for the last several years. It’s not like you get the impression that ownership has a genuine passion for winning now and reaping the benefits later. Seems like they’ve got those two reversed.

    • APBA Guy - Jul 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM

      Scutaro is a good pick-up, particularly since he can play 2B effectively, a spot the Giants have needed to upgrade all year. The Rockies sent cash with the deal, so the Giants aren’t even picking up all the $ 2.2M of Scutaro’s remaining 2012 salary.

  9. sergio408 - Jul 28, 2012 at 2:40 AM

    jimtron11 – What stat line are you looking at?

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R H E
    OAK 4 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 14 16 0
    BAL 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 3 0 9 15 0

    W: J. Blevins (4-0)

    L: J. Johnson (1-1

    Fan’s like you make us look Incompetent.

    • paperlions - Jul 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

      His point was that usually Cook would have been the pitcher of record because he was in the lineup when the A’s took the lead. Instead, the official scorer gave the victory to Blevins because he was more effective, even though the A’s already had the lead when he came in.

      Your lack of reading comprehension makes you look incompetent, it doesn’t reflect on anyone else.

    • jimtron11 - Jul 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM

      Ryan Cook got the last out in the 8th inning with the A’s down one heading into the top of the 9th. The A’s rallied for six in the 9th. Blevins didn’t come on until the bottom of the 9th, got the last three outs but was credited with the win (instead of Cook). After the game, the scorer announced that Cook was deprived of the win because he was “ineffective.” I’ve never seen this ruling before. Has anyone else? How does pointing out this oddity make me look incompetent?

  10. finfan88shark - Jul 28, 2012 at 3:22 AM

    Agree that he is not the answer but typical stupid sabean trade

    • dan1111 - Jul 28, 2012 at 7:22 AM

      What is stupid about giving up a non-prospect to get a cheap, decent backup infielder?

  11. jonirocit - Jul 28, 2012 at 4:14 AM

    Take it easy Culbertson was never going to get used . This isn’t the answer to Ramirez . Just a little move . What better middle infielder was out there that wasn’t going to clean out what little they have in the farm system ? Take it easy

  12. blabidibla - Jul 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM

    Well this will show those Dodgers! HanRam who?

    sigh…..

  13. bigdicktater - Jul 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM

    Did you happen to read the post about how the Marlin’s players’ were happy to be rid of Ramirez?
    He’s had two great games against the Giants, but give him time, he’s apparently a cancer in the clubhouse.

  14. sisqsage - Jul 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM

    That cancer in the clubhouse thing was brought on by the Marlins’ weird owner, who foolishly favored an immature player like HanRam, which just pissed everybody else off. Why wouldn’t a SELL-FEESH player like HanRam feel superior when the owner gives you a pricey piece of jewelry that nobody else on the team got?

    Mattingly won’t let stuff like that happen in LA., and is good dealing with players.

    HanRam is still only 28. You don’t lose all of your skills in your 20s. He will be a big producer in a nice change of scenery for him.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Why is Wren out and Gonzalez is not?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2679)
  2. J. Heyward (2129)
  3. J. Hamilton (2091)
  4. M. Trout (1990)
  5. S. Pearce (1973)
  1. J. Ellsbury (1923)
  2. D. Ortiz (1919)
  3. D. Jeter (1912)
  4. A. Pagan (1875)
  5. C. Kershaw (1868)