Breaking News: Pirates Fail to Sign Chad Durbin!

by Charlie Wilmoth on Dec 20, 2007 2:24 AM EST in News

It's been a slow offseason, to the point that the Pirates' failure to sign Chad Durbin qualifies as headline news. It's getting to the point where it's fair to wonder why there hasn't been much serious activity so far - really, the only thing Neal Huntington has done is acquire a bunch of live arms to shore up next year's bullpen. While that's important, and while we've been waiting for a while for the Pirates to shore up the back end of their 40-man roster, there's so much to be done and less and less time to do it.

Huntington's in a tough spot. In many ways, this isn't an ideal time to rebuild. The NL Central is so terrible that even the Pirates could sneak into contention with a few deft moves and an incredible streak of luck. And there's little of interest in the minors or majors. Trading major league players isn't very likely to net anywhere near the haul of talent that, for example, the Marlins got before the 2006 season, and there'd be little to augment it with anyway.

At the same time, though, a number of players on the Pirates' roster, like Xavier Nady and several relievers, could be traded without much short-term damage to the Pirates. I'd think that these players would be moved no matter what. And I also think that decisive, bold action is required here. Is the division so bad that it can be won with a big offseason? That seems incredibly doubtful, but if Huntington and the Pirates think so, then let's see it. We'll need to see far more from them than just "competitive" but unsuccessful bids for the likes of Chad Durbin and Luis Vizcaino.

If not, then there's probably no particular benefit to sitting on our hands here. The Pirates' most valuable properties are Ian Snell and Tom Gorzelanny. The best argument against trading them is that they're under control for a long time (four years in Snell's case, five in Gorzelanny's) and thus are more valuable to the Pirates than whatever they might bring back. But the more I think about it, the more I doubt that's a compelling argument. If we'd traded Jason Bay two years ago, we'd be getting back much more than we're going to get back now. And even if Snell and Gorzelanny don't vanish like Bay did, it's getting more and more doubtful that the Pirates will reap any serious benefits from them before they leave anyway. It's depressing, but it's true.

So maybe the boldest move of all would be for the Bucs to move Snell and/or Gorzelanny for multiple young players. It'd be incredibly unpopular, but at least it'd be a plan, and it'd be a plan with some chance of working.

The 2008 draft will be a defining moment for Huntington, and that's probably going to be much more important than anything that happens this offseason. But in the meantime, what should we do? By that point, the Bay/Nady/Sanchez group that'll be eligible for free agency after 2009 will be one step closer to leaving.

All of which is to say that I understand the indecision Huntington may be feeling. But they more I think about it, the more I think that it may be time to do something big.

By the way, I know it's not reasonable by any standard, but I find Curt Schilling's self-righteousness more offensive than anything Roger Clemens is accused of doing.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It takes two to tango

I hope I don't come off harsh here, Charlie, I really don't mean to, but ... it's easy for us to sit here and say "They ought to trade X, Y and Z for a passel of prospects," but finding a trading partner willing to do that is another matter entirely. You can't trade with yourself. Keep in mind that the rest of MLB has been used to fleecing the Pirates for so long that it may take some time for their minds to adjust to the fact that someone (presumably, hopefully) competent, someone they can't totaly rip off (I'm talking to guys like you, Brian Sabean), is in charge now.

I have to presume NH is doing everything he can, exploring every option, trying to deal for what he can, but it's entirely possible that if we were privvy to the (presumably laughable) offers he's getting in return, we'd stand pat for now too. And Snell and Gorzellany do NOT have anything like, say, Dan Haren's track record of success to bring anything remotely like a half-dozen hot prospects in return.

He has until July 31 to get what he can for some of our spare parts ... well, now that I think of it, they're ALL spare parts. That's when teams are hot to deal anyway.

But your overall point, I think, is correct: He's in a tough position. He has little of real value to work with, either at the MLB level or in the minors. He has no prospects to trade for the players who might give us a run at a pennant, and he has little top-shelf MLB talent to trade for boatloads of prospects.

So I think it's true that the next two-three drafts will be way way more important than what we can get for Xavier Nady. They'll tell us a bunch about how NH's bosses want to operate, whether there's a significant change in direction or just more of the same.

by bucdaddy on Dec 20, 2007 10:23 AM EST reply actions

It seems an underlying point

in all the above is that you don't see any way the Pirates can compete in the next two or three years.

Is the best option to shoot for 2011 or 2012?

If so, selling high on Snell this year may be really smart (but you are right that they should take their time, they have until July), but keeping Gorzo around to head the rotation on the Pirates next winner may be the right thing to do with him (he has a much lower-intensity delivery than Snell and is a better bet to still be pitching well into his 30s)

Does anyone else agree on this difference between the two of them? Snell would probably bring more in return near the deadline next year anyway.

by The New Guy on Dec 20, 2007 1:51 PM EST up reply actions

Intensity shmintensity

Snell has better pure stuff. And I don't mean this in a nasty way, but when you say Gorz has a "much lower" intensity delivery than Snell," I really think you have no idea what you're talking about. How it looks and how it is are two different things. I've seen lots of guys that drag their arm well behind their body that don't look like they're very intense, but that's a surgery waiting to happen. A lot of guys that throw with very little lower body action, like Wade Miller, don't have particularly violent motions.

I'll take Snell's intensity in a heartbeat, literally and figuratively.

I also agree with Charlie, after seeing what Haren brought. I'm not saying(, bucdaddy) that they're similar pitchers, yet, or that the market is there. Just that I'd love to see a bounty, and if the price is Gorzo, I'm all for it.

by azibuck on Dec 20, 2007 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

It's pretty simple to see what I am talking about

Snell is violent on the hill--and he has to be to throw hard. There is a reason you don't see a lot of power pitchers that are under six feet tall make it to the majors, let alone succeed for more than a couple of years, and it is not because guys under six feet can't throw hard.

I agree he has better pure stuff, but with me it is a question of how long it will last. There are more things that can take a toll on a pitcher than just dragging his arm.

by The New Guy on Dec 20, 2007 4:09 PM EST up reply actions

We'll just disagree

He's violent. Even if I agreed, so what? Mark Prior was smooth, look at him. I think Snell can last at least as long as Oswalt, and maybe as long as Greg Maddux, who isn't given nearly enough credit for his fastball.

We do agree about any number of things taking a toll on a pitcher, so why guess at which one will break down? Until I see empirical evidence that "hard throwers under six feet" break down at a greater rate than taller, talented china dolls like AJ Burnett, I'll just judge what he's done so far.

by azibuck on Dec 20, 2007 8:47 PM EST up reply actions

can we trady nady to the padres yet?

phillies sign geoff jenkins

seriously, they've got to be getting desperate. maybe it's dumb luck or maybe NH is playing it right after all.

by johnnycuff on Dec 20, 2007 12:33 PM EST reply actions

Friars

I guess the Padres have signed Jeff DaVanon and expect him to be a regular...

by bryanzane on Dec 20, 2007 5:10 PM EST up reply actions

3 years, $29 mil

for Dontrelle Willis. The Tigers (and the guy in my office I just made a beer bet with) won't be happy when his arm falls off about July.

by bucdaddy on Dec 20, 2007 6:20 PM EST reply actions

Dealing Snell or Gorzo

They would each fetch something more than worthwhile. If it was left to me, I would deal everything that isn't nailed down. However, there is no mandate to do that. If they intend to try to compete next year, there won't be many deals, and certainly not of pitchers. If either Snell or Gorzellany is dealt between now and the end of next season, that would be the signal that they have opted to rebuild. If they deal one of them and not the other, that will be a very bad sign, because this either has to be all the way or not. They may be having an internal debate about which way to go, and it hasn't yet resolved itself. If not, they need to resolve it sooner rather than later. Dejan's quoting of Beane the other day was right on the mark. He looked at what he had, and made a decision to rebuild it all. Why can some teams make these decisions quickly, and others not at all? No one questions Beane's autonomy. We still really don't know if Coonington can function as a duo. Huntington can't make command decisions without Coonelly's approval, and it remains to be seen when and if Coonelly will loosen the reins and let the guy do his thing. That, of course, assumes that Nutting will let Coonelly let Huntington dismantle and rebuild the team.

Oh, well. At least Jose Castillo and "We Will" are gone.

by RichieHebner on Dec 20, 2007 7:15 PM EST reply actions

I would think

you wouldn't have a debate about it now, that should have been part of the interview process, from both sides. Before I took the job, I'd want to know how they wanted to go. And before I hired a GM, I'd want to know if he'd go along with that. So I doubt there's any "debate" at this point, unless everyone was clueless during the search process.

by bucdaddy on Dec 20, 2007 8:19 PM EST up reply actions

true

But there are variables. If the interview happened and ownership said they'd like to compete this season, and you were then hired and looked around and realized it wouldn't happen, what would you do?

by bryanzane on Dec 20, 2007 9:25 PM EST up reply actions

I disagree...

Snell and Gorzo are our two most valuable bargaining chips, and that's precisely we should NOT trade them.

They're young, their salaries are under control for several more years, and they are the types of players we need to keep rather than move.

This bucket of rusty nails is not going to be fixed any time soon - there's time to patiently jettison all the dead weight (there's plenty of it) and work towards the future. Let Bay re-establish his value and move him in July. Send Wilson packing as soon as Bixler is ready as a stop-gap. If you get a desperate team willing to overpay for Sanchez he's outta here.

But not Snell or Gorzo. We need more young, productive power arms like theirs, not less. I can't see how anything we would get for either of those guys is going to be worth more than what they are. I understand the quantity argument, but I would much rather stick with the sure thing there than get more young arms that may or may not develop. Offensively we have Pearce, Walker, and Cutch knocking on the door, that's over 1/3 of our future starting lineup right there. Mix in LaRoche, Sanchez, McLouth (who I think can be a legit 20/20 guy), and yes, Paulino, and I think you have a decent foundation. Not the BoSox, but potentially the best offensive team we've seen in quite some time.

Just my humble opinion.

by OmarMoreno18 on Dec 21, 2007 12:48 AM EST up reply actions

When you have a terrible team...

...you can't afford to "stick with the sure thing".

Right now, in your projected offense (which honestly isn't all that imposing a core anyway), you're counting on continued success from two good veteran hitters, significant improvement from two veteran hitters, strong development from three hitting prospects, and perfect health for all of those people. That's at least seven different things that have to go right with nothing else going wrong... how often do you flip a coin and get heads seven times in a row? That's what you're asking here, since we have basically no decent backup plans at any of those spots.

Any strategy based on large amounts of luck in the health/development standpoints is bound to be a poor percentage bet in the long run. That's why we need to go with Branch Rickey's strategy of quality from quantity, deal valuable trading chips for multiple people who all project to be similarly valuable trading chips in their own right a few years in the future, and hope that we chose the right ones by the time we get to 2010 (and thus end up with more than we started with).

by Vlad on Dec 21, 2007 2:22 AM EST up reply actions

You had me ...

until I came to "deal valuable trading chips for multiple people ..."

What "valuable" trading chips do we have that will bring "multiple" people? A couple of good (but possibly not great anymore) hitters heading to the downside of their careers? What do you really think they'll fetch?

How about the pitchers? Snell had an erratic season and Gorzo was hurt, and they were both, essentially, in their first full season, so they have no real track record of accomplishment. So what do you really think they'll fetch? What the A's got for Haren? What the Marlins got for Willis/Cabrera?

I'm fine with dealing the hitters for what we can get, which I don't think will be much, but I agree with previous poster that the very very best we could hope to get for Snell and Gorzo right now are pitchers who might (MIGHT) someday be as good as ... Snell and Gorzo.

So since we're not going to be winning pennants anytime soon, I'm fine with hanging on to those two guys until (if) they put up the season they seem capable of, and THEN unload them for raftloads of prospects. Hopefully they'll be far more valuable then.

by bucdaddy on Dec 21, 2007 1:11 PM EST up reply actions

Who?

Snell, Gorz, Capps, Bay after he shows that he's healthy... those guys would have value on the market since they're good, young, and cheap. Snell and Gorz may not be "proven", but they have several cost-controlled years left on their deals, which is the next best thing for trade value.

If you trade Snell for two pitchers with Snell-level ceilings, and you pick the right two, you end up with two cheap Snell-level pitchers in three years instead of one expensive Snell-level pitcher (i.e. Snell).

Sure, if you pick the wrong two, you end up with nothing. That's why they call it gambling, folks.

by Vlad on Dec 24, 2007 7:09 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly

There is no sure thing, except another 65-70 win season, at best. The idea that they can compete with this roster is beyond unrealistic. The only real question is what team provides maximal value for each of the desirable players. You then hope that most of those are as good as projected, and do what Vlad just described. Any other course of action, and we'll be here in a couple of years talking about ... well, nothing good.

by RichieHebner on Dec 21, 2007 8:28 AM EST reply actions