Pittsburgh Pirates Hotseat
by bbdbrandon on Oct 18, 2008 12:26 PM EDT
31 comments
Over at The Outsiders Look I have been doing a series about what I would do if I were in the front office of a specific organization. My latest installment checks in with the Pittsburgh Pirates.
While things look dire for the 2009 season, I ascertain that the future is getting bright for the Bucs. I see the makings of a nice system that, as I'm sure you all know, could still use some fixing up.
The unfortunate part of writing this, was being unable to find homes for Adam LaRoche, Freddy Sanchez, and John Grabow. Each of whom appear to be valuable commodities. However, the issue was finding low level prospects with whom the Pirates organization can watch grow and eventually build around.
Check out my article and let me know what you think of my plan for the Pittsburgh Pirates. In addition, are there players that fit the criteria I mentioned that you would like to go after and could conceivably land.
0 recs |
31 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I was disappointed
That you failed to mention anything about Gorzo. I am uncertain about his future with the parent club but I was looking forward to reading what you had to say about him. I believe that he may have been injured last season which could partially account for his dramatic fall-off in production. While I am not prdeciting a return-to-previous-year’s level for him I am not yet willing to completely write him off.
I also was disappointed that you didn’t mention anything about trading Wilson. I have long advocated the trade of both he and Sanchez believing that we have too much of our payroll wrapped up in these two men and would prefer that we deal them away while they still have some trade value in hopes of receiving some bright, young prospects to add to our stable.
On the positive side, I did agree with your assessment of the handling of Pearce and I was encouraged by the way he ended the season with a small display of power. I would like to see us also trade Adam LaRoche and get some additional prospects and allow Pearce the opportunity to play at his natural position in hopes it might help his hitting.
by Illinois Pirate Fan on Oct 19, 2008 3:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
RE: Gorzo and Wilson
RE: Gorzelanny
It was somewhat unfair of me to ignore Gorzelanny altogether, however, my reasoning for doing so was because of the dramatic falloff he suffered during the 2007 season. If you head over to FanGraphs, flip through and watch how much he struggled in the second half of 2007. You can see a big spike in his ERA and Walk Rate. Interestingly, there is also a spike in his strikeout rate, which leads me to believe he was simply doing something different-and it wasn’t really working.
I’m not certain if he is out of options, but I’d like to see him in Triple A for a month or so before deciding what to do with him. After this point, if he looks to be capable of being a ML pitcher, I wouldn’t hesitate to possibly shop Maholm and Snell, both of whom are unlikely to be with the club when this team is successful in 3 or 4 years.
Someone to consider, and a potential heir to Sanchez or Wilson, the Braves Martin Prado. Certainly both Snell and Maholm would be desirable arms for the Braves and I really like what I saw out of Prado in 2008. I just wonder if he would be stretched defensively as a full time middle infielder.
RE: Wilson
I simply cannot find a team that would want him or his huge contract. In fact, even if Wilson was a free agent, I find it hard to believe a team would sign him, even despite short stop being incredibly thin this off season.
That said, his contract is up after this season, so waiting it out is presumably the only road of attack for the Bucs. Considering salary relief is not of major concern for this team, there isn’t a real need to move Wilson with his contract expiring. In addition to this, there isn’t really a player that could take his spot on the roster, so unless an offer that involved some nice prospects came up, its tough to imagine the Pirates pulling the trigger.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 20, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The SS market is Teh Suck right now.
We could probably move Jack if we wanted. Of course, then we’d have to replace him…
by Vlad on Oct 20, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the demand
is fairly low as well…
also, while the market is weak, if wilson were a free agent, where do you think he would rank on the list? certainly behind furcal, cabrera, renteria, and vizquel. he’d probably be on par with lopez, vazquez, hairston, and uribe. and considering the money it would cost for everett, eckstein, izturis, and cintron, he’d probably be on par or slight behind those four.
in other words, there is a legitimate argument that there are 12 ‘free’ short stops available that are better acquisitions then wilson. i doubt there are 12 teams shopping for a short stop.
the big plus on wilson’s side, he has one year remaining on his contract. while the rest of those names should cost at least 2 years-vizquel excluded.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 20, 2008 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
You’re seriously trying to advance the contention that out-of-position Jerry Hairston, visibly-decaying Omar Vizquel, and limp-sticked Cesar Izturis are all three better options than Jack Wilson?
I mean, we’ve all SEEN Cesar Izturis at shortstop in Jack’s place. That dog won’t hunt.
I’ll bite on Furcal and Cabrera, and at least listen to a case for Renteria, Eckstein, or Everett (if he’s still got that otherworldly glove), but the idea of any of those other guys ahead of Jack as a commodity… you had to be joking, right? Sure, some of them will be cheaper than Jack, but you’re bleeding wins if you take them instead of him… and if you want to argue risk, then how about ponying up for four years of Orlando Cabrara’s back issues, or making a long-term eight-digit investment in Furcal’s liver?
by Vlad on Oct 20, 2008 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well...
to your first point:
i didn’t say that they would perform ‘better’, but at an 8th of the cost, it’s not as if they are giving up a heck of a lot to sign hairston, viquel, or izturis.
to your second point:
i discussed how wilson MIGHT appear to close the gap between cabrera and furcal. the contract, while pricey, is still only a single years worth. that being said, furcal and cabrera are SO much better then wilson, even 2-4 additional ‘crap’ seasons from furcal and cabrera would probably be about the same cost/reward.
like i said, i just don’t see a market for wilson. at best, the pirates eat all of wilson’s contract, and get a low level prospect or two that doesn’t have much of a ceiling.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 20, 2008 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giving up a lot
Signing Vizquel actually costs quite a lot: It’s an opportunity cost. A team signing him is burdening their lineup with a sub-replacement-level talent. Going with a Vizquel costs wins, and giving up wins costs revenue. Any team with even slight ambitions of contention next year is going to hesitate before pissing away two or three wins by going cheap at shortstop – they don’t want to end up like the Mets, on the wrong side of the sheet by one game.
Over the last two years, there have been at least two attempts by other teams to give us at least mid-grade prospects for Jack, without us paying any of his salary: The Tigers’ offer of Jurrjens and Clevlen in ‘07, which would look pretty good right now, and the Dodgers’ offer of Hu and McDonald last year, which was later withdrawn. That being the case, why would you preemptively cave so completely and utterly right now?
Also, I’m not seeing a huge, huge value gap between Jack and Orlando Cabrera. Cabrera’s a 34-year-old with a .281/.334/.371 line in 2008, and a .274/.322/.399 line for his career. That’s fine for a shortstop, but it’s nothing exceptional. Jack’s a career .269/.312/.375 hitter, and at this point in their respective careers, he’s a better glove than Cabrera. I’d still put Cabrera in front, but the difference isn’t anything to write home about. When you factor in the probable salary difference (and the length of the contract that Cabrera wants), then Jack doesn’t look too bad…
by Vlad on Oct 21, 2008 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure...
Vizquel ‘costs’ wins….
Last 3yrs THT Win Shares:
Vizquel: 4, 11, 19
Wilson: 6, 19, 11
That being said, we are talking about two fairly equal players. We can give Wilson the nod due to age, but keep in mind, this is a nod of at least $2.5M. A ‘win’ at the Pirates current level, is not equal to $2.5M in revenue. That is, if the Pirates win 66 games instead of 67, people aren’t going to begin rushing through the gates.
However, with $2.5M+ in the clubs pocket, they could dish out incentives which would in fact get more people in the seats. Or, the club could simply invest that money within the organization, which would have a positive affect on the team down the road which would invariably make up for the 1 game of lost revenue.
As for the ‘speculated rumors’ there is a reason why those deals were never completed. Possibly they were not as good as they sounded. Being that they were never finalized, it is tough for me to believe the offer was actually on the table.
As far as Cabrera is concerned, for the last 3 yrs his win shares have come out to:
17, 25, and 19.
I’d say there is a fair gap. However, there is a big difference, which I mentioned, and you get to. Cabrera would take multiple years and Wilson would only take a year. Thus, Wilson is the superior ‘value’.
However, chances are that the team that signs Cabrera is not absolutely concerned with ‘value’.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Win Shares is an odd choice...
…in that it’s a counting stat, rather than a rate one. As such, it’s probably not the best measure to use here, since one of the guys we’re talking about was hurt for half the year, and another lost his job at midseason. Still, I’ll roll with WSPs if that’s what you want to talk about.
As recently as three years ago, Vizquel was an asset in the lineup, putting up WSPs around .530. He’s now in serious age-related decline, with a .335 in 2007 and a .273 last year. You aren’t getting the 2005 version if you sign him – that guy’s gone. You’re either getting the guy who was awful last year, or even worse, a guy who’s a few more steps slower than the guy who was awful last season, now that he’s another year older.
Jack, in contrast, is just wildly inconsistent from year-to-year, and his counting total for 2008 was suppressed by his injury. At his best (2004, 2007), he’s been better than any of Vizquel’s seasons in that time, and at his worst (2006, 2008), he’s still been better than Vizquel’s 2007/2008.
Cabrera piles up Win Shares pretty well because he’s been pretty constant in the lineup, but on a per-game basis, he’s not as impressive (though still pretty good). He had one huge year in 2007, one marginal year in 2004 when his back was giving him trouble, and has otherwise been clustered around maybe a .470 level of true talent (with some variation).
Of course, Win Shares systematically overrates guys who play for teams that outperform their Pythag (since there are more “wins” to spread around, but those wins are derived from game-to-game outcome variance rather than the team’s level of ability). In Cabrera’s last five seasons (descending order), his teams have been 0, +4, +5, +2, and then some combination of Boston’s +2 and Montreal’s +0 for 2004. Over that same time, Jack’s teams have been 0, -2, -3, -5, and -2. As such, the ability gap between those two is lower than a raw Win Share count would indicate. [Vizquel’s five years are +4, -6, 0, +4, and -1, so his aggregate shares are probably a push, more or less.]
So, yeah, OC is ahead of Jack in terms of ability… but it’s not that big a margin. Much, much smaller than the gap between OC and Furcal, for example.
by Vlad on Oct 21, 2008 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WSP
3yr totals:
Wilson-.347, .635, .350
Vizquel-.273, .335, .527
I agree to the regression, and that is fine. However, if Vizquel is the same “what are you going to get” shouldn’t Wilson also fall into that category? That is, are you going to get the ‘career year’ Jack Wilson, or the ‘career average’ Wilson?
Given that both Wilson’s ‘career years’ are significant outliers, a team trading for Wilson would have a difficult time expecting him to even hit his ‘career average’.
I conceded that Wilson is a the superior player, but for what will amount to at least $2.5M and prospects, I can’t see anyone making that deal. While there may be rumors that are tossed about, the only substantial evidence of interest is a trade-which oddly has not happened.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There IS a certain amount of uncertainty associated with Jack.
But even in one of Jack’s non-huge years (let’s say 2006 – which is pretty close to his career line), he’s still a starting-caliber player and a significant upgrade on the 2009 Vizquel.
For teams with a decent payroll, someone like Jack offers significantly less downside risk than someone like Vizquel. There’s a very good chance that if Vizquel manages to snag another team for next year, he’ll bomb out entirely in the first month, Matt Morris-style, and leave his team completely naked at short. Which is a scary thing for a GM, who has maybe two disappointing years at most before he winds up on the hot seat. Even if Jack isn’t Super-Jack (and he probably won’t be), he’s unlikely to be an out-and-out disaster, and that has value.
I don’t think we’re going to get a huge return for him, but he’s not an albatross, either. If we want to flip him, we’ll probably be able to do so for at least a B/B- prospect, without giving up any money.
by Vlad on Oct 21, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also think...
…that Jack’s career line probably IS roughly representative of his true talent level, at least at this point. His line is skewed up by the two big years, but it’s also dragged down by an out-and-out disaster in 2001. He plainly wasn’t ready for the majors yet in his rookie year, but Lloyd loved him in spring training, and all our other options sucked, so he ended up spending most of the year as the starter anyway and put up a .223/.255/.295 line in 425 PA.
by Vlad on Oct 21, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
one season v. two v. 'the rest of his career'
wilson’s rookie year represents, well, his ‘rookie year’. it has, for all intents and purposes been erased by a ‘career year’. wilson then has 5 of 6 ‘other’ seasons, in which he was between .638 and .686, averaging about .660 (.025 less then his career artifically inflated average).
among short stops with at least 300 plate appearances, a .660 ops, hell, even a .670 ops, would put wilson in the bottom 5.
this does put him above vizquel, sure, but at a cost of over $2.5M, PLUS prospects, do you REALLY think a team would take that? yes, you have your rumors, but i have my evidence that if he was in that high of demand, he probably would have been traded by now.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
(slaps quarter on desk)
Wilson will be traded for prospects before Feb 1, 2009.
by azibuck on Oct 21, 2008 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I do.
Vizquel had a .550 OPS. Would a team pay an extra $2.5M to upgrade from Wilson to a SS with an OPS that’s 120 points higher than a typical Jack season? Jimmy Rollins had a .786 last year, and a .774 for his career. Is he worth at least $2.5M more than Jack?
And of course, Jack is going to move up on some of those guys based on defense. He’s at worst an average defender, probably a little above-average, and definitionally at least half of the guys on that list are going to be below-average with the leather. If you go with a Jhonny Peralta or a Jeff Keppinger, you’re going to give back a bunch of glove runs in any comparison.
The sad truth of it is that $7M is just market price for an average-ish veteran these days. That doesn’t augur well for our chances if we try to maintain a total payroll around $50M, and I think that our low, low payroll distorts a lot of people’s understanding of the true values on the player market.
by Vlad on Oct 22, 2008 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offers
The Jurrjens offer is pretty much confirmed at this point, and the sides were very close to a deal. Dejan has gone on the record that it was a firm option on more than one occasion (in the sidenotes here, for example, as well as here), and Detroit sources (such as this) have confirmed it as well. Clevlen may or may not have been the second player in the Tigers’ offer – I think that he was, and that DL was holding out for a better second player (Clevlen is a pretty marginal bet), but that’s more speculative.
The Dodgers situation, at a minimum, involved talks about Hu and McDonald (link), but it’s possible that they didn’t escalate to the level of a formal proposal.
by Vlad on Oct 21, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sources
The Pittsburgh sources count for nothing to me. The management can say whatever they want to simply stir up some interest. For a team like Pittsburgh, throwing out trade rumors is probably one of the only ways to generate interest.
Case and point, JP Riccardi claimed he ‘spoke directly to Adam Dunn, apologizing for the comments he made’. Dunn refuted these. What actually happened? Both are ‘on record’ with opposite statements, does that mean both statements are true? Again, trades rumors are interesting, but they are meaningless in hindsight.
The DFP link is not working. That would be a source I would place as being more credible as baseball is already fairly important in Detroit.
That being said, there is a major difference between ‘talks’ and ‘offers’. The Tigers, for example, could have inquired about Wilson to which the Pirates asked for Jurrjens. Similar to a Poker player with a weak or strong hand, a baseball GM isn’t going to close the door immediately nor will they act overly excited until the transaction is complete. There is then, a reason the trade did not go down.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you actually read the PG links?
Dejan was citing a source with the Dodgers re: the Hu/McDonald thing.
Sucks that the DFP is down right now, because it explicitly says that the Tigers offered Jurrjens to the Pirates for Wilson, which would deal with all of your objections.
by Vlad on Oct 21, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the Dunn thing...
…I’d go with Dunn, because JP has an extensive history of lying to the press when it suits his interests. Back in ‘07, when confronted with a blatant lie about B.J. Ryan’s medical status, Ricciardi actually came out and said, "They’re not lies if we know the truth." (Link)
by Vlad on Oct 21, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha...
keep jp in mind anytime you are stating that a ‘rumor’ is fact.
like i said, there’s a reason the trade didn’t go down. if the pirates front office balked on jurrjens, they deserve everything bad that has happened to them. but chances are, they were simply discussions that someone got word of and then it trickled down to the media. if EVERY trade rumor was the truth, we would have hundreds of additional trades.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
like i said, there’s a reason the trade didn’t go down. if the pirates front office balked on jurrjens, they deserve everything bad that has happened to them.
You know Dave Littlefield, not current GM Neal Huntington, was the Pirates’ GM when these discussions took place, right? This is the same guy who passed, according to multiple reliable sources, on Ryan Howard for Kris Benson. There’s nothing even remotely unbelievable about Littlefield passing on another good trade offer, and this particular one is pretty well confirmed.
by Charlie on Oct 21, 2008 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, Dejan Kovacevic is not the sort to just print whatever the team tells him. I don’t know where you get the idea that the credibility of a reported trade offer is proportionate to the number of wins the team from which it emanates had that year.
by Charlie on Oct 21, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Reports
I’d say its more of a popularity thing that stems down from a teams front office. Huntington gives a member of the front office a ‘rumor’, something he’s working on knowing full well that it will make it to the media which will in turn stir up some interest in the club.
It doesn’t have to do with the teams record, rather, whether or not a team needs the press.
My issue with believing that every rumor from reliable sources were in fact on the table, is that there are far too many rumors. It simply wouldn’t make sense for a team to offer player X to 13 teams and not end up making a deal.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no question...
…that a certain amount of crap gets floated in the media every trade season. I generally try to remain skeptical until there are sources in both cities connected to a particular rumor confirming that there’s fire under the smoke. That’s why I mentioned Detroit and LA, but not the Toronto thing last year, where the only reports were coming from Pittsburgh.
by Vlad on Oct 22, 2008 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about the Dodgers Offer?
Huntington was running the show when that trade was apparently ‘offered’, what held him back from making that deal?
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My suspicion...
…is that the Pirates were angling to get LaRoche. He was mentioned in the initial BCT article on the deal as one of the three players under discussion, along with Hu and McDonald, and we were plainly interested in him because we ended up getting him in the Bay deal.
On that one, I don’t really know, though. The document trail isn’t as solid, in part because it involves LA and so every sportswriter in the country felt the need to pee on it a little bit and mark his territory.
It’s also possible that he was just too concerned about turning shortstop back over to Rivas or Bixler, after watching their cavalcade of fail earlier in the year. He has made a few allusions to that extent in more recent discussions about Jack being traded.
by Vlad on Oct 22, 2008 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also...
hope that Laroche gets traded. The man is remarkably consistent and although a team like the Pirates cannot afford to have a player who takes the 1st two months off there are a lot of teams out there who could use a lefty 1B with an .840 OPS. I believe he has more trade value than a lot of fans think he has. I agree with IPF that I think Pearce could benefit from moving back to his natural position and getting some consisten ABs next season. I would rather see that happen than Minty get them (even though I like the fire and OBP he brought to the team). Problem is I think the brass will shoot for .500 next year and keep Laroche at least until the deadline when it is apparent that .500 us out of the question. Oh, and I also think, and hope to God, that Gorzo was hurt last year as well because the drop off in performance and loss of velocity is inexplicable otherwise. Somthing to throw out there, wathcing the Red Sox this year it seems that they could benefit from adding Laroche to their Roster and moving Youkillis to 3rd. Anyone think there is a possible match up there?
by Slick1 on Oct 19, 2008 9:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that trade-wise...
…the Sox are keeping their powder dry for Peavy.
by Vlad on Oct 20, 2008 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Gorzo
Interestingly, last year was the second straight season of a drop in velocity. Albeit, in a relatively small 2007 sample size, Gorzelanny’s fastball was averaging 91.7mph. It dropped a full 3mph in 2008. This was also the most erratic season of his career.
Also of note, Gorzelanny’s walk rate spike considerably in the second half of 2007. It would be interesting (there is a website, I’ll check in with it soon) what his second half FB velocity was in 2007. It would surprise me if he was at 90.7mph in the first half and 88.7mph in the second half.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 20, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peavy did not...
ok a trade to Boston. So at this point it won’t be happening. The Sox could be interested in Adam, but only if Tex signs elsewhere and they can move Lowell.
A lot would have to happen, but anything is possible.
by BSpar on Nov 4, 2008 11:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sorry...
But as soon as saw you had Morgan starting IN RF, my mind went shut. 1. He doesn’t have the arm. 2. RF in PNC is very small.
With his legs he is either in CF or LF at home.
by BSpar on Nov 4, 2008 12:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
