Offseason/Free Agency

by Chad Bahamas on Oct 8, 2008 10:07 PM EDT Comment 38 comments

It looks to me like many of our veteran players are available again. If we trade Jack, Freddy or both, what is keeping us from playing a little in free agency?

By the question I don't mean signing anyone with a pulse or some pitcher like Derrick Lowe for 15 million per. I mean finding someone like Adam Dunn who may not get the multi-year deal he's looking for. 4 years at 40-48 million wouldn't be unreasonable for someone who's hat 40 homers each of the last 5 years. So Dunn may bump us up from 65 wins to 72 wins. As long as its with in budget, why not sign someone like Dunn? I think he may be the first undervalued free agent in years.

Is there anyone you think the Pirates should target in the offseason via free agency or through a trade? I saw Juan Rivera's name in another thread. Rocco Baldeli if he's cheap?

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Baldelli

In another Bucs Dugout post, I was a proponent of pursuing Rocco Baldelli if he was affordable. But I’m backing off that now. His mitochondrial disorder is likely persistent and can have a dramatic effect on a player’s ability. One coach said that Baldelli may run at 80% his former speed for the rest of his career, and it can also affect his other muscles similarly. That’s some serious stuff. I liked Baldelli a lot as a young, high-upside player, but with his speed hampering him offensively and defensively and the unpredictable nature of his condition, I think we should stay away unless he’s a bargain basement signing.

As for Dunn, I don’t think we should sign anyone of that price (even if you think he’s undervalued, he’s still expensive) until we have a better nucleus in place.

by Alleghenys on Oct 9, 2008 9:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Free Agency

It’s hard for me to understand how signing good free agents will hurt the team development, fans are so concern with how the Pirates are going to spend $15mm, but do not question why is only $15mm. We need a drastic change, adding 2 to 3 free agent that will not only help in the win column, but also tutor and mentor the “young talent” should be seen as a must. Could you imagine the impact of an Adam Dunn (to use Chad e.g.)in the middle of the line up. Our future core will not be rolling at full steam for another 3 years, 2 if we are lucky, why not sign free agents to bridge that gap. The questions is who to sign, I favor pitching, and wouldn’t mind seen Ryan Dempster in front of Maholm, if Jack goes, someone like Dunn sounds good, and a cheap, but defender at ss, like Alex Cora.

Pirates live for me

by Piraterican on Oct 9, 2008 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bridging the gap ...

… doesn’t help if it takes away from the other side of the bridge. Money going toward someone like Ryan Dempster could instead be used on scouting and player development or saved for a future season in which we actually have a shot at competing.

I think spending money on guys like Dunn, Dempster, Cora, etc. is something Littlefield would have done. It would make us more optimistic in April but result in yet another meaningless September. We need to focus on the long-term, big picture instead of short-term flailing.

by Alleghenys on Oct 9, 2008 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Depends on the budget and Nutting's expectation of future budgets

If he is not going to save the extra 20+ million he makes this year for future use by dumping the salaries of Morris, Bay, Nady, Jack, Freddy, etc. then the Bucs should just spend their yearly budget. Player development should be the first priority of the management and I don’t believe anyone is questioning that. I’m just saying that there is only so much a team can spend on player development. We spent 10 million in the amateur draft, one of the highest amounts in the league. We should do so again next year. We should still have money to spend on the major league roster too. Frankly, I want someone other than Nate Mclouth to go cheer for.

I don’t believe Nutting will ever spend above and beyond a yearly budget. If we have the money now, and it won’t hurt future player development or retention (I think we have a window of a few low cost years), then get make the team interesting. I don’t mean signing Burnitz, or even Dempster (he’s a one year wonder like Nady), I mean signing or trading for someone of quality with a salary that isn’t the minimum. Bridge the gap. Keep me interested.

by Chad Bahamas on Oct 9, 2008 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where would Dunn play?

Let’s say we are able (and he is willing) to sign Dunn; where would you play him? He is not a great OF and if he plays then Pearce or Morgan sit. If he moves to 1B, we have to get rid of LaRoche. We gain more HR power, but make our already poor defense worse. While I like Dunn, I don’t see the fit.

If we sign anyone, it should be a SP. However everyone (including the big spenders) need SP so unless we give them alot of $ over many years, they won’t sign with us. Looking at the 2nd tier SPs, I don’t see any that would be worth our money.

by zogger on Oct 9, 2008 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Gap/Dunn

I don’t view Morgan and Pearce as players that will make a difference, Moss, he’s a good bench piece on a winning team, so signing a FA to play ahead of them imo, does not count as hurting development, again I’m not for, or againts a Dunn signing, but if he was to sign, playing him on the PNC short RF would hurt as much as some think. A FA, besides Dempster (you have to over pay, ala the Tigers with Pudge a few years back) is Casey Blake, he is solid, plays 3b, 1b and the outfield. If Andy bombs, he will play 3b this year, if Adam gets traded or doesn’t sign next year, he slide over to 1b, and of couse he could play RF for us if needed.

Pirates live for me

by Piraterican on Oct 9, 2008 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

btw that meant to read," wouldn’t hurt as much as some think"

Pirates live for me

by Piraterican on Oct 9, 2008 1:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My concern with Dunn...

…is that he’s probably a Type A, and as such, would cost us one of our second-round picks.

I think we should aim a little lower, and as such, I floated Milton Bradley as a possibility. I think he’s going to be a Type B, and his durability and character issues might make him less desirable to the usual top-end FA buyers (and thus potentially more amenable to signing with us).

by Vlad on Oct 9, 2008 3:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Character Issues

Why should we take someone like Bradley? We have a young team, the last thing we need is someone with character problems in the clubhouse, I don’t care how affordable he is, we won’t win with him, the only things that can come out of signing Bradley are bad things.

I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.

by Chester J Lampwick on Oct 9, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Character issues

I think that Bradley is a good risk because his personal character issues are, by and large, manageable. The Rangers have gone out of their way to put him in a situation where he can succed, and he’s rewarded them for it with an excellent season.

At the heart of it, he seems like a smart, motivated, sober individual… who just has trouble keeping his temper in check. If you build a support system for a guy like that, and insulate him from stressors, then he’ll probably be fine. I’d worry about the impact on a young team if he were a drug guy, or an asshole who’d run everybody down, or incorrigably lazy, but I don’t think his issues are likely to cross over to others in any real way.

by Vlad on Oct 9, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Issues

I understand your point but it just doesn’t convince me. I know that a lot of Bradley’s problems were due to those around him and I think he has done great with the Rangers. But I don’t even understand why we need someone who has had any major personality problems on this team. I know he’s not lazy or just an asshole but there is still the potential that his personality doesn’t mesh with the team and things go wrong.

His presence also won’t win us very many more games (I don’t know how he did specifically this season but I have a general idea) and I’d rather get a consummate team guy if we have to get a cheap free agent. I know there is always a possibility of personalities clashing but I just don’t think we should specifically go after someone who has a history of that. Just my two cents and if the Pirates signed him I wouldn’t be up in arms (unless they overpaid), I just wouldn’t make that decision if I was the GM.

I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.

by Chester J Lampwick on Oct 9, 2008 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How Bradley did last year:

.321/.436/.563, good for a .999 OPS that led the AL. He benefitted a bit from park effects, but he also led in OPS+ (163), which is park-neutral, and he had a 153 OPS+ the year before, so it isn’t a fluke.

For the last two years, when in the lineup, he has been a significantly better hitter than a healthy Jason Bay. And his health/personality issues could make him a realistic option for us at something like 3/$36M, which in today’s market is just a hair over Jose Guillen money. And his low counting totals in SD will probably slot him in at Type B, so we wouldn’t lose a pick to sign him.

Seriously, why isn’t this a no-brainer?

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2008 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I get your point but

I still don’t agree. I understand that most of Bradley’s personal problems had to do with him and Jeff Kent (one of the biggest pricks in baseball) and that he is not a self-aggrandizing bastard like T.O. or even a prick like Jeff Kent. But he has still had conflicts with teammates and his presence won’t win us anything more than a few games. I don’t understand what good can come from signing and playing him.

In my mind at the best case we win 10 more games with him next season and not finishing in last place helps young players’ confidence a little and at the worst case he has conflicts with teammates and ruins any chemistry the team has. I don’t think the upside is worth the potential downside.

I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.

by Chester J Lampwick on Oct 11, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, the best-case scenario...

…is that we’ll have drafted and developed well enough to put together a legit contender in 2011 or 2012, with a productive Bradley at the heart of a lineup full of homegrown talent. I guess we could wait until 2011 to start signing stars, but there’s no guarantee that they’ll be available (or reasonably priced) that offseason.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2008 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Personally

I don’t think the Pirates will be ready to be a legit contender by 2011 or 2012 and therefore Bradley won’t be able to help us. But I guess that’s a whole separate issue.

I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.

by Chester J Lampwick on Oct 12, 2008 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stopgap

We talked about this in some detail in a previous post, but I think the signing of Bradley is nothing close to a no-brainer.

While Bradley may be a productive player, in the grand scheme of things, signing him would be like putting lipstick on a pig. We don’t have the the core group to make the addition of Bradley and the expenditure of 3 years, $36 million worth it. Bradley alone would not make us contenders. We might get near .500, but even that would be a longshot, given the the team’s post-deadline record. And his signing would likely not be made up in additional attendance revenue.

At Bucs Dugout, we have consistently criticized past management for trying to put band-aids on bad teams. Think about Derek Bell, or Raul Mondesi, or any number of others. Granted, Bradley is better than those, but the concept is the same — the core team is not good enough to throw money at a veteran who won’t make us a contender.

I would much rather plow that money into development or save it for 2011 than give it to a player who won’t put us over the top and will likely not be around when we are competitive. It would be an empty signing. We need to focus on the foundation of the organization first and start acting like a club that has had 16 straight losing seasons.

Honestly, and I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I can’t believe we are even having this discussion.

by Alleghenys on Oct 13, 2008 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Budgets

The problem with signing Derek Bell or Raul Mondesi or whomever wasn’t that we were acquiring veterans. The problem was that:

a) we were acquiring veterans who weren’t any good.
b) we were acquiring veterans who weren’t going to be a part of the team beyond that season.
c) we were acquiring veterans who didn’t fill a need for the team, in that we already had other players who were as good or better on hand.

None of those three things are true of Bradley. He’s significantly better than anyone else we have available for a corner OF spot, he’d be a part of the team for several seasons, and we’re currently extremely thin at corner OF.

And yes, while I agree that we need to be aggressive in acquiring young talent, not signing Bradley wouldn’t magically give us an extra $12M worth of young players. We only spent about $10M on our entire draft class last year, and saying that we’re going to double our draft spending (and thus spend more than twice as much as any other team in baseball on the draft) is about as realistic as saying that we should sign an alien from the crab nebula and make him our RF. It’s just not going to happen, full stop. Having Jason Bay on the payroll didn’t damage our ability to haul in a ton of talent last year, and having a similar player under contract for a similar salary next season wouldn’t hurt our 2009 draft, either. Similarly, ML teams don’t roll over money that wasn’t spent in past seasons in order to apply that money to future seasons. Huntington has been asked about this, specifically, on several occasions, and he’s said that it’s not on the table. Ergo, wishing for it and planning on it are counterproductive.

I think that we end up having discussions like this one because a lot of people aren’t able to wrap their heads around the idea of us pursuing more than one goal at once. If we’re able to acquire a good veteran player without in any way compromising our ability to acquire good young talent (and that’s exactly the case with Bradley, who would fit within the current budget for ML players, and who wouldn’t cost a draft pick), then why on earth wouldn’t you do it? Winning games in 2009 shouldn’t be our primary goal, but if we’re able to win more games without damaging ourselves in other areas, then that’s nothing but gravy.

by Vlad on Oct 13, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Priorities

I’m not buying your argument, Vlad. Or, more broadly, I’m not on board with spending money on a veteran who would become our highest-paid player at this stage in the rebuilding process. Maybe that is because I’ve seen so many veteran signings amount to zilch in previous years while we languished in the standings, but there is some reason behind the opinion.

The problem with signing Derek Bell and Raul Mondesi is that we spent money on players that weren’t going to help us contend. These were bad teams in 2001-2003, much like the prospective team for 2009. Even if Bell or Mondesi were good, as you note, the Pirates would still have been bottom feeders in the standings. It’s a very similar situation with the current roster.

To be honest, I would actually be fine with a Mondesi-level expenditure (1-year/$1.5m) in 2009 to fill out the roster, since we are thin at corner OF. But $36m for Bradley is a large commitment to a player who has only ONCE completed a full season (albeit barely, with 141 games played in 2004), has had disciplinary issues, and would be joining a team that needs more than one player of his caliber to compete. And, it can’t be said enough, needs young, high-end talent up and down the system.

I think the real issue is how best to use $12m/year. It is possible that Nutting could approve a certain budget for the major league roster, and that the $12m would fit into that budget and be lost if not spent. The problem is we don’t know how the budget is set or allocated. If Huntington loses that $12m — or whatever the delta is — if he doesn’t spend it on a major-league player, then he can do whatever he wants with it, in my mind. Even if that means signing Bradley.

But I would sincerely hope, given the apparently competence of the new management team, that the budget would not include a senseless, take-it-or-leave-it dollar figure on the major league roster. If so, that would constitute poor management. Instead, the budget should encompass all aspects of player development, and Huntington and Co. should be able to allocate those funds as they see fit to build a winning organization.

Now, you say in your note that the $12m would not result in a doubling of our draft spending. Of course not. But, $12m could 100% be used to add to our draft signings and, maybe more importantly, bolster our international scouting, signings and development. We are being outmanned in almost every country and need to have a presence in places like Korea, South Africa, Chinese Taipei, Australia, etc. This is one case where throwing money at the problem (by hiring great scouts and development officials to sign high-end international talent who can learn at professional facilities) can make a difference.

As for what the team WILL do, Huntington gave a strong indication in a BP interview that signings like Milton Bradley for 3-years/$36m are highly unlikely:

“Our philosophy is that every move we make will be logical, rational, and well-researched. They will also be for the long-term benefit of the Pittsburgh Pirates. The quick fixes that have been taken in the past—that you see happen around the league with some teams—are not something we’ll be interested in here. Free agent signings that make a small, incremental difference in on-field performance don’t have much of an impact on wins. Those decisions are decisions we need to try and avoid, especially when they come at the expense of money that could have been better utilized in player acquisition and development. If the extra pieces added could lead to two or three wins being added and are the difference between making the playoffs or not, that’s a different scenario and that short-term move has long-reaching positive impact. That would be progress, so the expense would be justifiable. But if you’re talking about potentially 78 wins instead of potentially 76, it is difficult to justify.”

You may look at that quote and say it doesn’t fit because Bradley would add more than two wins. That may be the case. But he will NOT make us contenders, which is Huntington’s larger point on free agent signings.

The most important piece of that quote is the inference that the budget can be allocated as management sees fit, based on needs. It indicates that there is not a take-it-or-leave-it budget for the major league roster. If this is actually the case, then the signing of Bradley would, even partially, likely take away from other objectives. And that’s something that would not be prudent for an organization with 16 straight losing seasons, a mediocre farm system and a major league roster that is not ready to compete. The focus has to be on the long-term, and Bradley does not make sense in that perspective.

by Alleghenys on Oct 13, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

SO much for me to disagree with there.

I’ve honestly written a response about three times now, because I can’t even figure out which part of your premise to attack first.

I guess I might as well start with your Huntington quote. He’s giving that answer in response to a question about the Matt Morris trade, which is such a completely different thing that it’s laughable to compare the two. Morris was a marginal veteran of a very common level of ability, who would provide the franchise with a benefit over only a very short period of time, and whose acquisition directly pulled money out of the budget that had been allocated to draft signings. As such, he gave us only a tiny number of marginal wins, at an enormous cost, while damaging our ability to acquire amateur talent. Bradley, in contrast, is a bona-fide superstar, who’d give us a huge on-field upgrade over either Moss or Pearce in an OF corner, who would provide that benefit over multiple seasons, and who would have no appreciable impact on our ability to acquire amateur talent. From the perspective of marginal wins per dollar, he’s a very good bet, and he’s likely to retain value through the life of a deal, giving us a bankable asset in that third season.

You say that we’d be better served to try and expand into numerous additional international markets with that money, and I’m skeptical that simple logistics would permit the kind of massive short-term adjustments that you’re talking about. We’ve been working very steadily and methodically to expand our international presence under Huntington, with the changes to the Dominican facility and the more aggressive series of Latin signings, and I think that looking before leaping makes all the sense in the world. When you’re building a house, you don’t start slinging bricks like mad to try and get the foundation built ASAP – you plot and check and re-check to make sure that all of the little bits of the structure are lined up right, because you’re potentially going to have to live with any mistakes for years upon years. As for additional spending on players, this year we ran out of people to take our money before we ran out of money to give them – just look at Palmeiro (who wouldn’t sign even for well above slot), or Scheppers (who would’ve been signed if he’d been able to demonstrate health before the deadline).

My largest concern with the type of total-youth rebuild that some here are advocating (cough, IPF, cough) is that doing so runs the risk of losing a large slice of the remaining fan base, and in turn goading the front office into an ill-advised response. We’ve seen that movie before, in 1998, when the team’s down-the-stretch collapse prompted the front office to force Bonifay to abandon the youth movement and start buying vets hand over fist. Prospect and acquisition has to come first, but you entirely ignore the performance of the ML squad at your own peril.

My own personal calculation of the situation is that a Pirate team with Bradley in the OF is significantly better than one without him, to the tune of maybe 40-50 extra runs. Those runs bring us wins, which bring us extra revenue, which we can devote to a few extra amateur signings if there are amateurs we like on the market. And if we aren’t competitive in 2011, then we can trade Bradley to a contender for additional young players. Thus, we derive more benefits from a Bradley signing than just a better record, an advantage for which you are not accounting at all, since you’re errantly conflating him with poor players (Bell, Mondesi, Morris, etc.) who did not provide these benefits.

To my mind, a Mondesi-type signing like the one you advocate instead of Bradley would be a serious mistake. The money we paid Mondesi in 2004 is more like $3-4M in today’s FA market, and there are guys who could be a below-average corner OF for us for significantly less than that. By signing a Mondesi-type placeholder, we’d acquire no long-term gains: No improved on-field performance (and thus no extra revenue), and no trade assets in a deadline deal, since he’s essentially a fungible commodity. We’d just spend several extra million dollars to no good purpose.

Money spent on a superstar is rarely wasted, barring a catastrophic injury or misevaluation. It’s the nickel-and-dime stuff that’ll kill a low-budget team. When you pay market rates for role players like situational lefties and utility infielders, then that cuts into your ability to add true impact talent, without giving you anything of value in return.

by Vlad on Oct 13, 2008 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vlad,

while I very much respect your opinion, and have never quibbled with you ere now, but I do NOT in any way, shape or form consider Milton Bradley a “superstar.”

Back to the lame comic relief I have demonstrated in the past.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. -- HST

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 13, 2008 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, OK, let's talk about that.

What term is more appropriate for a guy who led his league in OPS and OPS+?

Just for reference, raw OPS leaders for the AL for the last ten years:

A-Rod (2x), Travis Hafner, Manny Ramirez (3x), Carlos Delgado, Jim Thome, Jason Giambi… and Bradley.

by Vlad on Oct 14, 2008 7:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pac-Man; Ocho Cinquo; Man-Ram; Bradley; Terrell Owens; Dennis Rodman; etc.

All of these guys have two things in common: they all have a lot of talent and they’re all trouble-makers that you don’t want on a young team with impressionalbe youngers who might mistakenly look up to these jerks. Everybody thinks they can control these guys by treating them specially when in reality, there are very, very, few managers who can deal with them successfully. These are not the type of men around whom you build a good, young team and I would be strongly opposed to signing anybody with similar qualities. Besides, they’re all expensive and our limited funds should be used to acquire young talent of quality individuals. If you don’t believe me just look at the wide receivers drafted by the Lions.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Oct 10, 2008 2:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pac-Man paid $15,000 to have a guy shot in the spine.

Bradley got angry about a call and threw a bunch of balls on the field.

Two entirely different situations there, y’know?

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude had it comin'

by azibuck on Oct 11, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh

But you see my larger point? Not all difficult/challenging black athletes are created alike. There’s a tremendous difference of scale between someone who tries to have another person killed, and someone who just doesn’t get along with Jeff Kent.

And for that matter, there’s a big difference between someone with anger problems and someone who’s narcissistic and self-aggrandizing (like Ocho Cinco). These are individual people, with sets of problems that are different and unique like snowflakes, not interchangable robots from the Uppity Negro Factory.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, yeah, I get you.

I owned Bradley two years in a row in BD fantasy league. Charlie got him this year. The DL stints and 7 days of “maybe” going on the DL episodes bother me more than any character issues.

by azibuck on Oct 11, 2008 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we should bring in FAs and play them over our young players

Even though many of our guys, like Morgan and Pearce, aren’t bigtime prospects; I would still rather see them play over a FA who is only going to be here for a year or two. If it is at a position where we have zero young players, then I’m cool with it.

Another thing, we might well be the worst team in the league in 2009. What does that mean? Potentially, the #1 overall pick in the 2010 draft. Two more lousy seasons could be something of a blessing in disguise as they will allow us to really load up on top talent from the draft. Now if we draft the way we did through 2007, that won’t help at all. But if we actually select the best players and develop them, we could have a very talented team by 2011/2012.

by houksyndrome on Oct 10, 2008 8:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

someone who hasn’t proved or disproved his major league worth yet shouldn’t be relegated to bench duty for an expensive FA in my opinion.

Jason
The Hanging Curve

by poorboywilly on Oct 10, 2008 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huntington has said...

…that we’re signing an OF this offseason, along with a SP and a veteran RP. As such, we are axiomatically going to be playing a veteran over Moss or Pearce, absent extrordinary circumstances like a trade of Adam LaRoche. And we are right to do so, in that both Moss and Pearce have big question marks associated with them right now and the best current option behind them is a desperation play like Adam Boeve or Jason Delaney. That being the case, I’d rather see us buy a vet who’d probably be good, like Bradley, rather than someone who’d probably suck, like Jim Edmonds.

And for the record, Nyjer is not a “young player”. He’ll be 28 next season…which makes him a whole three years younger than Bradley.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2008 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I WOULD

LOVE IT IF WE GOT BRADLEY

BRING BACK TIKE REDMAN

by omar moreno on Oct 12, 2008 1:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Can Bradley play first?

We have room for a free agent to take some ABs this year in the corner outfield spots given Moss’ injury and the fact that I want to take ABs from Morgan. After this year, it’d be great if we could stick someone like Bradley or Dunn at first. Laroche will be a free agent and likely not in a Bucco uniform. McCutchen and maybe Tabata should be ready to take ABs in the outfield by 2010. I’m all for signing someone like Bradley or Dunn because I think we can get them in the lineup now, without stunting the growth of McCutchen or Tabata long term.

by Chad Bahamas on Oct 12, 2008 10:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pretty much anybody can play first.

To one degree or another, anyway.

by Vlad on Oct 12, 2008 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bradley yes

We can all be resigned to the fact that we are rebuilding and talking ’11 and ’12 as the start of contention. Problem is we will continue to lose the casual fan over the next two years if you dont put some type of producer out there that isnt a prospect. We need to see something out there that isnt a complete AAAA lineup. A decent producing FA bat, SP and RP will at least give us a touch of legitimacy.

by vanslyke on Oct 13, 2008 12:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Open questions

I want an productive 2009 and be able to have a team contend in 2011. Not sure if I can have my cake and eat it too given our current talent level. If we sign someone like Bradley or Dunn, would that mean we are no longer trading our top players for prospects this offseason or at the 2009 deadline? That resistance to trade established players for prospects may effect our 2011 roster. It may not. There is another possibility for us to think about.

I think we have 4 players who have meaningful trade value: Maholm, Mclouth, Doumit and Capps. Everyone but Capps is probably at their peak value. While I want to watch an entertaining team next year, I can see a real reason for trading Maholm, McLouth and/or Doumit. They could each bring multiple quality prospects with upside.

Would you consider trading all/any of those three? Are we too far away for them to contribute to a contending Pirates team? Do you think an absolutely horrible 2009 (100+ losses) would significantly impact the team’s ability to bring in future revenues?

by Chad Bahamas on Oct 14, 2008 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Personally...

…signing someone like Bradley wouldn’t really affect my willingness to make an advantageous vet-for-prospect trade one way or the other.

I’d definitely be willing to deal Maholm or Capps for a good package. I’d probably need to be overwhelmed to flip Doumit or Nate this season, but I don’t think that either one is necessarily at his peak value, so if I don’t get a knockout offer I’d be willing to hold eitther for all of ’09 and then start shopping them in ’10 if circumstances warrant.

I think that a garden-variety bad season wouldn’t do much one way or the other, but that a truly disastrous season (like the ’03 Tigers) could do some lasting damage.

by Vlad on Oct 14, 2008 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

When does the madness stop?

Even if we are blow away with a deal are you talking major league ready talent? I thought that is what we were getting with Karstens, LaRoche, and Moss. I would be hard pressed to trade McClouth, Doumit, Capps or even Maholm. We desperately need something to build around. Constantly moving your building blocks around give you zero foundation and puts off your contending for years. We dont know what Tabata, McCutchen or Walker are going to do once they hit the bigs. You cant call them building blocks.

I just think we need to draw a line in the sand and move forward with a plan with pieces in place. Adding and FA here or an SP there will help us toward our goal of contending. This whole stealing ABs thing is ridiculous. We have to make prospects earn their spot.

What is wrong with bringing in someone to generate excitement about ’09? The Pirates are still a business and they still have to get revenue. You can only fill the void of bad baseball with so many fireworks nights, concerts and bobbleheads. The bucs need to generate revenue on Sunday – Thursday and you do that with a decent product on the field. That is all I am hoping for in ’09 – just something decent. Right now, we are looking at a team on the cusp of 100 losses before the first pitch is thrown. Give me a couple of FAs that could at least make an impact (with a good season) that could keep me 7or 8 games below .500.

by vanslyke on Oct 15, 2008 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs