Pirates Look to Sign Rocco Baldelli

by Charlie Wilmoth on Dec 23, 2008 3:40 AM EST

The Post-Gazette reports. Depending on the terms, this could be fantastic for the Pirates. Baldelli is only 27, and he recently learned that the fatigue issues that held him back last year were misdiagnosed. When the fatigue problems were originally reported this spring, they seemed to be nebulous, and Baldelli thought he had a mitochondrial disorder. This article catalogs some of Baldelli's frustrations with the situation.

Anyway, it turns out he actually has something called channelopathy, which is treatable. The Pirates and other teams will have to find out exactly how much Baldelli is likely to progress before deciding how to invest (which, I know, insert your joke about the Bucs' medical staff here, even though they've actually done a pretty good job recently). One would hope, though, that Baldelli would be more valuable to the Bucs than he would be to most other teams: the Pirates have a spot open in the outfield, and they're not contenders, so they can afford to be patient. Baldelli is a former top pick who has, at times, played like the top prospect he once was, so there's quite a lot of upside here.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If he is truly able to play complete games down the road, an outfield of McCutchen-McLouth-Baldelli would be outstanding both defensively and offensively (I’m a Cutch believer). I’m in the “McLouth is not a very good CF” camp but in a corner, he would be above-average.

Then you would have 3 starting outfielders capable of playing center and could use the bench for corner bats like Moss and Pearce.

If he can’t, he’s still a very good 4th oufielder, capable of being a defensive replacement/righty bat off the bench.

I know I’m getting way ahead of myself but it’s hard not to get excited about the potential.

My one concern is that his new diagnosis is vague. Doctors/fans I’ve discussed Baldelli with have told me the range of maladies under the channelopathy heading have a large variance in severity and it could be that it’s treatable in a way that improves his quality of life but not necessarily his baseball endurance. Fingers crossed both for Baldelli and the team that gets him.

Still, it’s exactly the kind of high-upside pick that makes sense for the Bucs.

by OlStubbleBeard on Dec 23, 2008 9:26 AM EST reply actions

his illness

actually is less vague than you think. sure, there are two dozen “channelopathies”, but only four related to muscle (which, given his muscle fatigue issues, is probably baldelli’s category). it’s long and medico-speaky, but i outlined it all for you. or anyone else.

http://mvn.com/outsider/2008/12/what-on-earth-is-wrong-with-rocco-baldelli.html

by geeves on Dec 23, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks

Do you know what kind of timetable we’re talking about with treatment? Can he expect to play centerfield 2 days in a row next year and suffer little to no fatigue?

by OlStubbleBeard on Dec 23, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions

Get in line

A number of teams were interested in him prior to his new diagnoses. (Baltimore, Seattle, Oakland). This is just going to increase his options.

by uneasy rider on Dec 23, 2008 9:30 AM EST reply actions

I had not heard about interest from those teams. I’ve seen some rumors of the Reds being interested.

by OlStubbleBeard on Dec 23, 2008 10:01 AM EST up reply actions

This could be a move in the right direction,

depending on Baldelli’s health.

We need more in the OF to even attempt to be competitive.

How will McClouth perfom over a full season without Bay and Nady in the lineup?

I’m really concerned about Moss’s knee.

Steve Pearce has done nothing so far to lead me to believe that he can produce.

Nyjer Morgan sucks.

I’d be happy for the Bucs to get Rocco Baldelli if he truly is ready to go on a regular basis.

by patthatt on Dec 23, 2008 9:52 AM EST reply actions

No Way Rocco Signs with the Bucs-If he is Healthy

If he is in any way healthy, he goes somewhere else. He would only signs with us if his health is still questionable.

We have to face the fact that until the Bucs get better, nobody will play for us unless they have no other viable options. Throwing money at him won’t work because any decent team can match our offer. We only got Doug M because no one else would offer him any chance in the bigs.

We are only going to get better from within our system. Sometimes we might be able to catch lightening in a bottle with someone who is desperate or is very risky. But that won’t happen every year.

by zogger on Dec 23, 2008 10:00 AM EST reply actions

Honestly, if I had to guess (just a guess), nobody, including Baldelli and his doctors knows for sure if he’s going to be healthy enough to start until he’s been treated for a while and has gotten a chance to test himself.

The Reds could offer him a chance to start, so could the Mariners but the Red Sox and the Phillies, teams that have been linked to him at one time or another, probably can’t.

by OlStubbleBeard on Dec 23, 2008 10:08 AM EST up reply actions

With Rocco, we actually have a few advantages:

1) Close proximity to his primary doctors in Clevland.
2) A world-class medical system in town.
3) The top training staff in baseball last year.
4) The opportunity to get as much playing time as he feels he can handle.

Those aren’t trivial advantages, if we’re competitive on money.

by Vlad on Dec 23, 2008 8:02 PM EST up reply actions

Not sure

how Rocco would handle standing in the outfield while we walk 4 batters a game (657 total in ’08; T-Bay pitchers walked 526). It tires me out and all I have to do is sit there.

by bucdaddy on Dec 23, 2008 10:42 AM EST reply actions

There is a solution to your problem:

Just let Rocco start on days when Duke pitches and he won’t have to worry about standing around doing nothing. He’ll get plenty of exercise chasing all of the hits given up but he’ll feel like he ran a marathon.

Seriously, I would be pleased to add him to our roster if in fact, we can afford to sign him. He’s worth the risk and is exactly the type of ballplayers we should consider adding to our youth movement. His upside is unlimited and that makes him worth the risk.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Dec 23, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

We have to...

overpay for any quality FA’s to come here. That is a undeniable truth. This IS a time where the F.O. needs to suck it up and put it’s money where it’s mouth is.

The upside of this type of acquisition is tremendous. The only hurdle here is the health. As long as it is clear and improving and there is reasonable expectations that Rocco can perform over the course of a season, then we need to outbid everyone.

This kind of opportunity doesn’t come along every year, nor are we always in the position to take advantage of such an opportunity. When opportunity knocks, loudly or softly, answer the damn door.

by BSpar on Dec 23, 2008 12:51 PM EST reply actions

I respectfully disagree

We should definitely not overpay for Rocco. We should pay whatever we feel is a fair market price. He is a fantastic player and I would love to have him on the Pirates but overpaying him will be detrimental to the Pirates. If the Pirates were going to be a contender then a player like Rocco would be essential to the team but because the Pirates are several years away letting a player like Rocco slip by does not even remotely matter. Save the money for the draft.

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

by Chester J Lampwick on Dec 23, 2008 1:35 PM EST up reply actions

Perhaps I should clairify myself...

I am not suggesting breaking the bank on a multi-deal over the top kind of deal. Nor would I want to see any monies pulled from the draft , scouting or development. Though I don’t believe that payroll is in conflict with draft money, at this point.

I am suggesting a reasonable % over what is established as fair market value. If team B is willing to pay the fair market value, then we need to consider a % that makes our offer much more difficult to turn down and perhaps sweeten that with performance bonuses.

As I stated elsewhere Rocco is not the second coming. But he is far from scrap heap fodder. The question as far as I can see does the reward, outweigh the risk. My personal feeling is yes, yes it does. Just for the record, I am not a huge Rocco fan. But he has impact potential, and certainly upgrades our current OF, were as Moss can play the 4th OF’er which is what he is.

Regardless, even on an overpay in this situation, we would probably be getting Rocco in most of his prime, provided his health is going to rebound and not be a serious issue down the road. Even if we don’t sign him for whatever reason, this is the type of situations we need to seriously exploit to our benefit on FA’s who for whatever reason fell from grace and are young enough, that if they don’t necessarily improve much, they are still far enough away from serious decline.

by BSpar on Dec 23, 2008 2:07 PM EST up reply actions

One last item

All of what I said above, but include… Only if it upgrades over what we already have.

by BSpar on Dec 23, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions

What do you mean, “if we can afford it” IFP? The payroll is running under $50 million at the moment. The money is there. If the Pirates wait for another few years until they look better able to compete, as Charlie and Wilbur prefer, do you think money not spent now will mean more $ available then? It will not. Those decisions will be made on the money availabe then; these dollars will have long disappeared into McNutter pockets. Nor will there be any more money available for next year’s draft if they pass on Baldelli or others now. Not only that, but sending out the current team is likely to lose so many games that revenue, already declining, is likely to shrink further, making future moves more difficult.

So I ask again the question not answered in the previous thread. Where to put funds now to better serve the future of the team—to a FA like Baldelli, and the no longer available Juan Rivera, or McNutter pockets?

Baldelli is going to want a mulit-year deal. The Pirates are one of the few teams who can promise him a legit chance to start in their OF (along with Cincy). The Pirates should go after him seriouisly, as Dejan indicates they are. Rivera signed a 3 year, $13.5 deal and he’s going to have to fight for playing time in LA, depending on who else they sign.. He was worth at least as much to the Pirates.

by rogero on Dec 23, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions

another

by geeves on Dec 23, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions

Rogero: What I meant was...

If his salary demands fit into our budget. I don’t think we should break the bank to sign him because the risk is too great. If we’re going to pay big bucks for a FA then we need some assurance that he will be healthy. I’m all for signing him to a reasonable salary but not at the expense of using that money to acquire someone whose career is more certain. We should never spend money on players who might not produce just because the funds are available. If that was the case then we should save the money and use it only when we can reasonably expect a return on our investment.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Dec 23, 2008 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

Juan Rivera's not going to fight for playing time

He’s been penciled in as the regular starter in LF now that Garret Anderson is gone and the LAA has screamed to the rooftops that it’s not interested in Manny (remember this is the team that sat Jose Guillen in 2004 for the playoffs despite 27 HR and 104 RBI — LAA has no time for headcases).

Plus the team wants to forget that it ever signed Gary Matthews Jr., who disclosed that he purchased steriods right after he signed his free agent contract in 2006 (not to mention his 8 HR and .675 OPS as a clean warrior last year).

If his long term uselessness in the OF makes the Angels turn to Matthews or Willits, then Rivera will be the regular DH over Rob Quinlan, as Kendry Morales takes over at 1B.

by WstCstBucco on Dec 23, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions

dangit

stupid commenting. another point to consider – while we will need to overpay for baldelli (like KC did with Gil Meche), especially since we’ll be competing against boston, tampa, and NY for his services, there is also the fact that pittsburgh happens to be closest to both Cleveland Clinic and UPMC, two of the best medical facilities on the entire planet that may or may not play just the teensiest role in his immeiate future.

by overpay, i’m thinking three years and 15-20 million. more than what rivera got, since he’s that valuable even crippled and will get offered at least that from every team seriously considering him, and then a bit more.

by geeves on Dec 23, 2008 2:14 PM EST reply actions

When it comes to competing with the Yankees . . .

. . . the word “overpay” is meaningless.

Item 1 — Yankess bid against themselves by unilaterally adding $20M to their offer to CC Sabathia in order to get him off the fence and into pinstripes.

Item 2 — Yankees offer Mark Teixeira somewhere betweeen $12M and $20M more than any other teams’ offer to land him to a 8 year, $180M contract

So if DK is right and the Yankees are interested in Baldelli, then they’ll sign him. Steinbrenner Jr. wants to show Daddy (and NY fans) that he has real cojones. If they miss the playoffs in 2008, it won’t be because Junior didn’t spend all the money in the world. Yankees now hold the four highest contracts in the history of MLB — Rodriguez, Jeter, Teixeira and Sabathia.

P.S. Teixeira’s agreement came just one day after the Yankees received a $26.9 million luxury tax bill for 2008. Until the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement is amended to put in place something closer to a real salary cap, the PBC just can’t compete with the Yankees, Red Sox and others on free agents, even when it comes to “diseased” free agents. Look what happened to Washington and Baltimore with Teixeira.

by WstCstBucco on Dec 23, 2008 6:33 PM EST up reply actions

Baldelli to the Yankees makes no sense. With Tex at first, they’ve got Damon, Nady, Matsui, Swisher and Cabrera for OF and DH. Baldelli is a backup for them. Even if the Yankees want to shell out millions for a backup, it’s hard to see why Baldelli would want to go there.

by WTM on Dec 23, 2008 7:26 PM EST up reply actions

Chester - RE: Baldelli

We are finally in agreement on this topic.

Signing Baldelli at a near-Jason Bay salary makes no sense.

by thegunner on Dec 23, 2008 7:22 PM EST reply actions

Is this one of the signs of the apocalypse?

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

by Chester J Lampwick on Dec 23, 2008 8:58 PM EST up reply actions

You Never Know!

by thegunner on Dec 23, 2008 9:50 PM EST up reply actions

I think it's weird...

…that so many people are taking strong good idea/bad idea positions on a potential signing when we don’t know anything about the contract terms being discussed and we don’t have access to Baldelli’s medical records.

It seems like a good idea for them to kick the tires, at least, but anything beyond that is just going to be blind guesswork.

by Vlad on Dec 23, 2008 11:46 PM EST reply actions

Of course

But isn’t kind of the point of these blogs/forums to engage in blind guesswork and take strong stances on things that we know don’t know the details of? It sure is fun at least.

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

by Chester J Lampwick on Dec 24, 2008 1:07 AM EST up reply actions