Pirates Trying to Sign Ian Snell to Long-Term Deal

by Charlie Wilmoth on Mar 5, 2008 12:23 AM EST in News

The Pirates have given up on signing one of their young pitchers, closer Matt Capps, to a long-term contract, but they are about to try for another one: Ian Snell.

Multiple sources confirmed that the team contacted Snell's agent, Joe Sroba, yesterday morning to explore a multiyear agreement with its top right-handed starter who led the staff with a 3.76 ERA and 177 strikeouts while going 9-12.

A formal offer could come as soon as the next few days, and talks are expected to move quickly from there. Major League Baseball's deadline for players with three or fewer years of experience to be signed is Tuesday and, though the Pirates and Snell are free to keep talking beyond that, it could function as the timeline for negotiations.

I wouldn't worry too much about having Capps under contract, but I like the idea of signing Snell, who's more valuable in the long-term because starters pitch more often and are less flaky than relievers. Snell actually asked the Bucs about a long-term deal in January and was rejected. It seems that the Pirates have changed their minds now that it appears they can't work something out with Capps.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

it's about time

i wondered why the pirates refused twice to discuss a long term deal. now i wonder why they waited until now. do they view snell as a candidate to get injured?

on a side note, an incomplete list of the injured players on the mets now contains carlos delgado, moises alou, carlos beltran, marlon anderson, damion easley and ryan church. they face the possiblity of endy chavez and/or angel pagan starting opening day in right field and cuban defector michel abreu at first base. if only there were a cheap 1B/OF available for a trade...

maybe we could convince them to give us ollie back.

by johnnycuff on Mar 5, 2008 3:12 PM EST reply actions

Maybe they were afraid

of injury and figured they could just take him to arbitration for a few years.

I wouldn't mind signing him, though. They should be able to get him for cheaper than arbitration would have yielded for the next couple years, and then at a decent value for a couple more after that.

by The New Guy on Mar 5, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions

Unfortunately...

...the Mets don't have much that we'd need, in the way of prospects. No catchers, no middle infielders. The best fit might be Jon Niese, a lefty from A+ who could be a mid-rotation starter if everything goes right.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions

Signing Snell,etc.....

Good idea. Snell is already among the better young starters in baseball,and appears on the verge of becoming one of the elite.
Just because a deal with Capps doesn't seem to be imminent,that doesn't mean that it can't be revisited sometime in the next year or two.

by topsarge on Mar 5, 2008 5:20 PM EST reply actions

Finally.

I wonder whether their earlier reluctance to negotiate was tied to the Seattle rumors.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 5:42 PM EST reply actions

Snell

Okay, well let's just be realistic about this. Snell is a good pitcher. He is not, and most likely never will be, among the elite starters in the game. But, if he has one year left before he goes to arbitration a 3 year $20 million deal would seem to benefit everyone. If he is arbitration eligible next year I imagine that number gets a lot closer to $25-30. Assuming his arbitration years would be something along the lines of $7,9 and 12 if he continued along his current path.

Also, does anyone else think the bitching of guys like Paplebon, Hamels and Fielder about being renewed is a bit outrageous? They can sign longer term deals and get paid now if they want to, but they don't want to give up any future earnings after seeing Howard get $10 million in arbitration. They want it both ways. Why guys like this wouldn't want to sign a two or three year deal (assuming the club is willing) to guarantee financial security for the rest of their lives is beyond me. Hamels or Pap blows out his arm and that money is never gonna be banked. I hope they have insurance.

Paplebon may have uttered the dumbest line in history with his (and I'm paraphrasing), "We need to take a stand. We can't let them (Red Sox) take advantage of us even though they can."

Well said Jon, well said.

by David Todd on Mar 5, 2008 5:51 PM EST reply actions

It's only human nature.

If a guy's carrying his team and making significantly less than most of his co-workers, he's not going to be happy with that state of affairs.

MLB's system of determining compensation IS kind of counterintuitive, when you think about it.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 5:59 PM EST up reply actions

No......

I don't think it's counterintuitive at all. For three years you get "screwed" if you are a budding superstar and you can call making $500k getting screwed. But, basically you have to prove your worth. After that you get a market rate as determined by an arbitrator for three years. And then you can sell yourself to the highest bidder. Seems damn close to a meritocracy to me.

The systems in place in the NBA, with the three year rookie contracts, and baseball are designed to make sure that veterans generally get more of the pie. The union negotiated hard for this. These guys can go and negotiate longer term contracts early in their careers (i.e. Curtis Granderson) and I have no doubt that the clubs would love to lock up their stars and have some price certainty. But, they choose not to. The system is extraordinarily beneficial to all players, but they have to make it out of the first three years. That doesn't seem to be a heavy price for these budding superstars to pay in my mind. They are basically bitching about a system that their union worked hard to put into place. But, yes, I agree it's human nature and not a perfect meritocracy for the guys in the first three years.

by David Todd on Mar 5, 2008 6:40 PM EST up reply actions

Of course they're getting screwed.

If Prince Fielder were a free agent right now, you don't think he could get $15M+ a year? He isn't "proven"?

It is, as you note, a system where the good of the many works against the good of the few. Which is a good thing for most players, but not for young stars like Prince and Papelbon, who didn't have any say at the time when the agreement was negotiated, since they weren't in the majors yet.

The basic problem is that the union consists almost entirely of people who have already exhausted their 0-3 rights, but are empowered to collectively bargain away those rights for people who are not eligible to join the union (i.e. minor league, amateur, and foreign players). Torii Hunter is going to love a system that treats Prince unfairly, since all that extra money is going to go to mid-level veteran free agents like him.

If the MLBPA were forced to open its doors to all professional ballplayers, and restricted from bargaining on the draft, you'd see a very different CBA negotiated.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 8:31 PM EST up reply actions

As for counterintuitive...

...try thinking about it from a real-world context.

Let's say that you just graduated from Pitt with a MBA, and you decide that you want to work for Boeing because you like airplanes. Caterpillar isn't allowed to say, "Sorry, there was a big meeting between all the heavyweights of American industry, and we own your rights. Turn up at nine sharp." Similarly, if you've been working at Boeing for a year or two and you don't think you're being adequately compensated, you're allowed to shop yourself on Monster.com and the like, to see whether maybe Nothrup Grumman would give you a raise and a promotion. And while Boeing can fire you if they decide to pursue a new corporate strategy, they aren't allowed to ship you off to BEML for a young engineer-to-be-named later, so that you have to move from Chicago to Bangalore.

Baseball used to be run like the rest of the world's businesses. Back in the dead-ball era, teams could sign any youngsters they could convince to play for them, and they could offer those youngsters anything they felt like offering in order to make the young prospect choose them over the competition. Guys who didn't like playing in their current city/league could jump to a different one. The current state of things only seems natural and intuitive to us because we aren't old enough to remember anything different.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 8:45 PM EST up reply actions

hm

so which do you think is "better?"

by The New Guy on Mar 5, 2008 9:12 PM EST up reply actions

Deadball era

Guys who didn't like playing in their current city/league could jump to a different one.

Provided the city/league they jumped to wasn't one of the major leagues and they had no desire to come back to the majors unless it was with their original team, yes. Guys can still do that - just retire and play for the Long Island Ducks or something.

Unfortunately, except for the brief intervals of third major leagues, you were essentially stuck with your team until they wanted to get rid of you. After the Federal League folded and players were purchased by some AL or NL club, they were stuck with them. Even as late as the 1940's players that jumped leagues were blackballed when they tried to come back.

Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.

by TheJay on Mar 6, 2008 11:15 AM EST up reply actions

But but but

What, exactly, was a "major" league back then? For example, Fred Carroll left the Pirates to play in the PCL in the 1890s, and he didn't do significantly worse from a financial standpoint.

A lot of the distinctions about what was "major" and what was "minor" weren't really clear-cut until the 1930s. And a lot of our perceptions now about what was a major league then are pretty arbitrary (like the Union Association being "major", for example).

by Vlad on Mar 6, 2008 11:31 AM EST reply actions

I should've said AL/NL

I'm not disputing you could do well financially in the PCL or possibly other leagues back then. However, if the other league failed or you didn't like it and wanted to come back to the NL (or later the AL), you were pretty much stuck.

I think I misinterpreted your use of "dead-ball era" to refer more to the early 20th century rather than the 19th, when you're right it was much more a free-for-all while the reserve clause and other tactics were still developing.

Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.

by TheJay on Mar 6, 2008 12:06 PM EST up reply actions

I was sort of referrring to both.

There were times when jumping was easier, and times when it was harder in both the '90s and the aughts. The brief AL/NL war was a good opportunity for star players to make some bank during the latter.

by Vlad on Mar 6, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions