Bucs Dugout: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: USA Today / SB Nation Consensus MMA Rankings for October

Mariners Fire Bill Bavasi

Good for them, and this should help, although the Mariners probably really need to replace people higher up than Bavasi. Still, though, Bavasi deserved to be fired. His player personnel decisions (chronicled here) were mostly awful, and he badly misjudged the talent level of his team.

I was talking with a friend this weekend about why it might actually be bad for the Pirates to finish .500 this year. It's weird and counterintuitive to root for the Pirates to lose so that they can win more later, but finishing .500 without first assembling a lasting core can get a team like the Pirates in all kinds of trouble. The 2003 Royals, for example, somehow won 83 games, and they spent the following offseason grabbing aging free agents--Benito Santiago, Tony Graffanino, Matt Stairs, Juan Gonzalez, Rudy Seanez. They didn't trade Carlos Beltran even though he would be a free agent after 2004.

Well, they tanked badly in 2004, got an underwhelming return for Beltran when they traded him at the deadline, and proceeded to lose 100 or more games in three consecutive years. The .500 season, as it turned out, meant nothing, and forgetting for a second Dave Littlefield's typically moronic decision to bail the Royals out of part of Santiago's salary and give them a real prospect in the deal, nothing good came from all those free agent signings. 

The 2007 Mariners are a similar cautionary tale. They surprisingly won 88 games, and in the offseason they made a big trade for Erik Bedard. Since the M's won about ten games more than their hitting and run prevention suggested they should've, I thought that was a terrible idea, and so did most projection systems and Mariners bloggers. It turned out we were right. The Mariners have the worst record in baseball, their offense is in a shambles, and now they're short the four interesting young players and good reliever they traded for Bedard. An 88-win team that was more lucky than good plus a poor general manager proved to be a toxic combination. The Mariners would have been better off if they won 65 games instead of 88 and gotten Bavasi fired before he made the Bedard trade.

What we ultimately need here is for the Pirates to really get better. We've got to root for the young players to improve. We've got to root for prospects in the minors to improve. It's counterintuitive, and it's against everything I stand for as a fan, but focusing too much on day-to-day wins and losses really misses the point right now. Focusing on finishing .500, painful though it might be to have sixteen losing seasons in a row, really really misses the point. And if you miss the point too badly, you're the Royals or the Mariners, and your franchise is in serious trouble.

0 recs  |  Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from Bucs Dugout

Rockies 5, Pirates 2

Jul 2008 by Charlie - 6 comments

Comments

Display:

Not concerned

I doubt Huntington/Coonelly will be duped by a .500 season. They may not trade Bay or Nady at the optimum time, but there’s no way they would deal multiple prospects for some “final piece of the puzzle” like Bedard. Even if they wanted to, they don’t have a Mariner-sized payroll.

by bolton on Jun 16, 2008 5:30 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Beat me to it

I get the feeling, giving the gutting the innards of this organization got, that Coonington have few illusions about our competitiveness the next few years.

by matskralc on Jun 16, 2008 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm concerned!

I don’t want to give Nutting a chance to step in and order Coonely to add to the team this year instead of dealing away players at their prime value. In fact I would argue that given the state of our system (lack of depth and impact talent) holding on to Bay and Nady (and Marte) is just as negligent as the Mariners acquiring Bedard. .500 is not the goal. Charlie, your post is dead on and as much as I hate to say it I too will be rooting for them to lose a bunch of games from now to the deadline to make sure the deals are done. Once that happens I’ll hope for a miraculous 2nd half turn around that gets to the imfamous .500 mark.

by Slick1 on Jun 16, 2008 6:46 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't get it...

What’s wrong with finishing above .500 and improving your team for the future? As a Pirates fan tired of the losing seasons (15 and counting for those that have forgot), I hope they finish above .500. I just can’t root for them to lose just to see players traded away.

The trade deadline is for those desperately in need of a piece or two to get them into the playoffs and beyond. If they can fleece one of the limited amount of buyers at the trade deadline, then so be it. If they can’t get the return they want for Bay and Nady, I would hate to see them traded away just to make a trade. Every organization is holding onto their young prospects, look at the older talent standing in the unemployment line because teams are playing their kids. Prying away top level minor league talent is going to take a lot of work, not as easy as some people might think. Hell, the Yankees could have had Santana for Hughes and Kennedy but wouldn’t give up unproven talent for a top flight pitcher. Think they would make that trade now? My hope is that Huntington and Coonely make sound decisions, unlike the last crew employed by the PIrates.

Who is to say that the Pirates are going to end up like the 2004 Royals or the 2008 Mariners anyhow? Very small sample size of Huntington and Coonely’s decisions so far and I have to say that I am not disappointed (Phil Dumatrait, Mienty, Michaels) by what they have done with the little that they have.

by ElliottBayBucco on Jun 16, 2008 9:10 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Finishing above .500...

...means that we have lower draft picks in ‘09, which in turn makes it harder for us to improve in the future.

Also, as you note, there’s the temptation to make an unwise trade in order to look like a contender.

by Vlad on Jun 18, 2008 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Any other organization and sport,

and I might buy that argument about having a lower draft pick. Bullington was the #1 overall pick and he sure has made a difference, hasn’t he?

by ElliottBayBucco on Jun 18, 2008 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, sure.

You can blow a first overall pick, just like any other pick, if you’re a bad talent evaluator (and oh boy, was Ed Creech a bad talent evaluator). That doesn’t mean it’s not a good thing to pick as high as you can, though.

Look at this year’s draft. Did you like it when we picked Alvarez? If we’d had a .480 W% instead of a .420 W% last year, he wouldn’t have been there for us to pick. We would’ve been picking among second-tier power bats like Brett Wallace and Ike Davis, or maybe a college lefty like Friedrich.

None of those guys are bad players, necessarily, but they aren’t Alvarez. Draft slot matters.

by Vlad on Jun 19, 2008 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you are picking high,

you are not playing well. Speaking for myself, I would prefer to see the PBC picking somewhere in the 20-30 places in the draft.

The MLB draft is not like the NFL or NBA draft that shows you immediate results. Having a higher draft slot in either of those leagues can get you an impact player right away.

I am happy with Alvarez, they earned that pick with their level of play last year. As far as draft slot goes, I don’t think it matters as much as you think it does. Red Sox win the World Series in 2004. 2005 draft they select Clay Buchholz with their number one pick and pick up four compensatory picks in the first round, selecting Jacob Ellsbury with the last one of those picks. Not bad for picking among second-tier talent in the late part of the first round.

As far as drafting goes, being a great talent evaluator means SO much more than where you pick in the draft. Draft slot doesn’t matter, evaluating talent does.

by ElliottBayBucco on Jun 19, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Red Sox took Buchholz there...

...in part because he was viewed as a serious character risk: He and a teammate had been arrested for stealing and re-selling laptops from his school. The pick turned out well, but there was a significant chance of him busting out completely (and the Red Sox were more comfortable taking that risk than some other teams because they knew they could take and sign some over-slot picks later in the draft to mitigate the risk).

I, too, would rather have us picking in the 20-30 range, but that’s not what’s going to happen. We just don’t have the talent on the roster right now to get to legitimate contender status. Instead, we’d be picking around #15-17, with a roster that has little upside for further improvement.

by Vlad on Jun 21, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just to test your "slot doesn't matter" theory...

...here’s the list of every player taken at #1, #6, #11, #16, #21, and #26 overall for every year from 1991-2000

1: Brien Taylor, Phil Nevin, Alex Rodriguez, Paul Wilson, Darin Erstad, Kris Benson, Matt Anderson, Pat Burrell, Josh Hamilton, Adrian Gonzalez
#6: John Burke, Derek Jeter, Steve Soderstrom, McKay Christensen, Jamie Jones, Seth Greisinger, Geoff Goetz, Ryan Mills, Josh Girdley, Rocco Baldelli
#11: Shawn Estes, Derek Wallace, Daron Kirkreit, Mark Farris, Mike Drumright, Adam Eaton, Chris Enochs, Josh McKinley, Ryan Christianson, Dave Krynzel
#16: Shawn Green, Rick Greene, Alan Benes, Matt Smith, Joe Fontenot, Joe Lawrence, Lance Berkman, Kip Wells, Jason Jennings, Billy Traber,
#21: Allen Watson, Jamie Arnold, Jason Varitek, Hiram Bocachica, Alvie Shepherd, Jake Westbrook, Eric DuBose, Jason Tyner, Larry Bigbie, Boof Bonser,
#26: Brent Gates, Dan Serafini, Kelly Wunsch, Mark Johnson (the catcher), Chad Hutchinson, Josh Garrett, Darnell McDonald, Rick Elder, Ben Christensen, Corey Smith

The immediate dropoff is pretty striking. Once you’re out of the top 5, your chances of having a successful pick are greatly diminished. The best player in the whole batch went in the #1 slot, and 80% of the #1 overall picks eventually became at least solid regulars in the majors. #16 is decent, and even has some star power, but it’s also 50% bust… and by the time you get to the 20s, you’re 90% bust. That’s what’ll kill you with lower first round picks: the steadily increasing likelihood of crapping out completely.

by Vlad on Jun 21, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I get the sebse

that two good things are true about these guys, although I also get the sense that I’m in the minority here about both of these things being good:

(1) I think NH won’t hesitate to trade Bay and/or Nady and/or anybody else on the team if he thinks it will make the team better in the long run;

(2) I think NH won’t hesitate to hesitate, if he isn’t convinced that he’s getting a good return back.

If Dave Littlefield didn’t teach us anything else, he taught us that when you’ve absolutely decided that you absolutely have to trade someone, you are going to get crap in return. It is a fundamental principle of negotiation that if the other side knows you won’t walk away, then you have no leverage at all. If it’s known in the industry that we’re hell-bent to get rid of these guys, no one will offer us anything.

And here’s something that gets forgotten a lot; we might not get offered anything anyway. Bob Smizik’s column today wasn’t totally fair—even without a body of work, it’s not fair to compare NH’s hypothetical trading acumen to DL’s established work. But looking at what we got for a lot of those guys… whew. Not much. Looking at trade deadline deals in general… not much.

Do I want to see them win 75 games for the next three years? No. But do I want to see them win 60 games for the next three years because they traded guys who are good, right now, for a bunch of rummies? Do you? Seriously?

Success or failure; there’s no guarantee either way. Sometimes it’s easier just to watch the team and hope they win games. We’ve really lost the forest for the trees if we can’t do that.

by KPatrick on Jun 16, 2008 9:11 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Well, I’m not really talking about trading Nady and Bay at the deadline no matter what (although I do think that Nady has about a 99% chance of being traded if Coonelly and Huntington are committed to doing their jobs right). I’m talking about not charging hard after a .500 season when you should be trying to rebuild. One article (Jayson Stark’s most recent, I think?) has already suggested that there will be a lot of pressure on the Pirates’ management to have a .500 team if it’s at all possible, and I would hate to see them capitulate to that pressure. That’s my point. I’m not talking about dealing Nady and Bay for nothing. However:

Do I want to see them win 75 games for the next three years? No. But do I want to see them win 60 games for the next three years because they traded guys who are good, right now, for a bunch of rummies? Do you? Seriously?

That depends on what you mean by “a bunch of rummies.” Check out the Rangers’ haul at last year’s deadline. If you trade talent, you can get talent, and last year lots of relatively high-upside guys changed teams: Jarrod Saltalamachhia, Elvis Andrus, Max Ramirez, Neftali Feliz, Engel Beltre. You could throw Will Inman in there if you’re feeling generous. If the Pirates want to execute some Littlefield trades and get the equivalent of Matt Bruback or Matt Peterson back for Bay, then sure, I’d rather keep him, enjoy some wins, and collect the draft picks. But if the choice is 68 wins and two or more of these Ramirez/Feliz/Beltre guys versus 75 wins and Bay/Nady, I’ll take the 68 wins every time. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hope for that kind of return—maybe one of those types of players for Nady, and two for Bay.

by Charlie on Jun 16, 2008 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

to get talent...

you must have talent to give.

by ElliottBayBucco on Jun 17, 2008 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

fair point, but

for that comparison to hold, Bay, Nady and (let’s say) Marte have to be Teixeira, Lofton and Mahay. Without comparing them head to head, the latter two are fair comparisons, but Teixeira was 25/26 and hadn’t had a crappy year because of knee problems at that point. Bay may not be pursued with the ardor that Teixeira saw.

Nady is a more interesting case. Even if he is what he is, and shall never top it, that’s not too bad right now if he can stay healthy. But again, that’s not really a majority view here. I recall some sentiment here for NON-TENDERING Nady last winter. I know that wasn’t completely serious, but the general view here with Nady - and Bay, albeit to a lesser extent - has been to hurry up and trade him before he turns into (or “back into”) a pumpkin. If he’s a truly a threat to turn into a pumpkin, this can’t be the only community of people interested in baseball who have concluded that. That might dampen the return.

It’s complicated. I’m not saying hold on to them so we can win 75, which is where I think this team tops out. Where I part company here is that I’m less optimistic about the return in trade. Some of that is based on recent Pirate experience. I’m inclined to give NH the benefit of the doubt so far, so hopefully he gets it right.

by KPatrick on Jun 17, 2008 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

On the other hand...

...Bay’s not a Boras client, so a team might see him as a potential long-term piece, rather than just a year-and-a-half rental.

by Vlad on Jun 18, 2008 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

So many guys will almost certainly be gone after 2009,

even if we don`t make trades.

Nady can`t stay healthy and is a Boras client. Does anyone here honestly think the best years of his career will be from 2010? I sure as hell don`t.

Bay is playing better this year, but how about him and his creaky knees from 2010? You get the same snowball`s chance in hell prediction from me. Smizik seems to think that Bay and Nady will be rolling in the dough from 2010. I wouldn`t be so sure about that.

Charlie and others have pointed out numerous times on this site about second basemen “not aging well.” Well, does anyone here think we should expect Freddy Sanchez to man 2B for us after next season? Freddy is injury-prone and will not be peaking at age 32/33. I think he`s already reached and passed his peak.

LaRoche and his Latrocious(this should be a new entry in Merriam-Webster) starts to each and every season aside, I would certainly hope we have others in place to confidently take his place from 2010 from the trio of Walker, Pearce and Alvarez.

Who is going to play SS from 2010? Will it be Jack Wilson? Bixler? Friday? One of our 2008 draftees?

Other than McClouth, and perhaps McCutchen, who will give us any quality play in the OF after Bay and Nady are gone?

Can Doumit stay healthy behind the plate for the next few years? Who else do we have? An overdraft like Andrew Walker who may or may not be a prospect? Somebody they drafted this year?

And on and on….without even getting into the pitching.

This team MUST make moves. As Charlie points out, we don`t need any “Littlefield trades.” But it will take at least a few years to build any semblance of a productive farm system from this year`s draft and beyond. It will also take at least few years to get any production out of our new commitment to/facilities in Latin America.

Keep everyone-and even pick up Marte`s option for 2009-and “The Drive For 75” might very well become reality this year and next. But I`d rather the team prepare for what will hopefully be numerous postseason runs after 2010, instead of settling for middlin` mediocrity to avoid a dubious pro sports record for futility and appease the fanbase.

It`s your move, Pirates` management.

by patthatt on Jun 16, 2008 11:03 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Patthat is mostly right...

Nady needs to go ASAP both because Boras is is agent and because his value will never be higher (assuming he can convince people he’s healthy upon return) as does LaRoche, both of whom will enter their collective contract years in 2009. The way small-market teams improve is by refusing to throw big bucks at guys like this and instead trade them before their contract years for young, promising talents in hopes that you get one really good player and a couple of other contributors. Trading talented vets as they approach contract years in return for several possibly talented players is the only way we can ever hope to compete. It’s an on-going project and we will never have really good players for 6-8 years because we can’t afford them. It is a continuously replenishing task that is needed to survive.

Next, we cannot afford to throw the bulk of our available money at middle infielders like Wilson and Sanchez. We must be more judicious with our very limited resources preferring instead to spend them on pitchers and power hitters who can drive in runs. Good fielding shortstops/secondbasemen grow on trees in the DR and the key is to find ones who can hit their weight.

McClouth, McCutchen, Doumit are a fine nucleus around which we can begin to build a team that will compete every year. To them, we must add two good pitchers who can provide 6 solid innings each start such as Dumatrait. We are going to have to be better than most teams at finding reclamation projects and then capable of helping them blossom, much like we did with him. This is how the Cardinals have survived and it can work with us as well.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Jun 17, 2008 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I mostly agree with you, for once...

...but I’m still skeptical about Dumatrait as anything more than a rotation band-aid. The ERA is pretty good so far, but up to this point he’s got 40 walks in only 70 IP. That’s pretty dangerous, and he could very easily collapse next year (or even in the second half).

by Vlad on Jun 18, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If we are going to rebuild

shoudln’t more thought be given to trading additional players such as Capps, Snell and Gorzo? I understand it was the latter two that really interested teams during the last off season, not Bay and Nady. As I have written before, I think most of us would be disappointed with the package of prospects we could get for the two outfielders because it strikes me as inconceivable that GMs wouldn’t have the same concerns about them that have been expressed numerous times here and, therefore, be unwilling to part with high-upside prospects in return.

On the other hand, if the two starters show signs that their early struggles this season were temporary, I believe the Pirates could get the types of potential impact players that we seek for them or perhaps in a package including one of the outfielders.

An important consideration in the decision to trade Bay and Nady is when exactly we hope to be able to field a competitive team. Some give the impression that they are looking to something like 2010 to 2012 but I think that is very unlikely given the dearth of prospects currenlty in our minor league system. Further, it seems likely that GMs would be more willing to part with high-upside prospects now in A ball than ones that are nearly major league ready now. It would be great if the Dodgers would part with Matt Kemp for Bay and Marte but I don’t think that is likely. More realistic would be to obtain players that are several years away from the majors and who will not be ready to help us by 2010 or even 2012 at the major league level.

By then Snell ,Capps and Gorzo ( Doumit and perhaps others should be included in this discussion as well) will all be free agents and the question has to be when can we get the most return for them. Of course it would probably not be wise to shop the two starters now since they have been struggling but it seems to me that if they start pitching well again, they will have far more value in the near future than when they are a year or two away from free agency.

Another reason to at least consider a full house cleaning in the near future rather than just trading the guys who are near free agency is that we will ensure ourselves of very high draft picks for the next several years. We will also have a very low payroll at the major league level so we ought to be able to afford to sign some very deirable draft picks.

Of course all of the fans besides the ones that visit this site will probably hate management for these moves but they will be willing to forgive in around 2015 as the young Pirates mature and are ready, finally to contend.

by WestCoastBuc on Jun 17, 2008 12:33 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

If we wanted to trade Snell/Gorzo...

...the time to do it was last offseason, when their stock was up. Right now, we should probably hold both, and hope that they can rebuild value.

by Vlad on Jun 18, 2008 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nate McClouth

Has a nice article about his break-out season in which “Baseball Prospectus” explains as a result of him reducing his strikeout rate from 23.4% to 13.7% and increasing his ability to make contact on 10% more of his pitches out of the zone. It went on to say that he is making contact on 89% of all of his swings as well as increasing his ability to take a walk. It is also interesting to read that they refer to him as a “quality leadoff hitter”. I sure wish Russell would read the same article and return Nate to the leadoff spot which would result in more at-bats for him over the season.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Jun 18, 2008 11:42 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.
Start posting about the Pirates »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Pittsburgh Proud
Small
Pirates rotation next year
Small
Rich Harden
20090612mf_fleury_cup_500hp_small
JJ Hardy traded to the Twins!
101_0170_small
Lot of Pent Up News from World Series No Fly Zone
3dacrssi_small
Let's say we didn't trade Freddy...
18470r_small
Ex-Pirate Enrique Wilson is apparently a real sleazeball
Remer_small
What you can expect from Aki
Pitt20_small
Akinori Iwamura is Officially A Pirate
20090612mf_fleury_cup_500hp_small
Iwamura on his way to the Pirates?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

VV, Hacker, Lerud Off 40 Man
Kevin Polcovich honored
My Thoughts on the Iwamura Trade
Rich Hill Is A Free Agent
Anyone for Brian Buscher
Atlanta's Offseason Needs May included Trading for Matt Capps
Shortstop – Jack Wilson, Pittsburgh and Seattle Wilson won’t win a Gold Gl...
Freddy Sanchez re-ups with Giants
Pirates name Carlos Garcia 1B coach/Infield Instructor
Pirates Claim Justin Thomas off Waivers from M's

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SPONSORS


Managers

Charlie_small Charlie