Don`t Sign Pedro Alvarez
Let`s play the "What If?" game. We know the Pirates need a lot of talented players injected into their minor league system in order to start rebuilding for what we hope will be a much brighter future starting a couple of years from now. It will take a number of excellent drafts and procuring/developing talent from overseas to do so.
What if we don`t sign Pedro Alvarez? We would get a comparable pick in the 1st round next year-#3 overall? We would also have our own #1 pick which may very well fall into the #10 overall again. Additionally, we could get the extra comp picks for Marte.
If Scheppers is deemed healthy and we sign him, and if we would use the millions we save on not signing Alvarez to get draftees like Grossman, Gagnon, Freeman, Miller, and a couple of others under contract, would this really be such a bad thing?
It goes without saying that Pedro Alvarez is a talented baseball player. I`d like to see him in a Pirates uniform. But I can`t help but wonder if we could go both the quality and quantity routes by not signing him and focusing our efforts elsewhere on this draft and the 2009 one.
I just can`t help but think that there will be little help coming through the trade route this year and next, and I simply believe we`ve got to go to the greatest lengths possible to get as many talented prospects into the organization as we can.
I know this is a very unlikely scenario, but what do you guys think?
0 recs |
41
comments
Comments
...
Interesting thoughts… no reason to attack, but I’ll still disagree. We need Alvarez’s bat…he’s almost a lock to make the majors and be a solid- to well-above average 3B and, he’s also important because having him come through would make guys like Hague and Farrell expendable trade pieces if they progress through the minors.
That and I think the fanbase needs some hope right now after watching this rotation, the Moskos over Weiters pick, the failed pitching prospects, and Ramirez trade, etc … Alvarez could embody that hope as a premier player.
by ChicagoBucco on Jul 23, 2008 1:48 AM EDT 0 recs
I think Patthat is on to something here.
The Smiziks of the world would kill our ownership/management if we actually did this, but it might work out better for us long term. I haven’t thoroughly researched this matter but it seems to me like the best way to build is through the draft. Unless you have a superstar position player or a good starting pitcher you aren’t going to get a lot back in trades. For example, I think the most we will get for Nady + Marte is two B+ prospects and maybe a throw in as well. I hope we can in fact make such a deal, but it isn’t going to turn things around all by itself. Ideally, we would sign all of our high upside guys. Probably more realistically we sign Alvarez (assuming he isn’t asking for 10 million), Scheppers (if healthy) and Grossman. If Scheppers isn’t healthy then use that money to sign Gagnon, Miller and Freeman. I must say I am rather disappointed that we didn’t sign Gagnon. He was quoted as saying that he would be open to signing with us.
On a somewhat related note:
I heard recently that Tampa Bay was one of the teams that exceeded the slot the most last year with their draft signing bonuses. Has Tampa Bay been exceeding the slot for a while now? Perhaps this is how they have acquired all of this talent, by actually spending some money to sign some guys. While we are on that topic, how much money did the Brewers spend on their drafts when they accumulated all of their current talent?
by houksyndrome on Jul 23, 2008 2:33 AM EDT 0 recs
houksyndrome
If the rumors are true, Boras is asking for a contract worth a total of $10 million or more with the signing bonus and the inclusion of the major league salaries for the duration of the deal.
Also, Dejan Kovacevic has made a point of saying that Boras will probably go as close as possible to the deadline of August 15 before agreeing to anything.
If so, I think this limits us from making a run at a bunch of the other later-round gambles that we selected. I`m not exactly sure of the number of the 1st round pick we would get in 2009 if we don`t sign Alvarez-#3 or #4?-but we could have a deep draft this year with the scenario I envision, and a helluva a lot of high picks next year without Alvarez and if we don`t trade Marte, too.
The Trade Now! faction of IPF, dito, and the gunner seem to think that the trade route will ensure some measurable improvement for the franchise, if not outright success, in the very near future.
I most certainly hope that we can make a good trade or two to help improve the team`s prospects(in every sense of the word). But there are no quick-fix solutions through the trade route that I can see.
I can`t help but think that we MUST lay the foundations for any run of sustained success in the next decade now with deep drafts this year, the next, and beyond-as well as signings and player development from elsewhere in the world. This is why I`m trying to generate a little speculation here about creative ways to go about it-rather than saying like some do that Huntington should pull some creative trades out his you-know-what.
by patthatt on Jul 23, 2008 7:52 AM EDT 0 recs
You guys attack IPF because you say he doesn't read other posts before he responds...
what have I said that merits plugging me into your “trade now” category? I merely support trading Nady because I think he will regress, and I believe NH will have a quality option to do so.
My posts in recent threads have conveyed one main idea: IPF is entirely entitled to his opinion (that a lack of deadline deals is an early sign of failure).
by DITO on
Jul 24, 2008 2:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
He's entitled to his own opinion.
But he’s not entitled to his own reality. Which is what he tries to have when he puts forward opinions or guesses and then claims that they’re facts.
by Vlad on
Jul 24, 2008 2:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
do we get anything for Scheppers?
if we don’t sign him, being he is our second rounder?
by SpacePirate on Jul 23, 2008 9:55 AM EDT 0 recs
Yes, I believe we would get a second round compensary draft pick
if Scheppers wouldn’t sign. IMO, this is why they took him when they did. If he is well enough for them to sign, then they would get a steal. If not, they would have two #2’s next year.
I find the idea of passing on Alvarez intriguing yet not financially sound. Suppose Marte stays and the PBC gets their two comp picks along with their #? for their results this year. Will the money be there for those three picks? Will the money be there if Alvarez and/or Scheppers don’t sign? The idea of 6 picks in the first two rounds is definitely exciting but not an option financially with this bunch.
by ElliottBayBucco on
Jul 23, 2008 11:51 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Good point
I wouldn’t hate the patthatt’s idea proposed in the original fanpost, but the Bucs would probably not be able to sign that many people next year, anyway.
by DITO on
Jul 24, 2008 2:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
don't forget
there’s $10 million worth of matt morris coming off the books
by johnnycuff on
Jul 24, 2008 2:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hmm...answered my own Q
From wikipedia:
Teams can also earn compensation for unsigned picks from the previous year’s draft. If a team doesn’t sign a first or second round pick, they will get to pick at the same slot plus one the following year. For instance, if the team with the #5 pick does not sign that player, they would have the #6 pick the following year. The regular draft order would continue around those picks. For compensation for not signing a third round pick, teams would get a pick in a supplemental round between the third and fourth rounds. If a team fails to sign a player with one of these compensated picks, there is no compensation the following year.
by SpacePirate on Jul 23, 2008 9:56 AM EDT 0 recs
Or
Sign Alvarez while the Nuttings also allocate additional money to sign the rest of the good players the Pirates drafted.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Jul 23, 2008 10:26 AM EDT 0 recs
One flaw:
The #3 overall next year is going to want Alvarez-type money to sign, too. And unless the Nuttings basically double the draft budget, that’s going to come from somewhere else (scaling back in Latin America, taking fewer tough signs in the late rounds, etc.). Since there’s a decent shot that we’ll end up with extra picks for Marte if he’s not traded, and we already have to get those guys signed, and you’re spending this year’s Alvarez money on lesser draftees instead of holding it… you’re effectively talking about something like a $8M increase in our draft budget. Which, while nice, ain’t gonna happen.
Also, if you like the aggressive negotiations this year, you’ll love ‘em next year on that #3 pick, since picks don’t roll over more than once. He’d know that we had to sign him or lose the pick altogether, and his price would bump up accordingly.
Most of all, though, I’d hate to see a talent like Alvarez slip through our fingers. The kid’s basically a lead-pipe cinch to be at least a useful ML player, and he’s got a very good chance at being a star.
by Vlad on Jul 23, 2008 10:43 AM EDT 0 recs
Highest $ for #3
over the last 6 years is $3.4 million so if Alvarez is seeking$7m as I hear from people at Vandy that would be double of what the #3 will get next according to history.
by buccoben on
Jul 23, 2008 2:14 PM EDT
up
0 recs
True, but misleading.
Bonuses go up every year as a function of the sport’s overall revenue, so each new year’s bonus is almost always going to be the “highest ever”. And there have been other high-first picks who got more than $3.4 (such as Wieters last year, who got $6M at #5, or Mike Pelfrey in 2005, who got $3.55M at #9 – 65% more than the prior year’s #9, Chris Nelson, who got $2.15M).
We knew that Alvarez would want big money when we drafted him. It’s just the cost of doing business.
by Vlad on
Jul 23, 2008 2:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Longoria signed for $3m as #3 in 2006
Much depends on agent representation.
by buccoben on
Jul 23, 2008 2:43 PM EDT
up
0 recs
If we did not sign him...
we would have #3 next year.
by buccoben on
Jul 23, 2008 4:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The $7m includes...
major league minimum as long as he stays in minors.
by buccoben on
Jul 23, 2008 4:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Vlad
You make some really good points.
If we get him signed-and from all reports we should soon because I can`t imagine that he wants to go back to Vanderbilt-I hope Pedro Alvarez turns out to be the good player so many expect him to be. We`d better hope he`s healthy and can stay that way. But Matt Morris-type money? That`s scary. Tim Beckham gets $6 million as the #1 overall pick and it sounds like we are going to commit more than $10 million to Alvarez.
by patthatt on Jul 23, 2008 11:39 AM EDT 0 recs
Don't take that number as gospel.
Boras is asking for $10M. He’s not necessarily going to get it. Last year, with Moustakas, Boras asked for $7M, compared to the team’s initial offer of $3.1M, and when they settled at the last minute, it was for $4M. (Link)
He’s aiming high because he wants to maximize his client’s return, which is fine, but I don’t think he’s really expecting to get everything he asks for.
by Vlad on
Jul 23, 2008 11:53 AM EDT
up
0 recs
But yeah...
These guys are making big-time money. In some ways, it’s kind of nice just some dude on a website, so I don’t have to deal with buyer’s remorse on a real multi-million-dollar investment. No pressure. If I blow it (and I do sometimes), I can just get back up and keep going tomorrow without any real consequences.
by Vlad on
Jul 23, 2008 11:56 AM EDT
up
0 recs
We
HAVE to sign Alvarez, if we don’t then all the talk about picking Alvarez because we aren’t afraid to spend money will be torn to bits.
by northsidenotch on Jul 23, 2008 1:57 PM EDT 0 recs
Is there any more pressure on Alvarez...
because he is a college player (vs. a high schooler with a college commitment)? I mean, does Alvarez really go back to Vandy? I think this could be a factor vs. someone like Moustakas, who wouldn’t have thought twice about going to USC and then being put right back in the draft in 3 years.
by SpacePirate on Jul 23, 2008 3:24 PM EDT 0 recs
Alvarez
He would go back to Vandy but would lose leverage being a senior. He would get above slot if he had a great year. LaPorta went back for senior because he had a bad junior year and greatly improved his signing bonus but it rarely happens among high profile players.
by buccoben on
Jul 23, 2008 3:43 PM EDT
up
0 recs
big gamble for big payday...
Following slot $$$ (in theory) #2 gets paid more than the other spots in the draft besides #1. Would you risk losing guaranteed money this year when a bad senior year might drop you a few spots in the draft? Nothing is for certain in MLB, if he can get 5 to 6 million now, he should take it because he could drop and potentially lose out on a couple of million.
by ElliottBayBucco on
Jul 23, 2008 4:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Boras seems much more agreeable now.
As little as 3 years ago he would advise not signing if they did not get what they wanted. He had a few he overreached on and teams called his bluff and the players fell significantly the next year. He still plays hardball but not as inflexable as he used to be.
by buccoben on
Jul 23, 2008 4:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, maybe.
You have to remember that Alvarez has been being scouted since he was 14. He has absolute belief in his ability to succeed in the pros. The thought of a bad senior year probably doesn’t even enter his mind.
Some high picks who refuse to sign do just fine. Wade Townsend went #8 overall out of Rice, didn’t sign, and went at #8 again the next year. And the granddaddy of them all, Tim Belcher, went #1 overall in both ‘83 and ‘84.
The big incentive for Alvarez (and one that he may not be thinking about) is that starting his career now vs. next year means an extra year of post-arb earnings in his ML career. In his case, that could be as much as eight figures (although discounted somewhat since it’s in the future).
by Vlad on
Jul 23, 2008 5:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
True.
Alvarez is not HS-age young…why potentially delay your big payday for an extra million or two now. If the Pirates raise their offer a bit, he’d be a fool to bite. Also, I would be interested to hear how Alvarez would take not signing personally since everything I’ve read about him suggests he would relish showing he is the top prospect from this year’s draft right away AND [crosses-fingers] maybe be the guy who starts the Pirates down the road to being a winner.
by SpacePirate on
Jul 23, 2008 5:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Bird in hand v. bird in bush
That extra payday is ten years away, and an extra million or two on this deal would make a dramatic impact on his lifestyle right away. Ergo, he has competing sets of interests.
by Vlad on
Jul 23, 2008 6:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Negotiate every contract like it's your last
I don’t know who said that, but it’s pretty sound advice I think, especially in this profession. If I was a friend of Alvarez, that would be about the only piece of advice I could give him. As much as I hope he signs, and signs for reasonable money, I don’t begrudge him for anything in this negotiation.
by azibuck on
Jul 23, 2008 10:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Dumbest thing I ever heard
We need stud baseball players and Pedro is a stud. You were probably in favor of drafting Bryan Bullington and JVB.
Patthatt…are you Dave Littlefield?
Pat Devlin in '08
by Nick7 on Jul 24, 2008 1:11 PM EDT 0 recs
One stud vs several
One player is not going to change this situation. If they cannot sign him for $7m or less I would rather see them use the money to sign Scheppers(if healthy),Grossman,Gagnon,Freeman and Q. Miller.
by buccoben on
Jul 24, 2008 2:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Bad idea
Scheppers isn’t healthy. The only question is exactly how unhealthy he is.
Right now, Alvarez is pretty much a finished product. Several of the guys on your list require significant input from our player development guys, who don’t have such a stellar track record lately. Freeman, for example, is going to need a whole new swing, and Miller is going to need major mechanical adjustments to his delivery.
by Vlad on
Jul 24, 2008 2:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Vlad
You are a very informed fan and seem to know a whole lot about baseball. When you post comments like this one: “Freeman, for example, is going to need a whole new swing, and Miller is going to need major mechanical adjustments to his delivery,” are they based on reading extensive prospect reports, watching prospect videos and developing your own analysis, talking to people in the profession, opinions you develop after compiling information from a myriad of different sources, or what?
Sorry if this is a weird question, but I am very curious.
by DITO on
Jul 24, 2008 2:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Different stuff.
I watched video on all of our draftees where I could find it, and I also read scouting reports from pro analysts like BA and Sickels, as well as fans whose opinions I trust (like Wilbur).
Freeman’s got a big hitch in his swing – it’s pretty easy to spot, even if you don’t really know what you’re looking for. His swing also looks kind of long to me (which might be more of a problem going forward). Miller’s problem isn’t that drastic, and he’s still kind of inconsistent, but I’m not in love with either his load (bad angle) or his follow-through (too violent). I think he’s a health risk going forward.
They’re probably both fixable, but neither one is a sure bet.
by Vlad on
Jul 24, 2008 3:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Freeman
His arm bar is entirely correctable without a new swing or approach physically. Mentally he has to see the need to change. Having had several players change this in 30 years of coaching I can attest it not the theory of relativity.
by buccoben on
Jul 24, 2008 2:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Could be.
I’m certainly not infallable. But when I look at him, his stroke just seems a little too long, like Chad Hermansen’s was. That might just be a function of his height, I guess.
by Vlad on
Jul 24, 2008 3:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Dumbest thing I ever heard
There’s actually cogent commentary under the headline. You should read that too.
by azibuck on
Jul 24, 2008 2:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs




