Bucs Dugout: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Uga VII, Requiescat in Pace: A Tribute to a Damn Good 'Dawg

Bucs Dugout/WHYGAVS Crossover: Planning the Offseason

With the offseason upon us, Pat at WHYGAVS and I are combing through the Pirates' roster and describing our ideal offseason. This post deals with the starting lineup.

CATCHER: Ryan Doumit

Bucs Dugout: Like Nate McLouth, Doumit isn't old, but he isn't particularly young either; he just seems to be because he spent so many of his first few years either injured or buried on the bench, and because he looks like an extra from American Pie. As well as Doumit hit this year, he failed to stay healthy yet again, and he'll be 28 when next season starts, so he can't be considered a likely core member of the next good Bucs team. He has three years left before he's eligible for free agency, which is a lot, but a long term deal is out of the question because of his injury troubles. It may be tempting fate, but if he stays healthy for all of 2009, he'll be a terrific trade chip. The Bucs might consider keeping him for one more year.

WHYGAVS: Doumit's hard to figure out. Given his health, I'd say I'd be shopping him right now, but I don't know how valuable a 28-year-old that considers 115 games a "healthy" season will be, even if he's a catcher that can OPS over .800. What's interesting to consider at this point is his defense, I think. He's been subjectively terrible in the second half of this season, as he's simply not used to playing as much as he has this year. A move to first base or the outfield isn't an option: his bat doesn't play nearly as well there. I think I might shop him a little more actively, though those injuries will probably drive his price down enough that it's not worth it to trade him.

Verdict: HOLD FOR NOW.

FIRST BASE: Adam LaRoche

Bucs Dugout: When he was acquired he was heralded as a star in the making, but LaRoche has come back around to being an underrated player. The Pirates are still waiting for LaRoche to start a season the way he typically ends it, but they're running out of time--he's a free agent after 2009. Even if he doesn't start 2009 strong, though, his pattern is well-established, so the Bucs will be able to tell potential trading partners that acquiring LaRoche will make them look brilliant. He may have more value at the deadline, whether he hits in April or not.

WHYGAVS: I'd even add in that while he can't possibly diminish his value with a poor first half because that trait is so well-established in him by this point in his career, he could blow his trade value through the roof with an Xavier Nady-like career year in April and May. Trading him now just makes no sense.

Verdict: HOLD FOR NOW.

SECOND BASE: Freddy Sanchez

Bucs Dugout: Sanchez has quietly posted an .872 OPS after the break, but the facts remain that he hit .226/.251/.304 before it and, regardless of the impact injuries may have had on his performance, he'll turn 31 in the offseason. 31-year-old second basemen with long injury histories don't have long shelf lives. Players whose value is wrapped up in batting average don't either. I wouldn't bet on him to produce next year. If someone could take his contract off the Bucs' hands, that would be great. Signing him to a two-year deal wasn't one of Neal Huntington's better moves. We're probably stuck with him.

WHYGAVS: I really strongly advocated trading Sanchez last winter because I was afraid he'd have a season like this one. Objectively, he was terribly unlucky in the first half and bounced back nicely in the second half, but he is pretty clearly declining from 2006 to 2007 to 2008 and with his shoulder problems, his defense is flat out awful and third base and shortstop are probably no longer options, meaning we probably can't even shop him as a viable utility guy. I agree that we probably won't get much for him because of his contract, but I'd still shop Freddy and hope for a buyer, even if I have to sell low. I just don't see much of a bounceback for Freddy at this point.

Verdict: SHOP.

SHORTSTOP: Jack Wilson

Bucs Dugout: I've ragged on Jack for years for not being able to hit, but he's quietly been a big reason the last few years of Pirates baseball have even been watchable. At various times, he's been the only player on the team who could play defense at all. Still, he'll be 31 in December and he has a 78 career OPS. If he can be moved for a prospect or two, he should be. The memories of Luis Rivas and Brian Bixler, who played while Wilson was hurt early in the season, are surely painful, but the Bucs need to think long-term here.

WHYGAVS: I don't want to be harsh on Jack here, but it's also worth noting that defensive metrics have disagreed for quite some time on whether or not Jack is a good defensive shortstop or a great one. He does have a penchant for making the routine look spectacular at times and that's what the fans see and love. I'm not saying that Jack's not a good defensive shortstop, because he certainly is. I'm just saying that by replacing him with Bixler at short for a full-season, we probably don't lose nearly as much on the defensive side of things as people think.

Bucs Dugout: That Rivas, a spectatcularly bad defensive middle infielder, started so many games in Jack's place probably made Jack look better than he should have. So, too, did the fact that Dave Littlefield seemed utterly incapable of acquiring good defensive players, despite his apparent goal building the Pirates around pitching and defense. Finding a decent defensive replacement for Wilson shouldn't be nearly as difficult as the Pirates' recent history would lead us to believe; you're absolutely right about that. 

Verdict: SHOP, even if the fans will hate it.

THIRD BASE: Andy LaRoche

Bucs Dugout: LaRoche should be kept and should start next year. This is the easiest call of any position on this post. He's young, his minor league numbers indicate that he could be very good, and right now, there's no competition--and no, Neil Walker doesn't count until he starts hitting in Class AAA. The last thing a team should do with a player like LaRoche is to get cute and try to platoon him, and he's got nothing to prove in the minors. He may be hard to watch in 2009. If he is, too bad. Get over it. He might also be quite good.

WHYGAVS:

Tike Redman in 2003: 248 PAs

Chris Duffy in 2005: 136 PAs

Andy LaRoche as a Pirate in 2008: 159 PAs (through Sunday)

I'm not saying he's going to be an All-Star. I'm saying you'll never find out in 200 plate appearances. You can say he's shown you no sign he's going to hit, but that's because he's hitting terribly. Seriously, give this guy a chance. 

Verdict: HOLD.

CORNER OUTFIELD: Brandon Moss

Bucs Dugout: I'm not a huge fan of Moss, but this is a no-brainer. My guess is that he'll be a pretty good fourth outfielder on the next good Pirates team, but there were times when I would've said that about Nate McLouth too. One silver lining of the Pirates being so bad is that they have the luxury of finding out whether someone like Moss can hit enough to start. His performance so far for the Bucs hasn't been wildly encouraging, but neither has it been a disaster.

WHYGAVS: BONECRUSHER! There's no reason not to give him a chance at this point. He's struggled of late, but flashed some very nice power with the Pirates after the trade and the Pirates need to figure out if he can sustain that long enough to be a useful stater. 

Verdict: HOLD.

CENTER FIELD: Nate McLouth

Bucs Dugout: With Andrew McCutchen, a better defensive center fielder than McLouth, nearly ready, it may be time to think hard about moving McLouth for prospects. That may sound harsh, given the excellent year he's had in his first full season of regular playing time, but he's almost 27, he's probably in the midst of a peak season, and if he sticks with the Pirates he's going to become a full-time corner outfielder. I hope I'm wrong, but he's more like the next Randy Winn than the next Jason Bay. If you want good stuff for a player like McLouth, you've got to trade high. Yes, I know I sound crazy, and no, I don't think it will actually happen.

WHYGAVS: Age is everything here for McLouth. If he were, say, 24, this would be an amazing breakout and he might be young enough to be helpful when things start to turn around. As it is, he's kind of like Doumit in that he's a great hitter for his position, which is usually offense-light, but not nearly as useful as a corner outfielder, especially if this year is his ceiling. It is nice to see him bounce back in September and that makes me think he might be able to approximate this season again, but I'd certainly shop him. The downside of that is that a trade of McLouth this winter would almost certainly result in a full-on fan revolt and while I'm not an advocate of making moves for PR purposes, the public ramifications of this move would be downright awful. Still, rebuilding is rebuilding and it'd be stupid not to at least listen to offers and maybe even shop around a little, but it'd have to be a nice package to move him.

Bucs Dugout: As with Wilson, this is a case where it's easy to lose perspective. You're right; if McLouth were younger, the season he's having would mean something else. When I watch him, I still want to believe he's young, not only because he looks like he can't grow a beard, but because the Bucs under Littlefield had so few good young players to give jobs to, and they were reluctant to commit to some of the youngsters who were actually good enough to stick. So players like McLouth and Doumit and Craig Wilson had to play part-time for years even though they were much better than most of the players in front of them. (In Littlefield's defense, Doumit also got hurt a lot.) The fact is, though, that 26-year-olds aren't young.

Verdict: SHOP, but don't be hasty.

CORNER OUTFIELD: ????

Bucs Dugout: The Pirates' disinterest in Steve Pearce is obvious, but if I were in charge, he'd be the Bucs' right fielder. Moss will have one corner spot next year, but it's unclear who will have the other. If the Bucs really thought McCutchen would be with the team at the beginning of next season, one would think they would have made him a September callup. If they wanted Pearce to play, they wouldn't be burying him right now. That leaves the very real possibility that one of the Pirates' outfield spots will be occupied by a free agent or Nyjer Morgan. It'll be a serious disappointment if it's a free agent. God help the Pirates if it's Morgan; starting him would be a horrible idea. I'd be happy with either a Moss-McLouth-Pearce outfield or a McLouth-McCutchen-Moss outfield, but the former would be my preference. McCutchen has played well at Class AAA but hasn't dominated there, so if I were in charge (and I didn't trade McLouth) I'd use the first couple months of the season to find out what Pearce can do. Of course, since the Pirates clearly d on't like Pearce, it's all academic.

WHYGAVS: I don't have a lot to add to this. Arguing Pearce and Morgan is a pointless exercise at this point, but I'm going to be hugely disappointed if Nyjer's a starting corner outfielder next year. Play Pearce, or really do anything that keeps Nyjer Morgan from getting 500 plate appearances and getting thrown out on the base paths 65 times in a season. Well, except re-signing and playing Jason Michaels. I know he's been "clutch" this year, but his numbers are terrible.

Bucs Dugout: Nyjer Morgan, a starting corner outfielder. That may be the first time I've seen those words strung together before, and it knocked me back a little bit. It can't happen. There's simply no way the new management is that dumb. Actually, Michaels or a similar free agent might be the most likely possibility. That's still pretty depressing.

Verdict: START PEARCE.

0 recs  |  Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Rothstein channels Machiavelli, Corleone, etc,

Is it possible that the bizarre affinity for Morgan has been a ruse intended to “focus” McCutchen this offseason?

by Arnold Rothstein on Sep 22, 2008 11:53 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Crossover!

Best crossover since The Jetsons Meet the Flintstones?

Anyway, nice work guys.

by wickethewok on Sep 23, 2008 12:23 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Also

Adam LaRoche’s top comp through his current age according to Baseball-Reference?

David Ortiz.

Though LaRoche still needs waaay more development on his elaborate handshakes.

by wickethewok on Sep 23, 2008 12:26 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Yes. Also needs to gain about 80 pounds.

Thanks, BTW.

by Charlie on Sep 23, 2008 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nate

I wouldn’t actively shop Nate. I grant he’s not young, but he’s not old either. The Pirates only get to keep guys for 5-or-6 years — might as well have them their during their 26-to-31 peak. Players who get established at 22 are more likely to become superstars, but they’ll have most of their best seasons in a different uniform. If McCutchen gets off to a good start in Triple-A next season, I’d call him up and use a McLouth-McCutchen-Moss/Pearce platoon outfield.

by bolton on Sep 23, 2008 6:17 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Thats not necessarily the case. Players have been signing long-term contracts and younger ages recently that have been pushing back their free agency years while giving them more money during what would be their arbitration years and their major league minimum years. For example, Evan Longoria is locked up (including team options) through age 31.

by wickethewok on Sep 23, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Pat and Charlie:

An excellent analysis of our team and one with which I mostly agree except for McLouth who I believe will be the person around whom the team should be built. He showed excellent power during the last 1/2 of 2007 as well as 2008 and I believe he will continue to improve.

I’ve said all along that both Wilson and Sanchez were overrated as well as overpaid and should be traded as well as LaRoche, the elder. I’ve also said that his brother should be given the opportunity to play an entire season at 3B before we make any harsh decisions as to his talent because he simply accomplished too much in the minors to ignore.

I believe that it’s time to put McCutchen in CF, move McLouth to RF and give Moss a long look in LF, at least until the AS break and then re-evaluate. Pearce just hasn’t shown anything resembling power with only 1 HR and nothing even to the warning track. I’m completely baffled by his poor performance and can understand why management has given Morgan such a long look. However, I’m not down on him like you two and wouldn’t mind seeing him play as long as it’s not at the expense of McCutchen who should be playing now.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Sep 23, 2008 10:09 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Trade Value

A very entertaining write up. It seems both of you feel players can be moved for value. What type of value would you be looking for out of players like Wilson, McClouth and Doumit?

by Tanger on Sep 23, 2008 10:17 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Good post

While I know everyone is always available in the right deal, here are my thoughts:

My key components for the future Pirates are: Maholm, Capps, An. LaRoche, Moss, McCutchen, Tabata, P.Alvarez.

I would trade (but only if the return is really, really good): McLouth, Doumit, Ad. LaRoche and Snell. In some respects McLouth might be the easiest to part with simply because we have some depth in our OF with placeholders like Morgan and Duffy in the fold.

I would trade: Anyone else if it can better the future of the club and that includes both Jack and Freddy. I also think Neil Walker probably will wind up elsewhere with both lil LaRoche and Alvarez pan out. I could see LaRoche wind up at 1B or possible 2B.

by Brakeman8 on Sep 23, 2008 12:20 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Disagree on Sanchez

I agree with most of your conclusions, but I’m lukewarm about the idea of shopping Freddy Sanchez, primarily because we would be selling low. If Sanchez were blocking a young 2B of significance, I could see trading him now. Or if we really needed to dump salary. But I think we have all agreed in this forum that Huntington did the right thing by holding onto Bay and Nady last offseason and then dealing them for quality players when their value had peaked. The risk of keeping Sanchez, of course, is that he may never return to peak value, but given that he is a former batting champion with an adequate glove and has clearly been hampered by multiple injuries this year, I would like to see us keep Sanchez and see if he can raise his value in early 2009. If he doesn’t, then we sell low at a later point and get a similar return to what we might acquire this offseason. The potential upside is that Sanchez plays well and we trade him for 1-2 real prospects next summer.

by Alleghenys on Sep 23, 2008 12:55 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Third corner OF

I’d be OK with a veteran FA there, if we were able to pick off a Type B with a good bat for something approximating market price. Milton Bradley would be a good fit if his 2007 keeps him as a B, since his fragility and personality might make him less attractive to other teams on a long-term deal. I think the personality thing is workable, and if we’ve got Pearce as a primary reserve, it wouldn’t matter as much if Bradley has to miss a week here or there.

Alternately, I could see someone like Floyd or Alou making sense as an acquisition, for the same reasons, if we aren’t willing to go quite as high as Bradley’s price tag.

If they start talking about someone like Edmonds or Kotsay, we’re in trouble.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2008 3:31 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

To what end?

I’d rather go with an OF of Moss/McLouth/Pearce with Morgan as a reserve than sign free agents like Bradley, Floyd or Alou. I’m not sure what the latter group would do for us, other than add a handful of wins to an uncompetitive team, eat payroll and take time away from younger players who could: 1) help the team; and 2) establish value. If Floyd is willing to take a low-end, one-year contract and agree to be a backup OF and mentor, that’s fine. But if not, I’d rather pass and let Moss and Pearce have a fair shot at performing. I’d even take Morgan over that group — if he somehow managed to play well for an extended period of time, we could trade him to a team looking for a CF. (Though, again, I would like to see Moss and Pearce get the first shot as starters.)

At this point, with the rebuilding in near-full swing, let the youngsters play.

by Alleghenys on Sep 23, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Alleghenys

You are absolutely right in stating that we have no room for veteran FA outfielders who will only serve to take up valuable playing time that should be allocated to our youngsters. Either we are in a full-blown rebuilding program or we’re not. It would be a huge mistake to combine facets of both plans into one. We have made the committment so far to rebuild and it must be continued if we ever hope to stop this downward spiral. Even our utility positional players should be youngsters given the chance to show what they can do. Any positional player over 30 on this team should be euthanized, shot, and then sent to the Russian Front.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Sep 23, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Putting a competitive team on the field has value, too.

As long as it doesn’t interfere with rebuilding, it’s a secondary goal worth pursuing. Look at the Orioles this year. They came into the season with no SS prospects at any level of the system… did avoiding veterans at the start of the year to play an unworthy Luis Hernandez provide any benefit? No. He was out of the lineup after a month, during which their fans watched a ton of ugly ball, and then they scuffled through the rest of the year with dreck like Freddy Bynum and Juan Castro.

When choosing players for the future, ties (or even near-ties) go to the young guy, but there’s no point in choosing a young, shitty player over a decent, older player just because they young, shitty player is young. You need to be realistic about your guys’ capabilities.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2008 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Vlad

I may have misread your post. Based on your subject line, you may be encouraging a third corner outfielder, which, by its definition, would be a reserve player. Though I’m not sure that jibes with your statement that “… if we’ve got Pearce as a primary reserve, it wouldn’t matter as much if Bradley has to miss a week here or there.”

I stand by my statement that I don’t want a short-term veteran taking playing time from the likes of Moss and Pearce, but apologize if I didn’t read your post clearly the first time around.

by Alleghenys on Sep 23, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think that...

…we need three viable corner players for LF/RF in order to protect ourselves going into 2009, just like we needed more than five SP going into 2008.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2008 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

My main concern...

…is what would happen if Moss or Pearce are hit by a bus in April. The best internal option behind them is probably Adam Boeve or Jason Delaney, which is to say that we have no options (short of bumping up McCutchen whether he’s ready or not and moving Nate to a corner). Tabata is good and all, but he’s just not ready yet.

I think that the organization’s unwillingness to use Pearce down the stretch this year means that they are (axiomatically) unwilling at this point to hand him a starting role in 2009. Thus, the best way to capitalize on Pearce’s value (and aid his development) is to sign a productive but injury-prone vet, who will hit well for about 120 games and be hurt for about 40, during which time Pearce can start in RF (while also picking up occasional starts at 1B/LF in relief of LaRoche and Moss). If Pearce gets 300-400 AB in that manner, and capitalizes on it, then he’s a viable option at RF or 1B for 2010.

After the way attendance collapsed after the deadline trades, there’s no way that the team doesn’t sign at least one veteran this offseason. Furthermore, there’s no real reason why they shouldn’t do so – we have the payroll space, and after a while we hit the point of diminishing returns on investment in prospects (since there’s a finite amount of minor league PT available). Thus, it makes a certain amount of sense to sign a good-sized corner bat, as long as we can do so without surrendering draft picks or an egregiously above-market deal.

If they prove me wrong and go into 2009 with Pearce pencilled in as the starter, then we need to be proactive about finding a corner Plan B to keep on the bench or stash at AAA. I’ve had my eye on John Rodriguez for a while now, but there are others, too…

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2008 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’ve always liked Rodriguez—he’s deserved a better shake than he’s gotten. He’d be a great bench OF or AAA insurance policy.

by Charlie on Sep 23, 2008 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Heh

I swear that when I posted this, I had no idea about Moss’s knee surgery. That’s exactly the kind of thing I was talking about, though.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2008 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dirty Buccos:

“…Nobody puts Nate in a corner …”

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

by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 23, 2008 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Point proven

The potential loss of Moss definitely proves your point that we may need another corner OF, Vlad. I have one more general thought on this discussion:

The idea that we should sign someone like Floyd, Alou or Bradley because “we have the payroll space” doesn’t sit well with me. All three of those players would command a mid-level salary based on past results, but would their presence in the lineup (as a starter or reserve) translate into more fans and therefore more revenue? I think the goal of any of those signings would be two-fold: 1) Provide insurance at LF/RF; and 2) Bring fans to the ballpark in numbers ample enough to nearly pay for their salary. On the latter, I honestly have no idea whether that would happen.

If those players are costing money that could be put into development and future contracts, I would pursue other options. None of them will be playing in Pittsburgh when the team is finally competitive. At this stage, I would much rather see Huntington putting that money into development or socking it away for future teams (much like the Marlins did years ago). We could use Jason Michaels again in 2009 to backup both corner spots, if necessary.

The other option I would consider would be to put money into players who could help us become competitive, long-term — someone who is still young and full of potential. I posted here last winter that I wanted Huntington to sign Dallas McPherson, who was young, beset by injuries, but with good production when healthy and who would have been inexpensive to sign. (He hit 42 HR with a .997 OPS in 127 games for Florida’s AAA team this year.) Those are hard to find, of course, but I would not protest the signing an OF like Rocco Baldelli, who despite his questionable plate discipline and injuries, is chock full of potential and could develop into a wonderful player. Huntington and his scouts would have to assess Baldelli’s potential and that of other potential acquisitions, but the concept of pursuing the right low-risk, high-upside players is a good one given the team’s situation. (And I’m not saying that we should definitely go after Rocco Baldelli, but he represents the type of acquisition we should consider.)

With that said, I’ll now wait and watch for IPF to encourage us to sign Adam Dunn and Pat Burrell.

by Alleghenys on Sep 24, 2008 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

More wins = more fans/revenue

As such, there’s a decent profit motive for adding an OF. And when I looked at our team and at the FA class, I think that we’d get more bang for our dollars bringing in an OF like the ones I described than any other type of position player (there’s a case for sinking our surplus FA $$ into the rotation/pen instead, but I didn’t throw that out here because this is the position player analysis thread).

When you’re rebuilding, the idea with veteran players is to sign guys who will retain at least most of their value through the life of their contract, allowing you to turn them into prospects or picks when the deal runs out. It’s only throwing money down a hole if you sign guys who will collapse on your roster (or if you’re scared to make trades, and then scared to offer arb when they become FA, as Littlefield was).

My thought behind adding a veteran OF is that we’re already near the saturation point on spending for amateur talent acquisition. We sunk a ton of money into the draft, and got our feet wet on buying Latin talent. Expecting the FO to go even more all-in on amateurs is probably unreasonable right now. As such, the choices are to spend it on the ML roster in one fashion or another or give it back to Nutting.

I think Baldelli is intriguing, but I didn’t put him in my post because his medical condition is so unusual that I wasn’t sure of his long term prognosis as a player. It’s obviously better to go young rather than old if both are available on the FA market, but most of the young guys out right now are either super-expensive or uninspiring, and I don’t think we’ll see too many interesting younger choices until the non-tender deadline.

by Vlad on Sep 24, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cost v. reward

I don’t think we can say with certainty that this formula is accurate: Cost of third corner OF > New revenue.

Let’s say we sign Cliff Floyd to a one-year, $3 million contract. That’s the same deal he has now with TB, in which he has 276 PA, normal offensive production, and seven win shares. Floyd mirrors 2008 and gets 275-300 PA through a mix of starting in LF/RF and pinch-hitting for the 2009 Pirates.

Floyd would be on the roster in place of Jason Michaels, who in 2008 had 300 PA and six win shares. Michaels has a club option for $2.6 million in 2009. (Given that Cleveland paid a large part of his salary this year, I wouldn’t be surprised if Huntington declined the club option and attempted to sign Michaels for $1.5-2 million.)

With roughly equal playing time, Floyd accounted for one more win than Michaels, in theory. One win won’t ignite a fanbase. Proof of that is obtained by looking at the last four full years (since the PNC Park effect has worn off). In 2004, the team had 72 wins and averaged 21,107 fans at home. In both 2005 and 2006, they had 67 wins and averaged just over 23,000 fans per game. In 2007, it was 68 wins and 22,141 fans per game. Pittsburgh has proven to have a steady, semi-solid fanbase that will produce 21-23k fans per game when the ballclub performs at a sub-par level (67-72 wins). Cliff Floyd won’t move us beyond that performance level.

But for argument’s sake, let’s say Floyd’s presence contradicts recent history and adds 100 fans per home game (8,200 for the season). At roughly $40 per fan ($17 avg. ticket + parking + concessions), that’s new 2009 revenue of $328,000.

With that new revenue, you only pay for the additional salary necessary to employ Cliff Floyd over Jason Michaels. And for what gain?

If Floyd does NOT put more fans in the stadium, you just spent $400k that you could have used for other purposes. And if Huntington signs Michaels to a lesser salary or finds a reserve corner OF that costs substantially less, you have spent even more than necessary for very little gain over the alternatives.

I also have to argue one other point that you make. You say that “we’re already near the saturation point on spending for amateur talent acquisition.” I think that statement can only be valid when the Pirates rank among the top teams in percentage of revenue toward amateur investment. We can undoubtedly use any additional money to sign Latin American talent and establish relationships and programs in places like Korea, South Africa, Chinese Taipei, Australia, etc.

The decision, really, is between: 1) saving the money for a more competitive team; 2) signing international talent; or 3) paying for someone like Floyd and hoping that you can trade him for a prospect or obtain a draft pick when he leaves. Given the dearth of our farm system and the need for multiple high-upside players, I would prefer to see Huntington pursue option 2, which likely nets more players who bring a strong talent level and who we can work with for a longer period of time.

by Alleghenys on Sep 24, 2008 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Edit

Sorry, that should have read: “Cost of third corner OF < New revenue.”

I, too, long for an edit button.

by Alleghenys on Sep 24, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is the nut of it right here:

“If Floyd does NOT put more fans in the stadium, you just spent $400k that you could have used for other purposes.”

Right now, I don’t think that they can/will use that $400k for other purposes (unless you count Nutting pocketing it as “other purposes”), and as such, it’s a false comparison. The team has announced an approximate ML payroll for 2009 (in order to defuse dumb fan criticism that the Bay and Nady trades were made for purely financial reasons), and as such, the only real question is which players are going to get that money. I think some of it should go to an outfielder of the sort that I described, but if it doesn’t, then it’s already been allocated for different ML players – not prospects.

by Vlad on Sep 24, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Extra funds

I don’t think you can assume that Nutting will pocket it. That may be the case, but there is some reason to believe that it will not be. Coonelly and Huntington have proven that they will spend the money to boost the farm system. Nutting has approved that approach and seems thrilled about it, calling the front office the greatest thing since hippo water rollers after the draft. Coonelly and Huntington have gained Nutting’s confidence and have made their number one priority the establishment of a strong, recurring farm system. They certainly work within a budget, but we can’t assume that they’ll give any leftover cash to Nutting for his grandkids’ education. (Unless you have an inside source that we don’t know about saying that Nutting has taken a “use-it-or-lose-it” approach to the major-league payroll.)

Hypothetically, if Huntington had an extra half million to spend on anything, would you want it to go toward a third corner OF (or the rotation/bullpen) for 2009 or player acquisition/development?

by Alleghenys on Sep 24, 2008 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Use it or lose it...

…is the way budgets usually work in a non-baseball context, so it seemed like a safe assumption here as well.

Personally, as far as the $500k goes, it depends on the specific application of the funds. If we can go back to July and get a $500k-type prospect for $500k, and we have somewhere to put him, then I’d probably take the prospect. If we’re overpaying by $200k for $300k worth of prospect talent (or vice-versa), because we already signed all the available young guys that we like whom we’d scouted, then I’d take the veteran.

Also, I didn’t mention it before, but Win Shares isn’t great for illustrating the true-talent difference between a Michaels and a Floyd, because Michaels had such freaky outlier high-leverage numbers this year (.286/.333/.500 in 76 PA, in a season where he hit .223/.285/.357 for the year as a whole). He provided a lot of extra value to the Pirates and Indians by doing so, but it’s not value that’s indicative of any kind of true skill, and therefore it has no predictive value going forward. Floyd had 15 more Runs Created than Michaels this year (in slightly less PT), and even if you want to give a little of that back on defense, that’s still a significant gap.

by Vlad on Sep 24, 2008 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good stuff

This is a good dialogue, Vlad — glad we could have it. I think we both have some valid points, and it will be interesting to see how things shake out in the offseason.

by Alleghenys on Sep 25, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree.

On both counts.

by Vlad on Sep 26, 2008 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Trade Pearce?

I agree with Alleghenys, at this stage I don’t see the value in adding Floyd or Alou. If Alou came cheap, I wouldn’t mind him as a 50-start, pinch-hitter type, if he would take that role, but if nothing changed internally, he just further crowds a Crowded House, and tempts a manager to play him over younger players.

Does anyone have a sense if there might be a market for Pearce? If NH is really that down on him, why keep him around? If his upside is not high enough that he’ll be a serious part of the next good Pirates team, then move him if anyone is interested and will give up a moderate prospect that might be a little younger and not an OF. Like, say, Todd Redmond.

by azibuck on Sep 23, 2008 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not much market right now.

He needs to play well to rebuild value. Other teams’ memories of our prospects are very short, since we get so little media hype.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2008 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Do NOT...

trade McLouth! Extremely well-rounded player. Really,name anything that he doesn’t do well-extremely well? And he should prob. do it for a number of years yet.
His offensive dip,before the recovery,could prob. be attributed to him playing more than he ever had before(not even a rest during the All-Star break),and the virus he was reportedly suffering from. He’s a guy you build winning teams around!

by rissaldar on Sep 23, 2008 3:55 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

why is

McLouth too old to keep at 26 but Pearce can’t be given up on at 25?

by poorboywilly on Sep 23, 2008 5:04 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Because McLouth just had a great year that would increase his trade value. Pearce probably has very little.

by Charlie on Sep 23, 2008 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not sure I agree on trading Nate...

…but the service time thing is a big difference. Pearce is going to be cheap for three years, and under team control for six. Nate’s already burned his cheap time.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2008 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

hence and therefore

it’s no big deal if Pearce proves he can continue to hit before he is allowed to take over a job?

by poorboywilly on Sep 23, 2008 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Charlie's not trading Nate to make room for Pearce

He’s trading Nate because Nate’s at or near the peak of his value, and he wants to expand our overall talent base.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2008 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

In which case...

…I’m a little confused as to what you’re trying to say. Can you elaborate?

by Vlad on Sep 24, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

the Bucs should be quite happy if McLouth turns out as valuable as Randy Winn

McLouth has as much value as he’ll ever have right now, especially if another team thinks he can stick in center field.

great discussion, by the way. thanks.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Sep 23, 2008 7:57 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

The winter meetings...

should be interesting. I can see at least three teams that would be interested in McClouth (Braves, Indians and Yankees). The Braves and Yanks, I believe would play him in CF which could increase his value. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Boston did a little more than check into the availability of Doumit. They have a youn catcher in Kottars with some pop but seem unwilling to give him ABs at the major league level. I actually think Doumit would be a good fit for them and could bring back a Reddick/Bowden package…IMO. I would move Doumit if the offer was right, same with McClouth. I just don’t see us being ready to compete before McClouth is ready to walk and I love Doumit but Man who knows when he will get hurt again.

by Slick1 on Sep 23, 2008 10:28 PM 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

101_0170_small
40-Man Moves
18470r_small
Rule 5 possibilities
20080124sgrammy_330_small
Small Market Teams Pocketing Spare Change
Small
Jeebus Cracker
Small
McCutchen's defense
Small
Roberto calling
20090612mf_fleury_cup_500hp_small
Pirates would trade Doumit!
Leo4_small
John Sickels' Comments on Donnie Veal
Pitt20_small
LaRoche to the Phils?
Bloody_mary_small
Ohlendorf Blogging: USDA can't keep him "down on the farm."

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

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

Recent FanShots

Mariners Eyeing Doumit
Tabata 5-5 w/3 Ribbies - Hitting .390 @ EOS
Bay rejects $60M over 4 years
"[Chase D'Arnaud] does everything well enough," said an American League...
Pirates hire Steve Williams as Major League scout
Jim Tracy, Baby! NL Manager of the Year!
2009 Minor League Six-Year Free Agent Listing
NL Rookie of the Year: Chris Coghlan
2010 CHONE Projections
2010 UZR Projections

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SPONSORS


Managers

Charlie_small Charlie