It's Not About the Payroll
by Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 3:26 PM EDT
62 comments
My email inbox is filling up with messages from some mailing list about the Pirates' payroll and how Bob Nutting is only trying to spend as little as possible.
I can understand any and all suspicions regarding ownership's motivations, but to sculpt those suspicions into an argument (and this is one we've probably all seen recently, not just on this mailing list) without regard to the Pirates' circumstances misses the point completely.
How are the Pirates a worse team for not having Matt Morris and his $10 million a year contract on the payroll next season? They aren't. How would the Pirates' chances of contending in the future be affected if the they'd kept Jason Bay and Xavier Nady, both of whom would've been free agents after 2009 anyway? They would be worse, because those players would have been gone by the time the Pirates had been ready to contend, and the Bucs would have gotten nothing for them. And what role would Salomon Torres and Jose Bautista have had on the next good Pirates team? None and probably none, respectively.
Again, given all that's happened in the last decade, I can understand suspicions about the payroll. But the next time your paranoid side starts to take over, ask yourself: how would the Pirates benefit from a larger payroll in 2008 or 2009? A larger payroll would just mean more contracts for older players who aren't going to help when the Pirates are ready to contend: more Jeromy Burnitzes and Randall Simons. Did you like those players the first time they were here? The acquisition of better veteran players might be even more harmful, because those players would require longer and more expensive contracts.
The Pirates will have a low payroll in 2009, and that is as it should be. They'll be developing players and trying to sort through younger ones. Those players are inexpensive, which may be a nice side effect for the Pirates' ownership, but opening jobs for youngsters who also happen to be cheap is also the right baseball move.
In the meantime, the Pirates are spending money--just not on major league payroll. They're building an expensive new complex in the Dominican, have handed out big bonuses to Latin amateurs in the first time in years, and spent a ton of money on the draft. These are exactly the right ways for a team in the Pirates' situation to spend its money.
Until those who wish to attack the Pirates for shedding payroll can show how doing so hampers the Pirates' ability to compete in the future, there's no need to continue blasting ownership. Blast away for anything that happened while Kevin McClatchy was running the show, but under Nutting's (official) control the Pirates have gotten the big things right.
0 recs |
62 comments
Email
Print
Comments
It's easy to rationally criticize Nutting for failing to spend enough on the team
Until those who wish to attack the Pirates for shedding payroll can show how doing so hampers the Pirates’ ability to compete in the future, there’s no need to continue blasting ownership. Blast away for anything that happened while Kevin McClatchy was running the show, but under Nutting’s (official) control the Pirates have gotten the big things right.
If the Pirates currently spend less than the league average on player acquisition and development, as they had in the past, and continue this trend into the future, the the Nutting Pirates merely decreased the odds that the team will fail to contend for or win championships.
Focusing on yearly payroll is a red herring. Considering long-term player acquisition budget trends relative to the money spent by the team’s competitors is not.
There is nothing paranoid or conspiracy-minded about this argument. The Nutting partnership has committed the organization to winning on the cheap. The cheap part decreases the probability that the team will win anything of consequence.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 3, 2008 4:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Again, though – what benefit do the Pirates reap from spending piles of money now? The Pirates’ spending patterns in the past are not especially relevant here. What is relevant is that they’re rebuilding. There is no benefit to spending tons of money when rebuilding, except in Latin America and the draft… where the Pirates have spent far more this year than ever before.
When the Pirates develop a core of players that can contend and they STILL don’t spend in a manner that is consistent with their competition, then I’m right with you. Until then, no.
by Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what do they lose?
If the only thing at risk is money – money that wouldn’t be spent elsewhere and which is spent on a FA that is not counter-productive (there are bunch of negative in there, but I think that’s the best way to say it), then try to improve the major league roster.
I expect that a good argument can be made that any signifcant FA signing for the Pirates right now is counterproductive because – regardless of budgets – the money SHOULD (not could) be spent in other player procurement/development areas and a type A free agent costs us a draft pick of the sort that we need to stockpile. However, I can’t blame someone for criticizing the Pirates for not – in addition to the plans apparently underway – also spending to improve the major league team right now.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Sep 3, 2008 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly:
The Pirates’ spending patterns in the past are not especially relevant here. What is relevant is that they’re rebuilding. There is no benefit to spending tons of money when rebuilding, except in Latin America and the draft… where the Pirates have spent far more this year than ever before.
Note my claim:
If the Pirates currently spend less than the league average on player acquisition and development, as they had in the past, and continue this trend into the future, the the Nutting Pirates merely decreased the odds that the team will fail to contend for or win championships.
My argument addresses the sum of all monies spent on player acquisition and development.This includes every dollar spent on players and player development. If the Pirates fail to spend money at the major league level, they had better spend a comparable amount on draftees and international free agents. They could also do something out of their box like trade Wilson to LA for Andruw Jones, Kershaw, Kemp, etc. What matters is talent acquisition.
The increases seen this year were a start. But the Nuttings could have done more.
The Pirates’ spending patterns in the past are not especially relevant here.
Why not. These patterns reveal partnership perceptions and intentions, the constraints they confront and their hopes for the future. They also produced consequences which the current front office regime must confront and overcome. These consequences reflect more than McClatchyfield incompetence. They additionally reflect the budget shortfalls McClatchyfield addressed.
The front office did a good job this year rebuilding the minors. They might have accomplished more had additional funds been allocated to player acquisition.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 3, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen, Charlie!
BTW, I am happy to see you refer to McClatchy. I feel that he is just as equally responsible for the franchises past seasons of futility, if not more so, than the Nuttings have ever been.
by ElliottBayBucco on Sep 3, 2008 4:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with almost everything Charlie said...
but I’m stil waiting for ownership/management to make an intelligent financial commitment to winning at the major league level. I don’t want to sign a decent free agent if:
(a) the expense is going to negatively impact spending on other matters aimed at building a regularly competitive, long term winner (such as the Domincan academy or intelligent signing bonuses, etc), or
(b) he is not a part of a worthwhile future and is blocking somebody who is.
Otherwise, I’d like to see the team sign good free agents. Perhaps it is unrealistic, but i don’t see any problem holding ownership to a standard whereby they are expected to compete for worthwhile free agents. For example, it would be a mistake to go after a non-superstar third baseman, but I wouldn’t mind upgrading at SS or 1B if the price was right.
And allow me one more tangent: DL’s signings and those of Cam before him were brutal, but Burnitz was far from the worst signing for the Pirates. He should not be the poster child for the DL regime; Burnitz was minor drop in that bucket. Yes, he was overpaid, but I doubt that money was going to spent in another manner (though it should’ve been) and Burntiz was not blocking a better player and was signed to a one year deal, so it wasn’t crippling like Young, Kendall, Mears, etc. The philosphy was crippling, but there are better examples than Burnitz.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Sep 3, 2008 4:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hello, earth to Pirate fans
I realize this is ancient history now and probably long forgotten, but assuming Pedro Alvarez evenutally keeps his word, this team just undertook what is probably one of the 10 or so largest draft expenditures in MLB history. They also increased spending on Latin American prospects. (And, no, there were no seven-figure signings, but frankly, in light of the skimming scandal, I’m getting very suspicious about some of these signings and skeptical whether they’re a good idea.) And they expended however many millions it was on a new facility in the Dominican. There’s no way they’re below MLB average in spending on scouting and development, if that’s what’s meant by “player acquisition and development.”
If payroll is the issue, all I can say is check out the list of prospective free agents this winter and, after you remove the Sabathias and Mannys and whoever else the Pirates can’t possibly sign no matter what they do, see if you can find a playoff team in there for even $30-40M. I’ve never yet seen so much as an attempted explanation of how the Pirates can contend by throwing money at free agents, nor have I seen a single example of a team remotely comparable to the Pirates that’s tried that and been met with anything other than disaster. The payroll is not the problem and never has been during the losing streak, except when they gave Aramis away.
by WTM on Sep 3, 2008 4:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Are you claiming my argument is unrealistic?
If so, why?
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 3, 2008 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
I’m saying it’s factually wrong. The spending on player acquisition and development, if you’re talking about amateur players, is probably far above average this year.
by WTM on Sep 3, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd have no problem conceeding you claim
If I limited it to amateur players. But I don’t. I include every bit of player spending because that figure reflects the financial commitment the Nutting partnership has made to winning. If they shift money from the major league payroll to amateur acquisition, that would be a wise move but not one which would absolve them of the charge that they intend to compete on the cheap. In fact, it’s evidence supporting that assertion.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 3, 2008 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So in other words
You conveniently lump together major league payroll, which it makes absolutely no sense to increase significantly now, and scouting expenditures, which critically needed to be increased and in fact were. That way you can avoid crediting them for doing what they need to do now, even though they’re doing it. Meanwhile, you can blame them for not spending when in fact the area where they’re not spending is an area where it makes no sense to spend now.
Nice.
by WTM on Sep 3, 2008 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess he could argue that they need to spend even more on scouting and development. Given the amount they’ve already spent this year, I’m satisfied, but I guess he could argue that they pick up every Tim Melville available in the late rounds and pony up huge bonuses to sign him, sort of an extreme version of the draft philosophy they already practiced this year. I’m not sure how practical that would be.
Since no other team has ever done that, that I’m aware of, I’m pretty happy with how things are going.
by Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They also need to repeat the performance for years to come
Merely shifting money from one budget line to another does not demonstrate a willingness to spend enough to win. In short, my critics have yet to dent my conclusion, “The Nutting partnership is committed to winning on the cheap.”
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 3, 2008 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well sure
When you construct an argument whose premise is its conclusion, denting isn’t really possible.
by matskralc on Sep 3, 2008 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But my argument isn't circular
If you believe it is, state how.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 3, 2008 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your conclusion is “Ownership is cheap.”
Your main argument is “ownership has been cheap before.”
Your other “arguments” (the right things to actually spend money on, the level of that spending relative to other MLB teams) have been dented quite well. That’s why you don’t focus on them. You keep saying “cheap cheap cheap cheap” over and over again as both your argument and your conclusion.
I get the impression ownership could have spent more on the draft than the other 29 teams combined and that still wouldn’t be enough for you.
by matskralc on Sep 3, 2008 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I concluded that ownership is cheap by showing that ownership has been cheap
then that makes my argument sound (the conclusion is validly drawn from true premises). It doesn’t make it circular. If I use past practice — a baseball franchise cheaply run — to make a probabilistic argument about the future or to set strong burden of proof conditions for the Nutting partnership and its defenders, that too fails to make my argument circular. What it does it respects and accounts for the weakness of the evidence supporting the claim that the Nutting partnership represents a new leaf for the franchise.
I get the impression ownership could have spent more on the draft than the other 29 teams combined and that still wouldn’t be enough for you.
That’s not my problem.
bq.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 3, 2008 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Merely shifting money from one budget line to another
That’s not what they did. Major league payroll this year was nearly $10M more than last year AND they dramatically increased spending on amateur scouting AND built a new facility in the Dominican. Unless you’re saying they shifted about $20M from the office Christmas fund to cover it all.
Your “conclusion” can’t be dented for the same reason it can’t be proven: there isn’t enough evidence for either view yet. You can’t dent thin air. It’s not up to anybody to “dent” your conclusion, it’s up to you to support it. I have yet to see a shred of evidence to support your conclusion other than the low payroll, and it doesn’t prove a “commitment” to anything because competent management confronted with the situation the current regime inherited wouldn’t increase the payroll yet. Everything else you’ve pointed to has been wrong, like the above statement, or misleading, like your sleight-of-hand effort to make the large increase in the scouting budget disappear.
The Nuttings may not intend to spend money when the time comes to do so. I have no idea . . . and neither do you. Nothing’s been proven one way or the other.
by WTM on Sep 4, 2008 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Nuttings may not intend to spend money when the time comes to do so. I have no idea . . . and neither do you. Nothing’s been proven one way or the other.
I never claimed they wouldn’t spend money when the time came. I have claimed — on more than a few occasions, but apparently I haven’t done so often enough that you noticed it — that Pirate fans would need to tolerate knowing that the Nuttings might fail them in the future. That assertion also entails that they might not fail them. Taken together, both claims demonstrate that I believe Pirates fans do not know what the Nuttings would do in the future when confronted with a situation which immediately required spending more money on the ML payroll.
It’s nice that you came around to my way of thinking; it would help a lot if you had actually known that you did so.
Lest anyone indulge themselves by claiming I can’t support my contention, I’ll quote what I wrote elsewhere:
There were two components to the Pirates’ problem: 1) Management was incompetent and 2) management confronted severe budget constraints when building teams.
The Nutting partnership could resolve the first problem by hiring competent people. It seems to have done this when it hired Coonelly, and the organization now appears to be reforming itself on the fly. The partnership does not appear to have addressed factor number two. I believe we can all agree on this point: The lack of funds will always apply friction to the effort to rebuild the team and the organizations. This lack might ultimately prevent the Pirates from winning a championship. Moreover, it reflects a style of thinking – "the Pirates’ Way is a ‘frugal way’" — that once produced the Aram Fiasco. One day, so far as we know, the Nutting partnership may again decide to give away quality players for crude financial gain. It follows that savvy Pirates fans will just have to tolerate knowing the Nutting partnership may {emphasis added] betray them once more. They will also need to tolerate knowing that the Nutting partnership will seek to win on the cheap and that its frugality may doom the effort.
Amazingly, this uncertainty puts Pirates fans far beyond the sorry state in which they found themselves not long ago. The sorry state of the recent past: Pirates fans knew with near certainty their team would fail to compete or even to break the McClatchy Line. Today, life may be better for Pirates fans; it far from wonderful.
Major league payroll this year was nearly $10M more than last year AND they dramatically increased spending on amateur scouting AND built a new facility in the Dominican. Unless you’re saying they shifted about $20M from the office Christmas fund to cover it all.
You ignored past spending and aggregate spending relative to the team’s competitors and relative to revenue increases. The partnership could actually decrease the percentage of their total income devoted to player acquisition and development with this decrease appearing to the public as a dollar value increase in team spending. Your way of looking at things can’t account for problems like that. Nor can it account for the fact that many of its competitors do not have to overcome wrong-headed decisions of the past. They don’t have to devote money to building infrastructure because they already have that infrastructure. This might not be a problem if the Nuttings spent at least an average amount of money on player acquisition and development. But they don’t. It’s difficult to claim with reason the Nutting partnership has committed the resources needed to field competitive and winning teams when it spends and has spent less than the average on player acquisition and development. In fact, the evidence we do have suggests that they have committed the organization to winning on the cheap.
From the horse’s mouth:
“I’ve said from the very beginning that it’s not going to be about how many dollars we spend,” Nutting said. “It’s how we spend them.”
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 4, 2008 8:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Empty rhetoric
What all your extensive wordiness boils down to is that they have a low payroll. Well, no shit. So do the Rays, who may well finish with MLB’s best record. So did the A’s when they were winning their division every year. So do the Twins. Arizona went to the NL title series with the fifth lowest payroll in MLB last year. Colorado went to the World Series with the sixth lowest. Cleveland barely missed knocking off Boston in the playoffs with the eighth lowest. It’s utterly false to suppose that an above average payroll is either necessary to win or sensible if your team isn’t in NY, LA or Chicago.
You equate below average payroll with being cheap. What neither you nor any of the other Nutting bashers have ever explained is how increasing payroll now can help the team win. Until you can explain that, your claim that they’re cheap, or “committed to winning on the cheap” or whatever other sophistry you’ve assembled, is baseless.
by WTM on Sep 4, 2008 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Repeating a strawman argument doesn't undo the fallacy
It just adds another fallacy to the list of those you have already committed.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 4, 2008 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm quoting you
If there’s a straw man, it’s yours. Or does it depend on what the definition of “is” is?
You just go on hairsplitting and shifting positions and declaring yourself right because you say you’re right. It’s a tough job, but nobody else is going to do it.
Bye.
by WTM on Sep 4, 2008 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You quoted me?
You just go on hairsplitting and shifting positions and declaring yourself right because you say you’re right. It’s a tough job, but nobody else is going to do it.
Almost clever.
Bye.
Your loss, not mine.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 4, 2008 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll not miss Wilbur's ad hominem attacks
when I’ve got yours.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 4, 2008 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Increasing the payroll now could help the team win...
by motivating the fan base, drawing more fans to the games, and increasing revenue. It would have to be the right move and it – COULD – but would not guarantee anything but improved public relations.
I continue to believe that new management is on the right track and has largely made good decisions. But building the right away with intelligent allocation of assets as the team now seems to be doing is not mutually exclusive with spending money to improve the major league product. It would be a bit tricky, but good management that doesn’t lose focus on their priorities could get it done. It seems to me that Dennis Martinez served the Indian’s quite nicely in 1993, while the team was still building.
Further, at some point you need to spend if you are going to consistently win. We don’t know whether Nutting can/will intelligently spend as necessary to maintain success. Until I see such a commitment, I won’t return as a ticket buying fan. One way to make people believe that such intelligent spending at the major league level will take place when indicated is to start some of that now (again, it isn’t “intelligent” if it steals assets from the draft, etc, if it is financially irresponsible or it blocks a more deserving player). It may not be possible at a particular time given the players available, but the knee jerk reaction by many saying that it is impossible as a rule is a fallacy that, if accepted, places more trust in ownership than I believe is merited.
Finally, please don’t characterize me as Nutting basher. I’m relatively new to posting in this forum, but I’ve been deriding the premature slamming of Nutting in other forums ever since he took control of the team and started saying the right things.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Sep 4, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget the Marlins!
The Seattle Mariners had a payroll over $100 Million and should finish with a higher draft pick than the PBC. The NY Yankees payroll is over $200 million and they are sitting in third place in the AL East and will likely miss the playoffs for the first time in over 10 years.
Having a large payroll doesn’t mean shit if you don’t know how to spend it wisely.
by ElliottBayBucco on Sep 4, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
Please do not think that I am saying that payroll capacity equals success. Payroll capacity equals margin for error.
The system is terribly broken, but as I Pirates’ fan, I don’t think I should be allowed to bitch about the system until it we have demonstrated the basic level of competence needed to succeed even if a fair & health economic system.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Sep 4, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Steve
I think I have a handle on what your arguement is and I have a pretty big problem with it. If I understand you correctly you seem to want the Pirates to take every penny that is not spent on the Major League Payroll, and use it on amateur aquisitions.
For the sake of simplicity, lets say that the Pirates have 70$ million to spend on their entire baseball operation this season. That includes both MLB player salaries and amateur acquisitions, such as Dominican signings and the first year player draft. Now as you probably know, the Pirates big league payroll is currently around 40$, and if I understand you correctly you are saying that you want to see the remaining 30$ spent on amateur player signings.
I feel like your really, really missing the point by lumping these two very seperate fields together. It is well known that top notch amateurs require much less to sign than their professional counter parts. As other posters have stated, it is in fact very convienent for Nutting that this form of rebuilding is in fact very cheap, however, I truly believe that it is the best method to get the Pirates were they eventually need to be.
Aquiring high end talent from the amatuer ranks is much more cost efficient than the free agent route, and therefore, does not require nearly as much financial brute from a signle team.
A much more effrective way of looking at this would be to see where the Pirates rank in terms of draft bonuses and international signings, which as previously stated by Wilbur ( I think), is in the top 10 all time.
I respect your opinion, I just happen to disagree with it. May there be better days ahead where we can quibble about things like the playoffs rather than money spent on the draft.
by baseballgg24 on Sep 3, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we start spending huge amounts of money on the draft, say $20M or whatever, then the Yankees, Red Sox and all the other big market teams will start doing it too. We must infuse talent into our system while still protecting the integrity of the slotting system by pushing the envelope a bit each year. If we go crazy and sign 20 guys for $1M bonuses then the slotting system would stop having any meaning, and we would very quickly lose our ability to get talent into the system via the draft, since wealthier teams would hoard all the talent via huge bonuses to drafted prospects. At that point we would have no hope at all.
by houksyndrome on Sep 3, 2008 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boston & NY already spend a ton of money on the draft,
as well as on scouting, player development and free agency. The slotting system already doesn’t mean anything and won’t until it becomes part of the CBA between the players union and MLB.
by ElliottBayBucco on Sep 3, 2008 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I want is for the Nutting partnership
to provide conclusive evidence that it is willing to spend to win. Thanks to years of budget shortfalls, the Nutting partnership and its defenders need stronger evidence than they have to conclude the Nuttings are willing to spend to win.
So, I would say that I am not missing the point by considering the sum of all spending. When the Pirates fail to spend to the level of the team’s competitors, that gives an advantage to these competitors because talent costs money. When spending shortfalls such as this are a chronic feature of the organization’s operations, the team needs time and an enduring commitment to spending for talent (winning) to overcome this past. The fact that the Nutting partnership has yet to publicly commit the franchise to spending to win suggests that a prudent person would withhold judgment regarding their motives and intentions until compelling evidence emerges that dispels these doubts.
A much more effrective way of looking at this would be to see where the Pirates rank in terms of draft bonuses and international signings, which as previously stated by Wilbur ( I think), is in the top 10 all time.
Wilber’s way of loking at this issue ends with a logical fallacy.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 3, 2008 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is like having Alberto Gonzalez tell you that you have a bad memory.
by WTM on Sep 4, 2008 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I correctly note the partnership's financial commitment to winning...
by examining it without prejudice. This lack of prejudice permits me to avoid drawing a hasty conclusion from one data point, an error you could not avoid.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 3, 2008 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are players that are toolsy
And people that are tools.
by azibuck on Sep 3, 2008 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Power, speed, glove
No arm, not a high average, but decent eye. Also an uncanny ability to fail to get out of the way of pitches.
by azibuck on Sep 4, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scouting and Player Development
This is where the money MUST be spent now. But it must be spent based on GREAT player evaluation and player development with GREAT minor league development personnel.
The Pirates are making an effort to do this. BUT none of us will know for two or three years if it is being done the right way.
Everything SOUNDS fine so far, all of the right things are being said, but we should reserve our final judgement for two to three years from now.
The ONLY thing that matters is RESULTS, and the ONLY RESULT that matter is the PITTSBURGH Pirates won/lost record.
by thegunner on Sep 3, 2008 5:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Aramis Ramirez
Giving him away for virtually nothing was unfortunate, but desperate times call for desperate measures - and those were very desperate times for the Pirates financially.
Had we not given him away, would Ramirez be the Pirate third baseman today at an
absolute MINIMUM of $10 million per year? Definitely not - and what for? We would not be going anywhere with Ramirez just like we would not be going anywhere with Bay or Nady.
This team needs to be rebuilt.
Maybe, if done right, we can be CONSISTENTLY competitive by 2010 at the EARLIEST.
We might compete in 2009, but it will take a Herculean effort and career years by 25-35 players.
by thegunner on Sep 3, 2008 5:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
let's say...
ownership is willing to spend $50MM a year on payroll. one can hope that by posting a $30MM payroll in 2009 that the difference of $20MM will be rolled over to when they start competing in order to sign a free agent or two to fill a hole. it’s half of the Marlins’ model. don’t spend when you’re not competing so that you can go overbudget when you are.
by Sky Kalkman on Sep 3, 2008 5:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This year's draft.
At present, we have not signed Alvarez. There is no guarantee we will ever do so. If we don’t then we have not spent that much money on the draft after all. One could argue that we were prepared to give Pedro Alvarez a $6M bonus, and that is true beyond question. However, I still believe that a combination of our excessive frugality and Boras/Alvarez’ greed are responsible for the Alvarez debacle. If we had offered a $6.3M bonus, Alvarez would probably be signed and in our organization right now. We appeared to be completely unwilling to go above $6M for Alvarez. This makes me question just how serious we are about doing what is necessary to get talent into our system.
That being said, I still strongly believe:
1. Our signings of Q. MIller and Grossman for large bonuses was great.
2. Our commitment to building Dominican academy is great.
3. We did the right thing by trading Bay and Nady.
4. We would be stupid to spend our money on free agents as opposed to the draft/latin america
However, as I stated above, our behavior w/respect to Alvarez has made me question just how much money we are actually willing to spend on the draft to rebuild, which in essence, is questioning our ownerships financial commitment to winning.
by houksyndrome on Sep 3, 2008 5:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If we had offered a $6.3M bonus, Alvarez would probably be signed and in our organization right now.
Possibly, but there was no way for Huntington and Coonelly to know that Alvarez would renege on a contract he had already agreed to. How is Alvarez’s refusal to honor the contract he signed the Pirates’ fault?
by Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I can make my point the best by offering the following hypothetical situation:
Suppose Alvarez, instead of verbally agreeing to his offer on 8/15 had merely told us to take our $6M offer and shove it and then hung up the phone.
Would we have called him back and offered $6.5 or something or would we have just taken the comp pick in next year’s draft
by houksyndrome on Sep 3, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They offered $5 million, then upped it to $6 million,
Alvarez agreed, end of story until an agent named Scotty Boras decided to make a stand against the trade deadline using Alvarez with his approval. To think this whole debacle is the Pirates fault is totally ridiculous in my opinion.
Besides, reading your comment above, you are pretty set on the slot system and following the slot system, the Pirates should not have paid more than Tampa did with Beckham.
by ElliottBayBucco on Sep 3, 2008 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right, it isn't their fault.
However, it also appears as though $6M was our absolute top limit for Alvarez, and that seems ridiculously low.
by houksyndrome on Sep 3, 2008 6:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
But he took the offer. If it was a ridiculously low offer and he took it anyway, that is a point in the Pirates’ favor, not a strike against them. That’s just good negotiating. Who knows how much they were willing to spend, but it’s moot because they stared down Boras and won.
by Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think our ownership "won".
Yes, Alvarez verbally accepted the offer. But what if the arbiter declares that contract invalid. Alternatively, what if the arbiter rules in the league’s favor and upholds the contract and Alvarez STILL refuses to sign the contract. I haven’t heard that possibility discussed at all. If the contract is upheld then is Alvarez on the restricted list indefinitely until he signs with us?
In any event, this can resolve itself in two ways:
1. We don’t get Alvarez and get a comp pick. That would suck as we miss out on a very talented player and could end up with another last-minute standoff with our comp pick at the deadline in 2009.
2. We sign Alvarez. I don’t know enough about the fall/winter instructional leagues to say for sure whether he would still be able to participate in them assuming he signs, say, october 1st. Even if he can participate in the fall/winter leagues, he now will probably have a strained relationship with ownership/management and definitely with the fan base.
None of these things are good, and all could probably have been circumvented had we signed Pedro for a still very reasonable $6.3M or something. Almost certainly, our ownership/management did not realize what Boras was going to do, so it is unfair to get REALLY upset at our ownership/management over this. I still think they squeezed Boras/Alvarez too hard though and got burned.
by houksyndrome on Sep 3, 2008 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess, but did anyone anticipate this would happen? If anyone had anticipated that Alvarez would refuse to honor the contract he signed, I think that would be a fair criticism.
by Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And even in that case you’d have to blame Alvarez, not really the Pirates. Turn it around the other way. If the Pirates signed Alvarez for $6.3 million and then announced two weeks later that they could have signed him for $6 million but tossed in that extra $300,000 to keep him from refusing to honor the contract he had already signed, and thus avoid a debacle that had never (I don’t think) before happened in the history of the draft, I think everyone here would think that Frank Coonelly had gone nuts.
by Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone would have gone nuts, but then I would have come back from an alternate future in my time machine and been like, “hey man it’s cool, we did the right thing, just trust me!” ;)
You are correct in saying that this business with Alvarez is unprecedented. Additionally, I am completely unable to understand why Alvarez ever agreed to the contract in the first place, if $6M wasn’t enough, why didn’t he just say so at the time?
However, it is very possible that the Pirates front office basically said to themselves, “Let’s offer him $6M and go no higher. Yeah we know it is a bit low. But he can’t afford to turn it down, he’ll be risking way too much by declining it and going back into the draft, given his family’s financial situation.”
I hate what Alvarez/Boras have done, don’t get me wrong – for a while I told myself I would never follow pro ball again. However, if the Pirates were intentionally trying to low-ball Alvarez because of his financial situation, then I don’t like that either. This is supposed to be about fair payment. You don’t want to intentionally low-ball your employees, because then they won’t have as much loyalty. I think fair payment, in Alvarez’ case, is more like $6.3M. If he was the top talent in the draft, as everyone around here thinks he is, then he should make top-dollar.
by houksyndrome on Sep 3, 2008 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
$6 million is way over slot. I think you can consider that fair payment.
Pittsburgh Lumber Co.
http://mvn.com/mlb-pirates
by MBandi on Sep 3, 2008 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is what I would like to know...
I think we can all acknowledge that the Pirates MLB payroll this season was right around 45 million. It was 48 and change to start the season, we added Micheals and subtracted two months of Bay, Nady and Marte. So give or take a few bucks 45 should be a pretty good number.
Does anyone believe that the PBC lost money this year? I certainly dont and would love to hear the argument from anyone that believes that they did.
Lets assume that the payroll is 30MM next year. I personally think it will be closer to 25 but for the sake of argument lets go with 30. Thats a difference of 15MM from 2008 to 2009. If Alvarez signs they will have spent about 5MM more on draft signings in 2008 than they did in 2007 so lets subtract that from the 15MM and we are still at 10MM in cost savings.
What do you guys think they do with the 10MM? The Pirates are just catching up with the rest of baseball with their new academy so I give them no credit for that. More scouting? Come on, how much do you guys think they pay scouts? Is every amateur player going to have their own personal scout from the PBC?
The 10MM is going right into Nuttings pocket from where it will never return. Is that really OK with you guys? Dont you feel that they owe the fans more? I sure do.
by #1BuccoFan on Sep 3, 2008 8:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
2009 payrool
You’re underestimating the 2009 payroll. The team will be paying close to $20 million just for Wilson, Sanchez, Snell and Capps. When you factor in arbitration raises for players like LaRoche, McLouth, Doumit and Maholm, you’re looking at like $35 million. You still have to pay all the 0-3 players and put together a bench and bullpen.
Of course, some of those guys might be gone. Jack may be traded, and that’s $7 million off the books. But a few of those first-time arbitration eligible players may get locked up long-term. I don’t think the payroll will be much different than it was this year.
Pittsburgh Lumber Co.
http://mvn.com/mlb-pirates
by MBandi on Sep 3, 2008 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Over/Unders for Payroll
Even money says they are <30MM
2-1 they are under 35MM
and if you really think they will be close to this years payroll…5-1 under 45MM
I will welcome any action on those.
by #1BuccoFan on Sep 3, 2008 9:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Here is another thought
I have no idea whether they are actually doing this. But why not take the extra money and invest it, let it gain interest, and then use it to pay for major league salaries when we finally are competitive again.
I agree with #1BuccoFan, that there is probably still some left over money, even after our increase latin america and draft expenditures. Perhaps, we are just saving that left over money so we can sign a FA or extend someones contract down the road when doing so will help us compete for a championship.
by houksyndrome on Sep 3, 2008 9:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This has been said a hundred times before,
but a lot of people still don`t get it.
“In the meantime, the Pirates are spending money—just not on major league payroll. They’re building an expensive new complex in the Dominican, have handed out big bonuses to Latin amateurs in the first time in years, and spent a ton of money on the draft. These are exactly the right ways for a team in the Pirates’ situation to spend its money.”
Nice work, Charlie.
by patthatt on Sep 3, 2008 10:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You act like...
the Pirates are the only ones spending money in the Dominican and on Latin players. They are just doing what every other team does or has done.
Look, I like the trades they made at the deadline and recognize the obvious needs they had in their system that made the moves necessary. Just dont try to tell me that the Nuttings are going above and beyond when they pocketing more and more each year. If they can spend 45MM on payroll this year than they should be able to do at least close to that every year. We, the fans, deserve that much. Especially now that we have two guys running the front office that appear to be able to evaluate talent and make good decisions.
by #1BuccoFan on Sep 4, 2008 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep. The Nutting partnership is not going above and beynd most teams
It has surpassed the franchise’s recent past. But that’s not much of an accomplishment!
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 4, 2008 8:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the Pirates are the only ones spending money in the Dominican and on Latin players. They are just doing what every other team does or has done
The Pirates have not been in the Latin American market like some of the other clubs.How many years will it take to get on par with other clubs?I like the direction the front office is heading,Remember the shelves were empty in the entire system.1 good draft will not fix the amount of holes in our Minor League system.If we’re still complaining about things like this in 3 or 4 years, then we have a huge problem
by Battlin Bob on Sep 4, 2008 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Nuttings Might Not Be Cheap
When one owns a company, knows nothing about the “product” (on the field) and does not see results, one is rightfully reluctant to spend money (increase payroll.and make outlays in the areas of scouting and player development).
However, if Nutting really believes that “Coonington/C & H/the Sugar Boys” know what they are doing, then he should support them in whatever spending recommendations they make.
It appears that he has started to do this.
If there are no results in 3-4 years, then Nutting needs to go back to square one and reevaluate everything, possibly even answering the question of what he is doing owning a major league franchise.
by thegunner on Sep 4, 2008 11:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
