Pirates to Sign Eric Hinske

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 29, 2009 6:42 PM EST

It's semi-official now. He'll get a base salary of around $1.5 million, which sounds fine for a guy who hit 20 homers last year. As choices of bench players go, Hinske isn't a bad one, and with the Pirates facing considerable uncertainty at three positions Hinske can play (both corner outfield spots and third base), it's nice to have someone competent. As I said yesterday, given the good chance that one or more bench players end up grabbing 400 or so at bats this year, I'd prefer the Pirates grabbed a couple of higher-upside guys, even if that's perceived as a riskier strategy. Hinske's not young and has had plenty of chances as a regular player. While he has a smidge more upside and is a better fit for the Pirates' particular roster needs than, say, Doug Mientkiewicz because Hinske hits for power and plays better defense at the positions where the Pirates have the most uncertainty, Hinske is still pretty much a known quantity. If you want a known quantity for a bench spot, though, Hinske's fine, especially for $1.5 million.

Tweet Comment 44 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Not quite the RH power hitter the Bucs need.

But at least he’ll put pressure on M&M (Moss and Morgan). Kudos to NH because there really are no righties to be had. OK, Manny is still out there, but he was never a realistic option for the Bucs.

The young incumbents need to be pushed even in development years. We don’t want an outfield this season that starts as comfortably as last year’s rotation did.

And that’s what makes Hinske an upgrade on Eye-chart. He can play regularly at the positions the Pirates have the most questions – 3B, LF, RF.

by RDV across the sea on Jan 29, 2009 7:05 PM EST reply actions

Ok Abreu, Alou, Anderson and AJones.

That list includes : too good, too old, too expensive and too washed up. None of which are a fit for this season’s Pirates.

by RDV across the sea on Jan 29, 2009 7:21 PM EST reply actions

You can never have too much power, though Hinske’s second half (.214) last year is a concern. Maybe he just ran into a lot of lefties in that stretch.

Possible benefit to having so many lefty hitters: Jack and Freddy see a lot of marginal lefties, and may eat them alive.

It will be very interesting to see how Russell handles things, unless Moss’s knee is just no good or something. The logical thing to do is to get a RH hitter, platoon him with Hinske in left, and send Nyjer to the bench. But then the outfield defense wouldn’t be any better than last season (and maybe worse?).

The best hope here, as it has been all winter, is that McCutchen got a good look at Nyjer last year, and decided to run him off. If McCutchen’s one of the better players in camp, then the Pirates should bring him north. The clock be damned….

by Arnold Rothstein on Jan 29, 2009 7:21 PM EST reply actions

Arnold, Be Careful About The Clock (Exclamation Point)

by thegunner on Jan 29, 2009 8:01 PM EST reply actions

It’s ridiculous to even suggest the Pirates should not consider the arbitration clock when making roster decisions. If the 2009 Pirates had any chance to comete for the playoffs then the clock be damned. But the 2015 Pirates have a lot better shot at being good than the 2009 Pirates do, and Cutch will be in his prime then, so it makes sense to leave him in AAA for 2 months even if he is ready.

by Scranton on Jan 29, 2009 8:31 PM EST reply actions

Players get injured, players get fat, players get arrested, players get traded.

by Arnold Rothstein on Jan 29, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions

Why plan for the future at all, then?

See here (scroll down to the Hamels/Shields comparison) for a good example of why considering the clock can be helpful.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 29, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions

(Didn’t mean to sound flip, by the way. Sorry.)

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 29, 2009 10:33 PM EST up reply actions

I’m guessing that the lesson I’m supposed to draw is something different than we should do what the Phils did because the Phils won the Series?

by Arnold Rothstein on Jan 29, 2009 11:42 PM EST up reply actions

Did the Phils win the Series in 2008...

…because of those two extra games Hamels pitched in 2006?

Talk about putting experience at a premium. I’d love to see the causality chain on that one…

by Vlad on Jan 30, 2009 9:02 AM EST up reply actions

The Phils won the Series in 2008 because they possessed the will to win....

promoting Hamels in 2006 was an expression of that will.

by Arnold Rothstein on Jan 30, 2009 9:08 AM EST up reply actions

Having "the will to win"...

…didn’t seem to do much for them in 2006, the year they actually promoted Hamels. They were in second place then, two games back, and fresh off a nine-game hitting streak. After promoting him, they immediately started losing ground, and dropped all the way back to sixteen games out by early September. Even then, they were well-positioned for the Wild Card (one game out), but their will to win was so strong that they elected to let the Dodgers have it instead.

It’s such a pain when reality gets in the way of cliches, isn’t it? Or did they lose the will to win, and only find it later?

Actually, now that I think about it, I bet this is what happened: Tampa waited to call Shields up because they didn’t have the will to win, but he brought it with him from Durham, and they used that new will to finish first in 2008. But then before Game 1 in the WS, they accidentally left it on the field during warmups, and Victorino swiped it when nobody was looking. From then on, Philly’s triumph was inevitable!

by Vlad on Jan 30, 2009 9:23 AM EST up reply actions

Typo:

“hitting streak” = “winning streak”

by Vlad on Jan 30, 2009 9:24 AM EST up reply actions

Ty Cobb made out 63% of the time, so I supposed he lacked the will to hit?

Everybody up the chain, you’re getting burlesque answers because you are making knee jerk replies. I’m basically baiting at this point. Apologies.

by Arnold Rothstein on Jan 30, 2009 9:31 AM EST up reply actions

Charlie, Did You Ever Consider The Fact That ...

Hamels might have a smarter agent, as well as the fact (or maybe just my opinion) that Hamels is a much better pitcher.

by thegunner on Jan 30, 2009 12:25 AM EST up reply actions

Hamels is better, IMO.

But the on-field difference between the two is fairly small. And Hamels is going to earn more than twice as much as Shields. Eleven million dollars. That’s HUGE, particularly for a team like us that’s holding a payroll in the $50M range.

by Vlad on Jan 30, 2009 9:01 AM EST up reply actions

Just for some more perspective, $11M is...

*About what we spent on our entire draft class this year.
*Approximately market price for a solid #3 starter as a free agent.
*More than the highest single-season salary in team history.

This stuff matters. It really does.

by Vlad on Jan 30, 2009 9:07 AM EST up reply actions

Put Me Down For 2015 Season Tickets!

by thegunner on Jan 29, 2009 8:41 PM EST reply actions

Not a bad signing for the Bucs. As mentioned, Hinske will be solid off the bench and be able to old a roster spot down to give some of the young studs in the system enough time to develop without too much rush.

As a Royals fan, I root for the Pirates every season as well. Simply, I always love watching the teams that have a lot of good young developing talent. Unfortunately, it seems the Bucs and Royals are always in the same boat… Develop a player just to watch him leave.

Webmaster – If you are interested in exchanging links please visit the Fantasy Big Leagues website and click “Baseball Link Exchange”

by FantasyBigLeagues on Jan 29, 2009 9:24 PM EST reply actions

But will he bring...

…the intangibles that a Casey or a Minkovicth brings?

P.S. – I’m joking!!

by Trogluddite on Jan 29, 2009 9:58 PM EST reply actions

Trog

Just wanted to say I’ve always admired your screen name.

by bucdaddy on Jan 29, 2009 11:09 PM EST up reply actions

Yep.

It’s quality.

by Vlad on Jan 30, 2009 9:09 AM EST up reply actions

Thanx f/the compliment

from both of you. It dates from 2001 or thereabouts and I believe it came to be in a beer induced haze….

by Trogluddite on Jan 30, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions

Who was the last player...

the Pirates developed and then watched leave? For that matter, who, other than Beltran, have the Royals developed and watched leave?

by uneasy rider on Jan 30, 2009 8:38 AM EST reply actions

Heh.

I think you have to go all the way back to Bonds to find one they didn’t trade before he hit FA.

I guess I might be overlooking someone, but if I am, then I’m overlooking him.

by Vlad on Jan 30, 2009 8:54 AM EST up reply actions

It's a trick question

The Pirates haven’t “developed” a player for 15 years.

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions

Not a Nate fan, I guess?

by Vlad on Jan 30, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions

He had to develop himself

against every attempt by Pirates management to squelch him, until last year.

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2009 8:51 PM EST up reply actions

Why develop anyone

…when you can sign a quality free agent like Joe Randa (sorry, folks, I liked Sean Casey…), clog up the position, and give your young players no hope of advancing? That way you can … wait, what can you do if you build a team that way???

by Trogluddite on Jan 30, 2009 10:43 PM EST up reply actions

that is not true

We developed A-Ram rushed him, goofed him up and traded him for nothing. We developed Guillen, rushed him, goofed him up and traded him for nothing. As far as the Royals Damon, Tartabull, Saberhagen were all studs that were developed by the Royal that they then watched leave.

by SHOOTFOR2010 on Jan 30, 2009 10:10 AM EST reply actions

Don't remind us of A-Ram

The only Pirates games I get to watch in my area besides those against the Giants are some of the games against the Cubs. Every single time he comes up it reminds me of that trade.

I can understand that maybe he was about to get too expensive for the Pirates, but I will never be able to understand why they chose to trade him for nothing.

by WestCoastBuc on Jan 30, 2009 10:26 AM EST up reply actions

He wasn't that expensive

And of course the bigger problem was that we got literally nothing out of him and Kenny Lofton. Jesus H. Christ.

by shayborg on Jan 30, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions

Goofing up players

is not development.

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2009 8:52 PM EST up reply actions

I am not opposed to this signing.

by wickethewok on Jan 30, 2009 10:50 AM EST reply actions

Most Important Stat

Don’t forget, Hinske played in the World Series in ‘08 AND ’07, so he has to be a ’winner / gamer / intangibles-haver’ — as long as he dives for a ball and gets dusty in the first week of the season, then calls out unnamed players for not hustling in the second week, Bucco fans will forget about Mientkiewicz in no time.

by Dan H on Jan 30, 2009 11:34 AM EST reply actions