It's in the Minors
by Charlie on Jan 6, 2009 4:07 PM EST
105 comments
Why didn't the Pirates just give this guy seventeen million? (Photo: Scott Ableman)
I can't blame any fan for being frustrated with the Pirates' losing ways, because we're all frustrated. But I still find this letter a little annoying.
I believe the Pirates are doing a wonderful job at PNC Park to provide an entertaining venue. However, they have not provided a competitive baseball team to watch at the park. While much of the blame for this problem can be placed on past management, the current management does not appear to have taken a course that is much different. Current management's resistance to throwing away money in the free agent market is encouraging. However, free agents in whom the Pirates have shown interest since the end of the 2008 season appear to be of the same caliber of talent as the free agents of the past - players that few, if any, other teams are really interested in. What's worse, the trades that were made last summer removed proven talent for prospects who have not shown promise.
These views are shared by many Pirates fans, perhaps now a majority. For the most part, they're based on a massive disconnect between where fans expect results and where, at this early point in the tenures of Frank Coonelly and Neal Huntington, we could reasonably expect to see them.
I think we all can agree that, regardless of how you feel about the Pirates' spending habits, the fortunes of a team in the Bucs' position are closely connected to its minor league system. Strangely, though, I don't think I've seen a rant like the one above that really addresses the minor league system at all.
Dave Littlefield's reign of error at the big-league level has been well documented. But he was no less awful at the minor league level, and by the end of his tenure he was essentially behaving like he thought the team would be contracted. He picked Daniel Moskos over Matt Wieters, passed over high-upside players late in the draft, ignored Latin America, ignored the back end of his 40-man roster, ignored the issue of depth. He behaved like nothing that happened after 2009 mattered. Despite a horrible farm system and no immediate chance of contending at the big league level, Littlefield took a reliever with the fourth overall pick of the 2007 draft. Think about that. Contemplate it. It's staggering.
In the early 2000s, the Montreal Expos actually thought they might be contracted. In that time and in the weird years that followed, they traded Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee and Brandon Phillips for Bartolo Colon. They traded Chris Young (the pitcher) for Einar Diaz (who, incidentally, has the weird distinction of being traded not only for Young but for Travis Hafner). They traded Jason Bay for Lou Collier. They used first-round draft picks on Chad Cordero and Bill Bray (neither of whom are terrible pitchers, but they're both relievers). They let Vladimir Guerrero leave and didn't offer him arbitration. As a result, when the team relocated to Washington, it had a terrible farm system and little at the major league level. They had a hole they're still trying to dig their way out of, four years later.
The Pirates team Coonelly and Huntington inherited was really no better. There was just one potential impact player in the farm system (Andrew McCutchen), a perennial 67-win major league team, and a general lack of good young players anywhere in the organization.
There was no realistic chance the Pirates could have built a playoff team with the core that was in place. None. It was a mismatched team--an awful defensive team with a bunch of mediocre starting pitchers who pitched to contact. However encouraging the offense's start in 2008 may have been, the bushels of runs the Pirates gave up said much more about their future than the hitting did. The Bucs' pitching wasn't good, but the hideous defense, provided (of course) by the same players who'd suddenly made the offense look palatable, made the pitching look far worse than it actually was. The defense was awful at converting balls in play into outs. This isn't my opinion; this is a fact. And the pitching staff allowed tons of balls in play. If you were trying to build a bad team, the 2008 Pirates' combination of defense and pitching would be a great start.
I simply don't see any way around this. You can blame the Pirates' balls-in-play issues on guys like Zach Duke or Tom Gorzelanny somehow magically turning everybody into a great hitter, and there's no doubt that neither of those guys were great pitchers in 2008, but all the evidence, from the Pirates' defensive efficiency to things like those pitchers' line drive percentages and ground ball rates, suggests that the defense was a huge part of the problem.
The 2008 Bucs could not have become a contending team with a couple of better seasons from some underachieving pitchers. That wasn't the issue. The team simply wasn't good enough and wasn't constructed in a way that made any sense. And the total lack of depth in the farm system, along with the fact that many key players were already at their peak age and would become free agents after 2009 anyway, ensured that things only would have gotten worse if Coonelly and Huntington stood pat.
As for the Pirates' minor league system, consider that Littlefield managed to torpedo the short-season State College Spikes in 2008, nearly a year after he was fired. It sounds weird that a guy who hadn't been GM for a year could have much to do with a short-season team that mostly exists because recent draftees need a place to play, but nonethless, Littlefield managed to kill that team. There were other circumstances that didn't help, but mostly, the Spikes' awful record this year was the result of Littlefield's terrible drafting and indifference to Latin America. It's hard to underestimate how pervasive Littlefield's influence was, and how deadly. The minor league system Coonelly and Huntington inherited was nothing short of a disaster.
Given the unavoidable connection between minor-league strength and major-league strength, Coonelly and Huntington's only responsible choice was to rebuild the minor leauge system, and that is exactly what they have sought to do. The letter writer's claim that "While much of the blame for this problem can be placed on past management, the current management does not appear to have taken a course that is much different" only reveals, to me, that he probably doesn't read the paper he's writing to. For example, he'd only need to check this article about Latin America or this article about the draft. Things are obviously different, and if fans can't see it, it's because they don't understand the scope of the problem Coonelly and Huntington inherited, or aren't willing to accept that the minor league system has to change before the big-league team can meaningfully change.
I bet the writer of the letter is guilty of the latter. The author praises the Pirates for avoiding the free-agent boondoggles of the Littlefield years (I assume he means people like Jeromy Burnitz) but blames new management for pursuing players few other teams would want.
Well, first, what desirable player would want to play for the Pirates unless the Pirates offered him substantially more than his market value? Pat Burrell signed with the Rays for $16 million, but there isn't a chance he'd come to the Pirates unless the Pirates offered substantially--substantially--more. I don't know that for sure, but I know that for sure. And beyond the fact that having Pat Burrell would be cool, what does a player like that have to do with the Pirates' long-term plan? He wouldn't put the Pirates over the top. Other teams should want to pay more for desirable free agents than the Pirates do, because the value of an extra win is a lot greater for an 85-win team than it is for a 67-win team. A playoff appearance brings in money, so teams that are very close to that threshold are the ones that should be spending big on free agents.
I know most Pirates fans don't really care about the dollar value of a win, and to a certain extent, they shouldn't. Money is the owner's problem, not ours. But the Pirates are right to avoid expensive free agents, for whom they'd have to overpay, probably with long commitments. Think of it this way: if it's the end of the 2011 season and a core of players led by Pedro Alvarez, McCutchen and Jose Tabata has just led the Pirates to an 84-win year, wouldn't it be a bummer to have to pay $12 million in 2012 to an aging and increasingly ineffective veteran signed in the 2008-2009 offseason? Wouldn't you rather have that money to use then? The fact is that, by the time most players reach free agency, they are past their primes. Committing to an expensive free agent would thus create problems later, if the Bucs actually did get to the point when they were ready to compete.
If you would like the Pirates to sign star free agents--well, who should they be? Rocco Baldelli isn't a terrible idea, and in the BD comments, rogero has also argued very intelligently in favor of signing players like Adam Dunn and Ben Sheets. Those definitely aren't the world's worst ideas, but given Dunn's contact issues and hulking physique and Sheets' injury problems, I wouldn't bet on either of them being effective in 2011 or 2012, when they'd likely still be on the Pirates' payroll.
If free agents that require long commitments are mostly out, that mostly leaves the Pirates looking for free agents few other teams want, because (as one commenter on the original Post-Gazette thread points out) few players would want to sign with the Pirates for a year or two unless the Pirates could promise them something other teams wouldn't offer, like a starting job.
In other words, people who look at the free agents Coonelly and Huntington are pursuing or not pursuing and see the same old Pirates are missing the point. In fact, looking at the 67-win season the Bucs are likely to have next year and seeing the same old Pirates misses the point. The minors and the majors are intimately connected, and the former has to come before the latter. Remaking a completely busted minor league system takes time--probably three to four years. If you want to see the differences between Huntington and Littlefield, the minor leagues are the place to look. This is not to excuse any failures Huntington has had at the major league level--any GM whose team uses Luis Rivas as much as the Pirates did last year has something to answer for--but to worry about those and not see the obvious improvements at the scouting and development levels misses the point entirely.
UPDATE: WTM nails it:
Littlefield went for moves that looked like improvements because moves that really are improvements for a struggling franchise are nearly always painful. He would have agreed enthusiastically with Kovacevic’s statement about winning in 2009. Littlefield’s and McClatchy’s single biggest failing was that they lacked the fortitude to make tough decisions, but now Huntington and Coonelly are being raked over the coals whenever they make one.
6 recs |
105 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Well written Charlie...
I read the article this morning, and was agreeing with the letter until started saying how the new management isn’t doing stuff much differently. Then it started reading like someone that wanted the team to have a winning season now, even with the expense of the future… by throwing a ton of money at ‘big-name’ FAs (who probably wouldn’t sign with the Pirates anyways) who will probably fall off soon, while blocking the young talent we have (as limited as it seems to be).
Anyhow, I was reading your thoughts on the thoughts of guys like Baldelli or Dunn or Sheets, and have to ask… what about the opinion of Ken Rosenthal that Nick Swisher would be a fit here? I know it’s a bit different (he’s not a FA, he’s younger, etc.), but would he be a worthwhile addition (in your opinion)? And what would it cost to get him? It seems like the Yankees want pitchers (who doesn’t?), but with the make-up of the current team, would it be worth trading a pitcher for Swisher?
by UtesFan89 on Jan 6, 2009 4:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t want the Pirates to trade much for him, but I wouldn’t mind taking on the contract. He’s cheap enough that it’d be worth it, in my view, even though he’s risky.
by Charlie on Jan 6, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What you're missing, Charlie
Yeah, I think Swisher is a good fit. 304 BBs + HBP in the last three years. Cheap, coming off a down year, in his prime (28), with LH power and a glove good enough to cover CF in short spurts. With Teixeira and a ton of OFers the Yanks would no doubt like to unload him. I’d certainly talk seriously with them.
He’s a gamble and not likely to be a major piece, but the point is, he adds talent to the major league team. That’s the first point to which you and Wilbur are giving short shrift. While of course prospects with upside are the most important need, that should not be the only focus. The Pirates need to grab talent wherever they can find it.
But not just talent, undervalued talent. You’re on a budget. What you’re really looking for is value. The Yankees and Red Sox can concentrate on adding talent, the Pirates must look for value. That’s straight Moneyball. Why do you think Beane traded for 29 yearold Holliday with a club that on paper looks like it can’t compete? Because he thinks Holliday is worth more than he paid for him, both in talent and salary. More value to his team on the field and, depending on how things go, more value in the trade market. The idea that Beane should wait until his team looks to be more competetive before adding a piece like Holliday ignores all the uses to which Holliday’s value can be put.
It’s obvious isn’t it, that now that the big boys have made off with hundreds of millions apiece, the remaining FA are going to be scrambling for relative crumbs and shorter deals? If you think Burrell can do again for two years what he has done consistently for the last four ( 261/386/504), a decent bet, he’s a steal for Tampa Bay at $8 million. Talk is now of Abreu having to settle for a one year deal and Dunn likely to end up with Washington and Sheets probably back with the Brewers if they can find the money. So, please, at a minimum, no more talk about long term commiments tying up the budget when we think our porspects will become impact players in the bigs.
Wilbur says Burrell at 2 years wouldn’t bother him. I’ll go further. I’d have given him $20 million for 2 years (that might have been enough for Burrell to start thinking: boy, PNC is a beautiful park to play in). Sure he’s a lousy OFer, but he catches what he gets to and RF in PNC is very small. He can play 1B—he started there with the Phillies—should the Buccos ever find a taker for LaRoche (or, more likely, he walks in 2010 in which you have a one year replacement in Burrell already on the roster). And plopping him in the middle of the order with his power and OBA would have a major impact on runs.
We all know the money is there. It’s simply false to claim that signing Burrell would mean curtailing spending somewhere else in the organization. It’s either Burrell or McNutter pockets. It is true that one signing limits money for others, but that’s true of the whole payroll—we’re talking alternatives here. And a Burrell deal only covers 09/10 when you say, Charlie, and I agree, the Bucs aren’t likely to compete. But that’s no reason to ignore the big club and concentrate solely on the minors.
Would Burrell block anyone on the field in the next two years?. Not Cutch or Tabata, I think, being only 22 and 21 in ’09 respectively. Maybe Pierce or to a lesser extent Moss, but neither is a sure building block and the Pirates show little interest in playing Pierce. A while back Dejan discussed the OF for ’09 and never even mentioned Pierce! I think he thinks that reflects FO thinking. Surely playing Pierce at the end of last only when they ran out of other options is a bad sign.
I acknowledge that 2 years and $20 million may not have gotten Burrell. I’m using his case as an example.
In short, it’s not just in the minors. It’s about accumulating talent within a budget (the real budget, not the artificially restricted one the Pirates feed the media) at both major and minor leagues levels. The more talent the Pirates have everwhere the better chance they have to get even more.
by rogero on Jan 7, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that might have been enough for Burrell to start thinking: boy, PNC is a beautiful park to play in
Or it might have been enough to convince him that the LF expanse was swallowing too many HRs to be good for his market value.
by WTM on Jan 7, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pounce when you are close
Shawn, over at Squawking Baseball, argues the case that the only truly bad strategy is to be mediocre. When you are bad, your payroll is low and you can garner high draft choices. When the time comes, you push hard to be good for a while. It’s the Marlins model, and Shawn concludes that the PBC finally understands it.
Clearly the Pirates aren’t close. But it is also clear that there is a real concerted effort to infuse the minor league system with talent, and most knowledgeable observers would give high marks to the 2008 efforts. You have to do that repeatedly to see the real payoff. I could not agree more that the current management team has taken a new approach. Take a gander: looking hard for talent in the draft, looking hard for Latin American talent, looking hard for existing talent at distressed values, using the Rule 5 draft creatively.
It is a new day, but you won’t see it in PNC park for a while.
Viva Clemente!
by Roberto on Jan 6, 2009 4:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Average Fan
You believe that the letter writer’s problem is that they do not understand that the minor league system needs to be fixed first. I think you are giving them too much credit. The average fan is probably totally unaware of the minor league system. In addition, since 90% of mainstream baseball media is about the Yankees and Red Sox and all the money they spend, average seat fillers just conclude that Pirates management is bad. They don’t see the detail, nor do they see the long-term. They don’t want to either, they probably do not visit websites like this one, and that’s fine. Hopefully intelligent, thoughtful baseball fans like those on this site (pandering) start posting their thoughts on site where the average fan will see it.
by Blyleven Curve Ball on Jan 6, 2009 4:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Very well done, Charlie
Though I’m still waiting for Huntington to pull off something particularly crafty – something like the Matt Joyce or Nick Swisher trades. I suppose he still has this offseason to see if he has a chance to sign an undervalued FA.
by wickethewok on Jan 6, 2009 5:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Charlie
I guess that blog entry set us both off.
by WTM on Jan 6, 2009 5:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I guess
we were all writing about the same thing at the same time. I just put in about an hour and a half writing the same things lol.
by northsidenotch on Jan 6, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good article. I loved the lines about Huntington getting ripped every time he stops doing what Littlefield did. It amazes me to see so many people making arguments that come straight out of Littlefield’s chapbook.
by Charlie on Jan 6, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Accepting The Challenge!
The expansion Arizona Diamondbacks were a struggling expansion franchise on the field; however, they were extremely successful at the gate and enjoyed record attendance to watch a relatively low-payroll expansion team,
But management was concerned that they would have a significant drop-off in attendance in the 1999 season if they didn’t put a winner on the field. So beginning with the expansion team, then over the next two to three years, they shelled out a lot of money for Matt Williams, Jay Bell, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, Mark Grace, Luis Gonzalez and others (many of whom I am forgetting) in trying to buy a winner.
And they were successful - at least in buying a World Series much like Huizenga was in Florida before he had to sell off his team. Some of these were free agent signings and some were trades, but few if any players on the 2001 World Series winner were developed by the Diamondbacks.
However, necessity is the mother of invention and the Diamondbacks finally saw the light. They are now much more free agent draft/development oriented these days as they will soon pay off all of their heavy, deferred contracts.
But you are right. It is absolutely foolhardy to try to build a team through free agency unless you are in New York or maybe LA or Chicago, or even Boston where the ancillary revenues are very high based on the population of the media market.
But if an organization is going to solely rely on drafting and then developing players, that organization better have very top-notch people in both the scouting and player development areas and I don’t believe that the Pirates are close to being where they need to be in those areas personnel-wise.
I also believe that a franchise has to be highly creative in other areas of running the front office so that, while it is trying to build primarily from within, it must be doing other things to put a winner on the field EVERY YEAR. This is the only way to maintain any semblance of a true fan base.
There are many effective promotions to put fans in the seats, but the most effective promotion is WINNING.
by thegunner on Jan 6, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The D’backs had a lot more financial resources than the Pirates. They drew 2.7M in 2001, just under 3M the year before, and over 3M the year before that.
As you mention, though, they also had to change their ways. They built that championship team by going seriously into debt and making repeated cash calls on ownership. They eventually had to borrow money from MLB to avoid bankruptcy and there were major problems within the ownership group.
by WTM on Jan 6, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
as a fan, I really don’t care if ownership is in debt, making cash calls or borrowing money… I care about whether the team is winning… in their 11 seasons, the diamondbacks have 4 playoff appearances and one championship… they’ve only had three seasons since their first where they were below .500, and they’ve used the corresponding draft picks to pick up stephen drew, justin upton and max scherzer… haven’t the diamondbacks more or less been pursuing a marlins strategy with high peaks and low valleys, albeit over a somewhat longer timespan?
by Captain Easychord on Jan 6, 2009 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the D’backs are pursuing a sound strategy now, shelling out above-slot amounts and looking for the highest ceilings they can get in the draft, giving their prospects a chance in the majors and using them in trades when it makes sense. They’ve really gotten away from the FA approach.
Generally, I agree that the team’s financial situation shouldn’t be the fans’ problem. But the D’backs have a promising future now because they quickly abandoned the approach that led to serious financial problems. If the cash calls and borrowing had continued, they’d be a basket case now and I’m sure their fans would care about that. I can’t blame any team for refusing to drive itself into bankruptcy.
by WTM on Jan 6, 2009 8:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WTM -- And What About The Marlins ..
under Huizenga, Leyland, and Dombrowski. Didn’t they “buy” a World Series with free agents?
by thegunner on Jan 7, 2009 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The challenge was to identify a struggling team that “turned itself around” by signing free agents. The Marlins followed that one title with five losing seasons, including 108 and 98 losses in the next two seasons, and they’ve been a financial basket case ever since. That one season came closer to wrecking the franchise than it did to turning it around.
by WTM on Jan 7, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Giving this post a +1
Great post. I encourage those of us who did appreciate this post give it a +1 in the recommendation slot.
Formerly known as Econolodge
by Willton on Jan 6, 2009 6:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, but I don’t think the recommendation function does anything for my posts. That’s for bigger blogs that separate “recommended” fanposts from regular ones. BD doesn’t do that yet.
by Charlie on Jan 6, 2009 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
I agree with Charlie, WTM and the rest. But, and I think this point has been made before by Wilbur, let’s continue to lift the dialogue here. I’m not suggesting DL never needs to be discussed again, but we don’t need to catalogue his reign of ineptitude. We’ve done it a million times and anybody seeking out this site understands that.
Charlie your recent posts on you “thoughts and philosophy” for lack of a better term have been great. Vlad and WTM bring great insight, knowledge and additional heft to this site. Let’s continue moving forward and leave the PBC blog and DL for other times.
There is so much better stuff to discuss, even if it isn’t all Bucco related. How about the 190 degree shift the Mariners have done in a year and the hiring of Tom Tango, ie Tangotiger?
by dtoddwin on Jan 6, 2009 6:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Or 180 degree.....
Maybe they just spun a little too far.
by dtoddwin on Jan 6, 2009 6:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Odd folk those 'let us win now'ers'
They prefer the certainty of losing indefinitely when it is coupled to the delusion of “competitiveness” (the otherwise unlamented ‘drive for 75’ strategy) over the actually building to compete for something in the indefinite future while knowing the team will lose in the short-term. In other words, these dim bulbs prefer losing all of the time to winning some of the time when the always losing option includes snorting large amounts of McClatchyfield magic dust.
No thanks, for me. I’d rather the team lose big building to win than to watch additional ‘drive for 75’ idiocy.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Jan 6, 2009 6:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Three very good articles . . .
. . . by Emperor Chaz, Wilbur and NSN — what they said! And thanks for linking in with Charlie’s site, guys.
I can’t walk a mile in the shoes of the letter writer — I’m 3,000 miles away from being a PBC season ticket holder in the best circumstances. I feel his very sincere frustration.
But I am so frustrated by those who are judging the Nady and Bay trades based on only 60 games, or even just Luigi’s BA coming off hand surgery. I like Charlie’s analogy that Littlefield general managed like someone whose team was about to be contracted. He said time and time again wouldn’t trade for prospects — he insisted on “major league ready” guys who invariably (excepting Freddy Sanchez) turned out to be AAAA players like Bobby “That Boy Ain’t Right” Hill.
Huntington has shown the absolute opposite approach so far, with 19 y.o. Tabata and Class A Bryan Morris being center pieces of his 2 major trades in 2008.
And Huntington has avoided Littlefield’s bizarre strategy of drafting (usually in the top 1-5 picks in the draft) mid-relievers (Moskos) or pitchers he’d call potential future number 3 or number 4 starters (Killer B’s). Again, the college guys Huntington drafted in the first round were almost all low-upside “safe” bets who so far have given the PBC absolutely nothing.
I know Littlefield always claimed it was just a lot of bad luck with injuries, especially to the 1st round starting pitchers. But I can’t forgive Littlefield — I’ve always believed that “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is Enemy Action.”
So I can’t agree with the letter writer that Huntington is anything like Littlefield. I can agree that (a) Huntington isn’t perfect (who is?), and (b) there may be legitimate reasons not to buy season tickets for the clearly rebuilding PBC in 2009.
If I were the Powers That Be of the PBC, I’d be marketing minor leaguers like Alvarez, Tabata and Morris as much as McLouth, Doumit and Capp.
by WstCstBucco on Jan 6, 2009 6:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fantastic work by all
Seems like everyone posts like crazy about this every time something of that nature goes up on the PG site. As usual, you nailed it.
Brian from Raise the Jolly Roger!
by Raise the Jolly Roger on Jan 6, 2009 7:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The funny part is that, every time Dejan links to a blog entry like this, he gets people on his blog telling him not to link to Charlie, Pat, et al., any more. Definitely two divergent points of view.
by WTM on Jan 6, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was just thinking about that, actually. It’s a lot easier to say you liked something (as I have with his excellent coverage of Latin America and with other aspects of his reporting, which is generally great) than it is to critique. The latter takes time and energy and words, which results in long posts, which results in him linking them. Which probably makes some of his readers think we just rip him all the time, which isn’t the case at all. I like his writing a lot. But I don’t understand his perspective on this issue, which happens to be a pretty important one.
by Charlie on Jan 6, 2009 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t even know why he put up that letter. Maybe because things were slow and wanted to get a rise out of this site.
by northsidenotch on Jan 6, 2009 8:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure it’s the kind of attention the Post-Gazette would want, but all the blogs ARE talking about it.
Other than that, I didn’t really see why it was worthy of attention, either.
by Charlie on Jan 6, 2009 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If that letter made you mad don't read this
From the Q&A section, the first letter from John:
"I am a diehard Pirates fan and am very frustrated that they keep developing some stars and then trade them away. My question is: Will they ever try to keep them?
Also why don’t they go more aggressively after some quality free agents?"
http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/pbc/archive/2009/01/06/pirates-q-amp-a-chasing-rocco.aspx
Just no convincing some people. I often have this argument with my old man, he just can’t understand why the Pirates trade away good players no matter how I explain it to him that the PBC needs to develop the minor leagues first.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Jan 6, 2009 8:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I wonder what stars this guy thinks the Pirates have developed and traded. Aramis, sure. Bay? Padres. Ollie? Padres. Giles? Indians. Nady? Padres and not a star.
by WTM on Jan 6, 2009 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And beyond the fact that having Pat Burrell would be cool, what does a player like that have to do with the Pirates’ long-term plan?
Isn’t it enough that it would be cool to have a pat burrell? I mean, really… baseball is supposed to be entertainment, and unlike the dreadful and hopeless Pirates teams from the last decade, one thing that set the 2008 Pirates apart was that they were fun to watch. So it’s fine and dandy to point to numbers and to make academic arguments about why ruining a team’s entertainment value will be good in the long run, it still doesn’t address the complaint that you’re taking away something Pirates fans haven’t seen for a long time: baseball that was fun to watch (even if it wasn’t necessarily winning baseball)…
As far as the Pirates’ long-term plan, Burrell or any other FA probably has minimal impact… Whether or not they sign him, they don’t win this year or next. Three years out, IF all goes well Alvarez, McCutchen and Tabata might lead the 2011 team to 84 wins. I still don’t know where the pitching on that team comes from, and clearly these guys will need more support than the franchise can currently offer… Charlie previously argued that McLouth and Doumit have already peaked, so they’ll only decline from here… I don’t see how that team is competitive… and so whatever FAs are signed now – in all likelihood – aren’t going to affect the team’s long-term plan (unless they can be dealt for young talent farther down the line)… but they might make ’em a little more watchable between now and then…
I guess this does depend on when you think the franchise puts its next winner on the field though… If Alvarez is to the Pirates as Upton was to the Rays, that puts a winner about five years out, which seems right to me… The question, then, is whether it matters if the Pirates actually win 65 games or 75 games for the next five seasons (not that any one FA would necessarily make that substantial of a difference)…
by Captain Easychord on Jan 6, 2009 8:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Jeez that’s a depressing post. Thoughtful, and not necessarily wrong, but depressing.
by Charlie on Jan 6, 2009 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I mean, I’m holding out hope for 2012, just to preserve my sanity.
by Charlie on Jan 6, 2009 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I briefly glanced at the letter earlier today, and looked at it again after reading the posts above. I think what’s being missed is that the letter writer was talking about specifics (Ramon Vasquez, Andy LaRoche) while many of those who post on boards focus on generalities (Rule 5, Latin America).
I support what the current management is doing, but it’s true that Ramon Vazquez is at best a journeyman who just had a career year at 30. It’s true that Hansen and Andy LaRoche don’t call to mind Sid Bream and Johnny Ray as major-league ready players. It’s probably true that, of the 8 guys acquired for Marte/Nady/Bay, seven have declined in value since the trades.
Eventually, all major league teams are going to do statistical analysis, and when that day comes, there will be really crappy teams that lose year after year, despite having all the right ideas. At that point, we’ll all have to look at GM’s trade by trade again, instead of just asking if they agree with our principles.
by Arnold Rothstein on Jan 6, 2009 9:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The claim that current management hasn’t taken a course much different from past management is pretty broad and general, and I think sparked a lot of the response. Comments about Rule 5 and Latin America are a legitimate response to that.
by WTM on Jan 6, 2009 9:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure why the values of Tabata, Karstens or Dan McCutchen would’ve decreased at all, and I’m not sure why the values of Morris, Ohlendorf, or Moss would’ve decreased by much. Hansen stinks, but he was just a throw-in. I think the angry response to the trades mostly comes down to LaRoche.
by Charlie on Jan 6, 2009 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
one other thing...
I also don’t think the sentiments of the author are shared by a “many” Pirates fans or even “perhaps a majority”… I think this is the overwhelming sentiment amongst the fan base. The simple truth is that casual fans generally don’t give this stuff that much thought… they read the papers, they see the results, they know about major transactions… and that’s how they come to their opinions…
they don’t know the first thing about VORP or DIPS or marginal value of wins… they’ve never heard of Leo Nunez, much less why it was stupid for the Pirates to get rid of him… heck, a lot of ‘em probably can’t name 3 guys who pitched out of the bullpen last year…
when they do read about baseball or the Pirates online, they’re not coming here or to whygavs… charlie and pat, respectively have 40 and 25 followers on google reader… compare that to the PBC blog’s 116 and the PG’s general pirates feed, which is over 315… this isn’t to knock charlie or pat, both of whom do a good job… just to point out that the audience and the commenters are a drop in the bucket…
the rest of the bucket are folks like my friend who has given up on following this miserable bunch of losers, my dad who doesn’t have time for anything else and my younger brothers who have found other things to do and just don’t care about baseball anymore, since the pirates haven’t had a winning team their entire life… and it’s this bucket that buys most of the tickets, hot dogs and merchandise…
given these attitudes and given the way that I completely forgot about football once I dropped out of my fantasy league, I can’t help but wonder what the chances are of pittsburgh becoming the new montreal… pretty low, I think, given the advantages of a longer history and an infinitely better ballpark… but nonzero nevertheless…
by Captain Easychord on Jan 6, 2009 9:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Great article Charlie...
Just want to congratulate you on hitting the point exactly. As painful as it is, you are right about the mindset of the many. There are no guarantees this management will spend if and when it is time, but you have to give them a chance WHEN that time comes. I think most of it comes down to patience. People won’t accept your answer because it is fairly complicated and takes thought, it is much easier to just see the free agents picked up by other teams and say: “Why didn’t we take him?!?”
by SkeedTom on Jan 7, 2009 1:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
THANK YOU CHARLIE
I read the article(with the letter) yesterday and I wanted to scream. Being the baseball purist I am, sometimes I have to give average fans the benefit of the doubt because they aren’t as passionate or detail oriented as me. But this guy had my blood boiling, I think he actually mentioned that the current management blames all of the problems on past management(which is totally incorrect), which tells me that he hasn’t been paying attention to Pirate news at all. I challenge him to point out any moment that NH or FC blames DL for anything. I am very encouraged by the direction this team is going and I am very patient because I don’t want a one year 82 win team, I want a perennial 90+ win team to which I believe that NH and FC can provide. Back to that knuclehead that gave up his tickets, I hope he has to be put on the 10 year waiting list after the Pirates start selling out like the Steelers(I can dream).
by Piratefan13 on Jan 7, 2009 8:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Correction
I had thought the letter writer accused NH and FC of blaming DL… now who is drawing up fantasies?? LOL
by Piratefan13 on Jan 7, 2009 8:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Two things
I don’t have time to read all of the above responses right now, but I wanted to get a few things off my chest:
1. Please explain to me why Burnitz is the poster child for awful free agent signings? Okay, he sucked and there was every indication that he would suck when we signed him. That said, it was a one year deal (unlike Mulholland, Bell, etc) and he wasn’t blocking anybody. Joe Randa, version 2, should be the poster child – he figured to suck and was blocking the prospect that ended up winning the batting title that year. When you look at Burnitz, the only tangible loss to the team was money and so long as it wasn’t going to be spent on something better, who cares? Which leads to my next item…
2. I don’t feel guilty about wanting to have my cake and eat it too. I fully understand the importance of building this team from the farm system up and agree with 95% of everything Charlie and others have said in that regard. But we shouldn’t be precluded from making INTELLIGENT substantial financial commitments at the big league level now just because there is a righteous overwhelming financial commitment to acquiring amateur talent. To be sure, there are practical issues (we had no chance of signing Tex or CC; and as Charlie discussed it isn’t easy to identifying good fits). However, other than ownership not wanting to spend the money, I cannot think of any good reason that the Pirates should not be interested in good free agents to play 1B, SP or RP, and perhaps both middle infield positions.
The financial commitment to acquiring amateur talent (including the Dominican academy) is impressive and a thrilling first step, but it offers no hope that ownership has the desire or wherewithal to spend the money necessary to field a consistently competitive big league team. It’d be one thing if the team announced that it was eschewing big league free agents for a short while to funnel all of that money into amateur acquisitions (draft, Latin America, etc), but that isn’t what is happening. I’m thrilled with the commitment to signing amateurs, but that kind of money is nothing compared to what it costs to sign one middling free agent along the lines of Pat Burrell (who I do not think would be a good fit for us).
I suppose the bottom line is this: the commitment to amateur player acquisition is tremendous, but is only part of the story. When you look at what ownership is willing to spend on all players (amateur acquisitions and big league payroll including free agents) and compare that to what other teams are doing, there is no reason to believe that we will keep a reasonable number of the impact players. Thus, I don’t see any reason to believe that we will ever be consistently competitive. This is why I haven’t given ownership a dime of my money since 2007 and won’t until I see an INTELLIGENT and substantial financial commitment to winning at the big league level, no matter how thrilled I am with the minor league changes/acquisitions.
Nothing I wrote is meant to suggest a return to financial irresponsibility. The key is INTELLIGENT spending. I won’t get into defining ‘intelligent’ in this post, but I suspect that my definition would be at least 99% consistent with Charlie, Vlad, Wilbur and the other respected regulars.
If the Nuttings can’t afford or won’t spend the money necessary to field a competitive team then they should sell it.
I am open-minded and would love to have somebody explain how I am wrong or unreasonable with any of this.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jan 7, 2009 8:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Simple answer
The difference is that I don’t see any intelligent way to spend a lot of money right now.
Although, oddly enough, Burrell for two years wouldn’t have bothered me.
by WTM on Jan 7, 2009 9:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On Burnitz
You’re incorrect in saying that he was not blocking anyone. This has been mentioned ad nauseum here, but Burnitz was blocking Craig Wilson, a superior player at the time.
Formerly known as Econolodge
by Willton on Jan 7, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also Nate.
Who was getting maybe one or two starts a week as Duffy’s backup in CF.
by Vlad on Jan 7, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
I forgot about Craig, probably b/c he was pushed aside so often. Nevertheless, you both make very good points.
That said, I still think Randa v.2 is the better example.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jan 7, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Some ways yes, some ways no.
Randa was, at least, a useful player the year before we signed him (.276/.335/.452, good for a 107 OPS+ that was the third-highest of his career). Burnitz was coming off a worse batting line (.258/.322/.435, 94 OPS+) with a Derek Bell-style second half collapse (.237/.300/.387), and was expected to play a position with a much higher offensive baseline.
As far as free agent signings go, I think Walt Terrell is probably the worst one in team history. He had turned in a few #3-type performances at his best, but was coming off 206 innings of 82 ERA+ when we signed him, and we gave him $800k back when that was real money. In return, he totally collapsed in our rotation (16 starts, 82 2/3 IP, 5.88 ERA, 61 ERA+, 1/1 K/BB), and nearly cost us the division title. Mercifully, he was released in late July.
Honorable mentions:
*Alejandro Pena – $1.475M in 1993 and 1994 for 28 innings of below-average relief. He was already hurt when we signed him, had elbow surgery before he threw a pitch in black and gold, and recovered just in time to leave as a FA.
*Mike Kingery – $750K in 1996. We signed him away from the Rockies to be our starting CF, but didn’t understand how park effects worked, and were unpleasantly surprised by a .246/.304/.337 line in 276 AB. It was the last ML season of his career.
*Terry Mulholland – $2.75M in 2001. He pitched OK for us (3.72 ERA in 36 1/3 innings – 123 ERA+), and brought back Mike Fetters and Adrian Burnside when we flipped him at the deadline, but that team needed to rebuild in the worst way, and we had no business giving up our second-round draft pick (#52 overall) for the privilige of making a 38-year-old situational reliever one of our highest-paid players. That was the year when we were basically pulling guys off the street to fill out our rotation (we traded for Oh-my! Olivares and signed Ramon Martinez in spring training and quickstepped Joe Beimel into the ML rotation, among other things), and we ended the offseason with Mulholland earning the second-highest salary on the pitching staff. Madness.
by Vlad on Jan 7, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
The amazing thing to me is how many people talk like the Pirates were a couple games behind the Cubs and if the Pirates traded for Randy Wolf or LaTroy Hawkins or even CC Sabathia, they would have taken over first and seen some playoff time. The fact is that the Brewers, a vastly superior team before the Sabathia trade, barely made the playoffs on the last day of the season. The Pirates were nowhere near as good as the Brewers, so why bother making some symbolic push to get over .500?
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 7, 2009 8:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to debate Uncle Nate
Nate,
Let me offer this nugget for you… If the owner is willing to invest millions of dollars into a facility in the DR and millions of dollars into prospects(Alvarez) doesn’t that in itself prove that this owner(Nutting) is willing to invest in the Pirates becoming a winner. Let me expain this a little better, the facility in the DR and prospects like Alvarez don’t affect the ticket sales of 2009, they are considerable risks, am I right? Alvarez may never pan out, the DR facility may never produce a quality Major Leaguer. So the argument that Nutting is only pocketing money and not willing to spend money at the MLB level is ludicrous(not the rapper). What Nutting is not willing to do is waste money that could be used developing or finding our possible superstars on 1 year FA’s that provide us little more than name recognition for a year. INTELLIGENT spending right now is in the devepmental and scouting processes. There will be a time in the future for us to go after that coveted FA, but only when the core structure has been developed and is succesful.
by Piratefan13 on Jan 7, 2009 8:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough, but
Your response is lacking in two ways.
1. You do not provide any reason for optimism that when the time comes to spend to keep a winning/competitive team together that the Pirates will be willing or able to do so.
2. You seem to be suggesting that because money is not being spent on free agents the team is able to devote far greater resources to amateur acquistions (including the D.R. academy), but I don’t see the cause and effect relationship. I am not taking the time to look it up right now, but the D.R. facility is costing about $3m. That’s great, but what intelligent free agent signing is not being made because we made the necessary $3m commitment in the Dominican? That money is peanuts compared to what needs to be spent to maintain a winning big league roster and thus does not, as I see it, suggest that a reasonable commitment to spending on big league payroll will be there was necessary.
Our amateur signing expenses in 2008 were impressive and near the top of the league. But is not as if we were so far at the top of the scale that is explains not intelligently spending money on the big league payroll. The other teams at the top of the scale for amateur signing costs in 2008 surely have shown a much more significant commitmen to ALSO spending money on the big league payroll.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jan 7, 2009 9:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nutting stated
That when the Pirates had established a core group of talent, and were successful, he would pay whatever it will cost to fill the holes and push for the championship. The only thing I have is his willingness to pay out money for scouting and development, and his word. There is no sense in me being pessimistic for 2-3 years while I wait for the core group of guys to get established in the ML. Sure I’d like to get Tiexera and Sabathia or Sheets, but other than name recognition, what would they do for the Pirates for 2009 or 2010 for that matter. I say save the money now and in 2010 or 2011 when Alvarez, Tabata, McCutchen, McLouth, and pitchers Morris, Gorzelanny, Ohlendorf, and Snell are lighting it up, then go after the hot to trot FA then.
by Piratefan13 on Jan 7, 2009 9:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As I’ve mentioned in the past, the Dominican facility is an asset that can be sold in the future, maybe as a ballpark, maybe just as real estate, so it really is in a different category than player salaries.
The “intelligent” moves that I would like to see at the major league level are ones that would just get the team to…a major league level. I don’t think there’s any reason to have Nyjer Morgan starting in the outfield. I don’t think there’s any reason to have Luis Cruz on the bench.
Spending money to keep the major league roster up to par is not wasting money. I don’t think that anyone imagines that what went on in July, as pitcher after pitcher cycled through Pittsburgh, Indy, and Altoona, thinks that any player development went on during that time. We have to have sufficient players at all levels to provide depth to cover a simple injury, and to provide some kind of competition for prospects to test themselves against.
by Arnold Rothstein on Jan 7, 2009 9:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And which FA's fit that bill?
Which ones are going to come in and help us win and “challenge” our prospects. I think everyone thinks that just because we offer a FA more money than another team that he automatically would choose us. Burrell costed $16 Million to the Rays(who are a competitve team), how much would have we had to offer him to come to PNC. So would $20-22 Million to Burrell be “intelligent?”
Offering contracts to FA’s and actually getting them to committ to a perennial 67 win team is worlds apart. Just ask the Nationals who had the highest offer package on the table for Tiexera.
In theory your argument holds water, but in reality, nobody wants to play for Pittsburgh… right now anyway.
by Piratefan13 on Jan 7, 2009 9:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
As a bookkeeping matter, yes, the Dominican facility, unlike a player contract, is a capital asset, so they’re different in that sense. But I doubt the facility has any meaningful resale value. Another MLB team looking for a facility will probably just build its own or rent a new one from somebody like Salomon Torres. Every team I’ve read about that’s been opening a new facility did one of the two. The land probably has some value, but I seriously doubt there’s anybody other than a MLB franchise to whom the facility would have any value and who’d also be able to pay much money for it.
I’m also skeptical of the idea of acquiring veterans to “challenge” prospects. That’s a concept that used to get bandied about under Bonifay and Lamont, who were clueless about how to integrate prospects into the major league team. A veteran signing with the Pirates will be getting a regular job, unless it’s somebody like Mientkiewicz or Vasquez who’s being signed to a modest contract for the explicit purpose of being a backup. If you have a real prospect, as opposed to somebody like Morgan, and you sign a veteran for his position, the veteran is going to play and the prospect isn’t.
by WTM on Jan 7, 2009 10:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Intelligent spending on major league payroll
You’re assuming that “intelligent spending” requires actual spending. Have you considered that perhaps the intelligent thing to do is not spend? To use an analogy, do you still have to purchase something at the store if you don’t like what it has in stock? Just because what’s available is attractive to some teams does not mean that it should be attractive for the Pirates.
Formerly known as Econolodge
by Willton on Jan 7, 2009 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I fully agree, but
How many years in a row is it likely that there simply wasn’t a good fit available? I’m not convinced that we have been looking – and I think we should be.
I fully agree that you don’t “force” a signing. However, the overwhelming sense I get from this venue is that the Pirates should not even consider signing a free agent costing more than $2m per year.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jan 7, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Furthermore
The notion that Jason Bay should have been kept around is also irresponsible. Jason was an average fielder and an above average hitter. Frankly, I liked him as a player, but he wasn’t a player to build a team around. I love how ESPN and Fox Sports jumped all over the Bay trade as the Pirates dumping salary, and the fact that we “couldn’t keep” our talent. The truth is actually that the Pirates were unwilling to pay out $15Million to an average-above average player. They seen that that could acquire 4 talented prospects in return, I applaud that deal, even now after seeing Andy LaRoche stink it up over at 3B. The simple facts are that all 4 guys are young and have upside, where Bay had only downside. With a new established and cerebral PC, who knows what will come of all the pitchers on the roster. What happens if LaRoche explodes on the scene with a breakout year? Guess we’d be forgetting all about Jason Bay. As far as Nady goes, I won’t even waste any space here discussing his trade. Anyone that thought Nady would benefit any part of the Pirates future other than to net prospects, certainly wasn’t thinking too clearly.
by Piratefan13 on Jan 7, 2009 9:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
what happens if the yankees don't win the world series
or don’t make the world series?
or make the playoffs as a wild card?
or “only” win 90 games?
the media and their fanbase will go crazy, and couple that with a large number of baseball fans openly despising them for trying to build as good a team as possible using their near infinite resources and you have a situation that looks as far removed from the pirates as possible.
And yet, if the yankees do not make the world series, the casual yankee fan will be upset at management as much as the casual pirates fan is upset at ownership. Or as much as any casual fan is upset, because casual fans either do not want to understand fully the situation, have unrealistic expectations or are reading and listening to people who should neither be read nor heard by anyone.
by vherub on Jan 7, 2009 12:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
So, here is a good question...
IF the Pirates know they will not be competitive this year, why not go about losing 100 games and make sure they get the best possible draft picks in 2010? I guess this is similar to what the Rays did, albeit unintentionally. I think this thought was mentioned in a blog post on this somewhere recently…
by SpacePirate on Jan 7, 2009 3:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Instead of criticizing the current management
for not acquiring various FAs that certain posters think would make the team better in 2009, we should take into account that few, if any, quality FAs want to play for the Bucs. If they have other options, they go elsewhere, and this isn’t likely to change soon after 16 consecutive losing seasons, courtesy of McClatchy, Bonifay, Littlefield, and others.
by patthatt on Jan 7, 2009 6:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
There seems to be an underlying assumption with a lot of fans that if the Pirates decide they want a certain FA, they can sign him if they just shell out enough money. I’m sure that’s literally true, but in the real world things aren’t that simple.
Take Burrell as an example. The Rays signed him for, what, $18M? Assuming I’m remembering that correctly, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the Pirates could sign him for $20M. If they offered that, the Rays likely would just up their offer. Ultimately, the Pirates could probably oubid the Rays, who aren’t exactly a financial powerhouse, but the question is how far you’d go to do that. It might have to be a whole lot more than $20M. For all we know Burrell was willing to sign with the Rays at what seems to me a bargain price because he hoped to be the last piece of a championship puzzle. We don’t know what kind of premium would be required for the Pirates to sign a FA like that, but we do know that some premium above fair market value would almost certainly be required. You can’t say for sure that the Pirates CAN’T sign a FA like Burrell (as opposed to Tex or CC, who are simply out of reach), but you can say for sure that the market dynamics work against a team like the Pirates and would probably force them to pay above market value.
by WTM on Jan 7, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of thoughts
It has been a while since I’ve been able to post (marriage this summer and a lot of travel), but I enjoy peeking in and learning from the thoughtful posts here. I was brutally hard on this team in the beginning, and then met Coonelly in Pittsburgh this summer. I liked what I saw and heard, and the reality is that this is going to be very tough job for a while. Wilbur is right. There is nothing of value to spend on, and I would have been annoyed as hell to see them waste the money on Turnbow. The trades were much better than we’ve seen around here for a while, and it is preposterous to believe that we’re going to get a read on how well they worked out for a while. I long ago tired of bitching about the plight of this team, and all that is left at this point is to let them build up a stock in the next couple of drafts and make trades, and hope they do it right. I’ve never believed we would thrive under Nutting, and I still don’t, but good management can probably succeed in spite of him. Other clubs have survived horsebleep ownership, and that may have to be the case here. At this point, though, I don’t see anything to warrant asking for a chit from Bob Nutting in the form of a free agent.
by RichieHebner on Jan 7, 2009 10:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Another lesson today
Rocco Baldelli will sign with Boston, according to ESPN.
The moral: FAs just won’t sign with the Pirates. They can’t even sign a slug like Daniel Cabrera despite outbidding the lowly Nats. And you can’t blame the Nuttings for it. Turnbow wanted his old pitching coach. Baldelli probably wants to be near home. There’s always some random reason, but the bottom line is that there’s no attraction to playing in Pittsburgh, no selling point for the Pirates to hand their hat on.
I’d really like to see people start taking into account exactly what Coonelly and Huntington are up against when they’re inclined to whine about the team not making enough moves.
by WTM on Jan 7, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well.....
You’re right but I sure wouldn’t call them random reasons. Cabrera lived in the area while playing for Baltimore. Baldelli grew up in Rhode Island. Boston and Tampa (Burrell) are considered strong playoff contenders. They Pirates just need to win to become a destination. Football and hockey players are willing to come here because of the success of those teams. Tampa wasn’t a desirable destination for any free agents and Miami isn’t now. The team will attract players when it proves it can pay a competitive salary and, probably more importantly, compete—as opposed to having to overpay, as you pointed out above.
by dtoddwin on Jan 7, 2009 11:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I meant random in the sense that it always seems to be something different, almost off the wall in some cases, and it isn’t typically money.
And I agree that the Pirates will have to make the team more attractive to FAs. They’ll have to compete before signing FAs, not by signing FAs.
by WTM on Jan 8, 2009 12:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The biggest problem Coonelly and Huntington will face?
Declining revenue due to the decades long poor play by the team and to the dangerous economic crisis. I suspect that Nutting will give Coonelly a pat on the back if Coonelly can keep the team in the black while rebuilding the organization. I agree that current Pirates management faces difficult problems because of past management incompetence.
Congrats on your marriage!
Steve Z
by steve_z on Jan 8, 2009 10:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Say it ain't so RichieHebner
The Snake got to you?
I hope you can post here more often now, but wow, you were brutally hard on them last year. I hope marriage hasn’t mellowed you completely.
by azibuck on Jan 8, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was brutally hard on them
I will confess to having been biased by what I heard from people who didn’t like Coonelly at all. Clearly, I should have gien them a chance. While I’m not ready to canonize him, I was far too harsh. Marriage may have mellowed me (she is a soothing sort), but the reality is that they have a long, tough slog. No point in complaining while they are trying to undo a decade-plus mess. I’ve been content to watch, listen, learn and hope a lot.
by RichieHebner on Jan 8, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The funny thing is, my opinion went down a bit during the Alvarez mess. I thought Coonelly was too much the blowhard litigator. I also thought their negotiating tactics may have been too hardball, relying too heavily on Alvarez caving in at the last second.
by WTM on Jan 8, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Alvarez
It didn’t do much for me either. I still believe that element of Coonelly’s personality as it was described to me is true. What changed was that he decided that he was not in fact the devil’s own spawn. There definitely is that “we have to change the system” crusade, which I can tolerate as long as he doesn’t affirmatively prevent Huntington from working with that system while it remains.
by RichieHebner on Jan 8, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Team Coonington ...
is not up against anything except possibly their own ineptitude.
Is Pittsburgh the only franchise/market that has trouble attracting players/free agents?
What about Kansas City, Florida, Tampa, Houston, and a few of others.
No, the problem is that the Pirate front office does not really have a plan, When I think that they might have an idea what they are doing or when they do something that makes sense (like last year’s two major trades), I will give them credit.
But thinking that in 2009, Joe Kerrigan and Perry Hill (?) are going to make the big difference in the Pirates’ performance is total malarkey!
by thegunner on Jan 8, 2009 12:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well
The Rays are genuine World Series contenders (kind of) so they have no trouble attracting free agents right now. Houston has also had a lot of success in the very recent past. The Pirates have had 16 straight losing seasons which is probably a bigger turn off than any perceived lack of a plan.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Jan 8, 2009 2:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What would this site do without the beloved Gunner?
“Team Coonington is not up against anything except possibly their own ineptitude.”
So I guess you changed your mind from mid-August to mid-January before pulling the plug on any semblance of support for our team’s leadership, Gunner?
“No, the problem is that the Pirate front office does not really have a plan, When I think that they might have an idea what they are doing or when they do something that makes sense (like last year’s two major trades), I will give them credit.”
So they have no plan, but then you fully support them for making the big trades last year???
Ergo(to use Vlad’s favorite adverb), you mean they have no plan in the sense that spending megabucks on the 2008 June draft, real effort and money on amateur player acquisitions in Latin America last year, building the team’s new facility in the Dominican Republic, setting up a system of consistency and accountability with the training in the minors, actually scouting some hotbed talent areas of the U.S in contrast to DL and the boys….no, no sirree, this has nothing to do with a plan from top to bottom to attempt to reverse a decade and a half of ineptitude in the front office and on the field for the PBC.
Several months ago I called you a troll, but then I apologized for going overboard on my criticisms of you.
I also tried to take into account that I was letting some other things that were bothering me about life overseas come out in some of my posts, and some people I like here-for example, azibuck and bucdaddy-told me to chill out and stop trying to always be right.
I appreciated their advice, even though I’ve never met them.
But now I’m thinking I was right about you all along.
Are you really a Pirate fan, Gunner? Or are you someone who has a particular bone to pick with some combination of Coonelly, Huntington and Nutting and uses this site spew constant garbage upon them and everything they do?
Since it’s a waste of time to try to reason with you, Gunner, I’ll ignore you from now on and laugh with the others as you wallow in your “own ineptitude.” Ganbatte, Gunner!
by patthatt on Jan 8, 2009 3:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Completely wrong
I don’t have statistical evidence to back this up, but thegunner is not beloved. Not even close. And thanks for the kind words, back atcha.
by azibuck on Jan 8, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jesus loves everybody.
Or so I’ve been told.
by Vlad on Jan 8, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes he does
And in his spare time, I am told, he infused in Rod Blagojevich an urgent and pressing compulsion to annoint Roland Burris the junior Senator from Illinois.
by RichieHebner on Jan 8, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Other markets.
KC has a comparable amount of trouble in attracting FAs, and generally has to overpay for even second-tier talent. Just look at the Guillen signing – should we be making moves like that one?
Tampa and Miami have good weather, nice beaches, and proximity to Florida nightlife. They also have no state income tax, which is a pretty big deal when you’re making several million bucks a year. Texas likewise has no income tax, making it attractive for the same reasons. And as part of warm-weather states, all three cities get a disproportionate number of hometown discounts, since their states provide a disproportionate percentage of the American players in MLB.
by Vlad on Jan 8, 2009 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What Is The Answer, Then?
Maybe we should relocate the City of Pittsburgh to a warmer climate with no state tax!
If there is a problem, deal with it. But please don’t constantly whine about the disadvantages of Pittsburgh.
There is a franchise in Pittsburgh. If you plan to compete, then deal with the situation AS IT EXISTS.
by thegunner on Jan 8, 2009 10:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The point to most of us is that Coonelly and Huntington are trying to deal with the situation as it exists, but fans like you keep ripping them for it because they don’t sign free agents and pursue other strategies that don’t work for teams comparable to them. Although in your case, I can’t even begin to decipher what it is you want them to do.
by WTM on Jan 8, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So Were McClatchy And Littlefield Trying To Deal With The Situation ......
……….and the media and fans believed them for three or four years even though they saw NO improved performance other than the fact that the Pirates’ minor league teams performed well in 2001 or 2002 and everyone thought that Littlefield was a genius … until they realized that the average age of most of the players on the respecive minor league teams was about two years older than their league counterparts.
I want to see results, and the best way to show me results is with improvement on the field at PNC and increased attendance at PNC. Yes, scouting and player development should be improving simultaneously, BUT I WANT TO SEE SPECIFIC RESULTS INSIDE PNC.
I am all for a new “culture” and “accountability”, and you can TALK about these things all you want. But if the RESULTS of this new “culture” and “accountability” do not manifest themselves in an improved W-L record and improved attendance at PNC, absolutely nothing has been accomplished.
You may not like what I have to say about the Pirate front office. Just keep checking on Team Coonington’s PERFORMANCE/RESULTS as we merrily roll along.
by thegunner on Jan 8, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you ask for boiling water...
…you have to wait for the pot to boil.
God almighty could incarnate on Earth for the pure purpose of turning the franchise around, and even He would still need three or four seasons before you’d see an appreciable difference in the ML performance.
by Vlad on Jan 8, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad, I See Your Point ...
but I think boiling water is not a good analogy. I don’t know about your cooktop, but I can put cold water in a pot and it will be boiling in 5-10 minutes.
Let’s keep an eye on Seattle. They lost 100+ games last year. The new GM, Jack Z (sp?) seems to be attacking the situation fairly effectively. Granted, they have owners willing to spend money, but they have run that franchise pretty well into the ground over the last few years.
Let’s see how Seattle does vis a vis Pittsburgh.
by thegunner on Jan 8, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can see it already
God fails to sign a free agent in the first week of the offseason.
Gunner: God has no plan.
Vlad: What do you want him to do then?
Gunner: I want to see results.
Vlad: Well, how is God supposed to get these results?
Gunner: I know how to run a team better than God, but I’m not telling.
ZZZZZZAAAAAPPPP!!
Vlad: Gunner? Gunner??
by WTM on Jan 8, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Some People Like You" ...
Maybe, as WTM states, that there are “some people like you” that keep ripping them … because they don’t sign free agents…"
Please show me where I have EVER ripped the front office for not signing free agents.
If I have been ripping the front office, it is because I believe that they are paying lip service to the areas of scouting and player development, the two most critical areas that will affect the Pirates of 2010 and beyond.
Yes, they may have spent a lot more money on the 2008 draft selections and they may be spending more money in Latin America-related activities. But we will see by 2010 if they really have anything to show for it by how these players have been DEVELOPED
These two categories - scouting and Latin America - account for about $10 million per year in signing commitments. As long as the major league payroll continues to hover in the $50 million area, if management thinks they can placate the fan base by spending $10 million on these activities, I am sure that they will be very happy.
But in about three years, if there is no significant improvement on the field at PNC (and therefore no improvement in attendance), then what?
Signing Doumit to a long-term deal was a mistake even though if he stays healthy, it should be a tradeable contract. However, I maintain that Doumit is NOT a catcher and that he will NEVER be behind the plate on a winning Pirate team. His trade value to the Pirates will NEVER be higher than it is today.
I agree with the Pirates’ approach to both Maholm and McLouth. I would sign both to long-term deals if the deals make sense to the Pirates; but I can certainly understand why both players are balking. Both of them should do just fine salarywise by going to arbitration for the next three years and then seeing what they can get in free agency. Sure, they give up some “security”, but both players are hard workers and take good care of themselves. So they seem willing to assume the year-to-year risk.
The Pirates need to develop a new approach to scouting, finding (in some not-often looked places) and signing “athletes” and then having the best development program in baseball.
I won’t divulge the my ideas/details here.
But WTM and others are right. The Pirates are at a great disadvantage vis a vis many other franchises. It is for this reason that they have to run their operation more creatively and in a totally different manner than the other baseball franchises.
After all, most franchises are operating the same way they have been operating for the last 40-50 years. Only the dollar signs have changed!
by thegunner on Jan 8, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why won't you divulge your ideas/details here?
You may very well be right that the Pirates aren’t doing things the proper way and that the current regime is evaluating talent improperly, we’ll see in a few years. But you don’t offer any explanation for how things should be done or what specific changes you would like to see.
You and I seem to disagree on almost everything which is absolutely fine and I respect your opinions but if you don’t offer any alternative ways of doing anything I’m not sure how I’m supposed to take your ideas seriously.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Jan 8, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
SPECIFIC Ideas?
I like to get paid for them.
by thegunner on Jan 8, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"I respect your opinions"
I don’t. Get off my lawn, gunner.
by bucdaddy on Jan 9, 2009 12:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
See, this is what I don't get:
You said: “The Pirates need to develop a new approach to scouting, finding (in some not-often looked places) and signing "athletes" and then having the best development program in baseball.”
This offseason, the Pirates have signed players from India and South Africa, both of which are by any reasonable definition “not-often-looked places”, and they’ve hired bunches of new scouts in less-trafficed Latin countries like Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, and Ecuador. Ergo, they’re already demonstrably doing half of what you’re talking about.
The other half, development, we have no reasonable way to address at this point, since the player development staff hasn’t been in place long enough to show whether they know what they’re doing or not (and quite honestly, even 2010 is probably way too soon to know one way or the other on that).
So why are you criticizing them, when they’re doing exactly what you claim to want them to do?
by Vlad on Jan 8, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad ...
I’m not talking about India, South Africa or other these other Latin American countries where baseball has been played for an awfully long time.
See my response to Chester regarding “specific ideas”.
by thegunner on Jan 8, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then what areas are you talking about?
Or did you leave your plans with Joe McCarthy’s list of known Communists? Even beyond the examples I mentioned earlier, we’ve been all over the unconventional scouting. We drafted and signed kids from Alaska and North Dakota, picked two guys out of West Point, and for the first time in anybody’s recent memory picked through DSL rosters for Rule 5 picks.
It’d be nice to get paid for ideas about this stuff, but unless and until you can build some credibility by building a track record on these things, I wouldn’t hold my breath on it.
by Vlad on Jan 8, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Careful what you ask for
If he tells you he’ll have to kill you.
by WTM on Jan 8, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can never figure out WHAT you're ripping them for
Anyway, you’re underestimating the cost of scouting and L.A. The Pirates spent over $10M in draft bonuses alone. That leaves out scouts’ salaries and travel, as well as all of L.A. It also leaves out the cost of minor league salaries and of operating a farm system, which runs around $15M per team in MLB. Scouting and development altogether probably run around $30M per year.
I won’t divulge the my ideas/details here.
Makes me think of McCain’s claim that he knows how to capture bin Laden.
by WTM on Jan 8, 2009 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, what about that?
Is he patriotic enough to tell Obama, now that the election’s over?
by Vlad on Jan 8, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he told Gunner, in exchange for the secrets of running a baseball team.
by WTM on Jan 8, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
His plan was to send the Moose-a-copter from Wasilla with two .50 caliber machine guns and recordings of her greatest campaign hits. The thinking was that the sound of it all would have driven Bin Laden and Zawahiri from their caves without a shot being fired. Obama is down the street right now, and I am told he and Leon Panetta are carefully considering the plan. Oh, the gunner would be manning the .5o calibers in case the Greatest Speeches don’t work. At that point, Roland Burris will take credit for the idea and etch that accomplishment on the wall of his mausoleum. I was on Capitol Hill when that carnival took place the other day. You just can’t make some of this up.
by RichieHebner on Jan 8, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The answer:
Players will sometimes put up with a less attractive destination in order to play for a winner. As such, the front office is trying to build from withing and make the team a contender, which is the best way available for the city to attract useful free agents.
Your criticism of the front office in this matter is strikingly un-constructive. We can’t just press-gang people into our service, like the pirates of old…
by Vlad on Jan 8, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What I'm Relly Worried About!!!....
is the fact that I’ve gotten the veteranosity of WTM, Vlad and others so worked up that that they will now be directing their ire at me rather than where it really belongs - at the front office.
But, like I said earlier, I can deal with that as we move merrily down the road.
I’ll be very happy to admit my mistakes when/if the Pirates achieve .500 status in the next 5-10 years. But if they don’t, I’ll hope that you will admit that just maybe I was right.
by thegunner on Jan 8, 2009 3:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
We’re just using you as a surrogate for the front office, since Coonelly and Huntington don’t post here.
by WTM on Jan 8, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If we aren't at .500 in ten years...
…then I’ll cheerfully turn on Huntington et al.
I just think it’s best to wait and see what they have to offer before jumping to too many conclusions about them.
by Vlad on Jan 8, 2009 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If...
it takes ten years to reach .500 and Team Coonington is still around, then you will know that there are some very serious problems!!!
by thegunner on Jan 8, 2009 4:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I actually agree with you here. Although I think it may be about 10 years before we see a playoff contending team.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Jan 8, 2009 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
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.
