Rebuilding Philosophy: Should the Pirates spend this offseason?
by escroll on Oct 14, 2009 12:18 AM EDT
119 comments
Going into this offseason, the Pirates are about $15-25 million below their payroll norm ($40-50 mil) for next year, and likely the next few, as few players are near their big raises. That is a substantial amount of cash, and I am going to guess (with, admittedly, no data to back it up) that few other teams have that kind of spending cash, given the general economic environment. This may provide a competitive advantage in the market, but it might forestall the rebuilding process. Below I've listed what I see as the possible approaches to this offseason; note that none of them in any way supercede the ultimate goal of building from within.
Spend Nothing- In the mold of the 2008 winter, NH steers almost entirely clear of the free agent market beyond some marginal signings of bench players, minor league free agents etc. Sink or swim long term entirely on the development of the prospects in house.
Spend Some- The goal here might be a repeat of Littlefield's lucky 2004 offseason, picking up useful players in the mold of Reggie Sanders, Kenny Lofton and improving the team on the cheap. Could also target quality complementary players for the long term, to be present should Alvarez, etc. indeed become star major leaguers. Could result in pointless signings for more mediocrity.
Make a Splash- Go for broke and spend it all; see if a marquee free agent or two will take the bucks to come here. Hope that the farmhands are ready sooner rather than later, and if not, well at least they made the Pirates interesting, if not good per se. Could pay off big, could be a waste of money and a distraction.
I think they all have advantages and drawbacks; but which one most serves the goal of producing a World Series contender(eventually)? Can the best solution be followed without further pissing off the casual Pirate fans?
Discuss.
0 recs |
119 comments
Email
Print
Comments
An addendum...
for the sake of everyone’s sanity: I do not for a moment believe that a free agent or two will magically make the Pirates winners/contenders in 2010. That would take a miracle.
The real question is whether or not spending this offseason would further the long term goal.
by escroll on Oct 14, 2009 12:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Spend nothing. Small market teams should make their splash when they need that one big guy to get them over the hump (just an example, but someone like CC). Of course they’ll need to rifle through the couch for spare change to sign some get-me-through-the-year veterans, but that doesn’t really count. Save the money, spend it when you get better. Plus, I’m not sure if there is anything out there that would really work for the Bucs.
by NastyNate82 on Oct 14, 2009 1:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Whatever happened to Ben Sheets? He’d be a great pickup if he could be bought for cheap due to his surgery and if he recovered well.
by Sage18 on Oct 14, 2009 1:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
cant imagine him signing with the bucs
if he’s fit, he’ll have plenty of suitors. It would take an extraordinary amount of money to get him to come here!
by BurgherKing on Oct 14, 2009 2:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the one reason for a high profile free agent
is taking a flyer on the season, and hey, if it doesn’t work out, trade him at the deadline.
The trouble here is, any reasonably high profile FA will likely want lots of money and at least a 3 year contract to come here (ok maybe 2 ala adam dunn). Then if he flops miserably, we are stuck with a financial commitment, since I assume we’ll pay considerably above market value for a FA.
If he does well, and the younger players put together a good start, it could be an interesting season!
Ideally, we want a buy-low candidate, someone who will take a 1 year contract as a stepping stone to a better free agency position next year, but with the economy, those will tend to be fewer and fewer.
by BurgherKing on Oct 14, 2009 2:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
With the economy....
there will be more players taking one year deals like that. No one is gonna pay them if they aren’t a true above average player. Look at what happened with Bobby Abreu last year. Players like Nady, Ankiel, Delgado, Nick Johnson, Polanco, Blalock, Bedard, Sheets, Hudson, Duchscherer, and maybe even Vlad Guererro could be had on one year deals.
by joegonzo on Oct 14, 2009 6:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but how
would that fit in with the bucs’ long-term plans?
by escroll on Oct 14, 2009 7:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
walk before you can run?
If we get to 75 wins without mortgaging the future, we are suddenly a team on the rise instead of a laughingstock. Good FA’s in future years would consider us an option.
by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we sign....
some players that could be good for us and not block any players development, then it won’t hurt our long term plan. Maybe a second baseman and right fielder until LaRoche and Tabata are ready to take over.
by joegonzo on Oct 16, 2009 6:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do think people around here underestimate the value of this – breaking the record provided the Pirates with a surprising (to me) amount of negative publicity this year. I think it would do the organization good to start the upward trajectory sooner rather than later (I note this especially because I’m convinced 2010 could be the worst year of the 18 – Pedro could walk on water and still not turn around perceptions of a 110-game loser).
Of course the Tigers had their disaster season, but even at the time everyone knowledgable knew that it was actually a good sign – that there was a ton of talent on the rise. I don’t think that will be the narrative for 2010 in Pittsburgh (in a sense, it can’t be – the only way people will think “there’s lots of promising talent there” is if, say, Andy, Lastings, and Morton all blossom – in which case it’s not going to be that bad of a team).
by JRoth95 on Oct 17, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meh.
It may be negative publicity, but it doesn’t have a lot of legs. In five years, who will be talking about the record?
by Vlad on Oct 19, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
perhaps the royals
or orioles, nationals or any other team that may be approaching it.
i realize your point of course. if the pirates start winning then it won’t be an issue.
by johnnycuff on Oct 19, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know this has been discussed at length but:
The Nationals have been acquiring a lot of 1st overall draft picks. Shouldn’t they be winning by now? Presumably PBC had a couple as well.
So is it Littlefield’s fault for shooting like a sober darts player? (horribly) With this many losing seasons we should have had at least 10 top 5 draft picks coming through the system right (I’ve not researched)? Were they all palmed off for useless FA’s?
Indulge me.
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 19, 2009 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It takes several years to build adequate system depth...
…and Omar Minaya basically burned the Nats’ farm system to the ground when he was in charge. He left them in an even worse state than Littlefield left us, if you can imagine that.
The main problem with our farm system under Littlefield is that Ed Creech was a terrible judge of talent. We used high picks on guys who didn’t deserve to be high picks, with predictable results.
by Vlad on Oct 20, 2009 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whenever you guys mention Ed Creech,
I immediately think about that skit someone-maybe Charlie-did a few years ago on BD about Creech and DL preparing for the June draft and Creech poking himself in the eye with a pencil.
by patthatt on Oct 20, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t remember that, but that sounds like something WTM would do.
by Charlie on Oct 20, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was Pat Lackey
at WHYGAVS, and it was pure genius:
http://whereisvanslyke.blogspot.com/2007/04/im-pretty-sure-this-is-how-it-works.html
by escroll on Oct 21, 2009 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t MLB have a lot to do with the Nats’ woes? IIRC, they basically wouldn’t OK any moves that cost money, even if the value was excellent. I can’t recall examples, but I feel as if there was a case in which Omar wanted to fill a hole with a mid-level player, and wasn’t even allowed to do that.
by JRoth95 on Oct 20, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
The Expos/Nats were operating on a very limited budget. That said, some of their personnel moves were still incredibly ill-advised, even considering the restrictions under which they were operating.
by Vlad on Oct 20, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds plausible
Minaya has given more than enough reason for people to question his decision-making proesses.
by JRoth95 on Oct 20, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I’m really only talking about the impact over the next couple years – it’s universally accepted that “no FA would come here” and that “the Pirates have to overpay to get FAs.” Why is that so? Because we didn’t make the playoffs? That can’t be it, because there are only 8 playoff teams – surely 3/4 of the league isn’t “overpaying.” Is it because we’re not “contenders”? Depending on how you define contention, not much more than half the league contends past June in any given year – I don’t think half the league “overpays” either, at least not more than marginally. So why do the Pirates have to overpay? Because we’re a laughingstock, as I once heard it.
Let’s say that bad teams in general – places where players are pretty assured that they’ll not be seeing the playoffs the first year of a contract, and aren’t all that likely the next year either – overpay by 5-10% relative to a team like the ChiSox, which don’t win every year but give a player a shot at a paycheck and the playoffs. What’s the Pirates’ overpay? 15-20%? Change the perception of the team, and suddenly you’re saving ~10% on any FA, plus you get a shot at FAs who literally wouldn’t pick up the phone if NH called (someone here put Lackey in that category).
Ticket and merchandise sales are in the same category, btw – it’s changes at the margins, and is an order of magnitude less than the effects of a playoff run would be, but a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking about having a major leaguer at every position, as opposed to just a handful.
BTW, the Mets are a pretty concrete example of this – they overpaid for Pedro in order to “prove” that they meant business. As a result, they were in the running for Beltran, Delgado, and Santana (others as well). They’re in a different group than the Pirates, of course, but my point is that the FA market responds to signals like that. Baseball players aren’t very rational (they believe in jinxes and clutch and clubhouse presence, after all), and so signals like spending on FAs or (occasionally) overpaying to keep a potential FA go a long way towards changing market perception. It’s not something you want to make a habit of, but if you’re headed in the right direction, it can jump-start the process.
by JRoth95 on Oct 20, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In general...
…free agents have been reluctant to sign with us even for slight overpays, as long as they have other options available. Just in the last few years, we were turned down by Bill Mueller, Paul Bako, Daniel Cabrera, Luis Vizcaino, Will Ohman, and Rocco Baldelli, despite having the best offer on the table for all of them.
That’s not to say that no player will ever sign with us in the future, just that it’s clear that some/many of them would prefer not to do so.
Personally, I think that players’ reluctance to come here is due in part to the “laughingstock” factor, but has more to do with problems with the city itself: Little TV airtime or media coverage, few opportunities for endorsement $s, poor weather, the outdated perception of Pittsburgh itself as a rust-belt hellhole like Cleveland or Detroit, a lack of regional nightlife, etc.
by Vlad on Oct 20, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, right
When you look at that list, it’s not guys who were comparing us against the freaking Yankees. We have to significantly overpay (or promise playing time, even if it’s a lie) to get anybody, much less top-end talent. I agree that the other factors are present, but c’mon – are there FAs who don’t want to sign with the Penguins and Steelers? Hossa’s the only one I can think of*, and he was making a very narrow (and wrong – ha!) bet about where he could win the Cup.
We can’t change players’ minds about the city, but the Pirates can change their perceptions of the club itself – and running out the Pittsburg Alleghenies Reenactment Society for 162 games isn’t the way to do it.
We probably have the talent in the pipeline to change perceptions in 2-3 years; I’m just suggesting that it would be possible, and beneficial, to do so sooner. But I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk move; just a plausible one.
- Foote, kind of, but he clearly wasn’t worried about being in a Rust Belt hellhole.
by JRoth95 on Oct 20, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are differences with the NFL and the NHL.
Both sports have hard salary caps, which means that players may not be able to sign with the teams that they would prefer (for any price).
And there’s a considerable lack of overlap between NHL and MLB markets:
NHL and MLB: New York (x2), Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston, Toronto, Atlanta, Tampa, Washington D.C., Miami, Chicago (x1), Detroit, St. Louis, Denver, St. Paul, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas-Ft. Worth.
NHL, no MLB: New Jersey, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Raleigh-Durham, Columbus, Nashville, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, San Jose.
MLB, no NHL: Oakland, Cincinnati, San Francisco, Chicago (x1), Baltimore, Cleveland, Kansas City, San Diego, Milwaukee, Houston, Seattle.
Both sports have a few small/undesirable markets, but on the whole I think MLB’s non-overlapping ones are more attractive than the NHL’s.
by Vlad on Oct 20, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also add:
in the NHL, nearly every team makes the playoffs.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 20, 2009 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
More generally on "overpaying"
The term really started getting thrown around at the end of the Bonifay era. At the time, I thought it was bunk – 2001 was awful, but in general the Pirates didn’t stand out from a half dozen other bad teams. So sure, some overpay relative to a contender, but compared with, say, the Phillies? Why?
However, reading about a lot of the changes that Coonley made when he came in, it became clear that the Pirates really were being run on the cheap, and I’m sure that word got around the league. That probably had a lot to do with some of DL’s dumbass signings – he was a terrible GM, but I think he was greatly hindered by trying to entice FAs to come to a team that was run as a glorified farm club, not a Major League organization. I think that we can all agree that we’d rather be employees of a company that doesn’t nickel and dime on expense reports and office supplies; sounds like the McClatchy Bucs were the kind of place where players, regardless of paycheck, were very aware of ungenerous management.
That’s another perception that won’t easily be changed, regardless of the merits, but winning would help quickly.
by JRoth95 on Oct 20, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DL should not, in general, have been spending on FAs.
He shot himelf in the foot by drastically cutting the draft budget in order to do so, when the draft is really the only way for us to acquire stars.
by Vlad on Oct 20, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One year deals fit in because the vast majority of our prospects won’t be ready until at least 2011. Guys like Pedro, Tabata and Lincoln will likely be up mid-season, but that’s about it for prospect call ups. If we can plug a hole for this year, and since we have a few million to spend, then go ahead and sign someone to a one year deal. NH has got to keep those TV ratings up.
If we are going to spend some money, I’d love to see us go after JJ Hardy in a trade. He had a bad year last year, is getting expensive and is blocked by Escobar. He’ll cost us something decent in a trade, but because of the three reasons above, I think he can be had at a reasonable price.
by Chad Bahamas on Oct 14, 2009 9:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Buy hardy?
I’d hate to see us lose a quality player over money. I’m not sure if this is a common practice anymore in baseball but I would much rather see the Pirates try and buy Hardy’s contract, and throw them additional money (They’re a small market team too, they could use it) rather than trade a useful player (Duke, Doumit, Maholm)
by jlk9697 on Oct 14, 2009 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking he’d cost us less than a Duke or Maholm because he is expensive, doesn’t really have a role on that team, and had a bad year. I’d trade Doumit for Hardy in a heart beat. It’d be a trade of two guys under control for two more years (Doumit has 2 options starting in 2012), who just had sub-par years and have decent replacements in waiting (Diaz/Jaramillo aren’t great but will suffice).
I like the “let’s throw money at them” approach. I’m don’t think that’s legal though. I’m sure we’d have gotten cash instead of Bobby Hill if it were legal.
by Chad Bahamas on Oct 14, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn't fit in that at all.
Where does this money saved go then? Look, I’m not one of those spend for the sake of spending guys, but the Pirates may have a team better than they realize, with the addition of 2-3 averagely priced free agents, could really show an improvement.
If the Pirates get halfway through next season and realize, wow we’re still a 65 win team even with Ankiel or Delgado, or whoever raking 25-30 HRs for the team, we flip them for more prospects.
NH has repeatedly said the different budgets for the team are entirely separate. If that’s the case, this money saved can’t go towards Latin players or next year’s draft class. Just not sure what the process would be if not to spend the money.
by jlk9697 on Oct 14, 2009 9:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sign & Deal
It strikes me that it might be a good idea to specifically sign above-average players who will block Pedro/Lincoln/Tabata, then McLouth them as soon as the blocked player is ready. By that point, someone will be injured/revealed to be too old/demonstrate that they are teh suck and we can get something in return for paying 1/3rd – 1/2 season’s salary.
by DJAnyReason on Oct 14, 2009 9:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think we should pursue one particular type of free agent signing:
Young, high-quality Type B (or no compensation) free agents. If the guy we’re signing is 30, say, then there’s no real problem with giving him a 3+ year deal, as he can be reasonably expected to remain productive through the life of the contract.
Erik Bedard is probably the best such player on this year’s market, and we might be able to step in and steal him with a high preemptive bid early in the process, while all the top-level teams are still preoccupied with John Lackey.
by Vlad on Oct 14, 2009 10:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree
Maybe even a guy like Pavano to a lesser extent if Bedard can’t be had
by Danatural08 on Oct 14, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they’ve made it clear they’re not going to look for a SP.
by WTM on Oct 14, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah, but...
…we’re talking about what we think they should do, not what they’re really going to do.
The two may line up sometimes, but they aren’t actually connected.
by Vlad on Oct 15, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who Would SIgn with the Bucs?
The question is not whether we would spend, but who would sign with us?
We would either have to spent alot of $s (not a good idea), give 3+ years (not a good idea), or the player could not find anyone else who would sign him. If Pedro would not sign with us, who would?
Signing a “good” FA-ain’t gonna happen.
by zogger on Oct 14, 2009 12:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's what I thought at first too
but if you think about it, ballplayers just want to play and get paid. Remember, there’s only 30 major league baseball starting 1st base positions in the world. Unless you are a top tier free agent who can choose his suitor, beggars can’t be choosers. Players just want to be wanted, if you show enough interest in a ball player, you can win them over.
For a vetern player, coming to the Pirates is a win-win situation, provided they’re confident in having a good season. If a guy like Nick Johnson comes to the Bucs and has a good season, the Bucs could either:
a. Have a season where Johnson gets the credit for turning around the franchise, thus increasing his value
or
b. have another losing season where he gets traded to a contender, which every veteran wants that one last chance at a World Series run.
by Danatural08 on Oct 14, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To induce a top FA to come to Pittsburgh
I think we ought to include a clause in their contract that lets them go home for the rest of the season once rosters expand as long as we are out of contention. I’ll bet a lot of players would consider it a big plus to get September off if things are not going well for the team. The weather is still nice and with the kids back in school, it’s an ideal time for a vacation.
From the Pirates perspective, it would be better to have a look at some youngsters at that time of year anyway, instead of continuing to play the veterans.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 14, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i love it
very creative, yet it makes good sense haha great!
by Danatural08 on Oct 14, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2008 Nationals: A Cautionary Tale
The Nats had a bunch of of/1b types last offseason, but still brought in Willingham and Dunn. Those two played great for pretty cheap, and definitely made the Nats better. But the team still sucked. And in order to give pt to those two guys, they had to send Milledge to AAA and eventually trade him and sit Dukes and Kearns a lot of the time. They were able to trade Johnson at the deadline, but they never could get rid of Kearns and they probably hindered Dukes’ development. In my opinion, that’s basically what you’re asking for if you want the Pirates to sign FAs this offseason. That’s your prerogative, but they have a roster full of guys who need a look at the big league level, and if it were up to me, I’d give them those looks instead of paying FAs.
by epoc on Oct 14, 2009 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
good points, but
there are (IMO) spots on the roster where there aren’t really guys who need a look. 2b is the most glaring one, but right field seems like a possibility too. Moss isn’t the answer, and Jones probably belongs at 1B(besides the fact that he’s no guarantee). SS is another possible place for an upgrade, though it would be much harder/more expensive to improve on Cedeno than on DY.
by escroll on Oct 14, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clement needs to play in the majors at first, and LaRoche is moving to 2b for us.
by epoc on Oct 15, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LaRoche is open to moving to 2B.
But it’s not a given that he’ll be able to handle it. Or that Pedro will get in shape well enough to stick at 3B, for that matter.
by Vlad on Oct 15, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clement hasn't shown enough
to merit the ‘unblockable’ tag. If the Pirates can further their long term goals by signing a first baseman, they should do it. If Clement is really that good he will show it in AAA, and then either he or the FA signee can be turned into something else useful via trade.
by escroll on Oct 15, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clement showed he’s ready for the bigs back in 2007. He’s been blocked since then by Seattle’s stupid decision to sign Johjima long-term. It’s time to bring him up.
Vlad: You’re right, there’s no guarantee that LaRoche will be able to handle 2b or that Alvarez will stick at 3b, but signing a FA to fill those spots still blocks the possibilities. If we don’t sign a 2b and LaRoche can’t hack it, so what? We just spend a season with a lousy 2b. On the other hand, if we sign a 2b then we’ll never know if LaRoche can handle it or not. That’s my whole point. Let’s see what the kids can do before we let veterans limit their opportunities.
by epoc on Oct 15, 2009 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They only block the possibilities if you let them.
If LaRoche’s conversion is going swimmingly, and Alvarez shows up lean and mean and starts mashing, then we can bench or move or trade any FA that we’d add for the position.
It’s never, never, never a bad thing to have more good players than you strictly need.
by Vlad on Oct 15, 2009 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So I was thinking last night:
It might make sense for us to let the Cubs bribe us into taking Milton Bradley off their hands. They eat part of his money and give us a prospect to get him out of an untenable situation and free up some payroll room, and we get a starting-caliber OF at a discount, plus another useful piece.
by Vlad on Oct 15, 2009 10:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So we would get cash plus a prospect plus Bradley for nothing?
Are trades like that allowed?
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 15, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure.
We might have to transfer them a nothing player to make it above-board, and the commish can of course veto anything he wants, but trades like that have been made before.
It probably comes down to exactly how much the Cubs want to get rid of Bradley, and how much interest in him there is with other franchises, which are both hard to assess from the outside.
by Vlad on Oct 15, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Somehow I'm not jazzed about having Bradley
I mean, I know clubhouse chemistry is overrated and all, but a player like Bradley seems not worth the risk. The Pirates will very likely not be anywhere close to contention next year…. and losing 90 games is supposed to bring out the reasonable, focused run producer in Bradley? I think not.
by escroll on Oct 15, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think losing would matter.
The Rangers were under .500 in 2008, when he had his best season ever, and so were the Indians in 2003, when he had his first big breakout.
by Vlad on Oct 15, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Bradley is a guy who...
performs better in low pressure situations. He is not a big market guy so by that theory he could thrive in the Burg. That being said, I’m not too thrilled with the idea of Bradley. And I doubt the Cubs would kick in money and a prospect. Who knows though, stranger things have happened.
by Slick1 on Oct 15, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd want to see Bradley come to the Bucs
Just so I can read Smizik’s column the next day.
by biggyv on Oct 15, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They really, really want to get rid of him.
So I think it’s possible, if no one else is willing to bite.
by Vlad on Oct 15, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they hire Jamarillo...
they may be tempted to keep him in hopes of turning him around. Plus I think there may be some bad contracts out there somewhere that will match up. However, if they don’t sign Jaramillo and there are no takers, you may be right. Lord knows Pinella doesn’t want anything to do with him.
by Slick1 on Oct 15, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No BRADLEY.
nonononononononononononono!
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 15, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this because of Milledge?
Milledge was purported to be a downer in the clubhouse but he’s doing pretty well as a Pirate. Could it happen twice? Are they like-minded players?
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 15, 2009 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big difference
Milledge was somewhat immature and maybe believed in his own hype too much. Bradley has some deep-seated issues with anger and a long history of petulant behavior.
by biggyv on Oct 15, 2009 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Bradley's rep is overstated.
Albeit not as badly as Milledge’s, where the record is basically spotless once you actually look at it. He didn’t get along with Jeff Kent? Who does? He threw a bunch of balls on the field after he got ejected? Is that any worse than McClendon stealing a base and storming off after an ejection? The allegations of domestic violence are troubling, but there’s enough FUD around the actual situation (no witnesses at the house, Bradley called the cops rather than the wife, no repeat behavior of the same type since the divorce, etc.) that I think the benefit of the doubt is merited there.
Bradley has a quick trigger on his temper, and for that reason he’ll always pose a certain element of risk. But he seems to do better out of the spotlight when handled by a manager with a relaxed style, and we can certainly provide both of those things, thus mitigating the risk somewhat. And when he’s on his game, he’s a top-drawer player, easily worth his current contract outright.
by Vlad on Oct 15, 2009 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He also
couldn’t get along with Eric Wedge (out of the spotlight, low-key manager), threw beer in the stands (fan altercation) while with LAD (Jim Tracy, low-key manager), DFA by the A’s, etc.
There’s a reason he’s been with 7 different teams. He’s good to start with, then wears out his welcome. Fast.
Pass.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 16, 2009 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But how big a deal are those things, really?
Pretty much everybody on our team hated Tracy. And the beer thing seems like it’d be, well, small beer if it happened with someone who didn’t have his baggage. It’s an irritation, not a felony, and it’s not like there was beer-throwing every week, or every month.
He’d probably wear out his welcome here eventually like he did in other places, but at this point we’re only talking about a two-year commitment. Even if he only lasts one year without serious incident, the Cubs would be picking up part of the tab, and we’d only have a few million bucks’ worth of downside risk in 2011.
by Vlad on Oct 16, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve become convinced that if the Cubs picked up most of the tab and we didn’t give up a real prospect, Bradley wouldn’t be too bad for us. .380-.410 OBP hitting 2nd (or dare I say first if Cutch is a middle of the order hitter) would get things going for us a little bit.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 16, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
…But he seems to do better out of the spotlight when handled by a manager with a relaxed style, …
Whether or not our players and fans hated Tracy, you’ll have to agree that he fits your quoted description. And to downplay the beer thing – IIRC, he was suspended for it. Missing games due to “an irritation” certainly doesn’t do much for the team, does it? It wasn’t some “oops” thing. He slammed a fan’s beer to the ground, causing it to explode all over the fan and himself.
…He’d probably wear out his welcome here eventually like he did in other places, but at this point we’re only talking about a two-year commitment. Even if he only lasts one year without serious incident, …
Hell, Vlad, there’s been places where he hasn’t even lasted the full season before winding up traded, suspended or what have you.
I appreciate your sincerity and willingness to overlook Little Miltie’s “episodes,” and 2-3 years ago, I’d have agreed with you.
But not anymore.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 16, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tracy doesn't have a relaxed style.
He’s a control freak who likes to present himself as having a relaxed style. Witness his unwillingness to let Jack and Sully take a game off to be with their wives while they were in labor. No way a true “player’s manager” would do something like that.
“Hell, Vlad, there’s been places where he hasn’t even lasted the full season before winding up traded, suspended or what have you.”
Place, in the singular: San Diego. And that only happened because he blew out his knee in the last game of the season, and they couldn’t risk giving him a contract by the non-tender deadline given his recovery timetable.
by Vlad on Oct 19, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Place, in the singular: San Diego.
Plural. Chicago. Which is why he’s available now.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 19, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and oakland
who traded him to SD in the first place for reliever andrew brown after playing in only 19 games during the first 3 months of 2007.
by johnnycuff on Oct 19, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He spent all of 2006 in Oakland.
All of 2006 + a small part of 2007 = more than one year.
by Vlad on Oct 19, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
PoTAYto, poTAHto.
His last game with the Cubs was September 17, and he was on the roster all year.
by Vlad on Oct 19, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It may be semantics,
but the fact it he was also on the DL, and only started 107 games this year.
I just don’t want him on the Bucs, you do.
End of story?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 19, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he has been around much longer than Milledge then
and still hasn’t sorted his sh!t out? He’s 31 now fer cryin out loud..
yeah nah no thanks.
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 19, 2009 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a moot point in any case...
There’s no way Neal picks up MB’s contract.
by maguro on Oct 20, 2009 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you read upthread?
The premise behind this was the idea that the Cubs would eat part of the contract to move him.
by Vlad on Oct 21, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley
Reminds me too much of Derek Bell. Ok, Bradley is a much better hitter, but Bell shows the dangers of bringing bad attitude guys on to a team that will probably lose a lot of games. They just have to be prepared to dump the bum at the first sign of trouble. He hasn’t played on a really bad team in a while, I don’t know how he would respond to it.
by uneasy rider on Oct 16, 2009 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That said, part of the reason...
…Bradley hasn’t played on a really bad team in a while is that it’s tough for a team to be really bad when they have a player as good as Bradley on the roster. Without him in 2008, for example, the Rangers are fighting for last place instead of fighting for .500.
by Vlad on Oct 16, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoa
seattle lost 101 games in 2008 and finished last in the AL west. texas was 79-83. i must be misunderstanding you because you can’t be saying he’s worth that many wins.
by johnnycuff on Oct 16, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Texas had a 76-86 Pyth in 2008...
…and Bradley led the league in OPS+. Last place might be a bit of a stretch, but 90+ losses would’ve been pretty likely.
by Vlad on Oct 16, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
his babip was .371 in 03 and .388 in 08. a big part of his career years were clearly luck and the cubs paid accordingly to watch him put up about his career OPS of .821 (minus some batting average and a lot of xbh). he’s injury prone, on the wrong side of 30, due $21 million over the next two years and only really brings OBP as a skill. at this point he’s like a doug mientkiewicz that can play the outfield.
by johnnycuff on Oct 16, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's an absurd comparison.
You could give Eyechart the highest BABIP in the world, and he wouldn’t put up an OPS+ above 150, which is what Bradley’s done in two of the last three seasons. And you’re pretty cavalier about totally dismissing the power of a guy who had 55 XBH in 414 AB two years ago, on the strength of one season.
Yes, Bradley has a difficult personality and some injury issues. Which is why we’re potentially able to get one of the best hitters in baseball for $5-6M per without giving up anything significant in return. If you know a different guy with that pedigree with an impeccable health record and a personality made from sunshine and unicorn farts, who’s willing to take that kind of contract from us, then please feel free to mention his name…
by Vlad on Oct 16, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unicorn farts
Awesome…
Anyway, it seems to be a low-risk proposition if the Cubs pick up most of the tab. I’d rather take a two-year lottery ticket at a low cost than sign someone like Ankiel until someone is ready in the minors to handle RF (It won’t be Tabata this year).
I mean I’ve read “Dealing” and one chapter is devoted to Milton Bradley. There’s the “fake hustle” incident and going off on Wedge after what is described as a minor comment by Wedge about Bradley needing to be on 2B after a dropped ball. There’s also talk of him being the nicest guy in the world one day and a psycho the next. I get that, he’s got trust issues and mental issues. But the fact is he’s also crazy talented and the Pirates need a RF. He was traded in Cleveland because Shapiro was all about “character” as well as talent — it was part of the Cleveland rebuilding motto. But there’s also talk of Albert Belle in the book, and well, he was a psycho as well, but the Indians dealt with him for many years because he was amazing.
If it only lasts a year, so be it, but imagining him in the lineup gets me pretty hot and bothered.
by Slizeezyc on Oct 16, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
mientkiewicz wasn't the point
ignore the hyperbole and look at the rest.
in one of the past 3 seasons (2007) you mention he had less than 250 PAs. that’s a small sample size and even then his OPS+ is comparable to… garrett jones this year who’s numbers don’t count because his OPS doesn’t correlate to his career mark. but that’s ok for bradley even though his OPS was… 200 points higher than his career mark.
the other year was 2008, when his sunny day babip was like dave littlefield’s wet dreams of tike redman and still only lifted his air shitt*ng unicorn OPS to .872 outside of the arlington bandbox (against 1.145 at home).
and while i may have dismissed his power last year, it at least bears mentioning that he only managed to outslug delwyn young by 10 points despite playing most of his games at wrigley (he slugged a bixler-like .299 outside of it).
i also don’t care about his personality, which is why i didn’t bring it up. he is however going to be 32 and is hurt all of the time, which is a continuing (and deserved) criticism of why nobody should pay freddy sanchez say, $9 and $12 million for the next 2 years, but i guess doesn’t apply here because the bankrupt cubs are giving away money. if he pisses excellence and craps winning seasons, why would the bankrupt cubs be dying to eat $9-11 million and give us a prospect for the privilege of watching this baseball legend shoot fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse at them from within their own division instead of dealing him to say the red sox, who need outfielders, would throw in cash and could give a sh*t about the cubs prospects?
by johnnycuff on Oct 16, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that should be
would not need throw in cash
by johnnycuff on Oct 16, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, let's look at that
Jones’s performance is anomalous because in an eleven-year professional career, he’s had exactly one season that was even above average: this season, when he put up a 150+ OPS+ out of nowhere. The “it’s a one-time thing” argument becomes much less compelling in the case of Bradley because he’s had three seasons in that area, plus three others in the 110-120 range. Yes, it’s unlikely that he’d put up a 150 OPS+ without getting a little lucky on BABIP, but perspective is important here: we’re talking about a guy with a .328 BABIP for his career. He doesn’t need to go all that far out of his expected range of performance in order to achieve the .370 BABIP that was driving those top seasons.
On Bradley’s 2008 performance, you may want to check your park factors. TBAA was only a hair above a neutral park that year (one-year figure of 103, weighted average of 100). He didn’t have a huge H/R split because the park was pumping his numbers. He had a huge H/R split because in any given population of players for any given year, a certain number are going to have disproportionate H/R splits for the season purely through random chance. Furthermore, if he were some kind of park creation, he wouldn’t have been nearly so productive in 2007, when he played in Petco, the toughest offensive environment in baseball.
A comparison with Freddy borders on the nonsensical. Freddy would be a bad signing because the aging curve for 2Bs is the second-steepest in baseball (ahead of only catchers), and because he’s CURRENTLY INJURED and unable to play without corrective surgery, which may or may not be completely successful. There’s a big difference between a guy who might get hurt in the future and a guy who’s already hurt right now… and of course, I’m guessing that there are a lot of people here who’d be willing to embrace a fully-healthy Freddy on a 2-year deal for $10M. We already know that the team would take that…
Since first becoming a productive regular in 2003, Bradley has averaged a hair under 3.0 WAR per year, which translates to dollar value of a little over $10.8M per season for his team. Even in 2009, when he underperformed amid racist catcalls at Wrigley, his on-field performance was worth $5.3M to the Cubs. That’s basically the buy-in point for us in a Bradley trade, and it’s much closer to his floor than his ceiling.
Bradley makes much more sense for us than a team like Boston for several reasons. First (and most important), a preemptive favorite is primarily concerned with minimizing potential downside, while a second- or third-tier team is primarily concerned with maximizing potential upside. Bradley’s best possible season is probably better than Jason Bay’s best possible season, but not by much, and that small margin isn’t really necessary for Boston to make the playoffs in 2010. Bradley, however, has significantly more downside risk in the short term than Bay (due to health concerns), and the difference between a marginal Jason Bay season and a year where Bradley misses 100 games could potentially keep Boston out of the postseason. Ergo, Boston has a strong disincentive vis-a-vis cutting corners, since they don’t have other huge holes on the roster that could be substantially upgraded with the money saved by going with Bradley instead of Bay. We, however, are in a totally different position. We probably couldn’t make the playoffs next year even with God’s own help, and our other available options largely suck, so our downside risk is limited – even if Bradley doesn’t bounce back one bit from his 2009 performance, he’s still a substantial upgrade on, say, Brandon Moss. And if he delivers a performance in the upper area of his range of potential outcomes, he’d greatly improve the team (and also become a fairly valuable rent-a-player on the trade market), so the potential gain for us is high. As such, he makes much more sense for us than Boston.
The second, and lesser, reason why Bradley might not be a good fit for Boston is the city’s troubled (and extensive) history on racial matters, coupled with Bradley’s 2009 downturn amid widespread racially-based taunting at Wrigley. It seems like an unnecessarily combustible situation, and with Bradley’s temper, that’s not a good thing. We’re a smaller market with less of a media focus and a better history on racial issues, and while you can find a certain number of racist assholes anywhere, I think that in general we would be a friendlier landing spot for him.
by Vlad on Oct 16, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come now...
Blaming Bradley’s problems on all those mean racists at Wrigley is absurd. The guy’s had issues everywhere he’s been and will have issues if he comes here, too. His production may or may not be worth it, but he’s sure to be an enormous pain in the ass wherever he winds up.
by maguro on Oct 16, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The racist insult
are alledged by Bradley. Just Because DLee says he heard them too doesn’t make them so.
The fact it, Vlad, he hasn’t played a full season in more than one of his many stops. And while his production may be better than Moss’, I can pretty much guarantee Moss isn’t the distracting asshole that Bradley is, large media market or not.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 16, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Bradley “distraction” nonsense is getting ridiculously overblown, especially as trying to use him as a scapegoat for the Cubs season. Bradley didn’t cause Geovany Soto to hit poorly. Or Reed Johnson, or Micah Hoffpauir, or Koyie Hill, or Aaron Miles, or Ryan Freel, or Mike Fontenot, or worst of all…the sub-replacement, huge contract disaster known as Alfonso Soriano.
The Bucs have had a fantastic locker room the past few years with great guys like Jack Wilson, Xavier Nady and Freddy Sanchez. Super duper buddy buddy locker room doesn’t do crap as far as winning percentage or a winning season. B-Ball is an individual sport more than almost all other team sport, especially with hitting.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 17, 2009 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley and Lee aren't the only two...
…to confirm racist insults from the bleacher bums. Jacque Jones has also said that he heard similar catcalls during his time with the Cubs. And these are the same solid citizens who were buying and wearing things like these…
by Vlad on Oct 19, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’ll never find me defending Cub fans, and I don’t even have to click the link to have at least 2 ideas what you’re referring to.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 19, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there’s the one you linked (which, as I said, I hadn’t clicked on), and there’s this one here.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 19, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hadn't seen the Pujols one.
That’s pretty bad.
by Vlad on Oct 20, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I went to a couple of Cardinals games at Wrigley earlier this year and couldn’t believe how ubiquitous those “Pujols mows my lawn” shirts were in the vicinity of the stadium. Literally dozens of vendors must sell them, along with “Ozzie Guillen mows my lawn,” lots of Asian stereotyping I can’t recall the details of, and other stuff. The author of the article that cocktails links isn’t kidding about there being a “culture” of racist paraphernalia around Wrigley, and in my view it speaks very, very poorly of many Cubs fans.
by Charlie on Oct 21, 2009 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You had me
Until the nonsense regarding Boston’s supposed racial issues. A lot has changed in Boston in the last 35 years or so. In baseball terms, it was exacerbated due to the racism exhibited by ownership until the 1990’s (there was no Curse of the Bambino as much as there was a curse of Tom Yawkey refusing to sign Robinson, Mays, and Aaron). LIke you said, there are racist assholes everywhere. But I’ve attended probably 50 games at Fenway in my life and have never heard any sort of racist language there (not to say it doesn’t exist, but it’s certainly not prevalent to any degree).
by biggyv on Oct 17, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although to be fair
Fan opinion is often driven by the media, and there are talk show hosts and columnists in Boston that tend to be a lot harder on black and Latin players. Dan Shaughnessy gave Clemens a pass for years while constantly trashing Mo Vaughn, for example. And when the Patriots traded for Randy Moss, you’d think they had just signed the Son of Sam from the media reaction.
by biggyv on Oct 17, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whether there are genuine racial issues in Boston today or not...
…a LOT of current athletes believe that to be the case. And given that Bradley’s already kind of sensitive, why take the chance?
This article from Boston magazine is a good treatment of the subject.
by Vlad on Oct 19, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
FA options
Jack Wilson – 2yrs/7.5 mil
Not necessary, but I don’t fully trust Cedeno yet and I think Jack makes us a better team.
Hank Blalock – 1 year with an option, $5MM?
Former all-star coming off a down year and 2 injury years before that. Still 29. Can play 1B or 3B for us. Could play third until pedro comes up, then shift to first and move the legend to RF. Hit 25 HR’s in 123 games last year. But there’s also this, “Blalock’s approach the plate song is ‘Animals’ by Nickelback.”
Matt Holiday/Vladimir Guerrero – Screw fiscal responsibility, I’d give these guys big deals if they would come here. Pipedream.
Xavier Nady/Ankiel – RF options are pretty weak in free agency. Either of these guys could be good on a 1yr deal. Both likely to get injured at some point, freeing up PT for Tabata around the time he’ll be ready.
Rich Harden/Eric Bedard – Awesome when healthy. Classic high risk-high reward gamble and we’d probably have to pay a good bit to get either.
John Lackey – I’d overpay with Robert Nutting’s money to get him here. I don’t trust our bottom of the rotation options and this would slide everyone down a spot. This would also protect us that much more against injury.
Brad Penny – Was much better for the Giants than he has been in 2 years. I wouldn’t overpay for him but if he can’t find a market I’d consider him.
Mike Gonzalez/Joe Beimel/Grabow – All former Pirates, 2 type A’s though. Not much else in the Lefty relief category, our best bet might be to trade to fill this hole.
Conclusion: I don’t expect us to do too much so signing 1 of those position players and 1 pitcher and I’d be very happy. We will obviously get some kind of lefty bullpen arm before next year, but I also think we should bring in a starter that can compete for a spot. If we brought in Blalock, Wilson, and Bedard I’d kiss Huntington’s wife
by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2009 5:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Vlad Guerrero
He can’t play the outfield anymore and is clearly in decline. He should sign as a DH somewhere. Name recognition will cause him to be overpriced, as well. Holliday would be worth every penny they threw at him, but yeah, pipedream.
Harden/Bedard/Sheets
Sure, if they come cheap. But, Bedard is out till midseason and the others won’t be cheap. Harden will probably get a deal with a team like Baltimore – a team that could be competitive if a gamble like Harden or Sheets pans out.
by uneasy rider on Oct 16, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s add Ankiel (or trade for Bradley) and why not Chris Shelton as a solid Bench and start vs. Lefties bat. It’ll be tough to get Beimel because he’s the best non-type A lefty reliever which will be attractive to basically every team in the league.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 16, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only significant FA signing I’d be interested in is Ankiel. He’s coming off a bad year, so there’s probably not much of a market for him and he wouldn’t cost a whole lot. He could allow Tabata more time in the minors on a one year deal, and if Tabata really pushed him, then he could be traded for peanuts.
by Suffering Buc on Oct 15, 2009 7:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why is everyone acting like Tabata might be ready next year?
The guy’s a very good prospect, but he’s only 20, and he wasn’t exactly dominating last year – the MLE on his 2009 line is an OPS under .600…
by Vlad on Oct 15, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because...
he hit around .300. And also, the sound the ball makes when it jumps off his bat is different from everyone else not named Alvarez. Don’t you remember DK reporting that during spring training? Obviously people are overly excited with our top prospects. Everyone has Alvarez pencilled in next season along with Lincoln. While I think it’s possible that could happen it is not a sure thing. As you pointed out, Tabata is only 20. He may be in AAA a couple of years if the power that everyone expects to come doesn’t. And if it doesn’t come, the only thing Tabata really brings to the table is a plus arm in RF.
by Slick1 on Oct 16, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is probably the thing that makes me craziest about our fans.
They’re in a breakneck rush to get prospects up to the majors before they’ve mastered the minors, and then if those prospects don’t immediately take the league by storm they’re bums who should get shoved out the door for the next group of rushed prospects.
The Tabata situation is giving me some scary Jose Guillen flashbacks. Shock! Horror! He’s entering his third year as a starter, and still can’t hit for power! Never mind that he’s only 23 – throw the bum out!
And then he turns 27 and develops power just like thousands of hitters before him, and who could have predicted it?
by Vlad on Oct 16, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep...
same could be said for the Aram situation to some degree. After 17 years, patient is not a word that describes the majority of our fans.
by Slick1 on Oct 16, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is unfortunate...
…because patience and blind luck are the only two things that could possibly get us out of this hole, and counting on blind luck is, to be blunt, a terrible strategy.
by Vlad on Oct 16, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Add Pedro to the list
of prospects people want to rush. Actually, he’s probably #1 on the list. People want him up here immediately, whether he has a good spring or not. Well, he may be able to handle it…but more than likely he will not. He hasn’t spent any time at Triple A…and although he is quite selective and has monster power, he has some things to work on. Namely, reduce strikeouts a bit and hit lefties…and field. So there’s work to be done.
All you need to do is take a look at Alex Gordon in KC to see the hazards of rushing the franchise savior to the bigs. He’s all kinds of screwed up now, mainly because he wasn’t ready in the first place. To me, its a lot different with pitchers jumping levels (like Rick Porcello) cause usually they do that because they’ve got really electric stuff. Players like Gordon and Alvarez will have more chances to be exposed. I wouldn’t be unhappy if Pedro spent the whole year in the minors next year…would you?
by NastyNate82 on Oct 16, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't be happy per se.....
but only because I want to see him play. Developmentally, that would probably be for the best a la McCutchen getting that extra year in AAA.
by escroll on Oct 17, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I’d love to see him play too. But naysayers will say “the only reason he’s staying down is to keep his free agency from starting sooner.” Well, thats a big reason..but he also isn’t a finished product. Besides, as far as next year, even if he came up and hit .260, 15-20 HRs, 60 RBI in 2/3 of a season…what does that help the Bucs really? They go from 63 wins to 67. Sure, they’d be more enjoyable with him, but all it does is start his free agency.
By the way, I have no problems with the Bucs doing that. It most certainly is unfair, but then again the disparity between big market and small markets are unfair too. Those same people who rail against the Bucs for keeping players in the minors extra time are the same morons who question why small market teams don’t keep their stars…its because they can’t afford them once they hit free agency By keeping players like McCutch and Pedro down longer in the minors, the Bucs are helping them improve, but they are also playing the hand they’re dealt.
by NastyNate82 on Oct 17, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If his play merits a full season in the minors...
…then I wouldn’t mind it at all.
by Vlad on Oct 19, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jack Wilson=not worth it. He’s a decent player, but he offers NOTHING offensively. Ankiel isn’t a bad choice provided its just a year.
by NastyNate82 on Oct 15, 2009 9:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Best argument for FAs
Best case for next season – if young players blossom, no one craters, and 1 or 2 prospects come up like Cutch did – is still 90-95 losses. Theoretically the Bucs could add 2 high-end FAs and add, say, 10 wins*. Still doesn’t get us to .500, much less contention. But it sure as hell changes the book on the Pirates, and makes .500 for 2011 look like a lock, which will firm up the fanbase considerably – I would expect to see an uptick in season ticket sales for 2011, which in turn sets the table for respectable attendance overall.
Worst case, of course, is that the team loses 90+ anyway, and you’re stuck with an FA you can’t move because he’s part of the problem. Arguably, this means that, if you’re going to pay for FAs, you may as well pay for the best – an Ankiel who craps out is a disaster (team sucks, untradeable, fairly pricey), while a Lackey is incredibly unlikely** to crap out, so he’s either getting you wins or prospects.
I don’t know if I quite buy that argument, but it is making me question the value of going after these buy-low guys – if Milton Bradley sucks, what the hell do we do with him?
That said, I expect the FO to fiddle at the margins and go after a couple buy-low guys. That seems to be NH’s MO, for better or worse.
- Depending on position, it could actually be more – a frontline SP might add only a few wins, because our #5 pitcher may well be a plus WAR guy, whereas an excellent 2B could add 5-6 wins, because our other 2B options may well be negative WAR guys
- I’m guessing – I don’t know his injury history. But you take my point.
by JRoth95 on Oct 17, 2009 2:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Logic Is Flawed
Because you could throw million after millions after Lackey and he’s not going to come here.
The Milton Bradley talk revolves around the Cubs picking up most of the tab, hence why it wouldn’t matter either way. And it’s not like they’d give Ankiel a 3-year 30-million dollar deal or something either.
by Slizeezyc on Oct 18, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up 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.
