Brewers Facing Tough Times Ahead
by Charlie on Nov 29, 2009 2:54 AM EST
84 comments
Here's an interesting (and fun-to-read) article about the problems the Brewers are facing this offseason. As much as I and others have presented the Brewers as a good example for the Pirates franchise, a dose of reality is in order. Their core of young stars burst onto the scene about as brightly as anyone could have hoped a couple years ago, but now they're getting expensive quickly. When they were trying to contend, they signed a number of players (Jeff Suppan in particular) to contracts that now would be mildly annoying to a team like the Mets or the Cubs, but are a big problem for the Brewers. Several of their core players (J.J. Hardy, Bill Hall, Corey Hart) stalled after putting in a couple of good seasons, and now Milwaukee is pondering life without them. Ben Sheets is now a free agent. The back of the Brewers' rotation is uninspiring at best. They don't really have a catcher. Without major changes, they're probably hoping just to play .500 ball next year.
They haven't been run perfectly. The Suppan contract was a terrible idea from the start, for example. But for a team to get as much right as the Brewers have the past five years and still be struggling seems unfair. They've added significant value to Major League Baseball as a whole by developing stars like Sheets, Yovani Gallardo, Prince Fielder, and Ryan Braun. They've also spent relatively lavishly for a team in their situation. And they're still floundering.
It's not right. The Pirates have no one but themselves to blame for most of their current problems, but that could change in a few years. And even if Neal Huntington's plans work well, the Pirates will still probably looking at the Brewers' last few seasons--a couple of winning seasons, maybe a playoff appearance. For those things to happen would obviously be great, in a way, but that hardly seems like enough.
0 recs |
84 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I agree with the general sentiment, with this aside: baseball is the most rapidly cyclical of the sports.
While teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs and Mets are always in a financial position to compete, even they have their down years. Only the Yankees are consistently contenders of that group, and even they missed the playoffs just two years ago.
The Brewers failed in their goal, which sucks, and now they have to consider going through a rebuild. But is that really so bad? Teams like the Twins and A’s go through similar rebuilds all the time, and they usually last only a season or two before they have another 2-4 year stretch of relevance.
I don’t see things as being so bleak for the Brewers, or the Pirates for that matter. Any team that builds mainly through the farm system will inevitably suffer downturns. The Brewers are in line for a pretty bad one, but much of that has to do with them trading away a significant number of their top prospects during their last run at contention. As a result, now they’ll have to restock and probably have more losing seasons than a typical A’s/Twins rebuild. But the way I see it, it was more than worth it for the legit few runs at the World Series they had.
While small market teams haven’t won many World Series in the past few decades, it’s not impossible. The D-Backs and Marlins have both won in the 2000s, and the Rays and Rockies have made appearances.
It’s not fair that small market teams have to try so much harder, you’re right. And baseball does have a huge parity problem, you’re right. But we’ve still got a lot to look forward to as Pirates fans.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 29, 2009 3:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if it's just a reload
In Fielder and Sheets, the Brewers developed 2 of the best players in baseball, and then surrounded them with another half dozen quite good players – in ‘08, they had 5 position players above 2 WAR (1 at 4.9), 2 pitchers above 4 (altho CC was of course a half-season rental), and basically no negative WAR players (Gagne’s about it, although Suppan was -0.2 with a big paycheck, which hurts a lot). Point being, they’re not likely to put that many solid pieces together again in the immediate future – it could be another 5 years before they’re contending again. It’s not much of a run for a team that has done about as much right as could be reasonably expected.
I think Charlie’s right that this shows just how difficult a situation the non-huge market* teams face. The Brewers were losers exactly as long as we were, then they won 81, lost 87, and contended in ‘07 and ’08 – and that’s basically it (they were relevant this year, but then StLo ran away with it). If everything breaks for them, they could contend again this year or next, but realistically they’re looking at several more years before they can hope for a brief string of good, but not great, years. That kind of sucks.
- Not the most elegant term, but this is really what we’re talking about – teams that can go above $100M year after year without breaking a sweat vs. everybody else
by JRoth95 on Nov 29, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Brewers are in trouble ?
Good. HA HA HA ! AND TUCK IN THOSE SHIRTS !
"Baseball is better than football. Think about it, eighty degrees, a cold beer and a short-sleeve shirt is better than 30 degrees, a hip flask and six layers of clothes under a lap blanket. Take your pick: suntan or frostbite. " - Thomas Boswell
by Ketcham Bruce on Nov 29, 2009 7:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I was sitting in the front row behind the Pirates dugout when Brandon Moss hit that walkoff to center and Delwyn came charging out and untucked his shirt. It was a glorious moment.
That whole shirt thing was supposed to be a tribute to Mike Cameron’s dad or something. I wonder if they stop doing it now that he’s leaving.
by ElDuce on Nov 29, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
I hope that Pedro or Andrew hit a walk off grand slam against the Brewers in a tie game. Just to get back at them.
by IAPiratesFan on Nov 29, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As long as
Buffet Prince Fielder and Cryin Ryan are on the team the Brewers can lose a 100 for all I care.
by BadAndy on Nov 29, 2009 8:58 AM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
The Brewers are interesting because of Dejan’s use of them as a reference point for where he thinks the Pirates’ payroll should be. It’s a reference point he might want to reconsider. The Brewers haven’t exactly been a complete success. They’ve gotten one 3-and-out playoff appearance, thanks to CC. This year they had a losing record and the NL’s second-worst pitching staff.
The problem, IMO, is that they never went into a full-bore youth movement. They had some big successes in the draft, but they have seldom traded for prospects. Geoff Jenkins, for example, might have made a good trade chip before he declined too much. Instead, the Brewers raised their payroll a little before they had the necessary talent in place. The result has been chronic pitching problems and not much minor league depth overall. They had to rely on FAs to fill CF (which worked out well) and C (which got them one of the weakest-hitting regulars in MLB).
That payroll Dejan touts hasn’t exactly done much for them, either. They never had a prayer of keeping CC. They couldn’t extend Sheets, either, although he got hurt anyway. They had to use a good trade chip in Hardy to fill Cameron’s job in center, which meant they weren’t able to use Hardy to bring in the pitching they desperately need. Their main effort to use that payroll to fill pitching needs resulted in Suppan. He’s never been cited as one of the really bad signings of recent times, but they’ll be paying $14.75M (including a buyout) next year to a guy who’ll probably struggle to keep his ERA under 5.50. The Brewers DO show what can be accomplished with good drafting, but they also stand as proof of the fallacy of the notion that increasing payroll to their level will really help the Pirates right now. They’re only partly a good example for the Pirates
by WTM on Nov 29, 2009 3:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
In fairness on the Hardy thing...
…I think they were counting on Lorenzo Cain taking over in CF this year, and then when he fell apart they had to fish around for a Plan B.
by Vlad on Nov 30, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With all due respect...
Money was not the issue with the Brewers, it was how they spent the money.
One other point about the money the Brewers spent: at least their fans know that management was willing to spend money to win; something we Pirate fans cannot yet say. I’m not saying that we should bring back Derek Bell just because he will take our money, but there continue to reasonable questions about ownership’s commitment to winning.
Ultimately, the economic playing field remains incredibly unfair which in turn causes massive issues for the health of the sport. Admittedly there is much evidence (attendance, etc) suggesting that the game is fine, but I have my serious doubts that maintenance of the status quo would be healthy.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Nov 30, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think you can really fault the Brewers much for their spending decisions. Cameron was a bargain and Kendall didn’t cost that much. Suppan is an albatross now, but his contract didn’t draw much criticism at the time. It was considered the going rate for an established 4th starter. They haven’t had any Derek Bells.
The Suppan contract may give the Brewers’ fans a degree of comfort, although my guess is the opposite. But if you believe, as I do, that blowing that sort of money right now on the type of free agents who are available to the Pirates will just hurt their chances of producing a contender, then what do you want to see? Do you want them to spend money stupidly just to prove that they’ll do it? (Of course, Bob Nutting did that already with Matt Morris, but the people claiming he’s unwilling to spend any money never seem to remember that.)
The fairness of the playing field is a whole other issue. I’m thankful, though, to have people running the team now who don’t continually whine about it and use it as an excuse for losing, as McClatchy did.
by WTM on Nov 30, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WTM
I agree with your points and you make an especially good point regarding the money spent to get Morris – which I often forget to consider for those reasons. It is not proof that the team will spend when necessary, but it certainly is relevant to the discussion.
I guess I was taking issue with the statement that spending money won’t help the Pirates right now. While I would agree that is true given the current specifics for the Bucs (that is, there are prospects at each position of need and we clearly are not going to bring in a superstar), I still think that it is a cop out to say that the team could not have benefited from reasonably wise spending in the 2 years leading up to this point. If nothing else, it would’ve made sense to sign Iwamura out of Japan when the Rays did and stick him at third. There is not a lot of benefit to being hideous versus not embarassing when rebuilding.
Ultimately, we seem to agree on virtually everything.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Nov 30, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Spending money
Well, it kinda depends on how much and on whom. I liked the Iwamura deal, because I just don’t think they can stumble along with Young at second, and it’s not like they committed to Iwamura for five years. I’d probably like to see them bring in a corner bat, too, assuming it’s done in such a manner that they can dispose of the guy somehow if Tabata earns a promotion. (I also think they need to be prepared for Jones coming back to earth.) Generally speaking, I just don’t think they can afford to repeat their Aug/Sept meltdown, there’s clearly some payroll room, and there are some openings right now where no young guy who matters would be getting blocked. So I’m in favor of spending some money now within those parameters. I’m guessing we more or less can agree there.
by WTM on Nov 30, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I look at the Brewers as the reason the Pirates should never trade good prospects for a rental player.
They got CC Sabathia, but if they didn’t hit the jackpot and win the WS, then they were going to tank because they traded away the guy that could be their next big bat for only a few months of CC.
IMHO, talent bleed is the worst thing that can happen to a small market franchise. Large markets bleed talent through trading away prospects and players aging. But they can add significant talent through adding impact free agents that small markets can’t touch. Small markets bleed talent when their players leave in free agency or the prospects they traded for don’t pan out.
Small markets can’t add significant talent in free agency and absolutely must have a way of counter-balancing the bleed that occurs when losing players to free agency. The only way to do that is trade those valuable players before they are lost for prospects and also never trading away your valuable prospects for rent-a-vets.
There’s one thing absolutely certain that you have to have to win a world series. And that’s great starting pitching. You need 3 starters capable of winning games in the WS. The Brewers did not have that when they got CC. He was their only excellent pitcher. Ben Sheets was above average, but not excellent.
They mortgaged everything to win that year and lost. I hope the Pirates never make that mistake.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 29, 2009 6:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
well said....
and that’s the problem. There is no path to success for a small market team. The payroll disparity is a bad joke. Everyone hold the Twins up as the model franchise, and I’d love to have even their success, but they struggle just for a chance to lose the first round of the playoffs every once in a while. In fact, they’ve won one playoff series in the past 18 seasons, and that was against the A’s. They’re thought of as a success because they do exactly what you suggest- and they do it well, but they don’t really win. A big market team is a failure if that’s all they achieve.
Unfortunately, everybody references the lightning-in-a-bottle type success that small teams have had the past 20 years as evidence that all is well.
by my dixie wrecked on Nov 29, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All is not well
There’s definitely a huge disparity that is extremely difficult to overcome. But to do it, you have to develop at least 2 great starting pitchers, a great closer, 2 great hitters and fill the rest of the team with average to above average players.
That’s really tough to do all at one time if you don’t have the advantage of going out to buy one of those 5 great players that you need.
I would like to see a special revenue sharing fund that goes specifically toward keeping home grown players. I think baseball is best when the public can identify teams with their star players.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 29, 2009 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the fund idea
Not sure how to implement it without reverting to a reserve clause-style thing – I was thinking about the NFL’s franchise designation (but with market-rate salary, since there’s no cap), but I doubt that would fly in baseball. Maybe it becomes an extended arbitration period, so the salary is determined by a panel.
Implementation aside, I don’t know how you avoid situations where teams either overpay (because they have no good candidates) or find excuses not to do it. I suppose if the pool exists, but you only get to access it for a specific player – IOW, you get your $30M revenue sharing (or whatever), plus there’s ~$10M available to apply towards a pending FA, with the whole thing reviewed by the league office. I suspect you’d end up with untradeable contracts and teams making poor decisions for PR reasons (even more than now, I mean).
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No reserve clause...
I think if a players specifically wants to leave an organization, they should be allowed to. But if the player feels like they want to stay but need to leave because the money disparity is just too much to ignore, there should be a way that the initial team can use a reserve fund.
The fact that if you over-paid with money that was not your own that the contract would be be untradable would be a good incentive to not go too much over the top.
And if you had to trade that player and pay a portion of the salary, you couldn’t use the reserve money to do it.
Ultimately, though, teams are finding they do have the ability to lock players up by buying out their free agent years ahead of time.
If Cutch has a good year in 2010, I would try to buy out 2 or 3 of his free agent years by paying more up front. I think that is the test to see how committed the FO would be to keeping players like that long term.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 30, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder how much longer players will be willing to sell out their first FA years. Boras already discourages his guys from doing it, and I think that agents are becoming more aware that players’ max payday is around age 29 – a late-starter like Bay is in danger of missing his entirely. In his case it’s because he was a 26-y.o. rookie, but imagine a Pedro sticking with the Bucs for 8 years and hitting the market at 32 – that’s a one-time shot at a big contract, and it depends on good health and conditioning all that time.
IIRC Cutch has made murmurs that he may not sign extra years – not rejecting the idea, but talking a lot about value, that he’s not giving anything away. I also think that this FO has specifically hurt itself with the McLouth trade – that players will be less inclined to sign up because they can’t believe blandishments about cores and foundations and such.
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In three years...
…no players will remember, or care about, the McLouth trade. How many of them today are still upset that we didn’t re-sign Dougie Ballgame?
by Vlad on Nov 30, 2009 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But we're not talking about 3 years from now
MarkinDallas mentioned next winter for Cutch.
Look, if it never happens again, then it won’t have a lasting impact. But, as I’ve argued before, I strongly suspect that players don’t view NH in the best light right now. If that becomes a permanent reputation, then it will have knock-on effects. Probably not, but we’ll see.
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How could it happen again?
We already traded McLouth to the Braves. He’s theirs for the next couple of years, unless we trade to re-acquire him.
by Vlad on Nov 30, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Extend another player and then trade him immediately. Extend Doumit and trade him immediately. Not a complicated concept.
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If that's your definition, I can virtually guarantee...
…that it’ll “happen again”. It’s baseball. People get traded, particularly productive veterans.
by Vlad on Nov 30, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As I said before about what I perceive as NH’s pattern of being a dick, as long as it’s once every season or two, it’ll get shrugged off as business as usual, and that’s totally fine. But if NH blows everybody away and signs McCutchen to a 7/$70 contract next week and spends the next 6 months talking about him as the bedrock of the organization, then sends him to the Yankees next June, that would have a lasting impact. It’s not routine trades – it’s trades of guys that you just finished talking about as franchise players (whether Nate actually was one is irrelevant – the Pirates called him more or less that, not me). Those don’t actually happen all that often, and are often remembered decades later – just ask a Mets fan.
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You perceive NH as being a dick...
…because you decided in your own head that he was a dick, and then went out looking for evidence to support your theory. He isn’t doing anything differently than every other GM in baseball, and it’s really bizarre to see you harp on it like this.
by Vlad on Nov 30, 2009 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not at all.
It never occurred to me that he was a dick until he traded Salamon Torres for absolutely nothing of value, apparently because Torres had complained that DL, who was an incompetent dick, had fucked him over. That trade was absolutely indefensible from a baseball perspective, and made me wonder if NH might, in fact, be a dick. I’ve noticed a handful of other incidents that make me suspect that he could be. I’m not certain about this at all.
I don’t think business as usual makes a GM a dick. The McLouth trade made plenty of baseball sense, and on its own provides no evidence of dickery. But together with other evidence, it doesn’t make NH look great – especially not to players (and remember – pro athletes are sensitive to this shit – recall that hockey players, as a matter of course, quit on coaches to get them fired. We’re not talking about minimum wage workers or soldiers who have to put up with whatever is handed them). I’m much more worried about how players perceive NH at negotiating time than with what kind of human being he is. “Tough but fair” is a good negotiating reputation. “Dick” is not. The underlying truth is more or less irrelevant.
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't see it
GMs say one thing and do another all the time, not really sure how that makes them dicks.
Beyond that, trading Doumit a year-plus after his contract his was renewed, I would not consider as being very immediate.
by Slizeezyc on Nov 30, 2009 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
Huntington has said he regrets making the Torres trade and that it made him examine a lot of things about that.
I myself think the jury is still out on whether Huntington is a good negotiator, because there have been several examples of negotiations that have seemingly gone awry.
At the end of a negotiation, ideally there shouldn’t be hard feelings whether you came to an agreement or not.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 30, 2009 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Torres trade...
…was NOT indefensible from a baseball perspective. Torres was an older pitcher (going to be 36 in the next season) who had been used as heavily as any reliever in baseball in 2005 and 2006, then suffered arm problems in 2007. The team decided that given the uncertainty about his abilities going forward, he wasn’t worth risking $3.3M on for the next season. As it turned out, Torres made a full recovery (and then retired), but there was a reasonable chance that he wouldn’t. I didn’t like the deal, but to say that it was “indefensible” is a considerable stretch.
Now, if you want an actual example of a GM being a dick, look at the behavior of the Red Sox’s front office surrounding Bronson Arroyo’s extension in 2006. He asked them for a no-trade clause in negotiations, they assured him that it wasn’t necessary and that he wasn’t going anywhere, he gave the team a hometown discount on an extension, and the very next offseason they flipped him to Cincy for a spare outfielder. In that case, it was explicitly stated that a trade wasn’t a possibility, the player left actual dollars on the table after receiving that assurance, and then the team broke its word.
As an interesting corollary: It’s now three years since Boston broke its word to Arroyo. How many players remember, or care, that they stuck it in him and then broke it off? How many players have expressed a reluctance to deal with the Red Sox as a result? None, and none.
by Vlad on Dec 1, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, let’s go to the videotape: what was the consensus on Bucs Dugout at the time?
Charlie thought that “Torres is signed to a favorable contract” and that, while “getting two younger players for him wasn’t a bad idea in theory,” he’d “have liked to see Huntington get more than this, and [he’d] prefer to have him wait and try to get a starter or a hitter, even if that meant reaching even further into the minors.”
WTM said “Salas is a non-prospect. Roberts is probably a very marginal prospect.”
You said that, if squint just so, maybe they’re both marginal prospects.
So maybe “indefensible” is strong, but “terrible,” “awful,” and “selling incredibly low” are not. And, as Mark points out above, NH seems to think that he fucked up.
by JRoth95 on Dec 1, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, it ended up being a bad deal.
But people make bad deals all the time, without it being part of some kind of secret conspiracy to win the title as World’s Biggest Asshole. If there was a valid baseball reason for wanting to make the trade at the time (and in this case, there was), then it’s unfair of you to assume the worst regarding Huntington’s motives, especially in the complete and total absence of any kind of evidence supporting your position on the subject.
On the link you posted, the consensus seems to be that the deal was more about getting Sully’s money off the books than about getting value in return, which is what I’ve been saying all along in this thread. Not sure why you’d think it supports your position that the front office was running Sully out of town on a rail – nobody was voicing that opinion at the time (at least, not in this particular link).
by Vlad on Dec 1, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The evidence
is that Huntington himself said that if there was one trade he would redo, it would be the Torres trade.
He said he wouldn’t redo the Bay trade, because he was convinced that the process was correct and you can’t know how some things are going to turn out.
He would redo the Torres trade because “We had a disgruntled player, and we were going on a lot of previous information”. Huntington said it was the process and the reasoning behind the trade that was faulty, not the outcome of the prospects.
That said, it doesn’t mean he was an asshole, and especially since he was willing to own up to his own failing in an interview, it shows he is continually trying to better himself and is not so arrogant he believes it’s always someone else’s fault.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 1, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you have a cite on the "disgruntled" thing?
I hadn’t seen any remarks to that effect, and “we had a disgruntled player”+Huntington returns zero results on The Great Gizoogle.
by Vlad on Dec 1, 2009 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It was in a Rocco radio interview
You can get it on the web:
click here
and look for the Huntington interview in October.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 1, 2009 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting.
My work firewall is blocking Rocco’s ActiveX interface, but I’ll take your word for what it says.
Thanks for the link.
by Vlad on Dec 2, 2009 8:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
try this link
“direct mp3 of Huntington interview”: http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/PITTSBURGH-PA/WPGB-FM/Perspectives%20with%20Neal%20Huntington%20-%2010.01.09.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=PITTSBURGH-PA&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=1945&STATION_ID=WPGB-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=FM_Newstalk_104.7&PCAST_CAT=Sports&PCAST_TITLE=Extra_Innings
It’s a very interesting interview, so you’ll want to listen to the whole thing, but the Torres bit is about 80% of the way through.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 2, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If this happens with McCutchen
then it would indeed be very surprising, because it would be very difficult to get great value for a potential 5 WAR player at the beginning of his service time.
With McLouth, I was shocked, but I understood it because we were getting some players with even more potential than McLouth, who is a 3.5 WAR player.
Just because Huntington glowingly announced the extension doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have taken the deal with Atlanta when they approached him, because if he wouldn’t have taken it, the Pirates would definitely be in worse shape in 2010 than they are now.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 30, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your mistake
is thinking that players sign away their free agency years because they are doing something nice for the organization.
McClouth signed the contract because he thought it was a fair deal for his services. If he didn’t think it was fair, why would he have signed it? He was hedging his bet against getting injured or not being able to repeat the performance he had last year.
In McLouth’s case, he gave the club only one option year for $10.65M. Is that really way under market value for him in 3 years? Who knows? If not, then he still gets the $1.5M buyout.
If your employer offered you a contract you didn’t think was fair and you have other options, you probably wouldn’t lock yourself in if you had the choice.
Anyway, the point is to keep Cutch and Alvarez, they are going to have to get significant money up front. That’s what would make them sign.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 30, 2009 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously
But the presumption in these contracts is that the player is exchanging freedom for certainty. Part (not nec. a large part) of that certainty is – usually – sticking with the only organization you’ve known.
Frankly, failure to understand this has become pervasive in American business. Up through the 60s (for blue collar workers) and the 70s (for white collar workers), there was an implicit long-term relationship between workers and companies, and that relationship held value for both sides – workers gained emotional security and companies gained loyalty. For a variety of reasons, that relationship was ditched, and various people have claimed – in retrospect – that there was never any relationship, and that all employment contracts are based exclusively on hard-eyed examination of the immediate financial terms. It’s complete bullshit, but it’s more comforting than admitting that the social contract is damaged.
Point being that, obviously, the players aren’t signing contracts that they think are terrible deals financially. But there’s no doubt in my mind that stability is part of what they believe they’re signing up for (certainly teams expend effort and money to inculcate loyalty in their players – they obviously think there’s value in doing so), and if a GM demonstrates that he places zero value on that stability and that relationship, then he’s going to have to pay more cash in extensions and/or find fewer players willing to sign (McLouth and a number of his teammates felt that NH had lied to him; do you think that helps or hinders NH in negotiating with his players?).
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's no guarantee...
…that the team won’t trade you, just because you signed an extension.
If you want a guarantee that you won’t be moved, that’s called a “no-trade clause”, and in order to get it, you make other concessions on your deal. If you don’t have one, then you can be traded at will, and you sign the contract knowing that.
Extending the analogy to the job security of the blue-collar workers of the ‘60s or the white-collar workers of the ’70s is an enormous stretch. For one thing, a traded player isn’t being fired. He’s being transferred to a different office of the parent company (i.e. Major League Baseball), just like a junior executive who gets a promotion to run the new Dallas office. A player who actually IS fired (i.e. released) is given the balance of his pay for the year, a severance package better than almost any other workers get. And MLB’s pension plan is not only currently extant, but also extremely generous.
Not to mention the fact that the expectation of a long-term relationship between player and team in the past was largely a function of the Reserve Clause, which locked a player into a relationship with the team that owned his rights for as long as they wanted to keep him, regardless of what the player thought about things. It’s bizarre to think that players would look back on the days before free agency with nostalgia – they’re getting a much, much better deal now.
by Vlad on Nov 30, 2009 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The stretch is that the language I was responding to is exactly the language that is used elsewhere in our culture to describe the counterproductive labor-management relations of the past 30+ years – that’s what made me think of it (the relationship had never occurred to me before I read Mark’s comment).
To respond in more detail than it really merits, transferring offices within a company is not a great analogy to changing clubs (not to mention that most workers dislike transfers except when being transferred someplace desirable) – organizations have different philosophies, different hierarchies, and different opportunities. It’s much more like changing jobs, not simply being relocated. And people who change jobs generally do so only for raises – definitely not applicable to traded ballplayers – or for better locations – applicable to most Pirates, I suppose, but not to ballplayers in general.
As for the longevity of the past, it’s undeniable that the reserve clause wasn’t good for ballplayers, but I think the evidence is that workers in general prefer to stay with employers – there was no reserve clause forcing Westinghouse employees (labor or management) to stay with the company their whole careers, but they did as long as they could – as long as it was a good place to work, stability (plus a pension, I’ll readily grant) had its own value.
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Organizations may have different internal ways of doing business...
…but that’s no different from any large corporation with franchises. Look at a large retail chain, or a fast food chain – the branding is the same, but there are lots of different strategies applied within each individual franchise as far as stocking/shelving product, scheduling employees’ shifts, hours of operation, etc. And at the end of the day, the player’s checks aren’t personally signed by Huntington or Coonelly or Nutting. They’re mailed from MLB headquarters.
People don’t just change companies based on salaries or locations – they also do so for the opportunity to do new and different things, or due to a personal conflict with a boss/co-worker, or concerns about the future direction of the company, or thousands of other reasons. As it happens, my own father worked for Westinghouse for about fifteen years – and then he left for another company when he got a better offer.
If you want “counterproductive language” between players and ownership, or asshole behavior by management, you should look at some of the things players and owners said and did prior to free agency.
Just one example: After the 1959 season, a year in which 27-year-old Mickey Mantle led the American League in OPS+, the Yankees cut his salary from $72k to $60k. He staged a holdout (but eventually gave in), and said on national TV, “I thought they might have traded me last year for Herb Score and Rocky Colavito and a little bit of money to the Indians. At the time it made me feel a little bit bad. But I don’t even know if I’d mind getting traded now or not, the way everything’s been going.”
by Vlad on Dec 1, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Christ
Where did I defend the reserve clause?
Any other positions I haven’t taken that you’d like to argue against?
Your dad got a better offer, so he switched companies. A player who gets traded isn’t getting a “better offer” – he’s simply being moved regardless of his preference. Furthermore, if Westinghouse had chosen to match the other company’s offer, would your father have switched just for the fun of it? Of course not.
This is my whole point about the value of stability. If a person works 10 years at a company and is treated well, it will take a better offer, not just an equal offer, to get him/her to switch. Typically, competing companies offer pretty sweet packages to entice employees to switch – a decent cash raise, maybe some benefits (vacation time?), and cover any moving costs. All of which is to say that the “hometown discount” is real; it may not be big (a few percent on a contract, depending on playing time/relative competitiveness of the teams), but it’s going to exist.
by JRoth95 on Dec 1, 2009 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes, sometimes not.
My uncle spent a good bit of time in the Navy. He didn’t get to stay in the same duty assignment the whole time – the military deployed him where they needed him. Were they being “disloyal” to him by forcing him and his wife to periodically move to a different boat/base?
You brought the Reserve Clause into it by waxing rhapsodic about the long-term connections between players and teams in the past. Which were almost entirely a function of the Reserve Clause. If you didn’t want to talk about it, you shouldn’t have gotten all misty-eyed about the way things were in the good old days, when players and teams weren’t so mercenary in their dealings with each other.
by Vlad on Dec 1, 2009 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A couple more, because I'm having fun:
Maury Wills sought such an incentive after an MVP season when he stole a then-league-record 104 bases in 1962.
"Maury asked if there was any way he could get $5,000 more, and suggested if he made the All-Star team, I would give him a $5,000 bonus," Bavasi told MLB.com last year. "I thought about it for a second and said, ’That’s a good idea, Maury. But if you don’t make the All-Star team, I’ll take $5,000 back.’ Maury signed for $80,000."
Wills well remembers that meeting.
"I thought I was going to get a big raise, but after 10 minutes in Buzzie’s office, I was happy I was still on the team," Wills said.
"We operated by the Golden Rule," Bavasi reportedly once said. "He who has the gold rules." -“Legendary Dodgers GM Bavasi dies at 93”, Associated Press
by Vlad on Dec 1, 2009 9:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And again...
Financial woes still dogged the Giants. Trying to save one month’s salary, they released Rusie near the end of the 1892 season. The Giants planned to sign him later and thought they had an agreement with other clubs not to pick Rusie up. However, the Cubs signed Rusie for $6,500 and a bonus of $2,000. New York had to pay more than they bargained for to buy back Rusie.
Seeking to recover what they had to pay to regain Rusie, the Giants set the stage for animosity between Rusie and the club by trying to count the bonus against his salary. More problems arose between Rusie and Andrew Freedman, a Tammany Hall politico who bought the Giants. Freedman, a man with a vile temper, became the most detested owner in the league. In his first year as owner, he went through three managers. The third, a friend of Freedman’s with no baseball background, was an actor. The team fared poorly and dropped from second place to ninth.
In order to save money, Freedman accused Rusie of offenses that Rusie denied. Freedman fined Rusie for these alleged offenses and refused to rescind the fines after the season ended. To make matters worse, Freedman offered a contract to Rusie for only $2,500 for the next season. Rusie held out the entire year and sued Freedman for $5,000. The controversy caused such a commotion in New York that some Wall Street brokers hung a large sign in a Manhattan store window urging fans to boycott the Giants’ games, and police were called to break up a vociferous crowd that had surrounded the sign to show their approval.
[…]
When Rusie threatened to sue, Freedman refused to back down. However, the other owners feared that allowing the case to go to trial could expose their nefarious practices, especially the reserve clause and the ten-day clause. Accordingly, they paid Rusie what he demanded and avoided what could have been a test case for the reserve clause and the ten-day clause. -“Amos Rusie” by Ralph Berger, SABR Baseball Biography Project
by Vlad on Dec 1, 2009 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When you take a step back and look at the Brewers team last year, it becomes apparent that they were a very flawed that was dragged to the playoffs because of outstanding contributions by 3-5 players. The problem for small-market teams is how would they know if they would ever have another chance to make the playoffs? I don’t think they really mortgaged the future either…its not as if their cupboard is bare for their organization. Its not a decision most GM’s would have made, trading away prospects for a 3 month rental with no guarantee they would even make the playoffs, but I admire the chutzpah the organization had to roll the dice. I can’t say I agree with it, but I understand their line of thought.
by NastyNate82 on Nov 30, 2009 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only one that noticed
that this guy called the 1b market “saturated,” using Carlos Delgado and Adam LaRoche as examples. If only we had the assets to acquire one of those studs…
by Mr. E on Nov 29, 2009 7:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Is it just me...
or does it seem like the Pirates still do not realize one thing about the MLB, Pitching. Wins. Championships. It seems like all the trade rumors now have Duke, Maholm, Capps on their way out the door. I would like to think the Buccos are going to turn the corner one of these years but until they develop a starting rotation and a decent bullpen the squad isnt going anywhere IMO.
by C Shint on Nov 29, 2009 7:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
They did draft
Like 300 pitchers this year and traded for a bunch as well….
by Slizeezyc on Nov 29, 2009 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do think they realize that.
I think that’s why there has been an increased focus on building the starting pitching staff and going to strikeout pitchers and those with superior stuff. Duke is certainly not going to be any central figure in winning a championship for the Pirates or anyone. He can be a good 4th starter, but that’s not going to make a big difference maker in the playoffs. What I think is interesting is that they would not trade Duke for JJ Hardy, despite the fact they have the same service time. So I don’t see them trading him until he becomes the Pirates’ 5th best starter, which probably will come pretty soon.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 29, 2009 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pitching. Wins. Championships...
…When. Supported. By. Sufficient. Quantities. Of. Offense. And. Defense.
by Vlad on Nov 30, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously, pitching is everything
All you have to do is look at the top five teams in ERA in the AL in 2009:
Mariners
White Sox
Yankees
Athletics
Tigers
If pitching wasn’t everything, then you’d figure maybe only one of those teams would have made the playoffs. Instead, . . . oh, wait . . . .
by WTM on Nov 30, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Brewer Mistakes
I agree that pitching is the cornerstone to winning (even if Littlefield said it). If you have good pitching, you can win a lot of games with average offense. One tf the reasons the Brewers are dropping is because their surge was built on offense, not pitching. They should have traded a few of those young stud hitters for pitchers early on. And now they are making the biggest mistake of all. They are holding onto Fielder, who is one veggieburger away from disability, instead of trading him now for all they can get. Fielder’s future is in the AL with all the rest of the big bats who are more physically limited every day.
by Batavia on Nov 29, 2009 7:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if anybody here reads Larry Dobrow, but he has articles every offseason where he takes teams who didn’t make the playoffs and makes suggestions, etc. Its pointless, but interesting to see other people’s perspectives. Anyways, he recently addressed the Brewers and suggested they trade Fielder ASAP. As he puts it: “Does anyone out there think Fielder is the type of player who will age well?” Tough to play first anytime if you’re carrying around a spare tire.
by NastyNate82 on Nov 30, 2009 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He'll age as well as his dad did.
In other words, his Major League career will be over by 2019.
by IAPiratesFan on Nov 30, 2009 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha
Uhhhhh, that’s the interesting article Charlie mentioned in the first word of this post….
by Slizeezyc on Nov 30, 2009 1:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're sorry?
For creating OPS? Don’t be sorry for that.
by Slizeezyc on Nov 30, 2009 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha
I suppose that has been useful, hasn’t it?
by NastyNate82 on Nov 30, 2009 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Idk
I feel like trading a guy like Duke or Maholm away now is not a good thing. Id rather trade say Doumit away to get more pitching prospects into the system. I think as of now Duke and Maholm have to lead the rotation and to get rid of them would cripple the team worse then it already is, just hold on to them until the guys come to replace them.
by C Shint on Nov 30, 2009 12:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Milwaukee and Minnesota...
also are going to have some rather large financial decisions to make in the not too distant future. In Milwaukee’s case…Braun and Fielder…in Minnesota’s case…Mauer and Morneau. Those are going to be some VERY healthy contracts when they reach free agency. I’m thinking in each team’s case…over $30M a year just for 2 players…and that may be a significant underestimate.
Something like that happens for the Pirates…let’s say for example…Pedro and Cutch…is Nutting going to spend half the Pirates payroll on 2 players?? I have my doubts.
by Thunder on Nov 30, 2009 12:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I would hope not
It’s a recipe to get stalled at .500, like . . . uh . . . the Brewers.
by WTM on Nov 30, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well that's the whole issue, isn't it?
A contender needs at least 2 ~5 WAR guys plus a goodly handful of 3-4 WAR guys. ~5 WAR guys are valued by FanGraphs at ~$23M, 4 WAR guys at $18M. So unless virtually all your best players are in their first 4 years* of control, you’re looking at huge numbers to just a few players. The 2012 Bucs figure to be a cheap ~.525 team, but the 2013 club will start to see rocketing payroll – off the top of my head, $25-40M for just Cutch, Ohlie, and Luigi – and only one of those guys is a stud. If Jones or Morton produce, add another $15M or more just for them. And you don’t have a single FA on board.
The Pirates’ window for contention is simply tiny, because they can really only afford to have 1 or 2 4+ WAR guys beyond Year 4 at a time.
- On the theory that Year 1 of arbitration usually returns below-market salaries, but Years 2 & 3 get pretty close to FA pricing
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's why if they want to have Cutch for more than 5 more years
They will need to buy out at least 2 of his free agency years after next year. That will be the end of his first year of service time. They’ll have 2-3 cheap years where they can spread out his value. 7yrs/$70m with an 8th year for $18M. That will have him in a Pirate uni for 10 years before they trade him before the option year.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 30, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
Actually the smart thing, for right now, is to seriously frontload the contract – $15M in ‘11, $13M in ’12, $10M in ’13, etc. They’ve got so much extra payroll space right now that it would be far better spent on Cutch’s 2015 season than on Rick Ankiel or whoever. I almost wish they would sign such a deal this winter to start that ball rolling – it would be premature, but it would be great in terms of cashflow (assuming he stays healthy, of course).
No idea whether a player would accept those terms – it would be smart, but very counterintuitive, and would screw up market valuation.
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Frontloading a contract is bad economics.
Present dollars are always more valuable than future dollars. That’s why banks pay interest on deposits.
by Vlad on Nov 30, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree if it adds to the same amount
But if the Pirates can get a discount by spreading out the money, then it could be a win for both parties. Just like a bank has the ability to wait for more money later. The Pirates have money to invest in a long term payoff.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 30, 2009 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But to say money of this year is better spent on Cutch than Ankiel is not necessarily true.
Because it’s 2 different things entirely. If it’s a matter of paying Cutch in the future, the Pirates can just put that money in the bank drawing interest until they need to pay Cutch.
On the other hand, if there’s an idea that Ankiel would be paid $2M and revive his career and value, and then be worth some valuable prospects at the deadline for the Pirates, that could be worth much more than saving that money for Cutch.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 30, 2009 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well sure, if Ankiel’s available for cheap, but then there’s no competition – there’s no danger of the Pirates being unable to pony up a couple million for a FA anytime soon.
But seriously, with interest rates right now, it’s not at all clear that the Bucs would get much, even if they literally opened a McCutchen Payday Account – a million a year or so? Gomez money.
Anyway, it wasn’t a serious proposal because it would be crazy to sign a guy to an 8 year contact after 100 ML games.
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Rays signed Longoria to a 9 year deal after 7 games I believe. Of course, the deal they got was insanely cheap. I don’t know if Cutch would do something something even close.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 30, 2009 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've never understood that
Were the Rays that certain about Longoria? Was he that unsure of his future?
I guess it’s just the logical conclusion of the Indians’ model.
by JRoth95 on Dec 1, 2009 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They were that certain about him.
And from his standpoint, having the guaranteed payout was worth a substantial discount on future earnings. Longoria’s signing bonus out of the draft was $3M. That’s a lot of money, but it’s not “guaranteed financial security for life” money. Add another $17.5M minimum on top of it, though, and invest it conservatively, and you’ll never have to work again even if this baseball thing doesn’t work out.
He could’ve maybe doubled or tripled that yield if he’d gone year-to-year, but the difference between a $20M lifestyle and a $60M lifestyle isn’t that huge, compared with the potential difference between $3M (if he’d been a bust) and $20M. And if he stays healthy and plays well enough to be worth that $60M in year-to-year negotiations, he’ll still get a bite at the really big money as a free agent no later than age 30 in 2016.
I think it was a solid, sensible decision for him to make at that point in his life. Sort of the contract equivalent of selling an annuity for a lump sum, so you can put the money to a specific time-sensitive use.
by Vlad on Dec 1, 2009 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They don’t pay much on deposits these days.
But in the Pirates specific situation, I don’t see how you get there – in Year 6 of his tenure here, he’ll be competing with a half dozen guys for a share of a limited payroll. In 2010, the Pirates could give him $20M and still turn a handsome profit.
Unless you literally think that the Pirates will put $20M into, what, 5 year T-bills for use when they need to pay a lot of salary, I don’t see much benefit in running a $25M team this year when they know they’ll need $125M in just 4 years.
by JRoth95 on Nov 30, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Depending on what their interest rate is on money owed on the team
they could pay down debt now and then borrow against it again when needed. That’s how I expect they would handle it if that’s their plan. The interest they are paying now is probably greater than what they could earn by investing it in other ways.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 30, 2009 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That had occurred to me
Although isn’t their debt ratio damned low right now?
Would anyone refinance a baseball team at this moment?
I can’t even imagine what financial instruments are available to the likes of the Nuttings (hopefully sounder than the ones the Wilpons chose)
by JRoth95 on Dec 1, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Considering an MLB team is
one of the best value holding assets you can have today, I would guess the answer is yes. Plus, he would only be refinancing a small part of it.
Mark Cuban borrowed money for the Mavericks after the NBA Finals appearance so he could raise the payroll temporarily beyond what revenue would support.
So that shows that a) it wouldn’t be unprecedented to borrow money temporarily to raise payroll on a temporary basis, and b) even Mark Cuban does not put his personal money into the Mavs to spend on payroll.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 1, 2009 6:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Braun will be 32 by the time they have to worry about resigning him. They got a very favorable deal out of him before last season that runs through 2015. They bought out his first two free agency years for $10 and $12 million, so $30 million between the two of them in those years is not an underestimate.
They’re getting to the point where they’re going to have to think about making a call on Fielder very soon. Boras is going to want him to hit the free agent market in 2012 and they’re going to have to figure out whether or not they can produce the best offer before he makes it there.
by ElDuce on Nov 30, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
pirates have signed LHP wilfredo Ledezma to a minor league deal
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/pirates-sign-wil-ledezma.html#comments
Vikings 4 the superbowl
by RaysOfHope on Nov 30, 2009 2:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Charlie, you sound a bit like you're trash talking
Articles like this aren’t rare. You can get them from the ever so worthless Rob Neyer or with a massive dose of snark like Christopher Kahrl. I know its exciting for people who are in their teens or early twenties to see similarly aged dispensing advice, but does Larry Dobrow add anything? Is there anything in that article that isn’t regurgitated rosterbation or the typical NY condescension? What a surprise, Larry is a huge Yankees fan. He loves the pinstripers and NY music. And hey, he thinks its funny when people send him hate mail.
I think the baseball comments are sort of funny. Rickie Weeks is a horrible defender. Trevor Hoffman isn’t that good (could he be regurgitating Dave Cameron who suggested Bob Howry instead? GAK). Cory Hart has a big trade market and taking on friggin Lowe’s contract is a good idea. Washburn’s performance was due to a big park, not knee problems. Instead they should sign friggin’ Doug Davis. I’ll bet Larry hasn’t seen an entire Doug Davis pitched game and probably not a Brewers game in his life. He has a series so he checks what Chris and Rob and Dave have already said, spends a few minutes with MLBTR and voila, nearly free money.
The discussion of the Brewers and Pirates lessons leaves out an important fact – that is other than Ben Sheets is merely an above average pitcher – the Pirates actions have been affected by the large amount of money they have gotten from revenue sharing. If the new CBA cuts that back, maybe the Pirates will end their churn cycle.
by ol Pete on Dec 7, 2009 3:59 PM EST 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 © 2010 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.
