Matt Capps Non-Tendered!
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 13, 2009 12:16 AM EST
201 comments
Duke tendered, Dumatrait not.
A statement from Neal Huntington: "We attempted to reach agreement with both Matt and Phil prior to the deadline. Each player preferred to explore free agency. We have not closed any doors but will begin immediately to explore other opportunities to improve our bullpen."
What have you all got to say to this: Hanrahan's the closer now?
UPDATE by Charlie: Wow. Dumatrait isn't worth worrying about, but the Capps move is weird. Capps surely wasn't likely to be worth whatever he would have gotten in arbitration, but some team can usually be convinced to overpay for a "closer," even a bad one. Maybe that's changing somewhat, and the salary dump by the Braves of Rafael Soriano, a good closer, may have been an indication that closers are becoming more properly valued.
I didn't see this coming, though, and I'm surprised in the sense that I had hoped the Pirates would get a prospect or two for Capps down the line. They almost certainly would have, too, if he'd bounced back at all, so the Bucs must think that's not going to happen. Like some in the comments, I'm not totally sure what Capps' problems were last year, so I'm not sure what he needs to do to fix them, but Capps is still young and has only had one bad year. Given the room in the Pirates' budget, it's surprising that they weren't willing to take him to arbitration and hope for him to improve. Capps isn't a necessary player for the Bucs right now, or an important part of their future--like I said a couple days ago, closers are a luxury item. But he'd certainly have value in a trade if he pitched well for a couple months. This is a strange non-tender, and I'll be waiting to see what Huntington does in its wake.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
0 recs |
201 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I'm surprised.
I guess this means that NH and company don’t have a lot of faith in him returning to form. Oh well, I guess those early reports of him not being tendered destroyed what little trade value he had left.
Not sure about this move
Capps made $2.4M last year, and was probably only due a small raise in arbitration since he struggled. But when you consider how much room in payroll the Bucs have for 2010, and what some FA relievers are getting out there, you’d think it would have been worth seeing if Capps could get straightened out this year. I guess they had little confidence that he could do so.
Capps non-tendered
Capps wasn’t given enough time to rebound from the hit he took on the elbow. He still
needs the winter to completely heal. Hanrahan has not impressed me at all so cross
your fingers and hold on tight.
"Hanrahan has not impressed me at all..."
Really? Hanrahan had a 1.72 ERA with the Bucs last year and a 4.72 ERA overall. His peripherals were pretty solid though he did walk too many batters with the Pirates. He averaged over 10 K’s per nine and had a 2.75 FIP after the trade. His tRA and xFIP with the Pirates were pretty solid too, 3.60 and 4.31 respectively. A large part of his struggles with the Nats last year had a lot to do with his abnormally high .451 BABIP. I think Hanrahan will be fine.
I’ll take Hanrahan’s stuff over Capps’ flat 94 mph fastball that was always crushed.
"Everybody panic! If you have a small child, use it as a shield! They love tender meat."
by BattlinBucs on Dec 13, 2009 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
I'm shocked too
Then again he never impressed me too much. He always seemed to get hit pretty hard even before last season. I am a big fan of Meek and Hanrahan so I’m glad to see those two battle it out, most likely though, it will be Hanrahan.
"Everybody panic! If you have a small child, use it as a shield! They love tender meat."
Indian non-tenders.
Adam Miller and Anthony Reyes have been non-tendered by the tribe. Both could be interesing depth options. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Bucs sign at least one of them.
Miller, even though he is constantly injured, is supposed to have filthy stuff. Although I think he’s been hurt so much, he may be entering Craig Hansen territory.
Good buy low with a ton of upside if has recovered from his finger surgeries.
If we could get him on a minor league contract there’d be no risk.
I would gladly...
…take either one.
by Vlad on Dec 13, 2009 11:37 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
We'll have to trade for them...
Indians resigned both to minor league contracts.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/indians-resign-anthony-reyes-adam-miller.html
Catching depth...
Raul Chavez and John Buck have been non-tendered. Both would provide us with some much needed catching depth. Especially so if we do end up trading Doumit.
Obviously they couldn't.
It was well documented that they were shopping interest and it was reported by DK that there was no interest.
I don’t recall him saying there was no interest, just that Capps’ name had been discussed in possible deals that obviously didn’t happen.
If JJ Putz can get $3M or whatever it was coming off a bad season and arm surgery, I can’t believe there was no interest in Capps.
Exactly
The Putz signing proves that Capps, with only a partial return to form, would have had value in ‘10. The Pirates aren’t short of cash or roster space to explore that value.
I wasn't saying that...
he couldn’t rebuild value and interest with a return to form. I was just referring that DK had reported there was no interest by the end of the meetings. NH referenced that today on the PG website stating that his trade value diminished when a story leaked that he may be non-tendered. I too think we should have offered him a tender and then traded him when he regained some value. I don’t think we should be letting assets walk away with no return.
To be fair to both sides on this one
The guys giving out these contracts to relievers (see: Hendry, Wade, Williams and Melvin) are not exactly known for their smart spending (Melvin is good at other stuff, but he tends to overpay in FA).
But
I still think they fumbled a potential asset at this point, but like I said somewhere else, I’d like to hear everything about this or see what else happens in the offseason before really jumping to too many conclusions.
I also think there are plenty of cheaper options out there who are safer/better than Capps as well so I want to see what the Pirates pick up.
I m shocked
In spite of the “no interest” reports from DK, I cant believe the Pirates would have gotten nothing for Capps.
There was the PG article earlier today where there was (it appears) a mysterious line about the Pirates working on opening a roster space- this line apparently disappeared and then reappeared. I wondered at the time if a trade might be in the works, and DK was requested to keep it quiet for a while (i have no clue if this is standard practice or not; i just wanted to make clear that I m not intending to offend anyone here). I wasn’t actually aware Dumatrait was arb-eligible, but I expected that we might take someone like Claggett, Bixler or Vazuez off the roster- Vazquez possibly via a minor trade…
In any case, while Capps didnt have a great year, and I particularly didnt have much faith in him, I think he still should have been tendered, because we could have gotten some return for him! Perhaps, there’s active work on FAs toward whom the extra money might go, but I will admit to some skepticism at this point, unless I see a signing that’s worth it (or at least, strong efforts toward a signing).
Let's be clear.....
Charlie, I think is misstating it in his update. Dumatrait was NOT arb eligible. He has just over a year of ML service time. The chose basically to just release him.
yeah i read that later
he wasnt particularly good onhis return, so i dont care too much about this one…
NH is quoted......
on the PBC blog just now as saying media reports of Capps possibly being non-tendered killed all potential trade value. I think NH negotiated to the deadline and they couldn’t agree on a contract so he got non-tendered, but I don’t think it was clear to NH a month ago that that was going to happen because there was the possibility of not going to arbitration. Just different views of Capps’ value.
I think it’s pretty silly to say “I can’t believe he couldn’t get anything for him.” There was a price where we would keep Capps. When we get down to a week away from the non-tender date, GMs are much less likely to give up anything of value. If NH could have gotten something he would have. But it also shows that other GMs didn’t feel it was worth giving up anything in order to have the opportunity to go to arbitration with Capps. Clearly no one else thought paying him $3-4 million next year was worth anything.
Which is why you don’t trade him now, at the bottom of his value.
I’m honestly not sure why NH didn’t offer a contract with plenty of incentives. Maybe Capps simply wanted guaranteed money, or maybe NH doesn’t want to set a precedent of incentive-laden contracts for players under control, but it seems to me that the alternative to a nasty arbitration fight in a situation like this one is to say, “OK, base salary is last year plus 5%. If you pitch better than last year, then you get 10% more; if you pitch as well as you did the year before, 20% more; if you pitch better than ever before, 50% more.”
I know that the CBA limits what incentives you can use (which is a big problem, btw; I know why it’s so, but I think it’s creating perverse incentives, as you see with all the non-tenders last night), but surely you can find measures that will approximate the 3 categories I outlined.
I love the way people are throwing around the term "bottom of his value".
How do you know what his value will be next year? Can you see into the future? Maybe he’ll totally collapse in 2010. Or blow out his arm. Or steal a baby, like Tabata’s wife.
If you want to advance that argument, that’s fine, but remember that you’re only talking about his present value, which isn’t necessarily the lowest point that his value will ever be.
(Sigh) (eyeroll)
If no one was willing to trade anything at all for him, how much lower could his value be, in a baseball sense? But yeah, geez, how can people “throw around” such a term so cavalierly. My god, they should be ashamed.
You can always have negative trade value.
There are players who would be un-tradeable even if their current team were to cover their entire salary AND ask virtually nothing in return.
I’m not sure why you object to my point. Arguing that trading a player involves moving him “at the bottom of his value” is, on some levels, intellectually dishonest. It involves begging the question on whether Capps is likely to improve enough next season to justify his 2010 salary, when there is in actuality a reasonable chance that he’ll be just as bad (if not worse).
How about "the lowest it's ever been"?
People have offered a number of reasons that his value is likely to go up, at least somewhat. They’ve pointed to age, velocity, health, certain peripherals that remained good even through 2009, and all-holy regression to the mean. I’ve never seen any of those arguments dismissed as “intellectually dishonest” before.
If no one had pointed out any of those things, then your argument/accusation would be completely correct.
I would like to see people's actual expectations.
Pointing at those things as possible reasons for improvement is good, but no real effort is being made to quantify the actual run value of any of them, or to quantify the chance of any of those possibilities actually coming to pass. For some reasons, that’s justifiable (i.e. we can’t know much about Capps’s health), but for others (i.e. velocity, peripherals), it’s not.
What kind of trade return at the deadline next year would have made people happy, and how far would he have to “bounce back” in order for such a return to be feasible? That’s the real question at the heart of the nut here, and I don’t see much effort being made to address it.
I think there’s been some discussion in the direction you suggest – I know that I’ve mentioned a couple times what I think he’d have to do in 2010 to justify his salary and make a decent return possible. You’re right that there hasn’t been a detailed discussion of it, but I think that’s because there’s a rough consensus that A. the Pirates can afford Capps even at a raise*, and B. if Capps rebounds at all, then he’ll have trade value. With those premises, we’ve been trying to hash out why NH acted as he did.
To lay it out clearly: to me, at $3.5-4M, even a nominal return to form by Capps makes him worthwhile because he would almost certainly garner a prospect in trade. Assuming a June/July trade, you’re looking at a half season of slightly below-average performance for slightly above-average money, and then a ~B AA prospect in return (with the ability to upgrade the prospect by taking on salary if need be). I really don’t think he needs to pitch great in 2010 to rebuild his value, just well enough to change the apparent path of decline (and I think mere regression to the mean would do the trick). Obviously, if something clicks with him and he returns to 2006-7 form, then he’s a good value even at $5M (and, if they like, tradable for real talent).
- the late-breaking idea that he was looking at $5M in arbitration changes that equation significantly; so does MarkInDallas’ PitchFX analysis
It's splitting hairs
You’re taking people to task for semantics, for phrasing something a certain way. Does “bottom of his value” = “lower than it’s ever been” (I was already thinking that JRoth95!)? Literally, maybe not, I wouldn’t care to examine or argue it. And even if you don’t think it’s “lower than it’s ever been”, what would the argument be? That it was actually lower on July 11 and again on July 29, and after his 2004 minor league season?
"Bottom of his value"...
…doesn’t just mean “lower than it’s ever been”. It means “lower than it’s ever been, and lower than it’ll ever be again”. It includes an inherent assumption that a solid bounceback is a fait accompli… without bothering to address the odds of that happening, or the likely extent of such a bounceback if it does.
Which closes off almost all useful discussion and analysis of the move. Let’s say (for the sake of argument) that Capps puts up a 4.50 ERA in 2010, with fairly good health. Given that level of performance, could he be moved at the deadline for a prospect package good enough to justify having paid him $4M+ this year? Is it still worth it after you factor in the opportunity cost of not spending that money on something else?
Those, to me, are much more useful and interesting questions. And relying on “bottom of his value” to argue against the non-tender more or less walls them out of the conversation.
I have to disagree.
It’s a significant distinction.
Most of the time, I’m willing to concede that I’m just being a usage Nazi, but these two terms really do mean completely different things.
I actually agree
that there’s a meaningful distinction; I just think that A. there’s a certain awareness that his value actually could stay this low or go down farther (iow, that they’re using the term incorrectly), and B. it doesn’t fundamentally change the argument to switch from “bottom” to “lowest yet.” Everyone’s agreed that keeping Capps represents some risk; there’s just a feeling that it’s a worthwhile one.
Anyway.
There are quality bullpen options still available ( Kiki Calero, Kevin Gregg, Octavio Dotel, Bob Howry, Igarashi, Darren Oliver, even Chan Ho Park, F. Rodney, Kip Wells…well, maybe not the last one).
But given what Hawkins ,Grabow, and Lyon have gotten in free agency, it looks like this is a season of huge overpay and in many cases multi-year deals for middle of the road relief. That’s what makes this odd, and a move I would have had trouble doing from the Pirates perspective.
We’ll see, though…
I think this is the key point
There are a lot of free agent pitchers out there, some quite good. The PBC is in a position to negotiate with all of them, and a number of organizations have already made commitments that will take them out of the running.
Viva Clemente!
Can't say I like this a whole lot.
From 06-08, Capps went 15-11 with 40 saves. WHIP: 1.055. ERA+: 143. SO/9: 6.7.
Last year sucked, but that wasn’t a big enough sample size to give up on the guy. He was a proven bullpen arm in 06-08 and i think he had a good chance of rebounding. Also he’s only 26. Plenty of time to rebound. It might have been wise to hold on to him this season and maybe raise his trade value. If he sucked again, the Pirates could non-tender him next year instead. This move makes me wonder if they are more worried about money than doing what’s best for the team.
This looks like a cheap move now and I’m somewhat skeptical, but for now I’m willing to give us the benefit of the doubt that we’ll find good value for the ’pen by Opening Day.
The problem isn’t that Capps doesn’t have value, but he apparently didn’t for the amount of money he would get in arbitration (where saves are heavily valued, and he still had 27 this past year).
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 13, 2009 5:59 AM EST up reply actions
You might have have had something there, IPF...
…right up until you sprung that last sentence…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 13, 2009 6:01 AM EST up reply actions
And THEN
I go and call you IPF. Please accept my apologies.
…
That being said, I don’t think it’s the money.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 13, 2009 6:37 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah.
Did you think I was this guy? If so, don’t let it happen again.
That being said, I just thought this move seemed incredibly cheap on the Pirates part. I think most everyone on this blog realizes the Pirates have to make smart financial decisions, but they shouldn’t do that by sacrificing smart baseball decisions.
by IAPiratesFan on Dec 13, 2009 7:09 AM EST up reply actions
I caught that right away, dude...
hence my reply. ;-)
I think that after all the froofaraw over the budgets / payroll / profit making & takings etc. that was up on the P-G and debated here for days, that this particular move is more tactical than financial.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 13, 2009 7:51 AM EST up reply actions
Not Surprised
Almost wrote an entry yesterday about having a feeling Capps was going to be non-tendered. Also notice that Toronto non-tendered their only catcher but tendered Accardio.
Reading between the lines; we opened up an extra roster spot when we really didn’t have to – Capps and Dumatrait, was there any reason we released Dumatrait?
Seems to me like Doumit to Toronto for 3 relief pitchers is in the offing, or for 2 with a sign of another rp to fill the roster.
Thoughts? Why would we have released Dumatrait right now instead of when we picked someone else up?
Dumatrait would have gone to arbitration, and he clearly isn’t worth anything.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 13, 2009 6:55 AM EST up reply actions
To elaborate . . .
Dumatrait at most had two years (2008-09) plus a little over a month in 2007, when he started six games for the Reds and 25 games in the minors. He wasn’t on the super two list, obviously.
The move with Dumatrait is just as puzzling as the one with Capps, although the Pirates are far less likely to regret it. They could have renewed Dumatrait’s contact for whatever they wanted. The only reason for releasing him was to clear a roster spot. There was no reason to do that now and pretend it was because they couldn’t reach an agreement. Huntington’s statement, as it applies to Dumatrait, is disingenuous at best.
you coulda
just used insincere instead of making me google and learn a new word…
:)
by BlindSquirrel on Dec 13, 2009 9:06 PM EST up reply actions
Wow.
Even I’M not too lazy for Google, dude…
(I did, however, know what “disingenuous” meant.)
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 13, 2009 9:45 PM EST up reply actions
never use a long word...
when a diminuitive one will do.
by BlindSquirrel on Dec 13, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
Not Happy, But.....
I’d like to see Capps back but lets think about this:
-His WHIPS went from .97 in 2008 to 1.66 in 2009.
-His main talent is thorwing strikes and not walking anyone. Well in 2008 he had .09 BB/IP and .73 KO/IP. in 2009 these were .31 and ..85. He got more K’s but walked 3 times more.
-He was offered a new contract, but turned it down.because he though he could get more at arbitration. So it was not like the Bucs did not offer him a deal. He just is rolling the dice.
-If an injury in 2009 was the cause, then we will see. Maybe the real cause was he lost the ability to throw strikes!
-As someone mentioned he was always hit hard when guys go the bat on the ball, His HR/IP went from .09 in 2008 to .18 in 2009.
So both the Bucs and Capps are taking a chance. IMHO, I think Capps is taking a bigger chance than the Bucs are.
too clever by half
Capps had a terrible season last year and I doubt he has many fans on this forum. Even my mom was hoping they’d make him part of the trading freny last year. However, he was not so bad as to be released, especially when the bullpen was so crummy last year. Granted, he was a big part of the reason for that. But he could be good this year, and we don’t have to go out and find him, We already have him. There’s really no way they could have reached a deal between now and the hearing?
I don’t like it, and I think it smacks of Huntington again needing to be the smart in a way no one else is. If Capps is in fact toast, it will be a good move. I just don’t think that’s a foregone conclusion or even the likely result. You don’t release quality relievers. To the extent that the realities of arbitratrion forced this, it’s an illustration of how that system might need a tweak,
Normally you phrases like “If Capps is in fact toast, it will be a good move” are a bad way to assess baseball moves, but in this case I think it’s apt: the only way I see this being a smart move (barring, I guess, some crazy trade that required his roster spot) is if it turns out that Capps is finished, and the Pirates correctly assessed that. Not that they guessed right, but that they determined, whether through physical examination or video analysis or scouting, that something permanent and unfixable had changed with him. In which case they proceeded correctly, trying to hide their knowledge and get something for him before the deadline, but not throwing $3M at him.
I’m pretty skeptical that they’re actually that smart, however. Among other things, all he needs is to show a semblance of a return to form to regain (some) value. Given their payroll situation, there’s no reason to scruple over small numbers like this.
Meh
Capps hasn’t impressed me for a long time.
Who says we need a closer anyway? Closer by committee can work, though I hardly think Russell is the guy to make it work.
Capps doesn't have to close
to have value. If he pitches even halfway between his ‘06-’08 form and his ‘09, he’s a worthwhile reliever (maybe not worth $3M, but better than replacement, esp. given his general durability).
JRoth has hit the nail on the head imo
i m fine with the Bucs deciding that they can get equal value for Capps out there on the FA market, or that Capps is dispensable. I m fine with them deciding they want to unload him.
I m having trouble believing Capps had zero value on the trade market. When Doug Melvin (who’s fairly smart, imo) is overpaying for bullpen help, would he have balked at Capps potential cost of about $3.5M? Or would Hendry (who’s not that smart) not felt like he would be willing to give up something? Putz case coming off a shoulder injury has been mentioned already.
I just feel we should have been able to get something back for Capps- I could be on board with the assessment that Capps isnt worth his price to the Bucs, but if non-tender was a possibility, it seems to me the FO shouldhave grabbed what they could and shipped him off. Which makes me feel, as was pointed out somewhere (either on this blog or one of the other Pirate blogs) that the issue over a new contract became personal.
by BurgherKing on Dec 13, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
Watching teams overpay for closers has always bugged me. However, its not like $3M is much money given the current free agent prices (LaTroy Hawkins @ $3.75M per, Brandon Lyon @ $5M per, etc). Given the state of our current bullpen (complete crap), we can’t afford to let a guy who was once a quality reliever and still has a solid probability to return to form go over a measly $2-2.5M in savings.
NH better have something up his sleeve. His grace period during the dismantling process is nearing its end.
by Chad Bahamas on Dec 13, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
I would say this move with Matt Capps
makes it more likely the team will pursue one of a couple of Japanese pitchers that were discussed before who should come more cheaply-righty power arm Ryota Igarashi and lefty starter/reliever Hisanori Takahashi-to give us more bullpen depth.
And I would further say the team is looking for bigger and better things from not only Hanrahan, but also Meek.
The removal of Dumatrait from the bullpen mix,
and the availability of Hisanori Takahashi is interesting to me.
Takahashi played for 10 years for the Yomiuri Giants-Kuwata’s old team-and I can easily see Kuwata recommending him to the Bucs. My understanding is that Takahashi has made it clear he will play in the U.S. next year, and I can guarantee you if he’s healthy he is a much more accomplished pitcher than some goofball like Dumatrait.
New bullpen
With an open spot on the 25-man, and 2 on the 40-man, I think we might be seeing a new closer being brought in. My thought is that NH should go after Bobby Jenks. Jenks and Capps are very similar, in which they have a “weight problem”, they’re hard-throwing closers, and the team they play on have gotten sick of them. But Jenks is a much better option for the Pirates, and he can be had for cheap.
Another option for the bullpen is Danny Moskos. Moskos was a dominant closer in college, which put him in many people’s top 10 for the draft (not to justify the Pirates’ choice). He is clearly not a starter, as his stats are solid, but not too exciting. If the Pirates were to put Moskos in the closer role in AAA, and groom him to be the next closer, I’m sure he could be a reliable piece for our future.
Moskos, really?
He can’t even get people out in AA. He’ll be lucky to make it to the majors as a LOOGY.
Moskos
No, no, no…don’t start his service time clock any sooner than absolutely necessary. He’ll be a big part of the future for the Bucs…please don’t waste his time next year. Please!
My guess is
Moskos could do a fairly good Capps 2009 impersonation.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 13, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
So in essence
We wouldn’t be losing anything, right?
by MarkInDallas on Dec 13, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
depends on
whether you believe the 2009 Capps is the real one, or he is due for some regression, that would put his value closer to 2008.
I m sure there are multiple clubs out there who would buy Capps as a decent reliever if not as a closer.
by BurgherKing on Dec 13, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
I was just joking. But they must be pretty certain that Capps won’t return to form enough to be worth what he would get in arbitration. Otherwise they wouldn’t do this. We’ll see if they are right or not.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 13, 2009 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
I guess...
Neal must think he can get a better relief pitcher on the open market for what Capps would’ve recieved in arb. We’ll see if he was right in a few months.
this is exactly what i m arguing against
he might be able to get a relief pitcher cheaper, and one who provides equal value, but he could still have traded Capps for anything he could get, and I bet he could have found a team willing to give up a low A prospect.
by BurgherKing on Dec 13, 2009 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
You "bet"...
…but that’s not the same thing as knowing, is it?
by Vlad on Dec 13, 2009 12:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Does NH know?
I mean come on, it’s all guessing and betting. NH has more resources for knowing who’s available, but he has no particular powers of prescience regarding the FA market in January or how any given player will perform in ’10.
If there’s a 11% chance that a replacement reliever will outperform Capps next year, then NH could sign 9 of them for $3M next year and keep the good one. Not sure exactly how he figures out which one is better, but that’s just logistics.
sure, i m willing to concede i dont "know"
but is it likely no one was willing to give up anything? Possible, yes; likely, no!
If you really cant get anything remotely of value, why not pick up a young low-A pitcher, mid-round draft, where the team doesn’t particularly care, hope he becomes a Rudy Owens, or at least a reliever, if not, fine… no worse than what we have here, by cutting Capps loose for nothing
by BurgherKing on Dec 13, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
Another thing to consider
I think Huntington is trying to run things in general as how he would like things to be run long term. So, for example, he’s not looking at 2010 and thinking he has enough money to overpay for a bullpen so why not do it. He’s more thinking that in 5 years, he’s going to have considerably less money to spend on the bullpen since he’ll be paying position players a lot more. So I think he wants to see if he can be successful in putting together a bullpen on the cheap and what the pit falls of that are.
That’s the impression I get with a lot of his moves. For example, moving McLouth when he did and bringing up McCutchen.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 13, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
you're msunderstanding my point
i agree with everything u say here. If NH and crew deemed Capps dispensable, fair enough. If he thinks 4M for Capps is overpaying, fair enough. If he thought Hanrahan/Meek give equal value at a lower cost, fair enough.
My only objection is to letting Capps walk for nothing. It’s hard to believe that no one was willing to give up anything for Capps the reliever- it could be, but I don’t buy it right now. So, why didn’t we get something for Capps?
Is this a rhetorical question?
…..They didn’t want to take the gamble of guessing/assuming Capps would bounce back and that not be the case. They would then be stuck with a contract for Capps that they wouldn’t feel he is worth. So they didn’t get “nothing” for Capps. They got to keep the 3-4 million they would potentially be stuck paying him if he didn’t bounce back and get traded.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Dec 13, 2009 6:39 PM EST up reply actions
at the risk of beating a dead horse
I am basically in the camp which believes we could’ve gotten something for Capps down the road, if not now. We have the salary flexibility to have slightly overpaid for him, but that if we were dead set on dumping the salary, we could have done so. I m not saying NH just decided before the deadline to dump Capps- I m sure he explored possibilties, but like a few other potential non-tenders, who were tendered, we could have tendered Capps.
I might be wrong, thats just my opinion right now.
The flip side is
If they tender him, he’s being paid $4M and he doesn’t bounce back. How could they trade him for prospects then?
If you take a look at my analysis of the movement on Capps’ fastball over the past 3 years on the PBC blog, although Capps hasn’t lost velocity, he has lost vertical and horizontal movement on it which exactly corresponds to his tRA worsening over the past 3 years.
In 2007, he had average horizontal movement and exceptional vertical movement on his fastball. Now he has below average horiz movement and only average vertical movement.
So not only does he not have the command he used to have, he essentially is a 1 pitch fastball pitcher with a below average fastball.
This decline started happening in 2008, so there’s really no guarantee he’s going to bounce back. It’s not just a matter of control.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 13, 2009 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
i think the point was made further down this thread that since teams were in discussions for him before the non-tender rumors, there was interest- so there should have been the possibility of tendering him, and then trading him, before the regular season.
There is still the possibility of him recovering the movement (I havent checked your analysis, but will- thanks for doing it!), and it seems worth a shot, assuming a big signing is not in the works, and the payroll is not expected to suddenly spurt. I mean, come on, we are paying $4M between Vazquez, Crosby and Cedeno, only one of whom will play with any frequency (OK, that analogy isnt particularly relevant to pitching, esp relief pitching, i m simply saying we are not so close to the budget that we need to get them right everytime).
In any case, there may be more factors than we are aware, and at this point, every possible angle of speculation has been exhausted here. Let’s just say I (and some others) feel they could have done better, and some feel the move is fine. As in most cases, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle- time will tell!
by BurgherKing on Dec 14, 2009 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
Why isn't it likely?
Nobody was willing to trade for any of the other non-tendered players, either. Even though some of them arguably have more value than Capps.
Asset management
Huntington might be able to get a better reliever for less than he would have paid Capps, and I don’t think that’s the issue here. What is surprising is that Huntington didn’t trade Capps for another asset. Obviously, we weren’t privy to the discussions Huntington had with other GMs, but from the outside, it’s hard to believe that he couldn’t get anything for Capps, a young, hard-throwing, previously successful closer coming off a single bad season. We know that there are GMs out there that still value closers, especially at Capps post-arbitration salary of roughly $3 million.
At issue is why Huntington was unable to make a deal and is now losing Capps for nothing. Did other GMs know that Huntington was going to non-tender Capps? Are there injury concerns that we are unaware of? Or is it incorrect to say that there are GMs who value relievers like Capps?
I don’t know the answer, and I’m as confused by this as everyone else. We need bullpen help, we likely have the budget to afford Capps, and, most perplexing of all, this goes against Huntington’s past trend of trading players at high value. Either we don’t know the full story or I have to think that Huntington made a mistake.
One thing is certain
This move will bring even more heat and pressure on Huntington to put together a decent bullpen for 2010. That is the most important thing he can do for the remainder of the off season.
He knows that, and I doubt he’s so stupid he doesn’t have a contingency plan here.
We’ll see what happens.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 13, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
NH quoted on PBC....
just now as saying reports of him being non-tendered killed all potential trade value.
I think it’s important to note that no GM would give up anything in order to have the right to go to arbitration with Capps and pay him $3.5-4 million.
Despite Capps’ past success I think people on the blog are overvaluing the asset. As has been mentioned above, he has a flat fastball and has never been able to rely on his slider. I’m not saying he’s done, but if you are going to do your job you have to decide if he’s worth about $4 million. NH decided he wasn’t. I’m excited to see Meek this year and Hanrahan clearly has the tools to do the job. I defended Capps for much of last year, but this is not a blow to the organization. But, I am surprised they let Dumatrait go rather than pay him $500K. They must believe his elbow or shoulder is completely shot. Otherwise it wouldn’t make much sense.
Given three full years of major league success, I have a lot of trouble with assessments like this one, which imply that, somehow, he tricked all of the National League for ~150 appearances, then got completely figured out. No one has a good explanation for what happened in 2009, but suggesting he never had talent in the first place (“flat fastball”, unreliable slider) ignores 75% of the data (plus his fairly good MiL track record).
That isn’t to say that Pirates fans didn’t overestimate him a bit, but his success was built on solid peripherals, not low BABIPs and outstanding defense behind him.
I didn't assess him.....
NH did. And decided he wasn’t worth $3.5-4 million. I don’t have a problem with it.
Pointing out that NH agrees with you doesn’t convince me much, given that my whole premise is that NH got this wrong.
That said, per MID’s PitchFX analysis, I’m more open to the anti-Capps assessment. As I said in my very first comment on this thread, if NH feels that he has rock-solid reason to believe that Capps won’t rebound (at all), then it’s a defensible move. The PitchFX data plus Kerrigan’s input could very well add up to enough certainty in NH’s mind that the move makes sense.
I’ll say this, though: I think this is a move that NH has to be right on. Trades are, ultimately, crapshoots. But in this case, you’re measuring a more-or-less known quantity (<$4M) against the odds of Capps – a player you know better than anyone else does – rebounding enough to garner a prospect. NH’s position is that the odds against Capps recovering are so great that he’s not worth that risk (and, again, NH claims that he was willing to sign Capps at ~$2.6M, so we’re really looking at the margin, which is chump change, even on the Pirates’ payroll). If Capps pitches decently in 2010 – especially if the movement returns to his FB – then NH fucked up, because his job is to get that bet right.
Go look at my analysis of his fastball movement on the PBC blog.
Capps’ 2007 success seemed to be based on extremely good vertical movement on his fastball. That has declined by 1.5 inches over the last 2 years, and his horizontal movement, which was previously average, is now below average. Why is this? I don’t know, but it follows his tRA closely. As his fastball got worse, they were hitting him harder.
He used to get more flyballs and popups, and had a very low HR/FB ratio. Now they are squaring up the ball and hitting it out.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 13, 2009 10:25 PM EST up reply actions
Hadn't seen that
Thanks for the work, and it explains a lot.
Of course, what it doesn’t explain is what changed in Capps’ delivery to make the pitch path change, so we still don’t know if it’s correctable.
Faith
NH’s just a TOUGH SOB when it comes to contract negotiation (take it or leave it, and some do leave). He’s certainly left us scratching our heads a few times in the past, albeit this time it’s more of a pulling hair type. Once again our faith in him is tested.
And that is also another thing to consider
Huntington is seemingly trying to build a reputation that he says what he means. When he says – This is the line we will not cross…that’s what he means. I think he feels that in the long run, this will enable them to get more value for less money and avoid the issue of salary creep when you overpay just a little for 10 players. That ends up costing you $5M-$10M that you can’t spend on that extra win or two when it counts.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 13, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
This is a very good point
Drawing a line in the sand now might help more down the road.
by houksyndrome on Dec 13, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
Unfortunately...when it comes time to spend the money...
the “premier free agent” that would put the Pirates over the top…is going to see that line in the sand…and take his business elsewhere because he knows the Pirates won’t negotiate a “fair” price.
Are we giving away a potentially valuable asset for nothing?
I tend to give Huntington the benefit of the doubt in most cases, but considering the overvaluation that relievers and especially closers tend to have, i would think that if Capps could regain any of his ‘06-’08 form he could be traded to a contender looking for bullpen help in exchange for a prospect or two in July, or tossed in with Doumit to get a better return. I have no problem losing Capps, I just don’t like losing assets for nothing.
This move would make more sense to me if we needed to hide a Rule V kid in the pen. If that was the case, i could understand being nervous about potentially hiding two relievers in your pen. But even if we get ‘09 Capps rather than ’06-’08 Capps, then you just Meek him for the year and non-tender next year.
It looks like
The Pirates could be using a few rookies in the bullpen this season, which i wouldnt mind seeing some of those “potential” players in 2010
Capps
The new and improved Pirate management periodically trumpeted in these parts got as much for Capps as he has for all the other players and their salaries he has dumped.
CAPPS....... GONE NO PROBLEM
Don’t you think your pitching coach who everyone says is a good judge of talent had a say in this………………Your Pirate announcers said there was a drop off of his velocity………….He should have taken a pay cut and be happy the Pirates wanted him……….He will be OUT OF BASEBALL WITHIN TWO YEARS.
Uhhh...
I agree with the part about Kerrigan most likely having some input. Disagree with the loss of velocity statement. He averaged 93.6 mph on his fastball which was as fast at any point in his career. His walk rate and HR rate increased which was a big part of his struggles but the loss of velocity was not one of them. Check out the pitchFX tab on Fangraphs.
I added the uhhh...
because I read all night and today on the PG blog how Capps only threw between 88-90 mph last year and that was completely untrue. Capps had enough go wrong last seasons that we don’t need to create any reasons for his lack of success.
I dont see this as salary dumping, penny pinching etc. I see it as our management (whether right or wrong) decided that Capps will not return to his previous form and the lost velocity on his fastball was troublesome. We`ll see if this move ends up biting the pirates in the behind or make NH look like a genius.
Could we have gotten much for Capps in a trade scenario? Possibly, but it might not have been much more than a bag of balls.
It's a shame we couldn't have gotten at least
a warm six-pack for Matt Capps, but, on the other hand, I know damn well he wouldn’t have been worth $3 million+ to the Buccos next season.
Time to move on. There are plenty of other options out there for us to build a decent ’pen.
So true....so true...
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Dec 13, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions
capps
Maybe pirates management knows he is still in terrible shape and they don’t want to invest in a player who sets a bad example for younger impressionable players. He probably could turn it around if he committed to dropping about thirty pounds, but he probably had no incentive to do that with the pirates.
This is a good point.
His conditioning was an issue last season. Maybe he shows up for spring training next year looking like Fat Jimmy.
Question:
Can a team continue to negotiate with a player it non-tendered? Does the player become just like any other free agent, or are there restrictions?
Can't Think of Anything Good to Say
- First of all, it better be Joe Kerrigan evaluating Capps’ pitching and potential for next year, not NH.
- I’ll join the parade of people saying we should’ve taken Capps to arbitration and just eaten the money if he did as bad as/worse than 2009. The talent evaluators have the most information about Capps – while you can’t predict the future for Capps or any FA, its easier to make reasonable projections about someone you see day-in, day-out rather than an import from Japan or someone else’s cuts.
- Capps is another so-so player who looks like an all-star while playing on the Pirates. The fact that he shined for us (for two years) does not make him Mariano Rivera. I’m not saying we should have signed him to a ten-year contract, but keep him for one year and get something of value for him. If not now, in spring training. If not then, then before the trade deadline.
- Absent some move or series of moves spending money (a quality right fielder, 1B, starter, or several BP arms), this just looks like salary dump, salary dump, salary dump.
- The only way this makes sense is if Kerrigan, or the medical staff, know something that we don’t and there is a certainty that we would be signing the 2009 Matt Capps for next year and into the future.
your third point is a good one
I did consider the possibility that we urgently needed space on the roster to accommodate the returns from a trade, which would also explain the less-hyped cutting of Dumatrait, who was only owed about 500K.
Something might yet transpire. We’ll see.
Bix is still on the 40-man
As long as he is, there’s no possible reason to move anyone else – including the Parrot – off of it.
Any speculation on where Cappers would go ?
Aside from the all your can eat rib buffet at Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill on the Southside.
"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
Well...he IS umemployed right now...
maybe Golden Corral?
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Dec 13, 2009 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
my evaluation
CHONE has Capps as 4 runs better than replacement. Hanrahan and Meek are both 3. Mo Rivera is 13, so I’d guess the projection is runs*LI, meaning Mo is (13*1.7=) 2.2 WAR as a closer and Capps is (4*1.7=) 0.7 WAR as a closer. According to fangraphs, he’s been worth 1.6, 1.0, and -0.4 respectively in the last three years, so 0.7 is a reasonable projection. His arbitration award will be between $2.75m and $4.5m, which are what Sherrill (with one fewer year of service) and Street (same amount of service) got last year (both came to terms without going through arb). Assume 3.5m and the Bucs were looking at $5m/win for Capps. There’s absolutely no reason to pay that much for a reliever, so I have no problem with letting Capps go.
I assume NH worked hard to make a reasonable contract or a good trade happen, but it probably didn’t work out because no GM is going to trade players for the privilege of overpaying a non-elite reliever, especially in the current market, which is flooded with relief pitching. Say what you want about Ed Wade, but he’s not giving players away for the right to sign Brandon Lyon.
It’s kind of surprising, but I think NH was right to move on.
from pirates.com
Huntington noted that the Pirates went into the Winter Meetings intent on trying to trade Capps so that they would not find themselves cutting ties with the closer and getting nothing in return. However, when a newspaper report early last week speculated that the Pirates planned to non-tender Capps, the reliever lost all of his trade value.
“That [report] destroyed all trade possibilities at the Winter Meetings,” Huntington said. “We felt like we had a good chance [to trade him]. It wasn’t our intention to non-tender Matt Capps until we realized that no deal could be put in place.”
Different play
While we may not miss Capps much next year, it still seems to me that we missed an opportunity to get something in return. Huntington is quoted by Dejan as saying: “We were working on [a trade], and we had multiple conversations that disappeared when the media report came out.”
The multiple GMs that Huntington references obviously knew that Capps was arbitration eligible and could get a raise to roughly $3-4 million. Nevertheless, the other GMs were still involved in the discussions, according to Huntington, showing that Capps’ 2010 salary was not a dealbreaker. (Without hearing those conversations, this is pure assumption, of course.)
Why not tender Capps and THEN trade him? If the conversations with those other teams had any legs, Huntington should have gone this route, given Capps’ age, 2009 velocity and past success, coupled with our bullpen needs and budget room. I can think of two possible reasons for non-tendering Capps: 1) Capps wasn’t getting true interest from other teams; and/or 2) Huntington didn’t want to risk paying Capps a good chunk of money for another mediocre performance in the event that Capps remained a Pirate. Those two possibilities are likely intertwined.
Maybe the teams that were interested in trading for Capps...
…hoped for a chance to work out a deal lower than his likely arb value before the arb deadline.
If that were the case, such teams would no longer be interested in him once he’d been tendered.
I'm so glad I have you guys at BD...
We continue to reinforce the fact that we’re the only blog, publication, or website who has common sense and knowledge. While I have to be honest, and state that I was a little surprised and still need to research and wait for new information, reaction and outcry to this move has been the typical “the pirates suck, every time they have a good player they trade him away” ridicule. I’ve read some of the most uneducated, reactionary, ridiculous, exaggerated, and irrelevant comments on other sites and blogs (including the PBC; not normally a basher of them) in response to this move. Accusations of Brian Bixler and Steve Pearce as being next year’s primary run producers, when neither will be a starter and both are 50-50 of making the 25 man roster or even being in the organization next year. Implying that “losing” Capps and Dumatrait to free agency is comparable to the trading of Bay, McLouth, Morgan, Nady etc. when the returns the Pirates received for these players comprise the majority of the only future talent the team occupies. As recently as a week ago, Huntington and CO. were receiving appraise for their acquisition of talent, aggressive draft strategies, and determined attempts to try and turn around a futile franchise. Publications tipped their caps the advancement of the Pirates’ Farm system from the league basement to the top 15 in a year and a half,.Andrew McCutchen was being praised for his great rookie campaign and surefire All-Star career, Garrett Jones sustained solid statistics in his surprising debut and had many wondering if he may turn out to be a steal who can provide 35 HR power in the middle of the lineup. And the arrivals of Pedro Alvarez, Brad Lincoln, Tim Alderson, and Jose Tabata were being highly anticipated and providing hope for what has been a miserable past two decades. Now, according to so many people outside BD, the team’s future is once again suddenly relegated to eternal damnation over the denied arbitration/tender offer to a player who posted a 5.80 ERA,.323 BA against, 1.66 WHIP, and 4.90 FIP last year? I realize that Capps’ showed promise as a young, up-and-coming fireballer who was exciting and daring with his “Comin’ right at ya” arsenal. However, his lack of secondary pitches, movement on his fastball, and predictability (not to mention weight, injury, and attitude issues) led to last year’s culmination: a horrific stat line whose appalling conventional measurables were accompanied by equally detestable sabermetric and advanced statistical evaluations. So, before everyone lets the free agency of a man who was criticized and ostracized for the majority of last year’s campaign serve as the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine and send us all into an uproar, they need to think of exactly what is being lost, as well of the cost of what it would have required to preserve it.
Pirates management has acquired bodies.
Bodies with “projected” talent. Most of that talent hasn’t yet shown significant success in a professional setting. The Pirates “improvement” in their farm system is based on projections…not results…at this time. When we actually see a significant amount of actual results…on an individual…or team level…we can really start talking about an improved farm system. That hasn’t happened…yet.
It’s improved in the sense that, under DL, they did not acquire players with projected talent. You could look at those drafts the next day and see there wasn’t much there. And DL wouldn’t trade for prospects (most of the ones NH has acquired have good performance histories as pros), and he did nothing whatsoever in Latin America. I’d say going from no potential to lots of potential, albeit largely unproven, is an improvement. Arguing that it’s not is like saying there’s no difference between a speedy guy who never gets on base and one who does.
The case for non-tender
I posted this at OBN, but I’m feeling self-indulgent so I’ll post it here, too.
Here’s the case for non-tendering Capps, as best I can make it. And I’m saying all this as somebody who dislikes the move and sees it as poor asset management. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here.
Capps was very heavily used by McClendon and Tracy. There’s some history of young relievers breaking down after pitching lots of games (and warming up in even more), just like there is with young starters breaking down after 200+ inning seasons. Capps missed significant time in 2008 with arm soreness and went out twice in 2009 with the same thing. Even though his velocity actually increased, his command dropped off badly in 2009 and he’s been losing the movement on his fastball over the last several years. The FO probably concluded he’s a very high-risk pitcher and didn’t want to pay him much more than he made in 2009. I originally thought he’d probably get only a small raise in arbitration, but I’ve read in several places now that he’d probably get a large increase, maybe up around $5M.
I’m guessing the Pirates made up their minds by season’s end that they wanted to trade Capps. They seem to be setting themselves up to go into bring-up-the-prospects mode in June. At that point, I think they’ll be looking to go with guys they think have a chance to jell into a contender in a couple years. I think they made up their minds to trade guys they don’t think will be around then, mainly Capps and Doumit. (I’m guessing they think Duke and Maholm could be long-term pieces, as they can stabilize a rotation and shouldn’t be hugely expensive. Capps and Doumit, otoh, have health/declining performance issues that call their long-term usefulness into question.) They insisted at the end of the season that Capps would be their 2010 closer and also told Dejan they’d definitely tender Capps. They clearly did all this to keep up his trade value, but it leaked out that they were threatening to non-tender Capps. I think they’re also trying to downplay their efforts to trade Doumit for the same reason. Faced with a very large pay increase for a guy they no longer have much faith in and whom they’d like to trade, and faced with an inability to get a decent deal, they decided they’d rather put the money to some other use (although I’m very skeptical it’ll be the bullpen).
by WTM on Dec 13, 2009 9:38 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Well said...
I don’t agree with the decision either but I think what you said is likely what took place. I do think you can add Duke to that list. In fact I expect him to be dealt before spring training with Doumit likely being dealt by the deadline at the latest. I think Maholm is aroud for another season or two.
sounds reasonable for the most part
in general, though, does the fact that you want to trade someone lower their value necessarily? I mean, value is still relative to situation- if the Pirates were contending, Doumit would be valuable, as he should be to the Rays/Dodgers/Brewers… does the fact that the Pirates want to move him make him less valuable? shouldn’t the value be proportional to how many teams want him? For instance, we got a great return for Freddy, even though we were dead set on moving him, the Indians got good value for VMart, Lee… does it really matter if we are open about wanting to move Doumit?
(btw, I can see why for a relief pitcher its more important, since they are more easily available. The question is a genuine one wrt more valuable pieces)
by BurgherKing on Dec 14, 2009 12:16 AM EST up reply actions
For the Pirates, Capps becomes more valuable because NH has yet to show any ability at all to identify useful relievers from among the many veterans available every winter. He’s batting .000 in that area.
well
that’s one way to look at it. I’d say NH has avoided expensive veteran arms, for the most part, at this stage, which is fine by me. He did identify Meek and Hanrahan.
I was primarily asking about what publicity about the “want-to-trade” mindset does to players’ values in general.
also, any thoughts on Winston Abreu?
by BurgherKing on Dec 14, 2009 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
Don’t know much about him except that he’s had some crazy numbers in AAA. Seems worth more of a try than Wil Ledezma.
I guess you guys are talking about the same
Winston Abreu who was in Japan in 2008 and pitched for Bobby V with the Chiba Lotte Marines. He got off to a good start but had some sort of arm injury and his season was cut off at 20 games. I remember seeing him and thinking he had good stuff.
http://www.japanesebaseball.com/players/player.jsp?PlayerID=2384
$5M
I certainly agree that this move looks a LOT more reasonable if NH was looking at $5M for a loss in arbitration – that would be a lot of money for pre-2009 Capps (given his injury in ’08), and almost certainly too much for 2010 Capps.
This may also be why the negotiations were so difficult – if Capps’ agent was in that ballpark, then there’s simply no realistic compromise between $2.75M and $5M.
According to the PG...
Capps was asking for around $3.4M and the team offered “a small raise” on his 2009 salary of $2.4M.
OK, there you go
That was my impression yesterday. I guess the remaining question is what Capps would have brought to arbitration. It’s one-or-the-other, right? So the Pirates offer $2.5M, Capps asks $4M, and the arbitrator decides? If so, I’m wondering if it’s at all likely that Capps would have been negotiating $3.4M but then submitted $4+ to the arbitrators.
OK Nevermind
I see from the article that “they were intent on submitting an arbitration figure in the range of $3.4 million.” Then I really don’t get NH’s position. I understand giving up on the guy, and I understand not wanting to drop $4-5M on him. I don’t understand giving up 2 years of player control for nothing in order to save $900k.
Not sure if someone said this above, but...
It’s quite possible the Bucs could try to sign Capps to a lower deal, with incentives.
It’s not uncommon for teams to non-tender players and then quickly try and renegotiate a more team-friendly deal (usually with incentives for the player).
If you lose him, that’s the risk you take.
only in pittsburgh
the pirates let go capps with nothing in return!!!…this is unaceptable…capps was in my trading list…but looking to get something in return not let him go with nothing…YOU guys (administration) keep running the team to keep it in the city(enterteiment)… make some money, but never work to make a contender team…hey it’s very ITS CLEAR!!!!… CLEMENTE GET OUT OF THE OCEAN… this is….
it's very clear.....JUST LIKE YOUR POST!!!!
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Dec 13, 2009 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
perdon
i was just following you…my bad…perdon mr.gorillakilla34….perdon
Ugh...
I don’t need any more followers. I can’t stand the ones I already have.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Dec 16, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
You’re just mad that it’s the local police who are the ones following you.
;-P
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 16, 2009 11:49 PM EST up reply actions
jfpp
That’s sort of the internet version of pissing your pants in public – messy and embarrassing.
Nobody apart from the other twenty-nine GMs know how hard NH tried to sell Capps and I think judgement on the non-tender should be withheld until we see what Capps is worth on the open market.
by RDV across the sea on Dec 13, 2009 10:57 PM EST up reply actions
claro que si
yes i am angry, mad and piss…the move is a punch in all pirates fan face…sorry if i offend you
or
the more CAPPS :P sorry, couldn’t resist that!
by BurgherKing on Dec 14, 2009 12:08 AM EST up reply actions
Bull...pen?
Does anyone remember how nasty Evan Meeks stuff was getting before he went down with that oblique strain? Between him and Hanrahan, I think Capps was bound to lose the role of “closer.” Not quite the way i wanted to see Capps go, but maybe now we can spend some money on one or two arms for the pen
Cubs Are Interested
In Capps. If they gave Jonny G. $7 mm, it’s hard to tell how much they’ll give Capps.
Oh, by the way, if the Cubs have interest, you’d think they would have tried to pawn off Milton Bradley for him…
Hey!
I just wondered aloud about this just the other day:
If you take the top 50 relievers in the game, then take out all the closers, there tends to be a 60 percent turnover from year to year.From the Pirates’ Dan Fox, via PBC Blog.
I think that’s about what I’d have guessed. The missing piece is how much turnover there is among closers. But figure the top 50 includes 15-20 closers, that leaves 30-35 others, of whom a dozen or so persist year to year.
That's good info , however
It doesn’t tell us how that compares to the turnover in top 50 position players. We can’t know how much more turnover that is just from those numbers.
I recently noted that 85% of the top 48 position players are either in their first 6 years or with their original team, so there’s probably a good deal of turnover there as well.
That would be an interesting study.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 14, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
wouldn't this be fun?
here’s what we know:
1) the pirates need a few relievers
2) the pirates have plenty of potential outfield options
3) the pirates have money to spend and there aren’t many obvious places to spend it
4) the pirates appear to be very interested in rick ankiel
… is it even possible that they’d like to try ankiel as a reliever/outfielder?
by Captain Easychord on Dec 14, 2009 10:32 AM EST reply actions
To answer #4...
not unless Rick has changed his mind recently. He indicated when he switched to the OF that he was done pitching…permanently.
aqui de nuevo
if you have a chance please read in the post gazette 12-14-09 ron cook WHAT CARES WHAT PIRATES DO ANYMORE…that is/was (95%) of what i tried to say… i know my english is not good. por lo tanto te pido perdon si te ofendi con mi ingles. hasta la proxima.
If Ron Cook really didn't care...
He wouldn’t have bothered writing a column about it.
by IAPiratesFan on Dec 14, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
He might have to write on the Bucs…the poor, put-upon guy…
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 14, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
No need to worry on the English thing.
You’re doing much, much better than I would if I tried to post in my second-best language (German).
I’m not a big fan of the Cook piece in question, however. It seems like knee-jerk criticism, designed to milk populist rage for pageviews, rather than serious analysis. (And of course, Cook’s judgment in baseball-related matters hasn’t always been stellar in the past.)
That makes me laugh out loud every single time I click on it.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 14, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
The next time Ron Cook writes something relevant about the Pirates
It will be the first one I have ever seen.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 14, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
I haven't read a P-G sports columnist ...
… in almost a year. They are absolutely 100% worthless, and I’m shocked that they still have jobs. I used to read Collier, Smizik, Cook, et al out of an obligatory desire to stay informed, but time and time again I was disappointed in the content. They have nothing redeeming to say, and I can’t say I’ve missed reading any of their stuff.
Stats Geek was OK.
That’s about it, though.
It looks like they’re planning on putting Gene Collier behind the pay wall from now on, which is fine by me.
I still like DK.
Don’t have much use for the others, though.
The baseball writing on Bucs Dugout
surpasses much of what can be read on the PG site.
Well, yeah, Dejan is a great beat writer.
Didn’t mention him because I thought we were just on columnists.
Dejan is excellent
I was definitely only referring to the columnists — Dejan is a keeper. I’m all for nixing Collier, Cook and Smizik if it helps pay Dejan what he has earned.
Related, I get the sense that Dejan’s peers — locally and nationally — recognize his good work. I have to wonder if a larger media company (ESPN, for example) might pursue him at some point. Dejan is a Pittsburgh native so I hope he stays, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he were courted several times in the coming years — and seriously considered it, given the financial plights facing local newspapers.
Here's what I'm confused about
The Pirates’ strategy, as expressed here in the past, has been to:
a) Draft/acquire talent regardless of position, then sort it out
b) Get younger players/greater player control/lower salaries in trades.
I think that until recently, they’ve been doing those things.
Matt Capps did have a bad year, but as we all say, relievers are inconsistent. Should we really conclude the one bad year was his true level and the three good ones were flukes, or that he can’t be fixed?
We also like to say in here that decent relievers are easy to find. But why don’t the Pirates ever seem to be able to find enough of them? Why have we spent the last two years watching the likes of Denny Bautista and Tyler Yates turn two-run deficits into five-run deficits?
Why would we trade a 26-year-old pitcher who throws 97 and exceeded our expectations last season for a 31-year-old second baseman if we knew we were going to non-tender Matt Capps?
That’s what I’m confused about.
Rightly or wrongly...
the Pirates place a very low value on relief pitchers relative to other teams. It’s really as simple as that.
You're probably right
But I’m afraid that they’re wrong. Specifically, their approach only works if you identify functional relievers for low cost. With a couple exceptions, NH has shown no ability to do this; I mean, his bullpens have been awful. I don’t see how you can be a competitive team with a bottom-third bullpen (and no budget for 8 WAR hitters).
This theory probably works if, every season, you’ve got 2 established (good) relievers, 2 OK, cheap guys, and 1 “find.” the last 2 bullpen spots can be a merry-go-round of crappiness without hurting you too much. I just don’t know that the Bucs can achieve even that – so far the record, in 2 bullpens, is something like 1 established good reliever, 2 “finds” (although it was DL who found Chavez), and 2 OK, cheap guys. We could quibble about who fits in what category, but I don’t think I’m wrong that, so far, the Pirates haven’t found even one season’s worth of acceptable relievers in 2 tries (and who knows how many actual guys getting a shot).
At some point, the system should start throwing up some better arms as long-shots, but that’s a total crapshoot as well. Until NH starts to identify useful relievers from what’s available in the offseason, I think we’re fated to lose several games a year to terrible bullpens.
As is often the case when you and I talk about bullpens...
…I think you underestimate the volatility of most “functional” relievers, and overestimate teams’ ability to avoid that volatility. That is to say, we could sink a lot more money into the pen than we are, picking up “established good relievers”, without deriving any actual benefit from it.
So did the Pirates have a good bullpen some recent year* and I missed it? The Dodgers have had the #1 or 2 bullpen in baseball (by xFIP) for the last 3 years running. There’s certainly volatility**, but it’s not utterly random.
Your position seems to be that there is literally nothing that a team can do to affect the outcomes of its bullpen. I was a believer in bullpen volatility long before I started commenting here (I was scarred by the catastrophic falloff from ‘02 to ’03), but I don’t think that the GM bears no responsibility whatsoever for putting together competent bullpens. I don’t want NH to spend $20M on “established” relievers because that will result in a perfect ‘pen. I want him to find relievers who don’t suck. My instinct is that this will include a blend of established guys (and to be clear, by “established,” I just mean “have relieved with success before, ideally more than once”), scrap heap guys, and rookies. His (near-complete) inability to do this so far worries me. If he puts together a decent pen this year, then I’ll relax about the issue.
- They were above-average in 2006, when their 5 most-used relievers all pitched pretty well, and Gonzalez and Roberto Hernandez both had (more or less) career years
- My theory is that a lot of the team volatility comes from relying heavily on “established” guys – esp. closers – regardless of actual outcomes. So you’ll see a Capps run out there endlessly, even though he’s pitching terribly, and it hurts the whole ‘pen. But that’s just a guess
Not literally nothing, no.
Neil needs to be more aggressive in pulling in quality NRIs, and quicker to pull the trigger on options that arent working. But I think that ML experience is significantly overrated when determining which guys are likely to be quality pen options going forward, and as such an increased focus on experienced options would not achieve substantially different results than we’ve seen in the past.
I think the trouble is that it’s not clear (to me anyway) how you translate MiL pitching to ML relieving. After all, don’t ML-grade pitchers generally start in the minors and then convert either when they get to the bigs or shortly before? Not strictly, I know, but my sense is that, if a guy’s good enough to be an impact reliever, you won’t have 3-4 years of MiL relieving to look at. And relieving is sufficiently different from starting that it’s not especially sure that a good MiL starter will also be a good ML reliever (not only the mental part, but also the rubber-arm and fast warmup requirements of bullpen work).
Point being that, with an established ML reliever, you have clear evidence that he is capable of being a productive ML reliever (although the outcomes will vary); with a MiL pitcher, you’re not even sure that he has the basic makeup to relieve in the majors, much less be good enough at getting major league batters out. Two sources of uncertainty rather than one.
Assessment of minor-league relievers is tremendously inefficient.
Especially right-handed short relievers. There’s enough competition that their market value is very low, and even after a decent season they often end up getting released for the roster space.
One of the classic ones of recent times was Al Reyes. 3.82 career ERA (116 ERA+) in 428 2/3 career ML innings, with 8.9 K/9. 3.66 career ERA in 570 2/3 career minor league innings, with 8.8 K/9. And yet at no time did he ever spend two full consecutive seasons on the ML roster of the same team.
Reyes pitched for us in 2002, as an emergency bullpen replacement on a pretty bad staff. He put up a 2.65 ERA and a 0.94 WHIP, with 21 Ks in 17 innings, and then at the end of the year we cut him loose.
On usage:
Teams will generally leave prospects in the rotation for the first few years, regardless of the role that’s ultimately projected for them, in order to give them innings to implement mechanical adjustments and build up their arms. Occasionally, teams will leave a college reliever in relief if they’re going to promote him very aggressively.
But there are only five spots in the rotation at each level, and a lot of guys end up pitching in the majors without ever being particularly well-regarded as prospects or spending much time in a minor league rotation.
I mostly reject the idea that a guy who’s successful in the minors might not have the “makeup” to succeed in the majors. He might not have the stuff, or the command, but I think that the vast, vast majority of the nervous Nellies get weeded out in amateur ball or the low minors.
Agree
that the bullpen has been atrocious over the last few years. Of course, last year Capps was a big part of that atrociousness, so letting him go is nothing to be alarmed about in and of itself. The question is whether they’ll be able to take the $3.4M that Capps would’ve earned in arbitration and buy better relief pitching than Capps would’ve delivered.
We’ll see, but there’s certainly reason to be skeptical that NH can find a better arm on the open market. Hope he can deliver something better than Yates or Hansen this time around.
Unless it is an elite closer
An everyday regular player has much more relevance to winning games than a relief pitcher, so that’s why Jess Chavez was not worth any where near Iwamura. It doesn’t matter how hard Chavez throws or how old he is. Unless he was seen as a sure fire future elite closer, one year of Aki is worth more than 5 years of Chavez.
On what Capps’ true level is, he is a one pitch pitcher and his fastball has lost 1 inch vertical and 1.5 inch horizontal movement over the past 2 years. If he can regain that lost movement, he’ll become good again. But this is not a problem of his arm strength, as his velocity has remained strong.
Apparently, Kerrigan thought it was doubtful it would get better.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 14, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
We could probably sign Igarashi and Takahashi
for a combined $3.5 million or so next year, instead of doling it out for only Capps.
There are some other interesting MLB names mentioned here as well.
I’m not too worried about the prospects of Capps pitching elsewhere in 2010, although it is disappointing we didn’t get a couple of lukewarm prospects for him first.
Great bunch of posts
This is why NH gets the bucks. I think this was a very difficult call. Let’s say Capps did get $3.4 million in arbitration.
Unless he was a top 10 closer, you were going to have a hard time trading him at the break. And what would you get back for a year and a half of Capps? The Pirates obviously tried last year to trade him and couldn’t. They tried this offseason and couldn’t.
He was terrible last year. I think his velocity was down at times. I saw nights where he was 89, 90, 91 every pitch.
He has had multiple trips to the DL with elbow trouble. He was overused. He doesn’t exactly train like an Olympic athlete.
I think this is money that could be used better elsewhere. He and his agent took a huge gamble. Let’s see how it pays off over two or three years.
On the other hand, let’s see how the Pirates spend the money. From my perspective, the A’s have shown that you don’t have to spend big to find a closer. I think the bullpen will be okay with the right signings.
But it’s a good debate.
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.
