Small-Payroll Teams Don't Need Jacuzzis
by Charlie on Dec 17, 2009 8:46 PM EST
123 comments
Some odd point-counterpoint from Neal Huntington and Dejan Kovacevic. Huntington:
History has not been kind to teams in markets like Pittsburgh that have invested heavily in a closer. As a result, we will build depth, give ourselves options and see who steps up to take the ball and get the final outs in our close wins.
Kovacevic:
Here again, what do Pittsburgh or anyone's market size have to do with this concept?
If the Reds regret signing Francisco Cordero to close at his huge contract, how is that different than the Mets regretting signing J.J. Putz or Billy Wagner?
Sure, the Mets absorb the loss more easily because of a bigger payroll, but the history is no less kind to the Mets than it is to the Reds. It's still a lousy move on both counts.
Kovacevic gets it right with "Sure, the Mets absorb the loss more easily because of a bigger payroll...", but actually the conversation begins and ends there. Huntington is dead on.
First, and this is a minor point, the Mets didn't sign Putz, they traded for him. As for Wagner, the Mets paid him $10.5 million in 2009--but after they paid their team-controlled players, they also had room to spend $9 million on Francisco Rodriguez, $12 million on Oliver Perez, $12 million on Carlos Delgado, $20 million on Johan Santana, and $20 million on Carlos Beltran. They also paid $6.25 million to Luis Castillo and $6 million to Putz. None of those players were developed by the Mets.
The Reds spent $12 million on Cordero in 2009. After that, they paid $11 million to Aaron Harang, as part of a four-year deal that bought out two option years. They paid $9.5 million to Bronson Arroyo.
That's it. Every other player was either under team control (Brandon Phillips was signed to a long-term deal, but 2009 would have been one of his arbitration years) or cost them less than $5 million. (Thanks to Cot's Contracts for the data for both teams.)
That's almost $100 million in what we might call expensive-player spending for the Mets, and about $30 million for the Reds. It is absolutely clear that a team like the Mets can afford to drop $12 million for 80 innings if it wants to, while a team like the Reds just can't. And if the Reds sign a player to a contract they end up regretting, it hurts them much more than it hurts the Mets. This is really elementary stuff--a doctor can probably afford that jacuzzi, whereas someone like me just can't. Closers are like jacuzzis. I think that's all Huntington was saying.
History won't be kind to recent versions of the Mets. That's true. But to suggest that has much to do with their decisions to spend heavily on closers is strange and confusing. History won't be kind to them because they were expensive, poorly-constructed teams who suffered two straight September collapses before coming completely unglued in 2009. But their decisions to invest big bucks on closers are only small parts of that, probably very small parts. While the Wagner signing in particular wasn't the world's best idea, it was far from the worst--after all, he pitched brilliantly for the Mets for the better part of three years.
The Mets had a jacuzzi in Wagner, and for several years it worked just fine. And if Minaya had bothered to build a bathtub by having some other relievers handy, the loss of the jacuzzi in 2008 wouldn't have caused the Mets to stink so badly. The problem with the house the Mets built was that it didn't have a roof, or even very many functioning appliances. With their payroll, they could have built the roof and the bathtub and the jacuzzi, but they didn't.
The 2009 Mets devoted broad swathes of playing time to non-hitters like Daniel Murphy and Omir Santos and Alex Cora and Brian Schneider and Ryan Church and Cory Sullivan and Wilson Valdez. They had so many injuries, and planned for them so poorly, that were times when their lineup resembled a Triple-A team's. Their rotation was also a complete mess behind Santana, with Perez, Livan Hernandez, Tim Redding and Mike Pelfrey all imploding along the way. However history may treat the Mets, if they'd run the rest of their team well, they could have spent exactly as they did on closers and probably had three straight playoff appearances from 2007 to 2009. Not so for the Reds, who simply can't afford to spend 40% of their expensive-player spending on an 80 inning guy. They need to spend that money on stuff like heating and water, not on a jacuzzi.
By the way, you may be wondering what this has to do with Matt Capps, since Huntington addressed the Capps matter elsewhere in his chat and the beginning of Kovacevic's post was about Capps. The answer is, nothing. While a small-payroll team shouldn't pay a closer $12 million, it can certainly afford to pay $3-4 million in arbitration.
0 recs |
123 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Not only that, but . . .
. . . the Reds right now are trying to dump salary by trading Arroyo or Harang. The Mets, meanwhile, are close to signing Jason Bay. Dejan’s examples actually cut against his argument.
I know it's getting old that I.....
that I have been pounding the drum that salaries are going to move down. (Matsui Iyr/$6.5) but really who are the Mets bidding against for Bay and who is going to pay for Holliday. And please tell me who is going to pay up for Capps. It isn’t going to happen. ( Or, of course I could be wrong.)
Compare $6.5M for Matsui...
…to $5M for Abreu, a more talented player in better health, last year.
That’s evidence that salaries are increasing, not decreasing.
Hey now
He said evidence, not CASE SOLVED. Go Phoenix Wright on him, don’t go the sarcastic route.
Fair enough....
Jack Wilson took a substantial paycut. Freddy Sanchez got a tick less than he made last year.
Matsui had a higher OPS plus last year than Abreau’s the past two years. Yes, he’s a DH and has virtually zero defense value. But, the Angles lost Lackey, Figgins and Vlad so there are some extenuating circumstances in his case IMO. But, yes he got more.
To a larger question, Who are the Mets bidding against for Bay? Who is going to pay Holliday? And how preposterous is it that Capps’ agents says with all the interest he fills “emboldened” to ask for more than one year and closer money. Any thought on who is going to pay that?
Freddy got a tick less than he made last year...
…because he tore up his knee. Injured costs less than healthy.
Matsui may have had a higher OPS+, but Abreu’s edge in durability more than cancels that out. Matsui has bad knees, and has missed substantial amounts of two of the last four seasons, while Abreu hasn’t played in fewer than 150 games in a season since 1997. And while Abreu is a below-average glove, he’s at least capable of playing in the field on a regular basis.
I don’t see Capps’s agent’s position as preposterous. If he really drew offers from more than a dozen teams, he can probably get two years at $5M, if not more. He announced his six “finalists” yesterday, and between the teams that don’t have any other closing options (like the Nats) and the teams that worry more about getting what they want than how much it costs (like the Yankees), he should do fine on $.
I could see Capps at 2 years $5M – that would be better than 1yr $3.4M. I’m just glad someone else is paying.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 18, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
That seems excessive.
He has only been worth that much one time in his career even at fangraphs prices. Not only that, but if he were to truly command that, Huntington for sure could have traded him. I don’t see him getting more than $3.4M per.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 18, 2009 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
Didn't say I'd pay it.
(I wouldn’t.) But with the current level of interest in him, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get it.
From MLBTrade Rumors......
3:20: Davidoff says (via Twitter) that Damon asked for $22MM over two years and the Yankees said no.
2:29pm: Ken Davidoff of Newsday’s latest tweet indicates just how far apart Damon and the Yankees are on a new deal. The club offered $14MM over two years while Boras wants $26MM.
They are also reporting that the Orioles have stopped pursuing Holliday when they heard his asking price was well over $75 million.
NYPost reports that Bay’s options other than the Mets appear to be disappering. And Buster Olney reports that teams have been put off by Adam LaRoche’s asking price.
LaRoche will be an excellent test case because he has put up exactly the same numbers the past three years and this will be his age thirty season. Last year he made $7.05 million.
Per this article, both Bay and Damon are likely to be overvalued by the market regardless.
I might add that, while both Bay and Damon are perceived as superstar-grade players, I think we all agree that they’re deeply flawed. It’s hardly surprising that the market isn’t quite what they hoped (I said that I thought Bay should jump at Boston’s original offer; as it is, it still looks like he’ll end up in that neighborhood, which would absolutely not show any drop in the market).
I've always argued that......
the high end guys would get paid. It would be the Jack Wilson’s and Adam LaRoche’s who would find tougher sledding. I haven’t seen anything yet that makes me feel like that is incorrect.
That's because...
…the highest-level guys haven’t signed yet, and as such teams are waiting to move on the second-tier players until the best guys are off the board.
Who are you .......
categorizing as high end other than Holliday and Bay? Lackey has signed, Halladay has been moved, plenty of second level guys like Nick Johnson, Matsui, Randy Wolf, Mike Gonzalez, Garrett Atkins and Mike Cameron have signed. Realistically only about four teams are in the market for either Bay or Holliday so what are the other 26 waiting for? Do you think they are waiting for them to set the market? That seems a bit silly to me.
And per the possible collusion argument, here is what Keith Law had to say in his chat on Thursday:
Jason (St Louis)
Is it still collusion if all the GMs at the same time finally got smart up and quit over paying middle relievers (Ed Wade excluded), over the hill veterans and guys who can’t get on base (Drayton Mclane excluded0?
Klaw (1:05 PM)
Considering how widespread information on the value of those players has become, I think a collusion cry would be absurd.
Holliday and Bay is pretty much it.
Once they go, you’ll see more interest in second- and third-tier options (though some of those have already gone to teams who weren’t in the market for top talent at all. There just aren’t a whole lot of top guys on the market this year.
It would be premature to talk about collusion in 2010, since the majority of players haven’t signed yet. And Law does not address collusion in the 2008/2009 offseason, so it doesn’t reallty have any bearing on our past discussions on the subject.
When he says......
“considering how widespread information on the value of those players has become,” I don’t think he’s talking about just the past two months.
Adam LaRoche is an interesting case. He’s been a very consistent player the last 3 years (although he’s as inconsistent as the come first half/second half wise), but of 25 players who qualified for the batting title and played at least 30% of their games at first base he ranked 20th in OPS+. Using more traditional stats he doesn’t often rank higher than 15th out of those players, and a lot of that is because he plays every day.
Nick Johnson, who I will admit is a much greater injury risk and a year older, actually put up an identical 122 OPS+ only got 1 year $5.5 million and didn’t even find a starting 1B job.
Nice Phoenix Wright....
reference. I had to go look it up.
I just ignored Dejan's comment
Because it’s part of his crusade to make sure everyone thinks Pittsburgh is a big boy’s market — it seems to be a pride thing to some extent. When the Pirates are winning maybe they can swallow a Capps contract, but they don’t have the funds right now no matter how many times Dejan tries to compare the payrolls and markets of Pittsburgh to St. Louis and “smaller” markets like Milwaukee.
To some extent Dejan’s right; the Pirates could draw a lot more if they started winning. But he’s forgetting that they historically haven’t really drawn especially well. Even when they were winning all the time in the 1970s, their attendance wasn’t that great. The view of Pittsburgh as not being a good baseball town didn’t start with the losing streak. It existed before that.
And St. Louis, which is one of his favorite comparisons, has always been a bad one. Their fans stretch over a much larger territory than any standard market definition.
What he doesn’t seem to get is that if you compare the Cardinals’ attendance with league average and compare payrolls, you see that an average team should be able to spend $118M with what the Cards draw at the turnstiles. Since the Cards have spent at most $20M less than that, the obvious reason must be that their market size brings down their revenues by at least $20M.
All of this with the regional advantages that you state.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 17, 2009 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
Really???? I always thought of Pittsburgh being considered one of those ‘true’ baseball towns, and if they started winning again, this area would go crazy. I know some Philly fans who always say Pittsburgh was never a baseball town due to the baseball-reference.com attendance statistics from the ‘79 Series year (1.4 mil). But i always viewed those stats as more of Pittsburgh being a ’smaller’ city. Maybe i’m crazy or just hopeful, but if this team DID start consistently winning again, i think they’d be right up there with the Steelers in popularity.
They have drawn 2,000,000+ fans only 3 times in their history. 1990, 1991, and 2001 (when PNC opened). Interestingly, in 1992, after back to back NLCS appearances and a $10 million increase in team payroll, attendance dropped by more than 200,000 fans.
Well, i think any team that can still usually draw 20,000+ fans to a game (due to fireworks or not) after 17 straight losing seasons is the greatest fanbase in the world. I feel we have some of the most loyal fans in all of sports, attendance statistics or not.
From looking at the attendance and performance history of the Pirates in 3 Rivers and PNC, I think PNC adds 10K per game by itself. So, I expect that the Pirates will draw over 30K per game when they can put together a team that competes for the division.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 18, 2009 2:59 AM EST up reply actions
By the way, you don’t think that alot of the low attendance figures weren’t do to the fact that 3 Rivers Stadium was a shitty stadium to watch baseball at? Just a thought.
Stadiums like TRS were the norm back then. That’s what people liked. The Pirates’ attendance doubled the year TRS opened, and it didn’t open until June. As scenic as the field looked, people forget that Forbes was a dingy ballpark with lots of bad seats.
Wouldn’t at least some of that doubling come from people seeing Forbes off?
Although I’m pretty sure they had a small crowd for the final game.
You can check attendance game-by-game easily at bb-ref. The last game at Forbes was a DH on 6/28 that drew over 40K, but attendance there was very spotty otherwise. TRS opened on 7/16 and attendance was consistently far better.
Huh
For some reason I thought I recalled a small final attendance at Forbes.
Anyway, it’s hardly surprising that any new facility would outdraw the old one. Novelty always draws. But if you compare attendance in and around playoff seasons, TRS didn’t much outdraw Forbes – Forbes was above a million for 5 years running around the ’60 Series, and topped it again in ’66 when they won 92.
In fact, they were 3rd or 4th (of 8 then 10 teams) in attendance during that ca. ’60 run, but were never better than 5th of 12 in the ’70s (and that only twice).
I think all this basically shows is that Pittsburgh’s support of the Pirates is what it is, and isn’t stadium-related.
I don't think it shows that at all
It doesn’t address the region’s population losses or the rise in overall ML attendance (in ’58, 1.3M was good for 3rd of 8; in ’73, 1.3M was good for 8th of 12).
Furthermore, the ‘08 team, in the process of losing 90+ for the 4th straight year, drew 97% of the Freakshow team. My guesstimate is that PNC Park is worth 15-25% more attendance over TRS (it’s a bit hard to compare, as the PNC teams have generally been worse than the TRS streak teams).
I expect a hypothetical 86-win 2012 team to sell out (or nearly so) weekend dates from May through September, and to up weeknight attendance to the neighborhood of 20k (more, if that 86 wins actually puts them in a real pennant race).
Hopefully these expectations will be tested.
BTW
This seems like a good place to note something.
As I think I’ve mentioned here before, I actively resented the Pirates’ marketing efforts last summer. I understood, of course, that you’ve got to market, but it irritated the hell out of me that a team that was making, literally, no effort to put a competitive product on the field was trying to get me to attend games.
Well, just yesterday I was saying here that I thought the lineup for ‘10 looked like it could be genuinely major league. So am I feeling better about the club? Not really. DK linked to the team’s promotional schedule for ‘10, and my gut response was, “Fuck off.” Not rational, surely, but apparently it’ll be a little while before I get excited about exchanging money for their product.
I guess I’ve set my internal valuation.
Were you expecting something different?
They’re not marketing to diehards who follow the Bucs to the extent that we do. They’re marketing to casual fans, families, etc. Perception is what matters, and the current perception regarding the Bucs is that they’re worse off now than they were two years ago, and that no one’s heard of most of these guys.
Their job is to get people into the stadium. Besides having a winning/contending team (which isn’t really feasible in 2010), the next best way is to give out bobbleheads and blow shit up after games.
Oh, I know.
As I said, my response isn’t rational. My surprise is that I felt that way despite actually seeing some promise in the team.
Honestly, with the players they’ve already added, plus some smart bullpen acquisitions (I already like the Lopez pickup) and maybe Kelly Johnson, this could be a better-than-average PNC Park team. But it still feels like a shit sandwich. I guess 17 years have worn me down.
You have somewhat of an eccentric definition...
…of “no effort to put a competitive product on the field”.
It’s not like they were pulling fans out of the stands to pitch (which teams actually did a couple of times, back in the olden days).
Teaching DY to play 2B while sending him out there every day comes pretty close….
Considering that no fewer than 3 positions were taken by players described by the phrase, “We don’t think he’s an everyday player, but we may as well see what we’ve got,” I’d say the focus was not on competitiveness for 2009.
It’s fine – as I’ve always said, I understand why they did it, and once a season’s lost, it’s a perfectly rational approach. Just don’t insult my intelligence by trying to get me excited about it.
The Cardinals last year...
…did exactly the same thing with Skip Schumaker, right from day one. Were they also “making no effort to put a competitive product on the field”?
Granted, Schumaker handled the transition better than Young did, but given that unlike Young Schumaker had literally no professional experience there, success wasn’t the only possible outcome.
Not trying to troll or insult you – I just think you’re engaging in a little excessive hyperbole on the subject.
Two Words - Chris Coghlan
Same thing. Never played OF.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 19, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
I think I sat
behind a girder there once. Not the best way to see a game.
St Louis, Cincinnatti and Philadelphia all played in stadiums that were pretty much identical to TRS in every way – symmetrical, concrete multi-purpose fields with artificial turf – and consistently outdrew the Pirates in the 70s. Even Montreal, which played in an even worse stadium, would outdraw the Pirates when their team was competitive.
I’m not sure exactly when it happened, but the demographics of Pittsburgh has changed fairly dramatically from the blue collar steel town to the high tech, high finance and medical industries. My guess is that it’s happened in the last 20 years and since there hasn’t been good baseball during this transition time it’s quite possible that when the Bucs are good again it will translate into more fannies in the seats.
The emphasis on market size is a bit like looking exclusively at a player’s batting average to determine how valuable that guy is. It leaves a lot of information left out. Case in point — anyone citing San Diego as a smaller market than Pittsburgh, simply because their DMA is smaller (which is what Dejan cited). San Diego’s DMA is limited to San Diego county. That’s it. No surrounding area whatsoever, since that’s assigned to LA’s DMA, as well as Yuma and Palm Springs. If you limited the Pittsburgh DMA to Allegheny county we’d plummet down the list too.
Regarding the St Louis comparison, another factor I rarely see people acknowledge is just how awful all of St Louis’s other sport teams have been over the years. The football Cardinals played in St Louis for 30 some years and in that entire time never won a single playoff game. The Rams had a few successful years when they first moved there but have been one of the worst franchises in the NFL ever since. The Blues have never been a top contender in their entire existence. Given all that, it’s not surprising that St Louis fans have flocked to the Cardinals since they’re the one successful team their city has ever had.
The surrounding area plays a part: the only other MLB team close to the Cardinals is the Royals. The Pirates are in close proximity to the Phillies, Indians, Reds, and Orioles, not to mention we’re very close to Yankee territory.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 18, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions
That’s not really accurate. Chicago is about the same distance from St Louis as KC.
If you’re counting NY as close to Pittsburgh, then you’d have to include Milwaukee and Cincinnati as close to St Louis since they’re roughly the same distance apart.
by gorillagogo on Dec 18, 2009 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
Sure it is. Central PA is very much Yankees fan territory.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 18, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions
Miles from Pittsburgh:
Philly: 310
Cleveland: 130
Baltimore: 250
Washington: 250
Cincinnati: 290
New York: 380
Detroit: 300
From St. Louis:
Chicago: 290
KC: 260
Milwaukee: 380
Cincinnati: 349
I think it’s clear that one of these teams faces substantially more competition around the edges of its region than the other. The Pirates face competition in every direction, in central PA from the Phillies, in western MD from the Orioles and maybe eventually from the Nats, to the north from Cleveland, in eastern OH and parts of WV from Cleveland and Cincinnati. There may be points where Cardinals’ fandom overlaps to the north with the Cubs and to the west with the Royals, but that’s it.
To elaborate a little, it’s not the distance to the other city that matters, it’s the halfway point. If you’re halfway between Pgh. and Philly, you’re two and a half hours from either a Pirates or Phillies game. Somebody in the Pirates’ sales operation was quoted once as saying the real battle for tickets is with people who go to 5-6 games a year. If you’re in Hagerstown or Chambersburg or Youngstown, it’s realistic to think you might attend that many major league games, and you have more than one team to choose from.
Fair points. Perhaps I’m just underestimating the volume of sales that comes from outside the immediate area. I don’t even go to 5 or 6 games every single year, and I can take the T from my house to the stadium. I didn’t think people more than an hour or so away would attend more than a game or two, at most, and some years not even make the effort to attend at all.
by gorillagogo on Dec 18, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
To be fair, I don’t have a clue how many people go to games from outlying areas. Ad and broadcast revenue would be affected, though, too.
N = 1, but I go down to Pittsburgh from Rochester, NY at least twice a summer and attend 8 – 10 games. And I typically bring someone along for one of those.
If I were to register a guess I’d say that outlying people might be more swayed by who the Pirates are playing than by the Pirates themselves.
by Blyleven Curve Ball on Dec 18, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
This can also be a plus
Brewers attendance is raised by an average of 2K per game just because they sell out all the Cubs games. Unfortunately, the Pirates don’t have a regional rivalry like that they play in their own division that many times.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 18, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
I think the ‘other local teams success’ is a good point. I still find it hard to believe that certain cities are just born ‘baseball towns’, ‘football towns’, or ‘hockey towns’, etc. Certainly a place like St. Louis would be considered an amazing baseball town if the general public had to choose between the Cards, Rams, or Blues. Same for Atlanta, which is considered a big baseball area.
I can't speak for Dejan
but my interpretation of his consantant opposition to pittsburgh as being a “small market” is because its used to imply that its the fans faulth that is the reason the Pirates have sucked. I don’t think it’s a holy war, and i agree with him
by Danatural08 on Dec 17, 2009 11:32 PM EST up reply actions
Is it just me,
or does it seem that Dejan’s starting to work some “commentary” into his “regular” stories?
Or am I just not differentiating between articles? I admit I don’t read the PBC blog / P-G as much as I used to, but sometimes it gets kinda blurry to me.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
And before anyone can chime in -
Yes, it’s a distinct possibility that I’m the one that’s “blurry.”
Smartarses.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 17, 2009 11:24 PM EST up reply actions
Hard to say without examples
But this has been discussed here before. I think that, at least on certain subjects, DK is reluctant to let certain claims just go out there without context or contradiction. He’s not a political reporter, so he can’t go to the opposing party for a quote, so instead he’ll lay out opposing facts his own self. We’re not really used to that in American papers, but I really don’t have a problem with it. I certainly don’t like the idea of management repeating certain dubious claims ad nauseam without any counterpoint (except in blog posts or columnists).
I also think that, due to the Pirates’ unusual circumstances (in which management and the Streak are more salient stories than play in PNC Park), DK is more engaged in stories that beat guys don’t usually cover, which also leads to a kind of coverage that’s unusual.
To sum it up in a sentence, I don’t think DK is pushing a POV so much as he’s calling bullshit.
Just to reiterate.....
He consistently says he doesn’t make assumptions and doesn’t give opinions, so I think he would disagree with your take.
Depends on how you define “opinion.” If NH calls Pgh a “small market,” responding with fact-based evidence that it’s not, in fact, a small market isn’t “opinion,” even though it reads to Americans as not “objective.”
The line about American political journalism is that, if a pol says the sky is green, the headline will be “Color of the Sky: Opinions Differ.” DK evidently feels that the hed should be “Pol Says Sky is Green,” but the article should note that the sky does not, in fact, appear to be green.
Regarding DK's fact-based evidence
Somehow, as evidence that Pittsburgh isn’t a small market, he linked to a piece showing that it ranks 20th out of 26 MLB media markets. How is that not small?
The thing about ranking market sizes is that there are about 1000 different ways to do it and they’ll all show you something different. The stat that he references (Nielsen TV Markets) is a pretty awful one to use since it ignores a huge part of the built-in audience base for each particular team. The data he uses shows that there are 1.1 million people in the Pittsburgh group, which is way off from just about every measure you would actually use to measure the size of the baseball market.
Using Consolidated Statistical Metropolitan Areas, which is a much better number to know how many people are in the general area that would be considered the team’s base, Pittsburgh has about 2.36 million people, which ranks 23rd of the 26 markets, ahead of only Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Milwaukee.
Comparing to NHL and NFL teams also ignores that baseball generally operates in the biggest markets of the all the sports. Milwaukee is considered the smallest MLB market, and the NHL and NFL have teams in smaller markets like Indianapolis, Columbus, Charlotte, Raleigh, New Orleans, Nashville, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Green Bay, etc.
You can slice the numbers different ways...
…but I think you’d have a hard time arriving at any sensible definition that showed us as anything other than a smaller-than-average market.
Which is fine, IMO. If MLB is going to have 30 teams, then some teams have to be in the 21-30 range. This ain’t Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above-average.
A little more.....
than a nitpick when you miss the number of people by 100%.
Well, yes and no.
It’s bad as an overall count, but since he was talking about Pittsburgh primarily in relation to other markets (and he made the same mistake when describing those markets), the comparison is still valid even though the units on the numbers were wrong.
Bullpens
This may be a subject for an entirely different post, but this issue has bothered me for a long time. The big problem (to me) is that closers aren’t properly utilized or defined to begin with. One inning only, 3 runs or less…they are almost never used in a tie game and the only time they are used in non-save situations is if they haven’t seen work in a week or so. The irony is that so many more games are lost in the 7th or 8th inning with much lesser pitchers while the closer takes a nap in the bullpen.
I realize that the game has become more specialized, but I think your post touches on the larger problem of putting all of one’s bullpen eggs in one basket. As an alternative to this format, the bullpen-by-committee is surely worth a look. I know several years back, Bill James supported this format for the Red Sox, but it was abandoned quickly after they blew several games at the beginning of the year. I realize that a team would have to have the correct personnel to run this…but I don’t see a problem if the Buccos decide to pursue some sort of pen-by-committee approach in the future.
Dejan actually was on a similar crusade way back when he was covering the Penguins. At that time he was saying how it was odd that the Penguins and Pirates were both “small-market” but it never came up with the Steelers. The NHL put in a salary cap and now it’s “Why aren’t the Penguins ‘small-market’?.”
The latest PBC post is about the Bucs “internal values”. Time will tell if a strict adherence to internal values is a smart way to run a small payroll team, or if it’s just a ploy for the Nutting$ to be cheap. I think it’s more the former than latter.
Dejan mentions the Sano non-signing as the biggest example of the value system backfiring. That’s the only time the past two years I wish Bucs management would have gone further, but they may have been planning to up the ante before the hilarious agent pulled out.
I’m very apprehensive about the internal value concept. It seems like they always check up short in trying to sign players. The thing is, though, most ot the players they’re rumored to be after are guys I don’t want them to sign anyway. Remember in NH’s first winter, when he was chasing after every crappy backup catcher on the market?
I don’t think Sano was a good example. According to the statements made by Sano’s agent, the issue during negotiations was that NH didn’t believe other teams were interested and didn’t want to bid against himself. That’s not the same thing. In fact, Dejan himself has reported that the Pirates were willing to go higher. The problem wasn’t with an internal value ceiling, it was with the dealings the Pirates had with the agent.
I agree on Sano; that was an odd example by Dejan against the value system.
The Wilson/Sanchez “values” were too low based on their actual value, but the team was intent on trading them since day one to help the rebuilding process, and would only keep them under-market. Time will tell if the “System” is more like Littlefield’s system or Dayton Moore’s “Process”!
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 18, 2009 9:53 AM EST up reply actions
I don't understand why "internal values"...
…are such a hobbyhorse for so many Pirates fans. Scouts have been valuing players that way for literally decades. This is NOTHING new.
It’s more the way the Pirates seem to adhere strictly to their number, or maybe because they set it too low. In practice it leaves the impression they won’t sign anybody at more than a bargain price. That’s how they end up with Craig Monroe, Luis Rivas, and Denny Bautista instead of guys who are real options.
exactly
it seems that if you want even slightly more than the “internal value”, its a hard no, with no further negotiations. Of course, there’s no clear evidence to back this up, but that is the general impression.
So far, I don’t think we’ve lost a player realistically who we really wanted. Well, except Sano, but in different circumstances. And I hope we will be willing to bend somewhat if there is such a player, who wants a little more than his “internal value”. (Of course, “little more”, “bend somewhat” are all subjective terms. All I m saying is we should have flexibility in negotiations)
by BurgherKing on Dec 18, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
So far, I don’t think we’ve lost a player realistically who we really wanted.
I think this is the key point. It’s irritating that we have to watch Craig Monroe instead of, say, Rocco Baldelli (although I didn’t get the impression money was the issue with Baldelli—it definitely wasn’t with a couple of Dejan’s example, such as Daniel Cabrera). But in the long run those players don’t matter. We’ll have to see what happens if they seem to have a competitive team a year from now but they need a SS or a closer. Will they be more flexible based on their needs?
I agree
I am fine with being harder in negotiating when it doesn’t matter as much. It’s when holes start to fill, and we need just that “right fit”, when we’ll have to see how the FO does.
by BurgherKing on Dec 18, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
And yet players have been overpaid
Obviously teams have always gone into negotiations with an “internal value” in mind. The difference is that NH seems to be wed more absolutely to that value than is the norm – he certainly says that he is, and DK’s list seems to support that contention.
Look, budgeting smart is great, and a good starting point for a low-budget team. But if I set my “internal value” for all the items on my grocery list and then come home empty-handed because it turns out Giant Eagle won’t sell me eggs for a penny apiece, I’m not sure how much satisfaction I’ll get for keeping to my budget while I starve to death.
In this analogy
You would actually be thinking that you’ve got a chicken that’s about to lay eggs, and if you can’t get eggs at Giant Eagle for a penny today, you’ll just wait until your own chicken lays them tomorrow. Of course, in this analogy 1 day = 1 year.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 18, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
If I go to the grocery store...
…planning to spend $3 for bread, and they want to charge me $20, I’m damn sure going home without bread.
Well that's the question
Are their valuations reasonable? Given their track record in landing FAs who aren’t NRI-types, it appears that they consistently come up with internal valuations that are below-market.
But, look, n is still pretty small here, and I think we agree that NH hasn’t really missed out on anyone valuable through undervaluation (Sano being a different enough situation that I don’t think it strongly pushes one way or the other). We’ll have to watch over the next 2-3 offseasons before we can gauge this. But, insofar as there’s a trend, it’s clear which way it goes: he’s certainly not overpaying for anyone.
High value FA's aren't a good indication
As I’ve mentioned, in 2009, there was not one team in a market under 4 M people that had even 1 free agent on their roster that they signed as a 3+WAR player that performed at that level.
So, those kinds of free agents are out completely for a team like the Pirates.
The Pirates need to be seen as an opportunity for free agents to raise their value or obtain playing time they wouldn’t have other places.
So, money in these cases is occasionally a secondary consideration. This is also why I would be surprised if Ankiel or Nady come here. This year, there just might not be the playing time for them since they will be competing against Clement and Tabata.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 18, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions
Bullpen specialization is strange
What has evolved with many teams is essentially a triple closer pen: a closer for the seventh, a closer for the eighth and a closer for the ninth. If you’re trying to hold a lead, they’re all equally important, aren’t they? Yet it’s the guy who comes last who gets the money and the glory.
All because somebody invented the “save.”
That stat has warped everyone’s thinking. As often as a supposedly smart manager like, say, LaRussa will change pitchers five times in the seventh to get optimal left-right matchups, when it comes time to seal the deal he’ll still stick the “closer” out there in the ninth to get everyone out, regardless of who’s coming to the plate. In other words, he’ll entirely change his strategy for one inning. (Yeah, yeah, I know, if you change pitchers five times in an inning then the closer’s the only guy left. I was kind of exaggerating to make a point).
Does that make any sense?
Well
leverage is higher in the 9th than in the 7th or 8th. Ceteris paribus, it makes sense to use your best pitcher in the 9th. Furthermore, closer types are usually designated as such partly because they have reduced platoon splits. So your third-best pitcher may be better than your LOOGY, but less effective against lefties, so you use your LOOGY in the 7th. Whereas your closer is more effective against lefties, or at least close enough that you don’t pull him just for a one-batter matchup.
To me the error isn’t not getting matchy-matchy with closers, it’s saving the closers for the 9th when ceteris isn’t paribus* – if the 8th inning brings up the big boppers while the 9th will (hopefully) bring up Cedeno, Bixler, and Salazar, then use your damn closer in the 8th (or at least have him ready, depending on the size of the lead).
That said, I really think that this thinking is starting to seep into managers’ heads – I feel like it’s far more common to see “closers” used in the 8th, or setup guys used in the 6th or 7th, than it was 5-10 years ago. But, as we all know, baseball is a conservative game, slow to change.
- I know, I know
Really?
Managers are doing this now? I must not be paying attention. Let me know when Mariano Rivera pitches the seventh. I’m not being sarcastic, I just really didn’t know there was a trend in this direction.
First and second, no outs — in other words, your typical Pirates seventh inning — seems to me like a much higher leverage situation that none on, no out in the ninth. Why let your best pitcher sit out there waiting to guard a lead you won’t have if you blow it in the 7th-8th? The worst reliever in baseball should be at least a 50-50 chance not to blow a lead in the 9th given none on and no out.
Rivera often goes more than one inning in the postseason...
…if there’s a high-leverage situation in the 8th. 88 career postseason games, 133 1/3 postseason innings. That’s a hair over 1.5 innings per game.
He didn’t do it as much during the regular season in the past, but that may have been Torre working to limit his innings, insofar as he liked to be able to run him out there every damn day and didn’t want him to be sitting at 100+ innings in August.
Silva, plus potentially Gorzelanny as well. Can you say “meatballs”?
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 18, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
Some reports say the Mariners have to send $9 million along with Silva to cover some of his contract, which may be the worst in all of baseball. That would save the Cubs about $6 million over keeping Bradley.
Silva won’t even be the worst contract on the team if Soriano doesn’t have a huge bounce-back from last year.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 18, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
This trade has once again inspired John Perrotto to complain about the Pirates not hiring Jack Z because of what he has managed to do with their $100 million+ payroll. I don’t even understand how you try to compare the two jobs.
Worth repeating that Jack Zduriencik’s dream GM job was with #Pirates as he is from New Castle. Pirates don’t hire W.Pa. People, though.
Steelers hire W.Pa people and won most years. Coincidence? Hardly.
Apparently all the Pirates are missing is a general manager from Western PA.
Wow...
what an interesting locker room dynamic that’s gonna be…Bradley and Snell in the same locker room. Will be interesting the first time Bradley misplays a fly ball when Ian is pitching.
Considering...
the volatility of each…could also be a tragedy.
I think Bradley's difficulties are overstated.
He just needs to be managed in a certain way. Wash did fine with him in Arlington – no personal issues there.
Except
for the fact he refused to play unless he was 100 percent because he didn’t want to risk having a worse game because he couldn’t perform at 100 percent to maximize stats. He made no qualms about the fact he playing for his next contract.
You just have to remember it’s all about him and if you and the team and the manager keep that in perspective, he can be a very valuable addition to the lineup.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 19, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
Fact is...
there are a lot of players like Bradley (playing for the contract) they are just not as in your face about it.
Guys have been "playing for the contract"...
…for more than a hundred years now. You can go back into dead ball-era copies of The Sporting News and find old, retired players ranting about how the then-active players were soulless, overpaid mercenaries, unlike the players of the 1890s, who only played for the love of the game. It’s actually pretty funny – those cliches have been around as long as the game itself.
At the end of the day, they’re all in it for the $.
Given Bradley's health history...
…he probably SHOULD be sitting if he isn’t 100% healthy, in order to keep from aggravating a small injury and turning it into a large one.
Good post by Charlie although when I saw the title I thought it was going to somehow incorporate Major League. Disappointing to say the least.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Dec 18, 2009 2:26 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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.
