The 2008 Bucs Lineup = Not Good Anymore
by Charlie on Dec 30, 2009 3:50 AM EST
77 comments
Dejan Kovacevic points out that the combined salaries of the Pirates' 2008 Opening Day starting lineup--Nate McLouth, Freddy Sanchez, Jason Bay, Adam LaRoche, Xavier Nady, Ryan Doumit, Jose Bautista, and Jack Wilson--will be about $46 million this year. That's not at all cheap for eight players, particularly when one takes into account the substantial amount of cash the Mets will owe Bay after 2010.
Not only are these guys expensive, they're also collectively pretty bad. Let's imagine the Pirates had somehow managed to keep all of them in 2010. Bay is still a very good hitter (even if he gives back a bunch of runs defensively), and McLouth is functional, but after that the lineup contains four huge injury risks in Sanchez, Nady, Doumit and Wilson, a first baseman who never hits before July, and a utilityman playing third. Other than Bay and LaRoche, who did his usual second-half thing after joining the Braves for the stretch run, all these players took steps backward in their careers after being traded--McLouth's offensive production slowed a bit, Bautista hit decently but was consigned to the bench role he probably always should've had, and Sanchez, Nady and Wilson all went down with injuries.
Neal Huntington was sitting on a time bomb when he arrived. Most of the Bucs' hitters were about to enter their decline phase, and while not all have actually declined, the group as a whole shows why it's dangerous to depend on players who are older than 30. Three of these players (Sanchez, Nady, Wilson) completely fell apart after being traded.
Meanwhile, in return for the seven of these players who were dealt (plus Ian Snell and Damaso Marte), the Pirates got two intriguing members of their current starting rotation (Charlie Morton and Ross Ohlendorf), their starting third baseman (Andy LaRoche), their starting shortstop (Ronny Cedeno), their likely starting first baseman (Jeff Clement), a top prospect (Jose Tabata), one of their better minor league starting pitchers (Tim Alderson), a decent back-of-the-rotation option (Dan McCutchen), a reserve outfielder (Brandon Moss), and a bunch of interesting minor league arms (Bryan Morris, Brett Lorin, Nathan Adcock, Aaron Pribanic, Hunter Strickland).
Not all those players are future superstars, but I'd much rather have the long list of new guys than the expensive and injury-prone bunch of old guys--and even that assumes that the Pirates could still have them all if they wanted. In the case of Bay, who's easily the best player the Bucs traded, that's almost certainly not true. Taken as a whole, Neal Huntington's rebuild looks like a clear, unambiguous positive right now. It's debatable whether he received as much as he could have for some of the players he traded, but it should be obvious at this point that he was right to trade them.
If he'd kept them, and we assume for the sake of argument that Sanchez, Nady and Wilson had still gotten hurt (which of course might not have happened, but then Bay, for example, might not have stayed healthy either), the Pirates still would have fallen apart down the stretch in 2009, with no middle infield and no rotation. And then the Bucs would have had a mess of an offseason, with so many players demanding more money or just skipping off to other teams. The organization Dave Littlefield left behind was designed to self-destruct after 2009, and it's much to Huntington's credit that he's stopped that from happening.
0 recs |
77 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nice post Charlie, thanks for again for the thoughts and the forum you provide to the Pirates Armada….. Paul
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on Dec 30, 2009 4:05 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Yeah.... and?
Seems like you’re preaching to the choir on this one. I guess this is sort of a continuation of your last piece. Maybe Dejan can link this to PBC, might sink in..
bk. It’s debatable whether he received as much as he could have for some of the players he traded, but it should be obvious at this point that he was right to trade them.
I think also that it is debatable whether or not Neal Huntington’s new “group” will fair any better than the Bay, Nady, LaRoche group, or will we be having this exact same conversation 5 or 6 years from now?
The point I am making is that this same kind of conversation was being conducted on Pittsburgh message boards in 2004 and 2005 as we waited for the former core to take shape. Now they have come and gone, didn’t win a thing, weren’t supported well from an overall talent perspective and now here we are again kind of waiting in a lull season for two for the new core to take shape.
The new core has potential. I don’t know if when judged as a whole that it holds any more promise than the previous core did 5 or 6 years ago, but it has promise. I just don’t think that this core has enough to allow it to compete under the threshold of a $40M or $50M payroll limit dictated by Bob Nutting. I don’t know that that is possible anymore in MLB.
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 9:16 AM EST reply actions
I think he was addressing the “But if we’d have kept all our good players, we’d have won a World Series!” argument. You’re exactly right, this new core maybe no better than the old core. But at least they have a chance to be better, as opposed to the Bay, Nady, Sanchez et al that at this point, would have been a disaster of a lineup. The difference between now and 2004/2005 if the depth in the minor leagues acquired through the draft, and the aggressive spending that is taking place there.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
What is so disastrous about that lineup?
Besides the players being currently injured? I don’t see it, and I don’t see how you can argue that if money wasn’t a factor, it’s not a better lineup than we have right now.
Of course, Cutch, Jones and Milledge could be a part of a team with all those players as they were acquired independently, but both Cutch and Jones would have been worth over 4.5 WAR if they’d played a full season, and none of the traded players even came close to that.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 30, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions
That was actually going to be a point of mine in another post
but I left for a basketball game.
People who say that team couldn’t compete say we would have had no way to add pitching to that top 5 offensive team. Well, I think I have a simple enough solution: trade Nady and Marte for Ohlie, Karstens, Tabata, and No Relation. Our 2009 team never really stood a chance without Bay and then esp. once Doumit went down.
Let’s just imagine though:
1. Cutch CF
2. McClouth RF
3. Bay LF
4. LaRoche/Jones 1B
5. Doumit C
6. Sanchez 2B
7. cheap FA 3B or trade
8. Wilson
And you can even still make the Nate trade and put GJ in right. It’s a solid offensive squad and would still need probably a starter and a reliever. With a bunch of breaks and depending on who those additions were it could have competed for the Central or the wild card, more realistically though it would have been competitive and fell short but still been a winning team imo.
We would lose out on Alderson but really we wouldn’t be in much worse shape than we are now.
1) We still could have dealt off Gorzo and Snell for some of those lesser prospects
2) Alvarez should be up sometime in 2010 making the loss of slighty below avg LaRoche not a big deal or hole
3) a couple draft picks is actually looking like a better return for Bay right now
4) we’d of had a decent shot at re-signing Jack and Grabow at our price
5) still could have made the Aki deal to replace Freddy
6) could find a stop gap RF this offseason to play until Tabata is ready, leaving GJ at 1B and making Clement (IF he even pans out) not a big loss
You can’t just combine the good Pirates offense (07-08) with the good Pirates pitching (09) because defense matters. Bay was no more valuable than Morgan last year because of defense (possibly even less if you trust Fangraphs win over replacement levels). Then you’re left saying if McLouth stayed with the team and doumit was healthy, then we’re a competitive team? Meh.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 31, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
WIth Bay (or bay and Jones) wandering around the outfield, our pitchers would get shelled more often than they did last year.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 31, 2009 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry, but that team is still just not very good…it might have won 65 or 66 games this year instead of 62. Nothing to get too excited about.
Oh come on
I love how, if you take a team with the worst offense in baseball (that would be your post-July 2009 Pittsburgh Pirates) and replace the hitters with a top-10 offense (ballpark based on 2008 outcomes and replacing some weaker/outlier links – Nady, McLouth – with stronger ones – GJones, Cutch), that’s worth 3-4 wins. I presume that, if you added Lee, CC, and Santana, that would be a ~72 win team?
Obviously you can’t simply pick and choose player performances, but this is just stupid. Bay alone is worth 3.4 wins over Moss. And yes, that includes defense, Adam Reynolds.
Christ. And you wonder why anyone would accuse this crowd of groupthink.
You just answered your own question. Keeping Bay might have added 3-4 wins, and undoing the McLouth might have given 1-2 over who we were playing (although Morgan who doesn’t factor in here was better than them all). So we could have added about 4-6 wins by keeping some of the band back together. That’s not taking into factor that Morton and An. LaRoche were key pieces down the stretch (and yes, we could have done worse than both of them with a “cheap” option, which would have sent the wins gained down significantly).
4-6 extra wins? 7 or 8? How many hypothetical wins do you now want to spot this aging “core” than didn’t win 70 games since 2004? But now they were just around the corner. I think anything significantly over 70 games with them is nuts.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 31, 2009 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
Now, this dream team would have an outside shot at getting into the low 70s, but to put the expected wins above70 is a stretch. That’s what I meant to state.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 31, 2009 8:46 PM EST up reply actions
the biggest issue I have is cherry picking trades, purely because the Nady trade turned out well. Really, there was every reason to trade Bay because he was the biggest chip, and the return in the Nady trade might just as easily not have worked.
1. Cutch CF (4.9 Morgan)
2. McClouth RF (3.6)
3. Bay LF (3.5)
4. LaRoche 1B (2.4)
5. Doumit C (1.0)
6. Sanchez 2B (2.3)
7. cheap FA 3B or trade (2.5)
8. Wilson (1.9)
Total- 22.something
Lets add 9 for the pitching staff- about 7 for Maholm, Ohlendorf and Duke. God knows what would happen to the rest- Ian Snell 1.0, Gorzo 0.7, Pen would be about 0, Capps negative, Karstens probably negative, Grabow, Meek, Chavez slightly positive, Vazquez, Hacker, Jackson, say 1 positive win.
An absolute best case here is 81 wins. I didnt consider the bench here, because I m guessing we’d have pretty much 0 from them, Vazquez, Young, Cruz etc. Wed have needed a lot of things to go right, and some of the things that did go right were hardly predictable.
Keep in mind that Freddy gets injured, Wilson gets injured, Doumit gets injured, Bay was a risk with declining defense in left in PNC. Note for the 3B I used Andy LaRoche’s WAR, and assuming a replacement wouldn’t have been better with maybe 1WAR (Ramon Vazquez or Neil Walker).
After the season, Gorzo and Snell probably have even less value.
Draft picks for Bay might have been better value (if you think Andy has hit his ceiling and I dont think he has), but also keep in mind that they would get here no earlier than what we have with equivalent chances of flaming out (Bryan Morris 1st rd draft pick)…
dont know what good re-signing jack or grabow would do- nothing imo…
Plus, their hindsight logic now includes that you should have held onto Bay/McLouth because they should have seen the Jones breakout coming (not that it would have made a difference). I mean, really.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 31, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
I've said a million times
I loved the Nady trade in real time, and didn’t want to see Bay go except for a great return (and even at the time I don’t see how you could have called it a “great” return). It’s not cherrypicking when you do it in real time. It is intellectually dishonest to accuse others of cherrypicking – or hindsight – when you don’t know the facts.
Anyway, this is a stupid argument to be repeating, which is why I wrote “no one wants to hear it.” It’s incredibly important to you people that the trades of 2008 and 2009 were perfect and unassailable. It’s hard to imagine anyone viewing you as kneejerk FC/NH defenders. Really. Hard to imagine.
My apologies- the cherrypicking isnt really an accusation, just saying. I wasn’t even on BD at that time and I didn’t mean it to be taken personally, simply that Bay was one of the bigger trade chips which we could expect to get a good return for, and therefore, one of the prime candidates to be traded.
I was fine with it at the time because Bay had the potential to get injured again, which would have killed his value, Andy LaRoche was ranked near the top of the LA farm, Morris was a 1st round pick who was having some trouble, but still a top prospect. Moss and Hansen were looked at as pieces, maybe not the best return, but I was fine. I might well have been wrong, the debate has little value now, anyway.
It’s incredibly important to you people that the trades of 2008 and 2009 were perfect and unassailable.
Nice strawman you’ve got there. Calling other people “intellectually dishonest” when you argue like this is really a bit much.
At the time of the deal...
…we got a ML-ready consensus top-30 prospect in baseball at a position of need, a live-armed first-rounder, and two other guys in the top 10 of a fairly deep farm system. It’s unfortunate that none but LaRoche have really panned out to date, but in the abstract that’s a very good return.
Good rundown. The Pirates got 14.2 WAR from their position players this year so this lineup would be expected to be 8 games better. Subtract Morton’s 1.2 WAR and you’ve got a 7 game improvement, or 69 – 92, which is pretty much in line with the Baynadymclouth Pirates winning percentage from 2007-mid 2008.
The main problem problem with this is the 3B
You say “cheap FA 3B or trade” and then simply assign 2.5 WAR to this person. That’s not even remotely reasonable. Andy was 2.5 and he was 15th most valuable in the league. So your cheap FA was much more likely to be 0 WAR. That means that Bay’s 3.5 advantage over Moss is only 1 WAR better than Andy’s advantage or mythical replacement level 3B.
Also, you have to remember that Sanchez and Wilson were hurt and did almost nothing from July 1 on. Freddy was good for April and May and then was well below average from June 1 on. Jack had one good offensive month, which was June.
Adam’s 2.4 WAR almost entirely came AFTER left Pittsburgh. With the Pirates he was .4 – barely above replacement. In months, he went: good/terrible/great/horrible/bad.
And of course Doumit’s injury DID happen, and he wasn’t very good before the injury happened either, Jaramillo was decent as a replacement, but still below average.
Plus, although Morgan’s offense took off in DC, with the Pirates he was still a below average bat. You could play him in CF over McLouth and you have his defense, but if you are thinking he’s going to play like he did with DC and give you 5 WAR, that’s not reality.
So, if you were going to replay 2009 with Bay in LF, you’d have 3 above average offensive performers the first half of the season (Freddy or Jack depending on the month, Nate and Bay) and then 3 the second half (Bay,Cutch, Jones) and you’d have Vasquez or Bixler playing short and DY playing 2B anyway because Freddy was hurt.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 31, 2009 10:52 PM EST up reply actions
Now, let me deal with the other misconception...
That is, that if you kept Bay and traded Nady, you could keep the majority of the offense from the 2008 team up to the trading deadline…
Which of these players contributed most to the 2008 offense before the deadline?
Nady: .330/.383/.535
Bay: .282/.375/.519
Nate: .280/.359/.522
Doumit: .333/.376/.556
How many of those performances were ever repeated? That’s right – only Bay has been able to repeat the production from those 3 mythical months in 2008.
Now, here’s the kicker…
I put the numbers of the 2008 team into the lineup analyzer and it said the 2008 team up to July 30 should score… 4.5 runs per game
They actually scored 4.9 runs per game, so not only did 3 of the players on the team produce like they never have produced before or since, but even then they were LUCKY and produced significantly more runs than they should have.
Now, look at our projected 2010 lineup:
by MarkInDallas on Dec 31, 2009 11:24 PM EST up reply actions
My New Year’s Resolution is for us to do well enough next season that people quit arguing we should have built around the Bay/McLouth “core”.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 1, 2010 2:24 AM EST up reply actions
Thinking the Same Thing
I was thinking the same but could not expressed it better. Nice job.
Not only would the team face a difficult 2010, but it still would not have won anything or even reached .500! These guys, no matter how they perform individually, never were able to win as a team.
What if Littlefield had not been fired? McClendon would still be manger, and we would have lost all of those people to FA (Bay, Nady, LaRoche, Marte. Grabow), Our lineup for 2010 would be:
C-Paulino
1B-Pearce
2B-Sanchez
SS-Wilson
3B-Bautista
LF-Morgan?
CF-Duffy
RF-McLouth
SP: Maholm, Duke, Snell, Gorzalany, ?
Bullpen: Capps, ?
Bench: Bixler, Walker, ?
Does this team look like a winner in 2010 or in the future to you?
Hopefully after 2010 this whole “we should have kept Bay, Nady, etc” will stop being a topic and people will focus on the interesting players we have. This will only happen if we start winning.
Hopefully after 2010 this whole "we should have kept Bay, Nady, etc" will stop being a topic and people will focus on the interesting players we have.
I think it will. But to your point, how the 2010 club performs and develops will dictate what Pirate fans will be talking about next year at this time.
If we see development from the likes of Clement, Cedeno, LaRoche, Alvarez, Tabata, Morton, Hart, Ohlendorf, etc…..I think folks will be pumped.
If on the other hand the club tanks and plays similar to how it did and August in September I think we will be questioning Neal and his scout departments evaluation skills.
Either way I think that by the end of the 2010 season the old core will be so far back in our rear view window that they won’t be the topic of conversation anymore. – Well except maybe Capps. If he bombs, folks may still be talking about how Neal made the right call. If he has a great year folks will talk about how Neal made a short sighted financial compromise to winning.
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 9:36 AM EST up reply actions
It's unfair to judge this management based on 2004 and 2005...
..if the Pirates had won the World Series in 2004 and 2005, you wouldn’t give Huntington credit for that. You’re right in the fact that this core may not end up as good as the last, or it might be better. Yes, it has potential, but the Pirates also now have a fairly deep farm system, which is much more than we had at almost any point in the Littlefield era.
apples and kiwi
I think the issue that is overshadowed here is that these players are not the same players capability-wise as they were in, say 2007. Taking amounts that they signed for now/recently and presuming that they would all still be here and would all still performing at the same level is a bit of a leap. Further, it is hard to imagine there would have been that small of a turnover in the roster what with potential trades and FA comings and goings.
I think these kinds of lists as DK put together are more Fantasy League stuff than anything really applicable to the current situation.
The 2010 Lineup isn't looking all that great either.
The 2008 Bucs Lineup = Not Good Anymore
The 2010 lineup isn’t looking all that great either and the fact that Bob Nutting is saving money in the process does nothing for me as a fan.
Just win, that’s all I care about. I don’t care if it costs $100M or $30M. The primary objective of professional sports organizations is still to win. The last I checked, they don’t include profitiability standings on the back page of the sports section. Just record standings based on wins and losses.
So hip, hip, hooray for Neal that he traded away veterans and in return received less expensive you guys. Cornflakes for everyone.
The primary question should remain, will this new core actually win?
That’s all that matters.
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 11:01 AM EST reply actions
if they spent $100 million
The Bucs would go bankrupt and you’d never see another win, so I’d guess that probably does matter.
by DITO on Dec 30, 2009 11:15 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Since spending that money On ML payroll in 2010...
…will not have any significant effect on the team’s chances of winning, either in 2010 or the future beyond that, why should Nutting open the wallet now? Where’s the upside for him, or us for that matter?
Yes, at some point, they’ll need to increase the ML payroll from $30M. Until we get to the point where it becomes necessary or helpful, though, what’s the point in constantly harping on it? We can’t cross that bridge until we get there.
by Vlad on Dec 30, 2009 11:24 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Mr. Hostage
I think the current management would agree with you in that they’re less focused on current payroll and more focused on building a sustainable winner. I think what I don’t really understand about your comments is what you feel they should actually be doing to build a winning team.
With no salary cap and the amount of time players need to develop, franchises can’t be turned around as quickly as in the other major sports (i.e. the NFL, NBA and NHL). If the steelers had absolutely no talent right now a good management team/coaching staff could probably have a .500 team within 3 years. I don’t think this can happen in MLB unless you already have Yankees-esque resources and can buy talent off the streets while you rebuild your farm system.
So I guess my ultimate question for you would be whether you have a problem with the FO’s current strategy in rebuilding the team from the ground up (i.e. from the farm system up) or whether you feel the moves (trades, signings, draft picks) employed within that strategy are flawed?
Personally I feel the old ‘core’ lacked the talent to ever compete no matter how many role players we signed off the street to complement them. Bay was the only ‘great’ player out of the group and you can’t win with one great player. I think the current developing core (McCutchen, Alvarez, Tabata, Milledge, etc.) shows much more potential, with the added benefit of a developing farm system that will have options to replace people that either don’t reach their potential or are lost through FA.
Great couple of questions.....
Thanks for asking.
1. Yes, I do resent the fact they elected to undertake a complete rebuilding strategy instead of attempting to win with some of the players they had. I felt that after 15 years of losing and several recent last place finishes, combined with the advantages of a publically funded ballpark, Pittsburgh deserved a plan that included a greater sense of urgency. By the way, when Frank Coonelly accepted the job he said in an interview with Sports Illustrated that he had no intention of presiding over a 16th or 17th losing season.
2. Now that the choice to go through a complete rebuild has been made, I understand it and accept it, however I think Neal Huntington has become sloppy this past off season in the execution of the rebuilding strategy in terms of how he has spent some of the payroll budget and in making certain roster decsions. Until now, whether I agreed with his decisions or not, I felt that at the very least Neal was demonstrating great discipline in executing his plan.
Example #1: Why lose Luis Cruz on waivers only to open roster spots a few days later by non-tendering Capps and Dumatrait?
Example #2: Why spend $7.5M dollars for one year of Iwamura, Crosby, and Vazquez, all guys with no future with this club, and then lose out on Sano for the sake of less than $1m? Or release Matt Capps, a 26 yr old closer for the sake of $500,000? – It makes no sense to me. This club is very likely going to lose 100 games this seson and they can do it with, or without Iwamura, Crosby, and Vazquez. To me it’s the reincarnation of Jeromy Burnitz, Joe Randa, and Sean Casey, just with less money involved.
Example #3: I think Huntington let other factors influence his judgement in this decision to release Capps. I think he just didn’t like Capps and his agent not being willing to accept a below market value deal and because he didn’t get his way, he released him.
Yes, I think the “new” core of up and coming talent has some promise, but it also has some holes. There is very little middle infield or starting pitcher depth. By the time Cain and some of the high school above slot guys eventually reach the majors, it will be time to trade McCutchen and Alvarez because they will be earning too much money for Bob Nutting’s taste.
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
The current management team is not responsible for the years before they joined the team, so they should not adjust their strategy to make the fans feel better about the previous 15 years. Their only responsibility is to build a winner. And rushing the rebuild would have hurt the team in both the short and long term. That’s what got Bonifay in trouble.
Luis Cruz is a replacement level player, at best. They can easily replace him by picking up a scrub on waivers. Not sure why losing him is a giant concern.
Iwamura is a bargain at his salary. Neither Crosby or Vazquez are very useful players, but they are not making enough to worry about.
We did not lose out on Sano because of the money. All reports indicate that the Pirates would have increased their offer if given the chance.
Burnitz, Randa and Casey all blocked more talented players. Totally different situation. The Pirates have nobody better than Iwamura to play second, and Crosby and Vazquez are just bench players.
I’d bet that the Pirates will be much closer to 81 losses than 100 losses in 2010.
There will be solid starting pitching depth as high as Altoona this year. There are plenty of pitchers ahead of Cain in their development.
Pittsburgh Lumber Co.
http://mvn.com/pittsburghlumberco
I don’t agree with any of that, but thanks for the response.
Frankly, I hope you are right and that I am wrong.
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
#1: think of it as, the Pirates released Cruz, Capps and Dumatrait.
#2: Randa was playing 3B in Pittsburgh when there was a viable alternative- Freddy Sanchez. Sean casey was blocking Craig Wilson. Iwamura was signed when 2B looked like an absolute black hole. There is a big difference between the 2 cases. Crosby was brought in to back up Cedeno, and he costs 1M, not much money and some insurance in a spot where there isn’t help available that is not named Bixler.
Vazquez can be looked at as a bad signing- 2M is not crazy money to throw away, and definitely better than the (what was it exactly?) $10-12M that were thrown away over Randa, Casey, Burnitz (?)
We lost Sano because we didnt have the opportunity to outbid the Twins, def not the FO’s fault. Capps was a judgment call, the FO decided he wasn’t worth the money, a lot of people disagree (myself included), but we’ll see if they turn out to be right after all… (and who knows, maybe the money goes to the draft or something)
#3: There might actually be a problem in the way the FO deals with players/agents. Till now, though, Sano is the only real example. The thought of personal issues with Capps/his agent struck me too, but random speculation is pointless, right now.
With regard to Capps:
I kinda liked having a token fatty. (there I said it)
by BlindSquirrel on Jan 4, 2010 1:01 AM EST up reply actions
Nice answers...
Note: You should comment here more often. I enjoy reading your views, especially when you get into more specifics like this.
1) I feel previous management staffs had already wasted the opportunity that PNC had provided. Ideally the current strategy would have been started a few years before PNC opened, so that the attendance/revenue boost that the PNC opening provided could be parlayed into increased salary of deserving players.
2.1) I think you will find many people here (me included) that agree that Capps should have been tendered. Not b/c he was key to the success of the team, but b/c closers are often significantly overvalued and if he could have regained any of his previous form he could have been flipped for prospects at midseason. So we basically lost a potential asset with no return. I don’t understand the concern with losing Cruz or Dumatrait.
2.2) I loved the Iwamura trade. He’s basically Freddy Sanchez, so you could say that we traded Chavez for Alderson, which I would consider a great trade. He stabilizes that part of the IF in that D. Young had proven that he’s not a ML 2B. Alvarez can take time to develop in AAA while LaRoche proves whether he can reach his potential or not. Also with our pitch-to-contact staff, having a butcher like Young at 2B can have larger ramifications.
Crosby is basically cheap insurance so that we don’t have to watch Bixler anymore. There were no SS on the market that we could sign to improve that position. I wouldn’t mind seeing Vasquez not make the team.
I don’t really think this is related to the Sano issue. Though personally i feel NH shat the bed on that. I do believe it was as much, if not more, the fault of the Sano’s agent, but NH at least misread the situation leading to us failing to sign him. Clearly I don’t think it was an issue of money though. At least it was an issue of us being too aggressive in trying to sign him rather than the opposite.
2.3) I don’t know how to respond to pure conjecture.
I will agree that we lack any immediate answers at SS and SP. This is something NH is going to have to address over the next couple years if we are going to be successful. He tried to acquire JJ Hardy, and right now Doumit, Duke and Maholm are our only trade chips and i don’t know how you get a staff ace out of those three.
Good back and forth...
1. You are right, the previous regime really blew the momentum the PBC could had in increased attendance related to the opening, but there is still benefit to a publically funded sweetheart deal that not all clubs enjoy.
2. We are in agreement regarding Capps. – I bring up Cruz simply because I think he could have provided good enough utility help to off set the need to be paying Crosby and Vazquez $3M. – I’d rather see that money spent on the next Sano or on 3-5 more draft picks.
3. I didn’t like the Iwamura trade in that the Pirates ranked 7th in the NL in quality starts last season but were tied for the 2nd worst bullpen era in the NL. – So we traded 6 years of control from a serviceable reliever with upside in Chavez for what likely will be 4 months of Iwamura for $3M. – I hate 1 yr, or half yr rent-a-players. I so want this club to beging building.
As far as Doumit, Duke, and Maholm are concerned, I fully expect that all three will be traded on or before the trade deadline in July. – Actually, the Mets are in desperate need of a catcher and pitchers who can eat innings. – Too bad their farm system is so empty.
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
- is a moot point. The FO has already indicated that money does not shift from the major league budget to the draft/international signings/etc.
by thegreatchris on Dec 30, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
That’s supposed to say number 2 is a moot point, but it posted incorrectly.
by thegreatchris on Dec 30, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
Where did the money shift.....
when they failed to sign Sano?
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
There was no allocation. It was repeatedly stated that Sano was a special case that they were willing to go outside of budget for.
by thegreatchris on Dec 30, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
1) Since previous regimes wasted the natural bump in attendance with the PNC opening, it now only represents potential revenue. So if the team begins to win, attendance will increase and with it revenue. Increasing payroll to a potential sustainable level without the actual revenue to back it up could be catastrophic for a limited potential revenue team like the Pirates (is that better than saying small market?). The Mets and Cubs have already proven you can’t just buy a winning team. And with ML contracts being guaranteed, you could easily put a team in an inextractable finanacial abyss if attendance doesn’t immediately skyrocket the following season. That is not a wise financial model.
2) Even though Crosby is nothing more than an adequate bench player, he looks like Hanley Ramirez next to Cruz. And the $1.5 million we signed him for is commensurate with his role on the team. Considering Vazquez has the range of a man trapped in a phone booth, he is dead weight on the payroll, but hardly anything that is sinking the franchise. I think it’s clear that these have nothing to do with not signing Sano.
As far as signing some more draft picks (i’ll assume you mean above slot ones), you should check through the BD archives as there have been some good discussions regarding the delicate balance of not spending so much on the draft that the Yankees and Red Sox start throwing $30 million/year at the draft.
3) Considering the hole we had at 2B, I think 150 games of Iwamura is much more valuable to the Pirates this year than 60 innnings of Chavez would be. And I’m sure if LaRoche and Alvarez are both performing, Iwamura could be traded for a pitcher as least as good as Chavez.
So would you be opposed to trading Doumit, Duke or Mahom?
Not to be flip, but I was wondering if you could name at least one move the current regime has made that you think was good?
Oh sure, I've liked several things they have done...
I would not be opposed to trading Doumit, Duke, or Maholm if Neal obtains equal value in return in near major league ready talent.
As far as liking what they’ve done:
1. The Morgan / Burnett deal for Milledge and Hanrahan was a terrific trade and Neal’s best.
2. Converting Moskos to a starter in the minors to build his arm strength and reinforce his mechanics.
3. Hiring Perry Hill. (Though I would have done more than that following a last place season).
4. Drafting Alvarez (Though they almost blew the negotiations).
5. The above slot draft targets (Though they need to work out a fast League approval process).
6. The Latin American Academy (Though they need suitable talent to put inside it).
7. Drafting Tanner Scheppers (Though they should have signed him).
There, that is seven.
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
"Years of control" for a "serviceable reliever"...
…are nearly valueless. Reliever performances is tremendously volatile, and non-elite right-handed short relievers are routinely non-tendered once their salary starts to approach $2M per. As such, unless Chavez projects as a well-above-average reliever going forward (and in my opinion, he does not), those years of control are unlikely to ever be utilized.
Answer #1: Luis Cruz is a replacement-level performer. Losing him is no big deal – there are equivalent commodities available on waivers or as minor league FAs every offseason.
Answer #2: Money was spent on Iwamura, Crosby, and Vazquez in order to provide middle infielders for the ML club, as the only upper-minors options (i.e. Cruz, Bixler, Ford, etc.) were replacement-level performers. These have nothing to do with the past Burnitz, Randa, and Casey additions, which were problems in large part because we had equal or superior options (Craig Wilson, Freddy Sanchez, and Craig Wilson, respectively) already on hand. As for Sano, your premise is false. The Pirates emphatically did NOT lose out on him due to an unwillingness to spend market price. It has been reported on numerous occasions that they were willing to pay more than the Twins ended up paying, but that they were (unwisely) not given the opportunity to match or exceed that offer once it had been made. You’ve repeated this line on numerous occasions on the PBC blog, and been debunked numerous times, and you would do well to retire it, as it does your credibility no favors.
Answer #3: You provide no actual evidence that this is true. Or, to be blunt, anything that even resembles evidence. It is conjecture, and not particularly plausible conjecture at that.
I get so tired of hearing about the 2008 Pirates...
They weren’t a good team. The day Nady was traded, the Pirates were 48-55. The day Bay was traded they were 50-58. They didn’t even have a winning record, yet it seems like a lot of fans talk like they did have a winning record. Also the last two months of the season, they played almost all winning/playoff teams. They would have gotten hammered with Bay and Nady on the team.
No, but
they did have a truly impressive offense, something not seen in these parts in 15 years. It’s not surprising that people were kind of happy to see that.
Of course the current group managed play unseen around here in 130 years, so that’s something….
Impressive offense, yes.
But impressive lineup, no. That impressive offense was fueled by a couple of career years, and a couple of bounce-back, and wasn’t sustainable.
I got pretty tired of .385 baseball last season too....
I’m fine with forgetting the 2008 club, the only question I have is when do we get a better one?
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
Not necessarily....
The Bucs would go bankrupt and you’d never see another win
The Penquins went through two bankruptcies and went on to win 3 Stanley Cups.
I kid but the point is, while I don’t advocate they spend $100M, clearly they are not in a position to do so, at the end of the day I’m tired of being concerned about the money.
Just win. That’s their job. Just win. – It’s up to them to figure out the money. If they determine they can’t win and make money, that’s fine. Just sell and allow someone who thinks they can give it a shot.
The flip side is that it is not right to have a professional sports organization that does not put forth a legitimate attempt at winning if Bob Nutting and his boys have any doubts they can under MLB’s current economic structure.
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 11:34 AM EST reply actions
I think Nutting thinks they can win
But only with the approach they’ve put forward; by focusing on the draft, Latin America, etc. they create the possibility of having enough cost-controlled talent to win while keeping the payroll manageable. (And by manageable, I don’t mean the current $35M payroll we’re looking at this year, but hopefully something in the $70M range a couple of years from now).
Obviously we don’t yet know if the players the Bucs have acquired will be good enough to win, but blowing things up at least gives the Bucs a fighting chance at contending.
That's fair.....
I think you are right that Bob Nutting probably still thinks they can win.
All I ask is that if this rebuilding effort fails, that he goes away and gives another owner a chance.
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
Regardless of who owns the team, though, MLB’s economic structure remains in place. So unless you have a Mark Cuban type who doesn’t care about losing tens of millions each year as long as he wins, you’d likely see the same sort of approach by any fiscally conscious owner.
I'll hope and pray for a Mark Cuban type.
;-)
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
application of blame
I would agree with biggyv, that if the scenario described plays out the fault would lie in talent acquisition/evaluation, which is the purview of NH, not Nutting.
I think you should adjust your nom de guerre to HuntingtonHostage, though admittedly it doesn’t have the same ring.
I plan to stick with “NuttingHostage” as I believe he is the bane of my existence.
;-)
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
I love Mark Cuban, but he has said he would not operate the Pirates at a loss.
He has said he would operate them to break even. From what I see, the difference between the small and no profit is not a whole heck of a lot.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 30, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
Is it really true that Mark Cuban loses tens of millions on the Mavs every year? I see this asserted a lot, but why would his financial position be much different from any other owner in a salary cap league like the NBA?
What is he throwing away all this money on, if not player salaries?
Re: Cuban
I don’t know much about NBA basketball beyond the fact that Cuban owns the Mavs, but I do recall several years ago on Fan Appreciation Night that Cuban and I think American Airlines gave every fan in the arena a free rountrip flight anywhere in the U.S.
Not that makes him a great owner, but it was pretty unique and cool.
by Nutting Hostage on Dec 30, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
I doubt he is actually losing money
Just hiding revenue streams.
He did lose money at first. The team was a disgrace. But, the money he put in and lost at first was not just thrown at winning. He was making an investment. Win and the fans will be back.
He made capital improvements on team infrastucture, training facilities, etc.
Very similar to what Nutting is doing now. Cuban also wanted to make Dallas a very attractive place for players to want to play. He wanted them to feel important and that being a Mav was better than being on any other team. He upgraded transportation and the locker rooms, etc.
After the Mavs went to the Finals, he wanted to up payroll past the point where revenue would allow. He therefore had the team borrow money to accommodate that. Ross Perot Jr, who he bought the team from and still retains a fraction of ownership, sued Cuban for doing that.
The point of that story is that Cuban does not operate the Mavs at a loss of his own money. If he over spent on payroll with the Pirates, he would expect the Pirates to repay the loan, again just like the Pirates are doing now due to their fiscal problems before the ARam dump.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 30, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
The only position the Pirates haven’t replaced with roughly equal or better talent from that amazing lineup is shortstop with Jack Wilson and maybe outfield with Jason Bay.
That includes Iwamura for Sanchez, Clement for Ad. LaRoche, McCutchen for McLough, Milledge for Nady, and An. LaRoche for Bautista. In all those cases, the new starter projects as better than the old.
Jones has done a good Bay impression so far of a slugging, defensively challenged outfielder, so if he keeps it up then he will join the list as the Bay replacement, although that may be a stretch.
The only production we will really miss is Wilson. In the meantime, the team has boosted the rotation and minor league system a lot since 08. Not bad, although as skeptics say we will need results and the prospects need to pan out to be significantly better than the 08 team.
Good points
If the “core” of 08 couldn’t get it done, how can anyone reasonably expect them to improve three years later? At best that group got a whiff of .500 ball, and nothing more.
Add a league average pitching staff
Just a thought, but that would have been my solution.
Funny
The ’08 group was a group of Vets that still could not get it together and win. Unfortunately the Buccos still have the problem of understanding that pitching is winning and they do not have any dominate pitchers in the majors right now. to expect the ’10 team to be reasonably good is out of line. they will struggle and there will be more trades, this team is built for the ’11 and ’12 seasons. for this upcoming season i just want to see some of these top prospects get some mlb action. that would satisfy me in terms of the season being good or not.
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.
