Frank Coonelly Defends LaRoche, Moss, Morgan
by Charlie on Feb 5, 2009 8:12 AM EST
63 comments
From Pirates.com's recent chat with Frank Coonelly: brian921: I think you have done a great job locking in talent through their arbitration years with a free agency option and addressing the 2010 problem. How probable is it to think we will have a contender by 2012? Coonelly: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address how we're building this team. While we certainly have been and will continue to acquire young talent, we are not targeting 2010 -- or 2012, for that matter -- as the year in which we think we will win. Six of the eight players we acquired in the deadline trades last year are (or shortly will be) ready for the Major Leagues. We expect to win in 2009 and would not find it acceptable to attempt to build a team that will not win until 2010 or 2012. Nice to know that "2010 problem" is entering the discourse. Pretty forthright chat overall, by the way, even if not all the news is good. Coonelly states unambiguously that there's no room in the budget for Adam Dunn (which surely surprises no one) and voices his confidence in Andy LaRoche, Brandon Moss and Nyjer Morgan. There's some arbitrary-endpoint stuff going on in his defense of Morgan, but whatever.
0 recs |
63 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Most encouraging part for me?
The bit where he specifically excluded Cruz (and other Type As who were offered arbitration) because he wants to conserve draft picks.
Wonder whether he was just tapdancing on the Dunn thing, or whether they’re actually working to clear some more money on the payroll. Doesn’t seem like he closed the door as tightly as he could have, there.
I was prepared to be upset about him lumping Nyjer in with Moss and LaRoche, and then when I actually read the link, it seems like he was being careful to keep Nyjer out apart from those other two (as a “frontrunner” for a job, not someone who’s "proven").
On the whole, not too bad. He’s still saying the right things, at least.
by Vlad on Feb 5, 2009 9:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
What I’d like to read into the Cruz comments is that they value draft picks enough to start offering arbitration. Grabow, for instance, could be a Type A if he has a 2009 similar to his 2008.
As an aside, isn’t that just nuts? Grabow could easily be a Type A, but just at a guess Adam LaRoche probably won’t be. Actually, you could make the same point with Cruz—relievers are absurdly overvalued. You’d think the MLBPA would try to get the formula changed, because it makes teams very hesitant to sign relievers, whereas a position player who’s a Type A will almost always be valuable enough that the draft pick isn’t much of a barrier.
Anyway, for a team that figures to contend, Juan Cruz is easily worth a second round draft pick, probably even a late first-rounder. But not for the Pirates, and not even though they’re going to have two second round picks (as things currently stand, I think they’d be back-to-back, but that’ll probably change).
by WTM on Feb 5, 2009 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the Elias rankings are totally divorced from reality.
I guess it just hasn’t been enough in anybody’s interest to change it, so they never felt like going to something more sensible.
by Vlad on Feb 5, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Presuming the NL Central does not devolve into the NL West and Grabow is turning in another good year why wouldn’t the Pirates turn him at the trade dead line for another team controlled player or two? What am I missing here?
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
by daveinexile on Feb 6, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They’ve been dangling Grabow for two years and all they’ve been offered in return is Grade C prospects.
by WTM on Feb 6, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but 2 things have changed. One of those seasons was different GM and the Pirates were in a disparate situation.
Don’t get me wrong and think I am saying that Grabow will get top prospect level help back. But it is possible they could double down on high risk /higher reward type arms from the other teams A ball level. If that was the case how would such a move be received?
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
by daveinexile on Feb 6, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Vlad. I was not thinking of anyone specifically more try to gauge how such a 2 for 1 move would be received. Would the fan base have that kind of appetite to run that much risk or if the focus (preference) is still on lower ceiling guys that are closer to the show ( AA & AAA).
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
by daveinexile on Feb 6, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
2010 Problem
It’s always nice to see somebody notice it. You can’t judge the deadline trades last year without taking into account the bizarre contract structure these guys inherited. None of the fans reflexively whining about trading away their good players has ever taken that into account that I’ve seen.
OTOH, Coonelly’s pimping of Morgan was pretty silly. It’s the standard trial lawyer approach of never conceding even the most minor of the other side’s points, no matter how obviously correct they are. I’d be pretty alarmed if I really believed Coonelly and Huntington consider Morgan to be anything more than a desperate and temporary fill-in for LF.
by WTM on Feb 5, 2009 9:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Most disquieting for me (besides the silly hyping of Morgan by cherrypicking small bits of data): even after the questioner points out that the prices of FAs like Dunn are plummeting, Coonelly dismisses the point with the doesn’t-fit-our-budget McNutter bullshit. Instead he emphasizes that the only thing the Pirates can do to get better is build from within—prospects and foreign signings. No one of course asked where the budget came from.
Coonelly points to Minnesota as his model; I point to Billy Beane in Oakland who understands why this is nonsense. The best, and probably only, way (given the disparity in riches) for a resources restricted team to build a winner is to add undervalued talent—players worth more on the field than you have to pay them—wherever they find it. In the FA market and when young players like Pie are being dumped by filthy rich teams, not just with prospects and foreign signings. At all times. A team shouldn’t try to time its rise to competitiveness any more than you should try to time when, if ever, the stock market is going to rise again.
Instead what we get are self-imposed spending restrictions now, promises to spend more later, and assertions the Pirates expect to be better this year. The latter is not credible. The only way to make it so is to do what they should be doing anyway to build a future. Drop the phony budget limits and bring in more talent now.
A quick word about budgets. The value of MLB franchise has been soaring in recent years. Even the McNutters have shared these riches. The last 4 years the Pirates have lost 95 games 3 times and 94 once. Yet as nearly as I can tell (their books are private) thay have made an operating profit on top of the appreciation each year, some years estimated at $20 million (it’s likely any guesstimates of profits underestimates them).
Here’s a simple principle: a bad team should be willing to forgo an operating profit (incur a loss) in order to buy undervalued talent needed to build a winner, in direct proportion to their awfulness. Any operating loss merely is an offset to the annual appreciation accruing to an owner (currently running at about 9% per year for all teams according to Forbes, though Pirate appreciation is likely to be less than that). Only when a loss exceeds appreciation would an owner even begin to share the pain felt by fans each year.
by rogero on Feb 5, 2009 12:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Read again
Right now, the salaries that he is expecting do not fit within our budget. If other moves were made and Dunn fit within our budget, he is someone who we would consider.
It’s not clear that Dunn is undervalued at the salary he would sign for. Dunn and other remaining free agents so far aren’t willing to drop their prices to meet the market. Dunn has an offer from the Nats from a couple months ago that he hasn’t even responded to. I haven’t noticed any reports of Beane making him an offer. Beane’s only FA signing of any significance was Giambi, who was very cheap and who can only DH.
by WTM on Feb 5, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's a phony budget limit.
I think Nutting has legitimately told him that’s all that he’s allowed to spend. Now, you can argue that the limit should be set higher (and I’d probably agree with you) – but that’s something to take up with Nutting, not Coonelly.
by Vlad on Feb 5, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Nutting makes policy. On the rare occasions when Nutting can be asked anything, I’d like to ask him about the budget. He won’t answer of course because that information is “proprietory”. Coonelly implements policy and explains it to the public, all the while shielding his boss from uncormfortable questions. That’s why he is fair game for that most basic questions about policy—why is the players’ salary budget so low? You’re not going to get an answer from him either, but this is all about raising the visibilty of the question (not unlike Charlie’s observation about someone raising the “2010 problem”).
by rogero on Feb 5, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When you can find an owner in MLB who’ll explain his budget to the public, let me know.
by WTM on Feb 5, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not that I support attempting to time a specific year for competitiveness,
but you do have an element of control over when you will rise to competitiveness again, unlike the stock market.
by DITO on Feb 5, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By all accounts I’ve read, Dunn’s price has dropped far below what he was originally asking. Abreu’s too, not to mention Manny. Wiggy just took a $1.5 million pay cut despite putting up an ..876 last year. After a few elite players got a bundle, the market has turned brutal. And prices for remaining FAs are likely to keep dropping as they fight for the last jobs available.
Dunn is obviously waiting to see what happens with Manny and LA and he has Abreu to contend with as well. At this point we don’t know how much further his price will fall (nor for that matter do we know what is is asking for now).
Coonelly’s statement that he would need to cut salary elsewhere to even consider Dunn, in the context of this market, is damning enough isn’t it? What’s the current budget look like? $45 million, maybe a bit more? What’s Milwaukee’s budget? $81-82 million? How much money do the Pirates get from all leagues sources, TV, etc. (non ticket revenue)? So, why do you accept Coonelly’s claim that the Pirates can’t afford Dunn without cutting other salary (even going so far as to quote it as if it explains things)?
As for Beane you forget he tried hard to sign Furcal. And I pointedly didn’t limit things to the FA market. He traded for Holliday, remember? He just picked up Mike Wuertz, a solid vet for his pen with a career 3.50 ERA over 5 seasons by trading a prospect. Anyone who has been following him can see he has been doing both at once—trading vets to stockpile prospects and trading prospects for vets. Looking for value wherever he can find it To try to deny this by saying he didn’t make an offer to Dunn and signed only Giambi is weak.
by rogero on Feb 5, 2009 1:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not true
WTM got it right, above.
Washington Post reported that Washington has offered Dunn $40/4yr contract, but that Dunn is holding out for $52M/4yr.
It’s not the “best and final offer” for either side, but Dunn is 2nd choice for the Dodgers if Manny doesn’t sign, so he doesn’t see a reason to jump at Washington’s offer. Washington knows that too, so doesn’t want to sweeten its offer to say $11M/yr. since they know Dunn won’t do anything until Manny is off the market.
Logically, rogero is absolutely correct. Dunn should take less than $13M/year based on recent OF signings (Abreu too). But WTM is right that Dunn has yet to see it that way.
I can totally see why Coonelly doesn’t even want to think about Dunn.
by WstCstBucco on Feb 5, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Beane has a LOT more trade chips right now than we do.
Even after trading for Holliday, you can make an argument for Oakland’s farm as the deepest in the game. So it’s much easier for him to trade for an impact player, because he’ll have sufficient depth even after shipping out a few pieces of high-level talent.
If we draft well and sign well for the next few years, we can get to a point where a trade for Holliday might be a viable option. Right now, it isn’t.
by Vlad on Feb 5, 2009 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Beane got nowhere with Furcal because Furcal wasn’t willing to be a bargain. Beane got Holliday for two top prospects and his closer. So you think the Pirates should trade Capps, McCutchen, and Tabata so Matt Holliday can help them win 72 games this year and then leave? Brilliant. And a non-contender trading prospects for middle relievers? Talk about weak. Beane expects to contend this year.
As for the Brewers, you’re forgetting that they outdrew the Pirates by nearly a million and a half. That probably more than accounts for the difference in payroll. The Brewers waited until they had the young core on board and then increased their payroll. You’re effectively arguing that the Pirates should NOT follow the Brewers’ example.
by WTM on Feb 5, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re wrong about Furcal. He signed with LA for 3years and $30 million, the same amount he was offered by Atlanta (remember the Braves’ angry reaction after they though they had him signed to the same thing he took from LA). Earlier Oakland offered him 4 years and $40 million. He simply preferred to play in LA.
Your point about Beane is what? Do you disagree that he pursues value in whatever market finds it (all set out in great detail by Michael Lewis in "Moneyball")? Or that that is different than the Pirates’ build from within approach? Could you address that instead of picking at details, this time whacking that strawman as if I advocated trading three of the Pirate’s best players for a few months of Holliday, which only leads to more back and forth about interpretations of facts and events?.
My point isn’t about Holliday, or Dunn either. They’re illustratuions, that you often choose to focus on instead of my point.
Down below you say: “Coonelly didn’t say they couldn’t afford him, he said Dunn didn’t fit in their budget.” But the Pirates create a budget to establish what they can afford. “What they can afford” and “their budget” are the same thing, not separate things. When Coonelly says he can’t fit player X into the budget without cutting something else, he means he can’t afford to sign that player without cutting salary somewhere else. So, yes, the Pirates are claiming they can’t afford Dunn and that’s what I’m taking issue with. What about you?
by rogero on Feb 5, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't tell what your point is
Obviously, Moneyball is all about looking for undervalued resources. That’s what Beane tries to do, not always successfully. Great, now we’ve got that out of the way.
You gave a bunch of examples that appeared to be intended to show the Pirates weren’t doing that, and now you’re disowning all of them. I wasn’t “picking at details,” I was responding to your examples. Maybe you shouldn’t choose such crappy examples.
As for the budget, you’re assuming that the budget defines what the Pirates can afford and whining that Nutting won’t explain why the budget is what it is, something no owner in MLB ever does. The budget is what the Pirates choose to spend. What Coonelly can afford is irrelevant if you’re complaining about the Pirates not spending enough, because he doesn’t set the budget. If Coonelly says he can’t afford Dunn within the budget he was given, that’s an accurate statement. But he did not say the Pirates can’t afford Dunn, so ripping him for that statement is missing the mark.
If the gripe is that Nutting won’t free up more money for Dunn, I have no problem with that. Beane once said he wasn’t interested in “having a nice little team,” which clearly means he isn’t interested in building for a big run at .500. For the reasons I gave below, IMO signing Dunn would be exactly that, at best. More like a run at 75 wins, really. I think the Pirates, by not doing it, are behaving exactly the way Beane would. At least to the extent you can tell, because Beane never had to deal with an organization in such horrible shape as what Coonelly and Huntington inherited. I’m not sure anybody has had to in modern times.
by WTM on Feb 5, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One more thought
Your argument seems to be that the Pirates should sign Dunn just because he’s probably going to end up signing for less money than he’d have gotten a year ago. I don’t think that makes sense unless it gets you closer to your goal. This is where Beane’s comment about not wanting a nice little team comes in. Even though he may be undervalued, there’s no point in signing Dunn unless he gets the Pirates closer to the goal of reaching the post-season. I don’t think he does.
by WTM on Feb 5, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disowned nothing. Did you think because I said this wasn’t about Holliday or Dunn but rather about competing approaches that I was somehow disowning anything I said about them? That makes no sense to me but I can’t come up with any other basis for such a wild charge.
I used the Pirates’ own words about their build within approach, not examples, to show it differs with Beane. Not that it requires any great elaboration; its obvious. You don’t dispute that because you can’t. You don’t discuss it because, well, I have no idea. Instead you throw up that garbled mess of a second paragraph.
The third paragraph is probably worse. I’m whining that Nutting won’t explain the budget? No, I said he won’t explain it, but instead use it as a smokescreen reason to protect his profits. You apparently have no problem with that. Then comes your lecture of how Coonelly doesn’t set the budget, as if you didn’t read me saying exactly that above, and how it’s “missing the mark” to “rip” him for saying Dunn doesn’t fit into the budget because, of course, he doesn’t. Duh.
After all of that convoluted irrelevance you slip in the assertion again that Coonelly didn’t say the Pirates can’t afford Dunn. Coonelly speaks for the Pirates. Yes he did. He said Dunn doesn’t fit in the budget.
Of course the complaint is that Nutting won’t free up more money. How could you not understand that?
I think we reached diminishing returns a while ago. You may have the last word.
by rogero on Feb 5, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I still have no idea what your point is
Other than an extremely long-winded version of “Nutting is cheap.”
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
by WTM on Feb 5, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's pretty much it.
I don’t get why that’s Coonelly’s problem, though.
by Vlad on Feb 5, 2009 9:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WTM and Vlad
I’m sorry, I don’t get what your point(s) is.
The point isn’t Dunn, it’s players like Dunn.
The point isn’t “Nutting is cheap” (though that is probably a good point), or whether that’s Coonelly’s problem or Nutting’s or someone else’s. Nutting sets the budget, and the budget is defended, referenced, etc. by Coonelly. Coonelly speaks for the budget. That he didn’t set it is irrelevant.
Asking Coonelly to explain why the budget is $54M is fair. It could be asked as simply as, “why isn’t the budget 59.5 million?” It’s just as (seemingly) arbitrary a figure.
So… yes, all this Bill Beane back and forth was a waste of all time. And I’m a little tired of hearing “what Moneyball was about.” Moneyball was about Billy Beane.
And Roger, I think you might need to dial it back a little too. Sometimes people don’t get other people’s point. Some people, I think, are wired to look at the trees, not the forest. A buddy of mine drives me nuts with it, but I’ve come to realize he’s not just being a dick, he just parses words, and can’t seem to connect them into a greater point. Not saying that’s WTM or Vlad exactly, just that people process info differently. Don’t be insulted, don’t insult.
Hmph, listen to me, King Jackass himself.
by azibuck on Feb 5, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They've explained the budget
What nobody seems to be recalling here is that Nutting and Coonelly have both said repeatedly over the last year and a half that they’ll increase the payroll when the good young core is in place. That’s what the A’s, Twins and Brewers did, and it’s what the Rays are starting to do. Far from pretending that they can’t afford any more, these statements have clearly implied that they can afford to spend more. That’s as much of an explanation of a team’s budget as any team in MLB ever gives. You’re not going to get the computations from anybody.
Now, if you disagree with the reasoning, fine. If you want to argue that they should do the exact opposite of what the similarly situated, successful teams did, have at it. If you want to argue that they should emulate the A-Rod Rangers, be my guest. It’s very clear to me that there are a lot of Pirate fans who are dying to see Dunn or Manny or somebody else become the modern version of Ralph Kiner and the early ‘50s Pirates, just for the sake of seeing them acquire an expensive player. And that’s fine if that’s what you want. Apparently lots of people went to games in the Kiner years just wanted to see him hit HRs and didn’t care whether the team ever won. But if you’re going to complain that they haven’t explained their approach to the budget as much as any team in MLB ever does, and if you’re going to complain that they’ve claimed they aren’t able to increase the payroll beyond what it currently is, you’re flat wrong. And Coonelly didn’t do it in that chat, either.
by WTM on Feb 6, 2009 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the reasoning and the strategy… but there’s still two problems:
First: I don’t entirely believe Nutting and Coonelly… that’s pretty much an issue of faith that you have to take or leave… it’s kind of hard to dispute…
Second: What’s the contingency plan? What if a good young core never comes about? Does payroll never increase? Does ownership continue to line its pockets? I think that folks like rogero and I are suggesting spending as a means to increase the likelihood that there will be a young core in the first place…
by Captain Easychord on Feb 6, 2009 8:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t believe or disbelieve these guys (although another fact that often gets forgotten is that Nutting agreed to pick up Matt Morris’ contract when DL convinced him he needed to do it). I just don’t care right now because they’re following the strategy that successful, lower-revenue teams have followed. I’m not going to argue that they should spend money pointlessly now just to prove that they’ll spend it wisely later. If they don’t spend it later, then they can fairly be called frauds.
If the good young core never happens, the team continues to lose. It’s really that simple. Spending their way to success will never work. At least this time they’re actually trying to build through the farm system. Contrary to the near-universal perception that they’re “always rebuilding,” they’ve never really tried rebuilding. Bonifay veered away from the program halfway through and DL never even attempted it. I find it hard to believe that, if they don’t throw away first round picks and make an effort to get some talent out of the later rounds and Latin America, they won’t have some degree of success at some point. It’s just a question of how much. If it’s not enough, they need to find people who can do a better job of following the current strategy. For years the strategy and execution were both bad. Now the strategy is right and the execution remains to be seen.
by WTM on Feb 6, 2009 9:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True tales from Vlad's life:
We have a show tomorrow. Our budget for a day of production on the show is right around $2k. If someone came up and asked me why we aren’t spending $5k to get a much nicer show that’d get better ratings and make us more money, I’d tell them: “Because my boss told me to spend no more than $2k.”
Maybe he’s right to do that, and maybe he’s wrong. But I’m not going to get a wild hair up my butt, spend $5k tomorrow, and then tell him that it’ll be worth it in the long run, because I like having a job. Maybe I lobbied him to spend more on the show in private, and he said “No” anyway, so I did my job. Maybe he gave me a conditional “No”, and said that I can have the extra money if we accomplish certain goals in terms revenue and brand recognition. Even if either of those is true, there’s no reason that the public needs to know about it. I produce the best show I can, I punch the clock, and I go home. People enjoy it or not, as they see fit.
This situation isn’t really any different.
by Vlad on Feb 6, 2009 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sequitur?
I’m not going to get a wild hair up my butt, spend $5k tomorrow, and then tell him that it’ll be worth it in the long run
What the heck is that all about? Even as an exaggeration I don’t know how it applies to anything anyone has recommended in this thread.
I don’t care if we get Adam Dunn or not. I don’t care what the budget is, because I know it won’t be large, and we shouldn’t waste resources this year, and I’d rather find out about Moss and others. And I don’t have the relevant information about whether it’s lining pockets, being invested elsewhere, being saved for contending years, or being blown at Mountaineer on cheap speed.
That said, the following are rhetorical.
Getting Adam Dunn on your show might cost as little as an extra $200 (2K x 10percent). Why does your show have a “hard” budget, when A- B- and C-listers charge different appearance fees?
Getting Dunn on the Pirates might cost as little as an extra 5.4M (54M x 10 percent). Why does the team have a hard budget?
by azibuck on Feb 6, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Getting Dunn on the Pirates might cost as little as an extra 5.4M (54M x 10 percent).
Not when he’s got an offer from the Nats for $40M/4yrs.
by WTM on Feb 6, 2009 1:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I meant extra 5.4M in the budget, not that we could get him for 5.4M
I may be incorrect here but isn’t our 2009 payroll currently in the $50M range? Unless each year has to be $10M, a comparable or better contract can be structured if the budget was increased 10 percent.
Also — and again, I’m just saying, not really advocating — I can see Grabow at least, and possibly Wilson and/or Laroche and/or a pitcher like Gorzelanny coming off the books this year, without adding any more salary in return. If we’re at $54 million payroll on opening day, we’ll have paid less than that by the season finale I’m sure.
by azibuck on Feb 6, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Be careful with that.
Assuming that we’d shed salary during the course of the season is part of what got us into the absurd situation with Ramirez in 2003. The front office figured that they’d offload Benson on someone like the Braves, and then he got hurt and left them up shit creek.
It could very well happen, but I don’t know that I’d want to put myself in a position where I needed for it to happen.
by Vlad on Feb 6, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's about the chain of command.
In this thiread, Roger has been complaining about Coonelly and the budget, when the total amount of the budget is something that’s decided above Coonelly’s pay grade. It’s like if I started chewing out my local police chief because I don’t like a particular law. He might agree, and he might not, but either way it’s not his decision to make.
My show has a hard budget per show because my boss’s boss has given us a certain amount of money to use for the year, and if we blow it all too quickly, then we’ll have to cut back later on to make ends meet. If you want to know why my boss picked that particular number, I don’t know, and I don’t have to know.
As Wilbur notes, Dunn already has at least one eight-figure offer in his pocket. He isn’t going to need to come to us hat in hand.
by Vlad on Feb 6, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One point proven
Either I’m a crappy communicator too, or you and WTM just process information differently. I said, (new emphasis added),
“Getting Dunn on the Pirates might cost as little as an extra 5.4M (54M x 10 percent).”
I didn’t feel the need to emphasize the word “extra” before, and by using the total budget figure in my calculation and in this context, I thought it was clear I meant an increase in the budget might create enough room to make Dunn a competitive offer. You and Wilbur both read it another way. (Shrug). I’m sure it’s not you, it’s me.
“It’s not you, it’s me…. You’re giving me the ’It’s not you, it’s me’ routine? I invented ’It’s not you, it’s me.’ Nobody tells me it’s them, not me. If it’s anybody, it’s me.”
“Alright, George, it’s you.”
“You’re damn right it’s me.”
“Look, I was just trying to….”
“I know what you were trying to do. Nobody does it better than me.”
“Well I’m sure you do it very well.”
“Yes, well, unfortunately you’ll never get the chance to find out.”
by azibuck on Feb 6, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’d help if I could see where your numbers are coming from. So you’re saying maybe they could sign Dunn for $9.4M? That’s still short.
More importantly, I still don’t see what the point is, other than finding complicated ways to say Nutting is cheap. Why do they have to have a hard cap? We don’t know that they do. Maybe Coonelly would go to Nutting and ask for more money if there’s a worthwhile opportunity, but he doesn’t see one right now. He just wasn’t that specific. Beyond that, the point seems to be to expect Coonelly to provide budget calculations and rationales that no MLB team—in fact, probably no closely held business in any field—ever provides.
If you (the generic "you") want to argue that ownership is cheap, go ahead. But please come up with a better example than the Brewers, whose payroll actually suggests the Pirates are NOT cheap. And then please move on to the question whether it makes sense to spend more now, which is the more important question by far, IMO. But don’t blast a statement Coonelly made that pertained specifically to Dunn and then claim the point was never Dunn.
by WTM on Feb 6, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Using PPG figs
Good recent rundown of payroll status here:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09027/944682-63.stm
and September announcement of 2009 payroll figure here:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08258/912140-63.stm
The first article indicates that our payroll will be just under $50M tops, as the projection was $50.1 if Maholm and McLouth both won arb at $3.8M. I think Maholm’s total hit this year on his deal is $3.5M, so if Nate wins arb, the payroll will sit at $49.8M. That’s where my numbers are coming from.
Is there a rule that a 4/40 contract must be 10M/year? It’s all guaranteed, so why wouldn’t a 4/42 contract be better, even if it called for
1st year — 7M
2nd year — 15M
3rd — 12M
4th — 8M
I’m not an expert, and am more familiar with NFL contract structure, I’m just saying, isn’t that possible? I assume they’ve already got at least an outline of what they think the team will look like in February 2010, and I doubt it includes Wilson or Laroche.
I don’t want calculations, but I think rationales could be reasonably given, even defended. I’m not asking to see the books. I feel like I’m just arguing on behalf of rogero, because I’m not upset with the answer Coonelly gave, nor that he’s not been questioned hard on the subject. I could give variations of statements that Coonelly could give to justify the number without using specifics, but I don’t want to bog this down with more details and hypotheticals. Besides, I think I know the answer (below), and it’s not (just) that Nutting is cheap.
One other point that I find mildly interesting. The 2009 budget was set in September? Did Mobil set their gas prices for 2009 in September 2008? I know it’s not apples to apples, so please don’t pick that single point apart. Having a plan and sticking to it is good almost all the time, but there’s merit in quickly revising (not radically) that plan in response to a shifting market. In years past, we wouldn’t even have this discussion because Dunn and others would have been gobbled up months ago. But things are different than what was probably predicted for the FA market 5 months ago.
The answer is that setting the 2009 budget at $54M was, one, an increase. And b) it conveniently fit all the players they were committed to for 2009, including accounting for arb raises and/or long term deals for guys like Doumit and Maholm. There was never a plan to sign anyone like Dunn, or Abreu. But maybe things have changed just enough that moving boldly makes sense and could fit a budget that need not be wildly adjusted, just raised 10 percent.
by azibuck on Feb 6, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I feel like I’m just arguing on behalf of rogero
Well you’re doing a helluva lot better job than he did.
I still don’t see the point, though, because I’ve never had the slightest doubt that they could manage a $54M payroll, or considerably higher for that matter. I’ve been saying that for years. I just don’t see the point right now and the chat never got to that point. (Not that chats are useful vehicles for anything other than puffery and drivel.) The question whether it’s a good idea to increase the payroll is the only question I’ve ever seen any point in. I long ago made up my mind on the question whether they could increase it.
by WTM on Feb 6, 2009 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you mean now.
I still think you’re under-counting it, though. If you only plan on going up to ~$10M a year, then you’re assuming that:
*With all else being equal, Dunn would choose us over the Nats.
*The Nats won’t come back with a higher offer.
*No other team (like the Dodgers) will jump into the bidding.
It could happen, but that’s a whole lot of "if"s for my taste.
by Vlad on Feb 6, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if you want to nitpick away, the way you categorize the guys that oakland dealt to get matt holliday is ridiculous… huston street is a run-of-the-mill middle reliever (check the depth charts if he wasn’t on your fantasy team last year), greg smith is a B-grade prospect and my mileage may vary on gonzalez… suffice to say, this is far from a team’s closer and two top prospects… maybe something along the lines of Tyler Yates, Andrew McCutchen and Ross Ohlendorf… maybe you make that deal, maybe you don’t… but it’s not nearly as ridiculous as Capps, Cutch and Tabata…
nevertheless, as rogero says, the point here isn’t specifics, but value… the value added by an adam dunn or a matt holliday or in terms of wins added to the 2009 team isn’t as relevant as the options it gives the club… adam dunn can be dealt for a prospect at the deadline… holliday can decline arbitration and leave the team with draft picks… and to some extent, the point isn’t that it’s THESE SPECIFIC GUYS who are necessary, but rather that the team should pursue this strategy (specific players being negotiable) instead of standing pat…
and yes, pursuing additional talent in this way will cost more money… when the pirates choose not to do so, it gives the distinct impression that the franchise continues to be cheap… I know everyone here is assuming the pirates are following the “brewers plan”, but can anyone here give assurances that the ownership will ever raise payroll? for my money (literally), I’ll believe it when I see it…
by Captain Easychord on Feb 5, 2009 11:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree.
Teams were looking at Houston as a closer, Smith had success at the major league level and Gonzales was a highly regarded prospect. Capps, Cuthc and Tabata was not a fair comparioson but Yates, McCutchen and Ohlendorf is off as well. Why, because the trades aren’t about fantasy stats but as perceived value. Whether Huston had a good year or not is irrelelvant because he is still looked as a closer or setup man for a team with an established closer. Let’s try Capps, Tabata and Snell. I still wouldn’t do that for one year of Holliday for a team in our position.
by Slick1 on Feb 6, 2009 8:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yates, McCutchen, and Ohlendorf is absurd.
Ohlendorf is a C+ kind of guy, and Yates might’ve gotten non-tendered last offseason if he’d played for a better team. Oakland’s package is much, much better.
by Vlad on Feb 7, 2009 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that
the package the As gave up is equivalent to Capps, McCutchen and Tabata.
Street was pretty awful the last half of last season and had lost his closer job by the end of the year and I doubt that Greg Smith will be more than a back-of-the-rotation type. As for Carlos Gonzalez, he looked a lot better before last season during which he appeared to be totally overmatched at the major league level and didn’t even perform that well in AAA.
Please tell me you don’t think we’re putting a big chunk of our hopes for the Pirate future on players that are no better than that crew.
by WestCoastBuc on Feb 5, 2009 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As opposed to Tabata...
…who was all puppies and rainbows in 2008?
by Vlad on Feb 5, 2009 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say that
Capps has been more effective than Street both of the last two seasons. McCutcheon and Gonzalez had similar AAA stats last season and Cutch is a full year younger though I am not sure how to evaluate the offensive context of their respective performances. And I’d much rather have Tabata than Smith; I don’t think that is even close but I’ll admit I could just be a homer.
by WestCoastBuc on Feb 5, 2009 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Capps v. Street, last 3 years
It’s actually pretty close.
Capps: 213.3 IP, 159 K, 33 BB, 22 HR. 3.04 ERA, 1.05 WHIP.
Street: 190.7 IP, 199 K, 52 BB, 15 HR. 3.35 ERA, 1.10 WHIP.
Capps has a small edge in playing time, and he pitches in a neutral park in front of a crappy defense. Street has a big edge in K rate, and he pitches in a pitcher’s park in front of a great defense, but has to deal with the DH. If you give the overall edge to Capps, it’s not by a whole lot.
If I were to try and analogize the two packages, I probably would’ve gone with Capps (Street), Maholm (Smith), and Tabata (CarGo). Smith is about where Maholm was two years ago, and even if he doesn’t show the improvement that Maholm did in 2008, the extra two years’ worth of service time probably make up for that.
The revised package isn’t really one we’d have any business trading for a guy like Holliday right now, either.
by Vlad on Feb 5, 2009 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I should also add...
…that while CarGo probably doesn’t have Tabata’s offensive ceiling, he’s already a plus defensive CF, while Tabata is probably a corner guy in the bigs.
by Vlad on Feb 5, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it’s nice to see the departures from previous management here (valuing draft picks, getting high-upside players), but let’s not overlook the flaws that the new guys might have.
For all the complaints that DL drew when he traded for guys who were “major-league ready”, I’m surprised that Huntington doesn’t get similar grief when he acknowledges the same. This was my fundamental complaint about the trades last year… Tabata and Morris were the kinds of guys I wanted to see… Ohlendorf, Hansen and company? Not so much… Huntington basically says he’s trying to win while he rebuilds… isn’t that Littlefield-esque?
And as rogero says, the line about not being able to afford Adam Dunn is a load of crap. Regardless of his asking price. I can accept arguments about the wisdom of signing Adam Dunn… maybe he’ll take playing time away from Steve Pearce or Brandon Moss… maybe the Pirates wouldn’t be able to flip him for anything valuable… and would he cost a draft pick? That would be bad… But the Pirates absolutely can afford him. (especially if you buy into the saving now to spend later idea… the Pirates have been “saving” for the last decade or so)…
It’s nice to see the positive changes the new ownership has brought about… but simply because they do a handful of things that we all like doesn’t mean that they’re thinking along the lines that we are. And I’m still skeptical that they’ll open the checkbook when (and if) the time ever comes…
by Captain Easychord on Feb 5, 2009 2:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’d prefer to see guys like Tabata and Morris, too, but I doubt NH could get any more like that in those trades. With the major-league-ready types, they went in part for some guys they think still have a lot of unrealized upside, particularly LaRoche and Ohlendorf. The probability may be low, but I’m sure it was a question of getting what upside they could get in a market where prospects have an extremely high value.
NH also was faced with a situation where he was probably wondering how he was going to field a team in 2010—the “2010 problem” Charlie refers to. NH can’t just say, “We’re blowing off the next couple years.” If they draw 500,000 this year, it’s going to have an impact on the team on the field the next few years. I’m all for emphasizing prospects, but I can understand that they have to make some effort to put a respectable team out there. I don’t always agree with the balance they strike, but I do realize it’s necessarily a balancing act.
As for Dunn, Coonelly didn’t say they couldn’t afford him, he said Dunn didn’t fit in their budget. (Although the comparison to the Brewers suggests they can’t.) I don’t doubt they could spend more on major league payroll, but they’ve decided it’s not worth it until they have a contending team. Dunn won’t come anywhere close to making this a contending team, so I don’t much care whether they go after him. In fact, if they were to sign him for something like the Nats’ offer, it could hurt their chances of contending down the road because they’d have a lot of money tied up in a guy who may not be a good player in a couple more years. Dunn is one of the most extreme examples ever of “old player skills,” specifically walks and power. Guys like that don’t age well and Dunn may not be able to play in the field a couple years from now. Their unwillingness to increase the budget for him doesn’t bother me at all.
by WTM on Feb 5, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't buy the notion of a "2010 problem"
I just don’t… barring something miraculous, the Pirates are going to be losers for the next two years no matter what. If the difference between a 70 win season and a 75 win season is trivial, when does it become significant? Does it really matter if the Pirates lose 115 games? At least THAT would ensure a #1 overall draft pick… and dealing McLouth, Doumit, Maholm, Capps, Laroche, Wilson, Grabow and Sanchez might actually help to restock the farm system, instead of just adding a bight light or two…
Besides, if you’re fielding a lineup starring Steve Pearce, Brandon Moss, Nyjer Morgan and Brian Bixler, you’ll have lots of money to spend on whatever talent you’d like… and who knows? maybe one or two of these guys pan out… The Giants fielded a similar roster to this last year and Charlie ridiculed them thoroughly, but that same Giants team filled with has-beens and never-will-bes finished a full five games ahead of the Pirates…
The only way that the Pirates are going to field good teams on a regular basis is by building the depth of the farm system. That takes years and multiple successful drafts, trades and free agent signings. Until that happens, they’re going to be losers.
The only way that the 2010 roster is a “problem” is if you’re worried about winning 63 games. So don’t say that fielding a respectable team matters on one hand while poo-pooing the quest for 75 (or even 81) on the other…
by Captain Easychord on Feb 5, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The “2010 problem” is a reference to what NH inherited, not what the team is now. He was looking at an organization that was set up to be emptied of talent by then. He’s tried to address the problem by bringing in players at all levels, but players who are still young enough that they could be contributing beyond 2010. I don’t see adding guys like Ohlendorf, LaRoche, Karstens and Moss as simply aiming at 63 or 75 or 81 wins in 2010. They’re guys who, if the Pirates get lucky with some of them, should still be around well beyond 2010. At the same time, yeah, they may help reduce the risk of losing 115 games in 2010. But it’s not remotely equivalent to doing something like signing Adam Dunn, who may very well not be a useful player much beyond 2010.
by WTM on Feb 5, 2009 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I might be misinterpreting your argument but
it would be impossible to trade for all young, high-potential players. Anyone would like that but no GM could pull off trades like that. Somebody needs to start until those young players and drafted players are ready, might as well go for older guys who have some potential.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Feb 5, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Huntington was trying to apply a band-aid to the SP problem
Remember JVB and Yoslan Herrera being thrust into SP roles last year? Ty Taubenheim? Jimmy Barthmeir? Jason Davis? Even Matt Morris? Ugh! There was no SP in the high minors at all. It was painful.
Huntington had to get those kind of guys out of Pittsburgh’s starting lineup. He had no choice. Karstens, Olendorf, McCutchen were all added to have some kind of SP at AAA and to sit down JVB and Herrera in Pittsburgh. Hansen was just a throw in — hard throwing goof ball who maybe would blossom in new scenery.
I don’t see Huntington being pushed to make this kind of trade again. It’s funny though that Yanks have already put Nady on the block for all comers.
by WstCstBucco on Feb 5, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought
they re-upped Nady at like two years and $6 mil? Now they’re trying to unload him?
by bucdaddy on Feb 6, 2009 8:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is widely reported Nady is on the block
When Yanks signed Mark Teixeira, it left Nick Swisher and X-Man fighting for the same position. Nady looks like odd man out, but there’s not many teams in MLB that’ll try to do the pinstripers a favor.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spyanks095992316jan09,0,3360870.story
BTW, Nady is a free agent after this year. Two weeks ago, Yanks and Nady avoided arbitration with a one-year deal for $6.65M.
Nady was a big part of the PBC 2010 problem. Huntington is looking good by getting a nice return for him and Marte when Nady still had 1 1/2 years before free agency. The alternative (desired by the “Huntington dismantled the best outfield in baseball” bloggers) would have had the PBC paying $6.65M for Nady this year, Nady having little trade value as a “rent a player,” and the team with no real chance to lock him up to a long term contract for 2010+.
by WstCstBucco on Feb 6, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They didn't expect to pick up both Swisher and Tex.
Now they’ve got more players than positions, so they’re trying to flip Nady or Swisher. But they don’t have much leverage, so the offers aren’t great.
by Vlad on Feb 6, 2009 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention
The fact that Nady not only is a free agent in October, but is represented by Scott Boras, has got to affect his value on the trade market.
by WstCstBucco on Feb 6, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
unrelated but
i’m watching the carribean series on the mlb channel and the usually formidable dominican republic team is sending out the former bucco 4/5 hitter tandem of ronnie paulino and jose bautista. no wonder it’s been a low scoring tournament so far.
by johnnycuff on Feb 5, 2009 2:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Here's to 17 straight
2008 record
67-95, sixth place in NL Central
Projected batting order
1. LF Nyjer Morgan:
.294 BA, .345 OBP, .375 SLG, 0 HR, 7 RBI in 2008
2. 2B Freddy Sanchez:
.271 BA, .298 OBP, .371 SLG, 9 HR, 52 RBI in 2008
3. CF Nate McLouth:
.276 BA, .356 OBP, .497 SLG, 26 HR, 94 RBI in 2008
4. C Ryan Doumit:
.318 BA, .357 OBP, .501 SLG, 15 HR, 69 RBI in 2008
5. 1B Adam LaRoche:
.270 BA, .341 OBP, .500 SLG, 25 HR, 85 RBI in 2008
6. RF Brandon Moss:
.222 BA, .288 OBP, .424 SLG, 6 HR, 23 RBI in 2008
7. 3B Andy LaRoche:
.152 BA, .227 OBP, .232 SLG, 3 HR, 12 RBI in 2008
8. 2B Jack Wilson:
.272 BA, .312 OBP, .348 SLG, 1 HR, 22 RBI in 2008
Projected rotation
1. Paul Maholm, 9-9, 3.71 ERA in 2008
2. Ian Snell, 7-12, 5.42 in 2008
3. Tom Gorzelanny, 6-9, 6.66 in 2008
4. Zach Duke, 5-14, 4.82 in 2008
5. Ross Ohlendorf, 0-3, 6.35 in 2008
How can anyone believe that this team will win? No major moves in the off-season. The Bucs were very close to becoming a good team last year until the trades of Jason Bay and Xavier Nady. I for one am tired of getting fed the same line from ownership each and every year. There is no way this franchise will get any better within the next five years. As soon as our players become a bit high-priced, they are sold off to the highest bidder. The Nutting family should do the honorable thing and sell the franchise to someone with the resources to make it competitive for all the LOYAL fans in Pittsburgh (hello…Mark Cuban, can you hear our cries??), because anyone who has been a fan of this ballclub for the past 30 years deserves it.
by ryovich186 on Feb 11, 2009 2:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not sure why you think they were close to becoming a good team.
Nady was way over his head, and after the trade he went back to hitting like Xavier Nady. And if we don’t make the deadline trades, we finish out the year with slop like Herrera in the rotation…
No, this team isn’t going to win anything this year. That was already a given, whether we kept Bay/Nady or not. We could’ve dropped an extra $20-30M on that roster, and still not done any better than fourth place. The talent base just wasn’t there.
The only way for the franchise to win at any point in the future is to actually have an honest-to-god rebuilding period for once – something DL never tried, and Bonifay didn’t have the guts to see through to the end. Have three or four periods of strong drafts/international signings in a row, so that we get a massive nucleus of young talent together at the same time. Last year’s moves were a good start on it.
by Vlad on Feb 12, 2009 8:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
