Let's get this out there early.......
While the conversation about the usefulness of Delwyn Young, Luis Cruz, Shelby Ford et al. is interesting, I think we are missing the much more important question facing the Pirates this year. How to manage the club option the Pirates hold for Freddy Sanchez in 2010?
For those of you not aware of the details, the Bucs hold a club option for Sanchez next season which, if exercised, would pay him $8 million (or $8.5 million if certain incentives are reached). If not exercised Sanchez would receive a $600,000 buyout. The fly in the ointment in this case is that Sanchez's option becomes guaranteed with 635 plate appearances or 600 plate appearances and a selection to the All-Star team in 2009.
In contrast the Pirates hold a $8.4 million option on Jack Wilson for 2009 with a similar $600,000 buyout. But, in no case does Wilson's option become guaranteed, which is why he looked to open up negotiations on an extension this spring.
Now no matter what you think of Jack and Freddy as people or "faces of the franchise," there is no way in the world these guys are worth that kind of money next season. This isn't about loyalty or anything like that. This is about allocating resources to produce a winning team. It appears the Pirates have made it very clear that they will not pick up Wilson's option under any circumstances. Seeing Orlando Hudson get a one year deal for $4 million from the Dodgers, it is clear that the economics of the game are changing with the difficult economic environment faced throughout the country and there is no way the team should allow Sanchez's option to vest.
If he bats second in the lineup and gets 4.5 plate appearances/game that he starts he will reach 600 appearances in 130-135 games. This leaves the team with an interesting dilemma. Do they manage Sanchez's appearances during the season--and consequently play clearly inferior players--in order to make it virtually impossible for him to reach the needed numbers by the end of the year? Or, do they play Sanchez so that he is on pace to start 150-155 games and then just basically sit him all of September in order "to see what we have" in the organization, likely creating bad feelings in the clubhouse and with the fan base?
Obviously, in the unlikely but wishful situation that the Pirates are in the pennant race in late August-September, you can be sure Freddy will be on the lineup card everyday. However, discounting that eventuality, the Pirates face a very real issue that they should be thinking about starting now and not August 15th. And if they back into guaranteeing the option they will be spending $4-7 million that I strongly feel could be better used elsewhere.
0 recs |
13 comments
Comments
Very interesting points & could be a difficult decision for the Bucs. However, if Dirty Sanchez is still hitting in September like he’s doing now, this won’t be a difficult decision to make. I know it’s very early, but he could very well be in contention comback player of the year, so I’d have no problem picking up his option if he regains his old form. Don’t forget the other intangibles that play into the equation too…..he’s a likable guy & a great face for the franchise.
Jackie Boy on the other hand, can start packing his bags now.
by HoakyPoak on Apr 15, 2009 4:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d like to see the Bucs keep Freddy if in a few months he is still hitting well. Last year he was battling that shoulder and I believe he either now has contacts or had LASIK done? This year he seems like old Freddy… Next year, spreading out what I believe is about < 450K for Bix and 8M for Freddy is doable in my opinion. An infield of Bix and Ford (Vazquez? and now Young) would be trouble I think for our pitching staff.
If Freddy stinks up the joint in May, June, & July then all bets are off & ship him outta here.
Go Bucs!
by Reno Stack on Apr 15, 2009 5:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Get What You Can For Jack and Freddy
They are not going to be a part of a winner at PNC.
by thegunner on Apr 15, 2009 5:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Trade
If he is an all star or hitting that well at the deadline they will trade him. There’s just no way they can afford to pay a second baseman 8 million dollars. It sucks, but it’s the truth. 6.5 million bought 6 years of Pedro Alvarez.
by GTrain on Apr 16, 2009 8:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pedro....
is not a relevant comparison, however. He was subject to the draft and we hold his rights for a year until he signs and six years after that. Freddy will be a free agent if his option doesn’t vest.
by dtoddwin on Apr 16, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not my point
My point is they wont/ can’t afford to pay anyone 8 million dollars. While they budget the draft and international signings seperate from big league payroll, my point is that if they are spending 5+ million on something it is to lock up a stud prospect or young proven player for multiple years (maholm, Doumit, Mclouth, etc.) If it looks like they will have to give an older player that much for one year, they will trade him.
by GTrain on Apr 16, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's going to get hurt and miss a month.
Like always. Which will take it out of their hands.
Any decision on Jack/Freddy is going to depend in part on how internal alternatives like Bixler and Ford and Friday do in the minors this year.
by Vlad on Apr 16, 2009 11:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This.
"Gimme an 'F' ! " - Country Joe MacDonald
by cocktailsfor2 on Apr 16, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think
that they should start manipulating his playing time to make sure he doesn’t get the 600+ PAs he needs for the option to vest. If he deserves to play based upon his performance he should be out there.
It seems to me that if the Pirates start playing the game that you suggest, the players will know what is going on and it will make it that much harder to sign someone else to a similar deal – Andy LaRoche in a couple of years, for instance, after he shrugs off the slow start and becomes the player that we all hope he will be.
by WestCoastBuc on Apr 16, 2009 11:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.
Options that vest with playing time often generate bad feelings between player and team. If you can make a deal without one, why not do it?
by Vlad on Apr 16, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I couldn't agree more....
You don’t offer these types of deals. My point to some others is now it is on the table and you have to have a plan. Sure if Sanchez is hitting .365 in May you keep running him out there. But, what if he’s hitting .260? He doesn’t hit for power and doesn’t draw many walks. You can’t get backed into an $8 million contract, so you better address it everyday and know where you stand. At least at the beginning of the season he should be getting a day off every two at least so there are alternatives to benching him all of September. Also, he will be much more tradeable without the albatross of the option being guaranteed. We aren’t getting anything for him at the deadline if he’s making $8 million next year. And I mean literally nothing. He’ll be harder to move than Jack was last year.
by dtoddwin on Apr 16, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose I put that wrong
The point I was trying to make is that player relations can be important and a good way to harm them IMO is to put making sure that a player’s option doesn’t vest ahead of winning. Obviously if he hits .260 and a low OBP as dtoddwin suggests, it would be pretty foolish to pay him $8MM next season. But if he hits , say, .310 with a lot of gap power, he deserves to be out there as long as he is healthy.
by WestCoastBuc on Apr 16, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 












