Can Anyone Figure This Out?
by Charlie on May 29, 2009 5:37 AM EDT
21 comments
Here's my attempt at translating this article into plain English. If anyone is fluent in double-talk, or knows of a Google application for this sort of thing, please feel free to share your own translations in the comments.
"We will not be cheap in the draft, unless being cheap in the draft is advantageous to us, and we will demonstrate our thought process using some tortured eighth-grade algebra. We want our draftees to sign as quickly as possible, but we won't make desire to sign a factor when choosing them. We love the pitching in this year's draft and we need pitching badly, but we will overdraft a position player if we have to because there are so few of those. The draft budget and the Latin American signing budget are independent. Well, in an ideal world, that's true."
Did this article make any sense to anyone else? I suppose the first few sentences above make sense in a "buzz off, we're not telling you anything" sort of way, but the last two sentences are real head-scratchers. I don't envy the author, because frankly the Pirates have no real incentive to say what their actual plans are, but it probably would have been much easier to read and about twice as edifying if he had just called Keith Law or something and asked him what the Pirates are going to do. Even if he'd gotten it totally wrong, at least it would've had some sort of logical coherence.
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
wonder if he is a fan of The Office? that is a classic michael scott type rant..
by jsn4219 on May 29, 2009 7:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I just read it twice
And I don’t see the quote you highlighted. Did you get them to edit the online version of the article?
by hisjazziness on May 29, 2009 9:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He was summarizing the whole article. Thats not a quote
McLouth is The Trouth
by GTrain on May 29, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tidbit through the noise
Mostly sounds like typical pre-draft obfuscation…doublespeak, newspeak etc…but I think the interest piece is “The draft budget and the Latin American signing budget are independent. Well, in an ideal world, that’s true.”
Either NH is setting expectations for drafting a player that is “signable” in a quick fashion and taking a run at Sano in earnest – or – it is a veiled complaint about not being given the budget dollars he feels he needs.
The more I read the draft coverage the more I am disappointed that they didnt sign Scheppers last summer. I think they made the correct choice given the information they had at the time and I understand that my disappointment comes with the benefit of future knowledge…but boy wouldnt it be nice had they taken the gamble? Just imagine having Scheppers in Lynchburg pitching like he has been with St. Paul with Lincoln looking like he has over the last month…
A sandwich pick is fine and well but the player they pick @ #49 is NOT going to be anywhere near as talented as Scheppers.
Oh well dems the breaks I guess.
by Mick Kraut on May 29, 2009 9:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Im with you
I agree that I can;t blame them for not offering him 1st round money with a bum arm, especially since other experts have agreed. But I have the same case of the what ifs that you do. I wonder how close they came to what he wanted as he apparently says now he was “insulted by the low ball offer”
McLouth is The Trouth
by GTrain on May 29, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia. We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
http://www.whygavs.com
http://mlb.fanhouse.com
by whygavs on May 29, 2009 9:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Booo
What was so hard?
First, the questions they were asked, in the order they were asked, are missing. There may be some missing context. Or not. I don’t think it matters.
Also, the Pirates are presumed to still be a total cheapass org. The question has been raised at BD, and other sources cited, wondering if they’ll draft a signable (read: cheap) player just so they can make a play for Sano. So I think NH and FC might feel compelled to add on a caveat to anything they say that may be construed as taking a cheapass angle. They get asked about signability, and being more forthright than we’re used to, they answer about signability. But because of history not of their making, they need to tack on a comment that it won’t be a driving force. That’s not doublespeak.
“We’re not going to walk away from a guy because of his agent or financial demands only, and it’s going to be a long summer,” Pirates general manager Neal Huntington said this week, amid preparations for the draft. “Some guys you evaluate at X, and they want X times 7, and other guys you evaluate at X, and they want X times 2. All else being equal, you go with X times 2.”
What did Finder ask? And was something asked/said between “long summer” and “Some guys you evaluate”? As one piece of conversation, this does sound awkward, but I find no need for a translation. And what’s tortured about the algebra?
X = X
$2X < $7X
If you grade two players at the same value, all else being equal, go with the one that will sign for less money. (Brushes dirt from hands).
You also play fast and loose with the quotes by mixing Greg Smith’s comments from… sometime, things NH “said this week”, and things FC wrote in an e-mail interview.
by azibuck on May 29, 2009 9:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I didn’t have any trouble figuring out what they were saying. In general, I have little if any patience for the constant parsing of every word uttered by a member of the Pirates front office.
by gorillagogo on May 29, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't seem that hard to me.
1) Finances are a consideration, but only on a low level, i.e. as a tiebreaker between players with equivalent grades when building their board. If a Boras player (or other tough sign) is the best player on their board, they’ll take him.
2) If they do take a tough sign, they’re going to try and use Pedro’s struggles to get acclimated to pro ball this year after his holdout as leverage in the negotiation, implying that the pick will be more successful and get to the majors more quickly if he inks right away.
3) There are a lot of quality pitchers in this year’s draft, but only a few quality hitters, so the quality pitchers will tend to last longer than raw talent would lead you to expect, and the quality hitters will tend to go earlier than raw talent would lead you to expect, due to the laws of supply and demand.
4) If you like both a pitcher and a hitter about the same amount for a given slot, you have a better chance of the pitcher falling to your pick in the next round than the hitter, due to the situation in 3).
5) The distribution of their picks in the draft is going to be affected in part by the positions of their top international signings, so that they don’t have to shift guys around between levels/positions to get everybody on the field at the same time. They may also be more willing to lean pitching in the draft if they like the international hitters they’re signing.
That’s what I get out of it, anyway.
by Vlad on May 29, 2009 10:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Take of BA's John Manuel
Kevin (Seattle, WA): What are the chances of the Pirates taking Crow, Tate or Green with the fourth pick?
John Manuel: Pretty decent for Crow,in fact I think that’s who we’d project right now. We’re not hearing them in on Tate or Green, more on other players who might not be consensus No. 4 guys. The reports they might go lower in the draft and make a splash internationally are persistent, so Crow fits that as a player motivated to sign and get started.
Viva Clemente!
by Roberto on May 29, 2009 11:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If it means they'll take Aaron Crow . . .
. . . I’m ok with that. Because he didn’t sign last year, PBC got’s more info on him.
They know his final demand was $4.4M, while Nat’s final offer was $3.5M. Crow had also dropped his demand to start on the 40 man roster.
Don’t know whether it’s up or down this year — the economy (and slot numbers) are down, but the poor dude has had to play for the Fort Worth Cats this year (whatever the heck that is) and might want more to make up for it.
There was talk a year ago that the Nat’s were going to put him right in their ML rotation. Even if not, he’s obviously much older and more developed than plenty of first rounders, being a year out of college ball.
So, Charlie, I’m totally guessing, but Connelly always has to speak double talk when it comes to the draft since he’s accused of being a big hypocrite for having pushed the slot system from the MLB offices, but has abandoned it now. And Huntington doesn’t want to tip his hand.
But a guy like Crow is pretty well a known quantity, both in terms of his pitching (3 pitches w/ a fastball in the mid 90’s but he’s got a little hitch in his get a long — a wrist thing), and price-wise. Also no Boras.
So I guessing, but it fits with John Manuel’s comment above. A couple mil cheaper than Pedro, with the extra money going south to the Dominican?
by WstCstBucco on May 29, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand...
…the accusation of doubletalk. When you’re a spokesman, you make the statements that reflect the organization’s goals. They aren’t paying him to say what he thinks, they’re paying him to advocate a position. When you work for a different organization, they’re going to have different goals, so you’re going to say different things.
If a lawyer works in the prosecutor’s office for a while, and then goes into private practice as a defense attorney, nobody’s going to call him a hypocrite. Why is it any different here?
by Vlad on Jun 1, 2009 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the office
gotta stay dehydrated (cafe disco)
by IrateFan on May 29, 2009 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I hope you are right
Here’s why I worry that the Pirates will go the cheap route:
1. Nutting’s newspaper business. I’m a journalist. The Nuttings have to be the cheapest newspaper chain in the country. I know reporters barely making minimum wage.
2. The statements from FC and NH have Dave Littlefield qualifiers throughout them. Example: ""it’s not going to impact our draft strategy as a sole driving factor." How many times did we hear phrases like that from Littlefield?
3. The Nuttings won’t open the books. It infuriates me that the commonwealth allows a team to take public money and then not share financial information.
4. The estimates I’ve seen are that the Pirates make $20 million per year. Moreover, their payroll is 60 to 70 percent of what Cincinnati and Milwaukee have.
5. As a minority owner, when did Nutting step in and say we need to put more money into the product?
I’m thrilled by the money spent on last year’s draft and the opening of the Dominican facility. But the ownership still has a lot to answer for. It also needs to continue to spend $10 million per draft for three or four years.
by Bernie6666 on May 29, 2009 12:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Clint Hurdle, who managed the Colorado Rockies to the 2007 World Series but finds his current club mired in last place in its division, will be fired on Friday, The Denver Post is reporting.
The Post, citing a major-league source, reported that the Rockies will make the change after discussing Hurdle’s job status on Thursday’s off day.
The Rockies are 18-28 in the NL West have won only seven of 20 home games.
The Post reported that bench coach Jim Tracy likely will be Hurdle’s replacement.
by woobie on May 29, 2009 3:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
After watching them be swept at home by the Dodgers their last 3 games, I’m thinking Jim Tracy and the Rockies deserve one another.
But surely he won’t be named anything more than an “interim” manager, will he? (I know — “And don’t call me Shirley.”)
by WstCstBucco on May 29, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wanna beat C42 to the punch (for once)
by WstCstBucco on May 29, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL!
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on May 29, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have a problem with the article either.
I found it to be a relief to be honest with all the talk of us looking at HS position prospects and Tony Sanchez. On a related note, Jim Callis released a 2nd mock draft a little bit ago. He basically acknowledged the talk of us going cheap but said all indications are that we won’t. He said the Pirates are in on Crow, Wheeler (I’m assuming Zack) and Crow. I would be satisfied with anyone of these three. Callis projects we take Crow.
by Slick1 on May 29, 2009 7:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Question on John Manuel's Answer
So, how much of what Manuel is saying about a “rumor” or “word around” (and it’s just not him saying such things) just a circular rumor and/or just plain conjecture based on the logic:
1) The Pirates were cheap in the past (no consideration for KM/DL vs. FC/NH)
2) They have let it be know publicly that they are trying to sign Sano for a large amount ($4M has been suggested by others, not the Pirates obviously)
3) So…obviously they are going to go the cheap route and overdraft some with their #4 pick.
I mean, how much of what these guys say is based on talking to someone who knows something or, really, anything? Frankly, I don’t think these guys know who the hell the Pirates (or most other teams) are going to draft.
by SpacePirate on May 29, 2009 8:28 PM EDT 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.
