Pirates Offer New Deals to Freddy Sanchez, Jack Wilson
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jul 17, 2009 12:48 AM EDT
Email
PrintI didn't see this coming, particularly in light of the Post-Gazette's recent reporting that the Pirates were aggressively shopping Sanchez:
The Pirates have approached shortstop Jack Wilson and second baseman Freddy Sanchez about multiyear contract extensions, putting on hold, for now, the possibility that either will be traded by Major League Baseball's July 31 deadline.
But the clock is ticking.
If the parties are to agree on extensions, they will need to do so far enough in advance of the deadline so that, if the Pirates decide no agreement is possible, they still can pursue a trade for one or both. That likely means something must get done within the next week to 10 days.
And there is a catch, one unusual in professional sports: If one player does not sign, the other probably will not, either. Wilson and Sanchez are best friends to the point of being virtually inseparable, on and off the infield dirt.
I know the Pirates really have no one to replace Wilson or Sanchez right now, but a team in the Pirates' position has no business offering extensions to a pair of middle infielders in their 30s, particularly when they already have options on them in 2010 anyway.
And let's be honest: the Pirates have made some noises recently about Sanchez and Wilson's 2010 options being expensive, but they aren't terribly. Wilson's is effectively for $7.8 million ($8.4 million minus a $600,000 buyout), which is a little steep for a player who hits as little as he does, but not completely unreasonable. And Sanchez's option for $7.4 million ($8 million minus another $600,000 buyout) is a good deal. Just because the Pirates aren't used to paying players real money doesn't mean other teams won't.
So whatever's going on here, I don't think it's purely about reducing their salaries to a more reasonable level in 2010, because that already should be pretty close to a non-issue. If it's about keeping them beyond 2010, I think that's a very dumb thing to try to do right now. Neither Sanchez nor Wilson are terribly likely to age well.
Second basemen in particular tend to age poorly, and Sanchez, with his injury history, is probably more vulnerable than most. His upside going forward is that he plugs along for three or four more years and continues to hit for average, kind of the way Mark Grudzielanek did. I don't see him improving.
Wilson's having an above-average year for him, but that just means he has a .704 OPS instead of his .688 career mark. He's very helpful to the Pirates' young pitchers, but again: if the Pirates want him in 2010, they can have him. Guessing that he'll be helpful on either side of the ball after that seems like a fool's errand.
Signing Sanchez and Wilson would be so wildly out of character for Neal Huntington and Frank Coonelly that I can only speculate about their motiv ations, but there are a couple of possibilities:
1. The Pirates are doing this for public relations purposes, so that if they do trade Sanchez or Wilson later they can go to the press and say that they tried to sign them to extensions but couldn't agree on a figure.
2. The Pirates are trying to get leverage in potential deals for Sanchez or Wilson by claiming to trading partners that they're willing to take their middle infielders and go home.
3. The Pirates really do believe the best way to develop the young talent they do have is to keep Sanchez and Wilson around. This option doesn't make much sense to me since, again, the Pirates have 2010 options on Sanchez and Wilson, but I suppose it's a possibility.
4. Someone in the Pirates' front office is tired of the grief they're getting from the fans and the press over the unpopular trades of Nate McLouth, Nyjer Morgan and Sean Burnett, and they're changing course.
I'm sure you'll come up with others in the comments. But: 1 or 2 would be fine. Option 3 doesn't make sense. Option 4 would be a disaster, because it would mean that we're going to see lots of the sort of zigging and zagging that will surely fail to produce a winning club.
By the way: the article also raises the possibility of including no-trade clauses in these contracts. Wow would that be an incredibly stupid thing for a rebuilding team to offer a couple of over-30 middle infielders.
149 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
HMMM
I like the idea of keeping these guys around, but re they really part of the future at their ages? I would much rather see what you can get for them and build for 2012 or 2013.
Sanchez and Wilson
will look at their offers independently. The fact that if one doesn’t sign, the other one won’t sign is a stretch to say the least.
Disagree.
They are inseparable. Read the article.
by Suffering Buc on Jul 17, 2009 7:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Disagree
That’s puffery. They could both be FA as soon as this offseason. Are they going to market themselves as a package deal? Good luck with that, fellas. They’re going they’re separate ways sooner or later.
Well
They won’t sign free agent deals together, because presumably they’re going to somewhere other than Pittsburgh. I think it’s probably a fair statement to say that the only way they’ll stay here is if they stay together.
http://www.whygavs.com
http://mlb.fanhouse.com
You Can't Believe Everything You Read
Especially in newspapers. I’ve been quoted in papers dozens of times. Every single time it’s been a misquote, usually so egregious of one that the reader would think I meant the opposite of what I said.
So, read the article if you like, but if you believe that what’s in there is established fact, you’re naive.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Believe it or not...
I agree with Jimmy as far as being misquoted in interviews. Newspapers are infamous for mangling quotes…speaking from 24 years of being quoted. And it has nothing to do with being a celebrity or not. In fact…in my experience…it is more likely for someone to get misquoted if one IS NOT a celebrity.
Good! I’m glad to hear it. One or the other will probably end up getting traded, but I would like to see the Pirates keep these guys around, at least until we get some big league ready replacements at those positions. That could be a couple of seasons unless we do, indeed, trade for some middle infield prospects that are close. I’d love to see a Jack/Freddy tandem in the middle infield for a couple more seasons.
Any no-trade clause would obviously rule this out, but maybe we are trying to increase their trade value next season by offering team friendly extensions? This would be contingent on Freddy sustaining his current production, which I am not entirely confident he will.
Unrelated side-note…Anyone going to the live Extra Innings broadcast with Rocco after tomorrow’s game?
I might be there.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jul 17, 2009 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s a good idea to explore this option. As is looks, we are not going to get much in return for Jack and it seems other teams are not excited about Freddy’s contract going forward. If we can work out good deals for these guys for 2 or 3 more years while we develop the rest of the team around them, I’m all for it.
Option #5?
There is no market for Freddy or Jack. Of course, as free agents, someone would pick them up, but no team is going to give any prospects of decent value for either of these guys.
Neal realizes this and turns to a Plan B. Keep these guys around a couple more years. They will help out the pitching staff and through that possibly the Pirates can deal overrated pitchers to help the next winning ballclub.
Sign them to team friendly three year contracts, and worst comes to worst we can deal an overachieving pitcher or two. Best case scenario, the Pirates are able to deal one or both of them and get more value with their contracts being locked up.
With all that being said, I still prefer them to be traded before the July deadline. Just me.
No market for Freddy or Jack.
That was my first thought when I read the headline…
Brian Bixler is probably never going to be good enough to be an everyday SS. At best, he’s a bench player, but realistically, he’s a AAA player. They also got Ramon Vazquez who also isn’t everyday SS material.
At 2B, they’ve got Delwyn Young who’s terrible at 2B. Ramon could probably handle 2B better than SS, but still, nothing of great value there. Then there’s Shelby Ford, he can’t handle AAA pitching at 25, so I’m guessing he’s a 2B version of Brian Bixler, only worse.
Keeping them around until 2012 might backfire on the Pirates, but if they get both of them cheap and both of them stay relatively healthy, then I don’t see the problem with them being stopgaps until the next SS and 2B are ready. Especially if they’re getting nothing for them in trade market.
by IAPiratesFan on Jul 17, 2009 4:31 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm with you on Option #5
From all I have read on here and other places, it seems to me they’re not finding the offer they’re looking for, so instead they plan on signing the two to longer deals, keeping them in Pittsburgh until they can get the middle infielders they need, either through the minors, or by trade.
If they don’t try and sign them now, their asking price will go up next year, as most likely other teams will offer more lucrative deals to them as free agents (than the Pirates may offer at that time).
On a personal note, I hope Freddy and Jack stay. The Bucs can try and shop them again next year. Maybe then they’ll get a good deal, one they’ll like. Plus, it’ll help the young pitchers, since solid defense will bring them the confidence they’ll need to mature.
by Pensburgh Pirates on Jul 17, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I definetly hope this is some sort of market manipulation on NH's part....
This is just kind of shocking news. Especially if they include the no trade clause to their contracts….
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
My theory
The predominant theory seems to be that this is a PR move. That’s likely if you ask me, but what’s more likely is this:
The Pirates aren’t getting what they think are good enough offers for Sanchez or Wilson. This move effectively gives them a mulligan.
Say that next year, Freddy Sanchez is still producing a good average. That would still make him an above-average 2B. Now we can trade him, and his contract that he signed at a discount so he could play with his bestest buddy in the whole wide world – Jack Wilson – now acts as an asset rather than as the hindrance we’ve heard it is this year.
Not only would Freddy come cheaply, he would come with a multi-year deal, artificially increasing his value.
I actually think they plan on keeping Jack around. Face it: nobody wants the guy. He has an awesome glove, but he can’t hit to save his life. My theory is that they want him as a stopgap until D’Arnaud/Mercer/whoever is ready to play to give a developing pitching staff the confidence of knowing that they have a great defensive SS behind them. However, $7.8MM is one expensive stopgap. The article says Jack is willing to take a pay cut. I think that’s what they’re aiming for.
And, it kind of places them in a no-lose situation.
If the players take the deal, they reduce payroll and have better trade chips next season, though that DOES depend on Freddy hitting again, which is risky. But aren’t we always talking about how teams like the Pirates have to take risks to succeed?
If the players DON’T sign, then Freddy gets dealt. When the fans bitch and moan, management points to these talks and says “we offered contract extensions to Freddy Sanchez and Jack Wilson, but they declined. We then decided that the best thing to do would be to get maximum value from them on the trade market.”
As for the no-trade clause: to me, it reads more as speculation from Dejan that something that the Pirates actually told him.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jul 17, 2009 2:26 AM EDT reply actions
well said sixty
this seems to be a pretty deft move by the front office. it really doesn’t seem to have a downside, with the possible exception of a no-trade clause being included. But, even if that is included, i wouldn’t mind having jack and his bestest brofriend manning the middle infield for the next three years while d’arnaud, mercer, et al. develop. Hey, maybe they even get to be part of our magical playoff run in the final year of their contracts, it would be a nice way to go out….
The no-trade clause
As DK points out in his article today, if Jack resigns it will make him a 10-and-5 player (10+ years in the Majors, 5+ years with the same team), meaning by default he could veto any trade via his labor rights.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jul 17, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
That (10/5) doesn't kick in until...
right at the end of April 2011…as mentioned below.
More Bucco crapola!
I don’t know what’s more silly, the Pirates management and ownership, or some of the BS arm-chair analysts on here who are trying to make sense of yet another clueless move by the Pirates FO. Gimme a break. These floundering fools don’t have a plan, just a spastic, knee-jerk “any way the wind blows” lack of sense. Way to go, Neal! another “strong like fox, smart like bull” move.
It doesn't make any sense to
refer pejoritaviely to commnetators here as “arm-chair analysts”. Unlike quarterbacks analysts are supposed to sit in arm chairs.
by WestCoastBuc on Jul 17, 2009 8:16 AM EDT up reply actions
go to the PBC Blog where u belong
I’m sure douchebags like you would fit into their asylum very well.
by BadAndy on Jul 17, 2009 8:58 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
If we traded them
people like you would be saying the same exact thing. So i guess it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t for Huntington with the Yinzers
After reading your previous posts
you look to be one of those guys who only like trades that improve ‘won/lost records’ for the current year. Congrats, you don’t know how to run a baseball team.
I Don't Believe It
It has to be a ploy. Why would they suddenly and dramatically alter their strategy two weeks before the trade deadline? It makes no sense whatsoever.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 3:53 AM EDT reply actions
That’s actually a good point.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jul 17, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
The Other Possibility
Is that it’s just bad reporting. It wouldn’t be the first time I read a story in the paper that was complete bullshit.
I just can’t believe it’s true. It makes no goddamned sense.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
As I recall, Dejan has said the trade rumors weren’t coming from inside the FO. In fact, I think he reported that the FO denied they were shopping Sanchez. If all that was happening was that they were listening to offers—which I would hope they would always do—then there hasn’t necessarily been a change in strategy.
It’s also possible that their views on the question of retaining Sanchez and Wilson have changed over time. They could—in fact should—have been influenced by Bixler’s and Ford’s meltdowns, Friday’s and Mercer’s mediocre seasons, Wilson and Sanchez both staying healthy, Sanchez having an excellent offensive season with increased power and a good defensive season, Wilson having a great defensive season (I really thought he was slowing down the last couple years but he appears to be better than ever) and a passable offensive season, and the overall effect of the defense on the pitching staff.
Yeah, reading Dejan’s most recent post (about an outside source) leads me to believe that this isn’t any sort of a fan support ploy. I’d almost think that it could be them feeling out Jack and Freddy, trying to evaluate the value of keeping them verses the value of trading them. I don’t think they would do this publicly, but if they had some sense of that value, they really could use it in their negotiations with other teams which could be where Dejan got the information from.
charity standing orders
That’s totally plausible as well,. From a certain standpoint, it would be pretty foolish of the Pirates not to at least see what it would cost to keep the infield together, even if they go in thinking they won’t do it.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jul 17, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed.....
look if they can sign these guys to contracts where over the next two years they each make $10-12 million I’m all for looking into it. If the years and money go up, I’m less interested and I imagine the FO is as well.
Sanchez-Wilson
I vote for option 5, all of the above; plus, as Charlie points out, the Pirates don’t have anyone ready to replace these two right now — nor are they likely to get the equivalent of their current production back in a trade.
Viewed strictly as a PR move, this announcement>failure to sign>trade (especially if it happens by the 7/31 deadline) strikes me as incredibly high risk. It would tell both fans and players, “you’re nothing but meat.” Can the management of a team with a long history of incompetence now be revealed as ruthless as well?
Besides, you never know what may turn up. Were Delwyn Young and Garret Jones even on the radar screen at this time a year ago?
Lino Donoso
For the next two years…Sanchez and Wilson…at reasonable prices…are not blocking anyone. Past 2011 though…they likely would be. I agree that a no trade clause in either contract would be a mistake…moreso in Jack’s case.
It is sounding more and more like not many players are going to get traded in the next 2 weeks by the Pirates.
Stupid
Stupid, stupid idea. I’m so sick of hearing how they have no one to replace these guys. Dejan beats that horse to the point it irritates me more than his infatuation with the word “fresh”. WHO CARES if there is no one to replace these guys? I would watch 2 trained monkeys at 2B and SS in 2010 and 2011 if trading Jack and Freddy in 2009 helped the Pirates become good in 2012 and beyond.
Unfortunately…I get the impression that a trade would not bring a talented enough prospect to make it worth the Pirates while to trade either. Again…though…anything past 2011 for either one would be not in the Pirates best interests.
But . . .
They have both under contract through 2010, so there is no need to extend them. Further, I have a hard time believing that Freddy couldn’t fecth a piece or 2 that would be beneficial to our future. I just cannot see any benefit to extending these guys. Teams in the Pirates situation have no business extending players of the likes of Jack and Freddy to contracts that will carry into their mid-30s.
Even if...
they could do it for less money next year??
The Sanchez for Sanchez trade likely would not have been a benefit for the Pirates straight up. We do not know what has been offered for either one of them…and it is entirely possible that the return proposed has not been what the Pirates wanted (think like the Salomon Torres trade). If that was the case…I could see some justification for signing the pair at a lower or equal price.
How is this a stupid idea if you’re not getting anything offered in return in trade talks? Once again, Huntington isn’t going to just give these guys away just to get rid of their salaries. And while you may not care if two trained monkeys play 2B and SS for the next two years, the Pirates do. We may not be a winning team right now or next year, but they’re not just going to throw two bums out there to play the middle infield. Attendance is bad enough as it is. So if you can’t get some players in return that you want or that will significantly improve your team, then you don’t trade either one of them and make an effort to sign them back. It’s not guaranteed that they will re-sign, but you’ve gotta try.
No reason to extend them
They are under contract next year. They are in their 30s. Don’t want to be paying Jack or Freddy anything close to what they are making now when they are 34.
And
The trained monkey comment was obviously hyperbole. Bucs shouldn’t have a problem finding replacement-level or better middle infielders if the deal is correct. If defense is that important to them, I’m positive there are plenty of good-glove, no hit players available each year as minor league free agents.
This Is The Whole Concept Of A Replacement Player
They’re available now for cheap.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think you can find a better defensive SS than Jack Wilson. If there’s one out there, I’d like to know. Like dtodd said, NH should offer them $5M or $6 a year for the next two years and see if they take it, which I think they would. Then again, maybe they want to go to a contender and try to win a championship. I don’t know. But I think you’re understating just how important Jack and Freddy are to this team.
How Important Jack And Freddy Are To This Team
You’re right. Without Jack and Freddy, the Pirates might be in last place!
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Jesus . . .
I’m not sure why you can’t get off these strawman arguments. I never said the Pirates should trade Jack or Freddy just to trade them. I never said the Bucs would pick up a better defensive SS than Jack off the scrap heap. What I said is: 1. The Pirates should trade Jack and Freddy if they can get talent that has a legitmate chance to be an asset to the Pirates in the future, 2. If the Pirates cannot find such a return, there is no need to extend Jack and Freddy because they are under contract next year and are getting into their decline stages, 3. The argument that there are no internal options so don’t trade them does not fly with me. I would be willing to endure lesser quality MI for 2 years until the talent positionally balances itself. It’s not like they would have to run “bums” out there, as there readily available players who can go out there and not embarass themselves or the franchise. 4. If the argument is that Jack and Freddy are good defensively and we need that to maintain our pitching confidence, find players who are good defensively but don’t hit enough to be regulars and play them.
We all agree with that....
we aren’t picking Jack’s option up for next year. Freddy’s will probably vest. I suggest we offer them each $10-12 million for two years and see if they accept. No third year option, or a club option they can buy out for $500K or something like that.
Reasonable insurance, reasonable price, doesn’t hurt the team’s budget and if they decline to the point they can’t play you bite the bullet and release them. They are probably both very serviceable at those numbers next year.
Charlie...
I really like your blog… but… I’ve noticed your criticism for the Bucs has become darker and more regular. People complain when our favorite players are dealt then people complain when those players are offered extensions, what IS IT that Pirates fans want? Do you see a SS or 2B that is remotely ready for next season? What is wrong with having a solid defensive middle infield for the next few seasons. Money isn’t really the issue, outside of Adam LaRoche, who on the team is getting a large chunk of change?
I am frankly sick of all Pirates fans complaining about every freakin move… Jeez guys, it is getting so OLD. I get it, we’ve lost 16 soon to be 17 years, but so what, in 2 months you all will be tuning in to find out how Willie Parker is feeling and it won’t matter anyway. I don’t see anything wrong with paying some money to keep 2 excellent defensive players on the team for the next few seasons. If you ARE going to build a championship team, defense is a MAJOR part of that.
Charlie doesn’t need to be defended by me, but I think you’re missing the point. The fact of the matter is, there are some Pirate fans that want the “old guys” to be signed long term and who want the team to push for “competetiveness” right now. There are other people that want a full scale rebuild….just gut the club and start over. Both sides of the debate are pretty vocal in their positions, so as you said, any deal is going to come with people on either side of the issue.
Personally, I’ve liked the direction the club has gone so far. I will, however, start having problems if they make moves that are counter to the apparent plan that is in place. That being said, it’s entirely possible that the offered returns for Freddy and/or Jack have been so low that it makes no sense to trade them away (more evidence, I think, that the team is not merely dumping salary). If they can sign them to reasonable (read: cheaper) extensions, then you can make an argument for that fitting into the overall plan.
If they extend either past 2011, though, I think they’re making a mistake. And if they give either a blanket no-trade clause (something I really doubt, and something that sounded like pure speculation in DK’s article) then I’m going to take issue.
Let me be clear mak_DC
I am not upset with Charlie, I am upset with Pirates fans in general. I am certainly not missing the point, I know that there are fans that want to be competitive right now(which is highly unlikely) and I know that there are fans that want the Pirates to completely rebuild(which is a mistake also), but I am tired of the fans that want it both ways, and there are a large number of them.
I have fortunately been alive long enough to see the rise of the ‘79 team and the subsequent rise of the early ’90s team. That would mean that I’ve seen the ‘80s teams(How discouraging), and of course the 16 years of madness of late. What I do know is that NH and FC have a plan and are keeping to it. It won’t be long now before we will be seeing a competitive team year-in and year-out, but its not going to happen this year or maybe next. Patience is the key.
Piratefan13
I believe alot of the Pittsburgh fans wonder why the revolving door that the steelers use doesnt work for the pirates. I understand ur frustration as far as the attitudes that people show toward trades. Fact is Yinzers dont know the difference btween baseball and football operations.
“The rise of the ’79 team”? That team was in serious decline from the teams of the mid ’70’s. They just managed to make it past the also declining Reds for once.
I’m sympathetic to the theme of your argument. I do think that at this point in time Pirate fans tend to think that any front office move is the wrong one.
by Blyleven Curve Ball on Jul 17, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Why is rebuilding a mistake?
You’re chastising fans for what you perceive as diametrically opposed positions, yet you neither want to rebuild (mistake) nor do you think being competitive is possible. So, what then? You want to be semi-competitive and sorta rebuild? Dave Littlefield, is that you?
I think the “middle” option Charlie speaks of is perfectly acceptable: We have these guys under contract for 2010. We know there’s no one in the system to replace them, hence the claim that trading them for the sake of trading them—that is, without an acceptable return in talent—would be a mistake. That position in no way implies it’s inconsistent to think it’d be a mistake to sign them for more years. There’s no “wanting to have it both ways” about that at all.
Exactly
You(piratefan13) cant sit on the fence and bitch about people on both sides of it.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jul 17, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
What they are doing is working
To completely rebuild and bring up Bixler and Luis Cruz to play MIF would literally suck. I like the process of trading away veterans WHENEVER the deal is in our favor. If Sanchez and/or Wilson nets a ML ready SS or 2B, then by all means, but how many of them are out there? Not many.
by Piratefan13 on Jul 17, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Doesn't matter
If we trade Jack and Freddie and need middle infielders, we’ll get them in free agency if not through the farm system. Insisting that we receive middle infielders in exchange for Jack and Freddie is merely limiting the pool of prospects we could get in return, and that limits the potential value of trading either player.
Yeah, having to play Bixler and Cruz at the keystone would suck. Deal with it. Rebuilding is painful, but it’s necessary. We’re not going to get anywhere by playing it safe.
Formerly known as Econolodge
Sanchez
Wonder what happens if #2 above is the reason and someone comes up with an offer TODAY that NH can’t refuse.
That public outcry would be interesting…
Also
What do you all think would be a reasonable offer that both would accept and would be acceptable to the PBC?
Jack – 2 for $10mm plus 1 year team option for $5mm?
Fred – 2 for $12mm plus 1 year option for $6mm?
High, low, or about right?
Screw options....
I offer Jack 1 year for $4 or 2 years for $8. No options. Freddy is getting $8 next year. I guess I’d consider giving him another year for $5.
The problem obviously is the disparity in the two contracts, but Freddy’s option triggering is the fly in the ointment.
Freddy
has a little more bargaining power than Jack but I guess if he loves his friend going cheap is an option. However his agent wont like that.
Count me for #3 (the one that Charlie doesn't like)
I disagre with Charlie. I think that it is reasonable to believe that a strong middle infield defense is key to the development of the team. With no equal or better options apparent , the apparent lack of sufficient trade return, and the negative impact the likely diminished middle infield defense would have the club’s pitchers (not to mention the trade value of those pitchers) I think (as I’ve stated a couple of times in recent weeks) that it makes sense to extend Freddy and Jack (Jack moreso than Freddy) to short extensions at the right price.
I think that locking them up through 2011 is ideal; 2012 acceptable.
By the way, the fact that the Bucs were reported to be aggressively shopping Freddy doesn’t seem inconsistent to me at all (disagreeing with Jimmy; which I find easy to do lately). What’s illogical about trying to see what the trade market will bear and, when you don’t like what you find out, deciding that the greater value is in keeping the player?
Using the numbers in Dejan’s piece this morning and presuming $16m tied up in Jack & Freddy, it seems reasonable to project a payroll of about $27m for next year as things stand. I know it is wildly unpopular here, but it seems to me that this team has about $20m that should be intelligently spent on a good major league free agent or two before 2010. And (a) no, I have not yet looked at the potential free agent list; & (b) yes I’d be willing to overpay a bit to get the right free agent in here on about a 3 year deal because I understand that is what it would take.
Good day.
Correct me if i'm wrong
Wouldn’t Jack be a 10-5 guy if he signs that extension?
That would mean he would approve or disapprove any trade offer for him (not the team) after the 2010 season.
I think it’s good try to sign the duo for the next couple of years for a lesser amount because there’s no worthy replacement from AA on up.
I predict that these two will decline their offers all but sealin their fate of being dealt at the end of the month.
by BadAndy on Jul 17, 2009 9:09 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Jack's 10/5 rights...
would kick in around the end of April, 2011. Actually, 25 days into that season…assuming he’s still with the Pirates at that point, unless he chooses to waive that right when he signs an extension.
if they are such great buddies
trade both of them to the same team, eat a bit of their current contract to make a deal work that gets us a few qulaity prospects or a proven hitter in return.
This is a PR move, trying to sell tickets for the 2nd half of the season.
Typical pirate bullshizz.
i do not believe it is option #4. If management was worried about appeasing the fans or worried about fan backlash, then nate mclouth would still be here. if they are not getting worthy offers from other teams for freddy (jack isnt going to bring any value back) then signing them to a resonable extension is ok to me. i do think huntington has now put the heat on any team though that would like either of these players, so i think it isn’t a bad position to be in right now.
I really don't have a problem with this
Two solid defensive players that will help your young pitchers. One is an above average hitter. Health could be an issue (usually because of conditioning or lake there of) but 31 is NOT old even in baseball. Conditioning goes a long way. I suggest they STRONGLY recommend ciruit training for both of them.
Anyhow….rebuilding doesn’t have to be a total stripping. Besides it would be stupid to soften the middle of your infield for some players you don’t even like just because they are young.
I know what it is…you all are frustrated and no matter what they do besides making a lopsided trade you’re going to grill management. I still don’t see anything they have done recently that I am upset over. I may not totally agree but I can see some progress.
Bottom line: This is not a stupid move! You may not make the right move every time but if you have no balls you already lost!
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
You are correct...
that it would be wrong to trade players just to trade them. Each rebuilding situation is unique because of remaining talent and contracts. That being said….there is not a need to generalize the fans on here. They are not the commenters on the PBC or PG blog.People (I included) are just tring to figure out a move that has deviated from the overall plan thus far. Go wade through the comments on said blogs then get back to me on who is grilling management no matter what.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jul 17, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
No thanks
I really don’t care who is grilling management. I was making a statement, which is just to be taken as such. I don’t have anything to prove.
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
by PixburghArn on Jul 17, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes you did make a statement and that was how it was taken.
" I know what it is…you all are frustrated and no matter what they do besides making a lopsided trade you’re going to grill management."
I took it as a baseless, stupid, generalizing statement. Whether you want to prove it or not is up to you. You prefer relationships with men. It’s a statement and I don’t care if it’s right or not. I have nothing to prove.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jul 17, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I would expect nothing less from you
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
Thanks. Glad I didn't disappoint.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jul 17, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
The thing is
everything management said they were going to do, they’ve done. So I don’t believe this is a situation 1 or 2, they have to have some sort of intent to give reasonable offers to the 2. Think about the effect of telling the media one thing, and not backing it up with the players, would do to future contract negotiations with players they would want to keep.
If anything, NH is using his leverage over Freddy and Jack, he knows both want to stay Pirates, but he waited until now to start contract talks with the 2. Basically giving them the choice, if you want to stay here fine, here’s our value you have and what
$ amount you gotta take, if you don’t take it you’re gone in a week or two. By doing this in the middle of the season, rather than the offseason, a player feels more attached to the team, thus more willing to take a discounted rate.
Well stated
And it’s not like they are keeping trash if they sign them.
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
by PixburghArn on Jul 17, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
never considered that
It’s conceivable that they are determining who wants to stay and at what price? I also happen to think though that the Bucs weren’t getting the offers they were looking for. I wonder if they were looking in the right places (did they seek offers or did they wait to here from teams?). They probably did both, but still couldn’t find what they were looking for in trade. If they sought MI prospects, it’s a good possibility.
Whatever the case, it’s a smart move by the FO. Because like what many have said on here, it prevents a backlash from fans if they offer new contracts and the players decline them.
by Pensburgh Pirates on Jul 17, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Please don’t blast me for this, but I like this. I generally agree with you guys. And…I love NH and FC’s plan. But I also think the team is going to need some Vets. The idea that the Bucs are gonna just one year bring up a bunch of prospects and it’s all going to magically work out in 2012 is just as insane as thinking Nyger Morgan was a star. The Pens couldn’t do it without Roberts and Recchi the first two years and then it took the return of Gonchar and the aquisition of Guerin this year. The Steelers didn’t keep bringing an aging Bettis back for no reason and I have a hunch Hines Ward will be around much longer than his production will call for as well. To me, Freddy and Jack fit the mold perfectly for the role of locker room leader/wiley vet. They can mentour these guys in the locker room while Cutch shows them what to do on the field. Now I’m not saying to pass up a good trade offer or anything like that, but I suspect that the market isn’t too good for either of them. Plus, it’s not like they are blocking someone from coming up or there is any sort of replacement in the next three years. So I say sign them for three or four years. Let them be part of the first winning Pirates teams in almost two decades because even if you don’t think they are part of the future, you really can’t name who is part of the future at middle infield. And, not that it matters much to me, but some PR won’t hurt. It is a business and they do need some sort of cash flow until the team starts winning.
Those situations you mentioned were different...
The Pens supplemented an already good young team with vets that put them over the top. Bettis was still a valuable piece on a team ready to contend for a championship.
I agree that they aren’t blocking anyone right now but it would be a mistake to sign them for any longer than 2 years, IMO.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jul 17, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
they can sign them for 4 if they want to
signing them past 2012, wouldn’t hurt the Bucs. Mainly because I don’t think they intend to keep them that long. I think they’re just trying to solidify their in field unil through trade, development, or free agency they find replacements for the 2.
I definately would be against any no trade clauses, since this in effect gives the Bucs time to shop them around, and find that sweet deal they’re looking for.
It also gives the Bucs some solid D for young and developing pitchers, who may as a consequence have better stats. Better stats can lead to a trade to get the serviceable replacements the Bucs need, which would make Jack and Freddy expendable for less return.
by Pensburgh Pirates on Jul 17, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
They could sign them for 10 if they wanted to
It doesn’t make it right. I guess if they are extending them, there isn’t that much of a market for Freddy and almost no market for Jack. Freddy is injury prone and all of his value is tied to his ability to hit for average. Jack’s is in his defense. If they get injured or drop off a cliff skills wise, and are signed to 4 year contracts (as opposed to 2 year deals) the Pirates would be stuck with bad contracts for worthless players. Yes, that is the worse case scenario but it is more likely that it happens the longer they play for us.
Also, If they sign them to reasonable 2 year deals it might make them attractive to teams next year. I doubt teams would be interested if they were signed long term.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jul 17, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Jack Wilson
were talking about a guy who strains his puss every time his name is mentioned in a trade rumor. And u wanna sign him for a few more years. Sanchez is a walking injury waiting to happen. Continue the fire sale.Lots of time before the deadline for guys to flounder or get injured. Pure driving the price up by NH and FC.
If Jack bitched to the papers as much as he does now, but the Pirates were winning the division, you’d think he was just a colorful character.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the deal
what is wrong with solidifying your MIF for your young pitching staff? Add Milledge/Cutch/Moss to the mix and you actually are fielding a strength for your pitch to contact staff. We just arent going to get the return we all desire for FRACK. They have more value in adding to our pitching staff stats than taking a flyer on prospect.
It is never a bad PR move keeping the two faces of the franchise who actually want to be here.
They are not blocking anybody for at least 2-3 years based on what we have at AAA and AA. Let’s say the Mercer/D’Armound/Marte are the future. They have at least 2 seasons of development before they could even compete for the big club and more than likely 3 full seasons if they even produce above low A. That makes FRACK way more attractive.
I’ve not looked at any Sabermetrics or fan graph stuff, but to me getting Jack and Freddy signed to short, club-friendly deals would be a good move at this point. It’s obvious that the current return offers on these two is not good enough. That is why the Pirates are turning to plan B. If we are going to build around our young pitching, then having a great DP combination up the middle is key. Freddy as a #2 hitter that hits .300+ and 50 doubles is a quality player. Jack, as a #8 hitter, is OK. Compare him to some other #8 guys in the NL and you might find that he is not as bad as you might think. Then factor in that Jack is possibly the best fielding SS in the league and getting him singed cheap really is a pretty smart move.
I'll add
something I don’t think anyone here has mentioned. I know these guys are both 31, and they both show some fragility, I know that REASON says they should decline sharply right about … now.
But I took a look at their numbers, and I think it’s worth noting that
1. Freddy at 31 is having his BEST offensive season (OPS+ 124, yes, better than his batting championship year). I figured his career was pretty much over before this season started, yet it appears he’s gone right back to being almost exactly the hitter he was four years ago. This makes me think that maybe he can maintain that production into his mid 30s. He could lose a little of it and still be a good bat at second base. If he’s willing to take a home-team discount I’m willing to roll the dice.
2. Jack Wilson at 31 is having an ABOVE-AVERAGE (for him) offensive year. He’s still not much with the bat, but the point is, I don’t see the kind of decline I expected in a 31-year-old light hitting shortstop. It’s also worth noting that if your bat isn’t much to begin with, it’s not a big deal if it falls off. He’s there for defensive reasons and he seems to be holding up pretty well. I don’t think he’s a GREAT shortstop anymore, if he ever was, but he is certainly a GOOD one. And though if he loses a step he’s still at least average, he seems to keep himself in terrific shape. I think by now it’s reasonable to believe that he won’t have a precipitous decline, that he’ll have a very gradual slide, and that he’ll still be a fairly useful bench MI for at least 3-4 more years. Which brings me to …
3. If one of our MI guys in the minors starts tearing it up and pushes one of these guys out of a job by 2011, Jack and Freddy would be EXCELLENT guys to have on the bench.
Since I don’t expect much out of this team ever (though I’d of course like to see competitiveness sooner rather than later), I don’t see much of a downside here. It’ll look like they’re eating up a massive chunk of the payroll, but for the next couple years it’s going to be a tiny payroll, especially once Adam moves along (and we get whatever compensatory draft picks there are to be had). By then even $8 mil a year will look like peanuts compared to what we’ll be paying people to provide the final pieces of a championship puzzle.
Right....
because so many guys making $5-10 million a year just walk away from the game. That’s crazy talk.
It's a win-win for Neil
Either they don’t sign and it’s a good PR move to say we tried or they re-sign for cheaper deals and we aren’t the worst middle infield in the league next year. I think there is no way either gets a full no trade unless they take a major paycut(virtually no chance), something like a limited no trade or maybe a no trade clause for this year and next(can they do that?).
I see nothing wrong with a 3yr/15 for Jack and 3yr/21 for Freddy. We have no one close to ready and how often do guys hit .300 in A ball and never get past AAA? No guarantees in our system. I imagine most teams wanted us to pick up a portion of Freddy’s contract next year so say we send 3mil, then we have to sign a FA for another 2-4 mil and we are basically paying the same amount we would have been paying Freddy, but for less production. It makes a lot more sense to extend these guys for a couple seasons if they will take a mild paycut.
Maybe it was just the ‘roids but a lot of players have been maintaining production into their lower to mid 30’s although defense might slip a bit in the last year or so. Really though, I just don’t get you guys, WHO exactly are they blocking? No one and by the time we need to free up $ to re-sign some of our younger guys like Cutch, Maholm, Doumit, the bromance will be over.
Good, cheaper infield defense now means big returns for Maholm and Duke later?
What Danatural and jsn stated above rings true with me: I don’t see this front office as “sneaky” where they’d use this as some sort of ploy to get a better market, and I don’t see them suddenly reversing their positions on fan approval. I could be wrong, but based on what they’ve done so far, that would be out of character. I mean they traded Nate f’in McLouth. At this point, you’re not going to piss fans off anymore. The trade ploy is a little more plausible, but I think this is more likely them throwing in the towel on getting a worthwhile return.
Of course, offering them extensions at all would seem to be out of character too, but I’m trying to figure out a way that this could fit in with what they’ve said and done so far. One possible explanation is this: a good young starting pitcher with a smallish contract is worth more than a pair of aging infielders. Maholm and Duke’s values would drop significantly with Vasquez and Young (?) playing the middle infield. If they are able to sign both to cheaper extensions through 2011, even throwing no trade clauses in there, there are some advantages:
1) Good defense continues to make the pitching staff look better and be more valuable, opening up trades for Maholm/Duke down the road.
2) I’d hope that they would take less money if we threw in the no trade clause, meaning we’re really not tying up that much more money.
3) Say what you will about not caring about winning now, but if you took the one thing we are good at (defense) away, this team would be unwatchable. Considering that Brian Friday is the closest thing we have to a MLB-ready infield prospect, we would continue to be unwatchable in 2010 and probably in 2011. Extending Jack and Freddy spreads out the investment there for another year and will help keep the ire of the general fan population below boiling and probably generate a modest amount of extra revenue which would offset some of the costs.
4) Guaranteeing them that they will be here until 2011 should keep them from publicly moaning about their uncertain futures.
5) The whole “veteran leadership” thing is way overblown, but it seems like it would be better to have a couple of happy vets than to not.
6) Building some sort of bridge between now and a contending baseball team could help ramp up fan support quicker when that team finally arrives. Once again, I don’t know how much value this has, but it seems like it would be better than expecting fans to flock back to the parks after watching 2 seasons of .350 ball.
I don’t want this to come across that I’m advocating doing this, just like I’m not advocating the drafting Tony Sanchez. I’d say I’m more on the fence, but I’m willing to trust the management and see how it turns out. I hope and pray that they are not softening their committment to rebuilding, which would be an unequivocal disaster. Assuming they are not, if they go through with these contracts, my guess is that it will be because they didn’t get something more valuable than the above points in return for Jack and Freddy.
charity standing orders
What he said
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
by PixburghArn on Jul 17, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
One more point
If the Pirates can’t get high upside, potentially-above-average players in return for Sanchez (they’re not going to get any for Wilson), they’re better off just staying put. We don’t need guys like Jonathan Sanchez at this point. We have plenty of inning eaters already: Karstens, Vasquez, McCutchen, Ohlendorf, etc. Trading Sanchez for a low-upside, MLB ready 2B doesn’t make us any better now or in 2012. If those are the types of offers they are getting, then staying put makes perfect sense. The extension thing is still strange, but I don’t want to make a trade just for the sake of it.
charity standing orders
Option 5
The Pirates are trying to sign Jack and Freddy in a hurry, in the hopes that they’ll be more attractive tradebait if they’re under contract for longer than a year.
It’s the catch-and-release program.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 12:29 PM EDT reply actions
Makes no sense
A team acquiring one of them could just try to sign him to an extension. Most teams would surely rather do their own negotiating.
If the idea that the Pirates would get a better deal due to the two wanting to stay in Pgh. together (which would be pretty deceitful), it still doesn’t make sense. A player traded within a year of signing a multiyear contract has the right to demand a trade from the new team. The acquiring team would have no assurance of benefiting from the supposedly favorable deal.
It would still be pretty stupid for Jack and/or Freddy to sign a favorable extension that would increase their trade value without at least having a gentleman’s agreement that they wouldn’t get traded in the the couple of weeks. I would struggle to root for a team that lied to and screwed over long time players that badly for such a minimal gain.
charity standing orders
It Sure As Fuck Would Be Ungentlemanly
It just occured to me as a possibility. That’s all.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
typo
…in the next couple of weeks.
Maybe the next time I use emphasis I’ll make sure they emphasized words actually make sense.
charity standing orders
Long Term Deal
Both players are strong defensively. This deal makes some sense to me. The Pirates realize that they have no one ready to replace either. In addition, Pirates are probably offering a no trade clause in exchange for lower salary. If the terms are three years, then it makes a great deal of sense: allowing them to keep above average defense and develop young players (A level) for replacement.
This is a red flag that there are no serious buyers for either so far.
My take: if signing Jack and Freddy long-term keeps us from picking the best possible first rounder next year regardless of bonus demands, then they should not be with us anymore.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 17, 2009 1:20 PM EDT reply actions
Exactly
The Pirates are not gonna win next year. So what’s the point of keeping Jack and Freddy around? By the time the Pirates are good, Jack and Freddy will be washed up, and in the mean time they’re costing us draft picks and money that we could be spending on prospects.
Neal seems to get it, which is why I’m calling bullshit on the whole thing.
Of course, if I’m wrong, and Neal does actually doesn’t get it, then huntingteacher is right and it’s time to go Braveheart on the Pirates.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions
So Then You Disagree?
And you believe that the Pirates will win with them?
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I think they can
I guess we may find out.
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
You Guys Are Funny
I like you. You make me smile.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
So you are saying
There is no possible way they can win with Sanchez and Wilson on the team? No matter who else is with them?
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
Jack Wilson Is 31
Next year, he’ll be 32, and the Pirates are not going to win next year.
In 2011, if the Pirates are lucky, they’ll have Sanchez, Alvarez and Lincoln on the team, probably mostly as rookies. Is that the year they win? Not likely. Jack will be 33 that year.
In 2012, maybe Sanchez, Alvarez, Lincoln, McCutchen, and Andy LaRoche will be a decent core. Will they be ready to win? Jack will be 34 that year.
How many great 34 year old shortstops can you think of?
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Most Short stops that play that long end up changing poistions
That’s not my point. My point is they can win with both of them. I didn’t even say it was probable. 2011 is a couple years away…If they CAN’T win why not trade them for a couple arm chairs? It won’t hurt.
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
I meant to say "I didn't say it was probable."
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
Exactly
Most shortstops who play that long end up changing positions.
Jack isn’t exactly a great hitter. As a shortstop, his bat is excusable. As a right-fielder, it’s unacceptable.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Nevermind you missed the point.
I kinda had the same converstion with someone about them saying “the Steelers can’t win in the playoffs without a good line.”
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
You Can't Compare The NFL With MLB
The NFL has true parity. MLB does not. In the MLB, if you’re a small-market team, you can’t afford to spend what little resources you have on aging middle-infielders.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Well they are going to spend it on those senior citizens
Not comparing NFL to MLB. I am comparing absolute negative statements. i.e. using “can’t” as opposed to “most likely won’t.”
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
I can think of two off the top of my head: Miguel Tejada and Derek Jeter, who were both All-Stars this year. Tejada is a huge reason why the Astros are all of the sudden in the thick of the NL Central race. I understand your point about Jack and Freddy’s age, and yes, in two or three years, they will be slowly reaching their mid-30’s. Honestly, I don’t think they will be around when we start winning (although they could because not every position player goes in the tank when he hits 30), and that’s not my argument. I just want the Pirates to keep them around until we can good some good, viable replacements at those positions. Unless we trade for some middle infielders, solid replacements within the organization are a good two years away. I hate the “we aren’t winning with them argument” argument because we could easily be winning with Jack and Freddy if we had better players around them.
Why Am I Not Surprised That You're Bringing Up Jeter
Jack Wilson is not Derek Jeter now, why would you think he could be Derek Jeter in four years?
There’s really no comparison. Jeter is older, and all of Jeter’s value is in his bat. All of Jack’s value is in his glove. They’re not remotely the same player.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Not what you asked.
You simply asked how many great 34-year-old SS were there. Tejada and Jeter are still great, and at 35 years old.
Yes
And they’re the exception. They were way better than Jack is now at age 31, and they’re a completely different kind of player.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok, but why can’t Jack possibly be an exception, too? Why can’t he still be a Gold Glove caliber SS at age 35? I’m not going to argue offense with you because clearly Jack is never going to be a great hitter, and we all know that. I’m not saying that Jack is still going to be with us in three or four years because, in all likelihood, he won’t be, but the Pirates could win in two or three years with Jack Wilson at SS. Although it’s highly unlikely, Jack Wilson could be part of a winning team here in Pittsburgh if he proves to be an exception and continues his sparkling defensive play. And with the Pirates not getting anything in return for him in trade talks, what’s the rush to get rid of him?
Because 35 year old shortstops are not great fielders. That’s why.
There’s the whole concept of Young Player Skills and Old Player Skills. Jack Wilson is a light hitting glove man. He has Young Player Skills. He’s not going to develop Old Player Skills.
The young half of his career is nearly over, and it was pretty good. The old half of his career doesn’t look nearly as nice.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
And Vizquel
The reason why there aren’t many great 35yr old short stops is that there aren’t many great short stops, period. I bet Hanley Ramirez and Rollins are pretty good at that age.
Hanley Ramirez?
Here are Jack Wilsons’ and Hanley Ramirez’ stats:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1017&position=SS#value
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=8001&position=SS#value
Jack Wilson was never as good as Hanley Ramirez is right now. Comparing the two is laughable.
You guys are nuts. You’re comparing Jack Wilson to Derek Jeter, Miguel Tejeda, Hanley Ramirez and Ozzie Smith. I realize that, being Pirates fans, you haven’t actually seen good baseball in a while, so you’re apt to confuse Jack Wilson for a great shortstop. But this is getting ridiculous.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Dude, nobody is comparing Jack Wilson to any of these guys. I don’t know why you keep saying that. You simply asked in an earlier post if we knew any great 34-year-old SS in the game, and the answer is yes. Right now, Tejada and Jeter are two great SS at a year older (35) than that, and Ozzie Smith was still terrific at the age of 34 and way beyond. And PensFan and Mr. E are just naming a few guys in Rollins and Ramirez that could be more examples of shortstops that are great at 34 or 35 years old. You’re putting words in peoples’ mouths. Nobody is saying, “When Jack Wilson is 34 years old, he could be as good as Ozzie Smith, Miguel Tejada or Derek Jeter.” We’re simply answering a question that you asked in an earlier post and giving some other examples that we think COULD be great SS when they get to be 34 years old. Nobody is comparing Jack to anybody.
So the point that we’ve now made is: The only decent 35-year-old shortstops in the major leagues are players who were once great and who are now merely very good.
Jack Wilson was never great. Great players degrade into good players. Good players degrade into bad players.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
To be fair, Omar Vizquel was a pretty good fielder right up until the end. I agree with your general point, though.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jul 17, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
True
Although a glance at Visquel’s stats (which are incomplete because defensive stats weren’t taken very well in the past) shows me that in his old age, Visquel was about a little better of a fielder as Jack is right now. Which means that when Visquel was young, he was probably way better than Jack is now.
Players like Omar Visquel and Ozzie Smith were freaks. Jack is good, but he’s not a freak.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I Believe Ozzie Smith Was The Greatest Defensive Shortstop Of All Time
And he could hit pretty well too.
Jack Wilson is neither of those things.
If the argument for keeping Jack Wilson is that he might suddenly turn into Ozzie Smith, then there is no argument for keeping Jack Wilson.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course I don’t think Jack will turn into the wizard of oz all of the sudden. But, you basically said that shortstops don’t last into their mid thirties. Which I and several other posted pointed out that it is possible. The shortstops lasted and did not dramatically decline in their later years. So the point is that it is possible for Jack to remain a servicable shortstop for several more years, not that he will improve, but that his talent maybe, just might not fall of the radar. History has proven that although not frequent, a number of players have performed at levels relative to their talent level well beyond their “prime years”.
And The Context
To sign Jack and Freddy in a sellers market like we have right now is so obviously the wrong move it’s not even funny. The Pirates need to be trading players like Jack and Freddy, and demand will never be higher than it is right now. None of it makes any sense.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jul 17, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
That's nice to type on a blog
but if the demand was so high, they would already be gone.
Perhaps we aren’t as far off as you guys think. Maybe Brad Lincoln is the real deal. Imagine adding a true no.1 or no.2 starter to replace Snell… our staff looks pretty formidable and deep with Lincoln, Maholm, Duke, Ohlie, Morton and then Karstens, Vasquez, Gorzo, Doumatrait, Snell as trade bait/long relief/AAA depth. Milledge should be an upgrade to Morgan next season, Cutch will be better, Andy should improve, Adam could be re-signed on the cheap since there is no market for him, Doumit will be back in the lineup. If we find a RF or Jones is the real deal, our offense could be average with an above average staff. We would be slightly above .500 and in the race for our division and we’d still be young and improving with Tabata, Pedro, etc soon to come on the same payroll we have now.
You’re assuming everyone will get better or at the very least stay the same, while no one gets worse.
That’s not likely.
What if Lincoln isn’t the real deal? What if Maholm or Duke take a step back? What if Freddy gets hurt? What if Jack starts showing his age more? Doumit hasn’t exactly been durable in his career, why do you think he’ll be good to go next year? What if Adam doesn’t come back? I think I read the Pirates tried to talk extension with him but they weren’t close on a number.
Signing a RF that’s any good would cost a chunk of money, in addition to the “Pittsburgh tax” (guys don’t want to play here) and I very much doubt we’d get anyone decent for a one year deal. Jones isn’t the real deal.
Put it this way, a lot has to go right while very little has to go wrong. I wouldn’t bet on that.
Disagree
Ohlie, Maholm will be better. We will have Morton a full year and Doumit probably won’t play 150 games but I doubt he misses 1/3 of the season again. Why would the younger guys regress? Old players get worse, younger guys improve or stay about the same. Duke could fall back some and Lincoln probably won’t be a no.1 next year, but it will not be hard or expensive to get better production than Moss has given us this year. Capps is another who can perform much better. So that makes Duke the only guy playing above expectation this year while Freddy/Jack are right on par. Who do you think is going to fall off? Before this recent stretch, we were within striking distance of the division, close enough that replacing Snell and mild improvement from the others would put us in 1st or 2nd.
I also disagree that there is any reason to pick up their bloated options. See what is in free agency.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 17, 2009 4:17 PM EDT reply actions
You can just look that up.
Orlando Cabrera, Bobby Crosby, Khalil Greene, Felipe Lopez… any of these exciting you? If Orlando Hudson only got 1yr/3.8mil, I don’t see why Jack wouldn’t lock up for something like that for 2-3 yrs while Freddy gets a little more, maybe 6-7mil. Basically Jack’s paycut will offset Freddy’s raise(if any) and we won’t even be increasing salary, saving it if any from their 2010 options.
If I recall correctly, Hudson had pretty serious injury worries when he signed that contract. He’s also likely to make a lot more than $3.8 million, and I believe he was also a Type A free agent.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jul 17, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Pirates trade either player, I’m done for the year… it’s bad enough watching them lose to the Astro’s down here, bout the only joy I get these days is watching a 4-6-3 double play!
by Pitt Fan Stuck in Houston on Jul 17, 2009 8:15 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
