Pirates Appear Flummoxed by Jack Wilson, Freddy Sanchez Talks
by Charlie on Jul 20, 2009 2:27 PM EDT
219 comments
My take on the Freddy Sanchez / Jack Wilson contract situation, which has already been discussed some in the comments:
Neal Huntington looks petty. What he probably wanted was to offer Sanchez and Wilson lowball contracts, have them refuse them, then go to the media and say, "Hey, we offered extensions," without the terms of those extensions being released. When word about the contracts leaked to the Post-Gazette, I think Huntington looked caught like a deer in the headlights, because he never had any intention of making serious offers.
In explaining himself, Huntington has been unusually candid about his thoughts and about Wilson's deficiencies. Normally I think it's kind of cool when GMs are honest; I think of a few years ago, when Padres GM Kevin Towers said, while Kevin Jarvis was still on his team, that he was a good "sludge merchant" in trying to get another GM to take on Jarvis' contract. But it's a different situation when the GM who's being honest is the GM of the team you root for.
"In Jack's case, he has played terrific defense for us, maybe the best of his career. But this is the fourth of five years that he's been a below-average league bat for his position. So, we've got to be realistic in our evaluations. We talk about that all the time. We've got to put deals on the table that make sense for us. If they make sense for the players, we move on. But we can't be held hostage because we don't have enough option. We believe that we have enough talent in the system that, if we have to trade for a shortstop or second baseman, we can do that. We could look for a free agent. Adam Everett signed for $1 million a year ago."
I don't really see the need to bash Wilson's offense when you're trying to trade him, even if other GMs already know that Wilson is a bad hitter. And, regarding Adam Everett: by UZR, at least, Everett's defense has gotten worse every year since 2007, while Wilson's has held steady or improved. And I know Everett himself is not the point, but the Tigers are making noises about signing him to an extension. So the good defensive shortstops in the 2009 crop include... John McDonald, one of the worst hitters in the majors. Orlando Cabrera, who's 34 and whose offense and defense have been way off this year. Alex Gonzalez, who has all kinds of injury troubles (and the Reds have a 2010 option on him anyway). That's pretty much it. Combine that with the general trouble the Pirates have getting free agents to come play for them, and it's clear that losing Wilson would come with a price.
And: "enough talent in the system"? The idea that the Bucs would dump Wilson and/or Sanchez and then trade prospects for a middle infielder is just scary. If that's a strategy they're considering, they should just exercise Wilson's option which, again, is maybe for a bit more than market value. Nobody wants to play for the Pirates, so the Bucs would probably have to sign players for a bit more than market value anyway.
If it comes down to trading prospects in order to avoid paying $8 million, well, Huntington's going to have to do another extremely candid sit-down with the press to convince me he's serious about building a contender here, and I might not believe it even then. Now, maybe they can trade Wilson for a great prospect and get another shortstop in return for next to nothing. But this still seems like an odd thing to talk about unless they've already got a deal in place.
I'm open to the idea of trading Jack Wilson. In fact, I think it's a strategy the Pirates should consider, as a way of potentially acquiring prospects who can help later. But Huntington's comments suggest he's thinking about doing it for the wrong reason: to avoid paying Wilson's option year. Which frankly just strikes me as business as usual for the Pirates, and I think that's the first time I've typed that since Huntington and Frank Coonelly took over.
0 recs |
219 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I mostly agree
But I also think it’s worth considering that he might trade away a contract that he doesn’t deem as worth “market value” and instead pursue something else outside of the MI for FA. I think there will be more MLB level cash to spend for the Pirates since there weren’t any major in-season extensions etc. this year. So if NH is thinking I can spend the money saved on a RF or a 1B or something along those lines, then it seems an Option B sort of thing.
I’m not arguing that they would probably have to pay over market value to get something like that into town either though, so it’s still a tricky proposition.
As for the candid nature of his comments, I really don’t have a problem with them, and I don’t think he was really trying to do a PR ploy — he’s got bigger problems to worry about and he’s hated as is, so even if the PR move was successful, it wasn’t going to change that fact. I’m fine with a GM being blunt, and while some people say a used-car salesman or whatever wouldn’t say something like that, it doesn’t change the fact that everyone knows what Jack and Freddy are.
by Slizeezyc on Jul 20, 2009 2:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.....
I’m not sure why stating factual information about Wilson’s offense is “bashing” him. Maybe he is highlighting a negative and that might not make sense, but I don’t think bashing him is the right term.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You ususally don't highlight negative factual information about your own guys.
If Jack’s secretly a furry or a serial adulterer or whatever, that’s technically “factual information” as well, but what GM would speak on the record about that stuff?
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again
I do understand this point, but in this case it just doesn’t seem like a big deal. The stats are black and white no matter which you look at when it comes to Jack’s bat. Keeping something concealed, like him being a clubhouse cancer etc. I get a lot more.
by Slizeezyc on Jul 20, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not about Jack's hitting being a secret.
It’s just a matter of framing the discussion. If you go to a car lot, and you see a big puddle of oil underneath the engine of one car, how often does the salesman start by telling you that the engine’s shot? Even if it is, he won’t use that as his opener. He’ll talk about the color or the upholstery or something instead.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So
Jack’s glove is great, but he’s not going to win any beauty pageants because man have you seen his face?
That more like how it should go haha?
by Slizeezyc on Jul 20, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless he's shopping Jack, your point is moot
In the context of a contract discussion, why would management talk up the player? Maybe he’s already dubious he can get any value for Jack, thus talking him up is pointless and silly.
by azibuck on Jul 20, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
MLB level cash
What is the point of having cash to spend on the major league payroll if you aren’t going to spend it? If they are going to decline Jack’s option and use that – plus the other anticipated $10m reduction from this year’s budget – to sign an kick ass, young player for $18m, then I’ll be open minded. However, I doubt they will do that and for at least the last year many prominent regulars on this board said that they don’t want to sign FA, so I presume that will be hated as well.
The bottom line is this: regardless of market value, is there a better investment in winning for the team’s money – one that will actually be implemented – than keeping Jack (and, to a lesser extent, Freddy)? I don’t think there is (with all of the caveats I’ve previously posted).
As an aside, I think NH has been a bit too candid at times. The Jack/Freddy situation is one. Another is with Ian Snell. It seems to me that bridges are being burned unnecessarily. I wouldn’t be giving up on Snell just yet.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jul 20, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like how you say Good day at the end of your post
like you made a brilliant and highly original comment.
by Green_Wave on Jul 20, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He says good day at the end of every comment
"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 20, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow....
pretty negative article Charlie. Since you mostly focused on Wilson, I’ll just ask the question: what do you think is a fair offer for a good fielding, weak hitting shortstop entering his age 32 season?
I’ve seen a fair number of people ripping Neil for the team’s offer, so I want to hear what people think the right number is. Certainly I think saying his $8.4 million option “is maybe for a bit more than market value” is kind of like saying the Titanic seems to be taking on a little water.
For those critical of asking Jack to take a pay cut, I’ll just point out that Steve Nash, a two time NBA league MVP, signed a contract extension with Phoenix today for 2 years at $22 million total. He’s entering his age 35 season this coming year and will make $13.1 million. The point being players age, their skills diminish and the economic landscape has changed.
So, Charlie, you’ve expressed yourself pretty forcefully. What do you think is a fair offer for Wilson?
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 2:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d seriously consider trading him. That would be fine with me if the return was good. If not, I think something like 2/$12 would be reasonable for both player and team. I agree, he should take a pay cut, and I think he would probably be willing to.
by Charlie on Jul 20, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats not a Hometown discount
Thats a above avg pay for Wilson on the market. Sanchez isnt in the same boat as Jack and he the player has the option. So I dont understand why freddy is even being talked about. Sanchez has obviously conspired with his butt buddy to add on to his own fortune. I expected it to be like this at the deadline. The infield is about to be overhauled. I think we should open negotiations with Adam Laroche if hes willing to take a hometown family discount. i think he would if those two are dealt.
by bucsreport on Jul 20, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
didnt know
butt buddy was gay slang til u made it that
by bucsreport on Jul 20, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reading through some things now, 2/12 may be a bit high. My sense is that his defense is a lot more valuable than people realize, though.
by Charlie on Jul 20, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could see Jack getting 2/12 on the open market.
But that doesn’t mean that it should be your opening offer in a negotiation, of course.
And who knows how much Jack thinks he’s worth?
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Best shot"
According to Jack, NH’s offer wasn’t an opener, it was offered as something very close to take it or leave it.
That said, it wasn’t a terrible offer. But I think NH has poisoned his own well, with his handling of Snell, Nate, and Freddy. They were all different situations, but – especially from a player POV, and more especially from Jack’s worn-down POV – each involved bad faith on the part of NH.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What did he do wrong.....
with Nate in your opinion? Nate got a signing bonus and nice contract extension and then was traded, but not sure how that is poisoning the well.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Called him a building block
or was it a “core of young players”? And then traded him away. I don’t think it was a bad baseball move, but it tells your players that your word isn’t worth much.
In isolation, it’s in “baseball is a business” territory. But with the other things, it makes it harder to deal with players (I would imagine). A certain amount of good faith is a very helpful lubricant to one-on-one negotiations (remember how all the other GMs hated Littlefield for his outrageous trade demands? It legitimately made it harder for him to make deals, even when he had value to trade).
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He WAS a building block, and all that...
…but the fact of the matter is that for a losing team like us, no player is untradeable. There are probably even circumstances under which we’d trade McCutchen, or Pedro, or any other player you’d care to name (if Tampa offered us Wade Davis, Reid Brignac, Desmond Jennings, and Tim Beckham for either one, for example).
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He may be worth that to a team that is one piece away from the playoffs/World Series next year. But he isn’t worth that to the Pirates at this point.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 20, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Replacement players
A big part of the reason Jack and, to a lesser extent, Freddy are more valuable to the Bucs than to a lot of other teams is that most teams, if they don’t have a good SS/2B, at least have a RP-level. The Pirates don’t. You can say “2010 doesn’t matter” all you want, but I really don’t think the Bucs can send Bixler out there 162 times next year. I mean, I guess you can, but it seems awfully destructive.
But anyway, my point is that a lot of teams for whom these guys would be an upgrade at least have minimum-level ML players already on hand*. We really, really don’t.
- The Mets are kind of an interesting example of this – with all their injuries, they’ve literally been running starting lineups with 5-6 RPs out there, yet they’re still within striking distance, largely because they’ve been (more or less) legit RPs – if the Mets had played Bixler at SS since Reyes went down, they’d be another half dozen games under .500. So their trade urgency has been less, since they can tread water while awaiting healthy returns.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Mets...
had an opening day payroll of $149 million. Their record is three games better than the Pirates. They are nine games out of first place. You wanna talk about a poorly structured team, regardless of inuries? This is it. Their farm system has very limited talent at the momet.
They are running Angel Pagan, Fernando Tatis, Alex Cora, Omir Santis, Daniel Murphy and Gary Sheffield or some combination their of out their on a daily basis. Livan Hernandez has started 17 games and Tim Redding has started 9. They are a fricking disaster.
Oh did I mention the payroll is $149 million. You wanna get down on a team come listen to Mets fans for awhile.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They were my childhood team
I can’t even bear to follow them anymore. I check the scores, but that’s it. What a clusterfuck.
I only brought them up because they’ve been playing literally for months with mostly RPs, and yet have been better than a (mostly) healthy Pirates team. It’s sort of a puzzle – if you’ve got, say, top-5 talent at every position and a decent pitching staff, how many RPs can you run out there before you plummet? Don’t forget that the Yankees teams of the ‘90s kept winning World Series with Pirates castoffs like Charlie Hayes, Dale Sveum, Luis Sojo, and Enrique Wilson (and not just on the bench – every one of those guys started dozens of games). But they usually only had one scrub per year. I bet you could do just fine, consistently, with 1 position player scrub and 1 starter scrub. Past that, I don’t know.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We could find a replacement player outside the organization, though. As far as the worth of the two players, I meant that Freddy/Jack are more valuable to another organization whose goal is immediate contention than a young rebuilding team.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 20, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, absolutely
There’s no question that both of these guys are nice pieces for a playoff team. But playoff teams either have used all their prospects, are saving them for a Sabathia-type, or are too smart/cheap to trade away prospects. Unless you’ve got a real hole at the position, neither player will significantly alter your playoff chances (not enough to part with a stud prospect, that is).
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
return in trade?
What do you think a team would give up for Wilson? I don’t see that. If I read the contract correctly, the club has an $8.4M option, or $0.6M buyout. Jack’s as good of a defensive SS as there is, but no team is going to pay $8.4M for him. So, assuming the trade partner has to pay $600K to buy out the contract, who has a need for him for the rest of ’09? A contender might pick him up on waivers, but for something valuable in return? Skeptical.
I don’t think 2/$8M is that bad. You have to assume he’s going to be a FA. $4M avg for 2 years? Not far off.
Sanchez is another story completely.
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 6:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I realize.....
your list wasn’t meant to be exhaustive I think you also should have pointed out that their are some very good promising young shortstops who have been rumored to be available. The Braves were rumored to be willing to move Yunel Escobar just last week and he is 26 and has posted a 121 OPS+ this year. Reid Brignac of Tampa is been rumored to be on the block for the past two years and is very likely to be this coming winter with both Ben Zobrist and Jason Bartlett both developing into all-stars this year and Tim Beckham being a first overall pick in the draft two years ago. Brignac is 23. If the front office is able to trade prospects and go acquire a player like this, I am all for it.
I’m just really surprised with how supportive you generally have been about the trades the front office has made over the past 18 months, you are so willing to throw them under the bus for two contract offers.
You seemingly liked the direction and the plan, but like some other fans, you are making an assumption it is now going to work out terribly. How about we wait see what happens?
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Charlie, I do
think this statement: “If it comes down to trading prospects in order to avoid paying $8 million, well, Huntington’s going to have to do another extremely candid sit-down with the press to convince me he’s serious about building a contender here, and I might not believe it even then,” is a bit too much of a doom and gloom scenario that doesn’t seem very likely — I read NH saying that as more of a threat, or even could be read as trading some MLB talent on the big club for other MLB talent in the MI. Then you replace the OFer or 1B you trade for MI with someone else from within the system.
Simply put, it just would be very odd for NH to make some U-turn all the sudden and start trading prospects, and wouldn’t seem to match up with anything he has done to this point, hence why I think it’s a very doom and gloom thing that doesn’t seem logical/have a good chance of happening.
PS, I don’t see any way Yunel is traded dtodd.
by Slizeezyc on Jul 20, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The idea that we would be trading prospects seems like a normal reaction from Pirates fans who are convinced that the Pirates management will find a way to screw up the rebuilding. They might screw it up, but probably not in this way. If they acquire a ML ready SS, it would probably be a Brandon Moss or Andy LaRoche equivalent who is young with maybe a little bit of upside. I don’t see why not to give them the benefit of the doubt so far.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 20, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can’t speak for Charlie, but I liked (or in some cases tolerated) a lot of the moves up until now because I could see the logic. I don’t see it here. The McLouth trade was OK because they got three players in return who have a lot of potential. If they could trade Sanchez for a good young player, particularly a middle infielder, I’d be fine with that, but I’m confident that if they could get any return for Sanchez it would’ve happened by now. Wilson clearly has no trade value. At this point, it just seems like they’re determined to get the salaries off the books without having any realistic prospect of doing anything useful with the savings. If the idea is to use the money in the FA market, it makes no sense because there’s no way they can sign anybody good enough to offset the colossal downgrade they’re going to suffer at 2B and SS. So then it becomes just a salary dump, which I’ll never like.
I can’t help getting the feeling that they’re being driven by two inflexible financial philosophies. One is that they won’t pick up salary in trading a player. If they would, they should have been able to get a good return for Sanchez by now. The other is this internal value baloney, which seems to have driven their lowball offer to Sanchez. (IMO, their offer to Wilson was pretty reasonable.)
by WTM on Jul 20, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree....
with the crux of your comment that their apparently is very little out there being offered for either player. I think a lot of people are overvaluing Jack and Freddy and clearly they may be more valuable to us than anyone else.
Here is a trade idea for you…..How about Gorkys Hernandez and Robinson Diaz for Reid Brignac. Thoughts. Pirates appear to be stockpiling a surplus of catching, Navarro has had a horrible year and they don’t seem to have much in the system. Any takers?
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’d be a no-brainer, but I doubt the Rays would do it.
by WTM on Jul 20, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they’d take their chances with Jaso over Diaz, anyways.
http://www.whygavs.com
http://mlb.fanhouse.com
by whygavs on Jul 20, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's certainly
Possible that he is fighting an internal war of some sort, but it seems odd that Nutting would be supportive of a lot of the other moves, but then force him to cut payroll at a time when it’s already going to be more reasonable next year because no new in-season extensions were added (and plus LaRoche, Grabow will presumably be off the books. I think the payroll is hovering around 53 million this year, and will be at 40 million next year at this point.)
And I agree, the Wilson offer was more than fine — I wouldn’t give him a pinch over 5 mill, and would prefer something around 4 with incentives.
by Slizeezyc on Jul 20, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m starting to entertain the possibility that Nutting has ordered the payroll cut for next year. NH’s comments about the FA market likely being a strong buyer’s market aren’t coming out of nowhere. It’s possible there’ve been a lot of indications within MLB that everybody plans to cut back severely. All of the owners have extensive investments outside MLB and what’s going on there will affect the teams they own.
I’m still more inclined to think, though, that they’ve made some kind of determination that Sanchez is “worth” only, I don’t know, $5M or whatever, and are determined to adhere to that amount. I hope that’s not their reasoning, because it’s badly flawed. By definition, there are only 10-12 truly above average players at each position, and only 1-2 of them, if any, are going to be on the market each year. When you’re dealing with a limited supply, you have to be willing to overpay some of the time.
by WTM on Jul 20, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Collusion"
NH’s comments and actions reek of it.
Mentioning Coonley’s past League employment would be conspiracy-theorizing, but I don’t discount it altogether.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting point.
I think there may have been some collusion going on last offseason, and I suspect that they might try to be a bit more aggressive this year, with the economy as a ready-made excuse.
You’d think they’d learn after they got burned on that stove before, but nobody ever said Bud was a rocket scientist.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Collusion last year? Damn, we didn’t get the memo.”
— The Yankees
by WTM on Jul 20, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If there's no collusion in baseball...
…then why didn’t anybody sign Barry Bonds to a minimum-salary deal?
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jail
Vlad,
What was his value? He can’t play defense any more? He is a good hitter.
But he brings a terrible reputation into the clubhouse and was being investigated by a grand jury at the time.
I doubt I’d be hired if I were being investigated by a grand jury.
Maybe there is collusion. But I’m not sure Bonds is the best example.
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was coming off a season...
…where he put up a 1.045 OPS, including a .480 OBP. And he got no offers. None.
Even if he’s a jerk and a bad defender and all that, you won’t offer a guy like that $500k? Even after he’s come out and said that he’d accept the one-year minimum just to play again?
The indictment? It was never going to interfere with his availability for 2009, and it’s not like teams have ever had a problem hiring criminals of all types before. There are wife-beaters and drug users and tax cheats aplenty in the game today. The White Sox’s current backup catcher is a convicted sex offender. Hell, ten or so years ago, the Penguins had a player who was legally barred from playing games in Canada due to a rape conviction. But suddenly, the possibility of a future indictment for perjury (with a terribly weak case) is the deal-breaker?
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You think....
he just plays for any team for $500K? Small market and teams that can’t win don’t want to take the PR hit and the circus that he brings. Other teams probably wanted to wait until July and see where they stood and not risk the disruption.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And then after they saw where they stood...
…they still didn’t sign him, even though there were several teams for whom signing Bonds would’ve been the difference between making the playoffs and missing the playoffs.
As for the “circus”… how many teams would be willing to take a free Manny Ramirez? How quickly did the Phillies divest themselves of Brett Myers after he was caught beating his wife in the middle of a public street?
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can equate....
those two players with what Bonds brings, but I don’t think most do. Certainly Manny would be the only one in the league and he wasn’t seen to be a bad person necessarily when the trade happened.
I think most, rightly or wrongly, think of Bonds as a bad person and a bad teammate who was the highest profile player in the game.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are lots of guys...
…throughout baseball history who were thought of as bad people and bad teammates, and in general, they all stayed in baseball anyway until their skills no longer warranted it.
Look at Carl Mays. He was described during his career as "a strange, cynical figure" who "aroused more ill will, more positive resentment than any other ballplayer on record." He was well-known for yelling at his infielders on the field when they made errors behind him. He threw a ball into the stands and hit a heckling fan in the head, seriously injuring him. He walked out on his team at least once, and was suspected of throwing World Series games. Most serious of all, he threw at Ray Chapman’s head, causing fatal injuries to Chapman, and then refused to apologize for his actions.
After the last of those incidents, he remained in the majors for another eight seasons, retiring at the ripe old age of 37. I repeat: In baseball, nobody cares if you’re a jackass, as long as you get it done on the field.
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure the media attention....
and the economics of the game were slightly different around 1920.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They were:
The media paid MORE attention to baseball, and players had even less leverage than they do now.
Neither of which would have made it any easier for Mays to stick around in the league, if his character were an issue.
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You want a more recent example?
Shawn Chacon, who has been for the majority of his career a pretty lousy pitcher, physically assaulted his general manager in the clubhouse, and was out of work for less than a year.
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last I checked....
Shawn Chacon pitched for the Astros in 2008, was released after the incident you cited in June and hasn’t been back in the majors since.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/chacosh01.shtml#trans
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he signed
a minor league deal with the A’s on June 18
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/06/shawn-chacon-signs-with-athletics.html
he’s been pitching with Sacramento of the PCL since.
(Vlad said “out of work”, not “out of the majors”)
by dirtyfrank on Jul 21, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing Mr. Chacon
may view the two jobs differently since he was earning $2 million with the Astros and it’s a pretty safe be he isn’t earning 1/10th of that with Sacramento.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Choking the GM didn't keep him out of the majors.
Pitching like crap kept him out of the majors. At the time he was released in 2008, he had an ERA over 5, a WHIP over 1.5, and well-below-average rates for Ks, BBs, and HR. As an aging righty with persistent knee problems.
He’s lucky to have even gotten a AAA offer, the way he was pitching at the time he was cut.
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I don't
think one player proves the point.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But,......
if you think that you aren’t going to contend and can’t sign him for longer at the amount you think is fair, does it matter?
As for the conspiracy and collusion talk, I hope everyone has seen how both the NBA and NHL are expecting cap scale-backs of as much as 10% next year.
We’ve seen franchise value and contract highs. Unemployment is 9%. Contracts are going to come down, probably pretty dramatically for all but the best players.
Look at Fedetenko. Made $2.25 last year for the Pens, helped them win the Cup and had to sign a $1.8 deal this offseason. The world is different.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't doubt that the economic situation is less rosy.
But that doesn’t mean that they won’t collude anyway, does it?
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Some of the contracts at the end of Spring Training last year were pretty dubious. And I see NH laying the groundwork for even lower ones. The other week he was suggesting that, for Jack & Freddy’s $18M, he could get 3 FAs that would provide more help to the team. I don’t deny that there are better 2Bs and SSs, but are they really available for $6M apiece? You look at the guys who are clearly better than what we have, and you’re looking at either young studs still in their first 6 years, or established stars earning well into 8 figures.
Unless no one will give them 8 figures anymore….
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No of course not....
it’s just teams make good and bad contract decisions all the time. When guys like Hicks are totally screwed financially, I think it makes some owners step back and reevaluate. That isn’t collusion, that’s business judgment.
Since you are fond of examples, if your neighbor sold his house for half of what you and he thought it was worth because that’s all he could get, you might reevaluate your spending habits.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There were an awful lot of suspicious contracts last offseason.
Dunn, for instance. Or the big cluster of lefty relievers.
And of course the Bonds thing, which I mentioned earlier.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad
You must have a great financial adviser. I saw my portfolio lose one-third it’s value in a few months.
The owners had to be cautious. As for Dunn, he’s a one-dimensional player. Power. He doesn’t hit for average. His defense is terrible. I think he was overpaid. The left relievers. Maybe. But why overpay for it?
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Collusion...
…is intrinsically a cautious behavior. If they lost a lot of money in the market, that’d make them more likely to collude, not less.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is very hard for me
to understand why there is little or no trade value for these guys if anyone they could get in free agency would be a colossal downgrade. If Jack, as you say, clearly has no trade value then why is he worth $8.4 million for us to keep him?
by WestCoastBuc on Jul 20, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because the trading team gives up talent and money.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that is almost always true anytime
anyone of value is traded. I just can’t quite see why in this particular case the player’s trade value is almost nothing but it is worthwhile to pay those options.
by WestCoastBuc on Jul 20, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To expand
I’m sure there are a half dozen teams that would eagerly take Jack and/or Freddy with their current contracts – but not in exchange for real talent. And NH, rightly, wants real talent. But he also desperately doesn’t want to pay their salaries, which puts him in a weak position.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He isn't "worth"
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the same boat
I agree that some of the reasons NH cite are scary. I don’t think he would trade prospects for a MI. If he did, he d have a lot of explaining to do, and honestly, I’ve been a supporter of the way they’ve gone about rebuilding.
I m not saying this is the reason, but perhaps one possible reason for NH desperately trying to clear payroll might be this: the draft and Sano. Is it possible that some draftees wont get signed because NH doesnt have clearance to spend that amount on them, and not because they prefer to choose college?
I think NH knows as well as anyone that jack n Freddy wont part of the next winning team in Pittsburgh, and perhaps this is just his frustration at not being able to go out and get the pieces to make that next winning season come quicker.
That said, if it turns out to be some kind of calculated move, I’ll be a fan of NH and FC, not just a supporter!
by BurgherKing on Jul 20, 2009 2:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if NH’s frankness about Jack is partially attributable to Jack’s comments about the trades and the direction of the ballclub. That has to irk the FO a bit.
On balance I’d prefer the comments not be made, but I don’t think they’re particularly harmful.
I’m much more disappointed with the Snell situation. I’d really hate to see him go. I guess that depends on how much importance you put into “clubhouse chemistry.” I don’t place much value into it, so I’d much rather the team tried with Snell, because he plainly has talent. I don’t think Huntington is helping much there, unless it’s some kind of weird motivational thing.
In reading this article before, I skipped over him mentioning the idea of trading prospects for middle infielders. That is insane.
by CptnAwesome on Jul 20, 2009 2:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In and of itself.....
it isn’t insane. You guys are making a circular argument. If it is insane to trade prospects for middle infielders why in hell is anyone going to give us prospects for OUR middle infielders.
It’s not insane. It depends on what the return is, as I’ve mentioned above.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't say....
he was going to trade Lastings Milledge for Adam Everett
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well yes, the implicit assumption I thought was clear was that we’re trading our prospects—guys in the minors—for a vet free agent. It’s not insane to expect teams like the Giants to trade a prospect or two for a guy like Sanchez if they really feel his upgrade at 2B would really help the team get to the playoffs. It is insane for a team like the Pirates to trade a young prospect at some other position for a veteran middle infielder. It makes much more sense to just pick up their options than to do that.
by CptnAwesome on Jul 20, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Err, not a veteran free agent obviously.
by CptnAwesome on Jul 20, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is......
I think it’s pretty safe to assume that isn’t what he meant, even if you read it differently.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Khalil Greene?
I know, just the thought of the name Khalil Greene makes most cringe, but just let me make a few points.
First, he’s a local product, from Butler, PA. Not that Khalil Greene will have many options about where he’ll want to play, it’s always nice to have a guy want to be somewhere, especially if it’s Pittsburgh. Also, we all know how much Bucco fans love to cheer for one of their own, thus making it a little easier for the masses to swallow Jack’s departure.
Second, well, hes been horrendous this year and made 4.5 million playing for the Cards. Greene has always had an issue with “pressure” situations and playing in St. Louis going for a pennant probably isn’t helping out his confidence. In Pittsburgh he’ll be able to relax, play in front of family, and see what happens. Due to his horrible play this year, the Pirates or any team, should be able to get him under the 4.5 he’s making this season.
Although hes struggled mightily the past couple years and has never been a good avg. or .OBP guy, this is a SS who hit 27 dingers playing at Petco two seasons ago.
His defense has been equally as unimpressive, but many of the Pirates and other organizational players have credited Perry Hill with helping them improve defense.
Crazy suggestion, I know, but maybe the Pirates take a flyer on Greene, he’ll be 30 this October. Pay him 2 years / 6 million and hope for the best? Worst comes to worst it’s not a big financial loss.
by jlk9697 on Jul 20, 2009 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Possible, but statistically, his defense is not supposed to be that good. Also, he’s on the DL for the second time this year with anxiety. It’s an interesting idea, as long as we accept that he’d be risky.
by Charlie on Jul 20, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, plz, take him,
give us anything for him, like even a used bucket of balls and a case of Icy Hot…
signed,
Every single A’s fan
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Jul 20, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Small Ball?
I can understand wanting to avoid overpaying Wilson and Sanchez. These two would not be stars on any other team, just good defensive performers. My beef with the current management team is that while they are claiming to adhere to the Billy-Ball formula- i.e. develop your talent, get good production, then trade your guys once they get too expensive in order to get quality younger guys into the system. Then they trade guys like N Morgan and N McClouth that we had cheap, and for them get a couple of guys that seem to have little upside. It’s almost like Huntington wants all vestiges of the old regime out of the system, and that’s damned foolish.
by Bigmike15216 on Jul 20, 2009 3:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t quite qualify Milledge as having “little upside”. Heck, I’d argue that his downside is close to what we got from Morgan. Same with Morton.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 20, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To the contrary, I think....
they think Morton and Millledge have TONS of upside while Morgan and McLouth have very little.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just saw Gorkys chime in with the same point i was going to make. To claim Lastings has little upside is insane, especially compared to Nyjer.
You’re also missing the point that if the PIrates get lucky and our young guys pan out, it’s not going to be for many years from now, at which time Nyjer would be virtually useless.
by CptnAwesome on Jul 20, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it'd be much more fair...
…to describe Nyjer as having “little upside”, as opposed to Morton or Locke or Milledge.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Reid Brignac of Tampa is been rumored to be on the block for the past two years and is very likely to be this coming winter with both Ben Zobrist and Jason Bartlett both developing into all-stars this year and Tim Beckham being a first overall pick in the draft two years ago. Brignac is 23. If the front office is able to trade prospects and go acquire a player like this, I am all for it.”
Brignac would be an unbelievable acquisition, but do the Pirates really have much left in the system to acquire a guy like that? Tampa’s loaded at middle infield, they’ll be able to talk to alot of teams and get great value for Brignac, if that’s who they decide to ship, which isn’t a given.
Also, BigMike: You clearly haven’t been watching or following the Pirates the past month or so. Morton has looked effective, McLouth has been a relative disappointment for the Braves, in addition to adding to upside prospects in Hernandez and Lock. Last time I checked Lastings Milledge is as upside of a prospect as you can get, not to mention for a guy like Morgan!
by jlk9697 on Jul 20, 2009 3:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I mentioned above.....
How about Robinson Diaz (or JJ) and Gorkys Hernandez for Brignac. See above for the logic.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is virtually no chance...
…that Tampa would go for this. They don’t need a backup catcher, and they have one of the few CF prospects better than Gorkys in Desmond Jennings.
I should also note that as of last year, Tampa was basically unwilling to include Brignac in the Bay talks. What chip do we have right now with more value than Bay, to pry Brignac away?
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a suggestion.....
there are certainly chips now in the system with the catching depth and with Cutch, Milledge, Hernandez, Moss, and anyone else who may develop. The point is Brignac may be available and Tampa is loaded at the corner outfield positions, Navarro has been terrible this year (48 OPS+) and they have an abundance of middle infielders.
I think the assumption that we were going to trade prospects for someone like an Adam Everett who is under contract was flawed.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correction
Tampa…“isn’t loaded at the corner outfield positions.” Sorry.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also....
last year Zobrist and Bartlett hadn’t proven yet to be the all-stars they now appear to be and Beckham is a year older. What I offered may not be the right haul, but one would expect they would be more comfortable moving him now than a year ago.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's much more likely...
…that they’d shop Bartlett, as opposed to Brignac, if they wanted to move a SS.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably right...
since this will be his second arbitration eligible year.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dont know why ?
why would they move there starting shortstop that helped them go to the world series last year and is hitting over 340 this year and have a career year in almost every offensive category in only his 3rd full year as a starter?
by BigB23 on Jul 20, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bartlett’s big offense this year is mostly due to a huge dose of luck. Sell high.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 20, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not ship Capps and some prospects for Reid Brignac at the deadline this year?
by BigB23 on Jul 20, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re acting as if Tampa Bay is just dying for us to make that offer. I don’t think that’s the case. Things have changed from last year, but TB refused to include Brignac as part of a trade for Jason Bay. Do you think his value has plummeted that much internally with them?
by CptnAwesome on Jul 20, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no i dont think his value has gone down… i just think alot of teams like Matt Capps and see him as a potential closer who is only 25 yrs old… and Tampa Bay has the luxuary of moving brignac because of Bartlett, Zobrist and Beckham…. thats all im saying…not saying they want to give him away but i think its fair value…a Capps for Brignac a big league Closer whos 25 for a shortstop who seems to be blocked in Tampa. thats all i see
by BigB23 on Jul 20, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not his value
has gone down. It’s they now have an all-star 2nd baseman and SS who hadn’t proven themselves last year. And a first overall pick a year older. So, they might be more comfortable looking to deal him.
The idea of someone didn’t trade him before so won’t now isn’t right. The Mets would moved Milledge for Santana and then traded him for Schneider and Church. Things change.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
i agree with you i was saying this for awhile… everyone keeps bringing up they wouldnt move him for Bay last year… yea because Bartlett and Zobrist havent arrived yet and they just drafted Beckham… so i can see it being possible but i wouldnt say his value has gone down everyones value has just gone up around him.
by BigB23 on Jul 20, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Capps/ Diaz for Brignac and mid level pitching prospect or 2
by BigB23 on Jul 20, 2009 3:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Just want to note
Remember that post over the All Star break where Charlie was pretty severe towards Dejan’s chat comment about the Sanchez trade being money-driven? Seems like Dejan sure knew what he was talking about, doesn’t it?
Dejan ably spoke for himself in that thread, but I thought the presumption of bad faith on DK’s part – and of good faith on NH’s part – was pretty ridiculous. Subsequent events have borne that out.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 3:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No presumption of bad faith here, I just wanted to know why Kovacevic would say something like that without presenting any evidence.
by Charlie on Jul 20, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everything....
has a money component. The Pirates obviously think Sanchez at $8 million is way overpaid next year. It’s a business. I think it’s hard to argue based on the limited signings last year, the economic collapse and the seemingly limited haul available now that they are wrong.
Also, I’m very happy now he made the McLouth trade when he did. Can’t see us getting a better return at this point.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
The Braves rightly decided to move quickly to get 2+ additional months of McLouth, and NH rightly didn’t dither hoping that someone else would knock his socks off. Since he wasn’t shopping McLouth, there’s no particular reason to have expected some bidding war for his services come late July.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just said this this morning
other GMs already know that Wilson is a bad hitter
By OPS, #18 starting SS in baseball. Not “bad.”
Stud-hitting SSs were an artifact of the PED era. Time to get over it and move on, folks.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 3:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That said
I shouldn’t be so nasty – I actually think Charlie’s post is more or less right. Freddy’s offer was, literally, an insult. Wilson’s was not-unreasonable, but when paired with an insult of his best friend, not going to get the job done.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 3:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why does it......
have to be an insult. They have different views of the market. Huntington didn’t call them greedy, he just said they were far apart and had different ideas of worth. It’s a business. Freddy can play out his option and then test the market. Why so personal?
Everyone’s blaming the FO. How about the players and their agents releasing the offers to the media and negotiating through public opinion of the Pirates being cheap? They don’t really seem willing to take a hometeam discount it appears. They’ll stay if they get what they think is fair market value, otherwise, they are gone. Seems fair.
The funny thing is, Jack won’t resign without Freddy, but may completely screw himself. If Freddy isn’t traded and his option vests, he will be here next year and most likely Jack won’t.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, for Freddy, it IS personal.
In that they’re putting a dollar figure on him and the value he brings to the organization.
And on a different note, why would Freddy offer us a “hometown discount”? This isn’t his hometown. He was born in California, went to college in Texas and Oklahoma, and was drafted by Boston. His connection to the city dates back all of what, five years?
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No.....
It’s his hometown because he lives here, bought a house here, is very involved in the community, has had all his professional success here and clearly stated he wants to stay here.
I don’t think anyone is obligated to give a hometown discount, but if you like a place you might take less to stay there. You think Ryan Malone might like to rethink that decision after begging to get traded back to the Penguins at this year’s trade deadline?
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to Scuderi, Malone was trying to get back to the Penguins somehow at the trading deadline (like that was going to happen) and also told Scuderi to be careful about chasing the money in free agency.
Of course, none of that means a thing, because there’s a key difference: The Penguins are incredibly good and the Lightning were awful. The Pirates are going to be bad next year, too. So it’s not really even close to the same.
by CptnAwesome on Jul 20, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you..
On the whole Jack/Freddy leaking the contract offer(s) to the media being wrong. I think alot of the vets on this team are out of line in the way they speak out to the media about the FO.
"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 20, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offers
First, the Jack Wilson offer, in my opinion, was too high. Let’s be realistic. Jack is everything NH said. Perhaps he shouldn’t have said it. But it’s not like other GMs don’t know. Jack’s a good fielder. He’s a mediocre hitter. He’s aging and injury prone. He’s not going to get a better offer as a free agent.
Second, the Sanchez offer was market value. If he hit the market this fall, I really doubt he’d get much higher offers. Look at Orlando Hudson’s contract. With the economy, it’s not like owners are going to be running to sign an injury-prone second baseman.
The problem is the Sanchez option. That makes the Pirates’ offer seem too low. But if he wanted to come back, he could have made a counter offer. Let’s see what he gets in two years.
If the Pirates wipe the contracts off the books and sign more international players and draft picks, that makes a lot of sense.
I don’t buy into the argument that the budgets are separate. If the ML payroll goes down, the team has more money to spend.
What does another year of Freddy and Jack get us?
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 3:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
"Market Value"
Second, the Sanchez offer was market value. If he hit the market this fall, I really doubt he’d get much higher offers.
But Freddy’s (almost certainly) not going to hit the market this fall. It would take a serious injury and/or FO shenanigans to keep Freddy from that $8M. At which point the offer is an insult ($2M for 2011).
NH can pretend that he’s offering some great security for Freddy, but, unless Freddy greatly fears injury in the next month, that security is close to worthless.
Put it this way: if there’s a 10% chance of option-voiding injury, then Freddy has a 90% chance of seeing $8M. Rationally, that has a value of $7.2M to him. Which makes NH’s offer $2.8M for 2011. Which is a joke, unless Freddy’s career ends or he goes right off a cliff. I know people like to say that he doesn’t walk enough, but the bottom line is that he is, evidently, capable of hitting ML pitching at a very consistent rate. That will be worth more than $2.8M in 2011.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So.....
how much do you think he’ll command on the open market as a 33 year old, no power second baseman two years from now? That’s the question to answer. If you think it’s $5 million (I don’t) then he is leaving $2-3 million on the table. He has talked about wanting to stay. Looked at in that light, I don’t think the offer is that far off the mark. What if he does get hurt next year or his performance does significantly decline?
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why wouldn't he get $5M?
And a difference of $2-3M is a huge gap. You can buy a hell of a lot of stuff for that kind of money.
To put it another way, $3M is 20% of his career earnings in MLB through the end of 2009 (gross, not net).
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know...
if he will or won’t get $5 million. As a 33 year old second baseman with a history of injuries and one who hits for limited power I sure as hell don’t think it’s a guarantee he gets $5 million, do you? You are the biggest proponent of age-related decline in talent. If 27 thru 31 is peak time, 33 would seem to be on the downside.
Do you want to have a friendly wager he doesn’t make $5 million in 2011 if he hits the market as a free agent?
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's almost guaranteed that he'll top that number.
“Limited power” is a lot less important when you’re hitting over .300, and able to play plus defense at both 2B and 3B.
Age 33 is on the downside for most players, but it’s still fairly young by free agent standards. And look at the crop he’d be up against in 2011:
Second Base
*Mark Ellis. Older, more fragile, and trending down.
*Akinowi Iwamura. Less productive, currently recovering from a serious injury.
*Jose Lopez. Less productive, actively outgrowing the position.
*Kaz Matsui. Older, more fragile, less productive.
Third Base
*Garrett Atkins. Trending down, less than a year younger.
*Pedro Feliz. Older, less productive.
*Brandon Inge. Older, less productive.
*Mike Lowell. Older, currently recovering from a serious injury.
*Melvin Mora. Older, possibly done.
The one guy who’s both younger than Freddy and reasonably likely to out-produce him is Macier Izturis, and he’ll probably end up with a team in need of a shortstop. The one old guy reasonably likely to outproduce Freddy is Scott Rolen, and in 2011 he’ll be a 36-year-old with a medical record as long as my arm, making him an incredibly risky proposition.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Atkins, Inge, Lowell.....
hard for me to see Freddy as clearly a better option than these guys. I could argue Freddy either sucked last year or was injured and also has a history of injury.
Also, again are you assuming no drop-off in performance. Depending on the metric (Dewan?) Freddy is around average defensively and one has to assume his range, etc. isn’t going to increase.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Freddy is around average at 2B.
He’s been a double-digit plus defender at 3B in the past, and since there’s generally around a 10-run difference between 2B and 3B, he probably would be again if moved back there.
As for the comps:
- Freddy’s currently putting up a 121 OPS+, and his career OPS+ is 100. He’s 31, an average defender at 2B, and a plus defender at 3B.
- Atkins is currently putting up a 64 OPS+, and his career OPS+ is 104. He’s 29, and a below-average defender at 3B (-5.8/150 for his career per UZR, -8.3/150 last year, -8.6/150 the year before that).
- Inge is currently putting up a 121 OPS+, and his career OPS+ is 87. He’s 32, and a plus defender at 3B.
- Lowell is currently putting up a 101 OPS+, and his career OPS+ is 109. He’s 35, and his defensive value is difficult to assess: He was formerly a plus defender, but has been god-awful since his hip went bad.
Of the three, Freddy is pretty clearly superior to Atkins, and similar to (but slightly better than) Inge. Lowell is, as noted, difficult to assess, but appears to be in decline and is a hugely risky pick for 2011 due to both age and his bad hip. Now that they’ve used synthetic lubricant, the next stage of treatment (if necessary) would be a full joint replacement.
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can do the math....
As I asked below, why are you so comfortable he will get $5 million?
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because in terms of win expectancy...
…he’s more than worth it.
Look at Orlando Hudson. Hudson was the victim of a slow and potentially collusive business environment, was coming off a serious injury, and took less to play for a contender in a particular market… and he’s still going to clear about $8M this season, once he finishes maxing his PT incentives.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hudson was also a Type A, correct? That limited his options.
Pittsburgh Lumber Co.
http://mvn.com/pittsburghlumberco
by MBandi on Jul 21, 2009 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are you talking about?
Barring injury, Freddy hits the market in the winter of 2010 with $8M in his pocket. All he needs is $2.5M to handily beat NH’s offer. I don’t doubt he can manage that – players like Hinske, who was a scrub on a bad team, got 1/3 of that.
Also, “no power”: He’s #9 in SLG among starting 2B. His OPS is #4 among 2B with more than 185 TPA. Plus, of course, a decent (not great, but no liability) glove.
I’m not sure why it’s so important to commenters here to downgrade the abilities of these guys.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not downgrading....
his talent. I am talking about a market. If you look at signings and what guys made last year what they might make this offseason and what the market might look like two years from now, everyone has to make a judgment.
I’m not saying anyone is right or wrong in this conversation. What I am mostly arguing is that salaries have probably hit at least a temporary ceiling for all but the very best players. Owners will use younger cheaper players who have yet to hit free agency rather than overpay for veterans with declining skills. When you can pay a player like Cutch (or Moss or Milledge) $500K for the next three years, why would go out and pay a player who may only be slightly better five or ten times as much.
The Braves signed a Garrett Anderson to a one year $2.5 million contract this offseason. I think that is the type of thing Freddy will be looking at two years from now. And that’s just my opinion and I could be completely wrong. So if you want to discuss it, discuss the concepts please.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it's important to actually look at your comparisons
We all love to compare players, but most guys are actually unique – the combo of hitting, defense, and age mean that most comparisons are facile. Anderson, for instance, is 5.5 years older than Freddy, or 3.5 years older at time of FA signing. So right off the bat, you’re looking at a player in a different part of his career (most players start to decline after age 31; every non-PED player already has declined at age 36). Anderson has only had 2 offensive seasons significantly above average, and lots below. His defense – at easier positions – has been no better than Freddy’s, and arguably a bit worse.
Point being that the Anderson signing actually points to a higher value for Freddy in 2011. Further, the market in this league is strongly determined by who wants you – if the Sox think the Yanks want/need you, your value is 2X (5X?) what it is if neither team knows you exist. Neither Freddy nor Jack are so exceptional that they will drive bidding wars, but nor are they RP-level players. As someone mentioned on this thread, there will be no FA upgrades at SS this offseason – at best, the Bucs will pay less for a lesser player. That may be a sensible decision, but it’s also – for a team nowhere near its payroll capability – a clear choice to save money and give up wins.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again....
my point was to argue Garrett Anderson. I could just as easily argued Orlando Hudson who was signed by the “big market” Los Angeles Dodgers. He signed a one year deal for $3.38 million this offseason. With incentives he could reach $4.62 million.
He is in his age 31 season today. The exact same age as Sanchez. His career OPS+ is 100. This year it is 113 and last year it was 108. The last four years his OPS has ranged between .803-.817. He’s never had less than 455 plate appearances the last seven years. He is a two time all star and three time gold glover.
Freddy’s career OPS+ is also 100, but has fluctuated a bit more. He’s a three time all-star.
I’m not sure why this isn’t about the exact perfect comp. Both have some history of injury. So again, what is Freddy worth two years from now?
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, Vin Scully says Hudson has been the hands-down MVP for the Dodgers this year.
Look at Bobby Abreu, who signed for $5M for 1 year with the LAA. He’s having a great year too.
by WstCstBucco on Jul 20, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hands down?
I don’t watch many Dodgers games, but I know Clayton Kershaw is having a hell of a year pitching, and so is Billingsley. For fielders, Matt Kemp is mashing the ball, too.
I know Hudson is great defensively and having a nice year at the plate, but hands down?
by CptnAwesome on Jul 20, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not great defensively
UZR-150 of -7.1. Last year -7.6.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going off more his reputation, I guess. I just checked his UZR after I posted.
So: Orlando Hudson as MVP of Dodgers = crazy talk.
by CptnAwesome on Jul 20, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m just quoting Vin Scully. (I eat Farmer John hot dogs, too.)
by WstCstBucco on Jul 20, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
Oh I know, I wasn’t attributing that view to you too.
by CptnAwesome on Jul 20, 2009 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't see this when I posted at 2:08
My reply’s down there, but the one thing I’ll note here is that the $4.6M is additional, not the ceiling. So, up to $8M. And all he has to do to reach $6.7M is get 500 PAs – this isn’t like Kingman’s RBI incentive. He’ll pull down far, far more than $3.4M this year (in fact, he’s already reached $5.7M).
So, yes, $2M for Freddy was an insult.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not incentives up to a total of $4.62M.
That’s incentives of up to $4.62M on top of the $3.38M he’s already making.
And for the record, he’s on pace to make ALL of those incentives.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
correct...I phrased it wrongly.
So, I would suggest an incentive laden contract in this season at $8 million would be the upside. They are very similar guys. Two years from now do you assume nothing changes?
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two years from now the economy is better
So yeah, that’s a change. NH was not offering Freddy $6M in incentives. Freddy in 2011 will probably get a contract very similar to Hudson’s – he’s a better player, 2 years older but still not old, in a better economy. If 2010 is a down year, maybe the guarantee is $2M and the incentives take it to $5.5 – that’s still miles better than NH offered. If he has a strong 2010, then he’ll get a guaranteed $5M and $4M+ in incentives.
Neyer said Freddy is worth $18M this year; do you really thing his value will be less than an eighth of that in 2 years? That’s ridiculous. He’s not a 38-y.o. having a fluke season.
by JRoth95 on Jul 21, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well.....
I feel pretty comfortable arguing that his value is not $18 million. I asked earlier where that number came from, so if you have the info please point me to it. Dewan’s fielding metrics have Freddy as an average fielding second baseman this year. He is a little better than league average hittler playing what is regarded as the 4th hardest of eight defensive positions. Not sure in what world that is worth $18 million.
As for the economy, we can just disagree. Nothing in my crystal ball says things are going to be better 18 months from now and I’m sure the dose of reality that people got over the last 18 months will keep that enthusiasm to a minimum. I know people who have ownership interests in the NFL, NBA and NHL and to a person they are retrenching and pulling back (less so in the NFL) and that isn’t going to change in the short-term which in their view, not mine, is 3-5 years. Two are looking for an exit strategy.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 6:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So now....
you want to use his base value as $18 milliion and go from there? Why the hell wouldn’t Freddy just void his $8 million option for next year and go be a free agent? I’m sure the Pirates would be fine with that obviously.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 6:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's about asking him to give back $3M - for almost nothing
I’m not even sure how many years this $18M is supposed to cover. But what I do know is that Freddy is worth $6M next year. He’s either going to stay healthy and get $6M, or he’ll get injured and an insurance policy (I’m assuming a pro athlete with agents and paid advisers is as smart and prudent as a college athlete) will pay the bulk of that amount.
Unless Sanchez feels he’s
a) definitely going to be injured or fall of the map the following year
or
b) his odds of being injured are N:1, where his self-perceived annual value when healthy is $x and $2M = x/N .
There’s no reason to accept $10M for 2 years when he’s already got $8M for 1 year unless he knows he’ll be hurt next year or be so bad that no one would pay $2M for him, or (for example) he thinks he’s worth $4M a year but there’s a 50% chance he’ll get hurt.
I’m sure Freddy knows he’s worth less than $8M a year – but this is baseball. He made far less than market value in his early years and in arbitration, and the team never considered giving him a 5-10x raise more than necessary. Why should Sanchez now offer to play for a fraction of his value?
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sanchez offer an insult
It is an insult, because (barring Brian Griese’s dog or Clint Barmes’ deer meat attacking Sanchez), he’ll be guaranteed $8M next year. No if’s, and’s or but’s. Asking him to wipe that out for a 2 year $10M is pretty much asking him to take an extension for 1 year $2M contract in 2011.
So let’s use O-Dog as our comparison. Unless our economy is still in a world of hurt, 2011 will be a better players’ market than 2009. But even if we assume it’s just as crappy, that one year contract was still for $4M. And yeah, $2-3M for 1 year is a big deal. For starters, it more than doubles his salary.
If he’s worried about getting injured the rest of this year? C’mon, he hasn’t made plans already? I’m sure he’s got an insurance policy on not hitting 600 AB this year.
Because of the $8M “guarantee” for next year, Sanchez’s starting point is far different than Wilson’s. It would need to start at 2/$13M just to break even, and at that point the Bucs might as well go do 1 of 2 things:
1) Go for a longer contract with a lower annual salary (i.e. 4 years $17M, can look at it either as $4.25M/yr or $3M/yr extension to existing contract. I’d guess somewhere between that and 4 years $20M.)
2) No extension and most likely have to pay $8M in ’09, then go cheap in ’10. If they want to cut costs even further, try to trade him and get prospects back. If he tanks next year (with $8M in hand), may have to take on part of salary while trading him.
It sure looks like management is going for door #2.
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 7:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I posted a fanpost...
just now on the topic. Look I’m not saying Sanchez should accept the offer. I’m saying that I tire of hearing fans and media say players get insulted. Joey Porter was insulted, Alan Faneca was insulted, anybody who doesn’t get what they think they are worth is “insulted.” The Pirates have a reason for their view. They think Sanchez is a $5 million/year player and thus is worth $10 million for the next to years. Obviously they have to deal with the option. So, you, Freddy, his agent, and lots of other people think he is worth more and are most likely right. Great, reject the offer, play for the $8 million next year and go test the market.
Huntington was in no way calling Sanchez greddy or anything else. He said they had a difference of opinion. Live with it. No need to play the insult card, that’s just public relations.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 7:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why make offer?
The reason it’s insulting is that the offer itself is completely ridiculous. This isn’t like the Wilson one where one side thinks the the value is different (either by alot or just a little) from the other. The existence of the option is what makes their offer insulting.
Let’s assume the Bucs think Sanchez is worth $8M or $8.01M over 2 years. So they offer $10K or suggest Sanchez should play for free the 2nd year? Would you not consider that insulting? Yeah, it’s a difference of opinion – but the Bucs are making an insultingly/embarrassingly low offer. If you have that difference of opinion, then don’t make an offer at all.
I may not think Sanchez is worth more than $10M. But that doesn’t mean trying to retroactively change an offer isn’t insulting. They’re essentially saying Sanchez is overpaid in ‘10 and want him to take money off the table to get a fair value. Would you consider it insulting if the company asked a player to return salary if they had a bad year? Don’t forget that this company has never decided (out of the goodness of their heart) to give an extra bonus or payment for a better than expected good year. The team is asking the player to do something that the team would not do, and that is why it’s considered insulting.
I would say making an “insulting” offer is a public relations faux pas. Both result in ridicule and reduced respect for the team. If Sanchez was a FA one could justify making a low $2M offer as being all they could afford. Perhaps the player will accept it and perhaps they won’t; that part is uncertain. In this case, the team knows Sanchez will not accept the offer. Not a single (healthy) player in any sport (assuming contracts are guaranteed) would accept it. Imagine this was football, and a player is franchised and guaranteed $8M for 1 year as the average for the top N players at that position. Would the player accept a long term offer with signing bonus such that his guaranteed salary would be less than that year? Or, perhaps more accurately, a long term contract that offers a maximum of $10M over the life of the contract?
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's take the.....
unlikely, but possible case the option doesn’t vest. Where does that leave Freddy in your world in my hypothetical scenario? If he hurts his back again and were to miss 20 games, it probably doesn’t vest.
So, would Freddy be wise to go back and see if that deal is still on the table? If he did that should the Pirates be insulted?
This certainly isn’t the likely scenario, but it isn’t impossible. What then?
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
Yes, your right, it is possible. But
a) He’s going to have insurance to cove that scenario (unless his agent and advisers are incompetent
b) That’s not the case right now. And you make the offer based on existing scenarios. If we want to talk unlikely scenarios, perhaps Freddy goes Garrett Jones on us for the rest of the season and ends up with 50 HRs. Perhaps Freddy breaks his ankle skateboarding and needs an artificial leg. Let’s say any of these (or your Ryan Braun example) occurs — based on your examples, shouldn’t every 1st round draft choice/prospect sign the rest of their career over for a guaranteed $800K?
c) In any of these scenarios, is it your belief that the Pirates will keep their offer? We know that’s not the case, don’t we? After all, didn’t they withdraw their offer within 2 days?
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gave two scenarios.....
one more possible, one less. My only point that someone else made above is that Freddy is injury prone and it’s possible he could get hurt and his option not vest. He isn’t going to hit 50 homers and he isn’t going to get an artificial leg (knock on wood), but he could get hurt.
Evan Longoria might have left as much as
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/tampa-bay-devil-rays_112131227267025321.html
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2009-mlb-trade-value-5-1
$40-$50 million on the table to have the security of $17 guaranteed. I’m not saying that was the right decision, but people take less money for certainty in some cases.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Ryan Braun
is pissed off tonight about last night’s activities and slides in hard to Freddy at second and he tears up his knee, what then? I don’t wish this to happen, but what if it does?
You know what Freddy would get? Zero. Somebody would wait 8 or 10 months and then see how he came back from the injury and probably offer him a small incentive-laden contract.
What if Freddy went back to the Pirates and said he wanted that $10 million offer? He was insulted before, but know the world changed, and yes please I would like that deal.
Stop with the “insult” stuff. Everybody makes decisions on their worth and their expectations of the market. If two sides disagree, they disagree. You presented your side of the argument and you are most likely right and Freddy could make $13-15 million very reasonably over the next two years. In my case it’s possible that he makes $1 or 2. My case isn’t likely, but there are reasons NH came to the conclusions he did. You and Freddy don’t have to like them or accept them.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
logic
Well, Freddy wouldn’t get zero. You seem to forget the insurance factor. But yes, from a player contract perspective, it’s zero.
But, as you said, your cases aren’t likely. And the reason those offers were ridiculous – embarrassingly and insultingly ridiculous – is because NH did not come to his conclusions and offers based on those cases. If he had, and believed them to be reasonable, then it would not be ridiculous.
Can we at least agree on that? Can you agree that NH did not base his conclusion/offer on the assumption/condition that Sanchez will suffer a significant injury while their offer is on the table?
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Generally yes....
I do agree with you, but it has to be a small part of his calculation, but I don’t think he believes that is a likely scenario. And you’re right certainly not while it was on the table. (Might that be part of the reason he took it off the table, just in case it did occur? I hadn’t thought of that, but it makes sense).
Again my whole point here isn’t that the offer is fair or not. My point is that arguing that a player is insulted seems pretty silly. Players have rights. If he vests he can get paid and be a free agent. The team, any team, doesn’t have to agree with the player and his agent’s assessment of his value. Just reject it and go get what the market will bare.
People are interjecting personal feelings into business decisions and that generally isn’t good no matter what business you are in.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, nothing personal
Nah, dtodd, I’m pretty sure there’s no personal feelings in it from my perspective. I get yelled at by the g/f all the time for being too logical and not emotional and taking things personally…
I agree teams almost always have a different assessment of a player’s value. Most times I side with them, esp with Boras.
But I think we can also agree that there are times when an offer is ‘insulting.’ Let’s say the Bucs think Sanchez is worth $7M for 2 years. Would you say making such an offer is insulting? I think all of us would say yes, as it’s actually asking him to play for negative value in the 2nd year, or giving money back. Going along that, $8M (playing for free) is also insulting, as would $8.01M, $8.1M, $8.5M … etc.
You can see where this is going. Once you establish that offers so poor that they would never even remotely be accepted exist, and that it can be considered ‘insulting’ then we’re off to value.
Now, I don’t think it’s strictly on value. It doesn’t make sense that $10.9M is insulting while $11.0M is not. I think what makes it insulting is whether the offer was made in good faith and honesty with the public declarations of intent. If the Pirates are telling their fans they want to keep Sanchez, then a reasonable offer should be expected, one that has a chance of being accepted. It can be low, it can be below market value, but it has to have a reasonable chance of acceptance by being a sincere offer. I (obviously) don’t feel that was the motive behind the one to Sanchez. The security of having a contract in case of injury would be valid – if Sanchez didn’t have money in hand for next year. Injury can be insured (and I’m sure it is). If Sanchez didn’t have the option and definitive compensation (one way or another) for next year, and he was a FA, then I wouldn’t necessarily find a $2M / yr offer insulting. JJ Hardy (and Hudson) accepted 1 year offers for $4M, whatever. But they are not sincerely offering Freddy anything: in the Longoria example he gets an offer, perhaps below market value, but guarantees financial security for life relative to what he already had. Sanchez is made $5M last year, $6M this year, and effectively has $8M or similar insurance amount for next year. It’s more than I’ll ever see, but the Pirates $2M extension is a pittance in comparison. They know Freddy has leverage and wouldn’t accept it. (It would be different if Freddy did get hurt, but not seriously, and then they offered him a below market offer due to loyalty. Imagine if the Colts offered Marvin Harrison a real low offer. He’s been hurt, has no other offers, they wouldn’t offer him a contract at all normally, so it’s not insulting.)
For this reason, I think the offer to Wilson, even if the players/agents consider it low, is fine. Even if they offered 2 years at $4-$5M (instead of 8) I wouldn’t consider that insulting.
But the Sanchez one doesn’t appear to be a genuine offer with a sincere goal of keeping Sanchez. You want Sanchez to stay, and play for less money on average, you have to make it a feasible option. It would be like forcing someone to jump off the plank on a pirate ship, with a pistol and sword at their back, and then try say “Well, we gave him the choice to stay…” Savvy mate?
Btw, there was talk about Jonathan Sanchez (Giants) for Freddy Sanchez. I’ll tell you what; if NH wants to cut costs and dump salary, and needs a cheap warm body at MI, the Giants have them coming out of their ears. They’d be happy to take on all of Sanchez’s salary (overpaid at $14M for this year and next) for any number, heck all, of the following players: 2b kevin frandsen, 2b emmanuel burriss, 2b/lf eugenio velez, 2b/3b juan uribe, ss brian bocock. Heck, they’d even throw in LF fred lewis.
none of them are or really ever were top prospects (and uribe isn’t even young anymore). but i guess they really aren’t worse than Andy brother of Adam right now …
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So if I told Freddy...
…to suck my cock for $10, that wouldn’t be insulting, because it’s just an offer, and if he thinks he’s worth more than that then he doesn’t have to take it?
Maybe people can be totally rational and emotionless about such things once they replace us all with android duplicates, but until then, people are going to see insults in such gestures.
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad....
come on. Let’s have a dialogue. I didn’t it was right or wrong. I tried to give my view of what NH might be thinking and how he got to the number he got to.
And as for the insult, I don’t think Freddy ever said he was insulted. It is more people on the sight being insulted. Freddy rejected the offer.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can understand why NH would make that offer...
…and I can also understand why Freddy would be insulted by it.
Nobody is capable of being fully rational and objective about their own performance.
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
freddy's understanding
Yeah, I think Vlad’s example is a bit out of place. Well, with today’s Erin Andrews and the Big Ben story … maybe not so out of place.
But I’m not saying Freddy should feel insulted or is insulted. That’s up to him. I don’t take things personally either. But I can understand why it would be taken that way because it’s an insulting (i.e. insincere) offer. Maybe I should have used ‘insincere’ all along.
Freddy’s agent isn’t Boras right? Sold! Tell NH to call up Sabean and offer Freddy and his overpriced contract (you guys have any other overpriced players? Jeebus, the Pirates have … no one except Sanchez over $4M next year) and the Gigantes will relieve ya’ll of your burden. I guess Sanchez is the only one: Adam LR’s a FA, Maholm, Duke and Doumit have contracts in the $2M-$3+M next seasons increasing to $5Mish in 3 years … and that’s it. Entire OF is at minimum. Well, the Giants can offer near minimum players to fill out 1B, 2B and SS in Ishikawa/Bowker, Burriss/Velez/Frandsen and Bocock. Sabean would probably even take on a bit more money by sending over JSanchez for a more expensive Maholm or Duke.
After all, those guys (and Freddy) are making minimum wage relative to Barry Zito.
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Freddy ...
But I don’t think he’s going to get a big offer in two years because of age and injury history. He’ll be viewed more as a short-term solution.
I wish he had countered the Pirates’ offer and asked for $2 million in incentives in addition to the $10 million.
But let’s say his shoulder injury recurs. He could be leaving a ton of money on the table.
There is some risk on his side as well.
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not much....
If he hits his option. In fact very little “risk,” because at that point he gets paid for next year regardless.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You miss the point ...
He has an injury history and hasn’t hit the vesting option yet. That’s where the risk comes.
What if he breaks his ankle tomorrow? He’s going to be a free agent. He’s going to miss part of next year. He’ll be lucky to get an incentive-laden contract.
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He could be risk averse -
he can guarantee himself $10 million by signing the deal now it could be reasonable since there is always at least a small chance that he will end up with nothing if he suffers a severe injury.
by WestCoastBuc on Jul 20, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
insurance against injury
you guys forget that he doesn’t get “nothing” with an injury. barring injury, he’s a lock for $8M next season. he’s got an injury insurance contract out for at least half of that.
no agent or adviser worth their license would recommend taking on a contract that much below market, and that doesn’t provide any additional long term security over what he’s already got, simply to avoid risk.
if he’s penniless or making near minimum now, maybe he gets advised to consider it. having banked $11M already, and 95% chance of locking in $8M next year, and having already spent insurance premiums since this contract was signed (or at latest the first day of last offseason) to insure the bulk of that $8M in case of injury … not even spongebob squarepants would recommend taking a deal that only provides an additional $2M (or 10.5% of what he’ll make in these 3 years).
ya’ll are ignoring far too many factors, including:
- he has insurance so even with injury he won’t lose the $8M
- he’s already made $11M in past 2 seasons, so an additional $2M isn’t going to provide newfound financial security
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As far as injury.....
I’m pretty damn sure that the premium for Freddy to insure that he would get the $8 million bonus at the beginning of the season would have been at least $4 million probably higher at the beginning of the year. Last year he had 608 PAs and didn’t make the all-star team. So, no insurer is going to guarantee the $8 million bonus.
Now two weeks ago he might have been able to buy that insurance for $1-2 million, but I think in your argument you aren’t understanding how the actuarials that insurance companies use, work. There is no way he could insure this bonus at the beginning of the year. NO company would take it on. And it’s still pretty risky now, so is he willing to give up a few million for that and how does that effect the contract negotiation if that is the case.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't disagree
But Freddy needs to grow up. If he’s insulted with a market offer, then play out your year in Pittsburgh and see what free agency has for you.
Why is $2.8 million a joke? Orlando Hudson quickly found out that owners aren’t rushing to pay a second baseman $10 million. Freddy will as well.
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Growing up
There’s nothing mature about letting someone pay you less than (you think) you deserve.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I answered your point...
above about what somebody is worth. Like to hear your thoughts on the Orlando Hudson comparison.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hudson is an OK compare
But not great. His glove is distinctly worse*. WRT hitting, it depends a lot on how heavily you weigh Freddy’s injury-plagued 2008. Anyway, Hudson’s contract is $3.4M, with $4.6M in bonuses – I think that’s a pretty big jump from $2M or $2.8M.
But I think that post-2010 will see a more expensive market – that’s my bottom line. One of the reasons I think Jack’s offer was OK was that Jack will face a terrible market this offseason, but I’m extremely doubtful that it will persist another year – not legally, anyway. So Freddy in winter 2010 should see a better contract than Hudson in winter 2008 (health permitting).
- UZR says his 2nd & 3rd Gold Gloves were jokes
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You do realize ...
how old he’s going to be.
I can’t think of a 2b in the past decade who has gotten a big contract at his age beside Kent.
Freddy is going to be unpleasantly surprised, I think.
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't need to be "big"
Crappy, cheap teams like the Pirates give out million dollar contracts to bench players. Unless Freddy completely breaks down physically, he will be able to do better than $2M in 2011. Heck, dtoddwin brought up Garrett Anderson, who is an older player who is worse at an easier position, and he did better than that, in the worst FA market since collusion. You really have to assume a lot to get Freddy below, say, $2.5M guaranteed with $3-6M in achievable incentives.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, you miss the point ...
Athletes insulted by $2 million offers need to go to work at Sheetz for a day. Give me a break. You politely turn down the offer. You play out your contract. You see what is there.
Yes, there is something immature about a player who doesn’t realize his career can end tomorrow and that guaranteed offers are a privilege.
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does Coonley run a Sheetz?
Baseball players are the foundation for a multibillion dollar industry. For their bosses to treat them like interchangeable convenience store clerks is, in fact, insulting. I would be insulted if a client of mine asked me to sweep up his office, even though cleaning offices is honest, legitimate work that must be done.
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
reason for being insulted is not the value, it's false intention
Bernie bernie bernie,
I think you are missing the point. It’s not the value of the dollar amount that is insulting. It’s the principle and sincerity (or lack thereof) in making the offer.
I don’t know what your salary is, but I think we can agree that for the typical family living in ethiopia (for example) it’s beyond huge. Now imagine your company, even though it just moved into new fancy office buildings and profitable, asks that you take a pay cut to 50% of your current salary. And, oh yeah, btw, your employment contract says that if you get fired, they still have to pay you your full salary through the end of 2010.
Now then mate, are you insulted by that offer?
Does it matter that people halfway across the world in a different profession/lifestyle make pennies on your dollar? Does that change the fact that you would likely feel insulted?
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody wants to trade Gorkys, very disappointing…
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 20, 2009 3:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if NH has painted himself into a corner. The top 3 salaries on this team are on the trading block and there is not much to be had for at least 2 of them, and Frack’s value may be limited by the bonus/2010 player option
It’s one thing to unload them for prospects who provide cover for a few years while developing, but it’s suspect to move the Frick/Frack, eat salary and get nothing in return. The best option is probably to make no move (no aparent market for LaRoche anyway) and let Frick and Mario walk in 2010. Consider Frack at SS for a season before he walks and move Young to 2B. This is all placeholder stuff, but no one’s looking to compete next year.
by chicos_pants on Jul 20, 2009 3:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t buy the ‘insulting’ argument line — rejecting it was a perfectly legitimate response, just as countering or (god help Frack and his agent) accepting would have been. But if NH wanted a counter he shouldn’t have prefaced the offers with that business about not having much room to negotiate. Frick’s right that a ‘take it or leave it’ offer doesn’t sound like the offerer wants to negotiate.
by chicos_pants on Jul 20, 2009 3:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thinking outside the box here....
A week ago I’d heard someone point out something alot of us have forgotten.
Freddy Sanchez is a more than capable shortstop.
The Pirates can cut Jack loose, move Freddy over to SS, where he’ll still be an above average bat and an average glove, at worst.
Then go on the hunt and look for a replacement 2B. Assuming TB doesn’t pick up Iwamura’s option (No reason they would), he wouldn’t be a bad addition at all.
Wouldn’t really be a salary dump given that Iwamura would have to be paid in the range of 5 million, and Freddy’s option at over 8 would be 13 million for the two middle infielders, but we’d be upgrading offensively.
Thoughts?
by jlk9697 on Jul 20, 2009 3:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Depends on the shoulder, I think.
If he can play SS, that gives him a lot more value.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I can play SS
Just not well.
Freddy hasn’t played SS regularly in five years. I really doubt the Pirates are counting on him to play it next year.
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Pirates probably wouldn't.
But if another team did (and it only takes one), then he’d have extra value to that team.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Take baseball out of it and look at it on the business side
We have three very unfavorable contracts. Not only are these contracts non-favorable to the PBC, but to all of MLB. None of these 3 players will be with the club if/when we have a competitive team. These contracts were negotiated before the market corrected and under the previous regime. What do you suggest NH do?
What NH did from a business perspective is put a two fold value on FRACK (what they mean today and what they mean in the contract’s lifetime) within the current MLB market. and try like hell to market LaRoche for anything he may fetch.
Sanchez is in the best spot from a negotiating standpoint. His money is guarnteed so why would you renogatiate your guarantee?
Wilson doesnt have much leverage. He will get a 600K payday and take a significant reduction in guaranteed money next year. Solidarity with his buddy could end up hurting him financially.
LaRoche will take a hit unless he comes back from the dead. As much as we hate to hear this, we may have him back next year because he may come at a discount. Most people in the last year of their contract tear it up, but I digress.
No matter what, we will have to pay to get rid of Sanchez and LaRoche. That is why the return will suck. Sanchez will be over market value at 2B and LaRoche is a rental. You may end up seeing all 3 of these players in a PBC uniform next year……
by vanslyke on Jul 20, 2009 4:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Please - not all three?
No way Adam LaRoche comes back next year. The PBC is paying him over $7M this year, and only Jobu knows what an arbitrator would award him next year, or what Adam thinks he’s worth on the FA market. Way more than Jones and Pearce (together) will make, I’d bet.
His VORP this year is 2.9, which puts him 26th out of 28 MLB 1B with over 100 PA’s. Not terribly hard to replace that bat.
There are good arguments to bring back JW and FS for 2010. But I don’t know any good arguments to bring back Adam.
by WstCstBucco on Jul 20, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didnt say it was a good argument
but do you really see Adam LaRoche making 7M next year based on his horrible year this year? The market for Type B and lower FAs is going to be as bad if not worse than last year. He may be cheap (like 5M rangeish).
by vanslyke on Jul 20, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Swap 1B with Giants!
>>is VORP this year is 2.9, which puts him 26th out of 28 MLB 1B with over 100 PA’s
I can bet that every player the Giants have put at 1B this year is worse!!! :-)
Seriously though, I thought Adam LR was a FA after this season, no strings/options.
by 18 Mile on Jul 21, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're correct.
He’s a FA. But you can always offer one of your own FAs arbitration, unless his contract explicitly prohibits it, and in order to gain compensation for a FA you first need to offer him arbitration and have that offer declined.
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM makes some good points above, imo,
that the underlying reasoning for these events may be questionable (ie based on money and not the future).
But what bothers me lately are not the proposed moves/non-moves, but the way they seem to be made. I worry when my favorite teams start doing their negotiations in public. It shows that they are losing control of the situation. If GM quietly offers extensions and then things are unable to work out, no harm no foul. But PBC made a big deal about these extensions. And then made a big deal about pulling them back just 2 days later. I don’t see what good can come from that, and it just causes me to question whether Coonington are the quietly efficient and effective team I thought they were.
THe same thing about Snell. What good can come from getting into a he-said/she-said with Snell over whether he wants to return or not IN THE MEDIA?
Honesty is nice, don’t get me wrong. But I think Neil needs to shut his yap for now.
by Bwillits on Jul 20, 2009 4:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
PBC didn't
make a big deal about the extensions. They were most likely leaked by the player’s agents and then NH was forced to respond. I totally agree on the Snell point.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Big deal" is probably an overstatement.
You’re right. I just would have preferred no elaboration—he can make whatever points about their shortcomings to their agents rather than create ill will by airing them in public. And pulling the offers b/c there wasn’t a counteroffer within 2 days seems….counterproductive.
by Bwillits on Jul 20, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
we may be overlooking...
As much as NH may try to hustle the bromance angle, he’s not going to write it into any contracts. Nothing would make Frick even pissier than signing what he thinks is a below market contract to stay in Pgh and play with Frack, then to watch one or both get subsequently dealt and split up. Frick becomes a 10-5 next year, but Frack does not. Frack could demand a limited no trade claus written into any extension. But neither can negotiate a tandem move.
by chicos_pants on Jul 20, 2009 4:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Neyer adds his two cents...
“Sanchez had little choice, because he’s worth more than $10 million for one season, let alone two. "
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sweetspot/0-4-74/Pirates-on-verge-of-losing-keystone-combo.html
If Sanchez is really worth that much, then why is that $8M option such a hinderance to a trade? Is it that teams are poorer than usual and spent goo-gobs of money on far stupider contracts than $8M for an All-Star 2B who can play solid D? Hell Edgar Renteria got $9M per for 2 years.
Freddy does not have a bad contract. NH and Bobby Nuts are unwilling to pay it. I still think this was a very Littlefield-esqe move by NH to shoot himself in the foot and let the league know he’s interested dumping salary.
by Chad Bahamas on Jul 20, 2009 5:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for....
the link. I think Rob may be overplaying it slightly by saying both are having great seasons. I’ll be interested to see if we get the “excellent return” that he suggests. Anybody know what he’s using (FanGraphs?) when he quotes their worth?
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rocco has used it as well
It was the foundation of his whole piece on why the McLouth trade was a good idea. But I don’t recall what site he was citing – I don’t know if FanGraphs lets you list every player in baseball by value (that was Rocco’s method – he made much of Nate being the 90th most valuable, or whatever).
by JRoth95 on Jul 20, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Thus far in 2009, according to FanGraphs:
Freddy: 2.5 WAR (worth $11.4 million in free agency), ranked 5th among MLB 2B
Jack: 1.8 WAR (worth $8.0 million in free agency), ranked 9th among MLB SS
Freddy is ranked 42nd among all players, while Jack is ranked 89th. They are the two most valuable position players still with the team.
Pittsburgh Lumber Co.
http://mvn.com/pittsburghlumberco
by MBandi on Jul 21, 2009 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the link
I know it’s small sample size, but I was really surprised to see Cutch’s negative fielding value. I don’t think he’s been anything less than spectacular in center since he’s been up.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's got spectacular talent...
…but I’ve seen him make a few ill-concieved plays. On Sunday, for example, he turned a single into a double by trying to dive for a ball that he couldn’t quite get.
Even if he’s not scoring as a + CF right now, I think he will be in the near future. He just needs a few more reps – the pieces are already there.
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's only a hinderance...
…to teams that already have a different 2B/3B lined up for 2010, or who prefer to go year-to-year with new acquisitions.
That is to say, it’s not the dollars, it’s the fact that it’s a commitment at all.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
Freddy…if he makes his 600 PA…gets $8.1M automatically for next season. Pirates want him to sign for 2 years/$10M. Effectively…that means he plays for $1.9M in 2011. Why is that an insult to Freddy?? Very simple. What’s Ramon Vasquez getting paid this year and next year as a BACKUP infielder?? $2M a year. THAT is enough of a reason for the offer to be an insult.
by Thunder on Jul 20, 2009 5:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
it's the "insulting" part I don't get
All he has to do is say no, counter, or accept. The Pirates don’t owe Freddie anything and it’s their call to keep or deal him. Jason Bay played this angle perfectly — talk up your willingness to stay, even if you have every intention of testing FA and maximizing your earnings.
by chicos_pants on Jul 20, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bay played that to perfection indeed. I’ve heard “But Bay wanted to stay!” a million times in the past year.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jul 20, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, Bay is still playing this game with Theo Epstein, while Epstein is very very actively trying to explain to Bay that “things have changed.”
Bay turned down 5 years, $50M this spring. Epstein has told Bay’s agent that Adam Dunn’s 2 years, $20M is the market for Bay. Over the ASB, Bay turned down a somewhat sweetened offer. Half of Red Sox Nation is nervous as hell, the other half is saying he’s not a true Red Sox (like Youk & Varitek) and they can get a .260 hitter anywhere. No more discussions will be held until after the season.
Meanwhile, Epstein is paying JD Drew $14M per year, which some fans claim to be a gross insult to Bay.
So everyone is being asked to take less. It’s not just NH.
by WstCstBucco on Jul 20, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point.....
everyone wants to test the market. See who blinks first.
Randy Wolf was offered $27 million for three years last off season by Houston and then signed for one year for $5 million after the offer was pulled an no other offer was forth coming.
Vlad keeps arguing collusion, but I don’t see it. This was Wolf just misplaying his hand and other GMs and owners quickly realizing things were and are different.
by dtoddwin on Jul 20, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't see it...
…because you’re axiomatically assuming that things ARE different (or at least that they were as-of last offseason).
by Vlad on Jul 21, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thunder
And if he breaks his ankle tomorrow, he gets nothing.
The “if” part in your posting is key.
And the “if” part is going to mean he’s not going to hit the lottery in two years.
If he’s so undervalued, why not decline the vesting option? He could work that out with NH today.
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 5:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's not a situation where he can...
decline the option…it is in his contract that it vests automatically so that Freddy would not become a FA at the end of this season.
If he does not reach 600 plate appearances this season…it will only be because of injury…or a deliberate act by the Pirates of causing it not to invest. It will not be because he is not in the lineup due to poor performance. At that point…the MLBPA will have something to say about the situation. And it will become a question as to whether the Pirates are making an attempt to put their best players on the field as often as possible.
There’s risk to both sides…sure. Frankly…if I was in Freddy’s shoes…I’d play the rest of the season…get my AB…take the $8.1M…and take my chances as a FA after next season. If I don’t get the plate appearances…I’m gonna be a FA after this season…and probably get at least around what the Pirates are offering…and likely more.
by Thunder on Jul 20, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually he can ...
If the player and team agree to drop the vesting option, essentially agree to a new contract, he can.
But I would do exactly as you say as well.
by Bernie6666 on Jul 20, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
$8 mil/1 year will be a good contract for next year, but he could always pull a Manny and miss the 600 AB mark to bring FA sooner if he thinks there’s more to be had elsewhere or he’s unhappy in Pgh.
by chicos_pants on Jul 20, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one has mentioned
Freddy is probably more miffed about the years than the $$. If we offered 3yr/15 rather than 2/10 it would be a lot closer to what he’s looking for. I think 2/9 with a team option 3rd year is a fair offer for Jack.
by Mr. E on Jul 20, 2009 6:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Jack Wilson
Is there any GM out there who thinks Jack Wilson is a great hitter? I think not, so I don’t think talking candidly about it decreases whatever trade value he has. Jack is a great glove and good team guy with a slightly below average bat. Something that is an upgrade for most teams. On many teams with more offense, you would hear a lot more about Jack. So I don’t think NH can hurt anything by telling the truth.
by Batavia on Jul 20, 2009 6:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good for you, Charlie...
That’s one of the best posts you have written in a long time. Good stuff!
Now, you know Pirates brass will come out and say lots of “political” stuff, right? You know, lie to Pirates fans.
The Pirates used to be one of the best, most respected franchises in baseball. Look at what they have become.
by Pirate in Montana on Jul 21, 2009 10:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This has been
one helluva good post/thread.
.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 21, 2009 10:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ooooh. right up until the above comment, I mean…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 22, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From Buster Olney's
blog on espn.com today:
Jack Wilson says he’s still interested in negotiating with the Pirates. Talked to a bunch of executive types in the past 48 hours who say Wilson is going to be looking at a major pay cut, whether it’s with the Pirates or some other team.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 12:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Charlie....
also you realize Wilson’s option is a team option and not a player option? In your article above you say, “But Huntington’s comments suggest he’s thinking about doing it (trading Wilson) for the wrong reason: to avoid paying Wilson’s option year.”
That’s just factually incorrect. He doesn’t have to do anything to avoid paying the option other than decline to pick it up.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 12:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Which is why....
the PG reported that Wilson broached the topic of an extension with the team in spring training on March 29:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09088/959087-63.stm?cmpid=relatedarticle
Even at that time, as suggested in the article, it appeared Wilson would have to take a pay cut.
by dtoddwin on Jul 21, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am pretty sure that Charlie understands that
he was just comparing the advisability of picking up Wilson’s option with that of trading prospects for a SS that he’d alluded to earlier and making the point that it was far better to do the former.
by WestCoastBuc on Jul 21, 2009 12:43 PM EDT 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.
