Pirates "Set to Sign" Colton Cain
The Post-Gazette reports that the Bucs will soon sign Texas high school pitcher Colton Cain, one of the toughest signs of their 2009 draft and a big key (along with the already-signed Trent Stevenson and especially sixth-rounder Zack Von Rosenberg) in determining whether this draft looks good in the short term. This is great news.
Also via the Post-Gazette, Jose Ascanio will be promoted, taking the place of Steven Jackson. Pat has reported that Ascanio looked excellent in his first start at AAA, so it'll be interesting to get a good look at him.
Sorry this is short; I'm posting before the bad-hotel-internet monster eats me again.
0 recs |
214 comments
|
Comments
Oh good, now maybe the new “The Nuttings are cheap because so few draft picks are signed” meme will die.
by TravisDW on Aug 6, 2009 11:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It'll
just move to “all the trades suck because the major league team isn’t better”.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well they should
I know I always complain that the turkey sucks on Thanksgiving at 5 AM before it’s cooked
by TravisDW on Aug 7, 2009 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
If they sign 50 of the 51 they picked, the 51st guy will be the one who could’ve turned into Albert Pujols if Nutting weren’t so cheap.
by WTM on Aug 7, 2009 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ya
I said that NuttingHostage. His response: If the Pirates signed 1 of 51 picks you would be making an excuse for the FO
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The guy is so goddman clueless.
I can hardly believe people take him seriously.
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you read the comments lately?
He’s fast becoming very unpopular.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
For a long time it seemed like most people there agreed with him. I only posted in response at times because I couldn’t stand the thought that people were buying into the misinformation he peddles. Most people there always seemed to regard him as knowledgeable, while I don’t think he knows anything at all about baseball.
by WTM on Aug 7, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you can, go back and find the Brian Morris thread, where DK breaks the news that Morris was suspended for attitude issues. He, predictably, blames it on ownership. EVERYONE goes after him. Even Dejan.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I generally try to not read the comments, and I didn’t for this particular thread. I just did now. Hilarious.
by CptnAwesome on Aug 7, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems like a perfect case of one way accountability to me…..
Through various comments and actions during his tenure as owner of the Pirates Bob Nutting has repeatedly disrespected the fans, players, peer owners, and the very game itself.
I don’t know what Morris did, but I can’t imagine it was anywhere near the magnitude of the disrespect Bob Nutting has shown this game over the period of the last 6 years and no one has suspended him.
That’s OK, his day will come.
HAHAHAHAA
by BuccoBrigade on Aug 7, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The worst part though
He isn’t the most incompetent person on that blog.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t mean to be insulting, so don’t construe “special” as “mentally retarded” or something.
I just think a number of his arguments are quite bad.
For the most part, though, a lot of those people are genuine Pirates fans, at least. They follow the games and stuff. I’m sure there are some trolls in there who just want to yell for the sake of yelling, but many of them are not. I just completely disagree with most of their criticisms, obviously.
by CptnAwesome on Aug 7, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gave up in June......
The problem is the idiots are the most vociferous and repetitive.
by dtoddwin on Aug 7, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never read the comments there...
…if I can help it.
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson is demoted
Ascanio is called up
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 12:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh
Well being asked to go 2 was never going to turn out good for jackson… i prefer ascanio as a starter-long relief… dont want to see him become a full time RP just yet
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There
have been a lot of potential future starters called up to work on things in the bullpen in the majors this season. One recent example would be Netfali Feliz (sp?) with the Rangers. Maybe that’s what is going on here
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
working with kerrigan can only be good for him…
how far are moskos/bloom? long long way? prefer a lefty in there
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dumatrait will be that guy.
IMO anyway.
"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 Aug 7, 2009 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not entirely sure
Feliz was called up to work on some stuff. I think they needed help out of the ‘pen, and the kid’s got nasty stuff to work with
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
by glass0941 on Aug 7, 2009 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with that
but working with the major league team and those scouts can’t hurt too much can it
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 2:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This whole thread is off topic, I know, but did you see his debut against the A’s? Throwing 98-100 routinely and with a nasty 90 MPH changeup (?!) that he used as his out pitch. 6 up, 6 down, 4 on strikeouts.
by shayborg on Aug 7, 2009 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nasty stuff.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This Karstens.....
love affair is only temporary. I like the guy, but I’d be surprised if he’s on the roster 12 months from now. Seems to have some ability, but not enough. He looks like Jack and reminds me of Jack for some reason.
by dtoddwin on Aug 7, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's what I don't get
If it’s OK to pitch Capps the ninth and 10th, why isn’t it OK to pitch Capps the eighth and ninth, when he might have HELD a lead rather than maintaining a tie? He was throwing serious gas tonight, touched 96 one time at least, guess you can air it out when you haven’t been needed for a week.
by bucdaddy on Aug 7, 2009 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He did hit 96?
I thought my Gameday was busted—good to know.
by Yotum on Aug 7, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it likely is
but thats the flaw with using hindsight… with how capps has looked i was fine with him not being brought in before the 9th… if only we knew how he would pitch!
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which picks remain?
that people would really like to see signed and who are yet to sign?
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 12:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ZVR
has got to be number one. Everyone else is very secondary until then if you ask me
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
by glass0941 on Aug 7, 2009 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
#1
This article is about #1 Cain will have the biggest impact of any of the players drafted. He was one of the top 20 players in the entire draft.
by bucsfan5 on Aug 7, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
know abt ZVR
who else, i meant?
and any kind of preference ordering?
i know inman, heller, den dekker are all out there, but whats the pedigree/probabilities on those guys making it?
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Den Dekker
Inman, Dodson, and Heller would be good add ons. But ZVR is the number one priority now.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dodson
forgot him… with a 4th round, isnt he higher than the rest bar ZVR though?
remember hearing good thing about him!
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cain's Pedigree
USA Baseball-JR Olympic Team 2008
USA Baseball-JR National Team 2007
First Team All State -2009
First Team All State-2008
Top Rated HS player in The State of Texas by some publications
University of Texas Signee
by bucsfan5 on Aug 7, 2009 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What picks are left that people want to see signed? I agree that Cain will probably have a bigger impact, but it’s hard to sign someone who has a contract
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
by glass0941 on Aug 7, 2009 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i imagine u'll get Mrs. Cain comment soon
in the meantime, while I know about Cain, I m mostly asking about the rest at this point!
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
missed the "a"
either “a mrs. cain comment” or “mrs. cain comments”…
sorry, nitpicking again… bad habit!
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ZVR is key.
He’s head-and-shoulders above any of the others remaining.
In addition to the guys who were already mentioned, Cooper and Dermody would be good gets among the arms, and we should probably make a push for one of the two tough sign catchers (Schoenfeld and Luquette).
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A reasonable target (so says me)
ZVR (or Heller as a fallback)
Dodson (or any of a number of fallbacks—Urban, Cooper, Gelinas, Nuncio—I’d probably prefer Gelinas to Dodson—I’m not sure Dermody is on this level)
One other pitcher
One of the prep catchers
Den Dekker or Inman (both are probably out of reach, but what the heck)
by WTM on Aug 7, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Suppose they sign ZVR, Dodson, and maybe Den Dekker or Inman. Do you think they try to sign some of the people they originally had as fallbacks? Or are there still better players remaining than the fallbacks?
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they have enough in their budget to sign more than just those guys. I’d like to think the plan is to sign the picks from the first ten rounds and maybe one or two others. That would put them at 23-24 total, which is consistent with what they’re projecting now.
After ZVR, imo the two best talents still on the board are Heller and Gelinas (I think most people would agree with me about Heller but I’m not sure about Gelinas), both late-round picks.
by WTM on Aug 7, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I really know is BA’s writeup and one or two other things I’ve read. Heller and Gelinas sounded a little better.
by WTM on Aug 7, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gelinas...
was one of my favorite picks. He could be a very good power lefty.
by joegonzo on Aug 7, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ditto with me
they all seemed pretty good, geuss thts how it goes… i preferred dodson coz he was the 4th rd pick, since all else seemed equivalent!
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wonderful that he signed, but ...
Nutting is cheap. Talk to any of the employees at his newspapers, for example.
He certainly hasn’t done anything to dispel it through his Pirates tenure.
I hope a few of you are right that he’ll increase the budget when the team becomes competitive.
But I feel much more comfortable with NH and FC than I do Nutting.
Why would he suddenly act like Rooney when he (and his family) have never conducted business that way?
by Bernie6666 on Aug 7, 2009 8:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Any newspaper owner that’s not doing everything he can to save money (i.e., “cheap”) these days is a fool. Have you looked at the state of the newspaper biz recently? Papers are folding left and right.
As far as the Rooneys go, it was only a few short years ago that everyone was bitching about them being cheap, too.
by maguro on Aug 7, 2009 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's true about newspapers today
But Ogden papers have ALWAYS been cheap, the state of the economy hasn’t mattered a whit.
by bucdaddy on Aug 7, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps that’s why they’re still in business…
by maguro on Aug 7, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yes I have looked at newspapers
I’ve written a book on newspapers so I know the state of the industry today (and was a former journalist). But Nutting is in his own league for cheapness. I have one former colleague who has no health insurance and works at a mall to pay a student loan. Meanwhile, Fortune has documented the ridiculous profits that Nutting has made with the Pirates.
As for as the Rooneys being cheap, yes, that allegation was made in the past decade. But they spent nearly to the cap every year. Now were they cheap 40 years ago? Yes.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 8, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fortune has documented the ridiculous profits that Nutting has made with the Pirates.
Fortune has speculated about the Pirates’ profits. I don’t know of any factual basis for your reference to “ridiculous” profits, whatever that means. There certainly isn’t any in Fortune.
by WTM on Aug 8, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM
Please don’t take my postings today as personal. They are not meant to be. But this is such a ridiculous posting that I have to respond.
Fortune is a pro-business publication that has a tremendous reputation in the magazine industry. It uses reporters, editors, economists and former baseball executives to come up with these figures.
As far as I’m aware, no team has ever opened its books and proven the Fortune estimates wrong. Do you have an example otherwise?
The Pirates have been challenged repeatedly to open the books and show that the estimates were wrong. Have they done so?
And finally, what would you accept as a “factual basis?”
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a "factual basis"?
Um, facts would be a start.
And trying to hide behind Fortune’s reputation won’t work. They’ve NEVER purported to state what the Pirates’ profits are, much less characterized them as “huge” or “ridiculous,” as you’ve done. You’re just making this all up.
As for the Pirates opening the books, no private partnership does that. Go ahead and challenge them all you want. Challenge every other team in MLB while you’re at it. Nobody will do it and the fact that they won’t means nothing.
by WTM on Aug 9, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM
No, actually, you just misrepresent postings. Kind of sad, actually.
Fortune has stated what the magazine thinks the profits are. I said that I felt that range was "ridiculous.’
First, you tried to argue that Fortune’s estimate was just a guess. Now your argument is that I made up what Fortune says. You know that’s wrong. I know it’s wrong. All anybody has to do is to look at one of the reports.
Your last comment really is funny about opening the books. Don’t take public $s if you don’t want scrutiny.
Have you considering working in PR for the Nutting family?
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re the one misrepresenting posts and making up straw men. Nobody has stated what the Pirates’ profits are, or even pretended to. Forbes, not Fortune, has attempted to estimate MLB teams’ profits, but they have no hard evidence to go on, have been strongly criticized for doing nothing more than guessing, and have never revealed their methodology or their sources. Andrew Zimbalist, who’s the most prominent economist who writes about sports economics, has stated that Forbes’ numbers are not reliable. You keep referring to these supposed “investigations” (even Forbes doesn’t claim to have “investigated” anything), yet you’re clearly completely unfamiliar with the sources you’re citing. Basically, you keep throwing around claims you can’t support, citing sources you know nothing about.
And your whining about the books is just pathetic. Do you go outside and rage at the sky about the weather?
by WTM on Aug 9, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Rooneys?
You’ve got to be kidding. Back in the bad old days, opposing teams used to make fun of the Steelers because their helmets didn’t all match.
by WTM on Aug 7, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And surely I'm not the only one...
…who was told that they only put the logo on one side to save painting costs.
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The story I’ve heard is that they weren’t sure whether they liked the symbol or not, so they only put it on one side and it kind of stuck that way.
Plenty of people have called the Rooney’s cheap, though, or at least a little miserly, especially in the 90’s
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on Aug 7, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't mean that it was true.
Just that it was an example of a widespread story about the Rooneys being cheap, from the olden days.
I don’t really know one way or the other.
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM
Only problem: You are talking of the old days with the Steelers. When is the last year they haven’t spent nearly to the cap? I’ll take Nutting spending the same as teams in comparable markets. I could care less where he spends it: minor leagues, international signings, major league roster.
And I have no problem with him making a profit. But a $10 million to $25 million profit? Yes, that seems a bit much.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 8, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do you how large his profit is?
Are you his accountant?
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 8, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quite presumptuous of you to define what is “too much”.
by matskralc on Aug 8, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Since Mr. Nutting doesn’t open his books, I read independent analyses. The ones I’ve seen pegged his profit at $10 million to $25 million per year.
So no, I’m not his accountant. But I can read reports by economists.
As for matskralc, well, I helped to pay for his stadium. I think that gives me the right to express an opinion.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 8, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just curious...
but what is a “typical” profit for an MLB team? $10M profit on an operation the size of an MLB team doesn’t seem all that huge. Any idea what kind of money the other teams are making?
by maguro on Aug 8, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are no independent analyses. Only Forbes’ speculation. Nobody has any facts to go on, which is true with every other team in MLB going back to the beginning of the sport.
by WTM on Aug 8, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not quite ...
First, Fortune is not the only publication to look at team profits. Fortune just publishes the best figures on team profits or losses.
But there are several other magazines and hundreds of newspapers that have done stories looking at how profitable MLB teams are.
An economist can peg a team’s profit the same way an astronomer can say how long it’ll take for astronauts to reach the moon.
WTM’s thesis seems to be: I’ll accept nothing other than the Nuttings releasing the books to accept that they make a profit.
That’s just a silly position to take. I guess all the reporters, editors, economists and former baseball executives are wrong and Mr. Nutting is right. Call me skeptical.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re the one claiming to know what the Pirates’ profits are. So far, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support your claims. YOU CAN’T EVEN POINT TO ANYTHING FORBES OR FORTUNE OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS EVER PUBLISHED THAT WOULD SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM OF “RIDICULOUS” PROFITS, NO DOUBT BECAUSE NOTHING OF THE SORT HAS EVER BEEN PUBLISHED.
Be skeptical all you want, but don’t make completely unsupported claims based on “investigations” that never happened and expect not to be called on it. I’m not making any claims about the Nuttings’ profits. I don’t know what they are. Neither do you. But one of is pretending to know, with no support whatsoever, and it’s not me.
by WTM on Aug 9, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM
If it would help you, I’d be happy to give you links to the Forbes articles. I thought you’d be capable of doing a google or Nexis search and reviewing the articles yourself.
But if not, let me know. I can also give you links to other articles.
You can attack me all you want.
But yes, articles on the profits of franchises have been published.
And where did I claim to know what the profits are? I listed what the range was based on the Forbes reports.
Capitalizing your posting to make it seems like you are the authority is really just sad. Are you in an AOL chatroom?
I guess misrepresenting in capital letters makes it right.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, articles in Forbes attempting to guess at teams’ profits have been published. I don’t need links to the Forbes articles because I’ve read them and, unlike you, I know more about them than just the numbers they’ve invented. And even then, nothing in those articles supports your claims of “ridiculous” profits. That’s only true if you can show those profits are far out of line with the norm in some way. Forbes never attempted to do that and you’ve certainly pointed to nothing that would support you.
As for caps, it’s hard to get the attention of somebody who just keeps making shit up and inventing straw men.
by WTM on Aug 9, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Old days?
You’re the one who said they “never” conducted business the way you claim the Nuttings do. I take it that statement is no longer operative.
by WTM on Aug 8, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM
Look at my original posting.
It was written in present tense. Present tense means today—not 40 years ago. That means no one today is seriously saying that the Pirates have the same financial commitment as the Steelers.
Do you really dispute that?
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just did
And “have never conducted” is not present tense, at least not in English. Maybe in some other language.
by WTM on Aug 9, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grammar lesson
Why would he suddenly act like Rooney when he (and his family) have never conducted business that way?
“Have never conducted” is not the verb of the sentence. In fact, “never” isn’t even a verb.
Oops. Being sarcastic doesn’t make you right.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
These are some mighty impressive grammatical gymnastics. “Have conducted” is certainly a verb and is certainly not present tense, as you claimed. And the word “never” is hardly confined to the present. Keep trying to weasel your way out of that one, if you like, with one self-contradictory post after another.
by WTM on Aug 9, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The money has been there for a while.
Nutting spends about what an average owner spends in MLB. The total expenditures of the Pirates always hover around 15th in all MLB, at least in recent years. The problem isn’t the money, it’s that it hasn’t been allocated properly. We were getting guys like Joe Randa, Jeromy Burnitz, Sean Casey and Matt Morris with the largest part of our budget while ignoring the draft, Latin America, and other ways of developing players.
If we get a core of talented young players, it will not only set us up to win for a long time, but it’ll also be cheap. Once that happens, THEN it’s time to spend big money in free agency. It’s not dissimilar to what the Rays did with Pat Burrell. That particular signing failed miserably for them (should’ve gone with Dunn, IMO), but the idea was right.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate
I’d like to see data that Nutting spends “about what an average owner spends.” Of course, Nutting doesn’t open his books so we’ll never know. But the independent analyses that have been done show him making en enormous profit and not spending anywhere near teams in comparable markets.
But your points on the draft and Latin America, I think are well stated.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 8, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
HOLY CRAP
I love you Bernie6666!!! A person who is wary of Nutting and parts of the current plan, but who expresses himself in a logical and coherent manner. You are my favorite person ever.
To comment, I agree. NH seems to have a good plan in place and what it really comes down to is what Nutting will do.
There are two things he needs to do that I think will completely gain his trust. First, he needs to sign Cutch to a long term deal soon (end of this year or sometime during the next, sooner rather than later) and second he needs to shell out whatever Harper (or Strasburg, if hes available next year) and sign them.
There seems to be some hope that the second will happen because, if you recall, NH said we would draft Strasburg if he somehow dropped to 4th. Although he didn’t expressly state this, I would imagine they would only make that promise if they intended on drafting and signing him and they would have to know Strasburg would be expensive.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Aug 8, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
I have a great deal of confidence in NH and FC. The issue will become whether they are allowed to do their jobs when the payroll goes up. I agree on Cutch. The organization needs to get that deal done.
Also, the team needs to continue to draft and sign top talents. As you note, what if Strasburg goes back in the draft? Will the team put extra money into the draft if he falls to them? Will it pursue other top talents?
I guess the questions I’d add are:
1. Will the team compete internationally for the top players? Not just make an offer. But actually sign them.
2. Will the team raise the first-year-player budget if a top talent is there?
3. Will the team pursue smart free agents? Example: Juan Rivera last year. No, I don’t mean the idiotic, over-the-hill signings of the past. But there are mid-level guys who could add to the team available in free agency nearly every winter.
4. How will the team use this year’s payroll savings? I laugh every time I heard a Pirate administrator say the major league payroll and draft budget come from different line items. Okay. But you now have a surplus of nearly $8 million. What are you going to do with it?
I’m much more optimistic with the team since the days of Jim Leyland. But, yes, I am incredibly skeptical of Bob Nutting.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 8, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Pirates are a profitable entity within themselves
…why do people think that FO types will spend money they dont have outside of their profits? They are not BHO who can ask the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to give him 1000 stacks of 100’s…..
Even the mighty Yankees are profitable. The Steinbrenner’s dont spend money they dont have. The Yankess are not operated on a line of credit!!!! If you are going to call Nutting cheap, then you have to call out EVERY owner of EVERY small/similar sized market team.
by vanslyke on Aug 7, 2009 9:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I have to laugh when people accuse the Nuttings of MAKING PROFITS as if it was some kind of sin. Every owner in the history of baseball was in it for profit. There’s a famous story about Connie Mack — He once said that his ideal team would stay in contention in the first half to get attendance up, then fall apart and finish with a bad record so he didn’t have to give the players raises. And he’s in the Hall of Fame.
I guess the owners themselves are to blame for fostering the impression that they were all philanthropists losing money hand over fist out of love for the game or civic-mindedness or whatever. That stuff was, is and always will be a myth, but there’s no excuse for fans still buying into it.
by WTM on Aug 7, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
WTM
If you have to go back to Connie Mack to make a point, you should examine your thesis.
I have zero problem with the Nuttings making a profit.
I have an enormous problem with the team not openings its books while the public pays for a new stadium. Meanwhile, former employees and magazine investigations show them making a ridiculous profit.
Combine that with how the Nutting family runs their own business ventures, and I’m very skeptical.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 8, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have to go back to Connie Mack, that was just one example. Every owner, ever, is or was in it for profit. Do you have one single example that shows otherwise? Do you think the various corporations that have owned teams in the last 10-20 years weren’t in it for profit? If you have no evidence, you shouldn’t be questioning anybody’s thesis.
And you keep making these assertions about “ridiculous” or “enormous” profits, but you’ve provided no basis for them. They’ve acknowledged making profits for the last 4-5 years, but nobody knows how much and nobody has any useful facts to go on, only speculation. There have been no “investigations.” That’s strictly your invention. You’ve provided no support whatsoever for the notion that there’s anything about the Nuttings’ profits that are out of line with the sport or with the business community generally. For all you know, their profit margin is completely unremarkable.
As for opening their books, no other team does that. When the politicians (after the voters refused) built their ballpark for them, they knew darn well the books would never be opened. That was the deal. If you don’t like it, you should vote against the politicians who pushed it through. They’re the ones to blame.
by WTM on Aug 8, 2009 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM
Have you owned a business? I have. I ran a magazine for about four years.
So, of course, every business wants to make a profit.
But I’ll again ask you some questions:
1. Do you think Nutting cuts corners more than other owners?
2. What evidence do you have that the Fortune estimates are wrong? Has a report for even one team ever been disproved?
3. Have you looked at the methodology of Fortune? Have you talked to the team that produces the reports? Do you know how they calculate the figures?
4. Why wouldn’t the Pirates open the books if the profits are modest? They certainly were willing to be more cooperative when they wanted public funding for a stadium.
Sorry I don’t take Nutting at his word that the profit is modest—as do few in baseball.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of this responds to anything I’ve posted. You made assertions that aren’t true and that you can’t back up. As to whether the Forbes estimates are wrong, nobody knows, including you and Forbes itself. Forbes doesn’t reveal its methodology, which by itself undermines their credibility.
And “modest” is your word, not mine. You made a claim that the profits are “ridiculous” and you can’t back it up. End of story.
by WTM on Aug 9, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM
Okay, because you say “end of story” that makes you right. Sorry.
Actually, “modest” is Nuttings’ word.
I stand by my perspective that the Forbes’ articles and other reporting show the Pirates profits are ridiculous.
I notice that you didn’t answer a single question. Shocking.
Criticize me. Criticize Forbes. But all you need to do is to add the Pirates’ revenue sharing, local TV revenue and national TV revenue and look at payroll to see that the team is making an enormous profit.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hold on.....
from a financial perspective that may or may not be true depending on whether you know how much leverage is on the business and the cost of their debt service.
EBITDA, Free Cash Flow and Net Income can be very different numbers.
Paying down debt should, inherently, add to the equity value of a business, but that doesn’t equate to making an enormous profit. So, without knowing the leveage and whether or not they are just paying interest or interest and principal we need to be careful with the terminology that we use.
A company can make a lot of money and go bankrupt because of debt service. I know this isn’t economics class but if you guys are going to argue about it all night let’s make sure we have all the salient issues on the table.
Not that I expect other people to follow this.
by dtoddwin on Aug 9, 2009 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You want answers to your questions?
1. The question doesn’t make any sense.
2. The Forbes numbers have been contradicted by MLB and Andrew Zimbalist has said he would not “take them to the bank.” Nobody knows where they get their numbers and they refuse to say.
3. Forbes refuses to reveal their methodology or sources. Since it’s well known (Zimbalist among others has pointed this out) that they have no access to the relevant data, as far as anybody can tell they simply invent the numbers.
4. Nobody opens their books. That’s why it’s a partnership and not a publicly traded corporation. Do you post your tax returns online? Most teams now have publicly financed ballparks and not a one lets anybody see their books. Why should they open their books? To make you happy? All it’ll accomplish is open them up to a lot of sniping and speculation by angry fans. No matter what’s in those books, it won’t satisfy anybody.
by WTM on Aug 9, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm amused by the idea of the Nuttings "cutting corners" more than most owners.
Have you ever read any of Bill Veeck’s writings about his time as an owner? There were lots of situations where he was borrowing from one questionable lender to pay another questionable lender across town, week after week. When he first bought the Indians, he had to borrow (and then quickly launder) a suitcase full of money from a mob lawyer in order to make the payment.
And he was one of the good guys.
by Vlad on Aug 10, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'm happy to call out other owners
Example: Tampa Bay’s ownership rejecting the idea of a minimum salary level in a new CBA, something similar to the NHL “cap.”
But …
You don’t seriously believe that Nutting puts the $s into the product as comparable sized market? If so, please read the independent examinations of the Pirates profits.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 8, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know how many different ways we can say this.
THERE. ARE. NO. INDEPENDENT. EXAMINATIONS.
None. There is speculation, yes. But all it is is an educated guess. We don’t have ANY IDEA how much profit Bob Nutting is making.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 8, 2009 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, maybe YOU don't!
But I’m sure Bernie6666 will be more than happy to open his copies of the Pirates’ books for us!
by matskralc on Aug 8, 2009 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate and matskralc
You can dispute the Fortune figures all you want. As far as I’m aware, no team has ever proven the figures wrong. Moreover, this is a pro-business magazine that does the reports.
The methodology is sound. Fortune uses economists. Fortune uses business executives. The articles are produced by business reporters and editors.
So they are all wrong and Bob Nutting is right. I’m skeptical.
It’s not that hard to add the MLB revenue sharing figure with other items like local and national TV revenue and ticket revenues to come real close on the income they generate.
It’s not that hard to add up the MLB salaries and come up with a figure for overhead.
Then it’s simple subtraction.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one has ever...
…proven them right, either.
As such, I don’t think they should be treated as much more than interesting speculation.
by Vlad on Aug 10, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bryce Harper
What are the chances JR tells his team the only good to actually come out of the rest of the season is to finish in last place, get the #1 draft pick next year, and pick Bryce Harper?
by jtads14 on Aug 7, 2009 12:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, he'll be a free agent in about eight years.
Start putting nickels in that piggy bank.
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Less than 0
But they could still lose enough games to get the #1 choice even if they’re trying. So there’s that.
by maguro on Aug 7, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can’t do that in baseball…it’s too hard to predict who is going to become a star and who is going to be a dud
by GL9 on Aug 7, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm surprised.....
how many people think Harper is a LOCK to go #1 next year. Yes, I’ve read all the stories, but I can’t see a book making a line above 60-40% at best.
by dtoddwin on Aug 7, 2009 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harper is the only prospect from next year's draft most people have heard of.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right now, he's the best talent on the board.
A lot of the associated uncertainty comes from the risk of injury – we’re eleven months away from the draft, and anybody can get hit by a bus if they step off a curb at the wrong time.
by Vlad on Aug 10, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so when does cain formally sign?
like evening today? after all the physicals and stuff?
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 12:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ascanio and Bootcheck are coming up
Veal to DL and Jackson sent down
by BigB23 on Aug 7, 2009 1:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It would seem
We’ve hidden Veal for the season, with minimal damage.
by Yotum on Aug 7, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His DL time doesn’t count against the one year he has to be on the ML roster. He will get a chance in Ariz IL though.
by WstCstBucco on Aug 7, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought
a rule 5 guy could be put on a 30-day rehab assignment, but any days beyond 30 would have to be “made up” the following year.
I don’t have a citation, though.
by dirtyfrank on Aug 7, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On B.U.C.C.O Fans
He points out that Veal must spend 90 days on the active roster and is at 85 now. He’ll be up once rosters expand.
by Yotum on Aug 7, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
But I’m still surprised that we didn’t get the Cubs’ rights to him in the Grabow/Gorzo deal.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Aug 8, 2009 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Veal to DL!
wow! whats he hurt? his feelings?
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NH’s crusade against lefties continues….
by JRoth95 on Aug 7, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well when its veal
i ll give him a break!
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
bootcheck has been lit up a couple of times
in AAA… not followed him with any consistency, but i ve seen the occasional horrendous outing in the box score!
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in case you didn't get that...
see definition 4 here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sinister
by dirtyfrank on Aug 7, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's an awesome etymology
I hear Michael Vick is sinister too.
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on Aug 7, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Matt Leinart.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sprained index finger on his pitching hand.
http://bucsbits.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/08/rhp_chris_bootcheck_also_joini.html
by Thunder on Aug 7, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
40 man roster...
now full again. I’m sure that when Dumatrait comes off the 60 day DL in a couple of weeks…Yates will go on it. Other than that…any other 40 man roster moves will necessitate someone departing from the roster.
by Thunder on Aug 7, 2009 2:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d sure hate to lose Jeff Salazar to a roster crunch.
Or Luis Cruz.
by WTM on Aug 7, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, Wilbur:
Do you know why they cut Cheng and sold Garcia? Both guys seemed like they were worth keeping an eye on…
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was Cheng the P at Lynchburg? I think I caught one of his starts—seemed like a decent pitcher down there (among some clunkers)
by Yotum on Aug 7, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he was in the Lynchburg rotation.
Ex-Blue Jays prospect, lefty with a big curve. Coming back from arm surgery.
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw both of them recently. Neither was impressive. Cheng was mostly throwing a loopy curveball and was sort of just getting by. I think he used to throw in the low 90s but he didn’t really have much of a fastball when I saw him. I didn’t see much there to think he’d get better. Garcia was throwing in the upper-80s. When he was a Marlins’ prospect, he threw in the mid-90s. Since velocity was his main asset, there again wasn’t much to build on. They probably just thought there were better ways to use the innings.
by WTM on Aug 8, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow!
What might this mean for ZVR? Presumably his price would be even higher.
by maguro on Aug 7, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BA ranked ZVR just a few spots lower than Tony Sanchez (I think it was #41 as opposed to #32), who got $2.5M. The Pirates handed ZVR a pretty good argument there.
by WTM on Aug 7, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or it means they know they aren’t going to come to an agreement with ZVR and they reallocated some of that money to make sure they got Cain. I mean, if he’s asking for $2 million+ (for example) I could see NH making the arguement that he’s just not worth that sum, end of story.
by mak_DC on Aug 7, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
leaving out the pirates for a moment
if ZVR is turning down say $1.5 mil for college, does anybody else also feel there’s considerable risk in doing that? If he doesnt go in the 1st round 3-4 years down the road, he doesnt get more, besides has that much less time to make it to the big leagues!
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t be thrilled about going to college if I was looking at a 7 figure bonus for going pro. Arm problems could happen by chance, or even they could happen because college coaches don’t care about your future and will throw you 140 pitches per game if it’ll get them a championship.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 7, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly! meant to talk about injuries but forgot… imagine having a steady 3 years without doing anything spectacular and all depends on the senior year, and bam! there goes the elbow!
hard to imagine getting drafted in the 6th round, with any serious injury in his senior year, unless he absolutely was on fire through the previous 3- even then, i d have my doubts
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a risk
especially since the Pirates will more than likely throw in money for his education if he wants it, he will get better training with minor league coaches/trainers, and he has more years if he comes out of high school to become a good major league player than if he comes out out of college where he is expected to progress quickly.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, there's risk.
But if he goes to school and pitches well, he could end up with $4-5M in three years, plus the start on a good education.
And no top-level athlete seriously believes that he’s going to fail. None that you’d want to have, anyway.
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i d disagree partly
while a top-level athlete might believehe wont fail, if he can get started as a pro now, i dont know why he would want to spend 3 years in college, if he’s decided that he s going to turn pro. Equally, he must be able to see risk-reward, and be aware that there exist some circumstance beyond his control. A bird in the hand, blah blah
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ZVR really likes the school.
He’s been a fan of theirs for years. As such, their offer is very tempting.
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
again fan of school vs pro start
but this might well make sense. As a fan, and an athlete with confidence in your abilities, i can see why he might feel he can have the best of both worlds, and would stick with it, unless dragged away on his own terms
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He may want to be the “big man on campus” type and enjoy being a kid a bit longer. As much as i respect guys for taking that route, I sure hope he signs with us…
by Yotum on Aug 7, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Present value.....
the money now, versus the “assumed” money later and the education, which would be valued at a very small number, and the injury risk has to tell you that anything in the neighborhood of $1.5 or higher is the better choice. Not that he can’t get $4-5, but that is not the likely scenario. Look how many guys didn’t.
by dtoddwin on Aug 7, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The way I always saw it...
If I were in high school and offered 7 figures, I’d take it. No questions asked. If I fail as at making it as an athlete, I have a boatload of money. I can go to school loan-and-debt free.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might agree with you if this were 16 Aug, but it’s hard to picture the Pirates giving up on ZVR so soon.
by maguro on Aug 7, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone on the site here...
…with a (claimed) personal connection to a scout who spoke to ZVR, said that the kid’s looking for $2M.
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i d be surprised
if he clung steadfastly to that. I don’t see the pirates forking over 1.5M, and that, IMO, might be the absolute limit
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hard to know.
I had him ranked above Sanchez when I drew up my pre-draft board (in the first sandwich round), so I think he’s easily worth seven figures. The only question is how high into the seven figures you’d want to go.
by Vlad on Aug 7, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends
on how many more guys they want to sign I would think. If they want only a couple more guys besides him, go high, if they want a few more, then stay to a lower amount and see if he bites.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i might have been hasty with 1.5
you make a good point with his college availability and prospect ranking, he might well not be willing to go under 2M, and the pirates might be willing to go that high too, although i imagine every step above 1.5 would have to be dragged out of them!
also, i wonder whether giving ZVR 2M along with 1.2M to cain could actually kill off this strategy for a couple of years? the spread-the-wealth thing
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO, this strategy is working rather well.
Seems Sanchez, Cain, and ZVR all carry borderline-1st-rd grades, as does den Dekker by Callis (I think?)
If we sign all 4 for roughly 6 mill, we get four lower-1st round-type guys for the same amount of money we spent on Pedro. Since there was no clear-cut Pedro (and this is debatable, surely—I’m simply going by my own opinion, sorry), we get somewhat equal value with more guys who can potentially be above-avg contributors.
by Yotum on Aug 7, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess my point was
That I hope, if there’s no “elite” talent they like, they don’t kill this strategy…
by Yotum on Aug 7, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was wondering
whether paying out that kind of money might make high schoolers come up with even bigger start-off demands!
bet stevenson might want to go higher now, say 900K even if he is overvaluing himself!
if mid-round picks start to demand that kind of money, negotiations might stop quickly1
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was a clear-cut Pedro.
But some team from Washington picked him before we had our turn.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The answer is....
they obviously should do it, but now it comes down to things like overall budget and perception at MLB and with other teams. Need to take advantage, but as others have pointed out, don’t want to change the structure that is in place. Stay below the radar.
by dtoddwin on Aug 7, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Changing the strategy is fine.
Just have to stay ahead of the curve once the league adjusts. Billy Beane’s changed his draft strategy like 10 times. It’s the bad part of small-market ingenuity: big-market teams copy it. Afterward, you have to find another unexploited thing.
The Pirates are also signing free agents form every corner of the world. I think that’ll give them a leg-up for a while in that area. South Africa is a growing baseball country. Imagine if Gift Ngoepe becomes the first South African Major Leaguer. The Pirates have the same advantage in South Africa that the Mariners, and Red Sox have in Japan. The Pirates are doing it in Korea, China, India and other places already. We make fun of signings like Ngoepe and Rinku and Dinesh now, but if they pan out and their countries become interested in baseball as a result, it could pay yearly dividends.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I said the Rockies......
asked him what it would take to sign him at 32 or 34 and the family said$2m but when Matzek fell to them at 11 they went cheaper at 32 and 34 since signing Matzek would probably 3m or more.
by buccoben on Aug 7, 2009 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny question on same twitter page
McEffect – 7 figures to an 8th rounder? WHY?
by TravisDW on Aug 7, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1st Round talent=1st Round $
thats why
by bucsfan5 on Aug 7, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t tell me. Tell the guy who asked Mayo that question on his twitter page
by TravisDW on Aug 7, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My apologies
Do not use twitter and did not see that it was someone else asking the question.
by bucsfan5 on Aug 7, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
7 figures for an 8th rounder = WOW
I think this tells us the Pirates really wanted this guy. From what I’ve heard I don’t blame them, I just hope Cain justifies it in the future
by Jett on Aug 7, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I remember correctly..
They gave Quinton Miller a 900k bonus and he was drafted in the 20th round.
"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 Aug 7, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is just another example of Nutting being cheap and refusing to open his purse.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 7, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Gorkys
Yeah, Nutting has insisted that the Pirates go above slot since he was a minority owner. Get the best player, regardless of cost. Right.
When I look back at his involvement with the Pirates, he never said anything as KM and DL destroyed the minor league system with cheap slot picks. He never advocated going over slot.
Oh my gosh, in two years, he has increased the first-year-player draft budget to nearly $10 million and signed a handful of picks over slot.
Meanwhile, he is saving $8 million on the major league roster this year.
If you think Nutting is a big spender and will open up the checkbook when the team gets better, I think you are going to be pretty disappointed.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 8, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you are wrong.
I remain catiously optimistic since he has publicly stated that he would. We most likely won’t find out for another couple of years best case scenario anyway. Check back with me again in a few weeks if we get outbid for Sano. I’ll most likely have a solid opinion then.
by Slick1 on Aug 8, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The owner is not supposed to tell the GM how to do his job. It seems like he trusted Littlefield, and if Littlefield wanted to sign picks at slot and he advocated that was the best way to build a team, the Nutting had no choice but to listen. If there was no trust, then Littlefield wouldnt have been on the job.
Im not saying that this is how it went down, just that i wouldnt automatically expect Nutting to question Littlefields judgement on how to run the draft.
by BuccoBrigade on Aug 8, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
Not every owner (if any) knows how to build a good team, so it would make sense to hire a person they think makes the baseball decisions based off interviews, pedigrees, and recommendations and then to listen to that person.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 8, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In Nutting's defense
I’ve never met any of his employees who said he wasn’t a good businessman and smart. But it took most people about two years to realize DL was a joke.
But Nutting clearly was running the team prior to becoming majority owner. It was Bud Selig who said Nutting had to change the ownership structure.
My theory, supported by what former employees have told me, is that Nutting was perfectly happy to make money and allow DL and KM to be the public scapegoats.
Also, I disagree with the premise that the owner doesn’t get involved with personnel decisions. Nutting had to see other teams going over slot and it paying off. But look at what the Pirates did.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 8, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But Nutting clearly was running the team prior to becoming majority owner.
Kovacevic has reported about eight thousand times that this is completely untrue.
by WTM on Aug 8, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"But Nutting clearly was running the team prior to becoming majority owner."
Source? What non-speculative evidence do you have here? What source inside Major League Baseball do you have that says “Nutting was pretty much in charge.”
Rocco DeMaro has reported on his show that he’s asked other people around baseball – mostly minority owners – how much pull a minority owner has. The response was overwhelmingly: almost none. Unless you’re “the guy,” the person who actually talks to Bud Selig, you don’t have much say in things.
Also, when the hell was Kevin McClatchy the public scapegoat? Ever since he began his tenure people were talking about “the Nuttings” and McClatchy being “their puppet.”
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 8, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Might as well talk to a brick wall
I’ve been through this so many times with so many Nutting bashers, I don’t know why I keep trying. Let’s just ignore Dejan and his numerous sources, for the sake of argument. The basic facts are still very simple. Until fall 2007, McClatchy controlled the board. He had two votes, plus that of his ally, Don Beaver (owner of the Hickory Crawdads, whose affiliation with the Pirates was—surprise!—discontinued shortly after Bob Nutting took over). The Nuttings had two. Starting in fall 2007, the Nuttings had three votes, McClatchy one and Beaver one. Although McClatchy said at that time he planned to remain in charge of the team’s day-to-day operations, Bob Nutting took over just a few months later. If you can add 2 plus 2, you can figure out what happened.
by WTM on Aug 8, 2009 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the time of the Wieters fiasco, Dejan Kovacevic reported that Nutting made the money available to Littlefield that would have been necessary to sign him. Littlefield chose to pass anyway. He then traded for Matt Morris – presumably with the money he saved from the draft.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 8, 2009 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few points to consider guys ...
I’m not going to respond point by point to this silliness.
I’ll just say this:
WTM, I have enormous respect for your baseball observations. I just think your business and financial observations lack the same depth and quality.
Also, you, Nate and matskralc leave out some key facts:
1. Nutting was board chairman since 2003. If you’ve owned a business, you know that the board chairman has an enormous role. You also know that he or she has intimate knowledge of the day-to-day operations.
2. KM never owned more than 15 percent of the team. Nate, he was never the majority owner and was a financial lightweight. In a business, the person with the most stock and money controls the operations. Exactly when the Nutting family took the majority stock position is unclear because it’s a privately held company. However, it was clearly earlier than 2007. Moreover, the Nuttings were the ones with the most money from day one.
3. In 2007, Bob Nutting owned more than 50 percent of team stock (tmore than three times KM’s holdings) when he was directed by Bud Selig to become majority owner.
So WTM, it’s not a simple 3 versus 2. In fact, KM and BN have both said all team votes were unanimous. Moreover, Nutting could have taken over the board much earlier because he owned more stock than KM and Don Beaver.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course they were unanimous. No partnership that depends on banks for its financing is going to allow the appearance that not everybody is on board. Once votes like these start getting contentious, it’s a sign that the business is a wreck. McClatchy was guaranteed control by the makeup of the board, which was NOT determined by partnership percentages (Uh, by the way, partnerships don’t have stock). The Nuttings could only harm the business by creating a dispute. Things in these situations are always settled BEFORE the vote takes place. All you’re doing is convincing me you know nothing about how businesses are run.
by WTM on Aug 9, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes and no WTM
No, not all partnerships are unanimous. McClatchy was initially guaranteed control by the board.
But that changed once Nutting started buying stock. When, how much and the type of stock are open questions.
Actually, I owned a business. I had several partners. It all depends on the type of corporation, financing and type of stock people owned. You act like once a board is set that it’s a permanent entity. No, it changes as ownership does.
Sorry you don’t feel my business knowledge matches yours. But I notice you failed to address a single issue I raised.
by Bernie6666 on Aug 9, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s not much to address because you don’t know what you’re talking about. First off, as I said before, partnerships don’t have stock, and partners aren’t guaranteed voting rights the way stockholders are in most corporations. In any event, as you yourself admit, the partnership agreement (actually not the board except as a result of the agreement) guaranteed McClatchy control initially. Control in a partnership isn’t determined by amount invested, as you mistakenly believe, it’s determined by the agreement and how that agreement assigns voting rights. It’s very common for a partnership to be controlled by a person who doesn’t have that much invested. That’s typically the case with feature films, for instance, and for various types of real estate partnerships. By assigning McClatchy two votes, the agreement guaranteed him control due to one other vote being held by Don Beaver, who always supported him. Until McClatchy, pursuant to the partnership agreement, lost one of his votes—which happened in 2007—he was guaranteed control. Your assumption that $$$ = control is simply wrong. It depends on the partnership agreement.
by WTM on Aug 9, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kevin Hart
What did folks think of Hart’s work last night? Curious what people thought of his velocity and his mechanics. Going by visual and anecdotal stuff, the guy looked miserable, enough so it struck me to comment during the game. On the mound and in the dugout, he looked awfully down. According to the P-G, he left the clubhouse before the media arrived.
by RichieHebner on Aug 7, 2009 2:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Seemed to have better velocity than I thought (even hit 96). I didn’t see the game (had to watch on Gameday and listen through XM radio), but he seemed pretty solid.
Also, FWIW, my buddy—a big Cubs fan—was pretty down on giving away Hart.
by Yotum on Aug 7, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought his stuff.....
was very good. Some swings and misses. Good velocity. Sharp break on the split. I was surprised by some friends at the game and others who weren’t impressed. I was.
by dtoddwin on Aug 7, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I loved his velocity. Good stuff. Sharp, heavy fastball that comes out between 92-93 most of the time and touches 96. Has a neat looking little sink right at the end. Average slider with a late break, nice downward drop on the curve.
I’m actually cautiously high on Hart. His change doesn’t really have enough of a speed differential, but it’s one he only recently added to the repertoire and it’s his only pitch that isn’t either average or plus. I doubt he’ll ever be a top of the rotation guy, but he could be WAY better than the average #4. Maybe a #3 if Alderson or one of the other guys we’re projecting to be in the 2012 rotation don’t pan out.
Not only that, the control issues he saw with the Cubs are a recent development. He was lights out from the bullpen and kept his walks to a reasonable rate. Of his 14 walks, 10 came in his first 2 starts. It could have been something as simple as making the adjustment from reliever to starter or not being stretched out all the way. In his last 3 starts, he’s walked 1, 2 and 1 batters and struck out 4, 4 and 5. Seems like good back-of-the-rotation stats to me.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and that one in the last start
was intentional
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 7, 2009 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed.
Forgot that (very important) detail.
FWIW, I have several friends that are Cubs fans. They all seem to like Hart’s stuff more than that of ROY candidate Randy Wells. They were bummed about giving him up. Ascanio, not so much.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 8, 2009 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lot of guys...
…show a little control blip when they first come up. It’s scary pitching in the majors, and they try to be too fine with their spots, because they worry about catching too much of the plate and getting hammered.
Most adjust, given a little time. We’ll see whether Hart does.
by Vlad on Aug 10, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mayo
is thinking of a number between 1,100,000 and 1,200,000
can you guess the number?
by dirtyfrank on Aug 7, 2009 2:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
assuming the between 1.1 and 1.2 mil is correct
i m pretty sure the actual number is $1,142,019
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
and everyone was making a big deal about the other kid signing for $350K and it being $125K over slot. What is slot for 235th pick?
by bucsfan5 on Aug 7, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
erm
i m guessing u might hav a more direct route to the actual number, but i should clarify (although i m guessing most ppl figured) that the number i pulled out of my ass is bogus- there is some significance to the numbers, but not a terrible lot
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
assuming that was (sarcastically) directed at me
my apologies if the language was somewhat unpolished.
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no
I was saying you were very warm with the number you pulled out of your ass
by bucsfan5 on Aug 7, 2009 4:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
C'mon Mrs. Cain
You can tell us the exact number…deal’s done, right?
by maguro on Aug 7, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dodson signs too
Jennifer Langosch reports that the Bucs have signed not only Cain but also Dodson! I went to the page because BuccoFans.com pointed to it as a reference for the signing bonus for Cain, but might have missed the Dodson signing!
This is cool! I wonder if anyone has any real info on Dodson. The scouting report for him seems just as good as the rest, but he was decidedly less-hyped, so was wondering if anyone knows anything beyond it! His figures are amazing!
Also, I am sure if anyone dug into it, they’d find the bonus was not 1.15M but the well-thought-out 1,142,019 that I quoted above! ;-)
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 6:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
If Dodson and Cain both sign for around $1M, is there any money left for ZVR? Maybe they have given up hope on him.
by maguro on Aug 7, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
there were calculations somewhere
if we say 2.1 total to Cain + Dodson, we are at 7.16 M
Approx 3M left… i dont know if they will go beyond say 1.3-1.5 for ZVR, if they go 2, that gives them a max of 2 more high-upside picks, maybe 3. if they get him for 1.5, maybe 5 more… dont know… i d still say get him maybe till about 1.8, and see how you can spread the remaining 1 M
by BurgherKing on Aug 7, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow really?
I honestly expected that number to be double that
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
by glass0941 on Aug 7, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap.
Dodson came WAY cheaper than I thought.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Nate Rose on Aug 7, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i just saw this on the buccofans tracker too
although i couldnt find a link to confirm/cross-check!
and this was basically why i cam to this thread…
BA sounds like a reliable source- buccoben, if its possible, could you post the link?
by BurgherKing on Aug 8, 2009 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 











