Pirates Agree to Terms with Brendan Donnelly
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 16, 2010 4:28 PM EST
Email
PrintThe Bucs have agreed to terms with reliever Brendan Donnelly on what appears to be a one-year, $1.5 million major-league deal.
It's tough to know what the Pirates are getting with Donnelly, who's spent much of the past several years being injured, but he made a triumphant return last year, posting a microscopic ERA for a couple months with the Astros' AAA affiliate in Round Rock and then probably pitching even better for the Marlins. He struck out about three times as many as he walked at both stops. His velocities last year suggest his stuff was about the same as it was before having Tommy John surgery in 2007. He'll be 39 in July, so it's hard to call this a huge-upside move, but I do think it's a worthwhile gamble--Donnelly was one of the best members of some of those awesome Angels bullpens of a few years back, and he showed indications last year that he's back from an injury that slowed him since then. He isn't likely to post a 1.78 ERA the way he did last year, but let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. It's only $1.5 million.
143 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I cannot wait
to hear someone tell me this was another dumb move by the pirates and they should have just kept Capps and Chavez. I wait and see what the cat drags in.
I’m glad the Pirates have a former steroid user now on the team. It’s been a while.
Donnelly was referred to Kirk Radomski by Adam Riggs according to Radomski. Radomski said Donnelly contacted him looking for the anabolic steroid Anavar, instead Radomski reportedly sent the pitcher Deca-Durabolin (also an anabolic steroid).
Pirates' budget
Charlie (or anyone else), do you know or can you point me in the direction of an article that explains how the Pirates’ budget works? Is the MLB budget kept separate from the scouting/drafting/etc. budget? I don’t think the Pirates should have kept Capps or (especially) Chavez, but I’m not sure why we’re guaranteeing $1.5M to Donnelly and also looking to bring in Dotel (for what everyone seems to assume will be $3M).
I feel about this about the same way I feel about the Church signing: it’s objectively a good signing, but I worry about the context. In that case, they’re talking about using Church as a fourth outfielder, and since they’re overflowing with outfield options, I don’t like the use of resources on a small upgrade for a part-time player. Similarly here, I think one of Donnelly/Dotel gives us plenty of bullpen options, and although signing both is a bit of an upgrade, I think that upgrade is so slim that it’s not really worth it.
Unlike the Church thing, we’re not really blocking anyone with upside here, but I think the value of that $1.5M in the 2010 draft will be greater than the value of 2010 Donnelly. To bring it full circle, that’s why I ask about the budget. If they have a payroll budget of $50M or whatever that is independent of their $12M or whatever draft budget, I can understand and even more-or-less support these signings. If it’s all just one budget, I think we’re really entering the territory of diminishing returns, and I’d rather see the money go toward the draft.
Personally, the idea of separate budgets seems kind of stupid to me, but I can sort of understand Nutting saying, “Look, you have this much money to put a respectable product on the field this year and you have this much money to build for the future.” I could also understand Neal not wanting to go too much higher than $10-15 million on the draft, because once somebody starts throwing money around in the draft it will quickly become a game that teams like the Pirates can’t win, just like free agency.
Who is Church blocking again? Moss? I’m really not too concerned about that…Moss had his chances last year and showed nothing.
Well, he’s semi-blocking Moss, but also initiating a chain reaction that’s going to result in releasing somebody unless we can make a trade. That said, I’m not too upset about it either, but if Church really is just a 4th outfielder, he’s only a half-win upgrade or so from Moss in that role, and I’m ambivalent about whether that’s a better investment than drafting or international scouting or whatever. However, as tjc points out downthread, there are separate budgets for MLB payroll and drafting/scouting, so the money’s not really an issue, in which case I like the deal(s).
I think...
as you already mentioned that the budgets are separate and the signing of players won’t affect the draft. Besides what is our MLB payroll up to now, $36 – $38,000? We have plenty of cash to add players on one year deals.
you may want to add a few zeroes :-)
even Nutting’s not that cheap!
by BurgherKing on Jan 16, 2010 10:35 PM EST up reply actions
The Law of Dimishing Returns would affect spending more money on the draft more than it would aquiring WAR in the manner NH is doing.
What these signing show is that Huntington sees equal WAR in starters, bench players, and relievers as equal value and worth equal money. And why not? That’s the point of comparing them with this method. What I’ve seen is that, considering the money Huntington has offered these players, Huntington has shown that he is comfortable paying $3M per WAR.
At .5 WAR, that makes the Church signing perfectly understandable. There are performance bonuses so that if he is playing more (and building more WAR), he’ll get more money.
Donnelly was worth .6 WAR last year, and probably will be around .5 WAR in 2010…$1.5M.
Dotel as a closer will probably be worth 1-2 WAR…$3M-$6M depending on incentives.
Akinori Iwamura should be worth at least the 1.6 WAR his $4.85M would suggest.
The Law of Diminishing Returns would only come into effect if you paid 4 outfielders all market wages to get 700 PAs per year, or 6 relief pitchers to accumulate 80 innings.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 16, 2010 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
Well, diminishing returns can also be a factor if you’re replacing above-replacement players instead of replacement players. Church is about a 1.5-win player in 500 PAs, which is probably a 1-win improvement over Clement (assuming his defense is -5 at first base), making it a good deal if Clement is in AAA and Church is our right fielder. However, Church is about a 1-win player in 350 PAs, which is less than half a win of improvement over Moss in similar playing time. So if he’s the fourth OF instead of Moss, there are your diminishing returns. It’s possible that NH just really doesn’t believe in Moss, which is fine, but if we’re going strictly by projections, Church as a fourth outfielder is a very debatable way to spend money for a team with Brandon Moss and a tight budget.
Similarly with Donnelly, he might be a .5 WAR player, but if we sign Dotel too, then Donnelly’s not replacing a replacement level pitcher: he’s taking a bullpen spot from Ascanio or Hart, who are both better than replacement level. That’s where diminishing returns come in. It’s not just paying 4 people for 3 spots, it’s also making marginal upgrades over above-replacement players already on the team.
That said, I don’t think there’s any way to criticize the Iwamura trade, since he’s replacing Young, who is definitely replacement-level at 2B. On top of all of which, it’s been made clear that if NH doesn’t spend this money it goes to waste, since he can’t transfer it to the draft or international scouting, and since he’s paying less-than-market rates, I am unequivocally in favor of all of the recent moves.
Well...
I think most of us who like the Church signing don’t have a lot of faith in Mostt being a 1.0 WAR. I know those our his projections but he was a “0.1 WAR” last year. I don’t have a lot of confidence that he’s going to improve enough offensively for Church to be at least +1.0 WAR improvement over him. And Donnelly isn’t taking innings from anyone. Hart is competing for the 5th starter position and McCutchen will likely end up in AAA again if he loses. Ascanio may never pitch again after tearing his labrum so Donnelly needs to be compared to the garbage we were running out there last year like Bootcheck, Veal, Batista, Yates, etc. And if Hart does go to the pen his competition is Carrasco not Donnelly. Carrasco is the long man.
The projections for Moss
All have him hitting higher than .260 BA. I would like to know where this comes from. I haven’t seen many hitters that normally hit higher than .260 in MLB who could not hit higher than .282 in AAA. Moss now has 2 years with a .304 OBP in MLB.
All I can say about those projections is, they don’t seem to be applicable on an individual level.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
Not to mention
Except for a 10 game span in May when he hit over .500, Moss hit .200 on the year. I can see nothing that he has done to make anyone expect he can hit .270.
Although, I just realized his Marcel projection seems a lot more realistic to me: .249/.316/400.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
I agree...
I see .260 BA as his ceiling next year if everything clicks. That Marcel projection is actually a lot closer to how I see him performing. If he felt the pressure to perform last year because of the Bay trade how do you think he is going to do this year knowing this is his last chance? I won’t be surprised if he doesn’t even make the team out of spring training.
If money is not spent, it wouldn’t “go to waste”. It would just be saved to be spent at another time. Unless you believe the Pirates are outright lying when they say the owners are not taking dividends out of profit the Pirates make. There have been reports that some of the minority owners were upset that Nutting wouldn’t let anyone even pay the taxes they would owe on the asset by paying that in a dividend.
If you take a look at the analysis I did on the Brewers situation from 2004 on (On the PG blog today), you’ll see the Brewers likely made $30M in profit the first year they hit .500, with a payroll level under $40M. Over the next 2 years, their payroll rose to the $70M level. It seems they used that money made in 2005 and 2006 as a cushion that allowed them to raise payroll over those next years when needed. By 2007, they were making $20M more than that even, allowing them to raise payroll another $11M and giving them a way to offer Sabathia $20M per year.
When you are dealing with attendance fluctuating depending on how good your team is, things can change quickly and force sell-offs like what happened in Cleveland and Detroit recently. There needs to be a cushion so you can make good decisions based on what’s best long term instead of being in panic mode like what happened in Pittsburgh in 2003.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
Also...
I think the crux of the matter is in your phrase “if we’re going strictly by projections”.
Huntington is clearly not going strictly by any projection system. Why should he? The Pirates know those players a lot better than CHONE, Bill James, Marcel, etc.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
What I think I think about
the Church, Dotel (hopefully), Carrasco, and Donnelly signings…
- Are the Pirates keeping the Player’s Union and MLB happy by paying a little more for older, more established players? All of these positions could have been filled from w/in with players with less years of service. We haven’t blown out our budget, but its harder to complain that we’re pocketing revenue sharing money. (okay, don’t post telling me that should be “marginally” or “arguably” harder.
- All four players should improve the Pirates if their stats this year are close to their stats last year or career. I’d rather have a consistent veteran than a high risk/middlin’ reward (or low risk, bottemless reward) younger player on the bench or in the bullpen.
- None of the four are blocking anyone.
- All four could be useful trade bait if the Pirates are muddling around .500 and in 4th or 5th place, these four are playing reasonably well, and some team needs that one piece to make a run for a playoff spot.
Disagree...
they are upgrading at several positions which means they are adding wins to the MLB team. This is how you upgrade a roster, +.5 – +1 WAR at a few different positions while hoping for a couple of your regulars to breakout. These are one year signings so they don’t hurt the long term.
I wouldn't be surprised
if at least one of them were moved at the deadline. As someone pointed out before, having both Donnelly and Dotel appears to be a slightly larger investment than necessary. if they got good value, I don’t think they’d hesitate to move them. There’s a slim chance we could be close to the leaders (close enough) to continue with the group, but unlike Church, who I doubt will bring much back, this could be a thought in NH’s mind.
Pure speculation, of course.
by BurgherKing on Jan 16, 2010 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
I don't disagree...
but I simply mean that Huntington didn’t acquire these players with the sole intention of getting a return at the deadline. He got them to add wins.
It’s only a larger investment than needed if the Pirates find other cheaper relievers (like Moskos, Aguero or Uviedo) who can do the job. If those guys can do the job, then someone could be traded. But there are plenty of innings available. The Pirates had the 4th fewest relief innings available in 2009 – 466 innings.
Relief pitchers don’t pitch more than 60 innings per year, so that’s still a lot of pitchers needed. It’s not like if we have 5 or 6 strong relievers, they aren’t going to get enough innings to warrant paying them.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 4:53 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe...
I missed where Moskos, Aguero or Uviedo have even remotely shown they are capable of pitching at the major league level at this point. I wouldn’t even place them in the discussion at this point.
depending on the route they decide to go with moskos, both aguero and moskos could end up in the bigs in 2010. I wouldn’t be totally surprised.
by BurgherKing on Jan 17, 2010 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
Moskos and Aguero are probably going to be in the discussion by year’s end.
But my point was that it’s unlikely that the investment is larger than needed. There are plenty of innings where you want a good pitcher to pitch and if you don’t have an internal answer right now (and we don’t), there’s no reason you can’t get those innings at a reasonable price, as Huntington is proving.
Relievers, bench players and average type starters are where the Pirates SHOULD be spending their free agent dollars. Obviously, it’s not realistic to go out and pick up a #1 starter or 35HR guy in free agency. Those guys must be internally developed.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
Double Disagree
I’ll bet that Dotel or Donnelly gets traded before the deadline. I do agree that these aren’t huge financial risks, but really what does +1 or even +3 WAR get us?
Considering they are replacing guys with negative WAR, actually a lot. Why should we not want to win more games in 2010? If we don’t try to make incremental improvement on every aspect of the team, we’ll never get any better.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
Three part answer! bordering on a Manifesto
Part 1: What is the goal here? I see three options:
A) Is management’s goal to be a perennial WS contender? If so, they’re delusional, simply tilting at windmills. Not possible under the current system and current ownership.
B) Is management’s goal to be the NL version of the Twins? I guess I’d sign up for that. But we have yet to demonstrate the “Twin” (double entendre coming) capacity of both identifying talent and developing it. The stark reality is that the Twins, while great at building a competitive team, simply cannot get over the post-season hump due to their budget constraints. Every year, if they can make the playoffs, they’ll need to run the gauntlet of some combination of NYY, BOS, ANA that are all spending at least 50% more than the Twins. I believe an NL team stands a better chance of winning a WS simply because their path to the WS isn’t as onerous (i.e., no BOS/NYY). And in a 7-game series, anything can happen.
C) Is management’s goal to replicate the Marlin model – building a core and adding several large FA’s at the right time to make a once a decade visit to the WS promised land (keep in mind the team is quickly dismantled for prospects)? Again, they’d have to add to scenario B above by spending some significant $ at the right time. I’d sign up for that deal too.
Now with that said, our beloved Bucs have not shown the ability of the Twins in identifying talent consistently or in developing talent consistently. Furthermore, it’s nice to hear the platitudes of NH when he says the Bucs will spend money when they get close to the post-season. But I’m going to remain a skeptic on two fronts. First, this team is a long, long way away from contending for a playoff spot (and I’ll rejoice in eating my words). How many rebuilding efforts have we endured the last 15 years? Take a cold hard look at reality and you’ll see that for close to two decades we’ve been out of the playoff race by the all-star break. So I doubt we’re going to get close enough to consider being a buyer at the trade deadline. And second, if all the stars line up, and we are in that position to upgrade for a playoff push, do you really believe that management will pull the trigger? Call me a skeptic, but I just don’t believe that the Bucs will execute when it comes down to brass tacks.
Part 2: The WAR argument…
The WAR arguments listed throughout this thread are dreams and wishes. The Pirates simply don’t develop talent consistently across the board that we hope for. For every Nate McLouth breakout, there are three players that regress (due to age, lack of talent or injury). In other organizations the Steve Pearces develop into productive members in the majors, or they are shipped out as “budding prospects” for ML ready talent. The Bucs are inept and unlucky, which is a fatal combination for a team with extremely limited financial resources (note: more on this in part 3).
Back to WAR – lets just say that we get +2 incremental improvement from every position player – does that equate to +16 wins? Can we agree that would require something on the level of winning the power ball luck? And what is the result? Last season we won 62 games and for arguments’ sake, lets say each position resulted in +2 increment wins, that still ends up with 78 wins – which is still 4 games below 500 and still is a losing baseball team in the best ballpark in the world… and all of this is, in my eyes, unacceptable.
At the moment, I’m not aware of a team in the last 20 years that won “incrementally” – ie., the teams are winning perennially, or they come from out of nowhere. The teams that win perennially are the “haves” that include NYY, BOS, NYM, ANA, NYM, LA, ATL, PHL and the exception to the rule MIN (a truly skilled franchise). The teams that come from nowhere are the have nots (FL, TB to name a few). The Pirates obviously fall into the “have not” category and would need a combination of luck (they’re due) skilled talent evaluation and development (tbd, but past history suggests it’s not gonna happen) and financial commitment (anyone want to buy some swampy FL real estate?).
Part 3: The real motivation of this regime: $
First off, let’s not seperate Nutting and McClatchey. Nutting has always been a significant part of the ownership team. And while McClatchey was the face of the organization, I don’t believe he was ever the final say on anything.
Second, the current ownership group, most notably Nutting, cannot compete with the rest of MLB owners. They don’t have the resources to pull from or the financial flexibility to do what other league owners can do.
Third, I don’t believe that the current owners are in it to win it. Options A, B and C at the top are all off the table. Because they don’t have the financial resources to truly compete and because the Newspaper business is dying, I believe that the Pirates are primarily an income stream for Nutting and his team.
If I were an owner and I knew that there was no way on God’s green earth, that I could win a WS, what I do? What would you do? Me? I’m emotionally involved, so I’d do all I could do to field a winning team. That’s why my shareholders would hate me, because I’d always be in the red. The Nutting group, however, is gaming the system to maximize profits, which conveniently are private. They’re taking advantage of the luxury tax, a sweetheart deal on a stadium, and enjoying a free pass from MLB as long as they spend more than the Marlins.
In business there are two ways to increase profitability: a. grow revenues and b. reduce expenses (yes a gross oversimplification) The Pirates are going with plan B And this is why the Bucs will never make the leap. They are taking the easy way out by reducing expenses which, in my viewpoint is only a short term solution. The only way to really grow the value of the franchise, is by growing the brand and this is accomplished, largely by winning, which in turn is accomplished by spending money on ML payroll. The message we keep hearing from the ownership group, we’re building for the future – but what we’re seeing is the delay in committing money to ML players.
Jack Wilson is a great example of this philosophy. While never a great offensive force, Wilson is a fantastic fielder and the type of player that makes a difference for a pitching staff, especially one that doesn’t produce many swings and misses. In 2009 he made $7.4MM which was highest on the team. He was traded along with Ian Snell for next to nothing (albeit cheap) – Clement was the “jewel” of the trade, a good hitting catcher with injury issues (see Doumit, Ryan) – the Bucs will leverage that talent into an injury prone, weak hitting, poor fielding 1B (what’s the WAR projection for that?). The message from the ownership group was that we used the talent we have to build for the future. But the truth is, they dumped the salary of the most popular Pirate (along with one of their best pitching arms) and got little in return for them.
So stop drinking NH Koolaid, it’s the same stuff that DL was dispensing. Maybe NH is less inept, the jury is still out there. The fact of the matter is that the overall team philosophy is to do things on the cheap, tread water at 70 wins, and generate cash for the owners.
Epilogue: If you’ve gotten this far, I should offer you congratulations… or condolences, not sure which. I’m holed up in my house “Rear Window” style after a procedure on my knee which has me nearly immobile for another few days… Let’s just say I’m bored out of my skull right now and hopped up on Vicodin.
Also, I’m a diehard fan, despite my ranting above. I just bought a ticket for FL and will see the Bucs in Bradenton at least twice, which makes about 50 Bucs spring training games in the past 15 years. If you haven’t been to McKechnie, you need to go, trust me. When I lived in the Burgh, I took in 10-20 games per year. And despite threatening year after year to adopt a better franchise, I cannot and will not rip the cord. So there.
Go Bucs (for better or for worse).
I appreciate your enthusiasm
On PART 1 –
Huntington has said there are parts of other “models” they are drawing from, but they have their own ideas of how to put together a team and refuse to be put into a preexisting model of the “Marlins model”, the “Twins model” or the “Cleveland model”. But I would say they are attempting to be most similar to the Twins model.
You are right that it’s hard to get over the top, but what are you going to do? Them’s the breaks. There are 30 teams trying to win the WS, so if you are just average, you are going to go every 15 years and win once every 30. Add in the fact the snooker table is tilted towards the large market teams, and it’s tough to win.
However, I’ll remind you that in many of the World Series the Pirates have won, they were decided underdogs and yet prevailed. That made the victory all that much sweeter.
On PART 2 –
When you have near replacement level production from your RF, 1B, 2B and C for most months of the 2009 season, it’s quite possible to add 16 WAR of improvement in 2010 when you factor in the pitchers and relief corps especially.
Secondly, the Pirates of 2009 under-performed their WAR. Instead of winning 62 games, they should have won around 67 games. So a 16 WAR improvement would actually have them expected to win around 82 games.
As far as the have-nots coming out of nowhere, the Rays were an exception. Normally, bad teams make a run at .500 before they are able to truly contend in the following years.
On PART 3 –
There’s just no basis for any of your financial accusations in this part and I’ve already explained the “money grubbing miser” fallacy of it so many times I’m not going to rehash it.
But I will say this: there are 30 teams, and only 12 teams that will likely always be ahead of the Pirates in payroll no matter what. And there are 18 teams who are pretty much in the same boat as the Pirates if the Pirates can get their house in order as far as scouting, development, etc. Are all 18 of those teams just going to throw in the towel because there are 12 teams that can outspend them? No.
The truth is everyone is trying to win, Bob Nutting included. The idea that Nutting somehow needs money from the PBC in order to put food on his table is just ridiculous. It’s as ridiculous as the belief that other owners are richer than Nutting, and so therefore the Pirates can not spend as much on payroll. That is just plain not how the world works. Each and every owner has their own bundle of assets and each one of those assets stands on its own unless there is a special investment made into it. I don’t understand how rational people don’t get this concept.
As far as Jack Wilson goes, I would have liked to have kept him for the price Huntington offered or possibly up to $5M. Will either Clement or Cedeno or both prove themselves worth more than Jack in the next years? We’ll see. But to say the return was “next to nothing” is really not correct. Was there a risk in making the trade? Yes.
BTW, this particular trade is the only trade made so far where going into 2010 I would rather have the player that we traded instead of the player that he has been replaced with. I will take Milledge over Bay, Cutch over McLouth, Tabata/Jones over Nady, Aki over Freddy, Andy over Joey Bats and Clement/Jones over Adam.
I’m going to come out and predict that Milledge and Andy will each be very comparable in terms of WAR with Bay this year.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Cedeno and Clement aren’t as valuable as Wilson and Snell, IMO. But if we add in the pitchers, which is the most important part of the deal, then it was a good, solid trade. Lorin and Adcock aren’t great pitching prospects, but they are at least decent and one way to build a solid rotation is to throw a bunch of young arms against the wall to see if they stick. Now we have a boatload of those young pitchers that, in a few years, will really bolster the rotation and pen.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 18, 2010 11:08 AM EST up reply actions
I re-read Keith Laws analysis
He didn’t think much of any of the Bucs return for Wilson/Snell. Then again, he may have cut/pasted from the Sanchez/Bay/McLouth etc trades where we got quantity for “quality”.
I will say this, the sheer number of C prospects we’ve received would be great if this were the Twins or Marlins systems that consistently churns out ML players. Unfortunately the Pirates have done a dreadful job of turning talent/tools into ML ready players.
Kevin Goldstein liked the Seattle return, so I think the overall opinion was more of a split decision.
Unfortunately the Pirates have done a dreadful job of turning talent/tools into ML ready players.
It’s hard to lay that at Neal Huntington’s feet. He’s only been on the job for two seasons and has drafted a bunch of high school kids in the last two drafts. High school kids take more than 2 years to get to the majors. We’re likely looking at another three years before we see the effects of this newly built high school pipeline. If we don’t see effects by then, even I’ll complain. The big college players like Alvarez and Tony Sanchez will be up before then, but they are only part of the puzzle.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 18, 2010 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
What does Nutting have to do with developing players? It’s clear that the development system that has been put into place is the brainchild of FC and NH. Nutting just oversees the budget to make sure the funds are within his risk tolerance. It’s the job of the President and GM to define priorities and determine how the money is best spent.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 18, 2010 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
It all starts from the top
Ownership sets everything in motion. Ownership tells the GM/Pres etc… how he wants the organization to look; priorities; goals and time lines.
all valid thoughts
- - the law of averages doesn’t apply to this because the system is not normative. The Pirates refuse to invest on par with the rest of the league and therefore will not compete for a WS.
- - Yep the Rays competed for 1 year, they lost and returned to mediocrity. A low spending team has to hit everything perfect for their one shot to compete. Rays drafted wisely (see Moskos, Daniel), developed their talent, made a few FA aquisitions and traded talent for talent. Everything fell into place including getting career years from several of their players. The following year, it all unraveled and they are close to being dismantled.
- - I think you give Nutting and the ownership group a lot of grace here. Because of the private nature of the PBC financial books and Nuttings’ wealth, we can only look at the results.
I will submit that even if Nutting has the wealth of Paul Allen, Drayton McLain, John Henry or the Steinbrenners, it would appear that he doesn’t have the same commitment to winning that they do. Nutting COULD decide to have his cake and eat it too… he COULD play in the FA market to field a competetive team, while he is restocking the minor league system. No, he doesn’t have to bid on the top FA’s every year (once would be nice), but the second tier of free agents could be had and we could throw out a real ML team from April through September with the chance of sniffing a playoff spot. NH keeps talking about value, I disagree. If he really was looking at value, he would be in discussions with J Piniero and O Hudson. These guys produce at mid-range salaries and thus are values. Do you think that CC Sabathia brought value to the Brewers in 2008 and Yankees in 2009? He was expensive for sure, but he won – I’d consider that a value too. What NH is talking about is finding players that have few other options that he can get CHEAP and maybe we’ll get some production out of them. IMO there’s a huge difference between CHEAP and VALUE.
When was the last time we had an ML team on the field in September? It’s been a long time that we’ve been watching a AAAA team in Pittsburgh and this is due to the ownership’s refusal to commit enough financial resources to make this team competitive. I only see: a. the ownership doesn’t have the resources or b. they do have the resources but refuse to use them.
I think option b is the ownership’s MO It sure looks to me like Nutting is someone that is dabbling in baseball with the ultimate goal of turning a profit.
The problem with the second-tier free agents is that they won’t make us much better. We already traded for a 2B about as good as Hudson in Iwamura. Piniero might add a win or two to our season total, but he wants at least a 3 year deal which is a bad fit for our situation. Unless we’re getting in on the big boys, we’re not going to be able to catapult into the playoffs because of a free agent signing or two. Piniero won’t significantly affect the standings. Same with Garland and Washburn, as someone in another thread asked.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 18, 2010 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
Not sure about that...
Replacing our #4 of $5 with Piniero would be a significant upgrade and the cost would be nothing but money. A 3-year deal would block which enormous prospect coming to the rotation? The Bucs reluctance in the FA market is not about their rebuilding plan, it’s about $. Furthermore, a Piniero signing would have the fringe benefit of helping the bullpen. And lastly, it would be the kind of move that signals to the fanbase that ownership cares about winning in the short term without long term effects. Trading on the other hand compromises our ability to put a winning team on the field – our trades have given us a number of prospects with a chance of future returns.
Again, the message(s) that we get from the ownership is:
a) we have a plan
b) we are using our current assets to build for the future
Coincidentally (not so), this message also gives the results of bottom of the league spending, bottom of the league performance and (I assume) a nice bottom line.
If healthy, Iwamura is similar to Hudson.
My argument is that we could upgrade several positions and raise our salary just to league average. If ownership has the $ to do it, what’s prohibiting this philosophy?
I’m not looking to catapult to the playoffs, I’m looking to field a respectable team in September.
Piniero had a great 09, no doubt about it, but what about before then? His 05-08 is a very mixed bag. He would be a nice addition to the team, but I only see him adding about 2 wins on average (with 4 as the ceiling and 0 as the floor). They’re going to do what they do, though.
I think, if they make another move, then a bounceback candidate like Bedard or Chin-Ming Wang on a 1 or two year deal would fit in better than giving 3 or 4 years to a player with only really one good season in the last five (2009).
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 18, 2010 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
Disagree
Morton was actually pretty solid last year and Lincoln should be the five before long. Give the rotation a chance before signing someone like Joel P. (who is overrated) to a three-year Suppan deal or ODawg (whose fielding is rapidly disintegrating).
I think Piniero sounds better than Duke, if we were to trade him, but not on a 3 year deal and even 2 wouldn’t excite me very much. Also, I think Morton and Ohlendorf will improve enough to be superior to Piniero, and possibly Lincoln and D. McCutchen as well (although I haven’t seen enough of the last pair to judge).
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 18, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
Please tell me how John Henry showed his committment to winning during the years he owned the Marlns
See payrolls of years 1999, 2000 and 2001.
http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=20
How do these show a higher commitment level from Henry than the PBC showed during the same period when the PBC payroll was significantly higher?
by MarkInDallas on Jan 18, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah right.
I’m going to guess it’s because owners don’t put their own money into payroll. They use the revenues that the team generates through ticket sales, concessions, media money, revenue sharing, etc.
No owner puts his own money into payroll. Mark Cuban doesn’t do it, John Henry doesn’t do it, Steinbrenner doesn’t do it, and Nutting doesn’t do it.
Nobody does it.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 19, 2010 4:08 AM EST up reply actions
When the team is profitable?
Where do the profits go? And when an owner decides to operate in the red, whom does it effect?
The profits can go out in distributions to the partners—contrary to what most FO bashers think, the Nuttings are not free to withdraw money from the team whenever they want, and they can’t simply pay money out to themselves at any time. The Pirates have not made any distributions in the lasts couple years, so the money has stayed in the team.
People seem to think profits and losses represent money remaining in the till at the end of a year, or money that somebody has to take out of their pocket and put in the till, but that’s not the case. These are just paper figures that may or may not be represented by cash. Profits can be re-invested, losses can be covered by loans. In many cases, the cash flow won’t coincide with the paper figures showing on the P/L statement. In short, the profits and/or losses don’t necessarily “go” anywhere.
thanks
And I understand how ownership groups and partnerships work. We are told that all “profits” are reinvested in the organization. There are also reports to the contrary.
I guess it comes down to trust and belief, and I for one remain skeptical about the Nutting group commitment to winning.
There are also reports to the contrary.
No, there are not. There is fact-free speculation to the contrary.
really?
And what are the “facts” that support Nuttings assertions? The books are not open to the public.
Dejan reported that the partners haven’t received distributions. He didn’t need to see the books to find that out.
and when you bought your car
and the salesman told you they didn’t make any money on that deal, did you believe that too?
No salesman ever told me that.
Nice attempt, though, to get around Dejan’s reporting. It’s always easiest simply to deny the evidence than to address it.
not really denying anything
I’m sure Dejan has been completely accurate in his reporting. Bob Nutting could have told him that with his hand on a stack of bibles, that doesn’t mean I have to believe it.
Actually, it sounded from the story like it did not come from Bob Nutting. And if you choose to reflexively reject all evidence that doesn’t fit your agenda, that’s your business.
no agenda
As if anything I say could have any impact on the baseball squad I cheer for…
DJ’s source could have been anyone in the FO or ownership group, I remain skeptical.
For Dejan to uncritically pass-on information from ownership or the FO...
…without noting it as such, would seem very out of character based on his past behavior.
It’d also be pretty shoddy journalism. Personally, I like to think better of him than that, but YMMV, I guess.
What happens to your own bank book if you spend more or less than you make in salary?
When any team is profitable, I can’t tell you where the money goes. Some may take out dividends, some may save that money for covering short falls later. I would guess that most teams do save some money in a fund for years when there is a shortfall.
But when an owner decides to operate in the red, I can tell you who it affects. The team’s debt gets bigger because the owners make the team borrow the money and that has to be paid back in future years.
This is not just speculation on my part. There are examples of situations where you may have thought the owners were putting their own money un, but were not.
Mark Cuban, who many people believe would save the Pirates through his wealth which is 3 to 4 times that of John Henry, has said if he bought the Pirates, he would not operate them at a loss. He would operate them to break even. In addition, when he wanted the Mavericks to raise payroll above what revenue would support (this after they went to the Finals and were maxing out revenue), he had the team borrow the money from the stadium fund ($29M). Ross Perot Jr. later sued Cuban for doing this.
What makes you think Cuban would then endlessly pour tens of millions every year into the Pirates when he wouldn’t even do it once for a team he felt was on the verge of a championship?
The poster child for MLB owners pouring money into their franchise is the Arizona Diamondbacks under Colangelo. In terms of wins and losses, this was extremely successful. They won the WS. However, Colangelo was later forced to sell the team because he had the Diamondbacks borrow $150M in order to raise payroll beyond revenues. He later explained that he was trying to build up a fan base and was thinking he would lower payroll after some good years so he could repay the loans. But it didn’t work out as he expected.
For me, I have no problem with any owner making a profit, even if their team has a losing season. Sports teams are not the same as manufacturers. If Nokia “loses” to Apple and Blackberry, does that mean they should by definition lose money on the year? No.
All I am worried about is if the Pirates spend around the amount that most teams would spend given their revenue. The largest factor of how much revenue a team has over other teams is the attendance they have. The other factor is the size of the market and how many baseball fans are in that market.
If you take the average attendance and the average payroll, and determine the amount that a team deviates from that, you can determine how much the average team would spend given a certain attendance.
I have done this for all the teams and it has been remarkable accurate this year in determining who would have to dump payroll because of shortfalls (Tigers and Indians) and who might be able to add payroll (Cardinals and Brewers). It also shows the Marlins and Padres as having the lowest payroll proportional to their attendance.
The Pirates, however, fall very close to the average. Given the Pirates’ attendance, the average team would have had a payroll of $53M in 2009.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 19, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
well thought out response
thanks for that Mark.
I look at the financials of many large businesses on a daily basis. And over the years I’ve seen a wide variety of ways that ownership deals with profits and losses. I’ve seen many, many instances of ownership lending money to the corporation. These notes are paid back in varying degrees, from an aggressive plan with a payment schedule to other less structured plans that have been on the books for decades.
Now when Peter Angelos decides to operate in the red, I believe he operates in the red, no notes from owner to team, just a net loss. The money comes out of the value of the franchise, which is a big hidden asset that we haven’t even touched. Continuing on, when Angelos gets to the end of the fiscal year, the money is gone and he moves on – the team lost money, end of story. This financial loss decreases the value of the franchise. That situation fits your checkbook analogy quite well.
What if the Orioles were out of cash, but Angelos thought he could make a pennant run by adding Lebron James next year? I believe Angelos would give the team a cash infusion, damn the consequences. If at the end of the fiscal year, the club could not repay the debt, Angelos could simply write off the debt owed by the club. The point being that as the owner of the O’s, and due to the uncapped nature of baseball, Angelos can treat the team anyway he wants and has (in the past) run it like a drunk fantasy baseball owner.
Back to the valuation – the nutting group bought the franchise in ‘96 I believe for less than $100Million. Last summer Forbes valued the franchise at $288Million. That’s a nice tidy return on investment, especially as their operating revenues are covering all expenses including short and long term debt. The same holds true for Angelos – who exacerbates a bad situation (AL east) by ruining an excellent baseball organization. (Side note: now that he’s letting baseball people run the baseball we’re seeing a return to respectability by the birds). Despite neutering a once-proud organization, he’s reaped the rewards of owning a baseball franchise – seeing the value increase from $170Million to $400Million in 15 years.
Just to be clear, the Forbes figures are speculative, as are all figures and assertions because the Pirates don’t open their books to the public.
Regarding your calculations regarding if a team would have payroll flexibility vs salary dump – they’re quite interesting. But over the longer term, a team that increases payroll, will increase wins and thus will increase revenues – a simplification for sure, but I think the premise works.
What if the Orioles were out of cash, but Angelos thought he could make a pennant run by adding Lebron James next year? I believe Angelos would give the team a cash infusion, damn the consequences.
You don’t know much about Peter Angelos. This is a guy who inserts tricky little clauses into contracts so he can back out when he has second thoughts about the money.
the nutting group bought the franchise in ‘96
Nice attempt at spin. The McClatchy group bought the franchise. The Nuttings’ contribution at that point was a $2M loan. I never cease to be amazed at how far the FO bashers will go in pretending that the Nuttings has been calling all the shots all along.
not spin
But certainly willing to admit I was wrong. If McClatchey owned a controlling interest in the Pirates until recently, I stand corrected. I had thought that the Nutting family had originally contibuted more than the original $2M loan followed by significant contributions down the line and thus had more of a say in all of the organizational decisions.
Their share increased very slowly until a few years ago. Nobody ever even heard of them until about 2003. I think they played a significant role in financial decisions starting with the Ramirez fiasco, which I partially blame them for. I don’t think they played any role in baseball operations until Bob Nutting took over as principal owner.
Re: the Orioles.
I am planning to expand my attendance-payroll study to cover more years. It has been way more effective at predicting actual events than I originally expected.
The Orioles would be a great study. I don’t doubt Angelos or any other owner might temporarily infuse a team with their own cash. However, just taking a cursory look at the Orioles’ situation from this point of view provides an interesting first thought.
As you know, Camden Yards was one of the first of the new stadiums that brought extraordinary new revenue and attendance to the teams that got in on the ground floor. The Orioles and the Indians were the two teams that profited most from this.
The Orioles averaged well over 40K per game throughout the 90s, and their payroll began to rise to the level of the top teams in the middle of the decade, as did the Indians’.
It is quite believable that the Orioles and the Indians were among the top revenue teams during those mid-late 90s years. They certainly were among the top teams in attendance, and this was in the era before the cable networks of YES and NESN provided enormous revenues to the large market teams.
When Orioles attendance declined under 40K beginning in 2000, the Orioles payroll began to fall back to middle of the pack. By 2004, the large cable networks were allowing the Yankees and other large markets with cable clout to explode their payrolls, and Angelos no longer seemed willing to shell out the cash as he had before.
So, did Angelo really shell out the cash from his own pocket prior? Or did the fact that Camden Yards put the Orioles at such a competitive advantage over most other teams allow him to look like he was.
I would have to do a lot more study into the situation, but on the surface, it looks to be perfectly explainable by the fact that he just was generating a lot more revenue than almost every other team during that period.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 20, 2010 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
Per USA Today Salary Database
I remember that they actually led the league in payroll, maybe when the signed Albert Belle. I’m sure that the payroll was largely attributable to the hot new ballpark, but I wouldn’t be surprised that the Angelos ego had something to do with it too.
As an aside, I got to go to the last game at Memorial Stadium, Game 2 and 3 at Camden Yards, and Cal’s 2131 game… good times for sure.
Thanks and I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
also
the Aramis Ramirez trade was directly due to ownership’s refusal to infuse the team with cash. If I remember correctly, the Pirates were tripping the league debt coverage covenants. Ownership had two options, lay out cash or dump salary. The ownership group, which is largely unchanged, chose to dump salary…
How is ownership largely unchanged? The previous principle owner, McClatchey is totally out while Nutting only took over in early 2007.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 18, 2010 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
McClatchey was part of the group
How much did McClatchey own and who was calling the shots while he was the pres? I maintain it always was nutting.
Good
Thing you have a lot of facts to back that up.
not much has changed in operations
Salary dumps, cellar dwelling, low payroll. These are all facts. Ownership group has changed by one man – KM. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to make the connection.
sure they do...
Facts are: salary dumps, low payroll, rebuilding (for how many years?)… Its the same old story, same old song and dance. So McClatchey changed, but the rest of ownership did not, therefore we can assume the message was being sent from Nutting and the rest of the group. It’s simple logic.
rebuilding (for how many years?)
Uh, that would be two. Rebuilding was never tried under Littlefield. Bonifay got halfway into a rebuilding plan and then abandoned it. If the Pirates follow through on their plans now, it’ll be the first time that’s happened with a rebuilding plan in Pittsburgh since the late 1980s.
salary dumps
last year’s moves were rebuilding, not salary dumps. why did the pirates just take on $3-$6M in salary in the last week?
low payroll
can’t argue with that one (see sparky, because there’s evidence of this, not rumor), but if you think a business owner is going to comfortably operate at a loss for several years then i have a bridge to sell you…
rebuilding
i believe WTM has handled this one adequately.
when mcclatchey left, nutting took some time and then cleaned house (for the most part) on the upper levels of the organization. if it was only more of the same, wouldn’t he have just kept dave littlefield? they were making plenty of money even though DL had long ago been a running punchline. it’s not like DL’s image was hurting the pirates that much since the casual fan was blaming nutting the entire time, and apparently still is.
it may seem to you like i’m defending ownership when that’s not my objective. you’re arguing one extreme of the debate (with no facts or evidence) and i’m trying to argue the middle (the part that we can tell for sure) and not the other extreme. you can’t assume the person you’re debating represents the complete opposite just because they disagree with you.
no yawn here
salary dumps: McLouth and Wilson were good examples of this – serviceable, valuable ML players for cheap prospects. You can call it rebuilding, but it looked a great deal like Aramis Ramirez revisited.
low payroll: I don’t think ownership is operating at anywhere near a loss – again, we’re not privvy to the books, but most believe the Bucs are making money.
argument: I no longer live in the burgh, nobody in NJ cares about the bucs, so I’m thoroughly enjoy the discussion or argument or whatever this is.
Given that the Bucs gave the Mariners over $3 million to pay for the rest of Snell and Wilson’s salaries, they did a pretty horrible job of just dumping salary if that was their aim.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 19, 2010 8:48 PM EST up reply actions
yawn.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 19, 2010 8:26 PM EST up reply actions
My part 3...
Although I do not want to agree or disagree (at least at this moment) I feel as if it might be a good time to get this thought out of my head and into the public sphere.
It does seem to me the Nutting family, which had been majority owners for years; only stepped up to bat (to use an old cliche) because the family name was starting to be disparaged in the local press. I do believe that to be the reason that Bob Nutting Jr has stepped up and taken over; hiring smart baseball people, instead of bottom liners. I think he does not want his family name to be associated with only the many years of losing. This might be crazy, irrational or just plain stupid; but I think since Nutting Jr came to play ball (sorry for another worn out cliche) the Pirates will get better.
Paul.
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on Jan 18, 2010 2:15 AM EST up reply actions
You're absolutely right
F*ck it, the Pirates should turn in their franchise so MLB can contract it. Level the stadium so someone can build another casino (who needs new schools, really?). And we’ll take all our ticket money and go to … the Pittsburgh Symphony instead! It’ll be the best-attended symphony in the world! Or go bowling. Some activity where there are no irrational hopes, no dreams, no rooting interests, none of that nonsense.
We’ll all be so much happier. I know I will. I was getting so tired of sitting in the summer sunshine, a cold beer in my hand, being delightfully surprised by the occasional win. Screw all that. I’ll just sit at home and wish for more cancer and a quick death.
Thanks for opening my eyes.
you missed the end
Despite all of the negativity and conspiracy theories, I remain a Bucs fan. Each year I find myself looking at the glass half full. I distinctly remember convincing myself that Wells and Fogg could both win 15+ and that would get us to the playoffs. And this year is no different, I’m hoping for The Natural to continue his unexpected production. And I’m hoping that Charlie Morton harnesses his talent to become an ace. And I’m hoping that Duke and Ohlendorf make it a great rotation.
I hope.
OK, fair enough.
And wasn’t I the one just the other day suggesting we not shout down contrarians for being contrary?
I must have been in a black mood this a.m.
The symphony is actually pretty nice.
I wish more people supported it. Even if they do get all pissy about Skyblast.
Yes, it is.
Maybe the Pirates can’t compete year-in and year-out (yet) with the best in baseball, but that symphony stands among the best in the world.
Well...
we are just going to have to disagree because you are going to have a hard time selling me on the fact that Huntington goes into the offseason saying…“hmmm who can we add to our roster this season that we can flip at the deadline for prospects.” Whether you believe it or not every GM tries to put the best MLB team together…some just have different restraints, i.e. payroll, not sacrificing the long term, etc. If a lot of things (maybe most things) break right this year it’s not unthinkable that we can approach .500. Under that circumstance, althought everyone will admit that .500 is not the goal, I don’t see the Pirates trading relief pitchers at the deadline. Several reasons for this: 1) value added from increased attendance going into 2011 (a year when things could get real interesting) will be greater than the marginal prospect we would get for the half season rental of any of our relief picthers 2) unless there is a prearranged deal with the player; it’s flat out unethical to sign a player with the “sole” inention of trading them 3) if our starting rotation is going to take steps forward as a whole a solid bullpen is really important.
And you ask what is +1 – +3 WAR. Well in and of itslef not much improvement from last year. But in the best case scenario it could mean a shot at the wild card. I’m pretty confident though that if we have a legitimate shot players won’t be dealt (unless someone is…wait for it…“blown away”). I realize that scenario isn’t realistic but everyone’s goal is to win. If NH is willing to pay $3 million per year, as Mark has pointed out, +3 WAR is worth $9 million dollars. That’s pretty significant for a team with a payroll in our range. I’m guessing that NH values three WAR.
Lastly, this response was going to be short before the ramble, let’s see we get a +3 WAR from an upgrade from the bullpen and Curch and we get the following improvement across the board:
Laroche: +1
Milledge: +1.5 – +2
Cutch: +.5 – +1
1B Options: +1
Morton: +1.5 – +2.5 WAR
Maholm: +.5 WAR
Iwamura: +.5 WAR
There is going to be some regression among certain players I realize but a lot the additions are replacing negative WAR players and all of these minor improvements couples with young players taking expected step forwards we could realistically add another 8-10 wins to this team. I think there is value in that; especially so when factor in that our future core will be together in Pittsburgh once Avarez, Tabata and Lincoln join McCutchen.
Long winded response aside...
I can see the players flipped too if we are not taking significant steps forward in the win column or we get enough value. I think NH has shown that he will deal anyone at anytime.
to Slick and Mark
I don’t disagree that NH is adding wins with these signings, and I wholeheartedly support them, but it is incorrect to believe that the players we are signing are replacing replacement-level players. Moss, Pearce, Clement, Vazquez, Hart, Ascanio, and S. Jackson all project to be better than replacement level. We are making good, marginal improvements, but we shouldn’t believe that they are anything but marginal. Church adds maybe half a win over Moss as the fourth outfielder, and it means cutting Moss or carrying no right-handing pinch-hitting options. Similarly, Donnelly adds less than half a win over Ascanio or Hart. I’m not saying they’re not good moves, but they offer very marginal improvements over what is already on the roster.
Oh right, Ascanio has that labrum injury, so we probably shouldn’t project much from him in 2010. Sorry about that.
2009 numbers...
Moss = .1 WAR (that’s about as replacement as it gets)
Pearce = -4 WAR (below replacement level)
Vasquez = 0.0 WAR (definition of replacement level)
Hart = will be the 5th starter
Ascanio = may never pitch again (torn labrum)
S. Jackson = will have a bullpen job (signing doesn’t affect him)
Clement = won’t lose AB’s with the signings. Will have every opportunity to stay in the lineup. Even with that, I thimk best case scenario is he performs league average on offense with below average defense. I wouldn’t expect anymore than a +1.0 WAR.
This moves may still be marginal but they are more important than you are giving them credit for. I’m very skeptical that Moss, Pearce and Vasquez will meet their projections. Like I’ve said in other threads (maybe this one) I think Churhc and the bullpen nets you +3.0 WAR from last season and that has value.
If Church adds a half win then it's money well spent.
Huntington is paying $3M per win. $1.5M is half a win.
That’s also consistent with all of the bullpen signings so far. He’s paying $3M per win no matter where that win comes from. That’s also why he wasn’t going to pay Capps over $3M, because he wasn’t likely to be worth more than 1 win unless he returned to his best form.
He offered Freddy and Jack $3M per win as well. He’s been very consistent in that. There’s obviously been some sort of analysis done that $3M per win is the point where the Pirates can compete with teams paying $4.5M per win.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
I would love to read up on some of Dan Fox's studies.
I’m real curious to see the data and analyzsis that is driving our strategy! I think Fox is one of Huntington’s most underrated acquisitions since he has been on the job.
I’m pretty sure someone will have to go undercover and smuggle out microfiche for that. :-)
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
Another nice move
Once again it’s very low risk and if Donnelly performs it could be a potential steal…and he can be flipped at the trade deadline for a quality prospect. So no, he’s not blocking anayone.
I agree with this
I like Donnelly as a low risk-high reward move. As an outsider, I really like what NH is doing with your team
Kevin Frandsen: The best SS on the Giants roster
Hoping for BowkerMania to hit AT&T Park in 2010
Eh.
Not really big on Donnelly, but at least the salary and duration limit our potential downside.
by Vlad on Jan 16, 2010 6:58 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Assuming.....
the Dotel signing goes through, I think NH has done an extraordinarily good job of restructuring the bullpen/staff since the non-tender of Capps and release of Dumatrait.
Having Dotel, Donnelly, Carrasco, Lopez, Meeks, Hanrahan and numerous arms from Jackson, Jackub, Cotts, Chulk, and Karstens competing for the last spot offers a variety of arms, experience, smart payroll management on short term deals, etc.
It also leaves Hart, McCutchen, Ascanio (eventually—a guy I had high hopes for before his potentially career-threatening injury) and Veal to continue to develop as starters (one in Pittsburgh and the rest in Indy) and with Lincoln provides some depth should one of the top four get hurt.
Our staff appears to be light years ahead of where it was last year in terms of depth and hopefully if Morton and Ohlendorf continue to develop, it will be in terms of quality as well.
Excellent work, IMO
agree
Ascanio was terrific in limited appearances, his injury was a real pity…
by BurgherKing on Jan 16, 2010 10:42 PM EST up reply actions
Bravo NH
God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...
by For The Glory 1855 on Jan 16, 2010 7:55 PM EST reply actions
This all kind of plays into
one of my pet theories. Which would be more costly, both in terms of money and wins:
1. Building the standard ace-down rotation, lavishing money on a No. 1 starter type, and skimping on the bullpen.
2. Building a rotation out of five No. 3-4 starter types and putting together a really good veteran bullpen?
I’m thinking if the No. 2 rotation can just get you into the sixth inning with a decent chance to win half your games, a really good pen ought to hold most of the leads you have and allow you to win a few games you shouldn’t in late innings.
I don’t know that that’s a pennant winning formula, probably not, but for what we have to work with, it could get us into the middle of the pack, especially if we put a fair to good defense behind those pitchers.
If you want to win any playoff games
Then you have to have good guys at the top of the rotation. The Yankees spent very little money on their bullpen except the closer.
Other than that, the reason relievers are effective is that they don’t throw that many pitches. If you make them throw more pitches, they will be less effective. If you average 1 less inning for your starters per game, that is 162 innings to make up with relievers, which is the workload of 2.5 relief pitchers. So, you would have to carry 3 extra relievers or else risk taxing your staff, which would make all of them less effective.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 16, 2010 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
Well, bucsdaddy did pose a hypothetical question. :-)
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
thats the problem
even if we get dotel, we probably still have a decent bullpen at best. So here is hoping to a breakout year from anyone of the 5 guys in the rotation/
The Pirates were one of the top teams in terms of quality starts last year. They were also one of the top teams in terms of wasted quality starts.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 16, 2010 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
meaning – they suffered more wasted quality starts.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 16, 2010 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
quality or not
none of the pirates pitchers are a #2 guy on a contender, maybe not even a #3 guy. so unless one or two of them step up and pitch lights out then they are average. there is nothing wrong with average with all the losing around these parts these days but id still like to set the bar higher than just average.
Were you expecting contention this year?
I’d say Morton has the talent be a #2 guy on a contender certainly if he can continue improving. Ohlendorf is a mystery at this point, but he might be pretty good. After studying his peripherals after his delivery change, things were inconclusive. Some good signs and some not. We’ll see how Veal and Lincoln turn out.
Hey, it’s a work in progress.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 2:08 AM EST up reply actions
Lets just hope....
that Donnelly can stick with us longer than the last time the Bucs signed him….
August 18, 1999: Signed as a Free Agent with the Pittsburgh Pirates….
(and then after two Altoona Curve games)
August 25, 1999: Released by the Pittsburgh Pirates.
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
It's got to be better doesn't it?
Capps -→ Dotel
Yates -→ Hanrahan
Grabow -—> Lopez
Chavez -—> Meek
Veal -→ Donnelly
Burnett -→ Carrasco
Hanson -→ Jackson
not sold on grabow -> Lopez
for the rest, I mostly agree, although Hansen – > Jackson is iffy too…
by BurgherKing on Jan 17, 2010 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
I’m not convinced Lopez will be better than Grabow, either. He will have to be better than he was showing last year. Lopez seemed pretty hittable.
Jackson is an interesting case. I recently watched some of his outings from last year. I honestly still don’t know how he was getting guys out. Not that he was bad, but I just don’t have a good read on whether he is good or not. I can’t say whether he was getting lucky or whether he was good.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Lopez is a downgrade from Grabow, but not a very large one. Lopez was also better in 07-08 in a worse environment.
Also, Grabow’s walk and K rates were the worst in his career in 2009, with only fewer HR against keeping his FIP above water.
I don’t know if Jackson should make the team out of ST. He didn’t impress me enough that he should be a lock Hopefully, he’ll be in competition for the last spot with basically everyone else they’ve brought in this offseason.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 17, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
Grabow...
also has bone chips in his elbow so his arm could fall off at any moment. Jackson is funny, stuff doesn’t look great but he seems to get people out.
Jackson
If I m not mistaken, he pitched a lot of low-leverage innings last year, in blowouts and stuff. When a team has a huge lead, it seems to me, they play less hard- sort of in the sense that you dont want to embarrass the other team, so with a 10 run lead and runner at 3rd, you aren’t as dead intent on bringing the runner home and so on…
For instance Jackson pitched quite a few innings in the Charlie Morton blowout in Wrigley, and so on. Those probably helped get those stats more respectable. It might have helped him with his confidence too, which can be critical. It will be interesting to see how he does this year, but there’s no way he’s a lock for the pen.
Jackson may have pitched quite a few low-leverage games, but his average Leverage Index (pLI in this chart here (link)) of .88 was in the same neighborhood as the average leverage for Hanrahan (.91) and Chavez (.89). Interestingly, Meek pitched in lower leverage situations according to these findings (only .63 for him).
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 17, 2010 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
nice job...
I remembered him being used in higher leverage situations last year but was too lazy to look it up.
thanks
very interesting from that chart that Gorzo, Ascanio, Grabow and Burnett had the highest leverage innings…. hmm…
That's about what you'd expect, actually.
You usually don’t bring in a situational lefty unless it’s really important that you get a particular LHB out. That accounts for Gorz and Burnett. Grabow was used against more RHB, but he was also more or less the designated 8th-inning guy for a while, which pumps his LI up.
Just to add some numbers
Jackson had an average leverage index of 0.88, according to FanGraphs. Among 145 qualified relievers, that number would have ranked about 117th (Jackson didn’t have enough innings to qualify).
I kind of remember...
when Russell and Kerrigan asked for GB pitcher and NH acquired Jackson, that Russell kind of through him right in there. You and Adam Reynolds have confirmed that he was used in higher leverage situations more than was being credited for. Thanks for the research.
He was hyped as the pitcher to get those double play ground balls, even though his GB/FB was only 1.15 with the Bucs. That’s decent, but doesn’t scream groundball specialist. But, he got the job done anyway with at least a good ERA.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 17, 2010 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
+1
We don’t spend money…wait we spend too much money!!! Nutting is cheap…wait Nutting is throwing money away on veterans!!! I’m done with this team.
I’m so mad and sure of myself that I’m confused!
by MarkInDallas on Jan 17, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
+1
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on Jan 18, 2010 2:31 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
