Is Bob Nutting Bluffing?
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 25, 2010 3:30 AM EST
Email
PrintI've been playing a lot of poker recently, so please excuse the long poker metaphor that follows. For those of you who aren't familiar with the game, feel free to skip forward to the sixth paragraph.
I was in the middle stages of a multi-table no-limit hold-em tournament today. I picked up pocket jacks, an excellent but vulnerable hold 'em hand, in middle position, and raised to two and a half times the big blind. Everyone folded to the big blind, who I knew to be a terrible and loose player. He called.
The flop came king, queen, two, which was bad for me because it meant my opponent had taken the lead if either of his hole cards were a king or queen. But he checked to me, so I bet about two-thirds the pot and he called. The turn was a low card that didn't worry me at all, and my opponent checked again. I checked also, not wanting to build a big pot with what was, at that point, a mediocre hand. The river was another deuce. He checked and I made a small value bet, hoping my loose opponent would call me with ace high or a low pocket pair. He promptly re-raised for a large portion of my stack.
This was weird. If my opponent legitimately had me beat with a king, he might have re-raised me on the flop, or at least bet the turn. If one of the low cards gave him trips or a set, his large re-raise at the end was too big if he wanted to get me to put more money in the pot, and anyway those hands were statistically unlikely. A queen was possible, but then why didn't he just call me on the river? That hand would have had some value, so if he had a queen he'd probably just call, hoping to see a showdown as cheaply as possible.
The bottom line was that his story didn't make much sense. It was possible he had me beat, but his river raise smelled like a bluff, and a bad one, from a player I already knew was loose and unskilled. So I called with my jacks. He flipped over ten-seven, an absolute zero of a hand, and started ranting about what a horrible player I was as I took down the pot.
Now, awesome stories about how great I am aside, Pirates fans' position with regard to Bob Nutting is very much like a poker game. Nutting holds a couple of cards, and for the past couple of years Pirates fans have been trying to guess what they are. And in poker, the first thing you do to guess if someone's telling the truth is to ask this: Does the story make sense?
When Nutting tells the story of what he's doing with the Pirates, it is indeed mostly coherent--the Bucs will build a core of young talent and then raise payroll when those players become costly, and when a few extra players could be the difference between a pennant winner and an also-ran. This is perfectly reasonable; the difference between a 70-win team and a 66-win team isn't great, but the difference between an 87-win team and a 91-win team is potentially enormous in terms of a team's playoff chances, so free agent complementary players have a lot more value if you already have an 87-win core. And the only good way for a team like the Pirates to build an 87-win core is to do it with young guys, who are much cheaper and generally better than free agents.
Nutting continues to say the right things about the draft:
We need another great draft. We've had two good ones, and we need to do it again. And again and again.
I'll buy that the Pirates actually will do this because, as Nutting says, they've already spent a ton of money in the draft twice in a row. The spending on the Latin American academy is another strong sign that there's an actual signal here, not just noise.
Elsewhere, Nutting claims that the Pirates are running an "orderly, systematic plan" from which he won't stray just to placate fans now by raising the payroll, but that he will increase the Bucs' payroll as the team matures. For now, I'll buy this, because it's exactly the right strategy and it's the strategy I'd pursue if I owned the team.
It is possible Nutting is using this strategy as a convenient excuse to keep payroll low. While I'm sure Nutting doesn't mind the payroll being low right now, though, I'm not sure I believe the strategy is merely a convenient excuse, because then the Pirates' everybody-gets-a-car routine in the draft the past two years doesn't make a lot of sense. If your goal is to be cheap, why dump a ton of money into the draft, which doesn't maintain most fans' interest after the first round? (And why, especially, would you dump a ton of money into the draft but not dump it into that one pick most fans care about, the way the Pirates did last year when they selected Tony Sanchez fourth overall and then tossed out tons of cash to interesting late-round pitchers?)
The more likely explanation is that Nutting simply doesn't believe that dramatically raising the major league payroll will be a good idea until there's a talent base to support it. This is clearly a defensible belief--a team like the Pirates could spend far more than it does now and still spend less than the Cubs or Mets, for example, so the smart thing to do is to build with young players, who are cheap, rather than engaging in a payroll arms race that the Pirates are sure to lose. Until the Bucs do have a good base of young players, spending a bunch of money in the free agent market just doesn't make a ton of sense, at least not as a general principle. (I say "at least not as a general principle" because it is true that it might not be the worst thing in the world for the Pirates to make a bit more noise with a veteran acquisition, the way the Nationals did with Alfonso Soriano, but only if the situation was right in terms of years of financial obligation, the player's willingness to come to Pittsburgh, the player's fit on the team, the cost of compensatory draft picks, and/or trade costs. Finding a star player who meets all those criteria would be difficult, to say the least, but the Pirates shouldn't rule it out completely.)
If we go back to the poker hand above, then, most of the information I'm getting from Nutting leads me to believe he really does have a king. I still have questions--he had a pretty sketchy history from several years ago when he was involved with the team while Kevin McClatchy was nominally in charge, and I'd like to see greater investment in Latin American talent (beyond just building the academy). Also, although the Pirates quickly found a probably superior replacement in Octavio Dotel, the Bucs' money-saving dismissal of Matt Capps was strange.
There's also the possibility that, unlike my opponent today, Nutting is a good poker player who's very skilled at telling lies. This is surely what some of you will believe, although it still doesn't explain why he has authorized tons of spending in the draft, or why he talks about the importance of the draft in nearly every interview he gives.
In general, the story Nutting is telling is a pretty good one, and I'm willing to adopt the tentative hypothesis that he really is serious about building a winning team in Pittsburgh. For now, that means a strong emphasis on young talent, and it's clear, at least to me, that Nutting is serious about developing young talent. His clear commitment to the draft demonstrates this, and so does the series of bold trades for young players that the Bucs have made in the past year or so.
But young talent alone is rarely enough, so we really do need to see more spending once a good core of players begins to mature, becomes more expensive, and needs to be complemented with other players. I'll buy that Nutting really does plan to spend more later, because the investments in the draft are a very strong indication of good faith, because his stated goal (developing a contender with a base of young talent) makes sense for the Pirates, and because his refusal to raise the payroll mostly makes sense right now. Is Nutting bluffing? Does he really only hold a worthless ten-seven? Maybe, but based on what we've seen so far, I wouldn't bet on it, and in this case, that's a good thing.
95 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Concerning
Nutting and his plan to spend outlined above.
Your points are valid, especially in regards to money spent in the draft. If he really was simply looking for fan appeal, the late round money spent is a questionable tactic, as was the Aki Iwamura trade. While not very expensive, he was certainly more expensive than plenty of internal options that could have been used in what projects to be a bad (lets face it) 2010 year. Obviously, it could be a ploy or trap, similar to a check raise. However, the amount of money Nutting has spent, especially in realms other than the major league payroll only hurt him, as he could hold fan interest in a better manner and using less money. As you alluded too, maybe he’s a very good poker player, and is willing to spend money that not only fools the casual fan, but those more involved in following the team.
A bigger fear I hold is that Nutting wants to bring winnings baseball to Pittsburgh partly because of his competitive spirit, but also to improve earnings, but when faced with having to sacrifice one of the two, it will be competition. Ultimately, I’m worried he will balk at spending an extra 20, 30 or 40 (a year) million for a 2-3 year period when we really have a chance to win a championship, and rather will get content with simply winning and competing for a playoff spot. As an extension, and even scarier, he will be able to more readily justify his actions because winning on any level will appease the Pirates’s fanbase. Still, I’m optimistic and will hold a wait-and-see approach.
Oh, and as an added note. Never ever bet a medium strength hand on the river if action is checked to you. In 98% of poker situations, you simply apply risk to yourself with virtually no chance for reward. Assuming your opponent has three basic types of hands
A weak hand – He will almost always fold if you bet, thus you get no value back
A strong hand – You just put extra money in the pot, which you will lose when he check-raises
Thus your risk-reward is not in your favor
Ultimately it paid off for you Charlie, and part of that may have had to do with your read, (which changes things a bit), but as you are well aware of, just because Albert Pujols misses one hanging curveball across the heart of the plate doesn’t mean you should give him another one.
(Please don’t take this as an insult, just more of a friendly, humorous tip)
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 25, 2010 4:29 AM EST reply actions
If it is a bluff. . .
I would go with the above post hitting it on the head.
If Nutting is all about the money:
Winning raises revenue, young players are cheaper and more exciting than older players. So you get us all pumped up, nearly miss the playoffs, then make them and sit pat. Let a few go, draft some others, try to keep the cycle going and stay in the money for as little as possible.
Not a bad option considering what we’ve had, and that the new guys seem to know what they are doing. A playoff contending team is not far from a series contender, and even just hanging around the playoffs keeps you in the window to get lucky and turn the corner. If he is willing to spend when we are close, then we’ll see.
I don’t see a WS win anytime soon, but man I’d take some late season disappointment after a good season over irrelevance in August every time.
Give me some good summer ball and some hope for the fall and I’ll be a happy Pirates fan, that is until prices go up and the park is full and I can’t just go to the game and sit in my Bleacher reserved for the price of a movie and enjoy the sunset and no one sitting next to me while I taunt the opposing outfield. Oh well, I guess it’d be fun to see a team win in a noisy crowded stadium.
by Phantaskippy on Jan 25, 2010 9:47 AM EST up reply actions
The dude was a calling station in addition to being a bluffer. He didn’t really fold much of anything once he was in a hand. Otherwise I never would have done it. :)
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 25, 2010 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
Like I kinda alluded too
You seemed to have a stone cold read on an idiot, which is always profitable. :D
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 25, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
Projecting the future
I think that Charlie’s post is dead on. I especially appreciate the parenthtical about how in the right situation (albeit difficult to find) it could make sense to spend real money on a good player, since I have felt that I’ve been one of a small minority trumpeting that position for a few years now. That said, unless it were to be on a short stop or a really solid SP to anchor the rotation, such spending would have made more sense in the last two years than now.
While current management is careful not to set a timetable for fielding a contending team, ultimately I believe it is fair to start passing judgement in year 4. If the team does not appear to be on a trajectory towards sustainable legitimate contending then something is not working.
Here, good theorys are being put into practice but there are 2 open questions: (a) is ownership willing and able to spend when necessary, as addressed by Charlie’s post; and (b) whether the talent evaluation is strong.
We will have much better idea as to the level of the talent evaluation based upon what we see in 2010 and 2011. Thus, I am much more excited for this season than I have been for the last two years.
As for item “a”, I am at least as concerned about Nutting’s ability to spend as his willingness to do so. You’ve got to have deep pockets to successfully maintain a non-big market baseball franchise and I’m not sure Nutting has them.
Further, I was frustrated in the years prior to PNC Park opening when we kept hearing that the new park would allow the Pirates to spend $X (I think it was about $50m) on payroll, which would put us right in the middle of the pack of major league teams. There was no discussion of inflation; no public recognition that centering your planning to reach a goal that is acceptable by today’s standards will not be acceptable for long. Thus, when I hear Nutting say that we need to spend to the levels of the Brewers & Reds, I hope he is not looking at what they are spending now as where we will eventually be, but rather that we will “keep up with the Jones”, such as they are.
Good day.
When PNC opened, the payroll of $57M was nearly league average
And would be equivalent to about an $80M payroll today. Since a good portion of the Pirates’ revenue comes from national shared monies and revenue sharing, that allows the Pirates to benefit from the overall rise in money made throughout MLB, even though they haven’t raised picket prices since I think 2002.
The fact that they have been able to raise payroll from the $32M level, where they lowered it after their attendance fell off a cliff, to $48M without increasing local revenues – in fact attendance continued to slide – shows that they have indeed been putting revenue sharing money into MLB payroll as it has risen.
It is clear with their current attendance that they have spent at the same proportion where they spent back in 2001, and when the attendance rises again to a near league average level, they will be able to spend $70M-$75M by just continuing their current spending proportion.
This is why it is so funny to me that the same people who believe Nutting has been in control secretly behind the scenes since 1997 also say there’s no evidence to say he will have a payroll in the average range. They already had that and already have shown that they will do it.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 25, 2010 9:56 AM EST up reply actions
interesting...
I like how you put “nearly league average”. You act as if Nutting has show the willingness to pay a league average salary, when he has done nothing of the sort.
When PNC opened, you say that the payroll was nearly league average. Considering the investment the city made in PNC park, it was mighty nice of PBC to get to nearly league average. Per USA Today’s baseball salary database, the Pirates spent $57.76Million that year, league average was $65.43Million roughly one star player $7.7Million short of league average (think John Smoltz or Jim Edmonds). They were 18th of 30 teams. Nearly league average is close enough, but your argument falls apart because the team has been well below average since the park opened. Also, I think you postulate that salary should follow attendance… Does salary trail attendance? I graphed out salary vs attendance and they are a mirror, I’ll need to spend some more time with the info, but it appears that attendance increases and decreases right in line with payroll.
So what happened with payroll in the second year after PNC opened and had experienced the highest attendance since 1991 (coincidentally when the Bucs last saw the playoffs)? Just after the Pirates experienced a spike in attendance payroll plummeted to $42M, league average increased to $67.5M. The bucs payroll was a full $25.5M below league average and 24th of 30. In 2003 we increased to $54.8M with a league average of $70.9M (19th of 30) from there it continues to get worse… From that time on we get no closer to league average (we’re examining the wrong metric too – we’re focused on league average which does little to ensure post season success) than $30.8M in 2006 averaging $37.9M less than league average since 2004. Choosing 2008 at random, we could have added Johan Santana and Josh Beckett for $27M and had over $10MM to make a run at a bat and just been at league average. Could this team compete? Would people come out to see two great pitchers racking up Ks?
Now I’m sure we can go back and piece together a full investigative report on the hows/whys of the salary decreases, but the consistent theme we’ll see is that they just don’t spend enough money at the major league level to compete.
The bigger question is if we had invested to get aces and remained at league average, would we have screwed up the farm system? Would we be blocking a young stud from making the leap to the majors? No and no. Heck, with our success in drafting pitchers, it might keep us from the annual heartbreak of the inevitable rotator cuff and elbow explosions of our pitching prospects. This also would be a cost effective strategy that would just say don’t draft any pitching – we can’t keep them healthy and we can’t develop them.
I understand that the weaknesses of these examples, the bucs could just as easily invest $30+M in busts, but it would feel nicer than the 7up seasons (never had it, never will).
From what I've seen
Salary does pretty much run in line with attendance, however, salary lags attendance slightly when a team purposely lowers payroll in a rebuilding cycle.
From 2001 to 2003, the problem with the attendance and payroll situation was this…
Bonifay was trying to create a situation when going into the new park where the team would be competitive and help build the long term attendance base for PNC, similar to how the Indians were able to do successfully that in their initial Jacob’s Field years. Unfortunately, the team lost 100 games. So, obviously, raising the payroll didn’t work.
At that point, they were probably trying to determine how they would proceed into the next year, trying to keep the revenue up. Whether they expected that attendance would fall and were going to try to make up that lost revenue by raising ticket prices, or whatever else their strategy was, it obviously failed. By 2003, the attendance had fallen precipitously and they were losing money, which prompted the sell off of Ramirez.
As far as your hypothetical free agent additions, they are just completely unrealistic. Do you really think Johan Santana or Beckett would sign with the Pirates for anything close to the same amount they signed with their large market teams?
I didn’t look at pitchers in my 2009 study, but let me show you how rare it is for impact free agents to sign with a smaller market team….In 2009, there was not even one position player on any team in a market under 4M people who was signed as a free agent expected to perform at 3.5 WAR or greater and who actually performed at that level. That’s counting players who were signed at any time – not just right before the 2009 season.
So, hopefully that shows you just how unrealistic it is for the Pirates to base their success on that strategy. And hopefully that shows how unfair it is to say the Pirates failed by not doing it.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
not sure I agree with that
Agreed, the hypotheticals are a stretch, but when do Free Agents turn down top dollars anywhere? I’m sure Jason Bay would have come back to PNC if we offered more than the Mets this off-season (no, i’m not suggesting we should offer bay anything). How about this… the Pirates could have offered salary + 10% to santana and beckett and still been below league average. Do you maintain that Beckett would turn down an extra $1MM per season or Santana would turn down an extra $1.6M/season to avoid PNC? I think they take it, the press conference is held "I’m excited about Pittsburgh’s commitment to winning and being a part of a good young core blah, blah, blah…. I think that team competes and puts people in the seats. Or better yet, upgrade the entire outfield by $10M/OF/season and still be below league average.
But that’s beside the point. The main idea was to demonstrate the disparity between the Pirates’ payroll and the league average. I believe you were defending the Pirates commitment to spending near the league average, and I pointed out that they had not ever gotten to the league average and had only been near it for the opening of the park.
In your 2009 study, how many free agents DIDN’T take the largest offer they were given? How many small market teams made the most lucrative offer and were turned down.
Again, I’m not suggesting that this is a realistic strategy. Then again, I think there’s a kernel of truth here that says the Pirates could have been much more competitive had they spent more money on the FA market – and they’d still be below average in spending.
Mark Teixeira turned down more money with the Nats to play with the Yankees.
Point is…The Pirates will never have the highest payroll, or even be in the top 10. The numbers are just not ever going to be there for that under the current system. There are 10-12 teams who are always going to have a higher payroll, and there is nothing any owner of the Pirates, no matter how rich they are, can do about that.
There’s only one way for the Pirates to assemble a better team than the clubs that spend more money than they do, and that is to get a lot more value for their dollars than do those top teams. Spending 10% more than the top teams do for top free agents is not going to help the Pirates. That is going in the wrong direction, can you see that? That is getting LESS value for their money than the top teams get. That is why that strategy will never work.
For the Pirates to get more value for their money, they need to be better than the other clubs where that value can be had in the system – in developing players who cost less money because they are in the cost controlled years before free agency.
If there is a player they develop internally that is worth holding onto through some free agency years, the smart thing to do is get a discount on those years by assuming risk within the team controlled years.
The good thing about that strategy is that the vast majority of very valuable players (4+ WAR) are players in the first 6 years over service time OR players who have signed extensions with their original club.
The vast majority of veteran free agent players are of the type like Iwamura – good averagish 2-3 WAR players that aren’t going to hurt you, but aren’t going to be huge difference makers. That’s not a bad thing, because no team has all stars – not even the Yankees. Teams need to find some difference makers and just make sure there aren’t any below average players around them. The average players can be signed as free agents by the Pirates (once they don’t have the total loser stigma attached anymore).
But, if you don’t have enough very valuable players, then it’s useless to try to go find those very valuable free agents if you are the Pirates. The proof of that is the fact that I just gave you – no team of the bottom 18 teams in 2009 had even one of them on the roster.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
per mlb.com
Yankees 8/$180M
Nats 8/$160M
Orioles 7/$150M
And if the Bucs offered 8/$181M I’ll bet you he’d be wearing black and gold. And, they’d still have a payroll well below league average.
Right. Everyone would take a crappy job that paid $18.10 an hour over a nice cushy job that only paid $18 an hour.
Now that right there is funny, I don’t care who you are.
by Nutting Hostage on Jan 26, 2010 5:21 PM EST up reply actions
Not to mention that this ignores the fact that in all likelihood, the Yankees would’ve been given an opportunity to raise the price again. This isn’t like the Sano deal, where the agent never gave one team the opportunity to counter another’s offer. The fact is that if the Yankees wanted him badly enough, they would outbid the Bucs 10 times out of 10.
missing the point
It was just an example, where MID said that Tex took less money to play in NY, which wasn’t the case.
Will the Pirates outbid the NYY? No, probably not. But not all teams operate like NYY and they also don’t bid on every top flight FA.
Actually,
The Nats upped the offer to what was reportedly $184M and Tex decided that wasn’t enough of a difference to play in DC. It’s also been widely rumored/reported that the Red Sox also offered $184M and Boras demanded even more money from the Red Sox for Tex to play there.
That’s why Boras’ interesting wording earlier this year…“The Red Sox had a chance to get Mark Teixeira and they declined. We told them what it would take to sign him and they turned it down.” That number was a higher number than the Yankees got, because Teixeira really wanted to play for the Yankees.
But, regardless, the point here is that it’s unrealistic for the Pirates to make those kinds of deals. Those deals have consistently failed for teams who are not in the top echelon of spenders. Tom Hicks wanted to be the next Steinbrenner and created a splash with ARod. Two years later he was regretting it because they couldn’t build a team around him. The Rangers had to pay the Yankees tens of millions to take the contract.
More likely than not, these deals are like the Nats did make with their big free agent splash – Adam Dunn. $10M for a guy who puts up 1.2 WAR because he can’t field. No thanks.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 8:43 PM EST up reply actions
$10M for a guy who puts up 1.2 WAR because he can’t field. No thanks.
Right. Dunn makes Craig Wilson look like Clemente.
There is speculation the Nats are going to move him back to left field, trade Willingham and sign Mike Jacobs for 1B.
Hmm…
by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 9:07 PM EST up reply actions
BTW
Here is an article where the Nats were willing to go to 9 or 10 years in addition to offering the same or more yearly.
So much for Tex’s hometown discount. How vilified would Walker be if he became a star and demanded more money to sign with Pittsburgh?
by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 8:58 PM EST up reply actions
reportedly between $178 and $184M, but unconfirmed… not the point of the discussion really.
Since the opening of PNC the Pirates have been close to league average once. And dramatically below league average every other year. they are so far below average in spending (I believe 29 of 30 in the decade) that they could have added $30M in payroll each year and still been below average. From what is being said, the FO is willing and able to spend an additional $35 or $40M/year when the time is right. It just doesn’t pass the sniff test to me. You and many others have a good grip on Bucs history, metrics and business operations. You’re welcome to believe what Nutting is saying, more power to you. I will remain skeptical until proven otherwise.
Now just because I’m a Nutting skeptic doesn’t mean I won’t support the team as best I can. I’ll be down in Bradenton to see two games in McKechnie. I’ll have at least two visits to Pittsburgh this summer and will plan my visits around Bucs homestands. I’ll wear my Bucs gear and maybe will pick up a new cap, sweatshirt or t-shirt too.
There are recent free agents...
…who took less in order to not sign with the Pirates. For example:
The Pirates offered a slightly higher salary than what free-agent starter Daniel Cabrera accepted from the Washington Nationals in signing his one-year, $2.6 million contract over the weekend. Cabrera, formerly of the Baltimore Orioles, chose Washington because he wanted to remain in the Beltway area. -Dejan, December 23, 2008
Rocco Baldelli also
He took less money to be a backup with the Red Sox rather than come to the Pirates.
He may be rethinking that strategy right now…
by MarkInDallas on Jan 27, 2010 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
My Take on Bob Nutting
He is an business owner, not a baseball man. He choose to believe what Dave Littlefield and KM fed him at that time (no doubt fully committed to what they were doing). He believed that was the correct path to get the Pirate’s competitive again.
At some point in the bleakness, he decided (or someone convinced him) that the path DL and KM had taken was no good. He then became convinced that FC and NH had the right idea, and is fully behind what they are doing. He has also learned some about baseball simply from osmosis, so it’s really clear to him now that DL was way off.
He goes out of his way to talk to people about how excited he is about where the Pirates are heading. If I were fortunate enough to be in his position as an owner, I’d be pretty excited too.
I think there's a measure of truth to this.
It explains why he was willing to sign off on the Matt Morris trade, for example.
Not only is it true with Nutting
But I think it was also true with McClatchey. I still think that KM gets an unfair bad rap. He saved the franchise, which counts for a lot.
Beyond that, instead of “meddling” with baseball operations, he put his faith in his baseball people. When he finally realized that Bonifay’s plan and/or execution sucked, he hired another baseball guy in Littlefield and put his faith in him. Had KM been a Dan Snyder type meddler (admittedly without the same cash) he would have been just as vilified.
The problem was that KM made 4 massive mistakes:
1. Hiring Littlefield;
2. Allowing the financial situation that culminated in the Aram fiasco (this is not to absolve DL for giving Aram away, mind you); and,
3. Not firing DL when 3 years into his tenure it was clear that he lacked any sort of competent plan/ability for obtaining and developing talent through the draft.
Make those egregous errors when playing with another man’s money and you’ve got problems. To be sure, we are better off now with Nutting and his team than we were with KM, but I think it is unfair for KM to be vilified to the extent that he is.
Good day.
I'm not prepared to let KM off that easily...
if memory serves me it was KM that made Bonifay abandon the “rebuild” before it was complete and encouraged him to sign free agents in order to be competitive faster. This change in direction led to some of the worst FA signings in Pirate’s history: Derek (Operation Shutdown) Bell, Pat Meares, etc. I also believe that KM gets way too much credit for “saving” the franchise. I’m not sure how things would have played out but I really don’t believe the Pirates were going to move. Just my opinion.
I don’t agree that McClatchy saved the franchise. Living in the DC area, I got to follow the Expos’ move here pretty closely. It took an incredible confluence of events to get the franchise here, including the complete absence of any other viable destination. The circumstances that led to Selig finally approving the move here would never have occurred with the Pirates. They weren’t going anywhere.
Was it in 1998
That they tried to contract the Twins?
Can’t remember. But it’s kinda hard to argue that the Pirates were going anywhere when MLB thought it had more franchises than the country could support.
If the franchise folded
then they wouldn’t be in Pittsburgh.
I understand that there are those who share your belief that the team would still be in Pittsburgh if it wasn’t for KM. I’m not so sure, and I remember dire concern when there were so many hurdles to getting PCN Park financed. Were you so confident in 1998 and 1999?
Thankfully, it doesn’t matter.
Good day.
Contraction was never actually going to happen.
It was just an excuse they used to extort money for new stadia out of local governments. Contracting teams would take money OUT of owners’ wallets in the form of a buyout for the owner(s) of the contracted team(s) – why on earth would they pay hundreds of millions of dollars for something that gives them no real benefit?
I was confident at the time, and I certainly haven’t become less so over the intervening years.
It could be argued that major league baseball in Pittsburgh died long ago...
Lord knows we haven’t seen any semblance of it in years.
by Nutting Hostage on Jan 26, 2010 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
How does a franchise "fold?"
Does it just vanish? Has that ever happened? The Penguins went into bankruptcy and they still exist. Of course, no MLB franchise has ever gone into bankruptcy, at least not in modern times. MLB itself took over, to one degree or another, the operations of both the Expos and, just last year, the Rangers to keep it from happening.
The last major North American sports franchise to fold was the Cleveland Barons of the NHL. Their roster was merged with the Minnesota North Stars and the NHL dropped from 18 franchises to 17 in 1978-79.
Must not have tried very hard...
…given that the Twins are still in Minnesota, even after they told Bud to go pound salt.
Ten years later
The Twins get their ballpark, so if it was just a ploy to get funding for new ballparks it wasn’t particularly effective.
Ultimately, I think the Pirates were in jeopardy of leaving Pittsburgh (or being contracted). I think it is pretty cavalier if anybody assumed that it was not going to happen. Nobody thought the Colts would leave Baltimore or the Browns would leave Cleveland either.
Good day.
By waiting, they got another ten years' use out of the Metrodome.
Which is a pretty big deal, as far as taxpayers’ wallets are concerned.
If relocation had been anything more than a cheap ploy, the Twins would have been relocated during that time.
I should have said
That KM gets a worse rap than he deserves. I didn’t mean to imply that he is blameless or should not be held accountable, only that some of that should be tempered by his saving (at least in my view) the franchise and getting PNC Park built.
Good day.
If Nutting is bluffing about future payroll, or that the team will improve next year, or he thinks the Bucs have the best management team in sports, then he’s doing an awful job of lying. At least two thirds or three quarters of the fanbase doesn’t believe a word he says. He’s not gaining much benefit from what most people see as overconfident rhetoric.
I think
you’re hearing a vocal minority in the FO bashers. From what I’ve been reading (I’m not in the local radio/TV area to hear) most fans are hopefully optimistic, myself included.
Not that I put much stock in what most call in fans in the Baltimore/Washington area fans have to say, so by extension I’m guessing that the Pittsburgh call in croud isn’t much better informed. The Redskins fans complain when Snyder spends too much, on coaches for cryin’ out loud.
I’m about 30 minutes from down-town Pittsburgh, and it would be tough to spot a whole lot of optimism for the Bucs 2010 season here. The barrage of trades the past 2 years was not received kindly overall. I’ve had to do a lot of convincing. Thankfully, this community offers balanced opinions or else I would go nuts.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 25, 2010 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
its a bad bluff
Mr Nutting can’t handle losses from year to year so he has to have a small payroll . That way he can either break even or make a little money. But he’s is in a real poker game.Where any owner can bring as much money to the table that he wants. Mr. Nutting is betting on a short window of opportunity to win. But all his better players will come to be either free agents or to arbitration at around the same time and he will lose some players to an owner at the table with more money. this is why teams like oakland , the twins ,rockies and others make the playoffs but never win it all . because the window becomes shut and you must retool.
'position flex-ability, yea baby' austin powers
ill fold to the better hand here
Nutting and crew are on the right track. they have shown that they will spend money, i.e. (Maholm, Doumit, McClouth). yes they did get rid of McClouth and it appears Maholm and Doumit will follow but they did offer than contracts for a good amount of cash. The problem is the Pirates still were not winning so good bye to the high paid players.
I believe that when this core comes up and puts wins on the board then they will get their pay. now i think that something like what happened to the padres could happen to that core. the pirates raise payroll with a winning team then they have a bad year and profit goes down, so once again the players are traded away within the next several years. so what i think it comes down to is can these guys about to come up, Tabata, Alverez, Lincoln, can they win on a consistent basis. if they can, then nutting will pay the money, if not, why would he pay money to continue to lose.
No bluff
I think the Capps case is simple. Nutting didn’t think Capps was worth much (trusting Huntington and Coonely’s evaluation), didn’t want to say so publicly, and did what he thought he had to do. (Tried to trade, couldn’t get anything and let him go.) Give what’s happened (signing Dotel) we’re better off (marginally) now.
tried to say it before, but.......
I think that what happened was that Bob Jr’s family name was starting to be disparaged, and family pride (being that the newspaper industry is dying) made Nutting Jr step up and ax McClatchy and Littlebrain et al. Think about it, he stepped up and instead of making himself the de-facto president, he actually hired someone that had worked in the field of baseball. (unlike McClatchy who made himself INCHARGE even though he had never run any successful businesses). I might be wrong, but I think things changed when the fans started to blame the Nuttings instead of McClatchy. I do realize that some Pirates fans do not understand that there is a huge difference between the corporate terms ‘Managing Partner’ and ‘Majority Partner,’ however I think that I do understand where Nutting Jr might be and what he was and is thinking. For some families, being embarrassed is much more painful than any amount of money. Paul.
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
Hmm...
There could be something to that.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 1:18 AM EST up reply actions
Bob Nutting has served as the clubs Chairman of the Board since 2003
and he’s had significant influence since that time.
by Nutting Hostage on Jan 26, 2010 7:45 AM EST up reply actions
I will agree...
that as Chairman of the Board that Nutting had one responsibility and that was to hold his management team accountable. All comes down to how active of a Chairman was he? I get the feeling that it was more title only as he was more than content to let KM and Littlefield run things into the ground. However, as Chairman he did have a responsibility to hold his management team accountable. Now, it is ok to trust your baseball people but at some point yuo have to look at the progress being made and say hey, are they getting the job done. He eventually did that, but about 3 years longer than he should have.
Now I’m glad he is finally doing the right thing and I’m willing to see how this plays out before I belief he will live up to the promises he’s made. But let’s just say that while I’m hopeful, I’m also very cautious because while he gets credit for moving this ship in the right direction he justifiably deserves to take some heat for accepting and inferior product and an organization with no direction for so many years before stepping up. I agree with lightinghouse…I think he only got involved when his family started taking heat instead of McClatchy.
Bluffing? Hmmm.
"I am energized about our core group of exciting, young, talented players. We have one of the youngest teams in all of baseball and now will be able to keep them together for several years. Coming off last season’s second half success, I am confident that this team will continue to improve. I very much look forward to the 2007 season." – Bob Nutting – January 2007
Was that a bluff?
bq. "There’s no question that my expectation in 2009 is that we have a better team than we did last year," he said. "Even as we continue to build for the long-term success of the franchise, a real, championship-caliber organization that can compete on a sustainable basis, we have to have a better team in 2009 and better than what Pittsburgh has seen lately." – Bob Nutting January 2009
Or maybe that was a bluff?
bq. "Oh, absolutely. We are going to win more games than last year. We are going to see improvement on the field in Pittsburgh, in terms of wins and loses. We have to." – Bob Nutting January 2010
Seems like there is some kind of pattern developing here…
by Nutting Hostage on Jan 26, 2010 8:19 AM EST reply actions
Seems like there is some kind of pattern developing here…
The only pattern I see is the one where you keep posting the same annoying “Bob Nutting is the Anti-Christ” talking points over and over and over until the website owner gets tired of your schtick and bans your account. Then you move on to a new message board.
not even close
He just doesn’t have the financial backbone to field a competitive baseball team. Whether or not he desires to win is besides the point. And as stated in the DK interview, he believes that the finances of the team will dictate the ability for the team to compete… true, the finances are bad, so the team can’t compete, which makes the finances bad…
Financial backbone?
What does that even mean? What owner has any more financial backbone than any other? They mostly all just use the money the teams makes in revenue. The Steinbrenners have more money to spend on the team than the Pirates do because the Yankees make a ton more money. When John Henry owned the Marlin, they had a low payroll. Now that he owns the Red Sox, they have a high payroll. The amount of money he puts into payroll personally is the exact same amount – ZERO.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
And of course...
…when an owner DOES start dipping into his personal resources to increase payroll beyond what revenues will support, he often gets himself into trouble. Just look at Howard Baldwin.
there's no rule that says they can't
What owner has more financial backbone than any other? Certainly a billionaire has more financial backbone than a multi-millionaire. A baseball team that loses $10M hurts Nutting a heck of a lot more than it hurts Steinbrenner.
Vlad rightly points out below that owners can and do dip into personal resources beyond team revenues.
I wonder if Wikipedia has this correct...
“Baldwin’s specialty was buying franchises with very little of his own money invested. For example, his actual cash investment in the Penguins was just $1,000. The rest was assumed debt and capital provided by other partners.”
—
I’m not saying it doesn’t ever happen, but I have yet to find an example of it that anyone can point to as being successful in the long term.
And, there’s no reason that a team that loses $10M would hurt someone like Mark Cuban less than it would Bob Nutting. It likely would hurt them equally – which is to say not at all. Cuban would not dip into his personal piggy bank anymore than Nutting would, and he has both said that verbally, and proven it with how he has operated the Mavericks.
The rich people I know do not throw money away. They will not give $1000 for any cause or business opportunity unless they believe there is something of value coming back to them, let alone $10M.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 3:44 PM EST up reply actions
Not to put too fine a point on it...
…but not throwing money away is one of the primary means by which rich people become rich in the first place.
I thought it was by buying cheap wine?
by MarkInDallas on Jan 27, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
Since you cross-posted the same out-of-context quote...
…I’m going to cross-post my rebuttal:
What happened to that exciting young group of talented players? They got old, and didn’t develop the way he’d hoped.
Your first quote is from January of 2007 (Link). Here‘s the 2006 roster. Who are the "core group" of players on that team? For hitters, based on the information at that time, I would say Paulino, Freddy, Bay, and Bautista. If you also wanted to include Castillo, Duffy, and/or Nady, I wouldn’t kick up too much of a fuss. For pitchers, we’re probably talking about Duke, Snell, Maholm, Ollie, Gorz, and Gonzo. Maybe Capps as well, if you want to use a broader definition of "core".
[Note: I don’t think you can reasonably say that Nate or Doumit were seen as "core" players as of January 2007. Doumit had slumped with both the bat and the glove and been supplanted by Paulino, while Nate was locked in as a reserve and coming off a poor season as Duffy’s backup.]
So what happened? Some of the players regressed, and some of them stagnated. Gorz forgot how to throw strikes, and Ollie never really remembered. Snell had one great year, then went nuts. Paulino got fat and lazy. Duffy conclusively proved that 2005 had been a fluke. Bautista never addressed the holes in his game, and Castillo actively went backwards. Duke pitched acceptably, but got murdered by his defense.
Most importantly, everybody continued to age. Two years later, everybody was two years older, and even the productive members of that 2007 team’s "core" were becoming brittle (Bay’s knees, Freddy’s everything…). Talented young teams become middle-aged at the same rate as everyone else.
So. While it’s sad that things turned out the way that they did, Nutting wasn’t unreasonable for being optimistic before the season started, and he was neither mendacious for expressing that optimism nor personally responsible for its failure to come to fruitition. [And as an aside, this is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about when I say that your arguments are frequently intellectually dishonest, and made in bad faith.]
There’s another point here: If anybody can identify a single team in MLB that’s always right in their evaluations of their players and that never has to change any of their plans, I’d sure like to know which team it is.
The Pirates overestimated what the 2008 team could accomplish and have said so. I’d much rather have a management team that can pull the plug on a course of action that isn’t working than one like McClatchy and Littlefield that clings year after year to the same failed ideas and the same losing players. People like NutHo seem to think that, if NH admits he made a mistake with a player or a contract, that makes him a bad GM. IMO, it makes him a good GM. And the same reasoning applies to Nutting.
22 days until pitchers and catchers report
look, i know this debate remains unsettled and probably will be forever but i personally am looking forward to having actual baseball games to argue about.
Lots of good arguments, but . . . .
For the past year or so, I have wondered what the Pirates would have become if the front office had spent as much attention on a better coaching staff as it has on “building with core players.” (For the life of me, I can’t even remember the field manager’s name right now! Some guy with glasses who used to be a catcher. For what it’s worth, I do believe Doumit’s abilities behind the plate have improved dramatically since that guy became the manager. Aside from that, what else has improved even half as much?)
I have to say I am very impressed with teams like the Rockies, the Tigers, and the Rays. Those teams absolutely sucked a few years ago, but they turned into winning teams with the same caliber of players that they had before. The right coaching staff knows how to get the best out of “no name” players.
Maybe I’m wrong about all of that. If so, life still goes on, and I’ll still have my Pirates hat.
David
Rockies have a great manager… Jim Tracy… remember him?
Tigers invested lots of money and talent, namely Miguel Cabrera. Rays window of opportunity is closing as they make tough decisions on maturing talent.
I remember a Jim Tracy who thought Joe Randa was better than Freddy Sanchez and that Nate McLouth and Ryan Doumit couldn’t be starting players in the major leagues.
And by riding Tom Gorzelanny so hard down the stretch. That really was important.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 27, 2010 2:07 AM EST up reply actions
Russell is a pretty good defensive instructor for catchers.
Jason Kendall made huge strides when Russell worked with him on McClendon’s staff, for example.
I Think Nutting Has You Fooled
You forgot to mention the revenue sharing. When it is not spent, it is pocketed. Fielding a good team means higher payroll, which means less in Nutting’s pocket. You miss the obvious, but there is no need to guess at this. It was shown when the Bucs started fielding a .500 team in the middle of 2 seasons ago. Dumping Bay, Nady and Marte for little value to the Yanks and Bosox is all the proof you need (it doesn’t not appear so lopsided now because of the injuries, but that was just luck). Guess who pays the most profit sharing to the Bucs?? That’s right, the Yanks and Bosox. Get it now?
OK, if you can answer this question well I might change my mind.
Revenue sharing is a narrowing influence on revenue disparity, which means that no team can leapfrog any other team on the revenue totem pole. Can we at least agree on that? Now…
Can you explain to me why a team that is #29 in attendance and #26 in market size should be much higher than 27th or 28th in the league in payroll?
This is your chance to teach me something. Please explain to me the obvious thing I am missing.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 27, 2010 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
A player who’s logged a zillion days on the DL even before 2009 getting seriously injured again is just dumb luck?
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 28, 2010 1:03 AM EST up reply actions
A player who had, in fact...
…already had exactly the same injury to exactly the same body part? That was luck?
(Lest we forget that it was Nady’s second TJ.)
The Bucs weren’t fielding a .500 team when Bay, Nady and Marte were traded. Not even close, in fact. The Nady/Marte return has been excellent, and while the Bay return now looks underwhelming it was widely praised at the time.
Nice try, though.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 28, 2010 1:23 AM EST up reply actions
Ok, I'll try
See http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09341/1018961-63.stm
Ok, I agree that revenue sharing is a narrowing influence on revenue disparity. But I’m not saying that Pirate owneship is trying to lose so that they can inch up the revenue sharing. I’m saying that they are simply pocketing the revenue sharing they are receiving.
To use your poker analogy, Nutting gets to keep the pot without showing you his cards. The objective reporting (and Forbes Magazine referenced inthere) explains that. The annual amount they get is between 66 and 75 million (before you even add in the gate, tv, merchandise, etc.), depending on whom you believe. THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO ACCOUNT FOR IT other than an annual letter that requires a general statement indicating they are trying to be competitive. Nutting and Coneely refuse to account for it despite many attempts (i.e they won’t show their cards). The article says that the Buc’s 2010 payroll is dropping to 34 mill which could put them dead last under Florida. Everybody thinks Fla and Oakland are trying to win. NOBODY is convinced that Pirates mgmt is trying to win. Gutting the team over and over again whenever it starts to become average proves it. At a minimum, they are pocketing 11 mill (the poker pot) but it is potentially much more.
The point about the trades is to show the conlfict of interest. Giving the best players to those who pay in most ensures that the revenue sharing stays very high for the perpetually bottom tier teams like the Bucs – and also breeds the possibility of kickbacks.
I used to have hope for my favorite team that could last until late May, but now I know that there is no scenario Nutting can sell in an interview that can make this team average on the field while he, Connelly and Huntingdon divide the profit sharing spoils. “We Are Family” has a whole new meaning.
So, what you are saying is that
You have no answer for me on my question. You have no reason that a team 29th in attendance and 26th in market size should be much higher than 27th or 28th in the league in payroll.
So, in other words, you feel they do have an appropriate level payroll for what their current revenue is, correct?
Your story is they just don’t care if they get better because it is easier to make $5.5M per year ($11M over 2 years in the article you reference) instead of making $20M per year like the Brewers, Marlins and Padres do.
Is that correct, or am I not getting what you are saying?
by MarkInDallas on Jan 28, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
Just to clarify...
Their payroll for 2010 will be lower than usual, but I am talking about the level of payroll they have had the past few years. They have been either 27th or 28th in payroll every year from 2004 to 2009, and have been 27th, 28th or 29th in attendance during those years as well.
In 2010 they will have the lowest payroll in MLB, but that is because they will have the largest group of 0-3 year players, with those players are making the minimum salary.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 28, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
Being Dead Last Means Ownership is Bad
Going from say 27th in payroll to dead last is not a step in the right direction. The Bucs have always been in the lower tier of gate receipts and market, but ownership and mgmt are doing nothing to improve that, and the pre-Littlefield era was very successful in at least competing despite not having the revenue sharing benefit. The cyclical method of trading each average to good player for 2 bums is a clear indication that there is no will to compete. Pocketing the revenue sharing is the real point here, because it also demonstrates that there is no will to win, andd that they are benefitting from the conflict of interest evident each time the owners cut a deal to give the best Pirates away to the very same people who are giving then the revenue sharing to pocket. Owners with money and smarts know how to compete. There is no way you can spin this situation to defend Nutting et al.
So, you are just going to keep repeating your accusations when there is obviously no basis for them?
So they are still “pocketing the revenue sharing” even though we’ve just established they don’t, and in fact have spent the same proportion of their revenue on payroll as the average team does? But, hey, you’re not going to let a little fact like that stop your whining rant, will you? No, I didn’t think so.
You haven’t been able to give us even one fact to support your argument, yet you are still going to spout it like it was gospel truth.
I don’t need to “spin” the situation. Whether you like it or not, the Pirates are following a plan that has been successfully executed multiple times in the past decade. The Brewers are able to spend as they are right now because they lowered payroll and created a cheap team that began winning and drawing fans. This raised their revenue so they could spend more on payroll and gave them a cushion so they could avoid problems if there was a drop in attendance.
Their current situation is a result of years of poor baseball decisions – especially in the draft and international free agent markets – which took place until the current management team took over in 2007.
Thankfully, there are many indications that that sad era is over. Hopefully, when you are proven wrong, you’ll have enough humility to come back and admit it.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 30, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions
Naw,
…he’ll be too busy telling everyone within earshot, “I knew NH was going in the right direction all along.”
I just hope there’s enough room on the bandwagon for him then…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 30, 2010 9:53 PM EST up reply actions
This is a similar tale to that which you are spinning:
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 29, 2010 7:53 PM EST 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
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
