Bucs Dugout: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: MLB Trade Deadline: Phils, Astros complete Roy Oswalt deal

Why Not Pursue a Shortstop?

Dejan Kovacevic wonders why shortstop wasn't considered a positional hole this offseason the way that second base was:

Really, why would shortstop not be considered a hole?

Management thought little enough of Ronny Cedeno that it added Bobby Crosby with the stated aim of pushing Cedeno for starting duty. That is a 239 hitter being pushed by a .238 hitter, hardly a hole-free scenario. And, if there is a shortstop on the horizon in the system, he cannot be seen without a telescope, so blocking hardly is a factor.

Still, barely any investment was made here: Cedeno will make $1.125 million, Crosby $1 million, making for a combined figure in the range of what Ryan Church or a couple of the relievers got. This for an important everyday position, surely more important than second base, where $4.85 million was added with the trade for Akinori Iwamura.

 

I see what he's saying, but I really think it's apples and oranges. Second base was a huge hole. The incumbent starter was Delwyn Young, who has the bat for the position but who, defensively, has all the grace of an emu on ice skates. Then there was Ramon Vazquez and Brian Bixler--enough said. After that the most obvious options were Brian Friday (who has yet to play above Class AA), Jim Negrych (who might be just as bad defensively as Young) and Shelby Ford (who was coming off a thoroughly miserable minor league season). And... that's it. Second base wasn't just a hole, it was a canyon.

Ronny Cedeno isn't a great starting shortstop, but he is, at least, a credible one. A backup on a playoff team, possibly, and certainly a second division starter at best, but if you need a shortstop, he gets the job done. There wasn't anyone like that at second. I'm no fan of Bobby Crosby, but I agree with the outline of management's plan for the middle infield: they needed a real, starting second baseman, but they merely needed depth at shortstop, and so they spent relatively heavily on the former and lightly on the latter. I'm sure the Pirates could have replaced Cedeno and nobody would have felt too bad about it, but it's worth pointing out that Cedeno played pretty well down the stretch last year, showed flashes of promise in the Cubs system, and doesn't turn 27 until next week. There's a bit of upside there, and I'm fine with the Pirates just pursuing that rather than hunting around for a veteran shortstop who might not have been as good as Cedeno anyway.

0 recs  |  Comment 252 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

my thoughts...

I agree with Kovacevic thoughts on we needed to pursue a shortstop, because thats probably our biggest weakness on the team postion wise, but I would just like to know who Kovacevic had in mind that was available that he thought the Pirates should have went after?

A good shortstop seems really hard to come by now-a-days for some reason. There was’nt anybody really worth mentioning on the free agent market other than maybe Marco Scutaro, and any proven players (Hanley Ramirez, Tulowitzki, Reyes) or prospects (Andrus, Escobar) at the position would cost an arm, and a leg to acquire.

So as I also see what Kovacevic is saying I agree with Charlie that its apples, and oranges at this point, because if there were a better option out there for us than we already have I feel strongly Hutington would’ve acquired them. At this point, like Charlie mentioned, I believe Cedeno is our best option right now, and is about to turn that magical 27 years old, so look for Cedeno to have a nice year, and may even end up being the best shortstop in our division this year.

by FusilliJerry88 on Jan 26, 2010 2:14 AM EST reply actions  

Yea.....

I’m not sure who DK thinks was available, particularly after it appears we were rebuffed in our efforts to obtain Hardy. And for all the Cedeno bashing I actually think he was perfectly adequate in the third of a season he was in Pittsburgh.

Hopefully with another year and winter ball under his belt he continues to improve. He certainly has some pop in his bat.

by dtoddwin on Jan 26, 2010 8:04 AM EST up reply actions  

I think it’s pretty clear that the Pirates are going with these guys at short because of the difficulty in obtaining young shortstops. It’s pretty easy to find a guy who can field but can’t hit, like Luis Cruz or Argenis Diaz, and sometimes you can find a guy who can hit but can’t field the position at a major league level, like Brendan Harris. But young shortstops with the potential to do both may be the hardest commodity in baseball to acquire. There’s a reason the Yankees gave up Jose Tabata for Nady but the Rays wouldn’t give up Reid Brignac for Bay.

I don’t think Dejan is necessarily criticizing the team for not finding somebody else, though. I only understood him to be saying that there’s more of a hole at short than anywhere else. There’s somebody who stands a reasonable chance of turning into a legitimate regular at every other position, especially if you take Alvarez and Tabata into account. I wouldn’t say Cedeno and Crosby have no chance, but the odds are probably much lower with them than at any other position. I think that’s all Dejan was saying.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 9:49 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Exactly

And to illustrate the rarity of shortstops:

1. TB took Tim Beckham ahead of Pedro.
2. We drafted several shortstops in early rounds recently.
3. I’m guessing we will do so again in 2010.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Jan 26, 2010 1:05 PM EST up reply actions  

This is why

I never understood the distaste for Jack Wilson. In his worst seasons, he was a plus defender with a weak bat (one that was mid-pack among starting SSs); in his best seasons, he was a great defender with a good bat (a step below elite-hitting SSs). Much as you’d like to get more from the position, it’s proven pretty hard to do.

I think that the simultaneous development of a handful of good-hitting shortstops in the mid-90s really skewed people’s expectations from the position – suddenly the models were A-Rod and Jeter, not Ozzie Smith or Phil Rizzutto.

by JRoth95 on Jan 26, 2010 4:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Mid-pack? Good?

I’m not sure where this comes from. In 2007, when Jack had his highest OPS, he ranked 7th among 18 qualifiers. In 2006, which was an average season for him, he ranked 11th of 14. In 2009, if he’d had enough ABs to qualify, he would’ve ranked 17th of 19. Seems to me he was mid-pack in his best seasons (of which there were 2) and bottom-feeding the rest of the time.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 5:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Look

If you’re going to say that the 7th-best hitting SS in baseball is “mid-pack,” then there’s really no point in discussing it with you. Your mind is made up, so we can move on.

I might add that the clause “if he’d had enough ABs to qualify, he would’ve ranked 17th of 19” makes literally no sense. If we’re randomly awarding extra PAs, why aren’t you looking at all 30 teams? Oh, right, because it suits your position better only to award Jack extra PAs while ignoring a half dozen (or more, I’m not looking) other SS who hit worse and also didn’t qualify.

by JRoth95 on Jan 26, 2010 5:19 PM EST up reply actions  

OK

Jack’s 2009 OPS would have ranked 23rd of the 30 teams. I don’t consider that mid-pack. And his 2009 OPS was actually the third best of a nine-year career.

His 2007 OPS would have ranked 8th of the 30 teams, so that’s better than mid-pack. Of course, he’s only twice had an OPS+ above 77 (104 in 2004 and 106 in 2007) in a nine-year career, and his propensity for injuries has greatly increased since 2007. There’s little reason to think he’s likely to do better than his usual 74-77, especially since he’s moved to a strong pitcher’s park in a much tougher league, in a division that may have the best overall pitching of any division in MLB right now. It’s entirely reasonable to assume that he’ll provide well below mid-pack offense at short for the Mariners.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 5:40 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think DK was talking about availability

His point was simply that it wasn’t really right to say that the Pirates had “only” two holes to fill – I think it’s safe to say that, this offseason, Cedeno was treated, both by the FO and by fans, as a no-brainer incumbent, which is a stretch for a guy with a career OBP of .280 (!).

I mean, I take Charlie’s argument completely – if you’re looking for easy WAR to pick up, 2B was much lower hanging fruit than SS – but I don’t think DK needs to identify a list of likely signings/trades in order to be allowed to note that our presumptive SS for 2010 has, uh, flaws.

[Funny aside: without thinking, I looked up Roger Cedeno’s numbers. He had a nice season for the Mets in ‘99, when they made a great run at the Braves, and he’s always stuck in my head for that reason, even though he was otherwise mostly a stiff]

by JRoth95 on Jan 26, 2010 4:51 PM EST up reply actions  

?

Well then DK should’ve answered his own question then…the headline should’ve read

WHY NOT PURSUE A SHORTSTOP? because none are available….

by FusilliJerry88 on Jan 26, 2010 5:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Clearly......

Cedeno is NOT treated as a no-brainer incumbent by the front office. Who cares about the fans opinion, but the only reason the fans view him as the incumbent is because only he and Crosby are on the roster.

by dtoddwin on Jan 27, 2010 10:50 AM EST up reply actions  

After the Chavez for Aki heist, he probably though we could just flip Karstens for JJ Hardy.

by McGreal on Jan 26, 2010 2:29 AM EST reply actions  

After the Chavez for Aki heist, he probably though we could just flip Karstens for JJ Hardy.

by McGreal on Jan 26, 2010 2:29 AM EST reply actions  

Management didn’t state that shortstop was a hole because there was a good chance they wouldn’t be able to find one a lot better than Cedeno. We tried offering Capps for J.J. Hardy, but that didn’t work. The best free agent at the position was Marco Scutaro, and then there was a large drop-off. Enough second base options were available, though, that the Bucs could have picked up Kelly Johnson, Orlando Hudson or another free agent if an Iwamura deal fell through.

In the end, the team settled for Crosby, who looks like an improvement from Cedeno. Crosby has a decent reputation with the glove, so I’d prefer him as the starter next year. He’ll probably get injured, leaving enough at bats for everyone, but it seems worth it to solidify the defense up the middle and try to get some momentum in the early going.

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 26, 2010 3:09 AM EST reply actions  

Matt Capps is the same as not trying.

by ol Pete on Jan 26, 2010 8:32 AM EST up reply actions  

Why Not Pursue a Shortstop?

Kind of a silly question if you ask me. Clearly this club is not going to be competing for anything this season, and they have not yet started trying to build a competitive roster. They are in the early stages of a complete and total rebuilding process that will take at least another 2 to 3 years at the earliest and for now all they are doing is cobbling together as inexpensive of a 25 man roster as they can to play out the season schedule while they wait for their young prospects to develop.

Why not shortstop? Why not firstbase? Why not right field? Why not a true # 1 or # 2 cliber starting pitcher? Why not a major league lefthanded reliever? Why not a second baseman for when they trade Iwamura in July?

I agree that neither Cedeno or Crosby inspire a great deal of confidence however the club has even bigger gaps at other positions that have not been addressed either.

by Nutting Hostage on Jan 26, 2010 7:54 AM EST reply actions  

What makes you think 2B is an equal or larger gap?

Seems pretty obvious at this point that if Iwamura is traded, they’re planning on LaRoche at 2B and Pedro at 3B in the not-so-distant future.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 10:08 AM EST up reply actions  

What makes you think 2B is an equal or larger gap?

Let’s see.

If Cedeno bombs, they have a 7 yr. major league veteran in Crosby as a fall back position.

When they dump Iwamura I am not convinced that moving a guy who has played a grand total of 13 innings at 2B to the position will yield immediate positive results.

by Nutting Hostage on Jan 26, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions  

For once I agree with you. While I’m not willing to rule out Laroche at 2B, I rarely see anyone question whether he’ll be able to make a smooth transition there.

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions  

It doesn't have to be a particularly smooth transition...

…to be at least as good an overall option as Crosby at SS, since LaRoche can hit and Crosby really can’t. Even if his glove starts out shaky, that’ll probably only bring him down to Crosby’s level.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 11:43 AM EST up reply actions  

I agree. I was just referring to (what appears to me) an assumption on many people’s part that Laroche will automatically be able to play 2B when the reality is that he’s played very little there his entire career. It’s assumed that his bat would be good there, but that’s taking for granted that learning a new defensive position won’t negatively affect his hitting.

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 11:48 AM EST up reply actions  

+1

LaRoche has “played” 13 innings at 2B at the major league level…and a whopping 8 games in his minor league career at 2B. What has anyone convinced that he can play 2B at the major league level?

Likely to be Stonehenge, part 2, there.

by Thunder on Jan 26, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions  

There's no telling at this point.

Although I’m sure the FO is hoping Andy can do well at 2B, I don’t think it’s an automatic thing that Aki will be traded and LaRoche moved to 2B.

They probably will evaluate Andy at some point this year and decide if he is going to be good enough or not to move over to 2B. If so, then they will trade Aki, if not and Aki proves to be healthy and productive, then they will try to extend Aki and trade Andy.

So, I don’t think this is fully scripted yet.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions  

That sounds reasonable enough

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions  

you gotta figure

That we’ll see a lot of early ST games with Pedro at 3B and Andy at 2B.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Jan 26, 2010 1:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Haven't you played baseball?

2B, SS, 3B are all pretty identical. You field ground balls and throw them to the first basemen. The rest is just details.

by Mr. E on Jan 26, 2010 9:09 PM EST up reply actions  

So the Cubs could move A-Ram to 2B? The Giants could move Pablo Sandoval? Hell, let’s get Alvarez some reps at 2B, since it’s pretty identical to 3B. Except for the details.

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 9:15 PM EST up reply actions  

since LaRoche can hit and Crosby really can’t.

LaRoche career: .230 / .314 / .666

Crosby career: .238 / .305 / .683

by Nutting Hostage on Jan 26, 2010 12:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Career numbers mean nothing when evaluating someone for 2010. That an argument for the Andy for HOF thread. That said, no one knows whether Andy will hit as he is capable in 2010. It’s going to be an important year in his career. It’s time for him to put up or shut up.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions  

LaRoche in 2009: .258/.330/.401 (95 OPS+)

Meanwhile, Crosby hasn’t had an OPS+ over 80 since 2005.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 1:30 PM EST up reply actions  

But Vlad

Crosby hit 22 dingers in 2004! Surely you must have forgotten that Andy LaRoche has never hit that many. How could Andy be a better hitter?

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 1:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Ain't September wonderful??

LaRoche 2009 April through August
.245/.324/.367 in 486 plate appearances.

which…I’d say…is a whole lot closer to an 80 OPS+.

by Thunder on Jan 26, 2010 1:47 PM EST up reply actions  

So if you cut out all the bits where he played well...

…then he played poorly?

Will wonders never cease?

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 1:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Three weeks of hitting well out of 162 games. Nice.

by Thunder on Jan 26, 2010 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

LaRoche his very well in May, too, with an .869 OPS for the month. So it’s more like two good months and four bad months. Not great, but not exactly as bad as you’re painting it to be.

http://www.whygavs.com
http://mlb.fanhouse.com

by whygavs on Jan 26, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Excuse me...

but those April thru August numbers DID give him that great month in May…and he STILL had a sub .700 OPS going into September.

Guess we are supposed to genuflect over his 26 September games…and totally ignore everything else?? No thanks…I will wait until Andy LaRoche actually shows some offensive consistency before I have him starting unchallenged at ANY position.

by Thunder on Jan 26, 2010 9:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Seeing as how he’s got Pedro in the rear-view mirror, he probably doesn’t qualify as “unchallenged.”

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 9:03 PM EST up reply actions  

And

He’s got Iwamura at 2B that he’s got to push out when that happens. Andy’s days of scholarship are pretty much over. You could say that for just about everyone on the club.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 9:10 PM EST up reply actions  

For April and May...

I’d call it unchallenged…unless someone truly thinks that Pirates management will give any thought to putting Walker or RV there. After that…it doesn’t depend on LaRoche…it depends on Pedro.

by Thunder on Jan 26, 2010 9:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Well “for April and May” is a pretty big qualifier. The way you suggested it earlier sounded as if the Pirates were handing Laroche a job for as long as he wanted one.

I think everyone understands that Laroche is on a pretty short leash. He’s got a few months to sink or swim. If he doesn’t produce he’s on the bench. Apparently that’s not good enough for you though. What should they do, in your opinion? Bring in a different third baseman to play for a few months until Alvarez is ready?

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 9:22 PM EST up reply actions  

If they are going to move him (Laroche)...

when Pedro gets called up…they better play him at 2nd quite a bit in March. Meanwhile…you determine whether Pedro will be ready in April, June or 2011…and experiment with Walker or whoever else at 3rd. Have more than one option.

I’ve gotten tired of seeing players anointed as starters 6 months ahead of time without performing at a high enough level to deserve it. One could argue that Andy has performed at a high enough level on defense. Certainly not on offense…unless you just want to assume that September 2009 is Andy’s true offensive performance level.

by Thunder on Jan 26, 2010 9:50 PM EST up reply actions  

I’ll tell you what I expect from Andy. I expect he will have periods of hitting .320+ like he did in 2009, but instead of cratering to sub .200 level in the other times, to just hit .250 or so. That would raise his overall average to around .285 or .290.

When you look at it like that, it’s not so difficult to imagine that he could do it. In fact, he SHOULD be able to do that, given the fact his swing is short and compact.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 10:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Also, Andy projects as the 19th best starting 3B hitter according to the CHONE system. Sure, that’s not Hercules, but it’s not like he’s a fringe starter or anything either.

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 27, 2010 12:28 AM EST up reply actions  

LaRoche hit very well half the year and very poor half the year.

Started season 0-16 in first 6 games through April 15.
.331/.402/.458 in 47 games from April 16 to June 8.
.201/.287/.325 in 70 games from June 9 to Sept 1.
.323/.364/.570 in 26 games from Sept 2 to Oct 4.

76 games of suck, and 73 games of excellence.

Will the real Andy LaRoche please step forward in 2010?

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 4:17 PM EST up reply actions  

That IS the real Andy LaRoche

The difference between him and his brother is that he breaks his suckage into two parts.

by JRoth95 on Jan 26, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions  

With Adam, you can see why he would be streaky. His swing is very long and relies a lot on perfect timing.

With Andy, it’s not that way. His swing is short and compact. That’s the kind of swing that should be consistent and repeatable.

That’s why I feel there’s a better chance that Andy’s issues are fixable.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 6:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed. I also want to see how he reacts to Pedro’s imminent arrival. A fast up-and-comer with eyes on your job has a tendency to focus one’s attention.

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 8:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Just for giggles...and to see people's reaction.

Andy LaRoche on September 3 2009
.245/.325/.366 in 491 plate appearances. 7 HR, 46 RBI

Brandon Moss on September 3 2009
.244/.307/.380 in 336 plate appearances. 7 HR, 31 RBI

Both reportedly above average defensively at their positions. One starting every day, one about to be dispatched to Siberia.

Makes perfect sense to me. I’m told that Moss hasn’t played 3B…and LaRoche isn’t an OF. A shame…since offensively…Moss has outperformed Laroche at the major league level. Maybe we try both of them at 2B??

by Thunder on Jan 26, 2010 10:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Translation: Let me see if I can start a food fight by picking some random day two guys had similar stats and ignoring the large defensive positional disparity between them and everything that came after the random date I selected.

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 10:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah...

we’re supposed to pay attention and believe the last 25 games that Andy played and ignore the first 125. OK…got it.

by Thunder on Jan 26, 2010 11:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Or we could look at all 150 games, in which he was about league average at the plate.

by MBandi on Jan 27, 2010 12:11 AM EST up reply actions  

Look at all 150 games and not cherry-pick? Surely you jest…

/

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 27, 2010 12:23 AM EST up reply actions  

The difference

Is that Moss hit .515 in 10 games in May, and hit .200 the rest of the year. That’s not sustainable for any length of time, and 10 games is not significant enough to say much about it.

Andy sustained excellent production for 2 significant stretches of games totaling 73 games.

BTW, I’m not saying it is acceptable for Andy to suck half the year. The question is just who shows more aptitude and who is most likely to get better and actually be an above average player in the future.

From how they performed in 2009 and also throughout the minors, etc, Andy has a lot more potential as a hitter than Moss. But, at some point, he’s got to realize that potential and kick some ass for a whole season.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 10:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Why does it matter...

…what numbers a guy had at a certain point in the year? Streaks and slumps are irrelevant – teams need runs just as much at all points in the year, so it doesn’t really matter when the player provides them, as long as he does.

In 2009 as a whole, LaRoche provided, and in 2009 as a whole, Moss didn’t. That’s why the former gets credit, and the latter blame.

by Vlad on Jan 27, 2010 9:22 AM EST up reply actions  

No, no, no...

your puching a major hole in the Laroche brothers suck argument…especially the Adam argument. Obviously you are wrong because by the time Adam or Andy get hot the Pirates are already out of it. If they could only get hot in the 1st half and slump in the 2nd half we would have relevany baseball into August before falling 20 games below .500.

by Slick1 on Jan 27, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions  

The biggest casual fanbase memes are that Andy LaRoche and Morton shouldn’t be on the major league team. The old version of this had Adam. LaRoche and Morton aren’t Longoria and Lincecum, and they’ve been slightly below league average so far. But they’re also very far away from the likes of Derek Bell and Ryan Vogelsong (or, say, Emilio Bonifacio and Livan Hernandez).

These two were the best player return for our prized trade chips of Bay and McLouth (although the latter is a stretch in terms of “prized”). So the scrutiny is increased. But I think the losing has caused a lot of fans to lose a bit of perspective as well.

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 27, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions  

I'll say consistency does have value as well.

I would rather have a guy like Nate who is consistently putting up around .260/.350/.450 than someone who craters to .280 OBP half the year and .420 the other half.

I think that gives you a better chance of putting together a lineup which is going to maximize the run potential.

wOBA is great for estimating runs in a neutral context, but it’s not measuring against a real world situation. Hitting 30 HRs in the leadoff spot is probably not going to generate 43 runs, which wOBA gives credit for. If you don’t have at least average hitters behind a guy getting on base at a .400 pace, you aren’t going to score as much as wOBA says you should either.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 27, 2010 12:28 PM EST up reply actions  

There's a very, very slight edge to consistency.

But it’s such a small factor that it’s really not worth chasing. Particularly insofar as there are no truly consistent hitters anyway – the appearance of in-season consistency is much more likely to be a reflection of random variation than of an actual, genuine ability.

by Vlad on Jan 27, 2010 3:18 PM EST up reply actions  

As someone who has a talent based skill

I know that performing at a high level consistently is a lot more complex and personal than simply random chance.

People can learn that and there are those who are better and those who are worse.

I think there is a tendency in the sabremetric community to overvalue randomness. Of course, randomness does really occur and plays a large part in what happens on the diamond. But there is another human factor that is not random, yet not measurable, at least not yet.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 27, 2010 5:56 PM EST up reply actions  

This is starting to veer into a semantic debate.

I’m not talking about consistency of approach, which is a skill. I’m talking about consistency of results, which is a different thing.

Can you name a particular hitter who’s noteworthy for month-to-month consistency of results?

by Vlad on Jan 27, 2010 6:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, certainly Adam LaRoche seems to be one that consistently gets hot after mid-season sometime.

With him, I’ve always attributed that to his inability to concentrate unless he has something scaring the bejeebus out of him, like he’s going to be canned.

In a sense that’s approach. But I think there’s a lot made of randomness that can be attributed to approach.

For example, there was a time that Doumit was hitting the ball pretty well several weeks after coming back and the hits weren’t falling in. I could see it was because he was stubbornly trying to pull everything and the defense was bunching up on him. Then he started to go the other way and suddenly the hits started falling in and he hit well for the rest of the year.

Some may look at that and say he was unlucky with BABIP, then it evened out. I think that may be overstating the effect of luck.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 27, 2010 9:38 PM EST up reply actions  

LaRoche doesn't really answer my question.

I wanted an example of a hitter who was unusually consistent across months (and thus able to give his team a slight added benefit), not a hitter who consistently featured the same type of inconsistent results.

And in any event, LaRoche doesn’t really qualify, in that he hasn’t always been better in the second half than the first – look at 2005, for example, when he had a .810 OPS in the first half and a .732 OPS in the second.

By “consistency of approach”, I mean a player having the body control to use a consistent set of physical mechanics in his play. I was attempting to draw a distinction between repeatable actions (which are a skill) and repeatable results (which are not).

by Vlad on Jan 28, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions  

I see

That would be an interesting study to do. To see how much variance there is from the highs and lows of every batter.

In sports, not only do you have luck, but you also have the level of competition which is constantly changing, and you should normalize for that.

And this is something that I don’t think any stat provides right now. There may be some hitters that just don’t do well against better pitchers and tee off on average pitchers. Maybe you have a stretch of hitting against better competition and you go into a “slump”. Then you get “hot” against a stretch of 5th starters.

I don’t know that we have any statistical tools to discover that right now.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 28, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions  

So the UT IF...

…counts as a backup plan for SS, but not for 2B? You don’t think that a seven-year veteran SS could take a few grounders at second, if necessity dictated? Given that it requires the exact same defensive skill set, only at a lower level of ability?

The only difference between the depth at the two positions is that LaRoche can play 2B, but not SS. Crosby provides the same measure of insurance at both positions (i.e. relatively little, IMO).

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 11:42 AM EST up reply actions  

Vlad...

sorry to be contrary…but how do you know that LaRoche can play 2B?

by Thunder on Jan 26, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions  

No, not a problem.

I don’t know that he can. I just have a fairly strong suspicion that he can, given the evidence:
*The coaching staff says that they think he can.
*LaRoche says that he thinks he can.
*Scouts have been saying that he might be able to ever since he was drafted (as a shortstop!).
*His defensive numbers at third last year were above average.
*He has at least a little experience at the position.
Etc.

But it’s true that we won’t know for sure until he laces ‘em up and gives it a shot. That said, in the event that he proves incapable, I suspect that we’ll just hold Iwamura through the end of the season.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 1:57 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

The incumbent starter was Delwyn Young, who has the bat for the position but who, defensively, has all the grace of an emu on ice skates.

Are we sure we can even say Young has the bat for the position? His career OPS+ is below 90 and while I know the team seems to be blaming his working on defense for his huge swoon at the end of the season, I think it’s possible that he’s just not a big league hitter.

http://www.whygavs.com
http://mlb.fanhouse.com

by whygavs on Jan 26, 2010 8:40 AM EST reply actions  

Agreed

Young’s BABIP was silly high the first half of the year. His second half fall-off was simple regression. Even after his horrible finish, his actual BABIP (.337) was still higher than his xBABIP (.319).

by MBandi on Jan 26, 2010 9:22 AM EST up reply actions  

Yep...

his OPS regressed to his career average. He wasn’t tired, he was simply coming back to reality.

by Slick1 on Jan 26, 2010 9:44 AM EST up reply actions  

To be honest

considering we expect a down year, I think we have something here.

An Emu on Ice Skates playing 2B for us would have to bolster attendance, even if the Emu lacks real potential.

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 26, 2010 3:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Emu Ice-Skate Races!!!

With Randall Simon trying to swat them with a hockey stick!

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 3:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Second that...

it still amazes me how everyone is under this illusion that DY somehow has this great stick if only we could find a position for him. As you pointed out, his bat doesn’t play anywhere but on the bench. I see no upside with this guy at all and I’m not sure I’d even wasted a spot on the 25 man roster with him. But hey, that’s just me.

by Slick1 on Jan 26, 2010 9:42 AM EST up reply actions  

Most projection systems have him in about the .730 range, which is totally reasonable for a 2B.

by Charlie on Jan 26, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah I'm going to have to agree

Who are the great hitters at 2B? Utley and Kinsler. After that, they go quickly towards the Mendoza region. Even with a couple of heavy hitters at the top, league-average starting second baseman is not great with the bat.

by poorboywilly on Jan 26, 2010 3:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Seems to me

That people love to talk about bats for positions, right up until they feel like badmouthing someone, at which point they talk about OPS+, as if it makes sense to compare MI bats against OF bats.

Come on, people.

by JRoth95 on Jan 26, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions  

I think some of that is due to misunderstanding the stats rather than selectively cherrypicking the ones that fit your agenda.

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 8:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Orlando Cabrera

Why wouldn’t we have gone after him? He’s been as durable as anyone the past couple years and always seems to get the job done. I think he would have been a solid upgrade over Cedeno. The only reason I could think of not to sign him over Crosby was a money issue.

by Danatural08 on Jan 26, 2010 8:46 AM EST reply actions  

Cabrera’s OPS+ the last two years has been 84 and 86. In fact, his career OPS+ is 86. Cedeno’s OPS+ after the trade was . . . . . . 86. He’s been a very good hitter in the upper minors and has had only sporadic opportunities to play regularly as a major leaguer. I don’t see why he can’t hit at least that well over a full season. According to UZR, Cabrera’s defense fell off badly last year and was well below average. In fact, if you look at Cabrera’s whole career, he’s been a severely overrated player. There isn’t much reason to think he’d be any better than Cedeno. He’d probably cost a lot more and you certainly wouldn’t want to sign him for more than a year. It’s unlikely that Cedeno’s the long-term answer at short, but at least there’s some remote chance of him having some upside at the position, unlike Delwyn Young at second. Cabrera would be strictly a one-year rental.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 9:27 AM EST up reply actions  

Money issue? tongue firmly in cheek

Again, this is another convenient case for the FO to claim “we’ve got a plan, please be patient”. The alternative is pay decent money for professional ballplayers where we have glaring holes. This isn’t investing heavy money at a corner infield position where we have talent looming on the minor league horizon – we don’t have a SS that I’m aware of that will be some sort of impact in the future. Again this points to the futility of letting Jack Wilson go – he was an excellent defender, maybe one of the top 3 in baseball depending on whose stats you subscribe to. The kind of guy a young pitching staff needs that turns hits into outs – a veteran presence that quarterbacks the infield. Furthermore, he was a fan favorite and was a regular fixture on ESPN’s webgems… The trade to Seattle gave us little in return, especially considering Jeff Clement creates more of a crowd at 1b, and potentially blocks our best prospect Pedro Alvarez, who will most likely need to move there from 3b. Oh, and we got a weak hitting decent glove SS, minus the flair, leadership and, by the way, a larger salary. Throw in a few scrap heap pitching prospects and we have a deal. Don’t forget that we jettisoned Ian Snell in that deal too.

Bottom line is that we don’t have a SS, or something resembling a ML roster (for the nth consecutive year) exactly because of money issues.

Google “billionaire baseball owners” and you’ll come up with a Forbes article that lists I believe 20 baseball owners that are Billionaires. Nutting is not one of them, he cannot compete, nor does he wish to compete with them. He states himself that when the team matures, we may get to the spending level of Milwaukee or Cincinnati – my response is Yipee! One or two seasons at or near league average. That’s a stark reality to face and one that cements the fact that the owner will not put a team on the field that competes for the pennant on a regular basis ala Minnesota.

 

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 9:30 AM EST up reply actions  

The Twins are a funny example. In 2001, the year they jumped into contention after many years of struggling, their payroll was $24M, lowest in the majors. That same year, Oakland won 102 games with baseball’s second lowest payroll. So what you’re arguing is that the Pirates should NOT do things the way the Twins and A’s did.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 9:44 AM EST up reply actions  

yes, good point

but that’s the exception to the rule… oh and I can’t recall the WS trophies they collected between the two teams that are the shining example for small market teams everywhere, was it 3 in the last 10 years or none… right.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 10:49 AM EST up reply actions  

Then I guess you shouldn’t have given the Twins as an example.

And what rule is it you’re talking about? Now that you’ve eliminated the Twins and A’s, what small market example are the Pirates supposed to follow? Milwaukee and Cincinnati? How many WS have they won lately? So what you’re saying is, the Pirates should do what the LESS successful teams have done? Great idea!

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 11:01 AM EST up reply actions  

not sure why

Am I coming off like a jerk? Or am I mistaken in thinking the last comment had some condescending attitude. If I’m coming off like a jerk, I apologize.

Nevertheless, the exception to the rule is teams like the Twins competing with the big boys that spend in the top 1/3 every years. They accumulate wins and WS faster than other teams. So the Twins and the A’s are the exception to the rule that says salary spending leads to wins.

Not sure the best path for the Pirates, but I do know that spending in the bottom 5 every year doesn’t work for a team that has shown little capacity to identify and develop talent.

The Pirates should spend more money on ML payroll and field a competitive team, that’s one thing I’m sure of. I like the Milwaukee model as much as any other – and when they saw a window of opportunity, they traded for CC Sabathia when they thought he could give them a chance at a WS. So yes, I think I’d prefer that model to the Twins and A’s that have for the most part, stood pat when they had a chance to take the next step.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 11:27 AM EST up reply actions  

The Brewers didn’t just acquire Sabathia, they also gave a ridiculous contract to Jeff Suppan. The end result is that somewhere around 15% of their payroll will be wasted on a replacement level pitcher over the next two years. So I don’t see any great genius in their spending. I also don’t see anything about the Sabathia trade that’s inconsistent with what the Pirates are doing. The Brewers made that deal after they were in contention at mid-season.

In fact, the Brewers’ original approach was similar to the Twins and A’s. Their payroll in 2003—their next-to-last bad season—was third lowest in MLB. The next year they dropped to the lowest payroll in MLB at $27M. In 2005, they finished at .500 with the 4th lowest payroll at $40M. The payroll then gradually rose over the next few years as the team became more competitive. That’s exactly what the A’s and Twins did and exactly what Nutting is talking about doing.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 11:46 AM EST up reply actions  

ah yes, the talking

Nutting is talking about doing it, but it reamins to be seen if he will do so.

The brewers gave suppan a big contract and gave up prospects for CC – they took their shot, lost and are paying for it in terms of talent lost when CC walked and the bad suppan contract. Hopefully if and when we get there, our management will take a shot too.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 1:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Remains to be seen

Obviously. And if he doesn’t step up, he deserves to get ripped. As long as we’re not ripping him for failing to do something in the future.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 3:22 PM EST up reply actions  

agreed

I guess I can accept the super disciplined approach they’re taking (and that’s giving a great deal of grace) if they are going to make some aggressive financial decisions down the road. I’m skeptical.

One thing that concerns me, and obviously the theme is not coming through, is that the FO is refusing token investments that keep the team somewhat competetive (or at least a notch over pathetic) while the plan gains traction. The end of last season was, in my opinion, brutal to a loyal fan-base. Hell, Johnny Damon is considering a $2M to play with the Yankees. Not that he’d do the team any good, but shouldn’t this type of player be on our radar? Not for winning either short/long term, but to entertain the fans while we wait for the master plan to come to fruition.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 3:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, I think that’s the point of Iwamura and Dotel.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

As for Damon

Just because the Yankees are saying that they only have 2 million for a LF, does not mean Damon will sign for that, especially for a team like the Pirates. Plus, Damon’s defense is atrocious and you certainly can’t put his arm in RF (our only open spot).

As for “entertaining” signings, that’s what got us guys like Jeromy Burnitz and Joe Randa. I prefer “smart” signings like Ryan Church, Garrett Jones, and (trading for) Iwamura.

by Maxwell.C on Jan 26, 2010 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

we'll see about church

I like Jones. Iwamura has had health issues, but is serviceable.

Those along with Dotel/Donnely are on the low end of the token spectrum.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Don’t you mean, Iwamura has had health issue (singular)?

And what is it you mean by “token spectrum”? And if you’re alluding to entertainment value, I’ve already taken my stance on that.

I could care less about entertainment, all that matters to me is wins, and signing guys for farewell tours or to have a press conference rarely leads to more wins, and surprisingly lower attendance (I believe the two are related).

by Maxwell.C on Jan 26, 2010 5:57 PM EST up reply actions  

if...

all you care about is wins, you’re rooting for the wrong team.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 6:35 PM EST up reply actions  

You’re telling me. I’m a masochist

by Maxwell.C on Jan 26, 2010 6:36 PM EST up reply actions  

I could be wrong

but I’d imagine he’s considering $2M contract to play with the Yankees because the Yankees are coming off a winning a world series. We, unfortunately, are not.

Also, I’d say the FO has put out some token investments to stay somewhat competitive.

If you look at our team at the end of last year and projected it to a full season this year, we would be atrocious. Still, I believe (I guess its my opinion, but I dont think im the only one) that the FO could have easily done next to nothing in the offseason and sell their plan as logical. Why spend money on the major league payroll if we aren’t near contention right now?

Instead, wait until we are near contention when our farm system (which is the best it has been in years) matures. They also have been willing to spend elsewhere (the draft, LA – new facilities, more signings, they did offer Sano nearly 3M$ and would have matched the Twins offer if given the chance (they claim)).

Still despite all this, they seriously entertained signing Rick Ankiel, and flirted (I could be mistaken) bringing back Xavier Nady. They traded for Aki Iwamura and signed Crosby, Dotel, Donnelly, and Carrassco. I would call those token signings.

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 26, 2010 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

When the A's were contending...

…they actually traded for quite a lot of help at the deadline. Look at Randy Velarde in 1999, or Jermaine Dye in 2001, or Ray Durham in 2002.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 11:48 AM EST up reply actions  

good point Vlad

forgot about the A’s efforts. Nevertheless, they are not on par with what the big boys do down the stretch – although Dye in 2001 was significant.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 1:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Durham was actually surprisingly strong, too.

30 years old, two-time All-Star. And in the season when they traded for him, he was hitting .299/.390/.446 with 20 SB (at 80% success) at the time of the trade.

I had forgotten about it until now, but they also traded for Jose Guillen at the deadline during his breakout season in 2003.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 2:01 PM EST up reply actions  

well stated

A’s were much more active than the Twins in their efforts to get over the hump

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 2:17 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm against doing things like trading the farm for a rental #1 starter

I just don’t see the point of that in the long term. It presents a huge risk for long term problems and the chance of winning the WS is minimal. If the Pirates can’t develop their own #1 starter, then they don’t deserve to win the WS.

The Brewers traded away a prospect that could replace Fielder if he leaves in free agency. Then they’ll be in full rebuilding mode again.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 1:02 PM EST up reply actions  

They lost out on draft picks

I think with the ones they did get, they drafted Max Walla and Kentrail Davis. Both those guys have some potential. Matt LaPorta isn’t all that great. Its more likely that they lost a trade chip in him.

Saying like they’re going to go into full rebuilding mode seems like an emotional statement. I don’t think its true. I doubt its true.

by ol Pete on Jan 26, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

I guess we'll see how it plays out.

I think they might be able to sign Fielder long term, as the Brewers have not been spending up to their limit. They tried to sign Sabathia but couldn’t, so there’s money there. The question is whether they should or not. Every pundit in the world expects him to age very ungracefully.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 1:31 PM EST up reply actions  

I think that's fair

Fielder will go downhill fast. And losing him to FA will net them some draft picks…

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

We'll see if they let him get there

A trade will likely benefit them more than the picks. We’ll see what they do.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

A lot depends on what happens with his weight

He’s incredibly athletic. I think he was the only guy to play every game in MLB.

by ol Pete on Jan 26, 2010 10:56 PM EST up reply actions  

crowd at first?

Who exactly is involved in this “crowd” at 1b? Pearce? Jones? Stargell? Gehrig?

If there actually is a crowd at 1b, why is that a bad thing? Should we have fewer good players?

Brett Lorin is a “scrapheap” prospect?

In what exact galaxy will Clement “block” Alvarez?

by brooklynpirate on Jan 26, 2010 9:55 AM EST up reply actions  

Too late

We lost Gehrig when NH broke up the ’27 Yankees.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 9:57 AM EST up reply actions  

WTM,

You are on a roll…

Let’s hope you don’t cool off like certain players who, while acquired for (essentially) $1, really probably shouldn’t be on the roster.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 26, 2010 7:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Pedro Alvarez is a crowd by himself

Which is why he’s not going to be at 3b… Clement will not block him, which is why the return on investment is even lower – we have no use for a catching prospect that can’t stay healthy.

Lorin and the rest of the single A pitchers are longshots.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 10:52 AM EST up reply actions  

then why...?"

Uh…then why did you say that Clement WOULD be blocking him?

And anyway, Alvarez is a 3rd baseman until further notice. We can make all the assumptions we want about where he’ll eventually wind up, but if the Pirates had any immediate plans to move him to first you can be sure that that’s where he’d be starting the season. We need a 1st baseman, at least in the short run. If, in the long run, Alvarez has to move to 1st, they’ll trade Clement, if he’s any good, and get something else for him. I really have no idea what your problem with this is.

And…Clement is not a catching prospect. His future, if he has one, seems to be at first. Don’t you remember? That’s where he’ll be creating this mythical “crowd.”

And…“Longshot” is way different than “scrapheap.” Of course Lorin and the others are “longshots.” ALL single A pitchers are longshots, even the top prospects. That’s why you need a lot of them, and if you don’t have a lot of them, as we didn’t, you make trades like this.

As others have pointed out, the Pirates did make a not unreasonable offer to Wilson. He wanted more than they deemed his value, and so they got the most they could for him. It seems like a pretty good haul for great fielding but aging, injury prone, slightly below average hitting shortstop. I don’t mean to be snarky, but you’re really not making a very convincing — or even particularly consistent or even clear —case as to why the Wilson trade was “futile.”

by brooklynpirate on Jan 26, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions  

because

Clement cannot play anywhere but 1b. Alvarez is better suited for 1b, so is GJones. To me that’s a crowd. Alvarez will play when he’s ready, Clement therefore is a useless piece.

The longshot argument is like the lottery in a way – investing in 10 tickets certainly increases my odds – it’s still a bad bet. A lot of lotto tickets is still worthless. Furthermore, I’d enjoy the idea of getting many longshots if we showed the ability to develop talent. We haven’t done a good job of it, which makes those single A prospects less valuable.

The wilson trade was about money – that was the driving force, not prospects. And you’re right, the trade was not futile in the least, it was very efficient in clearing payroll, even with the salary that they had to eat.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 2:03 PM EST up reply actions  

We have no idea how good they are at developing talent. When this FO took over, there was one A level talent in McCutchen and 3 B level talents in Pearce, Walker and Moskos. Lincoln and Nyjer were C level talents.

The A level talent has come up and performed well. One of the C level talents (Nyjer) has performed well. The others are yet to be determined.

Seriously, the salary dump argument for the Wilson trade is just ridiculous. Why wouldn’t they just dump his salary the year before to avoid paying him $7M in 2009? Could it be they just thought it was worth more to them to have those prospects than to pay Jack much more than $4M for half a year’s work? Why even offer him $4M in the first place? He tried to corner them into keeping Freddy because he thought they had no alternative to him at shortstop. They didn’t like that. I don’t blame them.

If he would have counter-offered instead of insisting Sanchez be overpaid, he probably would still be a Pirate.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions  

I wasn’t aware that the new FO razed the entire farm system of scouts, coaching and facilities. There have been some changes, but it’s still the same organization. Cutch looks bona fide… I think we know what we have in Pearce… Walker and Moskos look to be poor choices of 1st round talent… the jury is out on Lincoln (who I’d argue was an A level talent pre-TJ) and Nyjer is gone.

You think my argument is ridiculous and I’m fine with that. However when NH decided that he couldn’t get the return he wanted he traded a big chunk of $ for prospects. I see little to no value in Clement. The pitching prospects were old for class A and in my eyes, not of great value either. What’s left is a decent glove SS with little offensive upside. They did a good job of clearing salary and a marginal job of adding to the talent base.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions  

I think NH said they have changed over about 40% of the scouts and coaches from the past regime and have added a significant number of domestic and international scouts. Plus added a bunch of strength and conditioning coaches – now having that at every level of the organization.

We will see if Clement pays off, and we’ll see how much Wilson is worth this year and gong forward. If Wilson remains healthy and productive for the next 2 years, and Clement and Cedeno aren’t, then I think you can say the trade was a mistake.

BTW, Wilson was the one player I feel we have not replaced from the past group, and I thought it was a mistake to trade him. But, I don’t see it as a salary dump, and I feel it’s too early to label the trade a poor one.

I do think Clement has a decent chance of being a productive MLB player, but I also think its unlikely that he will be the best player out of Jones/Tabata/Clement.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 4:00 PM EST up reply actions  

building blocks

Mark we have something to agree on. Clement will not be the best player of that group!

I do appreciate your insight and especially your points that compare salary to attendance. Sounds like you’ve got a pretty robust analysis there.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 6:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks. It’s good to go through these things because it challenges us both to think through things clearly.

One thing about Clement is that, even though I don’t think he will be better than Jones or Tabata, that’s not to say he won’t be.

I might be wrong about that, and that is something that has to be taken into account. Finding prospects who turn into productive MLB players is not something you can ever bank on 100%.

If you looked back at Bobby Crosby when he began his career, you’d think he was destined for great things. Then he just petered out.

Chances are that Jack Wilson will be worth around 1 or 2 wins more than Ronny Cedeno this year. That’s significant, but even more significant for the Pirates would be to fill both 1B, RF and LF with players that might be 4+ WAR players for years into the future.

That might be Jones, Milledge and Tabata as I suspect. OR one of those might not work out and fall off. Then what do you do? Having Clement as a real serious option increases the chances we will actually find plus players for all those positions.

That is really significant, and I can understand why Huntington might want to take a chance with losing 2 more games in 2010 to make sure he’s got plus players in those spots.

After all, the chances of Wilson being around 4 or 5 years from now is pretty remote no matter if he signed through 2011 or not.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 8:09 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m sorry, I hate to get bogged down going back and forth over minutia, but…

If Clement “cannot play anywhere but 1st base,” then why do you waste our time by calling him a “catching prospect?”

Again, you state with absolute certainty that Alvarez is better suited for 1st base, but he ISN’T GOING TO PLAY 1st base in the foreseeable future. And while I agree that Jones is better suited for 1st, Clement is NOT keeping him out of the line up, and Jones is NOT blocking anyone in right. At this point, there IS NO CROWD. And if/when the time comes that there is a crowd, they can trade the surplus talent for other prospects (y’know, like well run teams do). A “crowd at first base” simply isn’t an issue here.

And…in this case, a long shot is nothing like a lottery ticket. A pitcher like Lorin absolutely has a chance of reaching the majors, if he can stay healthy and continue to develop his talent — big “ifs,” maybe, but certainly not a million to one. There’s really no argument to the fact that a team needs a lot of pitching prospects; thanks to this trade, and others, and drafting, we’re well along to having them.

And…please tell us specifically what prospects have NOT been developed well over the last two years. You aren’t seriously referencing the DL era to bolster your argument about the current FO, are you?

Obviously finances were involved in the Wilson trade; every move that every team makes takes into account at some level the financial considerations. A team would be stupid not to. But your original post strongly suggests that this was some kind of cheapskate salary dump, and you’ve haven’t come close making a coherent argument to support that.

by brooklynpirate on Jan 26, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

he’s not a catching prospect, it was a sad attempt at irony, sorry for the confusion.

Clement isn’t going to block Alvarez because he’s not that good and won’t be playing regularly at 1b/3b/C or DH if the NL gets it… Nevertheless, Alvarez will be our 1b should things go as planned. He’s got a 1b body.

Regarding player development, what examples do we have outside of the DL era? There are none. If you want to take stock of the scouting department, minor league coaches and facilities – present vs DL era, go ahead.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, first you complain that:
“I’d enjoy the idea of getting many longshots if we showed the ability to develop talent. We haven’t done a good job of it, which makes those single A prospects less valuable.”

But it’s pointed out that we’re not in the DL era anymore, you say:
“Regarding player development, what examples do we have outside of the DL era? There are none”

Yes, exactly, there are none. Two years is not enough time to really determine how the current FO is developing players, so why bring up the point at all? Why aggressively bash the current FO when there’s absolutely nothing to support your contention?

Oh, and to argue that:
 “There have been some changes, but it’s still the same organization”
is just absurd. I’m sure there are a lot of holdovers, but there actually has been a rather large turnover, and clearly organization is operating in a different way.

by brooklynpirate on Jan 26, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions  

MarkInDallas notes that 40% of the coaches and scouts have been replaced in addition to adding additional parts . MAYBE that’s enough of a change to knock the stink off the organization. MAYBE it’s enough to change us into the “Twins-Lite”. Then again, maybe it’s not nearly enough.

Clearly the organization is operating in a different way? In regards to player development? And how is that, since two years isn’t enough time? Spending money in the draft is a great first step… we’ll see how it goes. It appears to me the Bucs are taking a lot more risk in the draft than they have in the last 10 years. So if their player development is similar to the former regime, they’re in worse trouble than before.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 6:47 PM EST up reply actions  

OK, I should have been clearer. What I should have said was that in most visible ways the organization is operating in a different way: things like trading players at their peak value rather than at the bottom, investing more money into the draft, being far more aggressive in Latin America, not signing crappy, washed up free agent veterans to start at key positions, etc…in short, actually committing to rebuilding, not just recycling mediocrity. Given these differences, I see no reason to assume, in the lack of any evidence, that there’s been no changes in the player development end of things, as you seem to be doing.

But hey, if you want to automatically assume the worst, well, that’s your prerogative. I think you’re wrong, but only time will tell.

by brooklynpirate on Jan 26, 2010 9:12 PM EST up reply actions  

trading players at peak value? Jack Wilson certainly wasn’t at peak value. As noted above, he’d declined in most facets of the game and couldn’t stay healthy. Ian Snell was labeled a malcontent and couldn’t get anyone out in the majors. laroche was batting 247 when traded to the Red Sox last year and was batting .109 from July 4 until the time of his trade.

investing more money in the draft – I’d say you’re right in general, but our #1 pick this year was not an impact player you’d want in that position. We did spend money on young pitchers at the back of the draft – so yes that’s a shift in attitude.

More aggressive in Latin America – our new baseball academy should be giving results in several years.

We haven’t signed many free agents at all, much less crappy washed up free agents. Keep in mind that some of those crappy free agent signings weren’t too horrible. Kenny Lofton was great in his short time in PNC. Admittedly, he is in the minority.

And given these minor differences, I see no reason to assume, in the lack of evidence, htat there are going to be improvements in results, as you seem to be doing.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 9:36 PM EST up reply actions  

“… Ian Snell was labeled a malcontent …”

And, yet you mention upthread

Don’t forget that we jettisoned Ian Snell in that deal too.

Can’t have it both ways, amigo. Either he’s a headcase / malcontent, or a valuable trading chip. Pick one.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 26, 2010 9:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Perhaps he’s a valuable malcontent? Taking that a step further, would that make him a valcontent?

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 9:49 PM EST up reply actions  

or a Vainglorious Basterd.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 26, 2010 9:51 PM EST up reply actions  

oh yes I will

I like it both ways… he certainly was a live arm and had some ML success. BrooklynPirate pointed out that we were now selling high on talent and that simply isn’t the case with Snell, we sold about as low as possible on him.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 9:59 PM EST up reply actions  

He ASKED to be demoted... what more could we have gotten for him?

Cherry picking is always nice.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 26, 2010 11:01 PM EST up reply actions  

It’s kinda hard to go back in time and trade him in 2004. Wilson was probably traded at the peak of whatever value he’ll ever again have. I doubt he’ll ever hit much again, but he was having his best defensive season ever. He was clearly the best defensive SS in MLB in 2009. And just by coincidence, Jack Zdurencik (sp??) is trying to build the Mariners around defense. So taken in context, Wilson probably was traded at peak value.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 10:19 PM EST up reply actions  

so with that logic

Any player with declining skills or injury problems will be traded at peak value.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 10:21 PM EST up reply actions  

To an extent, yes. Case in point, Ryan Doumit. Everyone wants to take the chance that he’ll rebound next year and increase his value but given his injury history there’s a good chance that Doumit’s current value is the highest it will ever be from here on out.

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 10:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, yeah, unless you think he could bounce back.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 10:42 PM EST up reply actions  

One thing for sure is that they are operating in a different way, which some prospects from the old regime are not used to and some seem to not like. Others take to it and embrace it. Basically, the new regime is a lot stricter, more structured, and requires it to be their way or the highway pretty much.

Pitchers, for example, are not allowed to throw all their pitches. They must first learn to establish fast ball control and are not allowed to even throw their offspeed junk pitches until they can do that.

There is now a much more rigorous fitness and training program. Players must wear their unis in a certain way, etc.

Whether these changes will produce a difference in the quality of MLB players produced by the system, we don’t know yet. But there’s no doubt they have put a lot of thought into it, and the difference between how it was before and is now – regardless of how many instructors have changed – is quite substantial.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 9:27 PM EST up reply actions  

One change was Joe Kerrigan, who I wish we could have retained.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 9:37 PM EST up reply actions  

thought he left with the IF coach…

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 10:17 PM EST up reply actions  

He's supposedly going to retire at the end of 2010.

But is still with us for now, and hard at work training his future replacement.

by Vlad on Jan 27, 2010 9:26 AM EST up reply actions  

How did trading Jack Wilson clear salary?

The Pirates paid his entire 2009 salary and he wasn’t under contract for 2010.

by MBandi on Jan 26, 2010 10:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh

So you think we should be paying a Triple-A pitcher $4.25 million next year?

by MBandi on Jan 26, 2010 10:35 PM EST up reply actions  

a good Triple-A pitcher?

No, I don’t think so. And that’s the point, we dumped his salary.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 10:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Well...

when you trade a player the salary goes with him. I believe they would have dealt Snell after requesting his demotion whether he made $4,000,000 or $400,000. And you keep ignoring the fact that we sent money in the trade. I know it’s much easier for you Nutting haters to claim everything is a salary dump because it gives an immediate and easy explanation for the Pirates sucktitude. It’s much more difficult explaining to the casual fan there is a plan and it will be a while before it bears fruit. It’s also takes a little effort to try and undersdtand the plan because it may force one to stray from some concepts he/she has become comfortable with. I’m all for criticizing the execution of the plan if you want but to ignore the fact the NH and FC have a plan in place is quite ignorant IMO. Claiming every move is a salary dump is too simple and convenient and quite frankly its intellectually insulting and lazy. I mean no offense to you personally Lloyd but I see this argument everywhere and it gets tiresome.

by Slick1 on Jan 27, 2010 11:21 AM EST up reply actions  

My favorite was people claiming the Hinske trade was a salary dump.

by WTM on Jan 27, 2010 11:55 AM EST up reply actions  

My favorite was people claiming that dumping Luis Cruz and Jeff Karstens were salary dumps.

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 27, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Clearly the casual fan has a hard time with the concept “addition by subtraction”.

by gorillagogo on Jan 27, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions  

waaaaaaay too much math. that’s like… an equation or something.

by johnnycuff on Jan 27, 2010 3:22 PM EST up reply actions  

love the label...

casual fan… where do I sign up for a graduate course in fandom, so I can communicate with you. Someday, if I study hard, eat my wheaties, and write a discourse on sabremetrics, I just might be able to graduate to being a “serious fan”…

by lloyd95 on Jan 27, 2010 6:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Relax. Jokes aren’t meant to be taken literally.

by gorillagogo on Jan 27, 2010 6:40 PM EST up reply actions  

so you are arguing

that dumping an overpaid player who has shown almost no sign of turning around his career, who didn’t even want to play for our big league team, not having to pay his salary, AND acquiring prospects in return…was bad?

by poorboywilly on Jan 27, 2010 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Yep...

that’s what he is saying. It’s a salary dump because we traded a player who made a salary…duh!!!

by Slick1 on Jan 27, 2010 5:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Right. To avoid future accusations of salary dumping, the Pirates should only dump non-exempt players.

by gorillagogo on Jan 27, 2010 6:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Know who IS on that list of billionaires?

Drayton McLane ($1.4B), who’s got the Astros well-positioned to control last place for the next decade. Tom Hicks ($1B), who over-leveraged himself to the point of bankruptcy and had to sell last week. John Fisher ($1.2B), the primary owner of the notoriously free-spending A’s. Not to mention Peter Angelos, who’s almost as clueless as he is prone to interfering in baseball operations, and David Glass, who probably still has all the nickels he got as a child from the tooth fairy…

You really want to trade Nutting for one of those guys?

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 10:25 AM EST up reply actions  

because when the rubber hits the road

If and when all the stars align, we’re going to see a MLB salary on par with Milwaukee and Cincinnati. Just once I’d like to hear that, when we get there, we’ll do whatever it takes to win a WS.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 10:59 AM EST up reply actions  

nutting has said?

That he’ll do whatever it takes to win a WS??? I haven’t heard that, I’ve heard that he’s willing to spend like Mil/Cin if we get competetive.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 2:04 PM EST up reply actions  

The problem is that you believe that “whatever it takes” means “spend whatever it takes regardless of how much money you lose”. Nobody can do that. Nutting will spend an appropriate amount without putting the financial situation of the club in jeopardy. This is the way all good clubs operate.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions  

But that’s not “doing what it takes.” Lloyd95 is saying that, if/when the time comes and the Pirates are one $15M signing away from a presumptive WS appearance, it doesn’t appear that NH intends to do so (unless we’re at $15M below the Reds at that point). The reply that, no, of course he won’t, shouldn’t be at all reassuring. It means that, if the Pirates figure to be an 88 win team but their payroll is maxed out, that’s it; that’s the ceiling. Better to come in second and have a pretty balance sheet than win the World Series and go in the red for a year.

Perhaps the Pirates’ slogan should be “Pride. Passion. Fiduciary Responsibility.”

“Hey Ernie, let’s earn a 12% ROI!”

by JRoth95 on Jan 26, 2010 5:07 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t think the World Series should be the penultimate goal for the FO. I know that sounds weird, but their goal should be the playoffs, and part of that is continual competition. I remember in Money Ball, once the playoffs start, Billy Beane basically leans back and says, “Well, my job is done.”

Now the goal of the team (players, managers) should be a World Series Championship. But there is only so much a front office can do, and yes, part of that is making the decision on whether to add that last piece, but only if it’s a question of making the playoffs or not. The greatest example is when the Brewers added CC; he single handily took them to the playoffs (he was worth 4.6 WAR in just 130 IP… absurd), which boosts revenue for that year (playoffs) and the next year (NL Wild card Champs!).

Which brings us back to the eternal question of, “Will Nutting spend when it’s necessary?” We’ll only know when the chance arrives, but I personally have faith in the people around him (FC/NH) to guide him towards the right choice. Is the risk worth the reward?

by Maxwell.C on Jan 26, 2010 6:17 PM EST up reply actions  

The thing that should be noted is that

Neither the Brewers, Cardinals, Marlins, Rays, Padres or Twins have recently maxed out payroll to get over the top as you suggest might be needed for the Pirates.

All of those teams still had or have room to add payroll over what their payrolls are or were when they were competing for the playoffs.

Notice how the Brewers offered CC Sabathia $20M per year and he didn’t take it. The Cards still have room to sign Pujols.

The Rays are the closest, and it will be interesting to see what they do and how their attendance situation shapes up in 2010.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 6:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Rays Attendance

Pretty sure I can guess how it will shape up: not well.

They just have a bad location as it stands.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 26, 2010 6:45 PM EST up reply actions  

I wasn’t necessarily suggesting the Bucs max out payroll, although I’m not sure we can assume that the teams you stated were or were not in the red at some point, as we have no access to their books.

Also, I think the latter four franchises are good comparisons, but the first two draw much better than the Pirates when they win or lose.

by Maxwell.C on Jan 26, 2010 6:54 PM EST up reply actions  

It may surprise that the Padres, Cardinals and Brewers are all spending about the same percentage relative to their attendance, which is about 33% below what the average team would spend.

The Twins spend about 20% less.

From the figures Coonelly has given regarding the Pirates vs Brewers comparison, he has revealed the Brewers have $50M more in revenue than the Pirates, and he himself noted that there is a less than $50M difference in payrolls.

From what I’ve seen with how teams act (Brewers offering Sabathia $20M, Cards signing Holliday with Pujols on deck), there’s no way a team spending 20% – 30% below average compared to attendance is maxing out payroll.

The Marlins are right around 20% below, and they have been recently called out for spending too little.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 7:36 PM EST up reply actions  

If your answer is genuinely "Yes"...

…then may God protect you from answered prayers.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 11:49 AM EST up reply actions  

I'd be more excited

about a billionaire owning the team than the current ownership. And yes, He does and will continue to protect me from my greedy self.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 2:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Are there any current billionaire owners that are running at a deficit? I don’t think that a billionaire owning the team would mean that person would be willing lose millions each year to field a competitive team. Billionaires aren’t typically known for their propensity to throw away millions of dollars.

by McGreal on Jan 26, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions  

don't know

baseball teams are not required to show their books to the public, so we can’t know.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

but yes

typically billionaires don’t stand for losing millions of dollars, nor do they stand for losing or compromising their name by associating with losing efforts…. Do MLB owners look at their teams as investments? businesses? I think they own because of their ego, they want to have expensive toys and win… am I off base?

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 3:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes

you are off base. Baseball and baseball teams are, by definition, businesses (whether you want them to be or not). Rich people become rich (in part) by making sound business decisions, and they don’t stop making them once they become rich.

If they want toys, they buy yachts, mansions, and space vacations (goods and services); they do not buy businesses with the express purpose of losing money for entertainment. A wealthy man’s ego is, for the most part his identity as a successful businessman, and I don’t think having your baseball team lose is that much of an influence in that department.

Of course, a baseball team is far more likely to be profitable if it wins, so those goals go hand in hand.

by poorboywilly on Jan 26, 2010 4:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, I guess this pretty much solidifies your argument.

It’s really hard to argue that Nutting is rich enough when you have schooled us like that.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t think anyone was schooled.

I would be interested to know how much influence he has on baseball operations. How long he’s been calling the shots (if he’s been calling the shots). etc..

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 2:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Cabrera is kind of scary.

His defensive numbers last year were awful, he’ll be 35 next year, and he’s also got a tricky medical issue with his back, which probably won’t get better with age.

There’s a chance he would’ve been a small upgrade, but there’s also a decent chance that he’s right on the edge of the cliff, with little pebbles breaking off under his toes and falling into the gap.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 10:18 AM EST up reply actions  

we don’t have a SS that I’m aware of that will be some sort of impact in the future

See WTM’s post above. At the very least Cedeno and Cabrera are comparable, you just like hearing your boys on baseball tonight say “THE O-DAWWWWWWWG.”

this points to the futility of letting Jack Wilson go – he was an excellent defender, maybe one of the top 3 in baseball depending on whose stats you subscribe to. The kind of guy a young pitching staff needs that turns hits into outs – a veteran presence that quarterbacks the infield. Furthermore, he was a fan favorite and was a regular fixture on ESPN’s webgems…

Just because you bought his jersey in three colors doesn’t make him worth more in a trade……and how many GMs have succeeded using your “Fan Favorite” strategy? I’ll suggest, and I’m sure most people on here could provide plenty of stats to back this up, that a team is better served to acquire undervalued guys you never saw on ESPN as opposed to Joe Morgan’s favorite players.

by morpkingjoshh on Jan 26, 2010 9:46 AM EST reply actions  

There’s also the little problem of Jack’s inability to stay healthy for more than half a season.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 9:51 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

that is a good point

His level of effort has resulted in missing almost half of 2008 and a third of 2009. Great point regarding his health and one that I neglect to remember.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 10:56 AM EST up reply actions  

don't have a wilson jersey

the move was made to save money, not to build our farm system.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 10:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Wrong on both counts...

they wanted Wilson and offered him an extension. They did offer him more than $4million per year because at his age he is a severe injury risk. Wilson does not provide value if he is not on the field. I love how everyone that hates Nutting can look at sound baseball decision and keep using the same damn two words: SALARY DUMP!!! NH valued what Wilson brought to the table but in the end he was satisfied with the return he received. So, IMO, you’re wrong the move was made to build up the organization.

by Slick1 on Jan 26, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions  

seriously, I don't own a wilson jersey

so only wrong on one count (two parts) in your opinion.

Anyone can do the math on this:
a. how much money was committed to Snell and Wilson?
b. how much money was committed to clement, SS, “prospect pitchers”
c. how much cash did the pirates give seattle

Net that all out and tell me if the Pirates lost or saved money in the transaction.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 2:12 PM EST up reply actions  

The Pirates paid all of Snell and Wilson's salaries for 2009 except the minimum.

And of course picked up Cedeno’s contract, which pays him $1.125M in 2010. The Mariners are paying $4M for Snell in 2010, which the Pirates would have been on the hook for.

So, all tolled, the Pirates saved about $3M and got an MLB ready power hitting 1B prospect, a stop gap SS (with some possible upside) and 3 pitching prospects.

That is not a bad price to pay if one of those prospects becomes worth more than $3M.

Whether the trade was good or not will be determined by how those players do on the field.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions  

you forgot something...

Snell:

4.25M in 2010
6.75M in 2011
9.25M in 2012

I don’t believe the ‘11/’12 numbers are insignificant.

We’ll see about the MLB ready power hitting 1b propect…

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Snell’s 11 and 12 seasons are options. Can’t find the exact amount right now.

by gorillagogo on Jan 26, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions  

You forgot something too...

The ‘11 / ’12 numbers are club options… I don’t think anyone will be paying him that.

by Jeffasaurus on Jan 26, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

'11/'12

those are club options…

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 3:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Right.

That’s why I didn’t count them as money saved.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions  

you were right. nevertheless

they saved 5-10% of their payroll in the transaction.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 6:53 PM EST up reply actions  

They hardly saved any money in that deal.

It was made for two reasons: to make Snell someone else’s problem, and to get back the young players that were their return in the deal.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions  

It'll be interesting to see how Jack and Ian do

Zdurenciek watched them both for years when he was with the brewers and he’s got guru status right now. Ian is penciled in as a starter I believe. Maybe that’s just bloggers though.

I also wonder about Cedeno. Seems like guys bouncing up and down and not getting much playing time often don’t do well. I wouldn’t be surprised if he turns out to be ok.

by ol Pete on Jan 26, 2010 1:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Jack Z wanted to try and contend right away.

As such, he needed a shortstop-like substance post-haste. Wilson isn’t great, but the SS market this offseason was going to suck like an airplane toilet, so acquiring him was a reasonable move within context.

Snell might be able to rebound – he certainly has the talent. But he pretty clearly wasn’t going to do it in Pittsburgh, given his self-demotion to Indy.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 1:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Is that the trade where the Bucs sent Seattle enough money to cover for Wilson and Snell’s salaries?

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 26, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions  

IT’S A SALARY DUMP! THEY DUMPED MONEY ON SEATTLE!!

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 12:43 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I don't know about you, but

I hate it when my viewpoint doesn’t conform to reality. It means I either have to change my viewpoint or I have to keep repeating the same conditioned response over and over.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 1:12 PM EST up reply actions  

An example of natural selection

You’ve adapted to participating in the financial discussions at the PBC Blog.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 1:38 PM EST up reply actions  

OK, so...

Given the arguments from WTM and others above, why would you NOT draft Christian Colon this June if he is available and shows he is worth of a top 5 pick? I’m not suggesting we pass on Harper — if he is available and shows he is legit, you probably have to take him. However, if he isn’t available or there are some questions from his CC performance this spring (which starts very soon, right?), I would really like to see Colon in the system. He would be similar to the Sanchez pick in that it is a very hard position to upgrade tremendously (again, to find someone with promise both defensively and offensively, not to mention intangibles) and can be worth much more than another OF (presuming Harper ends up there…).

It will be a VERY interesting spring and draft debate this year.

by SpacePirate on Jan 26, 2010 10:09 AM EST reply actions  

Easy.

You draft the guy who’s going to be the best player, not the guy who fills a current need. If they think that Colon is going to be solid but unexceptional, and they think that another guy is a future HOF lock, they take the latter, then maybe pick a different SS in the 2nd or the 3rd or the 4th if there’s one who’s good value at the slot.

Even an advanced college prospect like Colon is going to need at least a couple of years before he’s ready for the majors. What are the Pirates going to do – sit on their hands and wait until he’s ready?

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 10:27 AM EST up reply actions  

To elaborate a bit:

Right now, we really don’t have much of an idea as to what the team’s needs will be in 2012/2013. As such, picking for need is a poor idea. Maybe we take Colon because we think he’ll fill a need, and then D’Arnaud and Cunningham have breakout seasons, and all of a sudden we don’t need a shortstop anymore.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 10:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

Drafting for need is not the exact issue though — I’m talking more about the philosophy of drafting a high-value position over maybe someone rated higher by BA or by scouts but at a more common position.

by SpacePirate on Jan 26, 2010 11:13 AM EST up reply actions  

If all else is equal...

…I generally take the SS/CF over the corner player. Generally, though, there’s a gap, if only a small one.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm sorry

(I feel like it’s a crime to disagree with WTM). I wasn’t really comparing Cabrera to Cedeno, I was saying he’d be a better pick up than Crosby. Last season he was only a .6 WAR, but before that Cabrera was worth almost 4 WAR back to backseasons. I just think theres a better chance he’ll be more valuable than Crosby. A problem could be that Cabrera probably wants the starting job garaunteed.

by Danatural08 on Jan 26, 2010 10:22 AM EST reply actions  

Cabrera wants a starting job.

He’s said that he’s willing to move to 2B if it means he can start. As such, he probably wouldn’t have settled for a role as Cedeno’s backup.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 10:28 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, that's the rub

Same as Ankiel. He wanted to be guaranteed the starter spot, and Huntington wanted someone who would compete with the internal solution for that spot.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 1:16 PM EST up reply actions  

wilson vs cedeno / crosby

is there really a big difference between jack and crosdeno ,jack has a better glove but you will get more power out of crosdeno and they are way cheaper. Also chase d’ arnaud may only be a year away. will be fine at ss.

'position flex-ability, yea baby' austin powers

by sweetleb on Jan 26, 2010 12:14 PM EST reply actions  

I do think there's a fair size drop off between Jack and Cedeno.

We would still need Crosby, though, and Jack will likely not play as many games as the winner of Cedeno/Crosby. Would Crosby have signed if Jack was still here, knowing the job was Jack’s out of the gate? I don’t know.

Although I really like what seems to be developing in d’Arnaud, I’m not ready to crown him an MLB starting shortstop just yet, let alone in 2011.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 26, 2010 1:21 PM EST up reply actions  

draft

draft, who you think is the best player , regardless of position and contract demands. picking at #2 you need to get an impact player who will be a future all star. all ways draft bat over glove". shake a tree harry and alot arms and gloves fall out but very few bats"richie ashburn

'position flex-ability, yea baby' austin powers

by sweetleb on Jan 26, 2010 12:21 PM EST reply actions  

Right now...

…there’s a weak consensus with Bryce Harper at #1, and then kind of a confused muddle behind him. It’ll probably sort itself out to a certain extent once amateur play starts this year, though.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions  

It was like that last year, until Dustin Ackley started hitting for power.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Nady to the Cubs

I dont like this much- Nady can be quite good, esp if his arm is healed, although the double TJ can’t be making things easier.

But I dislike seeing him in the division mostly because I love what he did for the Pirates- got us Ohlendorf and Tabata!

by BurgherKing on Jan 26, 2010 12:56 PM EST reply actions  

Nady came pretty cheap

ESPN reports Nady will get a $3.3M base salary from the Cubs, with performance bonuses that could bring his deal to $5.35M. The Cubs have slotted him as their 4th OF.

Of course, I don’t know how easy or hard it is for Nady to meet the bonus requirement(s). This pretty much leaves Scot Boras’s client, Johnny Damon, as the last OF free agent standing.

So NY Yankees got about 2 months out of Nady. Schadenfreude is sweet!

Of course if only the PBC had held onto Nady, McLouth and Bay, then . . .

by WstCstBucco on Jan 26, 2010 8:50 PM EST up reply actions  

hahahahahahaha!

X-man is the Cubbies’ albatross now.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 26, 2010 9:49 PM EST up reply actions  

IDK...

Nady has had two TJ surgeries which is unprecedented for a position player. Who knows if he can even play the field anymore. I’m kind of surprised he got that much.

by Slick1 on Jan 26, 2010 10:39 PM EST up reply actions  

I really like D'Arnaud...

for obvious reasons, but I don’t we should ignore Jordy Mercer either. Here’s his write up over at BuccoFans.

Obviously, he needs to improve his plate discipline, but it was a (somewhat) aggressive assignment to begin the season in Lynchburg. There’s a lot to like there; his encouraging last two months, the doubles (36) that could turn into HR, and his above average defense.

I’m not saying he’s the second coming, but if he does reasonably well in Altoona this year (big if), we could see him up by mid-season 2011. Of course that’s best case scenario, but with the questions on whether D’Arnaud can stick at SS, I wouldn’t forget about Mercer.

by Maxwell.C on Jan 26, 2010 1:45 PM EST reply actions  

Mercer's worth monitoring.

Right now, he looks like a backup, but it’s not out of the question that he’d take a step forward with the bat, and the glove’s legit for SS.

by Vlad on Jan 26, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I watched him a lot at OK St...

and I liked him a lot. I think there is a lot of potential there. As stated above Lynchburg was a very aggressive assignment. This will be an important year for him but I wouldn’t right him off yet.

by Slick1 on Jan 26, 2010 3:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow,

we really do need spring training to start.

by patthatt on Jan 26, 2010 6:17 PM EST reply actions  

I'm dyin' here

And we’re supposed to have a snowstorm on Friday.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 6:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Not until the end of March, which is two friggin’ months away.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 10:20 PM EST up reply actions  

ONLY

two months away… nothing better than Bradenton in March… my favorite! I hope to someday retire and be an usher there for spring training.

Are you visiting any other parks?

I’m going down to Ft Myers (twins not the red sox zoo), Port Charlotte, Clearwater and Kissimee… Can’t wait.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 10:26 PM EST reply actions  

Not this year. I’ve been to a lot of them in previous years, including the Twins and Sox, as well as Port Charlotte and Clearwater (both the old and new ones). Are they using the old park the Rangers used before they left Port Charlotte? It was kinda out in a marsh or something. I remember there were Ospreys nesting on a light tower. The new Clearwater park is very nice. You can walk the whole way around on the concourse while watching the game. Good for stretching the legs.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 10:46 PM EST up reply actions  

never been to port charlotte

Never worked out when the Rangers were there.

I liked the old phillies park, but the new one is fantastic. I’ve enjoyed a few afternoons sitting in their outfield grass seating. Great way to enjoy a day for sure.

RedSox park in Ft Myers is a great old park, but “wicked full” of new sox bandwagoneers – hard to take. Tampa is just like going to a regular season ball game. Lakeland is good, as is Kissimee. Dunedin is the dullest ballpark I’ve ever been to, maybe it’s the canadians… Nothing matches McKechnice though.

I’ve been out to the cactus league once. Certainly worth a trip too.

by lloyd95 on Jan 26, 2010 10:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Red Sox fans don’t bother me nearly as much as Yankee fans, although I’m not wild about either. I won’t go to Yankee games at McKechnie any more. Last time I got seated between Red Sox and Yankee fans and I really thought a fight was going to break out. Serious assholes.

I went to one game at the Yankees’ park in St. Pete a while ago. The “fans” all left about the 4th inning when the big names came out of the game. The PA announcer didn’t even bother announcing substitutions. My cats know more about baseball than most Yankee fans.

by WTM on Jan 26, 2010 10:58 PM EST up reply actions  

As I noted above, Andy LaRoche is projected to have the 19th best wOBA among starting third basemen.

Ronny Cedeno/Bobby Crosby look almost as good compared to the other 29 starting shortstops, as both of them would rank 22nd in the field. That’s better than I imagined for either them. The one difference is that LaRoche’s glove would move his total worth slightly above 19th, while Cedeno’s fielding brings him a bit below 22.

Cedeno’s issues are not ever hitting in the MLB in as well as he’s projected to hit, and having more of a good second baseman’s glove. In contrast to some of my harsher assessments, though, Ronny could be superior next year to quite a few other options around the majors if he just flashes a bit more bat and glove like the end of last year with our Pirates.

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 27, 2010 1:13 AM EST reply actions  

Cedeno would rank 22nd among shortstops for hitting only, I meant.

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 27, 2010 1:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Just to think,

I thought “War and Peace” was long. (But this thread is more fun)

by MDBuc on Jan 27, 2010 6:43 PM EST up reply actions  

another

extremely long publication which I have only read part of

by poorboywilly on Jan 27, 2010 6:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.
Start posting about the Pirates »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
The Gang of Four

Recent FanPosts

Burger_small
Minor League Open Thread, 07/29
Small
Matt Hague
Bloody_mary_small
Bucs / Rox O'flow 7*28
Small
Pittsburgh bars?
Burger_small
Jhonny Peralta traded for Giovanni Soto
20080124sgrammy_330_small
Seriously, what's going on with Jose Bautista!?
Small
is it safe
Small
Your minor league top 5 by position
Small
Braves Send Nate McLouth To Minors
Pigwithteeth_small
Tyler Waldron Gives Insight On Pitchers Problems With Base Stealers.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS

SBNation.com Recent Stories

HOUSTON - JULY 24:  Pitcher Roy Oswalt #44 of the Houston Astros throws against the Cincinnati Reds in the first inning at Minute Maid Park on July 24 2010 in Houston Texas.  (Photo by Bob Levey/Getty Images) +13 updates

Done Deal: Roy Oswalt Traded To Phillies, Will Make Debut Friday Night In Washington

Washington Nationals' third base coach Pat Listach shakes Adam Dunn's hand who rounds third after hitting a solo home run during the eighth inning of a baseball game against the Atlanta Braves, Thursday, July 29, 2010, in Washington. (AP Photo/Drew Angerer)

MLB Trade Deadline: Where Does Your Team Stand As Saturday Approaches?

San Diego Padres' Yorvit Torrealba follows through on an RBI-double during the fourth inning of a baseball game against the Los Angeles Dodgers, Thursday, July 29, 2010, in San Diego. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy) +1 updates

Salazar's 9th Inning Pinch-Hit Single Propels Padres To 3-2 Win Over Dodgers

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

Charlie_small Charlie