Bucs Sign Neal Cotts, Brian Burres, Tyler Yates
The Pirates have signed or re-signed three pitchers to minor league deals: Neal Cotts, Brian Burres and Tyler Yates. You're all familiar with Yates, and while I'd personally rather have the organization just wash their hands of him, a minor league deal is potentially harmless, at least.
Cotts is the most interesting of the trio. He's a 29-year-old lefty reliever with a spotty record at the major league level, but he has posted good numbers at AAA the past two years. He had an amazing season in 2005 with the White Sox during which he threw almost entirely 90 MPH fastballs, but it seemed as though hitters adjusted to that strategy the following year. (It's also possible Cotts simply ran out of luck; he's always been a flyball pitcher, but he somehow only allowed one homer in 2005 before allowing 12 in 2006.) He ended up with the Cubs in 2007 and concentrated more on throwing secondary pitches, with little success. His fastball is probably his best pitch (even though he doesn't throw hard), and he doesn't seem to have much of a slider, so he probably shouldn't be used as a LOOGY. It might be worthwhile to have Cotts go back to throwing about 80% fastballs to see if he can catch lightning in a bottle twice, because that's what briefly worked for him in the American League. Unfortunately, he had Tommy John surgery last July, so he probably won't be of much use until June at least.
Burres is a little like a lefty version of Virgil Vasquez--he mostly just chucks 87 MPH fastballs, mixes in some secondary stuff, and hopes for the best. Actually, his fastball is even slower than Vasquez's. That can work, to a limited degree, in AAA, but as with Vasquez last year, it probably won't do for the Pirates to have Burres in the majors. Like Vasquez, Burres' main virtue is that he can start--he started 39 games for the Orioles between 2007 and 2008.
0 recs |
54 comments
|
Comments
Nice
i like the Cotts signing if he can pitch like he is capable of. Low risk move and with Javy Lopez already signed the problem with having no lefties in the pen should be solved
Neal Cotts 2006-2009:
ERA: 5.06
WHIP: 1.56
Matt Capps 2006-2009:
ERA: 3.61
WHIP: 1.17
As I don’t have a problem with a low risk move of giving Cotts a minor league deal, I’d still prefer a risk involved in giving Capps the additional $500,000 he demanded compared to what the Pirates offered.
Cotts’ career xFIP: 4.41 in 256 innings
Capps’ career xFIP: 4.14 in 272 innings
Obviously, upside is in Capps’ favor, but I’d rather have Cotts on a minor league deal than Capps for 3.5M guaranteed. In general, I think this is the perfect way to build a bullpen: round up some talent for minimal dollars and see what sticks. No sense paying the million$ for the name-brand.
Yes, I realize I’m in the extreme minority in agreeing with the decision not to tender Capps a contract.
To take it a step further, I’d rather have:
Matt Capps + Todd Redmond – 3.5 million
than
Any of those three on ML deals
Matt Capps and Todd Redmond may not have much chance of helping the Pirates in 2011 and beyond, but they have a better chance than any of the three guys signed today. Well worth the $500,000 NH refused to give Capps.
I don’t really see what this has to do with Matt Capps. The Pirates were going to sign a bunch of relievers to minor league deals whether they’d moved Capps or not.
Also, Todd Redmond is a very fringy prospect. I didn’t like the Yates trade, but I’m ready to let it go.
I brought up Capps because these three are being brought in with the ulitmate hope of pitching in the Pirates’ bullpen this season. And I’d rather have Capps.
And even if Redmond is a very fringy prospect, he’ll likely be pitching at the same level this season as Tyler Yates (who is now a very fringy veteran) is 6 years younger, and still posseses a higher ceiling.
No, you brought up Capps because you’ve posted about him 78 times this week and you just couldn’t resist posting a 79th time. Don’t hijack. This isn’t a Capps thread, and the connections you’re trying to draw really don’t exist. These guys are minor league free agents. Every team signs minor league free agents before Spring Training, and the Pirates’ decision with Capps has little effect on that.
So if there’s a chance they will pitch in the Pirates’ bullpen, it makes sense to me to have a discussion about the Pirates’ bullpen.
These guys were mainly signed...
…to ensure that there would be someone to pitch middle relief for Indy this year.
I think we can all agree that Capps was unlikely to fill that role in 2010, or unlikely to be viewed as a good re-up for the team if he did.
Is it possible that Cotts or Burres will end up as the second lefty in our pen in 2010, if he has a good spring? Sure. Is that a role that Capps was likely to fill? Not particularly…
So this thread is ONLY about mop up and potential LH relievers?
I don’t think so. Even if none of these guys see Pittsburgh this year, they are potential options for the Pirates’ bullpen. Just like Matt Capps should have been. And as I understand these three could have and likely would have been brought in even if Capps had been retained, all four still fall under the discussion umbrella of the Pirates’ bullpen. Regardless of which role they may or may not perform in.
How so? Seems to me a thread disucssing the Pirates bullpen would be a perfect place to disucss Matt Capps.
Seems to me...
…that the perfect place to talk about Capps would be this thread. It’s on the front page, immediately above this thread, and unlike this one it’s actually about Capps.
Also, just as a word to the wise: When Charlie suggests that maybe you shouldn’t do something, and you keep doing it (as in this thread), that’s a great way to end up banned. I would prefer for that not to happen. Please act accordingly.
A half dozen or so other commenters — including several by the site owner — have in one way or another pointed out that Matt Capps has nothing to do with this discussion. That’s not good enough for you, though, since you insist on redefining the terms of debate to be “about the Pirates bullpen” for the sole purpose of flogging that dead horse. That’s textbook troll behavior.
Wrong. It appears many who feel compelled to defend Capps’ release despite realizing and failing to acknowledge it was wrong, don’t appreciate me brining him up. To me, when discussing potential pieces to the Pirates’ 2010 bullpen, it’s difficult to ignore how they simply tossed aside arguably their best piece over $500,000.
Remember when you were complaining...
…about Charlie’s characterization of most of the anti-management commenters as irrational, in this thread?
You really aren’t helping your case, here.
Well considering much of the response I got from that thread was telling me how wrong I was, I’m really not worry too much about “my case” on this board. Obviously I’m nothing more than a troll to others no matter what I post. Of course it would appear in order to be considered a troll, all one has to do is take a minority opinion and illustrate how many here blindly support anything the Pirates do with very little creative thinking involved. So if that makes me a troll, feel free to label me as such.
If you want to be considered a troll...
…then you’re off to a great start.
If you want to talk about Capps, fine. Do it in the Capps thread I linked above. People here are trying to talk about something else, and no matter how hard you stomp your foot, they aren’t going to shift topics just to please you.
The interesting thing is how I was pretty much done making my point about Capps about the time everyone came in telling me to stop talking about Capps. And it would appear this thread is much more littered with people saying that than me talking about Capps.
But again, I really don’t care if people think I’m a troll or not. It’s pretty clear many posters here are quite sensitive to anyone challenging them or the Pirates’ front office. If doing so makes me a troll, so be it.
If you had said all that you wanted to say...
…then why did you keep talking? Did you just not want someone else to have the last word?
I’ll let you in on a little secret: if you go back to the first thread about the Capps non-tender (i.e. this one), there were lots and lots of people who didn’t like it. Probably the vast majority of posters. You’re actually espousing a very popular viewpoint here… and you’re doing it in such an incoherent and confrontational manner that you’re getting shouted down by a group of people who largely agree with you. You aren’t being martyred – you’re setting yourself on fire.
Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top: Step away from the computer, go for a walk or read a book or something, and come back when you’re ready to have fun talking about the Pirates, instead of ranting and picking unnecessary fights.
Many here don’t “blindly support” anything the Pirates do. See this site’s archives on the divided (or completely anti-management) opinion on Bobby Crosby signing, Tony Sanchez draft pick, Craig Monroe signing, Capps non-tender, Brian Bixler callup, Luis Rivas callup, Freddy Sanchez trade, Nate McLouth deal, etc.
Claiming such is text-book trolling.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 5, 2010 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
FTLOG
It wasn’t over $500000, it was over $3500000. $3.5 mil (or thereabouts) is enough to look elsewhere if you feel that you’re not getting your money’s worth. I personally also disagree with their decision and believe Matty Capps will bounce back but once I’ve said my piece I don’t drag it all over the forum.
by BlindSquirrel on Jan 5, 2010 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
with Yates and Cotts both having had TJ surgery in July…they will be of no use to the Pirates until about the All-Star Break.
I remember Cotts having a pretty good breaking ball.
When he could throw it for strikes, anyway. But maybe I’m just losing it.
I watched him warm up from about ten feet away in San Diego right before the surgery, but I don’t remember his breaking ball. Anyway, Piniella has said they sent him down to Iowa last year because he needed to work on his slider, and the two pitches that receive praise over and over in the scouting reports I’ve read are his fastball and his change.
He’s supposed to mess around with his repertoire a lot, though.
The last time I saw him pitch...
…was with the White Sox, so there’s certainly been enough time for his stuff to shift.
What’s weird about that, then, is that with the White Sox he hardly ever threw his breaking ball. (Not saying you didn’t see it, obviously, just that he rarely threw it.) He threw more and more of them with the Cubs, and got hit pretty hard.
I’d forgotten that his last outing before going down was against the Pirates. I vaguely remember it now.
When he threw it...
…it was mostly breaking out of the zone. Which would explain why he relied mostly on the fastball, I guess.
good job
low price, high reward for the buccos here, gives them some veteran arms as well. pirates doing a good job so far.
+1
Even if all three start at AAA as cannon fodder, they sound like folks you can a) leave there, since you need to fill the roster b) bring up if an injury occurs and, for whatever reason, you don’t want to bring up a top prospect like Moskos (just seeing if anyone reads this), or c) get lucky with. Burress apparently has 7k/9 IP & 2.3 BB/9 IP, which could make him a respectable set-up/bullpen guy.
regardless
of who it stops them from callilng up in terms of prospects id much rather have veteran guys pitching in the bullpen, i dont think i have ever liked the pirates bullpen as long as i can remember, but if all 3 of these guys make the team then it seems legit enough to hold down the fort and raise the jolly roger!
I sometimes wonder if we couldn't send Moskos
to the Cubs for someone remotely interesting and reunite Danny Boy with DL.

by 













