Pirates Non-Tender Lastings Milledge
by Charlie Wilmoth on Dec 3, 2010 1:57 AM EST
Email
PrintThe Pirates have non-tendered Lastings Milledge, which probably won't have any long-term ramifications but which seems penny-wise, pound-foolish to me. Milledge has been disappointing relative to his pedigree, but at .277/.332/.380, he's hardly worthless, particularly since he hits lefties well. (He was, to be fair, a disaster against righties last year.) And he was only 25 in 2010, so there's some chance he improves. And he wouldn't have cost much in arbitration, probably somewhere between $1 million and $1.5 million.
So, given that the Pirates will have to pay the major-league minimum $400,000 to someone to occupy his roster spot anyway, they're basically giving up three years of control of a 25-year-old who isn't even all that bad so that they can save about $1 million, if that. Milledge doesn't have much power, and I don't think the signs are good that he'll ever develop any, but you never know, and $1 million is a tiny price to pay to find out. Non-tendering Milledge seems like the sort of gamble a team in the Pirates' position should avoid - and while I'm fine with their decision to settle with no-upside starter Jeff Karstens, the Bucs really shouldn't be spending on someone like Karstens if it prevents them from spending on Milledge.
The chances are that this move won't come back to bite the Pirates, but I still hate it. The one potential silver lining is that this makes it more likely that fellow righty Steve Pearce will win a bench job this year. I've wanted to see the Pirates make a role for Pearce for a long time, but this seems like a high price to pay to make that happen.
The Bucs tendered Joel Hanrahan and Ross Ohlendorf, settled with Ronny Cedeno, and dropped Argenis Diaz, Brian Burres and Donnie Veal from their 40-man roster. Diaz and Burres were pretty easy decisions, but I'm also surprised they dropped Veal, who made obvious progress this year. Veal went down with Tommy John surgery, but pitchers generally recover from that without too much of a problem. Maybe the Bucs know something we don't. Dejan Kovacevic notes that Veal is likely to sign a minor-league deal, though, so I guess that's fine.
The Bucs now have a bunch of roster spots available for Rule 5 picks, so that's fun, if nothing else. It would be interesting to see them take two picks, and at this stage, there's really no reason for them not to.
277 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't like it
from a morale perspective. Lastings showed that he was a gamer. Also, what message does it send to his good buddy Cutch?
The message to Cutch
I don’t get it. What’s your point?
I don’t think it sends a ‘message’ to Cutch, but I do believe there is some substance to this point. I generally believe that the pirates should avoid any moves that may jeopardize their chances of locking up their core players, within reason. I think that Milledge is an affordable option given his slight upside and mediocre performance.
by Littlefield's Legacy on Dec 3, 2010 3:10 AM EST up reply actions
eastbaybucsfan
This isn’t high school, dude.
Hmmm...
I think the only message it gives to “Cutch” is that the Pirates might actually be serious about trying to win and they are no longer willing to put up with having a corner OF put up an OPS of .712 with 4 HR and 5 SB while providing substandard defense to boot.
they are no longer willing to put up with having a corner OF put up an OPS of .712 with 4 HR and 5 SB while providing substandard defense to boot
They already sent that message when they decided down the stretch that he wasn’t going to be the starter in 2011.
Doesn’t explain why they’d decide that a decent season wasn’t good enough for an inexpensive backup.
In my opinion, your backups should be very good at something, not OK at a couple of things.
You can have an all-glove, no-bat middle infielder as a late-inning defensive guy.
You can have an all-power, no-glove thumper without any real position to pinch-hit when you really need a HR.
You can have a high-OBP, low-power, good defense OF to pinch-hit to lead off an inning and get on base, then step in for your slow-of-foot RF in the late innings.
Milledge doesn’t bring anything to the table that is above-average; he is the very definition of “meh.”
In my opinion, your backups should be very good at something, not OK at a couple of things.
There’s value to both – it kind of depends on the distribution of skills among the starters whom the backup is backing up.
I hope this is sarcasm...
…because for the life of me, I can’t think of a single reason why Doug Monkeywich would be considered valuable.
The message
it should send to everybody is:
We’re through carrying your mediocre ass. We need to be better than 107 losses, and if you’re not any better than Lastings Milledge or we absolutely have no other option (Cedeno), we don’t want or need you.
How’s that?
How’s that?
Kind of a mixed message, given that the team’s probably going to add 1-2 Rule 5 picks to the roster in less than a week.
?
Do you mean as-salamu alaykum?
I never thought my knowledge of Arabic would be needed in Bucs Dugout, but glad that I can be of some use.
Understand the move
Still sad. Even though the metrics didn’t like him much, he was still fun to watch. He deserves the proper Pensblog style send off.
Adam
Black Shoe Diaries, SB Nation Pittsburgh, Daily Collegian Sports, @fugimaster24
God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...
more than just the dreads
There was a lot of reporting last year that they were friends off the field. I think there was a familiarity and a comfort level coming from a similar background. It gave Andrew an early opportunity to exercise leadership.
They were friends
For most the season, on every flyball to center or left center…they could stand there and hold a conversation waiting for the ball to come down.
Great hustle but I’d rather see Bowker/Jones playing daily over him….he showed the ability to hit when platooning so I’m surprised they dumped him…but in reality, there’s alot of other “right handed” corners avail cheap that should provide more pop and smarts.
Let's remember the good times...
I don’t understand either the Karstens or Cedeno contracts. If we’ll shave salary with Duke, Laroche, and Milledge, I don’t get lavishing those two with big deals. If we’re interested in Karstens as a starter, we’re probably the only team, so we’re bidding against ourselves.
Similarly, if Cedeno wants to be a starter at this point, there isn’t much choice except the Bucs. The O’s are the other spot and I think they will get a real upgrade over Cesar Izturis. If RC did get 2 mill plus, seems a but much given that he needs us for playing time more than we need him.
At the end of the day, we paid out $3 million for borderline major leaguers. Not big deals that’ll have any lastings effect. But I thought that was interesting.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 3, 2010 3:14 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Karstens chewed up innings for us last year when are starters either
1) went down or
2) sucked so bad they were sent to AAA
Consider they still would like to see Morton….and if they sign a rehabbing pitcher….odds may be that pitcher doesn’t make 3-4 innings some games.
Cedeno fills our Shortstop role for the time being. If we don’t get another shortstop and don’t sign Cedeno….who would be our starting shortstop? Ciriaco? Management is supposedly looking to upgrade at this position.
You keep saying that
Look at the 2008 Pirates pitchers. Literally dozens of innings went to guys massively worse than Karstens, and a lot more went to guys marginally worse. Hell, you only need to look at April of 2010 to see the Pirates running out pitchers worse than Karstens for multiple starts and long relief stints.
Totally
He was always underrated too, but by God, he was a useful MLB pitcher for a lot of years because he didn’t get hurt and he kept his teams in games (for the most part).
Just remember: the average MLB 5th starter puts up an ERA+ under 80. Karstens’ career ERA+ is 83. 2/3 of all MLB teams run someone worse than Karstens out every fifth day.
He was always underrated too…
Josh Fogg is probably the single most overrated Pirate of the last decade.
Just remember: the average MLB 5th starter puts up an ERA+ under 80. Karstens’ career ERA+ is 83. 2/3 of all MLB teams run someone worse than Karstens out every fifth day.
If Karstens’s expected ERA+ is 83, then he’s going to deliver a performance below that of the average MLB fifth starter more than 40% of the time.
You honestly think that’s an argument in Karstens’s favor?
Since we're not relying on him to be a fifth starter...
First of all, I don’t even know what world you’re inhabiting wrt Josh Fogg. I must have missed all the years he started Opening Day. He was, IME, viewed as nothing more than chum, while Kip Wells was given chance after chance after chance, expected to be an ace. Career ERA+: 89 vs. 94. As a Pirate, Fogg was a league-average 4th starter for teams that were giving starts to David Williams, Nelson Figueroa, and Ryan Vogelsong. It would be nice to have a fourth starter who pitches like a 3rd starter, but I don’t know why you’d expect it.
As for Karstens, I don’t know where you pulled that 40% number from. He’s halfway between league-average 4th and 5th SPs. His role is to start for injured pitchers and to come in when pitchers you love, like “BP” Morton, can’t get 4 outs. You still haven’t explained to me why you think there are an infinite supply of better pitchers available when actual experience suggests that the alternatives are named Jason Davis, Marino Salas, Brian Burres….
In 2008, more than half of the Pirates’ non-Karstens starts were by pitchers worse than Karstens. Last year – after NH had 3 winters to improve the club – there were 32 starts by pitchers with ERA+ better than Karstens. Yes, the peripherals suggest that he’s not as talented as Maholm or Duke, but that’s OK – I’m not asking him to be a frontline starter, or even a starter at all. But the reality is that, every year, a lot of guys worse than Karstens get dozens of starts in Pittsburgh. For some reason, you think this represents a problem with Karstens.
First of all, I don’t even know what world you’re inhabiting wrt Josh Fogg.
The world where I spent five years arguing with a steady parade of Yinzers who argued that no, Fogg wasn’t the problem with our rotation – he was perfectly fine as a #5, and we just needed to dump Benson and Wells and bring in a real #1 and #2. The world where nobody in Pittsburgh noticed that he got crushed by LHB (.300/.371/.503 career), or that he consistently failed to go more than five innings and thus set the team up for failure by placing inordinate strain on an already-shaky bullpen. The world where every moron on talk radio took his twelve wins a year and waived them like a bloody shirt to prove that he “knew how to win”. That world: The real world.
As a Pirate, Fogg was a league-average 4th starter for teams that were giving starts to David Williams, Nelson Figueroa, and Ryan Vogelsong.
Dave Williams was a real (albeit unheralded) prospect who belonged in the rotation, and who performed better than Fogg in that role during his time with us. Figueroa and Vogelsong did not belong in the rotation, but performing better than guys who didn’t belong in the rotation doesn’t mean that Fogg belonged in the rotation himself.
As for Karstens, I don’t know where you pulled that 40% number from.
If you have a guy who’s at a particular expected level of performance, there’s a 50% chance that he’ll be better and a 50% chance that he’ll be worse. You said, and I quote, “…the average MLB 5th starter puts up an ERA+ under 80. Karstens’ career ERA+ is 83. 2/3 of all MLB teams run someone worse than Karstens out every fifth day.” If Karstens’s expected level of performance is an 83 ERA+, and an 83 ERA+ is only slightly ahead of the expected level of performance for a league-average fifth starter, then a large slice of Karstens’s probable outcomes are going to come in below “league-average fifth starter”.
You still haven’t explained to me why you think there are an infinite supply of better pitchers available when actual experience suggests that the alternatives are named Jason Davis, Marino Salas, Brian Burres…
Because I pay attention to minor league free agents, and I know that our past performance when rounding up minor league free agents to start for us has not been particularly good, or particularly reflective of the actual supply of quality minor league free agent starting pitchers on the market.
In 2008, more than half of the Pirates’ non-Karstens starts were by pitchers worse than Karstens. Last year – after NH had 3 winters to improve the club – there were 32 starts by pitchers with ERA+ better than Karstens.
That is not an argument in favor of keeping Karstens. That is an argument in favor of dumping Karstens AND a bunch of other people. Most of whom were, in fact, subsequently dumped by us.
"40% of the time"
That’s a bizarre argument. He is either a serviceable 5th starters or he isn’t.
How many games
did Cutch perform with a 100 OPS+ or less last season? Does it matter?
Sure, it matters.
The season is made up of games. So a guy’s percentage chance of performing well in any given game is what will determine what kind of season he has.
Right?
That’s a bizarre argument. He is either a serviceable 5th starters or he isn’t.
Yeah. But until we collapse the waveform and he actually is or isn’t a serviceable starter in 2011, there’s a percentage chance that he is and a percentage chance that he isn’t.
Right
But if he has an ERA+ of 83 (which you seemed to concede) then he is a slightly above league average fifth starter. Obviously at times he will pitch worse, maybe one game all season he will pitch like a #1 starter. Who cares? Players are judged by their season performance, anything else (like analyzing each game and saying he pitched like a #4 starter here, a #5 starter here, etc) makes zero sense.
not really
Players are judged by their season performance, anything else (like analyzing each game and saying he pitched like a #4 starter here, a #5 starter here, etc) makes zero sense.
depends on what you want…
a distribution is not judged by the mean alone. You also want to take into account the variance, if you think its a normal distribution etc.
Of course, this doesn’t necessarily make Vlad’s argument correct but that’s a different issue.
But all the information we were given
Was the mean, not whether Karstens has improved, or had one exceptionally bad start, or was injured for part of the season, etc.
The point is if Karstens has a 83 ERA+ and statistically that is slightly better than the average #5 starter, then he is slightly better than the average #5 starter. Saying he would only perform at that level 60% of the time does nothing to help our evaluation of him.
no
you have information by start, so you could compute the std deviation (and therefore the variance).
Not sure how useful it would be ...
but you could do it.
well
Just going by intuition (and its not always correct):
Likely, you’d want your fifth starter to be consistent.
You’d want him to give you a solid start, and not let games blow up. Essentially, lesser deviation means more consistency, and you’d probably like to know what you’re likely to get rather than go in and have a dominating performance one day and a terrible one the next.
Yeah, understand that
But I’m not sure how looking at stats from game to game would help that much.
Every pitcher is going to have variance. And nearly all of them will have significant variance.
Then Karstens is a good 5th starter
First, I like that criteria, I think you have good intuition. Karstens was a starter for about 3 months (16 starts). In 15 of them he chomped up at least 5 innings. In those 15 starts, he twice allowed 5 runs, 8 times allowed 2 runs or fewer.
So in 16 starts, that’s 1 blowup, two bad starts, and 13 that range from “didn’t let the game get away” to downright good. (Yeah, 4 runs in 5 innings is not good, but if you have a bullpen, you’re not nearly out of the game after five (unless you’re hopelessly down 4-0 because you have no offense. (Ahem.)))
wow, cool, u went and did it
just to expound what I wanted to say also, for Bernie6 above as well:
Let’s assume the normal distribution is a good model for pitchers ERA. In a normal distribution about 68% of the probability mass is between mean (/-) 1 std deviation. 95% is within mean (/-) 2 std deviation.
You have to use each individual sample to compute std deviation (square root of variance). Now, let us assume you have a pitcher with a std deviation of 5 and an ERA+ of 85. Then, you estimate that 84% of his starts are better than the average of a 5th starter (For a 5th starter with ERA+ of 80, 50% of his starts are better than the average).
However if his std deviation is 15, that percentage becomes much closer to 50%. The higher the variance, the lesser the advantage of having a mean ERA+ higher than the average 5th starter’s mean.
BTW,
I’ll take this opportunity to enunciate the Josh Fogg Theory™ for the newcomers, at length but as briefly as I can do it:
First, for about six years Fogg was very consistent. He wasn’t very good, but he was consistently not very good, so during that span if you had him, you pretty much knew exactly what you were going to get from him, which by itself must have a little value.
Still, guys like Fogg come cheap, though few were as consistent as he was. $1 million, $2 million, that seems to be about the price range.
Now this doesn’t apply so much to disasters like the Pirates, but if you’re a pretty good team, maybe on the cusp of contention, and you’re on a budget, it seems to me it would make more sense financially to try to bring up the back of your rotation with a guy like Fogg (if the guy you’ve been running out there at No. 5 is for instance a Burress or JVB) than it is to try to gain those five or six extra wins by finding a No. 1 starter five or six wins better than your current ace. Laugh all you want at his 10-12 wins, but if the guy in your 5 hole goes 4-14 and you miss the playoffs by two games, then Fogg’s 10-10 looks pretty damn good.
Get it?
My, you're up late,
ain’tcha?
;-)
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 4, 2010 1:56 AM EST up reply actions
Vlad,
Given what guys like Karstens and Fogg get paid and the casual disdain in which even knowledgable fans such as yourself hold them, I’d argue that such pitchers are quite underrated, at least in certain situations.
Just for the fun of it, I took a look at who the 10 best teams in baseball were running out there in the No. 5(/6) spot this year. Most of them had someone of Karstens’ or Fogg’s caliber at the bottom of the rotation, someone who prevented that spot from becoming a black hole — a full-blown disaster or a season-long audition — which is exactly what the JFT™ posits that they find, if they think they want to contend. (And yes, I know there’s a kind of chicken/egg thing going on here, I don’t take any of this as proof of my idea, just evidence).
Tampa Bay, for instance, gave 33 starts to a guy with a 76 ERA+ and beat the Yankees by one game for the AL East pennant. If you’re forced to give those 33 starts to a JVB or Herrera, you don’t win the pennant, do you? So while 33/76 isn’t very good, it made a huge difference to the Rays.
FWIW, here are the other teams. The number is starts/ERA+:
Yankees: they had TWO Karstens in their rotation, 33/81 and 26/80.
Boston: 19/82
Minn: 26/77
Texas: had TWO, 22/79, 18/78
Phil: had THREE, 19/84, 28/84, 31/85
Atl: had TWO, 16/76, 20/84
Cincy: 20/75
SDP: 26/68 (Correia)
I saved the Giants for last, because they gave only 11 starts (at 72 ERA+) to Wellemeyer; the worst guy in their rest of their rotation was that terrible, awful, crummy, lousy Barry Zito guy, who put up a 98. The Giants have great pitching.
I see at least one team in there that would have been significantly better with Karstens in the rotation than the guy they had, and it happens to be a team that missed the playoffs by two games, beaten out by the eventual world champion. So you may think that guys like Karstens and Fogg have little value, but I’d argue that Karstens might have made an immense difference to the Padres and therefore in this specific case anyway could be said to be invaluable. He certainly would have earned his $1.1 million.
Now remember, these are the BEST teams in baseball, and they all had a Karstens (or worse) in their rotation. Presumably the other 20 teams had a Karstens or two or three as well, but he would have been their No. 3. Nos. 4 and 5 were probably worse, probably much worse, which is in part why (like the Pirates) they’re bad teams.
So if guys like Karstens are a dime a dozen, why do so many teams have so much trouble finding them?
*—The good teams, obviously, also have some top-flight pitchers at the top of the rotation, and that certainly makes a big difference too. I’m not exactly saying pennants are won and lost because teams can’t find a guy better than Correia to give 26 starts. But, in fact, pennants are won and lost because teams can’t find better pitchers than Correia. If you have a strong top of the rotation, it’s crucial that you avoid the black hole at the bottom, or your David Prices’ and Tim Lincecums’ efforts may well go for naught.
Tampa Bay, for instance, gave 33 starts to a guy with a 76 ERA+ and beat the Yankees by one game for the AL East pennant. If you’re forced to give those 33 starts to a JVB or Herrera, you don’t win the pennant, do you? So while 33/76 isn’t very good, it made a huge difference to the Rays.
Tampa didn’t give all those starts to Shields in the expectation that he would put up a 76 ERA+. That 76 ERA+ represented pretty much the worst-case scenario for Shields, who had been between 105 and 124 in his three prior seasons. Tampa carried him in their rotation all year because they expected him to be much, much better than an any-port-in-a-storm Fogg type.
They expected this with good reason: Shields’s 2010 ERA was the product of an unusually low strand rate by his relievers and an anomalously-high HR/FB rate. His xFIP for the year was 3.72, right in line with his performance in past seasons. If they didn’t have good reason to expect a rebound, they would’ve gone with one of their many other better-than-Fogg-class rotation options, like Jeremy Hellickson or Jake McGee.
The thing that you are sacrificing when you go with a Karstens or a Fogg is upside. Guys like them have a near-zero chance of ever being significantly above-average pitchers. That’s a crucial distinction between them and a guy like Shields. That’s also the reason why a lot of teams would rather have a JVB than a guy like Fogg. Even if the JVB has a higher chance of complete and total collapse than the Fogg does, he also has a higher chance of developing into something of actual value.
While we’re on the subject of collapse rates, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that (as with our past discussions on this subject) you’re greatly overvaluing the perceived “consistency” of Fogg and his ilk. The fact that Fogg delivered reasonably consistent year-to-year performances did not mean that Fogg was at significantly lower chance of future outright collapse than average – as the Reds learned to their sorrow in 2008. Any pitcher can totally lose it at any time, and paying for perceived consistency is a great way to get burned.
All of which is true.
I suppose some of it depends on whether your GM is a play-it-safe type or a gambler. If you think your top four guys might be good enough to get you in the playoffs, you can either roll the dice at No. 5 on a guy who might get you 120 and might get you 60, or play it safe with a guy who put up between 83 and 98 for six straight years. You stand a chance of getting burned either way, I guess. (Although I get your point that T-Bay had no real reason to expect Shields to fall off so far [unless they’d been pitching him 210 innings a year, I didn’t notice if that was the case].)*
BTW, refreshing my memory with a look at Fogg’s record, lumping Fogg and Karstens together isn’t quite proper. Fogg was a better pitcher at the same age. 83 represents his LOW end for those six seasons. He had ERA+s of 98, 97 and 93 during that stretch too. So if you had looked at him as a minimum 83-level pitcher, you’d have been right, but half the time he delivered something closer to average. If HE’S your No, 5, then you have a pretty damn good rotation.
*—Hey, look! That’s exactly what they’d been doing.
I suppose some of it depends on whether your GM is a play-it-safe type or a gambler. If you think your top four guys might be good enough to get you in the playoffs, you can either roll the dice at No. 5 on a guy who might get you 120 and might get you 60, or play it safe with a guy who put up between 83 and 98 for six straight years. You stand a chance of getting burned either way, I guess.
The difficulty with a dependable, low-level performer is that bad teams will have more incentive to shoot for the moon with guys with upside (in an attempt to build overall roster value), while good teams in large markets will generally be able to afford enough depth that they can trade for replacements when high-upside guys crater (or promote them from within, if they’ve been offering aggressive contracts to build depth). The best spot for a Fogg-type pitcher is a talented-but-thin contender from a small market – which is kind of where he ended up when he was with the Rockies.
So if you had looked at him as a minimum 83-level pitcher, you’d have been right, but half the time he delivered something closer to average.
They also used to fairly routinely play matchup games with Fogg on off-days, juggling the rotation to have him skip lefty-heavy lineups when possible. As with a hitter who’s platooned, the raw stat line doesn’t give a true read on the guy’s level of ability.
Having Fogg on the roster wasn’t the end of the world, but I stand by my position that he was significantly overrated by the local media and fan base.
Oh, well ...
he wouldn’t be the first guy the local media and fan base overrated. Won’t be the last, either.
Some of us want to hang on to Lastings Mirage, after all.
They also used to fairly routinely play matchup games with Fogg
Define “routinely”. Otherwise, that’s BS.
As for the argument as a whole, if you’re always choosing upside, you’re often going to get downside. I don’t know if the odds are better or worse or the same that you’ll get downside with a Fogg-type, but with every year Fogg produced, gambling against his downside (at a reasonable cost) became a better gamble than on some JVB-like upside.
Define "routinely".
When the schedule and its distribution of off days afforded them the opportunity to give Fogg a softer (i.e. less lefty-heavy) matchup, they did so.
As for the argument as a whole, if you’re always choosing upside, you’re often going to get downside.
Talent-deficient teams need to use the strategies that maximize the amount of talent on the roster. Even with substantial risk of utter failure, JVB types provide more value to that sort of team than Fogg types do, because the value of actual talents is so high and the downside for that team of total failure is so low.
Look at the 2008 Pirates pitchers. Literally dozens of innings went to guys massively worse than Karstens, and a lot more went to guys marginally worse.
Literally dozens of innings that year went to guys who were worse than Karstens because Huntington inherited a team with a shaky rotation and absolutely no upper minors pitching talent to speak of. That’s not the case with the current roster. As such, I don’t see how your example is relevant.
Karstens is here right now because we brought him in last offseason on a minor league deal as a NRI. There are lots of other Karstens-like pitchers available for similar money and similar commitments this offseason.
See above
Particularly wrt 2010.
But your “NH inherited a team” argument still doesn’t do the work you think it does, because if Karstens were such a fungible commodity, then we wouldn’t have given dozens of starts to guys with ERA+ of 45, because “[t]here are lots of other Karstens-like pitchers available for similar money and similar commitments [every] offseason.” NH wasn’t hired April 1, 2008. If ERA+ 83 pitchers were thick on the ground, then he could have signed one in the 6 months between when he was hired and Opening Day. Instead he’s signed guys like Jason Davis and Phil Dumatrait.
If ERA+ 83 pitchers were thick on the ground, then he could have signed one in the 6 months between when he was hired and Opening Day. Instead he’s signed guys like Jason Davis and Phil Dumatrait.
First, I have said this before, and I’ll say it again: NH has not, in general, done a particularly good job of bringing in quality minor league free agents. The fact that he did not sign any does not mean that none were available to be signed any more than his inability to sign De La Rosa means that De La Rosa was not a free agent this offseason.
Second, you don’t seem to appreciate that for any given population of true-talent 83 ERA+ pitchers, about half will tend to crash and burn in any given season. Guys like Karstens and Fogg, who have not crashed and burned in past seasons, are not inherently any more reliable going forward than any other pitchers of that level of ability. As such, any team that requires on multiple Karstens/Fogg-type fillers in any given season is likely to have a significant percentage of them crash and burn.
Third, the fact that there are lots of equivalent players floating around doesn’t mean that in practice you’re going to be able to just stage a cattle call and drag in a half-dozen of them on demand.
Fourth, NH had a large number of additional problems to solve that particular offseason, including (but not limited to) familiarizing himself with all of the franchise’s current players, assembling and assessing all the organization’s operational personnel and shopping Bay for a trade. As such, his (fairly typical, as it turned out) failure to attract quality NRIs is perhaps more understandable than it would be in a more average season.
long thread...
so maybe I’ve missed it. Which minor league free agents has NH failed to draft that might have helped us? Just curious, not trying to be an a-hole.
Small note: Minor league free agents are signed, not drafted.
But that’s relatively unimportant.
You can see a list of some of the ones who were available last year here. A couple of the more successful ones from the 2009 class were Clay Hensley and Chris Denorfia.
Most guys picked up in that way aren’t going to pan out, and this is kind of an obscure, process wonk-ish thing to worry about. But it still matters. When you do a crappy job of attracting minor league free agents, you end up with Brian Bass as your emergency middle reliever, instead of a guy who may not be great but doesn’t suck out loud in Technicolor, either.
[I should note that Huntington’s NRI pickups last year were a bit better than in prior seasons. A guy like Carrasco was a very good get, for instance.]
Vlad
I may be wrong, but ….
I believe you nominated removing Karstens from the roster and signing him to a lower contract as NH’s best offseason move because he was a useful pitcher.
Am I wrong?
I'd be shocked
The only player Vlad dislikes more than Karstens is DY. If Karstens caught a baby tossed from a burning building, Vlad would point out that it was only a second floor window, which is pretty much replacement-level baby-catching.
by JRoth95 on Dec 3, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'll check later ...
but I posted last year, around June, that NH had had a bad offseason in 2009-10.
Vlad challenged it.
I asked what he thought NH’s best move was. Aki? Church?
I recall him citing Karstens as a positive.
I believe you nominated removing Karstens from the roster and signing him to a lower contract as NH’s best offseason move because he was a useful pitcher.
I didn’t say that it was his best move. In response to a question as to whether NH had made any moves that turned out well, I provided it as an example of one that delivered a positive return on investment. Which it did.
Of course, if we’d given him more than a million bucks and a guaranteed spot on the 40-man, the ROI from the move would’ve been much lower. Which is why it was a better idea to add him last year under the old terms than it is to keep him this year under the new ones.
I'll need to check later ...
I’ll be playing teacher for most of the next three hours. But I want to see the postings.
I can’t think of another move you rated higher. Can you? Maybe Dotel?
Dotel would be the only one I can think of, and he was struggling at the time.
That’s why I’m giving you a hard time. Your known dislike for Karstens, but he seemed like your boy that day.
Your known dislike for Karstens, but he seemed like your boy that day.
It’s not about having a “boy”, it’s about making a dispassionate analysis of the costs and benefits. Like I say pretty much every time somebody proposes a trade or a FA signing without a fixed cost associated, the value of the move depends on what you give up.
I don’t “dislike” Karstens. I just feel (objectively) that he isn’t a particularly good pitcher, and as such should be more expendable than most other members of the roster if we need to make room.
"lastings effect"
I see what you did there.
Meh
If its a million we can spend on a 3 million dollar reliever like last year im fine. If it goes to a player of actual value, even better. i dont think he’s any better of an option that Pearce honestly, just more $ and pedigree
RIP NATE. RIP TONY PLUSH.
"I'D BE A CHEF"
-TONY PLUSH
I don't like it.
Milledge isn’t a starter on a good team, obviously, but he’s a legitimate Major Leaguer with years of control left on him. Why just dump him when he’s not going to cost? I sure hope Huntington thinks he’s going to find better, and that’s why he did this.
NH says he would like to resign Lastings
maybe this also means that our FO has some plans for upgrading the outfield that we havent heard about yet?
That is about the only
scenario that makes any sense. Milledge was relatively cheap and at least serviceable. It will be interesting to see who they have in mind to take his place.
My heros have always been Steelers...
With the freeing up of roster spots,
maybe there is a deal in the works soon.
And for the record, I hate this deal.
Milledge is a good 4th outfielder and has been a good soldier. He is the anti-Doumit, in he actually played hard, but was yo-yo’d between the field and the bench, while Doumit was put in about 35 different positions.
This deal is fine
Lastings is not a good fourth outfielder. A fourth outfielder preferably can play the outfield, which Lastings clearly cannot. A fourth outfielder should be able to hold their own against right handed pitching. Clearly Lastings cannot do this.
A good outfielder is Shane Victorino, when starting he seems to be a littlle below avergae but when subbing all over the outfield he makes everyone else better by giving production while guys are resting or down and plays good defense. All of Lastings value is tied up in 125 at-bats against left handers. We can find another guy who can hit left handers and who can play defense. I agree with the FO on this one, re-signing Lastings would have been locking our team into a below average player for no reason.
In what world is Shane Victorino a fourth outfielder?
And for that matter, in what world is a Victorino-like player willing to sign with us for the million bucks Milledge would’ve gotten in arbitration?
I mean, just to clarify:
Shane Victorino started 142 games in CF last year for the team with the best record in the NL. Shane Victorino also won his third consecutive Gold Glove, and is under contract for a total of $17M over the next two seasons (under a deal that bought out his last two years of arb and his first of FA).
Well, in light of this,
why wouldn’t he want to play in Pittsburgh?
I mean, come on, dude…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with the point
but to say that winning a Gold Glove necessarily means you’re a good defender is risky business. I’m looking at you Derek Jeter.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Rafael Palmeiro says "Hi!", too.
Though in practice, it’s almost as valuable to be acknowledged as a good defender as it is to actually be one.
I don't get it
I just don’t see the cost-benefit to non-tendering Lastings. As usual, Charlie summed up my feelings better than I would I have, so I won’t go into further detail other than to say that this is the type of decision that really bothers me merely because it is so inconsistent with the general – and righteous – direction of the club the last three years.
I’m glad we kept Karstens because I think he is a cheap but worthwhile piece that isn’t always easy to find in that he can bide time in the minors or the ’pen but eat innings for you and be counted on to provide more decent than not emergency starts.
Back to Milledge, I can only figure that the team is anticipating a significant OF, 1B or 3B acquisition that will further crowd the platoon situation in either RF or 1B and that they figured there wouldn’t be room for Milledge. Unless there are waves of new starting everyday players coming to the Bucs, this won’t square the Milledge non-tender with me. Now that Dunn is off the market (apparently signed with the White Sox), I can’t fathom who that acquisition would be that is plausible and that I would like.
For the record, Derek Lee is pretty much the last guy I want to see brought into the Pirates.
Good day.
Outside talent
As DK notes, once Lastings signs an arb contract, he’s probably going to stick on the 25-man. If they get a significant talent for 1B or RF, we’ve basically got 4 guys playing musical chairs for 1 spot. May as well take Milledge out of the running early rather than give him an undeserved* head start.
That said, I don’t love the move, but I understand it – IF NH is certain that he’s bringing in real talent at 1B/RF.
- I don’t really mean he’s undeserving like Yoslan Herrera was undeserving; I just mean he doesn’t deserve to have a job locked down relative to Bowkers, Pearce, and Jones
As DK notes, once Lastings signs an arb contract, he’s probably going to stick on the 25-man.
I don’t think this is necessarily the case. Particularly if they took him to arb, rather than settling. Arb awards are only partially guaranteed until the end of spring training – you can cut a guy on a low-priced arb contract and only owe him a couple hundred K in termination pay.
Maybe it's not cost-benefit
Maybe it’s roster benefit. I have no idea, but maybe the FO doesn’t see improvement coming, for reasons unrelated to the numbers that already indicate it. He had a hand/wrist injury. Maybe they feel the power is never going to come (back).
And maybe because of that, or in addition to it, they want to give playing time to someone else, who may not even be on the roster yet.
by azibuck on Dec 3, 2010 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think this is the key. They want to develop someone else whether it’s in-house (Bowker, Presley, Pearce) or someone not on the roster yet. If Milledge is going to develop at all, then he needs regular reps. But if you know you’re not going to give the guy the reps he needs, and you know without the reps he isn’t going to develop, then why keep him? I really don’t think it has anything to do with money because it is such a small amount. I think it’s all about roster dynamics. Hopefully Milledge can get an opportunity to play everyday somewhere.
exactly... as the Pirates rebuild, playing time is a valuable resource
the Pirates FO no doubt concluded they knew what they were getting with Milledge, and even though the cost to keep him in $ wouldn’t be excessive, the “opportunity cost” of the playing time that someone else doesn’t get with Milledge on the roster was deemed too high.
personally, I would have given Milledge one more chance based on his youth and pedigree, but it’s not like the Pirates are hurting for warm bodies to put in RF right now. (now, whether some of those bodies deserve to be in RF, cough Ryan Doumit cough, is another story altogether.)
Moves
I don’t like Cedeno at all. But he got a back-up middle infielder salary. I just don’t see where it’s such a horrible move.
Karstens, again, isn’t a terrific pitcher. But he’s been useful the past few years. And it’s not like it’s an enormous financial commitment for an innings eater, something that will be useful if the Pirates call up the Indy guys this year.
Finally, I liked Lastings. But if you read NH’s quote, there is logic to it. He doesn’t hit well enough to be a CO. He doesn’t field well enough to be a CF.
As a result, the Pirates can probably upgrade in free agency. He also could return under the right deal.
I actually thought it was a start in getting rid of really bad players on the roster. But there’s still a lot of work to do. And there are interesting non-tenders.
How do you explain away Milledge's youth
and his nominal price. As Charlie says, it’s unlikely that he will become a good everyday player, but there is still the chance and if it happens, the Pirates will have financial control for a period of up to 3 years. I just don’t see the risk in keeping him.
There are a lot of similarities here to dumping Capps. It’s not that we missed his performance, but what did we gain? I know that we lost the pretty solid catching prospect that the Nats got in return for trading Capps to the Twins 6 months later.
Good day.
Uncle Nate
Capps: Yes, we did lose a solid catching prospect.
But by signing Dotel, we got a starting pitcher and solid OF prospect. It looks like the Pirates used their resources much better with Dotel than they would have with Capps.
As for Lastings, he is a young guy. But he’s had a ton of ABs. He could be a useful 4th outfielder. But is that worth going to arbitration when the team likes other guys better? I don’t think.
Also, what makes you think he can play CF competently? What makes you think he can hit well enough to be a CO?
Just friendly questions. Good to hear your perspective.
Dang it!
But by signing Dotel, we got a starting pitcher and solid OF prospect. It looks like the Pirates used their resources much better with Dotel than they would have with Capps.
I was just in the process of writing the exact same thing when your post popped up. Agreed and nice work.
fair enought, but...
Could not Capps and Dotel have co-existed (admitted one as a set-up man) and still brought their returns to the Bucs instead of to the Bucs and the Nats? I dare say that the answer is yes.
While your point is a fair one, it does nothing to address the primary issue: what is the cost-benefit of the move. As far as I can tell, there is little gain and what gain there is is comfortably trumped by the potential loss.
I’m not pretending that we just gave up on Cutch, I’m just saying that the moves (primarily Milledge; I understand Veal is a bit different) appear to be inconsistent with the direction the franchise has right taken under FC & NH.
Good day.
No, I don't think
Capps would have had little trade value as an expensive 8th inning guy.
We would not have gotten Ramos for him.
The Twins paid a high price because he had shown he could close again.
If Capps had stayed with the Pirates, he would not have had that opportunity.
I don’t see the value of a 4th outfielder who can’t play center well and who doesn’t hit well enough to start in a CO.
Just my opinion.
At least with Capps...
…we were avoiding a relatively substantial financial commitment. But with Milledge, we’re only saving Karstens money.
Right
Although I do wonder: did the Pirates think his arb contract could be creeping over $1.5M? It’s still small change in the big picture, but it’s also getting into the territory that you’d hate to cut (and that’s untradeable if he has another mediocre, powerless season).
IOW, look at this scenario (and ignoring the possibility of a big outside signing): Milledge continues to spin his wheels. Bowkers + Pearce fulfill expectations. Jones, no longer starting against lefties, looks like he did before last August. Why, exactly, is Milledge on the roster? But do you really cut him? In a trade, you basically only get as much in return as you’re willing to eat in salary.
Obviously there’s upside, too, but my point is that a slightly heavy arb award starts to tie the FO’s hands, and if they don’t like the odds of him achieving his upside….
As I noted above, arb awards aren't guaranteed contracts.
If he gets substantially more in arb than they think he’s worth, they can just cut him and be out only a fraction of the money involved.
Seattle did exactly that with the fast Brian Hunter about ten years back. There are probably other examples, too, but he’s the one that jumps to my mind.
I agree with Bernie’s points. Keeping Cedeno gives the Pirates some insurance if they can’t acquire a better SS. Other teams might think the Pirates are desperate if Ciriaco is the only in-house option.
Ciriaco is what, 10 bat, +10 glove relative to Cedeno? If you believe +/, which granted is a bit more questionable, a good glove SS would have saved even more than Ronny.
Either way, I just don’t see that signing, and actually would have preferred Milledge get a contract if the resources are that tight
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 3, 2010 10:09 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Ciriaco ...
makes Cedeno look like A-Rod.
And maybe he fields better at the MLB level. Maybe.
I don’t see the logic in ditching Cedeno until you have a better player to start.
And Ciriaco isn’t it. Moreover, Cedeno would still have value as a utility guy.
+1
Pretty much what I was gonna say, Bernie.
To those who don’t "understand"* re-signing Ronny: WHO is gonna play SS if he doesn’t? Realistically, I mean?
*for lack of a better term.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
Well, there’s the Rule 5 where we could have 2 picks, trade options that have been talked about here, and FAs like Hairston jr.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 3, 2010 10:38 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Adam -
You’re not seriously suggesting we’d play a Rule 5 pick as our starting SS, are you?
I haven’t fired up my sarcasm detector yet this morning, so it’s hard to tell…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
The number of R5-eligible SSs...
…who are plausible as starting MLB SSs this seasons is very, very limited.
Josh Rodriguez might be able to handle it without embarrassing himself, but the idea of going into the year with him as Plan A and Ciriaco as Plan B makes me want to break out in hives.
My point
exactly.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
And by the way...
Dumping Veal was also really stupid. Again, I don’t see what we gain by dumping him and I see plenty of upside. Perhaps the team knows something we don’t, but I’m skeptical.
Ugh. The yinzers will make a big deal about the swing and miss on Andy LaRoche even though it was a well calculated gamble. It’s this smaller stuff that is so divergent from the clearly charted path of the franchise since FC & NH started running things that drive me nuts.
Good day.
They didn’t dump Veal, they nontendered him, and as DK writes, they will probably keep him on a minor-league deal while he recovers from the TJ surgery.
No loss here, and it frees up a slot on the 40-man.
I was alarmed by this
But if they’re confident they can resign him, then it’s obviously the right thing.
But I’ll be pretty pissed if he walks.
It seems to me
that if they are that confident in being able to re-sign him, they certainly know something we don’t. As in, perhaps there’s a “handshake deal” already in place?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
Veal
I just dont get the love…
He’s 26 now… whats expected recovery from TJ? 1.5 years? So haflway through 2011. He’s really yet to come close to doing in AAA what it takes to make the majors. And he’s gonna be 27 at the end of 2011. If he puts it all together in AAA in 2012, he may have a few years in the bigs. I’d guess its highly unlikely.
I just dont get the love…
He’s a hard-throwing lefty with a good breaking ball. Those types sometimes take a few years to find themselves, but they have a high upside even as late-bloomers.
see, that part I get…
trying to bring him back on an NRI is fine though… i don’t think they should be spending a roster spot on him at this point.
If the only way to keep him
were to put him on the 40-man, then I’d do it. We have room on the 40-man, including guys with less upside, and who are more replaceable. I’m not expecting Veal to become a #3 SP, but I think there’s a better than even chance that he provides value either in the pen or as a starter.
I’m perfectly happy to avoid having him on the 40, of course.
Not a fan…He showed he wasn’t worthy of a starting spot, at least not full-time, but as Charlie said he certainly wasn’t worthless by any means. A .277 average isn’t bad at all. In any case, we better give Pearce the full chance this year to show he has the talent to stay up with the team, and if he can’t replicate the relative success he had last season before his injury, he’s gone once and for all.
Veal
From NH comments, it sounds like Veal will be on a minor league contract soon.
I suspect nearly all the details were worked out with his agent. With the injury, I don’t see the big deal.
"PIrates Non-Tender Lastings Milledge"
I always knew the FO was reading my posts and would follow my advice.
Vlad
The next one is to quit pretending that Steve Pearce is anything other than an oft-injured AAAA player and let him seek baseball employment elsewhere. I’m not sure when the FO will once again take my sage advice, but I’m guessing that it mercifully won’t take many more games than the 15 he played in last year.
im curious to when the term AAAA player is going to be phased out
ive never liked and it sounds more like a huge insult than anything
It's meant to be a huge insult.
Pat, we’re just going to have to disagree about Pearce. I’m not sure why you don’t appreciate the improvement he’s shown over the last few years. At worst, he seems like a quality bench bat.
In addition to the points you've all made (Which are all better reasons)
Can you imagine the fan backlash if Milledge goes all Joey Bautista somewhere else? Yinzers, the media, even fans here will be outraged, and rightfully so. Is it likely? Nope, but I wouldn’t risk my job betting against Lastings Milledge.
The Mets have a brand new GM and Nats fans seem to love Rizzo..
The dynamics in Pittsburgh are different.
The Mets and Nats...
got something (such as it was) in return for Milledge’s fleeting prospect status. That is different from our giving him up for nothing with little apparent cost-benefit.
To reiterate, I’m not distraught about the on field loss associated with non-tendering Milledge so much as I am concerned about the decision to do so in that the only cost-benefit I see is saving a nominal amount of money. Obviously, if this is part of a bigger plan that has not yet been made public my opinion may change. That, however, wasn’t the case with Capps. In summary, I fully agree with Charlie’s post and I think some of the responses to my post are off base.
Good day.
Lastings
Now has 1,655 MLB at bats.
He also has a career ops of .723.
His line last year: .328 (OBP), .394 (SLG) and .712 (OPS).
I like him. I think he works hard. But his upside is as a platoon guy and backup OF.
He’s a -2 WAR player over five years. Let’s not turn him into Cutch.
Now has 1,655 MLB at bats.
What’s the difference, developmentally, between him having those at-bats in MLB and having them in the minors? Is he supposed to magically peak at 24 instead of 27, just because the Mets brought him to the majors too early?
No
That was in response to others who have suggested that Lastings had a cup of coffee.
He didn’t. He’s essentially had three full season of at bats.
Yes, he may have been hurt by coming to MLB too early.
But I think the chances of him becoming a start are small.
Yes, he may have been hurt by coming to MLB too early.
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that his development was hurt because he was promoted to MLB so early (although it certainly could have been). I’m saying that a lot of fans seem to think for some reason that Milledge’s unimpressive early performances in MLB are somehow indicative of a low ceiling. If he’d been beating up AA pitchers in 2008 (as a level-appropriate 23-year-old), rather than putting up a ML OPS+ in the 90s, his reputation among the fan base would be much stronger than it actually is.
He is, in effect, being unfairly penalized for fans’ inability to properly contextualize his early performances.
Milledge had ZERO baseball sense
he was a lousy base runner, took lousy routes to flyballs, poor instincts…plus no power…hell he had 100 plus homerless AB’s at INDY 2 years ago.
I loved his hustle and he tended to show some power on VERY inside pitches…aka almost hitting him, on those type pitches, he really turned his hips and got ripped those balls…I’d had liked to see Long move him on top of the plate…to see how he responded to having most pitches on top of him…his swing was much better on those pitches.
If he ever succeeds (big if)…it will be some “real” qualified batting coach moving him on top of the plate
I agree on the poor instincts, but I think he did a good (and underappreciated) job of improving his routes during his time with the team.
and milledge proved that everyone's opinion of him was wrong
the dude is a nice guy, a good teammate and hustles his ass off. he deserves another shot somewhere, if not in pitt
Are the early performances really the issue for a lot of fans? Or is it the lack of development since those early years.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 3, 2010 11:41 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Are the early performances really the issue for a lot of fans?
If they weren’t, why would people keep bringing up his career numbers and the fact that he’s had almost 1,500 ML AB without emerging as a star?
Sample Size
His career numbers indicate that his 2009-2010 performances (OPS+ of 85 and 93) aren’t unusual.
The 1500 ABs/1655 PAs indicate that his career numbers aren’t skewed by a small sample size.
If he’d been beating up AA pitchers as an age-appropriate 23YO in 2008, then beat up AAA pitchers as an age-appropriate 24YO in 2009, then put up an OPS+ of 93 as a rookie in 2010, his reputation among the fan base would indeed be much stronger than it actually is – because there would be an expectation that he’s going to develop into a better player.
That expectation is lower when a player’s been in the majors for five years without showing significant improvement.
If he’d been beating up AA pitchers as an age-appropriate 23YO in 2008, then beat up AAA pitchers as an age-appropriate 24YO in 2009, then put up an OPS+ of 93 as a rookie in 2010, his reputation among the fan base would indeed be much stronger than it actually is – because there would be an expectation that he’s going to develop into a better player.
An entirely irrational expectation, in that a season with a 90-something OPS+ in the majors and a AA season whose MLE translates into a 90-something OPS+ in the majors have the same actual value.
Which is precisely the point that I was making.
Don't disagree
But when a guy is not getting any better over those three seasons, it’s a problem.
I just don’t see potential power. I don’t see his defense or base running improving.
Could he?
Of course.
But that’s the reason many defended Andy LaRoche.
To be fair, Bats was a better hitter with the Pirates than Lastings was, and had shown at least 15-18 home run power.
Yeah, a Jones or Bautista thing can happen with any Triple-A or fringe major league guy with some pop in that 26-30 age range. Its just unlikely for any one guy.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 3, 2010 11:01 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
To be fair, Bats was a better hitter with the Pirates than Lastings was
Milledge, Pirates (career): 93 OPS+
Bautista, Pirates (career): 91 OPS+
Fascinating…
To be fair, in the 2 1/2 years before we traded Bautista, he was better than Milledge. There we go.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 3, 2010 11:21 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
This is why
I have trouble buying your “I’m just a dispassionate analyst” schtick, Vlad. In order for you to post those two numbers, you had to include his Rule 5-damaged years – 74 PAs that drop his Pirates OPS+ from 95 to 91. No one who knew anything about Bautista’s path – and wanted to be honest – would do that. So why did you?
You’ve said before that you don’t like to lose arguments. I’d rather have an argument come out correct than to be on the winning side.
So why did you?
Because I’m very literally-minded, and the answer that I provided is the correct rebuttal to the literal point that he made. The point that he made may not have been phrased in a way that conveyed the point that he was intending to make – I really can’t comment on that one way or the other. If he had phrased it in a different way (that made reference to career trajectories or something like that), then I probably would have responded in a different way (or not at all). But he didn’t, so I didn’t.
Even if you consider career arc or whatever, though, there isn’t any substantial difference between what Milledge did as a Pirate and what Bautista did as a Pirate. Cross out Bautista’s Rule 5 year, and his year-by-year performances in black and gold are a 94 OPS+, a 96 OPS+, and another 94 OPS+. Milledge’s are a 94 OPS+ and a 93 OPS+.
Let it go people:
And if you can’t quite yet, wait and see which organization Milledge signs with and maybe you can see him a time or two at their AAA affiliate.
Milledge did not get on base or play rangey and smart defense, or run the bases well enough to deserve a roster spot. He’s under 25, but so are Presley and Lambo.
He’s under 25, but so are Presley and Lambo.
It’s not an either-or situation – there’s nothing wrong with a roster that has Milledge as the 4th OF and Presely as the 5th OF. Their skill sets are complementary. Presley is a lefty-hitting CF, and Milledge is a righty-hitting corner OF.
Lambo’s probably at least a year away from the majors even in the best-case scenario. He shouldn’t enter into the conversation on the 2011 ML roster.
Maybe we’re clearing roster space for an outfielder who will really be werth the money…
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 3, 2010 10:42 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
and werth will not be worth it...
wait and see; get werth away from Philly’s field, and watch the numbers.
In other news... Jack Cust non-tendered..
He’s a guy I wouldn’t mind seeing here next year. He’s the typical BB/SO/HR guy, but has always had really nice OBP numbers, which we had no surprlus of last year.
He’ll be 32 next month, but a guy with good plate discipline I’d be okay locking up for two years.
i would argue against this any day of the week
and his power numbers went south as soon as his name was leaked as possible PED’s… plus he makes milledge look like a gold glover
No snark here,
but exactly what position would Cust play?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
Oh, I know...
I was wondering where jlk saw him.
Cust is absolutely frightening.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
RF would probably be my preference..
I know he’s a terrible defender, but I’m guessing (no strong basis here) that some defensive alignments to Tabata and Cutch as far as positioning and covering ground, could really minimize the defensive impact of the right fielder.
Cust did have an OPS + of 128 last season. There has to be something said for a guy that got on base at a .395 clip last year, doesn’t there?
88 of his 112 games
Came as a DH, 16 in the OF, where, as you point out, he is a butcher.
Plus, as you also point out, he’s 32. Pass.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions
Cust - Career Splits
LF – 121 Games – OPS .812
RF – 106 Games – OPS. 885
DH – 326 Games – OPS. .827
He has pretty much shown he’s no better or worse of a hitter when DH’ing as opposed to playing the field.
The point I was making
was that he is a DH, not an OF.
I was not commenting on his hitting with that post.
Sorry if it was unclear, but the gist was that he only played 14% of his games as an OF. If we were to sign him, it’d be 100%, and I wouldn’t be willing to do that if I were NH.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
flipping
PNC gives him the short porch, and his power is tempting.
I see your point, but depending on what he wants, he could be a good guy to flip at the deadline. It shouldn’t take precedence over figuring out what we have in Bowker/Pearce, but it’s certainly worth a thought.
Fair enough
All depends on the price, of course, but all things being equal I’d rather trot Cust out to RF and 1B than Doumit.
The defense question is valid, although Adam Dunn just signed a big deal and he’s about as proficient defensively as that statue of Honus Wagner outside of PNC Park.
Cust also bats left-handed, so it’s not like he would be able to provide any protection for Walker, Alvarez, Jones and/or Doumit. They need a RH power guy, if only to make match-ups on opposing teams a little more tricky and break up long stretches of LH bats in the lineup.
I don’t think anyone should be signed with the intent of protecting either Jones or Doumit, do you? Who knows what their roles will end up being?
He would provide some good protection. Protection from those two getting into the starting lineup.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 3, 2010 1:04 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
My point was only that...
…it’s possible for a player that is sufficiently challenged as a defender can get a fat paycheck because they can hit the ball a long way and get on base 40% of the time.
In no way, shape or form was I intimating that Jack Cust was remotely in the same league as Adam Dunn.
Donnie Veal
I suspect a good bit of the concern with him is related to the trouble pitchers often have with command in their first year back from TJ.
Veal never demonstrated command of his “stuff” before the surgery.
There is no reason for him to occupy a 40-man spot at this point.
The FO would be wise to bring him back on a minor league like DK says is in the works, and give Veal one more chance to prove he can ever be a big leaguer.
bottom line
the pirates did not want to go to arbitration with millege, they made him an offer and he refused it . They moved on, but I think the offer is still on the the table. ps why does nh love this bowker guy?
by melikie yung tang on Dec 3, 2010 9:42 AM EST reply actions
Bowker in ML
544AB .237/.288/.391 OPS+78. That’s not so good. Also going to be 28 next season.
Sure, there are negatives, too.
But he played reasonably well with us after we picked him up, and 544 AB isn’t all THAT much. Some guys just need a few hundred PA before they make the adjustment to MLB pitching.
agreed
plus Milledge is only 25, still plenty of time to develop. somebodys gonna be licking their chops after they sign him
by 2010 will be the year on Dec 3, 2010 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know that you are necessarily correct...Vlad.
The western half of the PCL is pretty damned friendly offensively. Fresno (where Bowker played) is rather strong offensively (especially for HR…1.13 weighted 3 year average)…as are Las Vegas, SLC, Colorado Springs, Albuquerque and Reno. The only really unfriendly ones seem to be Sacramento and Portland…with Tacoma pretty close to neutral.
Sure, the PCL is a hitter's league.
But the point I was making is that Fresno isn’t one of its silly parks, like Albuquerque or Colorado Springs, where you’re struggling and in danger of getting cut if you don’t have an OPS over .850. You run a MLE on his line, and you’ve still got something left when you’re done.
yea but
don’t we need a righted right fielder to platoon with doumit or jones.
by melikie yung tang on Dec 3, 2010 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
If Doumit's our starting RF'er
we are in a heap of trouble…he’s not an adequate fielder nor hitter for a RF’er, and it means Jones is still at 1B…and his natural position is RF…he wont hurt you there.
Bowker won the batting title a couple years ago at AAA…He hit well last year for Fresno but also hit well for Indy too…I acknowledge he only hit .210 or so up here but when he stayed back/ patient…his swing suggest he’s the real deal, he just needs to calm down…he seems to be strangling the bat and hyper up there…too juiced up I believe but when relaxed…balls just jump off his bat…and it’s not fluky.
Laroche played over his head w/ what his swing suggested…and he dumped…Bowker has a very real chance to hit .300 and get to 20 HR’s w/ PNC…the swing is there…which to me says the “TRUE potential” is really there. Also, he’s a pretty good 1B, better than Jones and a platoon w/ Pearce makes alot of sense at 1B.
Jones’ natural position is not RF. He’s actually fairly inexperienced in RF compared to 1B. He has a total of 338 games in the OF, the majority of them coming in the last 2 seasons. He has over 1000 career games at 1B.
I think Bowker would be fine in MLB...
…if I just made a point to watch all of his games. Every time I saw him, he played like Tarzan, and every time I didn’t, he played like Jane. It was actually kind of creepy…
well, if you needed another reason to watch all games
there you go… if Bowker flops, lots of scathing looks will be directed your way!
I agree that Bowker could break out
I hope he gets the chance.
by eastbaybucsfan on Dec 3, 2010 5:02 PM EST up reply actions
Clearly.............
they’re just saving money to get in on the Cliff Lee action!
I don’t really understand the Milledge non-tender. At worst I see him as a good 4th outfielder at a very reasonable price. Maybe something will happen within the next few days that makes sense of it, but other than that I don’t get it.
Just to be clear
We still can sign Milledge as a FA, right? If that is the case perhaps the FO just has a very specific dollar amount in mind that Lastings is worth and feel that
A) the arbitration award would be well above it
B) the demand for Milledge isn’t going to be very high owing to a combination of perceived attitude issues, bad defense and lack of power
It wouldn’t be the first time that the FO stuck to a very specific valuation of a player.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Dec 3, 2010 10:31 AM EST reply actions
Not sure about the "uproar"!!
I was hoping we were past the days, as fans, when we would fret over the loss of a 4th outfielder (though he’s not necessarily gone yet) or an injured AAA pitcher (that’s likely to return). But it doesn’t seem to be, haha!!!! (Remember the concern when Brandon Moss was cut loose last year, only to return, and now be gone, anyway!.)
While I liked seeing Milledge get out for under his bad reputation, he really didn’t prove to be much worth keeping on the Pirates roster. He was handed a starting job and couldn’t keep it. Sloppy base-running skills and only okay defense, doesn’t make him a great late-inning replacement/4th outfielder. If he comes back, great. If not, no big loss.
I think Milledge’s release means that the Pirates have someone in mind already as a potential replacement.
I’m certainly all in favor of seeing his roster spot go to a Bowker or Pearce or even a Lambo, if that was needed, but I think an outsider is on his way to take Milledge’s spot.
Relax everybody...
Clearing some outfield space is the necessary and predictable prelude to signing Carl Crawford next week.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
Did anyone else go in to the day excited @ the possibility of landing a new SS, preferring JJ Hardy of course, refreshing pages more than usual for updates, hoping & praying, only to be let down by the news we nontendered Lastings?
by Danatural08 on Dec 3, 2010 1:40 PM EST via mobile reply actions
How the Milledge non-tender...
will eventually be defined, will be determined by how they fill his roster spot. If it is filled by a Rule V pickup, who eventually gets sent back to his original team, it will be viewed as a mistake. If it is filled by a useful piece, then it becomes a positive.
At this point, I consider the Pirates to have a vacant starting position, at least partially. Only question is whether the spot is RF or 1B. At least temporarily…if healthy…the odds of Steven Pearce being a significant part of the 2011 roster just went up considerably. Of all the likely possibilities at either position, none of the other candidates (Doumit, Jones, Bowker) has shown the capability of producing a .700 OPS vs LHP. Doumit has a career .694 OPS vs LHP…Bowker .309…and Jones .630. Pearce is over .920 OPS vs LHP at both the minor and major league levels.
Gut feeling is that for the 2011 season (and only this season), the Pirates may eventually regret the dismissal of Milledge, due to being unable to find a properly useful piece. Beyond 2011, I suspect we will see enough movement to find a piece more useful than Lastings.
Last season, we stacked the roster with position players worse than Milledge. This time, though, we’ll have enough talent to crowd him out from being the 25th man? Despite no one wanting to sign here for a bench job. A trade must be in the works.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 3, 2010 2:25 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
woa!!! not so fast
They need to sign these better option , because there not on the 36 man roster. They let millege go to get him at there price. As for a trade, who brings us a power hitting right-handed right fielder?
by melikie yung tang on Dec 3, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
Woah, not so fast
Slow down tyke. Your post makes little to no sense. 36 man roster?
They let millege go to get him at there price
What?
by Wizard of Woz on Dec 3, 2010 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
36 man roster?
Think he meant our 40-man roster, which currently has 36 guys on it.
They let millege go to get him at there price
Makes more sense with “their” instead of “there”. He’s saying that he thinks they’ll re-sign Milledge at a lower price than he would’ve gotten in arb. I don’t think it’s particularly likely, but it is a possibility.
Brian Burres.....
wasn’t a power pitcher with a high upside,but he had a few solid starts for the Pirates last season,and seemed the kind of ‘crafty’ southpaw that can cntribute to a winning effort. Would like to have seen him kept.
Cedeno will/should make a soild Utility INF.
I'd prefer ...
that he be with any organization within the division than the Pirates.
Somewhat crazy thought, but what if Neil Walker is our future rightfielder? Say it’s been decided that he’s not a 2B but they don’t want to move Pedro off of 3B yet. Walker is athletic, has the arm, and looks like he may have the power to play RF. Personally I want to see him at 2B for another season because of positional value. But they have talked about significanlty upgrading the defense and there may be some good 2B options out there. Just a thought…
There has been speculation to that effect in the past.
BA published something along those lines right after the LaRoche trade, for exampe.
WALKER
i still think walkers defense will improve and he will atleast be alittle above average defense with potential to be better given his athletic abiility and working with maz in spring trainning…wich is good enough for me if he can hit .290 and 15-20 hrs
age of last winning season: 5
whoops, walkers d will improve
the real question is how much…
F Sanchez had alot of experience prior to Maz’s instruction yet he made great strides almost immediately and gave Maz alot of the credit….W/ Walker’s limited experience, Maz’s instruction may cause a pretty dramatic improvement…more so than F Sanchez.
All the calls to move him out is a bit premature right now…unless a Hudson comes over.
For the record:
I’m only calling for Walker to be moved right now if we’re able to attract a Hudson-type talent for the position.
In the absence of such, there’s no harm in giving him a year at the position to see whether he improves.
Sanchez
Dan,
Sanchez also started his career as a shortstop. That’s a much easier position move to make if you have a background as a middle infielder.
Walker does not.
And I think the reason is that he doesn’t have the skills for the position. I don’t see the skill set that I think you need to play it.
I feel Walker displayed soft hands at 2B
I thought his footwork, lateral movements were lacking…also getting the ball out of the mitt smoothly at times,,,but for a guy who’s never played the position, he out performed my expectations…it’s a tough transition on the “GO”.
I feel he’s a good candidate to gain a ton via Maz’s instructions,,,that along w/ a workout regiment to increase lateral movements (which will work muscles he normally doesn’t work…it will help out somewhat). Learning the footwork is key…and very teachable,,,Maz should help him out.
That Freddie improved as much as he did after working w/ MAZ (they claim its hard to teach an old dog new tricks)… I always felt instruction will help the inexperienced to a greater degree than an experienced guy…when Freddie came over, he was known to be a hitter w/ a bad glove.
I hope I’m right and your wrong…we’ll find out in the next year or two…but I’m expecting a sizable improvement from Walker in the field…and having a 2B that hits like him is quite valuable.
Dan
I used to play in the Johnstown Junior League.
That’s not elite ball.
But second base was my position. That doesn’t make me an expert. But I did play the position for years. I just don’t see the skills needed for the position. The footwork can be learned. The lateral movement is tough to add. Getting the ball out of the mitt faster is tough to add.
I think Walker can play 3b and RF at a reasonable level. But I don’t see a 2b.
bern
i have to agree with dan, and walker just as alot of athleticism and i mean look how he played last year at the MLB level without ANY expierance pretty much, imagine what he can do with a full year and some more maz instruction under his belt.. he can deff be ATLEAST average defensivly
age of last winning season: 5
Bobby
I hope you are right. I really do.
But the Maz part, I think, is overrated. He was an exceptional defensive player. But that doesn’t mean he can turn Walker into one.
I think Walker is a good athlete. But I don’t think he has the athletic skills required of the position.
I don’t think lateral movement can be improved much. You either have a good first few steps or you don’t.
Also, I’ve seen guys marginally improve their turn and getting the ball out of the glove.
But the key word is marginal.
I think he projects nicely at 3b. I think he would make a good RF.
I just never looked at him this year and said, “There’s a future 2b once he learns the fundamentals.”
Nady or Milledge?
Just curious what people here think. Would you rather have Nady on the roster or Milledge? I think Nady is a guy we could get, and I like many parts of his game better than Milledge.
Personally?
I’d rather have Milledge. I think Nady’s on the downhill slope, and his arm problems make him a particularly bad fit for RF.
nady
i think nadys done, we had him for his good year and with all the surgery and his age no thANKS
age of last winning season: 5
THIS.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
Personally, I will miss
.
…the gold shoes.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 5:12 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I won't miss his OF play and baserunning.
I give him credit for trying his best, though. Of course the chance to make several hundred grand during his time in Pittsburgh would be enough for most that have never made it to FA riches.
I’ll miss the gold shoes.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 3, 2010 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
so what you're saying...
if I’m following correctly here…
is that you will miss the shoes?
by BlindSquirrel on Dec 5, 2010 8:53 PM EST up reply actions
Shoes -
I will miss them.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 5, 2010 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
That uniform...
It’s like they designed it with Milledge (and his shoes) in mind. Really wish they would wear those more than once or twice a year.
Something....
Something about this move really, really irriates me. It’s not that Milledge himself was given up on by our front office. It’s more the fact that our front office looks for reasons to give up on people. That seems to go against the grain of a good rebuilding plan. Last year we saw it with Matt Capps. The guy had a very strong start to his career spanning 4-5 years and after one bad, injury plagued year, they got cheap and said goodbye. Capps, true to the trend of his career, went elsewhere and was an All-Star. Capps was 27 last year. Why the rush to discard him? Even a basic baseball mind could estimate that Capps’ 2009 season wasn’t in line with the consistent effectiveness of his career. Why can’t ours? Or are they just too cheap to care to take even the smallest risk?
I’m not losing any sleep over Milledge because, unlike Capps, he has never shown the ability to be good at the ML level. However, he’s not been bad either. It’s such a small risk to see what he could do. Once again, the Pirates chose cheapness over patience. This Front Office again behaves like the 5-year at Christmas who gets a real shiney gift, plays with it for a short period of time, and then decides it doesn’t work well enough for them and puts it in the trash. How can we expect our young players to have the patience to make the right choices and not over-think and not over-exert themselves when we have a management team that lacks the patience or the financial commitment to let them reach their success at a natural pace?
whats a natural pace?
sitting by and waiting for bay/freddie/jack/jose/etc… to reach their peak, hoping that they not only succeed together but that they dont get so expensive that the pirates cant add the needed talent to get over the hump??? wait, ive forgotten my point.
Slick does bring up a valid point. The shiny new toy theory does seem to be making a bit of sense.
It’s almost as if NH goes back and looks at Baseball America’s top prospects lists, and if a freebie is coming along, like the Dodgers wanting to ditch LaRoche, Neal’s on it like a dog on a bone. Doesn’t matter whether the player is actually capable. I suspect that was the thought when the Pirates went after Milledge and LaRoche. Now both of them are gone. And Clement is likely not far behind them.
In any case, it’s very obvious that if you don’t come flying out of the gate as a Pirate, your leash gets very short. That’s not necessarily all bad, but it does appear to be a fact of life with the Pirates. That may be most noticeable in the 2011 season with Brad Lincoln. At the end of the 2011 season, I figure that Lincoln will either be in the starting rotation or totally off the roster.
+1
i agree with you NH jumps on alot of HAS BEEN top prospects, but on the other hand its also buy low theory i assume
age of last winning season: 5
i doubt it wrt Laroche
his only negatives at that point were his ML performance in extremely limited time. It’s like saying trading Cliff Lee for Smoak was based on BA rankings.
No, it wasn't.
Seattle liked Smoak because he’s a good young player.
The fact that BA also liked him because he’s a good young player doesn’t imply that BA was cribbing from Seattle’s notes, or vice-versa.
It’s almost as if NH goes back and looks at Baseball America’s top prospects lists, and if a freebie is coming along, like the Dodgers wanting to ditch LaRoche, Neal’s on it like a dog on a bone. Doesn’t matter whether the player is actually capable.
Guys don’t get picked for those lists by some kind of lottery. They’re picked for those lists because they have better skills and/or tools than the average player.
Since skills and tools are the things you look for when acquiring players, you’d tend to expect a disproportionately high number of waiver pickups and NRIs and the like to have been top prospects in the past.
I really don’t understand your criticism. You’d prefer instead that we only brought in guys with bad tools who couldn’t play, like under Littlefield? What the hell kind of reclamation projects are those?
"What the hell kind of reclamation projects are those?"
Impossible?
Inane?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 4, 2010 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
Now what do I do....
…with my game used Indianapolis Indians Milledge jersey? Good thing the McCutchen one is still worth keeping.
I’m not particularly fond of this move. They had a few years of control left on Milledge, and they are years in which the Pirates are going to be bad or mediocre. I would rather give him more time in RF instead of giving it to Garrett Jones, who is four years older and four years closer to declining in skill.
This move makes me wonder if Huntington knows what he’s doing all of the time…
You cant start Milledge over anyone on a reg basis
if the teams intent is to win…he’s shown not to be anywhere near an adequate corner OF’er.
I’m surprised they didn’t keep him w/ thoughts of a platoon…he hit OK in that role last year…alot of guys cant play off the bench like that but he was OK.
Jones hit 40 HR’s and a bunch of rbi’s in just over a year…it’d take Milledge atleast 5-10 years to match it…cant win w/ a corner like that.
I do wish him the best..it was nice seeing the hustle last year,,,but wont miss the 3 zip code path taken on most flyballs
rumors are going around that matt diaz may be in the picture
maybe thats why milledge was non tendered. a diaz/jones platoon in RF???
Jones played just over a year? That’s incredibly misleading. He played 82 games in 2009, almost all starts. In 1 1/2 full seasons, he hit 42. That averages to under 30 per season, which its optimistic since it weighs 09 and 10 equally. Also what goes unmentioned here its that he never got on base in 2010.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 4, 2010 10:28 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Jones was lost 2H last year
I didn’t realize he played 82 games that year…but no matter, Milledge’s production was bad poor a corner.
I still have a VHS of a game from ’09…and watching Jones approach/ stance and most changed…his stride is startling…
I believe any competitent batting coach will help straighten him out…I’m not calling for 40 HR’s ect…but playing vs righties and having him revert back to his original stance/ approach should allow for a 20-30 HR year w/ a .260-.280 BA…plus he’s adequate in RF defensively.
jones was a low batting average player nearly his entire minor league career
maybe what you saw in 2010 was the REAL jones, and not this batting stance thing?
He hit .280 or so the last 2 AAA years in Minn
and over .300 at Indy,,,
I’d be much more worried about him if everything was the “same” and he fell off a cliff like 2H ‘10…but the disparity w/ his stride in particular…if you blocked everything out but the legs and stride, you’d NEVER GUESS they were the same person batting just a year apart…very drastic change.
His swing was good enough in ’09 for me to think he should revert to a decently valuable player for us if “CORRECTED”…esp as a platoon.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
Related FanShots on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
