Looking Back On 2010
I usually try to avoid using anything that isn't related to baseball as an excuse to write about it, but since tomorrow is the last day of the year, and I'm really hard up for things to write about right now, here are a few thoughts on the Pirates in 2010.
-P- As usual, the draft went very well this year, with the additions of Jameson Taillon, Stetson Allie and several interesting late-round talents. And for the first time, the Pirates made a splash internationally, by signing Luis Heredia. This is probably the most important thing about 2010, and I try to keep that in perspective when things get bleak.
-P- I don't remember how close I came to saying so on the blog, and I don't really care to go back and look it up, but there was a time early in the season when I was very close to freaking out because the Pirates were doing so poorly. Akinori Iwamura was terrible, Lastings Milledge hadn't shown any power at all, Ronny Cedeno and Jeff Clement were completely absent ... and the pitching! We had the Hayden Penn disaster, and then the Charlie Morton mega-disaster. It seemed that Neal Huntington's acquisitions were all failing at once.
-P- Relatedly, this was the first year I started to think about Huntington's legacy, whatever that's going to be, and how it might be ... complex. Whatever path his career ends up taking, he has restored a measure of sanity to the way the Pirates are run. No longer are decisions seemingly made without thinking about what things might be like two years from now, or five. No longer do the Pirates punt the draft. Rarely does he acquire someone important without it being clear exactly why. But the Pirates looked so bad in 2010 that it got hard to think of things in the long term. John Russell ended up taking the fall because of that. If things don't improve, and improve drastically, within the next two years, Huntington is going to be gone before getting to enjoy the fruits of his labor. That's not necessarily the way I would want things to be, but it certainly is the way things will be.
-P- "Talent evaluation" is important, obviously, but do we really know what we're talking about when we say Neal Huntington is bad at it? I don't know, which is one of the things that was keeping me from freaking out and disowning Huntington early in the season. If Huntington trades for Morton, Clement, Milledge, Andy LaRoche, Brandon Moss, Tim Alderson, etc. and most of those guys fail, what does that prove about Huntington? It's still only a handful of players, and most of them came with a fair amount of risk because the players they were traded for weren't very good. There are huge problems with sample size and with understanding the balance of risk and reward that we have to weigh before we say much of anything about Huntington's "talent evaluation" abilities. Still, one of the most important themes of the 2010 season was that a lot of Huntington's players were so bad that you could hardly blame fans for starting that debate.
-P- The Octavio Dotel deal was one of Huntington's best, and that and the excellent draft were huge reliefs for me. The Dotel deal was straight out of the Huntington playbook - trade a veteran for some young players who come with some measure of risk. Only this time it worked brilliantly, or at least it has so far.
-P- Also a relief: the additions of Pedro Alvarez, Neil Walker and Jose Tabata to the Pirates' lineup in midseason, and the further development of Andrew McCutchen into a fearsome hitter. With these four guys around for the next several years, the future can't be so bad, can it?
-P- Speaking of the future, the story of the year in the minor leagues was the injuries to many of the Bucs' best prospects - Tony Sanchez, Starling Marte, Victor Black, Quinton Miller, Brock Holt, Brett Lorin. Many of those injuries pretty clearly were freak things that had nothing to do with the Pirates' development plans, though, and the performances of most of the prospects who stayed healthy suggest that Kyle Stark and the Pirates' development team have some idea what they're doing. Rudy Owens, Bryan Morris, Justin Wilson and Jeff Locke all got a lot closer to the big leagues, Alex Presley emerged from nowhere and made it all the way to the majors, lower-level guys like Robbie Grossman and Nate Baker took steps forward, and pretty much all of the Pirates' high school arms from their 2009 draft class still look like prospects.
-P- The Pirates' 2010 pitcher of the year: I'd have to say Joel Hanrahan, for striking out a ridiculous 100 batters in less than 70 innings. Their hitter of the year: McCutchen. Their defender of the year: Tabata, although that's not saying much in a year that featured so much terrible defense.
-P- The offseason the Pirates are having scares me. A lot. The Bucs will pay Lyle Overbay $5 million to be their starting first baseman despite it being pretty clear that he can't hit anymore. They also signed Kevin Correia and Matt Diaz to two-year deals and, while those guys arguably aren't totally worthless, the sum of the offseason so far basically has been to spend north of $15 million on a bunch of guys who are at best marginal improvements. They probably won't get much more out of Diaz than they would have gotten out of Lastings Milledge, and they won't get much more out of Overbay than they would have gotten from Steve Pearce and John Bowker. We'll have to wait to see if this offseason was a one-time occurrence, or if Huntington will now be doing this every year. This offseason reminds me of Dave Littlefield's Drives for 75, and that makes me fret a lot more about Huntington's "talent evaluation" skills than the LaRoche and Morton flops ever will.
-P- I feel like I should write about Clint Hurdle here, but I don't really know what to say. Sidney Crosby has gotten a lot of attention for his 25-game scoring streak, which ended last night. Well, the Pirates have been losing almost as long as Crosby has been alive. Until that changes, the Pirates' manager position will just look like some sort of absurdist experiment, with different guys shuffling in and out for no reason. I didn't really like John Russell, but he pretty obviously wasn't in the top ten in the Pirates' list of problems, and yet he lost his job anyway. I understand it's possible that Hurdle could help, especially with the Pirates' young hitters, but I feel nothing when I think about him.
-P- On a personal note, it was hard to leave California, but I'm happy to be living in Ohio now. Not only do I get to see my girlfriend and my family and play in my band a lot more, but I'll also be able to see a lot more of the Pirates' minor-league affiliates. The Columbus Clippers play within walking distance of my house, so I'll get to see Indianapolis play there. I'll also be able to drive to see Altoona in Akron, West Virginia in Lexington, and State College in Mahoning Valley. So expect a whole lot of first-hand stuff on the Pirates minor leaguers in 2011.
-P- Also on a personal note, thanks to all of you for hanging out and commenting here. It's been kind of a tough year for me personally - I finished grad school at a time when jobs in my field were pretty much nonexistent, moved across the country to a city I didn't really know well at all, and started trying to cobble together a living with writing gigs. It sounds silly, but this blog has been a big source of stability. Certainly not financially, since I make almost nothing from it, but in that I know I'm part of something that matters to people, because I can check the site when I wake up and there will be tons of comments and new FanPosts and stuff. I forget who said it first, but Pirates fans really are the best fans in the world for following a team that has given us so little for so long. To be a part of a community that is not just surviving but thriving despite all the years of losing means so much to me. So, thank you.
163 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yes, thank you Charlie.
Best place for Pirates’ info and discussion. Period.
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
Sorry, not enough.
Thanks so very much for being so incredibly persistent with keeping up the blog. You’ve created a great atmosphere for a wide variety of opinions and personalities and have walked the tightrope of playing referee exceptionally well. That’s not easy! Kudos!
by MarkInDallas on Dec 31, 2010 2:06 AM EST up reply actions
agreed
it if weren’t for BD, i might have given up on the buccos years ago.
I have to say thanks as well. I’ve always loved baseball, but your blog (and sites such as Fangraphs, BP etc.) have really kept me interested at a time in life when my passion might otherwise start to wane. I’m out of the country this fall/winter, but I feel completely connected to my favorite sport, thanks to sites such as yours. Happy New Year.
Cheer up Charlie!
One of the worst songs ever in Charlie and the chocolate factory. Anyway,
that was a good post, straight from the heart. Yeah that’s a big move from
CA to Ohio! Do you have anything on youtube? If you’re bored check out my
kid Will, under, will and luke live. He was 11 and doing a charity show for
sick kids. He is 14 now and weeks ago finally got a band together. Very
tough at that age to find all the pieces. Hang in there Charlie things are
gonna get better, even with the Bucs! Sorry for some of the stupid posts,
I will try to show more respect for this blog in the New Year. Happy New Year!
pirates21
In the interests of starting the new year with a clean slate, I hereby take back any mockery I directed toward you and your posts. An 11-(now 14-)year-old willing to help kids has probably been blessed with an excellent role model for a parent.
Keep in mind that you don’t have to be respectful ALL the time — most of us are hardly what you’d call respectable people — but that if you present a contrary opinion you must come to the site ready to back it up with strong evidence or you’ll get called out on it, and sometimes harshly. That will be true not just here but anywhere in life where you encounter people who, for the most part, really do know what they’re talking about.
Barring that, it also helps to be really funny.
I’m glad to count myself among a group of fans who are both.
Happy new year. And if you get the chance to see Charlie’s band play, I recommend it.
Great year for bucs dugout
It’s my first stop every a.m., and it’s what I read on my lunch hour (greatly enjoy the comments though I seldom participate). I truly appreciate what you do for us long suffering fans charlie.
Just one point that I’ve kept to myself up to now – I feel like people are getting way ahead of themselves on James McDonald. For one thing, there’s the well documented history of promising pirate pitchers inevitably regressing, often spectacularly. For another, while he does indeed look promising, he also (IIRC) had consistency problems which unfortunately are often not just due to youth and inexperience. That said, anything at all for Dotel was a nice return.
Oh, what the heck, let me unburden myself of a pet peeve while I’m at it: the term “defender” is IMHO wildly unsuited to baseball. Maybe it’s simply old fart disease, but just plain old “fielder” seems much more apropos. Defender always, to me, connotes a man to man situation as in the other major sports. But, I managed to survive people using RBI as a plural without strangling a kitten, so I suppose I’ll endure this as well.
Happy new year to all and Charlie, keep up the fantastic work.
strangle a kitten?! lol
You need to post more. That was good. I think you are correct on mcdonald. Two years ago people were all hyped up about Charlie Morton but that didn’t turn out to well. While I like mcdonald and pray that he has a great year, I don’t think we can pencil him in as reliable front of the rotation guy yet.
by grambo119 on Dec 30, 2010 9:14 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Sounds like he’s saying RBIs is a pet peeve of his.
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.
RBI is plural
the singular is RBUS
by BurgherKing on Dec 30, 2010 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think he means
the Associate Press Stylebook’s insistence on pluralizing a plural by mandating the use of RBIs — runs batted ins.
RBI plural just aounds weird to me
You grow up with the gunner, it’s RBIs. To me, RBI is a singular. RBIs is plural.
But, whatever. I was a lot younger when it really bothered me.
That makes sense.
By the time I heard my first game on the radio, Prince had already been dead for more than a year, so I mostly missed out on that whole experience.
I wonder how much we should consider the Pirates Young Pitcher Flop Rule with regard to McDonald. Yeah, that’s happened to the Pirates a lot (Gorzelanny, Duke, Snell), but has that happened because of bad luck, or because that’s just what young pitchers do? I suspect a bit of both.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Dec 30, 2010 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
William F. Kirk of the New York American in 1908 called Maddox a “…a well formed youth with a face like a dried apple.”
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 30, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
There are sportswriters whose stuff I don’t read because I strongly suspect they’re child molesters. And I’ve decided, with very little consternation, that I won’t be reading anything by New York American senior writers.
Which ones? I can’t tell you.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Dec 30, 2010 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec’d.
Excellent.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 30, 2010 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
It's the uniformity of it
Clearly, the majority of young pitchers don’t have MLB success – even among guys with 20-50 promising starts at the beginnings of their careers. But the fact that every single* Pirate SP who’s had success as a rookie/callup has gone on to flop… it’s pretty astonishing. Some of it was misuse (Cordova, probably Gorzo), some of it was player-driven (Ollie P, Snell), but it’s hard to say that the Pirates themselves were responsible for more than a fraction of it. What are the odds that they’d manage to screw up every SP who wasn’t destined for injury or nervous breakdown?
- Off the top of my head, Maholm’s the only exception, and he doesn’t really count because he wasn’t all that great when he started – 6 games with a sub-3 ERA, but a 4.2 xFIP, and he was totally normal the next year.
Oh, and I second the concern on McDonald
I mentioned this to Vlad on another thread the other day: he looks promising enough, but he’s really, really far from qualifying as an anchor of the rotation, even if Searage steers him well.
But we’re due for some good luck, right?

Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 30, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
The off-season moves are not scary. The large-scale patchwork (Snyder, Cedeno, Olsen, Diaz, Correia, Overbay) is still a byproduct of inheriting an organization with few long-term solutions. Next season, we’ll hopefully see the debut of some players who can help in the long run (Tony Sanchez, Chase D’Arnaud, Andrew Lambo, starting pitching). Not all of these players will pan out, but if some of then do, there will be a lot less room for mediocre or worse veterans.
Is this offseason a concern? No, but check back at the end of 2011. If they follow the same offseason template again, its a major concern because either they’d block prospects or the prospects didn’t pan out. Either case would reflect poorly on the organization.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 30, 2010 9:35 AM EST via mobile reply actions
The off-season moves are not scary.
Yes, they are. They display a compromise in the team’s long-term strategic vision.
There won’t be any long term ramifications from the moves. What?
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 30, 2010 10:17 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Now that Duke is gone, and assuming Paulie and Doumit are gone by the trade deadline, how much $$ are we even taking on this year? I don’t think there is any long-term effect either.
the union may have had a nod in taking on more money.
remember the marlins extended a player after they got scolded. our payroll was even lower than theirs.
by karreemofwheat on Dec 30, 2010 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
Now we’re talking. Only Correia and Diaz are owed salary next season. I wouldn’t have don’t the Diaz deal but it isn’t so bad.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 30, 2010 11:20 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
If Maholm and Doumit...
play most of the 2011 season elsewhere…the payroll may actually be lower than in 2010.
There won’t be any long term ramifications from the moves. What?
The long-term ramification of the moves is the opportunity cost of wasting a season’s worth of playing time on old placeholders rather than players who might potential emerge as future contributors.
Milledge will enter Arb 2 after this season, and to justify that he’d have to play every day and rake a ton. And by the way, no major league team wants him. Bowker has the Clement-like skill set and might still even make the bench. Pearce has one year left (pre-arb) before he’s a generic RH bat without even the minimum salary benefit. Does that cover the “consequences”, or do I need to add D Young, Duke, and Burres?
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 30, 2010 11:18 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Milledge will enter Arb 2 after this season, and to justify that he’d have to play every day and rake a ton.
Very true. There’s a non-zero chance that he will “rake a ton”, however, and if he does, we won’t be in a position to get the benefit of it.
Bowker has the Clement-like skill set…
I don’t really see this comparison at all.
Pearce has one year left (pre-arb) before he’s a generic RH bat without even the minimum salary benefit.
Pearce only has 1.01 years of service time on his record, hardly an insurmountable obstacle. In any event, it only takes one decent season as a regular to establish a corner bat as a useful trade chip.
We are not a resource-rich organization. We can’t afford to waste even small scraps of value, just as every grain of millet is important to a starving man.
Its like the birthday paradox
Sure, you may believe that Milledge, Bowker and Pearce all have precious little chance of achieving anything but you certainly have to concede that they all have a better than zero chance of breaking out based on their minor league track records and pedigree.
While the odds of any one of them breaking out into a useful asset alone is low the odds of one of the three of them having a good season with regular playing time is actually significantly better.
To deny that possibility in order to acquire a pair of useful but downslope of their career players just isn’t good resource allocation.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Dec 30, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
But you have to compare that to the vets hanging big years, and if the probability is the same, the vets have more value if you can flip them.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 30, 2010 12:35 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
My inclination (and I suspect Vlad’s as well since he’s been so emphatic but I don’t want to speak for him) is that the probability of the vets exceeding projections is lower.
Your’s (and apparently NH’s) is that the vets’ probability is higher.
And of course no one will really ever be correct here. Such is the stuff that offseason arguments are made of.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Dec 30, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
I think you’re right about the probability of exceeding projections, but it works the other way too—the probability of younger players falling far below projections is greater than for vets. I wonder if part of the offseason strategy is to surround the core four with enough options that there is very little potential for the disaster (really the road disaster) of last year from happening in 2011.
I think you’re right about the probability of exceeding projections, but it works the other way too—the probability of younger players falling far below projections is greater than for vets.
Volatile players will generally tend to be volatile in both directions, yes.
That said, we’re at absolutely the right point as a franchise to gamble on high-volatility players with high upside. Last year’s failures didn’t really cost us anything but frustration, and taking a look at a young player of relatively low value (Walker) ended up paying significant dividends. Because he emerged as a ML-caliber starter, we now have a useful piece under control for several years.
I’m not completely disagreeing, but I’ll raise two points:
1. The Walker situation last year could be a preview of the 1B situation this year—a veteran is brought in (and I liked the Iwamura trade last year) but if the veteran flops a younger player can play his way to the starting lineup. If Pearce had finished last year healthy (and continued hitting), then I would be inclined to go into this year with him. But until he shows he is back from his injury, I think they have to go with someone else and I’m glad that someone else clearly improves our pathetic defense.
2. If we repeat last year’s failures (100+ losses) that may have significant implications. Will continued losing affect the young players’ morale? Will NH keep his job or will a new guy (and a new 5-year-plan) be brought in? I think this has to be the year that things start turning around if the current core will be part of a contender.
The Walker situation last year could be a preview of the 1B situation this year—a veteran is brought in (and I liked the Iwamura trade last year) but if the veteran flops a younger player can play his way to the starting lineup.
Part of the difficulty there is that with the addition of Overbay, I can’t see both Pearce and Bowker keeping their spots on the 40-man roster past spring training. I suspect that one or the other will be sacrificed to make room for this year’s backup 3B (unless Pearce somehow shows enough to steal that role).
Will NH keep his job or will a new guy (and a new 5-year-plan) be brought in?
I certainly don’t blame NH for worrying about his job, but if he’s going to compromise the long-term interests of the franchise in order to try and save it, maybe he isn’t the guy we should want behind that desk in the first place.
If he fully believes in his 5(or 6)-year plan, then a step in realizing that plan is survival to see it through. I know you know this, but I’ll add that when he took the job there were quotes from outsiders that it was at least a 5-6 year job to get the organization back in shape. He is 3.5 years in and I think overall things are moving in the right direction. I think the worst thing for the organization at this time would be to replace the FO and start all over with a new 5-year plan. But to prevent that from happening, the team probably cannot lose 100+ games again this season. So the way I look at it is that keeping his job is part of supporting the long-term interests of the club.
And you’re right, we may lose Pearce or Bowker. But there are still players that should be dropped from the 40-man before Pearce or Bowker and Pearce has the extra option. So Bowker could be the 5th OF and Pearce could start in Indy with Marte or Fields as the backup corner infielder. Then it should all work itself out. (I really think that Pearce is best served by starting in AAA and getting regular ABs since he missed so much time last year. This assumes a good faith effort by the FO to then find a spot for him or trade him if he hits well in AAA.)
But there are still players that should be dropped from the 40-man before Pearce or Bowker and Pearce has the extra option.
Not as many of them as there had been, though, and we’re going to need at least one (and maybe two) spots for LHRPs.
I’ve been wondering about the LHRPs. With the FA options left, the demand seems to be greater than the supply. So could Moskos and Watson make the team out of ST? Goldstein wrote that scouts think Moskos can already get major league lefties out. And if the Pirates think Watson’s future role is in the bullpen, then they’re just wasting time keeping him in the minors after how he dominated lefties last year—either use him as a starter in AAA or in the bullpen in the majors.
My inclination (and I suspect Vlad’s as well since he’s been so emphatic but I don’t want to speak for him) is that the probability of the vets exceeding projections is lower.
This is correct. The value of a breakout young player is also much higher than that of a breakout old player. A breakout young player will remain under team control for several seasons, while a breakout old player will not, and a breakout young player’s improvement will possibly presage further improvement in subsequent seasons, while a breakout old player’s generally will not.
I wonder how much could have been brought for Aubrey Huff at the deadline if the Pirates had signed him last year?
by MarkInDallas on Dec 31, 2010 1:17 AM EST up reply actions
Certainly Huff last year had the look of someone on the decline. Interestingly, I just looked up Huff’s ZiPS from 2010 and Overbay’s for 2011 and they are both OPS+ of 102.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 31, 2010 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
Huff did look pretty done in '09.
But Huff at his peak (4.6 Fangraphs WAR in 2004) was significantly more valuable than Overbay was at his (2.5 in 2005/2006). As such, it would be much more shocking for Overbay to put up a 2010 Huff-type season, since he’s literally never done anything even close to that before.
Yeah
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m in no way even hoping Overbay is going to have a year close to what Huff had last year.
I was just giving you an example of where your statement above would not be correct. Teams who are fighting for the playoffs are generally skeptical of young players who break out in one season, and highly value veteran players who they feel can be relied on down the stretch.
If someone like Huff is having a great year, a team with a hole at the deadline might overpay for him.
If Huff had the kind of year he did with the Pirates, we might have gotten Mitch Moreland from the Rangers in July, and then we’d be set at first base.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 1, 2011 12:38 AM EST up reply actions
I think the Huff-type rebound 1B in this FA class...
…was Lee.
But he probably wasn’t available to us. I mean, what player could pass up the chance to play for a perennial juggernaut like the Baltimore Orioles? How could we be expected to compete with that?
I’m not that much of a vets guy. I’d rather start Rodriguez than Cedeno, probably put Pearce on the team, and look at Bowker instead of Jones.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 30, 2010 2:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Diaz has a much better chance of raking, and even if they both did, Diaz would have more trade value, because contending teams love the veteran factor. And at this point, Lastings’ history is bad enough they even a good season could easily be seen as a fluke. That would affect his trade value and/or the decision to tender him a contract next season.
Bowker can play a minus outfield, but he haas the same low-walk, high K can’t hit off-speed skill set common in those types of players.
The Pearce arb date I used was taken from Piratesprospects.com. Either way, he has the same long-term limitations as Milledge, in that he’s worth less in trade than a proven player (although his history is better than Milledge by a little bit), and isn’t worth taking to arb, either, whenever that is scheduled to happen.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 30, 2010 12:32 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Diaz would have more trade value, because contending teams love the veteran factor.
Diaz has been traded exactly once in his career, for the eminent Ricardo Rodriguez. The last time we traded a comparable veteran corner bat, Adam LaRoche, we received in return a shoddy utility infielder (Argenis Diaz) and a random A-ball arm (Hunter Strickland).
And at this point, Lastings’ history is bad enough they even a good season could easily be seen as a fluke
So if a former top prospect enjoys a good season after several disappointing years, he should be immediately recognized as a fluke and discarded?
I guess someone had better tell Walker, then, so he’s got time to clean out his locker before spring training starts.
Bowker can play a minus outfield, but he haas the same low-walk, high K can’t hit off-speed skill set common in those types of players.
Clement’s K rate (28.4% MLB career, 25.7% MLB 2010) is much higher than Bowker’s (23.0% MLB career, 21.9% MLB 2010). And as previously noted, Bowker actually performs fairly well against sliders (the most common of breaking balls), while Clement is functionally helpless against them.
[Pearce] has the same long-term limitations as Milledge, in that he’s worth less in trade than a proven player…
Which is why it seems fairly obvious to me that it’s in our best interest to convert him into a “proven player” as soon as possible, so that we can either use him or trade him for value as circumstances warrant.
Be fair, Vlad -
And at this point, Lastings’ history is bad enough they even a good season could easily be seen as a fluke
So if a former top prospect enjoys a good season after several disappointing years, he should be immediately recognized as a fluke and discarded?
“could” and “should” are two different things…
Other points well taken.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 30, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
“Diaz has been traded exactly once in his career, for the eminent Ricardo Rodriguez. The last time we traded a comparable veteran corner bat, Adam LaRoche, we received in return a shoddy utility infielder (Argenis Diaz) and a random A-ball arm (Hunter Strickland).”
It is relative. We’re comparing Diaz to someone no one had shown interest in, far as I can tell, since we cut him. Diaz isn’t drastically different than Nady, who enjoyed a fine season in here.
“So if a former top prospect enjoys a good season after severa should be immediately recognized as a fluke and discarded? I guess someone had better tell Walker, then, so he’s got time before spring training starts”
I said that it could be seen as a fluke, not that it necessarily would be. It would be like walker except older, less positional value, only two years of control, and those years are expensive. Those parameters would cut into Walker’s value quite a bit.
“Clement’s K rate (28.4% MLB career, 25.7% MLB 2010) is muc(23.0% MLB career, 21.9% MLB 2010). And as previously note performs fairly well against sliders (the most common of brea is functionally helpless against them”
I think I saw somewhere that Bowker struggled with hammers a little bit less than Clement with sliders. I didn’t like throwing Clement into the fire in 09, and Bowker could use some side work at best before going into games. Bowker might be better than Jones, who looks totally cooked.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 30, 2010 2:28 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Diaz isn’t drastically different than Nady, who enjoyed a fine season in here.
Diaz is also a former AAAA player whom the Braves developed, at 28, into a useful reserve/platoon player at a minimum salary. Why not get our own Diaz?
It would be like walker except older, less positional value…
Milledge is only five months older than Walker, and Walker’s “positional value” is greatly compromised by the fact that he can’t actually play 2B to major league standard. On the whole, a broken-out Walker is probably more valuable than a broken-out Milledge, but I’m not sure the gap is as large as you are representing it as being.
“Diaz is also a former AAAA player whom the Braves developed, at 28, into a usefu reserve/platoon player at a minimum salary. Why not get our own Diaz?”
Sure. And I probably would have gone with Pearce in the platoon outfield role because multiple years for Diaz isn’t that good. But I don’t see the long term affects because once Pearce’s salary goes north, his value goes south compared to the freely available Diazes, Hinskies, and Nadys, which cost $2 million and change.
“Milledge is only five months older than Walker, and Walker’s "positional value" is greatly compromised by the fact that he can’t actually play 2B to major league standard. On the whole, a broken-out Walker is probably more valuable than a broken-out Milledge, but I’m not sure the gap is as large as you are representing it as being”
The age difference would be 1 year 5 months since Lastings is breaking out a year later in this fantasy. Those are smaller points. The main dish here is 5 seasons of post-breakout Walker versus 2 expensive seasons of post-breakout fantasy Milledge.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 30, 2010 4:59 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I don’t see the long term affects because once Pearce’s salary goes north, his value goes south compared to the freely available Diazes, Hinskies, and Nadys, which cost $2 million and change.
We lose the ability to trade him for value while he’s still cheap, as well as the option of keeping him if his level of performance warrants it.
The main dish here is 5 seasons of post-breakout Walker versus 2 expensive seasons of post-breakout fantasy Milledge.
A star- or superstar-level performance has significant value even with only two years of control remaining.
positional value
3B and 2B have equal positional value, and both are higher than RF (about a win’s worth). There’s general agreement that Walker can play 3B “to major league standard,” if not significantly better. Walker therefore has higher positional value than Milledge, even if the FO insists on keeping Walker at 2B (and he never improves, a highly – highly – dubious premise).
Pearce's service time of 1.012 as on Cot's is not including 2010 service time.
Since he was on the DL, he probably will get all of 2010 except for April, so his service time will be not quite 2 years. So, yes, he would be Super 2 eligible after 2011 assuming he spends all of 2011 in MLB.
This actually might be what the FO is thinking with the extra option. They could keep him in AAA for about 6 or 8 weeks and avoid Super Two status.
by MarkInDallas on Dec 31, 2010 1:41 AM EST up reply actions
Pearce’s service time of 1.012 as on Cot’s is not including 2010 service time.
Did not know that – thanks for the correction.
This actually might be what the FO is thinking with the extra option. They could keep him in AAA for about 6 or 8 weeks and avoid Super Two status.
Could be, but it’s worth noting that the Super 2 date keeps moving later and later in the year, as more and more teams start engaging in that kind of behavior.
Arb status...
…is based on service time, not playing time. Being on the 25-man roster (or the ML DL) is all that it takes.
not sure about that
I don’t see any long term negative impacts to filling out the roster with guys that are low risk dollars and potential trade bait at the all-star break. We all want Pearce to make it, but I think that ship has sailed. I don’t think Overbay, Correia or Diaz will stand in the way of any organizational talent.
Nothing to see here, move along…
From one SBN'er to another...
…this was the first SBN site I read/loved on a daily basis, and I still do it (if as a lurker). Keep up the good work, Charlie.
Huh, really? I’m not sure I knew that. Thanks, Bill. Go Tigers.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Dec 30, 2010 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe its just me
But does anyone else feel like there was some pressure to spend from outside the organization? Yes, I know the Players’ Union was satisfied with what they saw when they looked at the Pirates books just last year, but we also know there was the potential for some pressure to increase payroll to come in the future. Is it possible someone quietly hinted that NH and FC should increase payroll, and NH has said, well if I have to add people, I’m not gonna go spend it all on one contract that will kill me in 5 years (I’m looking at you Jason Werth) but on a bunch of small 1-2 year deals?
Usually I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but it just kinda feels that way since this has been very different fron the rest of the plan laid out by NH this far.
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.
sorry glass for above post,
which i agree with you.
by karreemofwheat on Dec 30, 2010 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way
It just feels a little strange to me that all this spending comes right after the discussion was had. Absolutely possible that its purely coincidental, but it just doesn’t quite seem that way
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.
Outside Pressure
I also believe there is pressure from outside the organization to spend more money. Otherwise, the sudden departure from “The Plan” makes no sense. Especially, given NH’ previous public and fanatical adherence to his plan.
thanks charlie
though i don’t understand zips and warp, this is my first stop every chance i get. we need you.
by karreemofwheat on Dec 30, 2010 10:24 AM EST reply actions
With regards to Littlefield’s drive for 75 the problem wasn’t that he was building a major league team to reach 75 wins but that he wasn’t developing a minor league system to take the team to the next level beyond that. If the offseason moves get the Pirates to even 70 wins then that can be a big step in the younger players’ development. I still have hope that we take on a starter with a “bad” contract and/or a bounce-back candidate with upside (Francis, Duchscherer, Young) to strengthen the rotation, but so far I’m satisfied (not thrilled) with the offseason moves.
the problem wasn’t that he was building a major league team to reach 75 wins but that he wasn’t developing a minor league system to take the team to the next level beyond that
Building a major league team to reach 75 wins is actively counterproductive to taking the team to the next level beyond that. Teams don’t become contenders through small, incremental improvements. They become contenders when a bunch of young players on a bad team all take a big leap forward at the same time.
The evil and unintended genius of all of the Royals’ spending was that they were still wretched enough to consistent draft highly and stockpile their system while not really blocking anyone except for Ka’aihue.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Dec 30, 2010 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
Sidenote
I would punch a baby to acquire Ka’aihue.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Dec 30, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I wouldn’t mind having Ka’aihue either.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Dec 30, 2010 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
I'd throw in some mild child abuse
for a World Series win this year. Hey, you gotta have priorities.
Agreed.
Broken bones do heal, after all…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 31, 2010 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
Experience is everything!
Somebody in this thread is a child abuser, but I can’t say who.
by WTM on Dec 30, 2010 1:25 PM CST
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 1, 2011 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
So THIS is what it means when they say acquiring a prospect for the right price…
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.
If anything
I think that this shows that the FO hasn’t really been exploring all of their baby punching options.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Jan 1, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
That’s because Nutting is too cheap to hire a good defense attorney.
by WTM on Jan 1, 2011 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with you but right now reaching 75 wins is a big improvement not a small, incremental one. Reach 70-75 this year and then improve on that with guys like Owens, Morris, Lambo, Sanchez coming on board in 2012, then contend when Taillon, Cain, Marte, 2011 draft pick, join the team in 2013-2014. That’s how I hope things play out.
So 100 losses in '11 and 75 in '12?
I’m struggling to see this as a typical cycle.
More importantly, I’m struggling to see Pearce (upside: below-average 1B) and Milledge (upside: powerless OF with mediocre glove) as the really critical part of your imagined 25-win breakout season.
When the Pittsburgh team improved by the necessary 35 wins between now and 2013, it will be because of improvement from 4 guys already in the field, 1 or 2 pitchers now in the rotation, and a shit-ton of MiL talent in the pipeline. Precisely none of which has been compromised this offseason.
I agree that this offseason hasn’t built the team up for the future (unless we get lucky with Rodriguez), but, frankly, we’re in a sit-and-wait stage regardless. For this offseason, the only realistic plans for the future* were always going to be “hope that Marginal Player X surprises us and everyone and turns into a valuable piece.” The only debate is which MPX we should be betting on, when the reality is that they’re all bad bets.
- OK, aside from the IF merry-go-round, although even the Hudson part of that plan was nothing but a short-term placeholder that wouldn’t have been there for a playoff run – we’d still be short a piece in ’13.
More importantly, I’m struggling to see Pearce (upside: below-average 1B) and Milledge (upside: powerless OF with mediocre glove) as the really critical part of your imagined 25-win breakout season.
If you don’t see either player as having any degree of upside, that would explain why you don’t see either as a useful part during the Notional Year of Future Contention. It’s not all that long ago that people were saying similar things about Carlos Pena.
When the Pittsburgh team improved by the necessary 35 wins between now and 2013, it will be because of improvement from 4 guys already in the field, 1 or 2 pitchers now in the rotation, and a shit-ton of MiL talent in the pipeline. Precisely none of which has been compromised this offseason.
Every longshot that we don’t develop into a future contributor now is one more successful player we need to extract from our current prospect mass in the near future. Given that a certain number of prospects are inevitably going to fail, I’d prefer to minimize the necessary return from the farm (allowing us to treat any surplus as a bonus rather than a necessity).
OK, aside from the IF merry-go-round, although even the Hudson part of that plan was nothing but a short-term placeholder that wouldn’t have been there for a playoff run – we’d still be short a piece in ’13.
FWIW, Nishioka is only going to be 28 at the start of the 2013 season.
if you listen to Bill Simmons
he had an interview with Ted Leonsis owner of the Caps and now the Wizards too. They discussed this very issue that the mediocre teams are in the worst position as a franchise. In hockey and basketball, they make the playoffs and are booted in round 1. They don’t get any great/franchise changing talent in the draft and they stay there hovering in the decent/not great category in perpetuity. Leonsis talked about blowing up the Caps, trading away fan favorites and enduring 3 seasons of dismal results. During that time, they drafted well and built a strong base of talent. Now, they’re one of the top teams in the league, selling out every game and they’re contenders for the Stanley Cup.
Put me in the “qualified agreed” column on the above post. The qualified part is that the Bucs can’t match the Caps or Penguins model because baseball operates on an uneven playing field. The Sox and Yankees are getting wiser in their spending and this year they paid very low luxury tax dollars – putting a bigger strain (theoretically) on the Bucs and other small market teams to field a contending team. This assumes that the luxury tax revenues are used for building the team and not to support the Nutting family vacation to Fiji (I’ll admit to trolling here).
Luxury taxes don't go to the poor teams at all.
They go into a fund that supports international baseball initiatives and such. So the lux tax is actually doing the correct job by making the Yankees think twice about spending that last $10M or $20M.
Revenue sharing is based on revenue, not payroll, and so is unaffected by how large the Yankees’ payroll is.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 1, 2011 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
the luxury tax also goes toward player pensions.
its totally separate from the revenue sharing.
by karreemofwheat on Jan 1, 2011 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
Thank YOU, Charlie
However, was this some kind of inside joke/legit typo or am I missing something…
“I feel like I should write about Clint Hurdle here, but I don’t really no what to say.”
Brain-fart?
I have to know.
I'm getting hard on myself, sitting in my easy chair.
Charlie,
I’m looking forward to seeing a game or two or three with you now that you’re in the eastern half of the U.S. I’ve been to the ballpark in Lexington, which is where the occasional commenter who goes by zadoras lives. Went with him to see Hunter Pence play there a few years ago. Could be there or one of the other minor-league outposts (I’d like to see a game in Charleston and/or Alttona), but PNC always presents the opportunity. Goldneck and I have made the home opener for five or six straight years, so give a heads up if you’d like to join us April 7.
Can it be
a little closer to me this time?
Like Indy, maybe?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 30, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Charlie,
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – THANK YOU!
BD is the best Pirates’ blog extant. It’s certainly my 1st stop 365 days a year (’puter willing).
Now that you live closer, I expect that you’ll be able to make it to “The Gathering II: The Return” this season (date[s] TBD, but the guys at PST have already been in contact with the FO)? The 2010 edition was great – so much fun to meet BD members (and PST members) and put faces to screen names, and have some tremendous Bucs’ discussions (and many drinks)!
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 30, 2010 1:45 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Also,
HAPPY NEW YEAR, everyone.
.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 30, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
I like it here.
This is a great community. It was a lot of fun meeting everyone at the Gathering back in July. Most nights, I can come in from work, turn on the game and come here to talk about the game as it happens. You can even come here during weekday day games and there are people here to talk with.
Hopefully, someday the Pirates will be as good as this blog.
Let me add my thanks to Charlie and
all the other contributors to this excellent blog. Well done, folks.
In thinking of Neal and the other Pirates execs, scouts and development people who are trying so hard to right this ship without the capital available to some other teams, I’m reminded of the parable of stone soup. They have not only to out-think other execs, but outmaneuver them as well, a difficult proposition for newbies. They are, by all accounts, bringing quality into the system, but because it takes time to develop they also have to keep fans in the stands.
I don’t think that the addition of one or two “A” free agents would help much; they have to keep struggling with the castoffs and mistakes, trying to make something of them, while their prospects rise. Thinking of what they had at the beginning – bare MiL system, poor starting staff, mediocre position players and a losing tradition – I’m almost surprised at what they’ve been able to accomplish. At least now there’s some glimmer of hope for future years. Maybe that’s all they could have done under these daunting circumstances.
My heros have always been Steelers...
This offseason reminds me of Dave Littlefield’s Drives for 75…
There is nothing wrong with a drive for 75 as long as NH sticks to his long term plan as well. I would be concerned if he was trading prospects for not-so-spectacular veterans. But, he is just patching up some holes the best he can. I don’t think that $15m is going to hurt them in the long run and the guys he got are not going to be blocking anyone. I just don’t get all of the worries. A season above .500 could bring in a lot more than $15m because those of us that believe in NH’s plan are few and far between. He needs to put yinzers in the seats to make any money. A drive for 75 could really help in that matter as long as it doesn’t jeopardize the long term plan.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
Certainly,
an improvement to 75 wins would go some ways toward convincing some of the better FA’s that we’re a team to consider signing with, and not just for last-ditch, career-reviving efforts. Just how much, well…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 30, 2010 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
5 biggest lows in organization (from least painful to most):
5. Doumit’s defensive year
4. Garrett Jones comes to an end in second half
3. Injuries sideline top prospects Tony Sanchez, Starling Marte, and Chase D’Arnaud
2. Early-season pitching (Dan McCutchen, Charlie Morton, Burres, early Ross Ohlendorf)
1. Worst lineup ever: Aki Iwamura/Jeff Clement/An. LaRoche/Lastings Milledge
5 biggest highs (1 is best)
5. Evan Meek, Joel Hanrahan, Dotel (and later Resop) shore up ’pen
4. Dotel trade brings back team’s staff ace McDonald, and Andrew Lambo
3. Jameson Taillon drafted, and Stetson Allie falls to second pick
2. Altoona Curve pitching dominates, and wins Eastern League title
1. Walker, Tabata, and Alvarez produce in majors and show upside
It was a crazy, roller coaster of a year. In the end, I think the positive events do make up for the numerous unfortunate happenings.
Pretty good list
I would add Brad Lincoln to the lows and Andrew McCutchen avoiding a sophomore slump to the highs.
Worst lineup ever: Aki Iwamura/Jeff Clement/An. LaRoche/Lastings Milledge
I can remember a few worse ones – this was pretty bad, for example.
Whoa!
Tim Laker and Doug Strange played for the Bucs? Gawd, has every journeyman player of the last thirty years passed through Pittsburgh?
Yes, yes they have
A few more on that awful 1995 team too…this is closing out the season with style here.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Dec 31, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
Good Lord!
You’ve very nearly undone years of therapy with this one…
Please, for the love of Mike – put up a “NSFW” label next time, willya?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 31, 2010 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
How about a bad start to the season.
Opening Day. I was at that game. I really didn’t understand what the hell McClendon was thinking.
by IAPiratesFan on Dec 31, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
The Pirates recent success with journeymen catchers has been a hilarious mixed bag.
Laker and Mark Parent came in and raked but Joe Oliver and Dave Ross stunk up the joint…I’m sure that I’m missing a few more too.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Dec 31, 2010 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
Over an entire year...
pretty tough to outcrap this juggernaut
I will hear none of that now
Johnny Ray was a star. A star, I tell you!
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Dec 31, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
The only positions we really had better to start were Cutch and Doumit. Still feel 2010 is the worst we’ve fielded.
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 31, 2010 4:53 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I dunno -
they only lost 2-1 to a pretty good Dodgers team…
…
…
Oh, who am I kidding?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 31, 2010 1:36 PM EST up reply actions
That’s not even close, is it? In first 2 months 2010, we had four guys Opsing below .600, and Cedeno wasn’t doing great either. That shit has Giles and Ramirez in the middle. No contest…
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 31, 2010 4:51 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
That shit has Giles and Ramirez in the middle.
The first three hitters are Tike Redman, an overmatched rookie Jack Wilson, and Jason Kendall secretly playing through a torn tendon in his thumb. You’ve also got Kevin Young in his no-knees phase, a random Alex Hernandez start, and Pat Meares’s putrid swan song. Meares couldn’t even grip a bat with his injured hand…
Even if the bottom 6 are the same, it’s still Giles and Ramirez vs. Cutch and Doumit a the best two offendets
by Adam Reynolds on Dec 31, 2010 6:09 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Even if the bottom 6 are the same…
That’s just it – the bottom six weren’t the same. They weren’t even close to the same. You were complaining about Milledge in your lineup from this year, but Milledge would’ve been the third-best hitter in that 2001 lineup – by a significant amount. He had a 93 OPS+ last year, and the non Kendall/Ramirez hitters in that ’01 lineup were, in order:
38
40
78
80
-53
39
-69 (pitcher)
To put it another way, the third-best hitter in that lineup (Young, at 80), was slightly less valuable with the bat than the 2010 version of Ronny Cedeno (82). You would have made large offensive gains by having 2010 Iwamura, 2010 Church, and 2010 Crosby bat for the three worst hitters in that 2001 lineup.
There’s simply no comparison.
charlie!
Congrats on the move and hang in there – better times are ahead.
<<The Columbus Clippers play within walking distance of my house, so I’ll get to see Indianapolis play there.>> Be careful where you walk, you’re not more than a 1/2 mile from a very scary part of town.
a very scary part of town
I think that’s probably my neighborhood you’re talking about. :)
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 2, 2011 3:25 AM EST up reply actions
Thank you Charlie
This is the second site I check on each day and I hope reading all the above you have some small idea how much your efforts are appreciated. Best of luck with your job and may life treat you well.
"second site"?!?
Where are your priorities, fer cryin’ out loud?
;-)
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 31, 2010 1:33 PM EST up reply actions

by 
















