Locking Up Star Players Isn't High on Bucs' List of Problems
by Charlie on Feb 6, 2010 2:28 AM EST
104 comments
Chuck Finder nails it here:
True, words are cheap. Star contracts are expensive. And that, wacky as it seems, would probably be a more tell-tale day for long-suffering Pirates fans: Not the moment when the club noses above .500, but when the owner locks up core players to long-term, marquee deals. . . and keeps them around on that growing payroll.
Yep, that probably is going to be the moment for a lot of people, if it ever happens. And that will be a relevant moment. Of course, if the Pirates do get there in the next few years, 95% of the work will already have been done. The players fans will want to lock up will be contributing peak seasons at relatively cheap prices, and fans will want to keep them in Pirate uniforms for their decline years. And few will mention that the failure to give out "long-term, marquee deals" has been about 99th on the list of the Pirates' problems over the past decade or so.
The Aramis Ramirez giveaway was a travesty, and nothing any fan wants to have happen again. But the Bucs have paid to control free agency seasons by Brian Giles (great contract), Jason Kendall (a disaster), Ian Snell (bad idea), Jack Wilson (largely irrelevant), Freddy Sanchez (irrelevant), Paul Maholm, and Ryan Doumit. Except with Ramirez--which was, again, a debacle--the Pirates' problem has not been an unwillingness to pony up for free agency seasons, or to keep their core players around more generally. The problem has been the fact that most of their core players weren't very good to begin with, and were even worse by the time they amassed six years of major league service, which is the point after which a player becomes eligible for free agency.
Most players have passed their peak by the time they finish their sixth year. And if the Pirates' willingness to keep stars around on long-term deals is to be some kind of litmus test--and it probably will--then you can look at someone like Pedro Alvarez even now and see how he might become a problem. Now, I realize that sounds absurd, but: Alvarez isn't exactly slow, but you can watch video of Alvarez running and see how he might become a bit of a slug as he gets older and adds a few pounds. His defensive issues at third are well documented, and he probably won't be playing there in six years. He has issues with strikeouts that could get worse if his bat slows down a bit, as well.
My point is not to write an obituary for Alvarez's career before it even starts. He's a great prospect. And with Scott Boras as his agent, he'd be very unlikely to sign an extension with the Bucs in the first place. My point is that Alvarez is pretty likely to do the most damage in the years in which the Pirates already control him, during which he'll be pretty cheap. And after that, it may well turn out to be in the Pirates' best interest to let him go. Assuming the Pirates keep Alvarez in the minors to start the year, they'll have him year-to-year through 2016, after which he'll be almost 30. I would not bet on Alvarez being a great player into his 30s.
Someone like Andrew McCutchen, who is an excellent athlete with a very well-rounded game, may well be a different story, and is probably exactly the sort of player the Pirates should at some point consider locking up long-term. If he continues to develop in the next two years or so, he's an outstanding bet to continue to be productive at, say, age 32. But players like him are the exception rather than the rule. Rarely is it a good idea to lock up defensively challenged sluggers like Alvarez; even more rarely is it a good idea to commit oneself to a big-money deal with a pitcher.
So I don't think the Pirates' willingness to lock up players to "marquee deals" should be that much of an issue, though Finder is clearly right that fans will make it one if the Pirates have any success. The main project should be developing enough players good enough to press the issue. And payroll will need to rise, but not primarily because of marquee contracts. Rather, young stars' salaries will rise as they become eligible for arbitration, and they will need to be complemented with free agents when they're ready to contend. Many fans surely will make "marquee deals" the issue, but reluctance to do those sorts of deals hasn't been the Pirates' problem in the past, and it's unlikely to be their problem in the future.
0 recs |
104 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Well said, Charlie
The decision to pay $60 million to a singles-hitting catcher with below average defense is one that handcuffed the franchise for a few years. It would be a huge mistake (and history repeating itself) if Alvarez is retained for a high sum of money, despite a decline in production if only to appease the fans.
I feel that if there is one player (and I firmly believe that the FO should only take this kind of chance with one player) to roll the dice on and sign a big contract to, it is Andrew McCutchen. He has the ability to be a five-tool player (six, if you consider plate patience a tool), and he is also the kind of player that is marketable not only for his work on the field, but as a positive role model for young players. (The fact that he is a minority certainly would not hurt, either.)
But the best part of the scenario you create is, while these players progress, the amount of money they would receive is still somewhat controlled, so there’s no large risk of overpaying for lack of production. That is the one thing, if any, this FO cannot afford.
"Straight ball I hit very much, but curveball, bats are afraid." - Pedro Cerrano
ARGH!!!
At the time they signed Kendall, he wasn’t a singles-hitting catcher. I really can’t emphasize this enough.
Kendall’s ISO by year:
22: .101
23: .140
24: .146
25: .179
26: .150
That’s a nice upward power trend for a young player, who was just entering the age range where most players experience the bulk of their power growth. And then in the first game of the first season after signing the deal, he tore the thumb tendon, and never hit for power again as a result.
Are the Twins wrong for trying to sign Mauer to a long-term extension? Offensively, he and Kendall were virtually twins through age 25:
*Mauer: 2059 AB, .317/.399/.457 (127 OPS+)
*Kendall: 1715 AB, .312/.399/.451 (120 OPS+)
Bonifay did a lot of dumb things, but signing a star-level performer to a long-term market-value extension wasn’t one of them. It was actually one of the smartest calls he ever made – it just didn’t pan out.
While we're talking about defense...
…it’s also worth remembering that while Kendall wasn’t an exceptional glove prior to the extension, he was significantly better in the field than the majority of the other top-level offensive catchers of his day (Piazza, Javy Lopez, Todd Hundley, Dave Nilsson, etc.).
whats the story on him in the clubhouse? someone on the radio says that he and giles were relentless a-holes esp to jack wilson. anything to this?
Giles and Kendall and Mike Williams...
…were all good friends, and apparently none of them liked Jack very much. They used to tease him and harass him, shove him into lockers and stuff like that.
All three were also close friends of Pat Meares, and they probably resented Jack in part because he was taking the place of their friend. They also found his cheerfulness and high-energy manner irritating, since the club had been a loser for years and was mired at that point in a particularly dreadful season.
That’s the way I heard it, anyhow.
That kinda sucks. Wasn’t it Kendall who was coined for the infamous, “Welcome to Hell” quote, or was that someone else?
"Straight ball I hit very much, but curveball, bats are afraid." - Pedro Cerrano
It is commonly attributed to Kendall. I think he denies it in this article, but I’m not paying the three bucks to verify.
Plus he could run
I thought it was a good contract at the time too.
I'll plead guilty to hyperbole for my statements...
Perhaps I’m a little jaded by the outcome of that deal. And I don’t disagree with the principle of signing a star-level performer to a long-term deal.
But if you look at players who got similarly money around that time and weighed against the actual market value, is it really safe to say he was worth $60M before the contract? I’d have to argue he wasn’t.
Mauer is also a significant defensive upgrade over Kendall in his early years. Granted, Kendall looked good defensively because the other top catchers in the NL at that time were only rated as such because of their offense, not their defense.
Once again, I’ll buy the signing of a star player to a long-term deal? But $10M a year? I can’t even name 5 catchers that are worth that now with the artificially-inflated salaries that are going around now, much less nine years ago.
"Straight ball I hit very much, but curveball, bats are afraid." - Pedro Cerrano
Some other top catcher salaries:
Mike Piazza made between $12M and $16M every year from 2000-2005. Jorge Posada crossed the $10M threshold in 2005, and hasn’t looked back (he got $13M last year). Ivan Rodriguez was over $10M in 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Jason Varitek made more than $10M from 2006-2008. Charles Johnson’s deal topped out at $9M in 2004, as did Javy Lopez’s in 2006, and pre-injury Kendall was significantly better than both of those guys.
Mike Lieberthal is a decent benchmark. He pretty consistently earned $7.5M per over the life of Kendall’s contract, without being regarded as particularly overpaid, and he wasn’t the hitter OR the fielder that pre-injury Kendall was.
The Kendall deal was market value for a young superstar. We caught a bad break when he got hurt. Such is life.
"bad break"
That was as bad as it gets, literally and figuratively.
I meant the thumb tendon, not the ankle. The dislocated ankle was gruesome, but didn’t really hurt his offense too much once he finished his rehab. The thumb is what sapped his power.
you know...
tendon injuries are common for guys abusing steroids….
That ankle injury might be the worst I've ever heard
you could hear the break when it happened on the TV broadcast, and then after that I only remember him screaming… just got a chill thinking about it
"Straight ball I hit very much, but curveball, bats are afraid." - Pedro Cerrano
I should probably also mention...
…that by most measures, Kendall’s defense really wasn’t all that bad as a young player. His CS%s from 2002-2004 were 33%, 27%, and 36% respectively, for example, whicih is perfectly reasonable, and he while his error rate was a bit high, he was also generally one of the top guys in the league at starting DPs.
It may have been a case of Nichols’ Law Of Catcher Defense: “a catcher’s defensive reputation is inversely proportional to their offensive abilities.”
by Traco Bucco on Feb 10, 2010 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
Very True
With the exception of Ramirez, the last Pirates player worth retaining was Barry Bonds. The Pirates failures over the years are much more complicated than simply being cheap, although the Ramirez trade provides easy fodder for those who would characterize their struggles as the result of penny pinching.
As Bill James once said:
“Ballplayers, as a group, reach their peak value much earlier and decline much more rapidly than people believe. "
This comes from the The Bill James Baseball Abstract 1988 , but clearly the lesson has yet to be learned.
I think the salary/free agency structure in MLB has created an odd phenomenon that fans have a lot of trouble grasping, in part because most fans continue to think that a player’s prime extends into his late 30s. Right now, most of a player’s prime (at least with hitters—pitchers have much more erratic career arcs) occurs during the original team’s control. Most players are just nearing, sometimes already in, their decline periods when they become eligible for free agency. Except for the teams that are wealthy enough to cover their mistakes with cash, in most cases teams should accept that their better players are usually going to leave at that point. They often will be missing out on one or two prime years, but the cost of retaining the players is usually an albatross contract that hurts the team over several years, sometimes more. I think that’s by far the most likely scenario with Bay, for instance, which is why it made no sense at all for the Pirates to try to lock him up long-term, even apart from the fact that the team needed to rebuild. Teams like the Pirates need to learn to use their scouting and development systems, as well as good trades for younger players, to make up for the loss (sometimes) of one or two productive years from their better players.
by WTM on Feb 6, 2010 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
this is our one saving grace
for teams with the Pirates’ current revenue stream and hitherto-demonstrated willingness to spend, the fact that most players have peaked and are nearing or starting their decline after year 6 is one of the biggest factors that can make a team like the Pirates competitive. I live in terror that someone is going to figure this out and reduce the free agent period to three years, or some agent is going to invent a trend where their guy has to be called up and get his service time clock started by a certain age.
I am really excited to see what Pedro can do, but he is the first guy I think of when I think of this. He’ll be nearing 30, heavier and with a slower bat, by year 6. Useless? God no. However, possibly also not worth the highest-dollar offer that someone will make him. If he’s lunch meat by age 34, I don’t want to be the team that gave him big dollars through age 36.
I don't think it would go over well...
to get alot of younger players clocks started earlier, especially with the union. That would be running older players out of employment sooner. Veteran players already aren’t pleased with large rookie bonuses. I think 3 years of service plus 3 arbitration years works out well for most MLB caliber players.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Feb 6, 2010 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
I'd say that
Jason Schmidt was worth retaining. He finished 2nd and 4th in the NL Cy Young voting in the years following the one in which we traded him for nothing. Maybe we were loaded with front-line starting pitching in those days though that is not my recollection.
Of course, he never pitched anything like that until after he left. Might have helped if Lamont hadn’t abused him royally.
by WTM on Feb 8, 2010 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
High revenue teams are starting to get in on it, too
Cashman is making somewhat more cost-effective moves in NY. He could’ve just reached into the coffers and overpaid for Matt Holliday but instead he traded for Granderson. He could’ve done the same and gone after Damon but he went cheaper and got the same kind of defensive ability and borderline production in Winn.
Boston has been trying to accomplish this since Theo Epstein got on. I remember when they first picked up David Ortiz from Minnesota and the local newspapers threw a fit. The headlines said they were “Shopping at Wal-Mart.” They cashed in the same way with guys like Kevin Millar and Bill Mueller. Then again it should come at no shock since Epstein admires Billy Beane, but the point is the same: if you can get the production at a lower price, why overpay?
"Straight ball I hit very much, but curveball, bats are afraid." - Pedro Cerrano
Excellent article Charlie
It is truly amazing how much attention to detail must be paid by a franhise to build a champion. Even more so for smaller markets. From the DSL, VSL, scouting and the draft, player development and especially young pitcher work loads.
People who are casual observers of baseball or just average fans don’t realize exactly how much of a process it is. Hopefully when a Pedro Alvarez or Andrew McCutchen becomes eligible for free agency, there will be a prospect to step into that role.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
Thank-you.
I should show this article to my likely, future brother-in-law as well. I showed him this one already. He kept telling me last night that the problem with the Pirates is their refusal to keep all their “good” players around after they’ve hit their free agent years. There’s a few guys like Joe Mauer who are worth signing to long term deals, but the majority of players just aren’t that valuable…
Mauer
The Kendall signing shows how how risky a Mauer contract could be. They are pretty similar hitters through age 26.
Yeah.
Kendall’s sudden decline was do to a freak injury. Just bad luck, really. It’s hard to guess when those might happen.
And the injury wasn’t the one most people seem to think. It was the thumb, not the ankle.
by WTM on Feb 6, 2010 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
Pudge Rodriguez
He was not resigned by Texas after 30 because of that very reason. They considered it too risky to expect his production to not decline precipitously from that point.
His yr 31 and 32 seasons were excellent, then he started to decline. His yr 33 and 34 seasons were still pretty good for catcher production, but then after that he really went downhill.
Still better than Benito Santiago…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 7, 2010 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
Catchers, as a group...
…decline more rapidly after age 30 than any other position.
2B is second, IIRC.
In fact, since Pudge was so popular, the Rangers made it a point to show that his number of games behind the plate was already near the upper limit of usefulness of almost all catchers in history to that point.
Of course, Pudge now holds the record for number of games caught in history, so he has pretty much beaten the odds.
Good points
"Baseball is better than football. Think about it, eighty degrees, a cold beer and a short-sleeve shirt is better than 30 degrees, a hip flask and six layers of clothes under a lap blanket. Take your pick: suntan or frostbite. " - Thomas Boswell
Locking up star players
I do believe locking up Roberto Clemente and Willie Stargel would have been good.
Yes
Although I’m not advocating that we should have locked up Bay – I don’t think we should have – but Stargell is an example of someone who had better seasons in his 30s, and he had a body type more like Alvarez than McCutchen. I don’t remember how fast he was in the outfield before his mid 30s when he switched to 1B, but I don’t think he was that fast. Jason Bay gets about 10-12 steals now and Stargell got around 1 or 2. Stargell’s pre-30s numbers were not better than Bay’s.
Although there are questions about Bay’s knees going forward, if Bay were switched to 1B, I think he would have more value, since his poor defense would be minimized. The disadvantage is that he is right handed, which is not as good for 1B as is a lefty there.
Jason Bay has been one of the most consistent and prolific hitters since he’s been in the league, and I don’t see that changing as he enters his 30s.
Stargell's numbers jumped
when he moved into a ballpark better suited for his bat. Better suited for almost every power hitter, actually.
Almost any park...
not named Forbes Field would have been better suited to ANY batter.
Stargell
Forbes Field .284/.347/.499 for an OPS of .846.
TRS .294/.389/.577 for an OPS of .966.
Forbes Field 496 games 75 2B, 33 3B, 74 HR
TRS 682 games 144 2B, 13 3B, 147 HR
His triples numbers are incredible. In just under 500 games at Forbes, he had 33 triples…in over 1800 games elsewhere he had 22.
If you want to see some really serious Forbes splits, look at Maz or Clendenon.
by WTM on Feb 7, 2010 8:24 AM EST up reply actions
Indeed
I’ve used that to argue that it’s too bad Maz’s election to the Hall is generally thought to be solely because he had a great glove. I think Forbes took something like 90 HRs away.
When I was a kid I was at a game at Forbes where Maz hit a ball off the big clock atop the left field scoreboard. And, of course, his 1960 Game 7 HR was crushed.
You really need to look at the distances at Forbes in those days to have an inkling what kind of power it took to hit balls that far. It was 365 down the LF line, just for starters.
Got a little carried away there.
More like 45 HRs, not 90.
agreed… there’s all kinds of variables that could change the value of locking up star players going forward… and by “star players”, we’re pretty much referring to pedro alvarez and andrew mccutchen, I presume… I’m not sure if guys like freddy sanchez and jack wilson were ‘irrelevant’ because of their talent levels, the context of the teams they played for or both, but if you extend the definition of ‘star players’ beyond the aforementioned two, there’s even more unpredictable variance to consider… so yeah… too early…
by Captain Easychord on Feb 6, 2010 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
I think that’s the point of the post though. For all the attention the topic gets, it’s about last on the things-to-do list. Although when the time comes (hopefully, it will come), it’s important to evaluate your assets properly, which means that if PA Is the next skinny Cecil Fielder (whose career peaked at 26, and was useless after he turned 31), there is no reason to pay him a ton of money for his 30+ years.
by Maxwell.C on Feb 6, 2010 4:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
The trick
is to not give it to players like Ian Snell. However, the Tampa Bay Ray’s contract with Evan Longoria will likely save them buckets of cash in the future.
I suppose
It depends on whether a player possesses “old player” skills or not. To me, if Andrew McCutchen can play like Mike Cameron at age 37 or so, that would be impressive, although perhaps he’ll blow him away. Who knows, it’s impossible to project so far down the line.
Mike Cameron is very impressive in that he has aged very little even at the age of 36. But for every example like him, there are five players (even athletic ones) that see a decline in the early 30s.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 7, 2010 8:06 AM EST up reply actions
Very Interesting.
I hadn’t noticed that most guys decline earlier that we think. But now that I focus my attention in that direction, I agree. Perhaps this occurs because the player that does continue to produce at a high level well into his 30s enters the terrain of mega-star. As such he gets an inordinate share of media attention. The result is skewed perception on the part of many of us. While such a player is actually an anomaly, we fail to notice. Of course there is paradox at work here. The mega-star is that exactly because he is a scarce commodity. Yet somehow many of us unrealistically expect them to keep coming, one after the other. Take the aging slugger category; it turns out that Willie Stargell was even more special, more rare than I had already thought. And it would be highly unlikely that Pedro Alvarez should be his match.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
I once made a list of all the decent to good hitters who played for the Pirates from about 1990 to the early 2000s. Basically, guys who were good enough to have careers as major league regulars for at least a while—Al Martin, Van Slyke, Lind, Derek Bell, etc.—but who weren’t outstanding players (which was basically Bonds, pre-thumb-injury Kendall, and Sanders, who was a huge talent who was hampered by injuries). It’s staggering how many of them not only declined, but were completely washed up by roughly age 30-32, or even earlier. As I vaguely recall, about the only significant exceptions were Jay Bell, Don Slaught and Matt Stairs.
by WTM on Feb 6, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
I imagine it is staggering.
There is a wealth of empirical evidence here that remains unnoticed until a new paradigm is slapped on it. This makes me think of Jeff King — I’m guessing he fits this profile quite well. Of course, King never was the player we expected.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
Good piece.
One would hope that in Pittsburgh people could grasp the logic of this. The Steelers have been doing this for years. They almost never pay for past performance and rarely do much in free agency. They pay great attention to developing the players behind their current starters and thus can plug in people like Woodley and Harrison when someone like Joey Porter departs via free agency. Alan Faneca is also a good example. While clearly still a good lineman, his great years were behind him, so the Steelers didn’t engage in the money chase for him. The problem the pirates will have is that they have not built up the years of success and trust the Steelers have. Thus, it will be an easy leap for the casual Pirates fan to just conclude that “the Pirates aren’t spending money.” THe only cure or this will be success.
I have tried to make this argument in the past
but all people have ever come back with is “they’re two different sports, and the NFL has a salary cap.” They totally ignore the fact that the principle of drafting well, developing talent on a proper timetable and refusing to pay players entering free agency for past performance is successful for any professional sport, regardless of dollar figures.
It’s funny how Branch Rickey always believed it was better to get rid of an aging player a year too early instead of a year too late, but it took a football team like the Steelers to embody it. Of course, when I bring that up, they come back to, “well, Nutting won’t spend the money anyway.”
Let that be a lesson to you all: don’t discuss baseball with uninformed yinzers.
"Straight ball I hit very much, but curveball, bats are afraid." - Pedro Cerrano
The Steelers are, in general, very good at this.
Particularly with linebackers – they did the same thing with Greg Lloyd and Levon Kirkland.
The only player I can remember who really burned them after walking was Rod Woodson, and he was a once-in-a-lifetime talent.
in addition to Rod Woodson
mike merriweather and chad brown were both guys that were still great after they left the steelers.
Steelers would have retained Woodson if he would have agreed to play safety, which he ended up doing anyhow.
but but
MR Nutting promised he would lock up all are soon to be great players and a promise is a promise.
'position flex-ability, yea baby' austin powers
First of all...
If McCutchen has a couple great years in a row, if this management is SERIOUS about contending and spending money then they will lock McCutchen up to a multiyear deal the minute he has an All-Star + great second half year. If McCutchen turns out anything like a Hanley Ramirez (which I see him being like) then there is absolutely no reason he shouldn’t get a huge,.long contract extention….Players like Alvarez should get their money early and they should be locked into deal because a power hitter who can perform at a young age so early (ala Evan Longoria, David Wright) dont come along every day and I really see that the Bucs have one. Pedro is the next Longoria so get used to everyone. If you look at their Minor League numbers they are VERY comparable and he will be a power hitter that the Bucs should lock up as soon as he has a break out year just like the Rays did with Longoria…..The PIrates will show us in the next 2 to 3 year if they are serious about contending by locking up their young proven talent and if they are not we will see another Aramis Ramirez/Jason Bay firesale and I willl switch to the Chicago Cubs to be my team from here on out…Nutting is the worst owner in professional sports and should not be trusted….3 years should be everyones deadline for the playoffs
Zero in 100 makes zero in 17 look like a picnic.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 7, 2010 8:08 AM EST up reply actions
Alvarez and Longoria have different bodies, and hence will not age the same.
“3 years should be everyones deadline for the playoffs”
Starting from the bottom of thirty?
And how is Nutting the worst owner in pro sports? And how was the Jason Bay trade a firesale?
You might want to try learning about history, current events, and what the definitions are of the words you use. You might even want to learn about baseball.
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on Feb 6, 2010 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
But remember
3 years should be everyone’s deadline for learning about baseball. I might switch to Nutting Hostage to be my troll from here on out.
why the insulting language?
You started well with citing facts and drawing conclusions (Alvarez/Longoria). A nice quote of his post, followed by a question was okay. Some decent other questions that should draw some response from Chrisiu10.
But then you degrade to the last few lines, which was totally unnecessary.
Nutting is definitely the worst owner in sports, he owns the team that has been a perenial loser even after he bought the team from McClatchy. Last year was the first year he actually poured money back into the team for the draft and latino players, because he was feeling the pressure if losing. Don’t sit up here and give me that learn about baseball garbage. Alvarez and Longoria are the corner infield power hitters that are so coveted when you get one you don’t let them go. Even if they do age the same, which was not my point., when they are in their prime they are going to be the same player, except Alvarez doesnt play as good defense as Longoria. And the Jason Bay trade was a firesale trade we traded a 30 100 rbi guy for who Andy LaRoche? Why don’t you check YOUR fact before you go slinging insults/
“I’ve lost far more games than the Pirates since I owned the Royals! As owner, I’ve presided over nine losing seasons and one fluke winning season. I had 4—count ’em, four!—100-loss seasons in 8 years! And I was chairman of the board for 6 straight losing seasons before I became CEO! And you have the nerve to say some putz with three losing seasons is worse than me!! You sell me short, sir!!!”
— David Glass
by WTM on Feb 7, 2010 9:44 AM EST up reply actions
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 7, 2010 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
You should never stop learning about baseball, ever!
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on Feb 7, 2010 12:26 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Bob Nutting is not the worst owner in sports
Signed,
More Than a Few Clippers Fans, Redskins Fans, Bengals Fans, Royals Fans, Bruins Fans . . .
And how many of those teams have had winning seasons in the last decade?
And playoff appearances? I think the Royals are the only team on that list without a playoff appearance….
Clippers have one winning season in the past 17 years, so they’re the closest team in the Big Four to the Pirates streak.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 7, 2010 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
Despite a non-parity of results, I would think that the Pirates are still in a better position than the Mets or the Giants, given that their front office seems to be making more logical moves.
The Mets can buy their way into respectability AND have some good talent in their farm system. Last year they had incredibly bad injury luck. Reyes and Wright alone are a better core than any two of our players (McCutcheon and ?). Santana, Beltran, and Bay give them the advantage for the next couple of years Keith Law has them with the 15th best farm system, saying the Mets don’t pay over slot in the draft but do well in Latin America. Their top prospects are Jenry Mejia, Wilmer Flores (a 17 year old shortstop), Fernando Martinez and Ike Davis (all in Laws Top 75) throw in Jonathan Niese and they’ve got some real talent.
The Mets are better now and appear to have a better pipeline of talent for the next 3 years or so.
Don't look now ...
but I believe the Reds and Orioles are closing in on us, though the Reds might end their streak this year.
How would you like the current iteration of Al Davis?
You get a team that is spending money and losing in a laughingstock sort of way..
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
Let's get the Super Bowl
over with and get on with the baseball season.
Yah! It's over with!
That was probably the Super Bowl I cared the least about since the Raiders and Buccaneers took the field 7 years ago. Let’s Go Bucs!
Free Agency? Or Arbitration years?
But the Bucs have paid to control free agency seasons by Brian Giles (great contract), Jason Kendall (a disaster), Ian Snell (bad idea), Jack Wilson (largely irrelevant), Freddy Sanchez (irrelevant), Paul Maholm, and Ryan Doumit.
I’d like to point out that the actual instances of the Pirates paying to control Italic phrase free agent years is fewer than you point out in this comment.
The Snell, Sanchez, Maholm, and Doumit deals were primarily to lock up the players arbitration years. – There is a big difference between locking up a players arbitration years and free agency years. If Bob Nutting cannot afford, or is unwilling to retain young players during their arbitration years, then this club is in far worse shape than anyone is willing to admit.
Signing a player to a multi year contract during the free agent years is something Bob Nutting has done very little of…..Jack Wilson may be the lone exception.
Sanchez’s option did extend into his first free agent year, as do the deals for Maholm and Doumit (1st and 2nd). Regardless of whether the Pirates themselves pay these years is immaterial if they are able to get better value by trading them.
The problem with Sanchez’s deal is once he got there, he was not worth what that option was paying him according to the Pirates. Still, the options for Maholm and Doumit will help bring some value to the team that deals for them (like it did with Freddy and Jack) because at the very least the team can exercise that option if need be to keep the player.
In the end, both the Giants and Mariners were able to keep the player at a lower cost without exercising the option. At the very least, this allows the Pirates to keep the player through year 6 instead of trading them in year 5.
If Doumit plays without injury in 2010 and 2011 and is productive, then his options years of 2012 and 2013 are within what is payable for the Pirates. And if Tony Sanchez is ready to take his place, then those years are even nicer for a richer team to pay when they deal for him.
Same goes for Maholm as well. He will need to be a very good pitcher for the Pirates to retain him, otherwise he’ll be replaced from below in 2011.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 10, 2010 7:21 PM EST up reply actions
Sanchez’s option did extend into his first free agent year, as do the deals for Maholm and Doumit (1st and 2nd).
Snell’s options extend into free agency too, as far as I can tell.
This is correct.
He didn’t pick up enough service time in 2004 or 2005 for those years to count for anything. 2006, 2007, and 2008 were his three pre-arb years. The contract extension bought his first two arb years (2009 and 2010) at fixed salaries, and contained club options on what would have been his final arb year (2011) and his first year of FA (2012).
See how you are?
Using facts to prove your point?
I’m done with this blog.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 11, 2010 9:33 PM EST up reply actions
Don't be a Hater !!
I finally have to say it ! enough is enough, for all of you (posers) / posters who shout doom and gloom and say the team/ players/ management/ world/ universe suck ! WHY ? I understand if you don’t like the direction of the team… it is what it is, so if you don’t like it.. switch over to the Yankees blog sites, and DON’T COME BACK !!! Or go around your front yard yelling “the sky is falling”. But we don’t need or wan’t you !!! If and when the team succeeds, we’ll be thrilled, if not, we’ll still root for them; but you…" go away now.. you bother me ! "
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
