SB Nation Pittsburgh Editor's Pick
Will Andrew McCutchen Be A Super Two?
by MarkInDallas on Jan 3, 2011 3:42 AM EST
Email
PrintThere has been some fretting about whether the Pirates' core of Andrew McCutchen, Jose Tabata and Pedro Alvarez might become Super Two-eligible, even though the Pirates seem to have tried their best to time their promotions so they would fall after the phantom Super Two cutoff date.
Previous to this year, two years and 130 days of service time was the lowest needed for Super Two, but the 2011 date has unexpectedly come in at only two years 122 days. If the same thing happens in 2012, McCutchen will be due for a big raise, which could seriously affect the Pirates' ability to sign him to a reasonable extension, especially if he goes crazy and puts up a 5+ WAR year.
The prevailing thought by many has been that the Super Two date has been creeping later due to teams like the Pirates that have tried to manage their players arbitration dates by calling them up after the third week in May.
However, I have taken a closer look at the numbers, and I'm happy to say that this fear is probably ill-founded.
Most likely, this year's Super Two date is an anomaly that will not repeat itself next year and is not in immediate danger of creeping towards July. Here's why ...
Why The Earlier Super Two Date Is Not A Trend
It is very rare for a Super Two player to be a midseason call up, and then play straight through the next 2+ years in MLB to become a Super Two. In fact, the number of players who did that to become 2010 Super Twos and the number who did it to become 2011 Super Twos was exactly the same. There was only one each year!
Although there are some players affected by teams attempting to manage the arb dates of their players, there is a far greater number of players who are not being held back for this. Even the Pirates have not cared about Super Two status for players like Steve Pearce and Neil Walker, who likely will both be Super Twos. It is generally players whose teams did not care too much if they became Super Twos who are the ones who make up the vast majority of the Super Twos.
Look at how few players got their Super Two service time in only three seasons:
2011 Super Two Players
Burke Badenhop, Florida 2.143 (3 seasons)
Travis Buck, Oakland 2.122 (4 seasons)
Jay Bruce, Cincinnati 2.125 (3 seasons)
Dana Eveland, Pittsburgh (outrighted) 2.152 (6 seasons)
Josh Fields, Kansas City 2.159 (5 seasons)
Armando Galarraga, Detroit 2.148 (4 seasons)
Alberto Gonzalez, Washington 2.135 (4 seasons)
Chase Headley, San Diego 2.123 (4 seasons)
Luke Hochevar, Kansas City 2.151 (4 seasons)
Jim Johnson, Baltimore 2.165 (5 seasons)
Kyle Kendrick, Philadelphia 2.159 (4 seasons)
Jensen Lewis, Cleveland 2.133 (4 seasons)
Evan Longoria, Tampa Bay 2.170 (3 seasons)
Darren O'Day, Texas 2.128 (3 seasons)
Ross Ohlendorf, Pittsburgh 2.139 (4 seasons)
Felipe Paulino, Houston 2.163 (4 seasons)
Chris Perez, Cleveland 2.136 (3 seasons)
Ian Stewart, Colorado 2.154 (4 seasons)
Sean White, Seattle 2.156 (3 seasons)
Brad Ziegler, Oakland 2.122 (3 seasons)
Of the Super Twos for 2011, only Jay Bruce was a midseason call up from mid-May onward, and was never sent back to the minors.
2010 Super Two Players
Matt Albers, Orioles 2.141 (4 seasons)
Mike Fontenot, Cubs 2.139 (4 seasons)
Tom Gorzelanny, Cubs 2.160 (5 seasons)
Jared Burton, Reds 2.165 (3 seasons)
Nick Masset, Reds 2.146 (4 seasons)
Rafael Perez, Indians 2.157 (4 seasons)
Jason Hammel, Rockies 2.153 (4 seasons)
Hunter Pence, Astros 2.156 (3 seasons)
Alex Gordon, Royals 2.162 (3 seasons)
Carlos Gomez, Brewers 2.141 (3 seasons)
Rajai Davis, A's 2.167 (4 seasons)
Joey Devine, A's 2.171 (4 seasons)
Tim Lincecum, Giants 2.148 (3 seasons)
Brian Wilson, Giants 2.169 (4 seasons)
Matt Garza, Rays 2.149 (4 seasons)
Dustin Nippert, Rangers 2.140 (5 seasons)
Jesus Flores, Nationals 2.158 (3 seasons)
Of the Super Twos for 2010, only Carlos Gomez was a midseason call up from mid May onward, and was never sent back to the minors.
I have only analyzed two years in depth here, but I think it's pretty clear that the jump from 139 surplus days in 2010 to 122 surplus days in 2011 was not due to players being held back in an attempt to avoid Super Two. If it were, we would see an increase in those who were midseason call ups being granted Super Two status, and we haven't seen that at all.
Conclusion
It looks like that there just happened to be a smaller percentage than usual of the "non-held-back" group whose surplus time was over the usual 135 day mark.
Cutch, Jose and Pedro are probably safe from Super Two status, assuming there still is such a thing after the current CBA expires after the 2011 season.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
129 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well that's a relief
Although I won’t really relax about it until we know for certain.
My biggest concern is that Cutch’s agent won’t be aware of this analysis (not Mark’s specifically, but the underlying facts), and so will be thinking in terms of Super Two if and when the Pirates come a-calling. Although I could see a scenario where the Pirates make an offer based on presumption of non-Super2, Cutch rejects it on the premise that he will be, and then hastily accepts once he learns that he’s not. We’ll see.
"Super Two status,
assuming there still is such a thing after the current CBA expires after the 2011 season."
This is another reason why we need to chill out about the Cutch extension talk after only 1.5 seasons etc.
There is no reason to worry about it til after we see his performance this year and what develops with the labor situation at the end of the year.
Incidentally, if Alvarez would happen to fall into some Super Two-like category down the road by a few days or so, the Pirates will only have themselves to blame as they insisted one day that more time at AAA would benefit his defense and hitting vs. lefties, and then backtracked on it the next. We shall see….
All in all, outstanding work by Mark as usual.
by patthatt on Jan 3, 2011 11:45 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Carlos Gonzalez just signed for 80M over 7 years.
Please, Neal, get McCutchen under contract before he has a year like Gonzalez did last. I know CarGo is at Coors, but there’s nothing keeping Cutch from having a pretty close year to the one Gonzalez had last year. Even if Super Two isn’t part of the equation, I’d have to expect McCutchen will want to be paid like the top three CF he will be.
I’d like to avoid all the arbitration business by taking the Longoria approach.
Why would it be unexpected? It’s his third season, he’s immensely talented, and he’s 24.
by Suffering Buc on Jan 3, 2011 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
lets be honest, how many players in ALL of baseball could realistically put up a season like Gonzalez in 2010?
thats asking alot from anyone. i think cutch is a very good player, but he is never going to put up those kind of numbers.
I like Cutch
but Car Go is a completely different beast IMO…not even really close IMO.
It’s close…lots of Coors field effect in Cargo’s line, and Cutch played hurt for 2 months. Cutch isn’t better, but it’s close.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 3, 2011 6:28 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I really dont think it's too close
I do like Cutch but Cargo’s bigger, stronger, has a better swing IMO, a much higher ceiling…and I feel he’ll be popping 40 plus annually…Coors helps some for sure…but he’d hit a ton here….I like his upside plus he’s the best young fielding CF’er I’ve seen in a while…great range, plays smart, great arm….Cutch hasn’t been as good as advertised on defense…esp balls hit right at him plus too many terrible/ dumb throws.
but I like Cutch…but the upsides are far apart…
Gonzalez is better than Cutch, but
It’s close. Coors makes a gigantic difference…plus he’s primarily a corner OF, which makes his defense rate better than Cutch’s, even though there’s no certainty in that.
Gonzalez will always hit more home runs, but he may not get on base more, steal more, or field better for the long haul. There’s a lot to still be seen.
by Suffering Buc on Jan 3, 2011 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
CarGo on the road this year: 289/322/453
Dante Bichette and Vinny Castilla say “Hi.”
by WTM on Jan 3, 2011 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
Cutch hit .266 on road
Coors field helps for sure…but most players do hit better at home despite the field.
im with dan on this one
i understand you guys liking Cutch and his game, but Gonzalez put up a monster season all across the board… cutch is close??? i dont see it.
PNC isn’t a hitter’s park and it hurts RH hitters. There’s no reason to believe that Cutch would be a different hitter somewhere else. Coors, on the other hand, is the mother of all hitter’s parks. Historically, it’s repeatedly allowed mediocrities to post playstation numbers. There’s every reason to be suspicious of CarGo’s numbers until he shows he can do it on the road. The two situations aren’t remotely comparable.
by WTM on Jan 3, 2011 9:40 PM EST up reply actions
He outhit Cutch on the road too
I base it more on what I’ve seen…I see Cutch most games…I’ve seen Cargo alot less.
Cutch is a very good player…an average fielder IMO…the ball does jump somewhat off his bat.
Cargo will be around that MVP year in and out…he’s an excellent fielder, great arm, and the ball just takes off his bat…it’s a different “hard”…his grounders, ect are hit harder…he’s a bit impatient at times, if he learns a little patience..that kid will win batting titles.
That “off the bat” cant be taught…
And I dont mean any disrespect to Cutch…but he’s not on that skill set on an upside basis
That bad plate discipline counts for a lot. Just ask Jeff Francoeur. In his rookie year, he put up numbers not too dissimilar to CarGo’s this year, especially after you adjust for Coors. Scouts adored his tools, too. CarGo’s impatience isn’t as bad as Francoeur’s was, but it’s still bad, more than just “a bit.” MLB pitchers tend to catch up to that sort of thing.
I agree CarGo has a higher ceiling than McCutchen, but I don’t see the colossal difference you do. I’m sure he looked great at Coors and against the AAA pitchers he saw when the Rox came to PNC. The #s bear that out. They also show that he was a different hitter on the road against major league pitching.
by WTM on Jan 3, 2011 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't say colossal
It’s definitely a different level though…offensively and defensively.
Francouer had and still has one of the worst swings in baseball…for the life of me…I cant explain how he ever hit that well his first year…his swing stunk then too…like I always say…a bad swinger’s chance to keep very productive is very limited…not every great swing turns out to be great players…but the odds are stacked bigtime in their favor…esp over the mid-long term.
Cargo’s swing is very good…that pop off the bat is rare.
Scouts universally disagreed with you on Francoeur’s swing when he came up. It’s real easy to say now that you saw it all along.
Just like I said Laroche's (ANDY) swing stunk
despite his .350 average…there’s enough guys here who remember as I was ridiculed by one or two.
If you truly believe Cutch is better than CarGo..that’s your opinion…there’s ZERO GM’s who would trade Cargo for Cutch,,,,doesn’t matter on what field, what league ect…
you can state his away being bad? He still outplayed cutch on the road…esp in the field…so I’m still not sure of your point.
that he only outplayed cutch somewhat handily on the road? so cutch is better?
If you truly believe Cutch is better than CarGo.
I didn’t say that. Read more carefully.
You’re putting way too much weight on McCutchen’s H/R splits. It makes sense where a park has proven itself to be one of the best hitter’s parks in the history of the planet. CarGo’s road numbers may mean something and they may not, but given Coors’ long history of making mediocre hitters look like MVP candidates, those numbers can’t be dismissed out of hand as you’re doing. PNC, on the other hand, has zero history of helping RH hitters. In fact, just the opposite. So there’s no reason at all to be skeptical of McCutchen’s home numbers.
WTM, I'm not skeptical of cutch's numbers
I agree PNC is tougher on righties…I agree CarGo has a big advantage w/ Coors…but bottom line…cargo outplayed him at home (big time as home field helped) but also on the road fairly handily…
Cargo’s an elite talent…Cutch is a very good talent but he’s not in Cargo’s league IMO.
BTW, copy/paste scouting reports…you should read enough of my stuff to know I dont put weight on their reports…I made my thoughts on Milledges 5 tools well before this season…same w/ Clement being a stud hitter and given 1B…there’s alot of “FLUFF” in those reports…and I’m not shy about giving my opinion on a guy…and many times it’s against the so-called experts…
I’m not a HI-N Sight abuser…I call it like I see it and as far as judging hitters…I’ll put my track record vs anyone’s incl the so called experts
You don't trust scouts
and you loathe computers. Where do you go for your insight?
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 4, 2011 9:14 AM EST up reply actions
Comparison to his own playing experience…. duh….
by tsbulldawgs64 on Jan 4, 2011 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
I guess hindsight is 20-20
From BA after the 2004 season:
Francoeur is one of the purest five-tool players in the minor leagues. Scouts rave about the way he consistently gets the barrel of the bat on the ball. He uses his hands well in his swing and generates tremendous bat speed, which combined with his natural power should enable him to hit 30-plus home runs annually in the majors. Francoeur uses the entire field and has become adept at driving outside pitches the opposite way.
I think it’s excessive to throw him in the Francoeur boat because of his plate discipline. It also might be too much to point out that Garrett atkins had a monster season in Colorado. But I would like to see one more year of Gonzalez before saying he’s on another level compared to McCutchen.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 3, 2011 10:16 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
This is all I’m saying, except that I’d like to see one more year where Gonzalez puts up more than decent road numbers, not just one more Bichette/Castilla-type year where he’s all-world at home and all-ordinary on the road.
Meh. I’d be sold if next season was a Xerox copy of 2010. Gonzalez had a big split, but he wasn’t bad on the road. My issue is whether he can repeat the overall numbers (which, yes, are overrated because of the home park). The plate discipline is bigger for me. McCutchen has an extremely good eye, on the other hand.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 3, 2011 10:40 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Bichette and Castilla weren’t bad on the road, either. In fact, their road #s while with the Rox were very similar to Gonzalez’ this year. Gonzalez’ road BB/K numbers are interesting: 15/81.
“Dante Bichette.”
…
“STOP SAYING THAT!”
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 3, 2011 11:00 PM EST up reply actions
For those who don't want to look up the numbers themselves
Carlos Gonzalez 2010: .336/.376/.598, 34 HR, .384 BABIP, -2.7 Fld, 6.0 WAR, .416 wOBA, 6.3 BB%, 23.0 K%
Vinny Castilla 1998: .319/.362/.589, 46 HR, .310 BABIP, 7.0 Fld, 4.8 WAR, .396 wOBA, 5.7BB%, 13.8K%
Dante Bichette 1995: .340/.364/.620, 40 HR, .349 BABIP, -18.0 Fld, 1.8 WAR, .413 wOBA, 3.6 BB%, 16.6 K%
(all numbers from fangraphs)
A few points:
1. CarGo, despite a much higher BABIP, didn’t have a much better offensive season than the other two.
2. None of them could draw walks, but CarGo struck out a lot more than the other two.
3. Neither Bichette’s of Castilla’s seasons were one year wonders. They had similar levels of production the entire time they were in Coors.
Splits are unavailable for Castilla and Bichette, but here are CarGo’s anyway.
Carlos Gonzalez 2010 Away: .289/.322/.453, 8 HR, .375 BABIP, .339 wOBA, 4.9 BB%, 28.2 K%
Carlos Gonzalez 2010 Home: .380/.425/.737, 26 HR, .391 BABIP, .487 wOBA, 7.5 BB%, 18.0 K%
To me, this screams of the Coors effect. Everyone can draw whatever conclusions they may, but if it were my decision, I not have extended him. Those numbers are extremely concerning, I would see what I could get in return for him.
As for the original topic, McCutchen seems to have proven himself more than Gonzalez. Either one could turn out better, but right now the edge would go to Cutch, since he is clearly not an aberration, nor a result of a stadium, IMO.
On an unrelated note, could you imagine the numbers if Bonds, Pujols, or A-Rod had played at Coors? The home run record would have been absolutely demolished.
by thecheeseisblue on Jan 4, 2011 2:40 AM EST up reply actions
was the humidor in effect before or after the castilla/bichette seasons?
im not saying that Coors field doesnt help a hitter, but since the humidor has come in effect players like Helton came back down to earth in their power numbers. sure atkins and hawpe had a couple good seasons, but their power numbers were nothing like the walkers/castillas/bichettes, etc..
From Baseball-reference.com
Bichette 1995…no wOBA split available on BR
Home .377/.397/.755, 31 HR, 350 BABIP, 3.5 BB%,11.7 K%
Away .300/.329/.473, 9 HR, .347 BABIP, 3.7 BB%, 20 K%
Castilla 1998
Home ..368/.410/.687, 26 HR, .362 BABIP, 6.7 BB%, 12.4 K%
Away .270/.311/.489, 20 HR, .258 BABIP, 4.7 BB%, 13.2 K%
Not drawing any conclusions, just providing data.
Also from Baseball-Reference.com...
Bichette 1995
Age 31 OPS+ 129
Castilla 1998
Age 30 OPS+ 127
Gonzalez 2010
Age 24 OPS+ 143
Not drawing any conclusions either, just providing a little more data that’s also pertinent. You have to acknowledge the player’s age and the fact that this is a different run environment than we had in the 1990’s
btw, one more stat for CarGo in 2010
@ PNC: .500/.474/1.000
That triple slash is actually why I’m here. I’d like BucsDugout opinions/recollections on opponents that actually did better than that this year to see if I’m missing somebody. I’m working on a post/rebuttal at Purple Row to some of the arguments against the Gonzalez extension, and part of the premise is that the road woes are 1) being exaggerated and 2) actually are becoming much less of an issue as Gonzalez has been developing. I think his performance at PNC is an example of that, as would be his performance at PETCO in San Diego (you’ll probably know the answer because I’m asking, but guess which Gonzalez had the highest OPS there this season).
My own opinion of the extension was that it was an overpay compared to typical extensions of this sort, but that’s because typically the players are allowing themselves to get screwed over pretty badly by the teams. Otherwise, there’s little to not like about it.
I don’t think anybody considers Gonzalez similar to Bichette/Castilla. The point is that Coors can make a player appear to be something he’s not.
Pretty much everybody put up playstation numbers against the Pirates, although more on the road, where they were bad on a biblical scale, than at PNC, where they played decently. As I recall, Gonzalez was extremely hot when he came to PNC.
Probably your best argument on the splits is that they were so extreme—I’m pretty sure Gonzalez had the biggest H/R differential in MLB—that they should level off somewhat over time.
Not sure if this helps, but Pujols has hit 387/464/733 lifetime at PNC. In 2010, he hit 371/463/743 there. And PNC is not a good park for RH hitters.
C Gonzolas is going to be Bonds like in the field too
I never realized how fast he was out there…great jumps plus a heck of an arm
As some have mentioned…he’s only done it for one year but his swing suggests to me he’s going to get better…BUT YOU CAN NEVER know for sure.
Maturity brings patience alot of times…if he gets just gets a little more of it…his numbers are going to be mind blowing…not that they’re bad now.
Most agents are smart enough ...
to avoid the Longoria approach.
Sure, but there’s no harm in us trying it anyway (if we haven’t already and been turned down, that is).
Hey, an out is an out - unless you're Mario, in which case it's probably two outs. -UtesFan89
Hard work always beats talent if talent doesn't work hard.
Hey, if you’re gonna call us birds you might as well call us chickens. -Leafer87
ARE YOU F#$%ING KIDDING ME!!!! ADAMS!!! JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST YOU HAD 24 SQUARE FEET AND YOU MISSED IT ALL!! - OlenWhitaker
Nice work, thanks
most people don’t realize how hard and/or time consuming to dig out this unusual info and put it into a format to answer a question asked here.
So right now, some stats freak (no offense intended) is sitting in Elias Sports Bureau making a list of all MLB players who have between, let’s say 1.120 and 1.171 service time and projecting what service time they all should have by the end of next year based on the best best guesses as to their projected playing time. If the Pirates are smart, they’re either buying that info (or paying an intern zilch to do the same thing) and using it to make their best guess at where the cut-off line will be. Presumably, the other teams are doing the same thing.
My question is, if all teams are projecting (hypothetically) a 2.135 service time cut-off, then don’t the same teams hold their key talent back until they have 1.125 (or 0.125 for a rookie) service time? But then, because all teams have reduced playing time and because Super-2 status is based on the top 17% of those players, that 17% has to shift down to a lower service time. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Incidentally, Pedro at 0.110 is probably safe. McClutch is at 1.123 and is at risk.
"[T]o hold the body of women in our arms is ... the one ecstasy granted to the race of men."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...
But that is the point of the post. The reason that does not affect the date very much is because the vast majority of players do not have their service time managed in that way. It is only the top prospects that teams care about, and even then, only around 15 or 20 of the teams care to manage their top prospects.
So, it may shift a tiny bit, but the number of prospects that are held back to avoid Super Two is insignificant considering the vast majority of players in the other group…those that go back and forth between majors and minors over multiple years.
Those players fall into a generally random pattern of service time, and what really affects the Super Two cutoff is not the shift from players being held back, it is simply the random variation of how many of the non-held-back players will have surplus service time over or under 135 days.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 4, 2011 12:03 AM EST up reply actions
Blasted work and commute
So what your saying is that the minor variations in the large number of loosely managed service time accrual decisions will outweigh the statistical significance of the large variation in the relatively small number of tightly managed service time accrual decisions? I’m not a statistician, and I don’t care to play one on TV….
"[T]o hold the body of women in our arms is ... the one ecstasy granted to the race of men."
What?!
I just tried to put it in plain English, which goes against every fiber of my body when I’m at my day job…. ;{)}
"[T]o hold the body of women in our arms is ... the one ecstasy granted to the race of men."
OK, let me try this way...
This year there were 20 Super Twos. Since that is 17% of the players with 2+ years, that would mean the pool is 117 players. Of those, probably only 10 players or less were purposely promoted to avoid Super Two. The actual number is likely much less than 10, I haven’t checked.
This is just not enough to seriously shift where the cutoff line is from the top 17%.
Let’s say there were 5 of these held-back players. That would mean 1 would naturally fall in the top 17%. If there were 10, then 2 would. So, the number of players you are shifting out of the top 17% is only 1 or 2. Three at the most.
If there are 100 of the non-held back players, since their service time occurs randomly, that would mean their service time would be spaced about 1.72 days apart.
So, you can see that if you are trying to replace two of the held back group with two of the non-held back group, you are going to pass up about 4 players in the sequence for every week you hold them back.
With that demonstration, I think you can see why the line will not continually shift later and later.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 5, 2011 12:35 AM EST up reply actions
Personally, I think they should act now on McCutchen, for three reasons.
One, the closer he gets to free agency, the less likely he’ll be to sell out one or more FA years. There’s more value to him in giving up 1+ FA seasons if he gets a big return earlier. I suspect that’s why we’re starting to see these deals earlier in a player’s career.
Two, I think McCutchen is a very low-risk player, performance-wise. He may or may not take his game to another level, but, worst-case-wise, it’s hard to see him not at least being a very good player.
Three, the Pirates right now can afford to increase payroll, but they could face a crunch later as more young players get past the 0-3 years. I think they should try to entice McCutchen with a long-term deal that’s less backloaded than such deals usually are. Trade the bucks now, when they can afford them and McCutchen wouldn’t otherwise be able to get big money, for less money later and 1+ FA seasons.
+150,001
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 3, 2011 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
I certainly agree with you. I’ve been kind of surprised they haven’t approached him already.
With even the hint of Super Two possibility, though, that’s going to change the equation a bit and they will probably wait and see how that turns out before approaching him.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 3, 2011 11:48 PM EST up reply actions
I think the Pirates will wait because their basic approach is penny-wise and dollar-foolish. They try to wring every last drop of value out of every dollar they spend, so I seriously doubt they’d be willing to take a calculated gamble and pay McCutchen a little more to buy off the chance of him being a super two. It makes sense to go ahead now, because McCutchen and his agent must know the odds are against him being a super two, so his motivation for getting bigger dollars faster should be high regardless. The Pirates, however, will want the certainty of knowing he’s not a super two and in the process they’ll let the other factors swing a little more against them being able to reach a deal. The closer McCutchen gets to free agency, the less motivation he has to sell out FA years early.
not trying to start nothin or nothin...
And I totally agree with what you’re saying, but the phrase is “penny-wise, pound-foolish”
just sayin. :D
by BlindSquirrel on Jan 4, 2011 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
Have to disagree with you, WTM....
Now, in no way am I anti-McCutchen, but looking at it slightly differently, while Cutch is certainly a terrific player and could potentially be a yearly All-Star, I feel he is the most easily-replaceable of the current crop of talents (can’t believe I just typed that.)
Though I’m sure that Mark can pull up some stats that show I’m wrong here, but I just feel like you wrap up a player long-term for one reason: His position/bat/etc. is too hard/rare to replace internally and/or too expensive to replace externally.
A good hitting/fielding center fielder is not something I see as being too difficult to find a replacement.
To be honest, if the Pirates were offered the moon for McCutchen today, I wouldn’t feel too bad moving Tabata into his position.
And one of McCutchen’s greatest attributes, his speed, may not still be there in 2016 (not saying that he still won’t be a very good player, because I think he will, but his game-changing speed may or may not). I just don’t see the need to lock up McCutchen full-time, unless the Pirate feel that that CAN NOT replace him.
I would say that Pedro Alvarez & Neil Walker would be better targets (though the Pirates might not be successful.)
If Pedro becomes a 30-40 HR guy, that is something that the Pirates don’t typically have in their system. And would cost an arm-and-a-leg to go out and get that type of production in FA. I’m curious if the Pirates try mightily in the next couple of years to lock up Alvarez. I know the conventional wisdom is that Boras will never give up even one year of free agency, but who knows.
Neil Walker can evolve into a player that is hard-to-replace IF (big IF) he can become a competent 2nd baseman and he gets his power numbers up to where his HRs are consistently in the mid 20’s. A good power-hitting 2nd baseman is also a little rarer than a good hitting/fielding center fielder. Plus, the Pirates could bask in the “signing a hometown Pittsburgh guy to a big contract” glow.
So, it’s not that I’m against the Pirates giving Cutch a long-term deal, if they so choose. I just don’t see the necessity, and certainly not doing it sooner, if it’s not necessary.
Walker
He has been a far better player than I predicted.
But I think nearly every team values Cutch much, much higher.
Hey Bernie...
perhaps I’m not being clear in what I’m saying. McCutchen is certainly a valuable player. And if you looked at it on a one-year basis, McCutchen will probably ALWAYS earn more money than Walker (hence, he’s “worth” more). However, we’re talking about giving out a long-term deal. Again, to me, you lock up a guy long-term because his talent is NOT replaceable. I think, on average, a “29-year-old-Andrew McCutchen-type center fielder” is going to be easier for the Pirates to replace in 2016, than a power hitting 2nd baseman (assuming Walker becomes that.)
I know the conventional thought is that you lock up your best/most talented players. But I think that is a faulty way to run a team (and one that many teams fall into the trap of). But, it should be that you lock up a guy who is difficult to replace.
For instance, the Pirates were smart (at the time) to lock up Ryan Doumit. Was he the best player on the team? (nope) But the reason it was smart is that a power-hitting switch-hitting catcher is not something that you find everyday.
The Pirates were NOT smart to lock up Nate McLouth. Even before his complete drop-off, he was a decent outfielder who had some pop. Guys like that are everywhere. I think that the McLouth signing was more of a “message” signing, than anything (to the rest of the team and other players who might think of coming to Pittsburgh, that the team was serious about committing dollars to its players.)
Cutch is a year younger, and he's put up two seasons of higher wOBA than Walker's one season.
They both hit HRs at almost the same pace of plate appearances. Cutch takes more walks and strikes out less.
What is hard for the Pirates to find are above average MLB players, and Cutch is certainly that.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 4, 2011 12:33 AM EST up reply actions
What is hard for the Pirates to find are above average MLB players, and Cutch is certainly that.
And Mark, I won’t argue with that, however, we’re talking about committing a lot of extra dollars when the need isn’t there yet.
If the Pirates are going to follow their stated plan, guys like McCutchen will constantly be coming up through their minor league system and be ready to replace him when free agency comes-a-callin’!
Sure Walker doesn’t have the history that Cutch has, but if he does develop into a competent 2nd baseman (still not a given) and keeps hitting (also not a certainty), I think he becomes a more logical target for a long-term deal (not saying that they couldn’t lock up both).
I mean, the fact that there wasn’t a single major-league ready middle infield prospect when second base was there for the taking should be all that we need to see that finding a very good middle infielder (especially if Walker continues to hit) is a rarity (at least for this organization.)
Let’s not forget. Nyjer Morgan started in center field for the Pirates. CF’s are everywhere!!!
Something you might not have thought of:
If Cutch is signed to a “future-friendly” contract, if and when one of the “better” possibilities comes along, it will be that much easier to move him and that contract, if the Pirates want to do so.
I think that’s something to consider.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 4, 2011 1:09 AM EST up reply actions
true cocktails....
that is something to cconsider. Locking up guys who will have significant value to other teams. Again, I have no problem whatsoever if the Pirates were to come out tomorrow and say that they locked up McCutchen. He’s a great player today. I just don’t want to see the Pirates ignore locking up a more unusual talent, because they are enamored with McCutchen’s speed in 2011 (or whatever). If they think that the McCutchen of his early 30’s is too hard to replace, then I say go ahead (although, I think that’s an example that the minor league system has failed the organization.)
+1
Clearly Cutch under contract is more valuable than one going to arbitration or FA. So if in 2-3 years, say Marte is ready then you can get a premium to move Cutch.
What does Nyjer Morgan have to do with anything? He’s not good. One would think you would choose an average to above average player to list as an example of center fielders being everywhere, not a below average one.
by thecheeseisblue on Jan 4, 2011 2:06 AM EST up reply actions
That was precisely why I used Nyjer....
he’s a pretty terrible talent, yet he’s managed to start on 2 separate major league teams. Certainly, the Pirates minor league system can produce prospects who can outplay Morgan.
Can they consistently produce players...
that can outplay McCutchen? If they can’t I really don’t get your argument.
Slick1...I agree with you 100%....
because if they CAN’T, the Pirates will forever be in big trouble!! That is the $100 million dollar question, can the minors produce center fielders that can produce like McCutchen…AND….will the Pirates have a 24-year-old in their system that can replace the 29-year-old McCutchen in 2016. If the answer is “no”, it may be time to close the door on the franchise.
However....the Pirates do produce or trade for
guys who produce McCutchen-like (so far).
According to Baseball Reference, McCutchen has had WARs of 3.1 & 3.3. Looking at the Pirates history since their last WS, the Pirates have had a pretty good crop of outfielders who produce 2.9 WAR or higher (many have come from inside the org and trades) even though many of the teams have stunk…
Here’s a list (I tried to keep Bonilla only on the list in seasons when he played more outfield than 3B) of the overall WARs of 2.9 or higher from their outfielders (I made the cut-off 2.9 because I was excited to see John Vander Wal make the list!!):
1980: Lee Lacy 3.9, Mike Easler 4.4
1984: Lee Lacy 3.1
1986: Barry Bonds 2.9
1987: Barry Bonds 5.4, Andy Van Slyke 5.2
1988: Andy Van Slyke 6.4, Barry Bonds 6.2
1989: Barry Bonds 7.7, Andy Van Slyke 3.4, Glenn Wilson 3.3
1990: Barry Bonds 9.7, Andy Van Slyke 4.1, Bobby Bonilla 3.7
1991: Barry Bonds 8.3, Bobby Bonilla 4.5, Andy Van Slyke 4.0
1992: Barry Bonds 10.0, Andy Van Slyke 6.9
1993: Orlando Merced 3.2
1995: Orlando Merced 3.8
1999: Brian Giles 6.7
2000: Brian Giles 6.4, John Vander Wal 2.9
2001: Brian Giles 5.6
2002: Brian Giles 5.3
2005: Jason Bay 4.5
2006: Jason Bay 4.1
2008: Nate McLouth 4.6
I was trying to remember what my point was??? Oh yeah, the point is that a 3.0 WAR guy is not something so out of the ordinary that the Pirates shouldn’t be able to produce them regularly (if their minor league system is working properly)
summed up
down the road if the Pirates cannot produce a player that can replace McCutchen at McCutchens pace of play now, that is around a 3 WAR guy, then the system is not doing the job.
If they cannot replace McCutchen because he has risen to superstar status, then the obvious move would be to try and re-sign him and buy out some years of FA.
If we have players in the OF capable of replacing McCutchens production, then what makes the most sense would be to allow them to take McCutchens place.
Did I hit on the high notes correctly, because thats what I am getting from what you are saying impliedi.
Yep, C Shint....
only you said it in about one or 2 perfect sentences when it took me about 35 posts of varying degrees of confusing statements and I still wasn’t as clear!!
Center fielders are a lot more important, and more difficult to find, than corner outfielders. Saying a 3.0 WAR outfielder isn’t out of the ordinary is very different than saying a 3.0 WAR center fielder isn’t out of the ordinary.
by thecheeseisblue on Jan 4, 2011 6:44 PM EST up reply actions
I think most people would say McCutchen has a lot more potential than 3.0 WAR per season.
Taking into account 2009 and 2010 both, McCutchen has the highest wOBA of all center fielders in MLB over that time (.365).
If he had a 0 UZR rating, he would have 8.3 WAR over that time, which would be third in MLB CFs, just behind Michael Bourn (8.6) and Franklin Gutierrez (8.5), despite not playing the full 2009 season.
In fact, if you add the difference in positional adjustment for games played, he would be tied for first in WAR with Gutierrez over those two years among CFs.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 4, 2011 10:46 PM EST up reply actions
I did a study to determine if it was realistic to continually replenish from the minors every 5 years.
I came to the conclusion that it takes an average of 10 years for a team to produce 8 solid position players and 5 starting pitchers from its minor league system.
I also determined that the average vet for prospects trade nets about one solid major leaguer among the prospects for every two vets traded away.
Therefore, you have to keep your players around 7 or 8 years and then trade them with a year on their contracts, meaning you must buy out around 2 or 3 years of free agency (getting 8-9 years of control).
by MarkInDallas on Jan 4, 2011 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
But Mark....
if you’re saying that an average team takes 10 years to produce 13 players (8 position & 5 starting pitchers), then it follows that every year, a team adds 1.3 players from it’s minor league system. Therefore, by the time 2016 arrives (Cutch’s first FA year), the Pirates minor league system will have produced 6.5 new solid players on the team. Seems like a pretty positive thing!!! It would constantly be replenishing itself, which is the point. If a minor league system can produce 6.5 new solid players every 5 years, if you add a few through trades and a signing here or there, the Pirates should be good to go for the future!!!
That’s fantastic news! Goes to show that McCutchen is even more likely to be ready to be replaced than I had assumed.
Once again...
If you’re turning over the roster every five years, and producing only half the number of players you need to be a decent team in that time, you need to get those other players from somewhere.
If you trade those 6.5 players, you might get 3 decent players back. That gives you 9.5 players, but you need 13.
So, that means you’ve got either 3 or 4 of the likes of Ronny Cedeno/Brandon Moss/Lastings Milledge/Charlie Morton/Jeff Clement in your starting lineup.
The Pirates had about 5 of those types of guys out of the 13, and lost a lot of games.
From what I saw in looking at that, the roster turnover of above average players needs to be more around 7 or 8 years, not 5. If you can do that, then that fills those 3 or 4 holes in the lineup.
Otherwise, you have to be highly above average at player development to just put an average (.500) team on the field. This is where the Florida Marlins are right now.
Keeping the highly above average players for up to 10 years greatly enhances your chances of fielding an above average team.
Taking into account 2009 and 2010 both, McCutchen has the highest wOBA of all center fielders in MLB over that time (.365).
Great, Angel Pagan is 4th on that list and made $1.5 million last year, didn’t see the Mets going out of their way to lock him up long-term.
If he had a 0 UZR rating, he would have 8.3 WAR over that time, which would be third in MLB CFs, just behind Michael Bourn (8.6) and Franklin Gutierrez (8.5), despite not playing the full 2009 season.
The problem is that those same stats show McCutchen as one of the worst fielders amongst center fielders over the same period. Which, yes, have drastically reduced his value. So, the question is, will he become an elite defensive center fielder, and if not, is his bat alone worth it to commit long-term dollars?
He doesn't need to become an elite fielder
He just needs to become an average one. And yes, it would be worth it, I’d say.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 5, 2011 12:39 AM EST up reply actions
The issue with Mclouth is that he peaked at a much later age, meaning he was less likely to sustain those 2008 numbers going forward. Mclouth doesn’t prove you shouldn’t lock up OFs. Just that having a big year at 26 doesn’t necessarily make one a piece to build around.
It’s the same problem I mentioned with Steve Pearce a while ago. Even if he had a nice season at his age of 28, I’m not sure that creates the long-term value that some here believe. Mclouth and Jones (or a zillion other guys) are cautionary tales for late blooming sluggers.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 4, 2011 6:42 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I should have said, Mclouth established him self at a later age, not that he peaked at a later age…
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 4, 2011 6:44 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Mclouth doesn’t prove you shouldn’t lock up OFs. Just that having a big year at 26 doesn’t necessarily make one a piece to build around.
My point in using McLouth is that his talents, regardless of his age, were nothing special, not just because he was an outfielder. And that’s why I think the big contract was a mistake (although, I’ll agree that his age should have been a factor as well.)
I mean, McLouth’s production was easily replaced in the organization (McCutchen), trade (Tabata – not the power, but he certainly is looking like he’ll be a more valuable player going forward than McLouth), or even scrap heap (G. Jones).
My point in using McLouth is that his talents, regardless of his age, were nothing special
What??? All-Star and Gold-Glover Nate McLouth?! The yinzer mobs will be assembling at your door, pitchforks in hand!!
by WTM on Jan 4, 2011 9:20 AM EST up reply actions
Haha!!!
I will now bow my head in shame and wait for Smizik to tell me that it’s all Nutting’s fault (if only they had kept Jose Bautista!!!!) - for those that stopped reading Smizik even sooner than I did, he wrote at least 6 articles/posts/whatever-you-call-what-he-does-now this past season on Jose Bautista and how he got away from the Pirates. Even though there wasn’t a peep from him in the year and a half that Bautista was stinking it up in Toronto before that. It was a good a reason as any to stop reading his posts (even if it was just for the bizarre entertainment value of it).
Mclouth wasn't an exclusive talent..
but he took advantage of PNC’s dimensions…he hit more pop fly HR’s just over RF …they’re easy outs in Atlanta…funny thing is when we traded him, he was on a 30+ HR / 100+ RBI/ 20+ SB pace for the year.
He really fell off the earth though…injury and missing out on those pop fly HR’s…he actually changed his swing in Atl to get rid of that pop fly tendency and it backfired…he looks pathetic at the plate.
I will say he was a better CF than Cutch despite what most believe…great initial jumps and nothing landed deep unless off the wall…Cutch leaves too many off the warning track.
You may be right about McLouth being a better defender...
I haven’t really paid much attention to what kinds of jumps McCutchen gets, but to be honest, really the only thing that drives me nuts about McCutchen’s defense is that throwing arm. Doesn’t have much on his throws, and I seemed to see a ton of rainbow throws from him.
I still vividly remember that 1989 season, when the Pirates had 2 laser cannon, frozen rope-throwing outfielders in Andy Van Slyke and Glenn Wilson, so it’s hard for me to watch any outfielder throwing a rainbow after seeing the way that the ball SHOULD be coming in from the outfield….Oh yeah, Bonilla had a cannon on that team, too….just never knew where it was headed….
By the way....
speaking of Bonilla, was just looking at his stats on baseball-reference and saw that he actually had a 0.2 DEFENSIVE WAR in 1987!!! Wow!!! (But, the other 5 seasons he was with the Bucs were all negative WAR numbers, which seems more like it).
Understand
I just worry less about position scarcity. My thought has always been that that is fantasy baseball talk.
I think Cutch is a far more talented player and I also think he has much more upside (Carly Crawford).
That’s a valuable asset. It’s particularly valuable when that player has a reasonable extension.
But remember: I don’t think Walker is a 2b. I’m also skeptical of last year. It doesn’t match his minor league numbers.
Also, with Doumit, I never would have locked him up after one really strong year. He always had questions of defense and durability.
Now the Bucs are stuck with him.
The Nate signing, I thought, was a decent idea at the time. He had come off a strong year. But he fell like my stocks did a few years ago.
Obviously, I was wrong on that one. But if Nate had only mildly regressed, the Pirates likely would have paid more for him through arbitration than with the contract.
I agree with you mostly, Bernie.
That’s why I put some pretty big “if’s” alongside of my Walker discussion. I certainly wouldn’t lock him up now it’s waaaay too early and his future is waaaay too uncertain, especially until he shows that he can be a competent 2nd baseman in the future.
But, that’s why I say IF he develops into a stable 2nd baseman AND IF he develops more power, I lock up that unusual combination of a 2nd baseman, because I’ll have a hard time finding too many solid 2nd basemen that hit for average and good power.
And, I probably shouldn’t have used Doumit as an example. I guess my point was that I could understand the argument to lock him up. Switch-hitting/power-hitting catchers are very scarce. But, yes, his track record certainly didn’t back up what they thought he would become. Just looked at his minor league stats. 120 doubles & 49 HR in 1999 PAs in the minors? Why did anyone call this guy a power hitter
I still think the McLouth signing was a bad move at the time, but we’ll just have to disagree on that.
To be fair ...
I was mildly in support of Nate.
I did not think they were signing an elite guy.
I thought they were signing an average corner outfielder.
I'll agree with the overall point here
the thing that sets Cutch apart is his speed, so the question is, are the Pirates willing to pay for his speed. Of course, McCutchen proved he can be solid with the bat, so he can always improve there as well. His defense is shaky, so it also needs improvement, the point is though, an average hitting CF that plays good defense can be found, and replaced. The potential for it is already in our system/mlb team: Tabata, Marte, Gorkys, RojasJr.
Agreed...
I was just going to write something similar about the depth at CF in the Pirates org, and you beat me to it, C Shint!! To lesser extent and with a lot more to prove there’s Presley & Chambers.
But, the point is that the Pirates (like, I’m sure most teams) are flooded with CF prospects that can hit decently and field competently.
Now, again (I hate saying anything bad about McCutchen because I really do like him), but if he added some tremendous power to his game or became an amazing fielding CF, then I’d be more inclined to say, yep, that’s hard to find another guy like that. But, Cutch is what he is.
ha took a late nap so brain is functioning tonight. What I will be interested in watching this season is Rojas and Marte’s progress. Could end up telling us a lot about the long term future of McCutchen in Pittsburgh.
Good point!
The Pirates would be smart to not only evaluate the player, when it comes to a long-term deal, but how his potential replacements are doing in the minors.
Not sure how to justify calling McCutchen an average hitting CF. True, his combined 09-10 wOBA ranks 14th…among all outfielders, and first for CF. Just as importantly, he’s much younger than every one ahead of him in the general OF hitting list except Justin Upton and Heyward.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 4, 2011 6:10 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
But Adam, that's just it....
even if the Pirates don’t do anything, he is signed with them until age 28. The reason that you buy out some of his FA years are that you think that McCutchen’s production from age 29 on is an irreplaceable piece in your organization. I should hope that isn’t the case, because it means that either a. the Pirates minor league system has failed OR b. McCutchen is a much rarer talent (from age 29 on) than I give him credit for.
And up until a few days ago, I would have been a champion for the Pirates giving McCutchen a long-term deal today, but the more I thought about it, I started asking myself these questions:
1. Will McCutchen still be the CF from age 29 on?
2. Or will he be moved to a corner OF spot?
3. How valuable will McCutchen’s production be in his 30’s if he is a corner OF?
4. Will the Pirates have a CF prospect who can replace him in 2016?
5. Will his speed remain in his 30’s?
6. What happens to Marte, Hernandez, Rojas if even one of them develops?
7. Are there more unusual talents on the Pirates roster that are harder to replace?
I guess my biggest point is.....
if you told me today that the Pirates could buy out the first few free agent years of only ONE person on the roster. Who would it be?
My answer would be Pedro Alvarez, without question. That bat (assuming it still continues) is not easy to find and very costly to replace. Even in his 30’s, Alvarez is likely to continue hitting bombs (if no major injuries happen), even if he doesn’t stay at 3B.
Neil Walker would get some consideration from me. But, I’m nowhere near convinced that he will sustain the offense AND become a solid 2B. But, IF he does both, he, too, is hard to replace.
Now, the flipside is....
if the Pirates feel they will get a tremendous savings from locking up McCutchen, then I say, “do it!” If the Pirates can lock in Cutch’s arbitration years at lower than what they might pay if they go to arbitration every year, then it is a no-brainer.
To me, McCutchen’s arbitration years will be, by far, his most valuable ones to the Pirates organization, and any deal you have that can decrease the amount you have to pay him is a good idea.
When I was talking about a long-term deal, I was merely thinking of the Pirates doing it, because they feel it’s important to buy out some FA years. I don’t think that’s all that important. But, if buying out the first few FA years is the cost of doing business in getting Cutch at a reasonable price through his arb years, I’m in agreement with that.
Crawford
The guy Cutch reminds me the most of, Carl Crawford, did retain value.
I think Crawford is a better base runner and defensive OF.
But I’m not sure Cutch can’t be as good as Crawford. And he certainly retained his value.
Rickey says that's right.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 4, 2011 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
The guy Cutch reminds me the most of, Carl Crawford, did retain value.
Even though Crawford plays LF instead of CF, I’ll agree he has retained and possibly even increased his value.
However, the point is…do the Rays have a capable replacement for Crawford in LF?? (right now they have Desmond Jennings listed first on the depth chart…I’ve never seen him play, but his minor league stats look very good….and he was BA’s 6th-best prospect in baseball coming into last year.)
If he’s going to give the Rays Crawford-like production for the next 5-6 years, then letting Crawford go is not a big deal, and is EXACTLY what the Pirates should hope to do.
If the Rays don’t have a replacement for Crawford, then their minor league system isn’t doing it’s job and the team will have to spend money.
I HOPE (big hope) that the Pirates are at the point in 2016 where letting McCutchen go isn’t a big deal because they are replacing him with a younger, less expensive version of himself. By locking up McCutchen through some FA, the team is basically saying, “we don’t feel we’ll be able to replace him with our minor league system.” And that’s pretty terrible, because there’s a good chance that McCutchen’s successor hasn’t even been drafted yet!
That's the problem with small market franchises
They have no choice but to let their stars walk.
I think Desmond Jennings is a great prospect.
But will he become Crawford? I doubt it.
Having a replacement for guys like Crawford and having a highly above average replacement for guys like Crawford is the difference between Tampa Bay being in contention and them being around 500.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 4, 2011 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
So I was curious to look back and see
where the Pirates center fielders have come from since the draft came into being. Obviously the Pirates had Matty Alou (from a trade) from the year after the first draft in1965 until 1970. So looking after that point, the Pirates last main 15 centerfielders have come from:
-Draft (7)
-Trade (4)
-Amateur free agent (2 – though Al Oliver shouldn’t count as he was signed the year before the first draft)
- Waivers (1)
- Major League Free Agent (1)
so to take you down memory lane….
Al Oliver (71-76): amateur free agent
Omar Moreno (77-84): amateur free agent
Marvell Wynne (83-85): trade
Barry Bonds (86): draft
Andy Van Slyke (87-94): trade
Jacob Brumfield (95): trade
Jermaine Allensworth (96-98): draft
Brian Giles (99-00): trade
Gary Matthews (01): waivers
Adrian Brown (02): draft
Kenny Lofton (03): free agent
Tike Redman (04-05): draft
Chris Duffy (06-07): draft
Nate McLouth (08): draft
Andrew McCutchen (09-present): draft
What's even more sad....
is that Adrian Brown and Jermaine Allensworth just absolutely dominated all the way up through the minor leagues with their bats and both were major, major flops in the majors.
And Duffy & McLouth both had very short term major league success followed by a quick bottoming out.
The look of the Pirates (and their CF draft success) would have looked so much different if those 4 could have all panned out!
i believe most fans want Cutch signed long term because they are afraid of losing any talented young player
despite the fact that he need not be signed yet, nor has he truly blossomed, and despite the chances that he may never be as good as he is right now.
It's because...
most of us that want him signed see him as a future 4-5 WAR + player and not the 3 + WAR player he is now. If his defense improved a little bit and his offense stays the same he is a 4 WAR CF. That’s really good. If his offense gets a little better with improvement in his defense (to an average CF) he is a 5 WAR player; that’s extremely good. If he develops into an above average fielder with little more offense, which I think he will over time, he could be a 6 WAR + player and that would be awesome. I think he has the potential for a couple of 6 WAR seasons. I think he has a couple of years where he could hit over 20 HR which would lead to an increase in walks so I don’t think an offensive peak of .400 wOBA is out of the question. I like his bat speed, I like his control of the strize zone and I like his running game. I think over the next 10 years McCutchen is likely to average a little over 4 WAR with a couple of peak seasons mixed in. Again, his peak seasons are very dependent on his defense improving.
MiD
Thanks for another thoughtful post. Great stuff. Paul.
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on Jan 3, 2011 10:33 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Also
this ties along with the Carlos Gonzalez battle above, but he is represented by Boras right? So he signs a new deal without testing FA. Maybe Boras is softening up? or are the Rockies well overpaying? or is it Boras just trying to get his client money while he can before the new labor deals and such?
Perhaps the Pirates should offer Alvarez the same....
7 years/$80 million right now to see what Alvarez/Boras would say….
Rumors...
According to Wilmer Reina, a journalist in Venezuela, he mentions on Twitter that the deal between Gonzalez and the Rockies was made without the consent of Boras. The decision to agree with the team was taken by Gonzalez and his family.
by MarkInDallas on Jan 4, 2011 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah
This has happened with other players (A-Rod, for instance) and Boras has threatened to sue. His agent contract probably entitles him to a commission, and in any event he’s notorious for aggressively threatening his clients with legal action.
see
this is something i never understood. if, at the end of the day, its the player signing the contract, is it not his final say to who, what, where, and how much he signs for? so how can Boras threaten legal action like that.
Dunno
The MLBPA has rules and regulations governing agents. I know very little about that, but agents do have a fair amount of say in the union. Most players just want to play and not think about that stuff. I think they’re happy to let the union and their agents handle things. There’s a reason why every so often you see some bankrupt ex-player suing his agent for mishandling his money.
I also think just in the same line like you about McCutchen. I have a big hope that 2012 will see the big dreaded raise for McCutchen become a reality. Even if it will be a blow to Pirates it will be an advantage for the player.
Jordan: Questions to God
by christopoulosgeorge on Jan 4, 2011 10:54 AM EST reply actions
Did You Know
NH turned down Cargo+ for Bay?
by Pitchers and Catchers Report on Jan 4, 2011 6:49 PM EST reply actions
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
- Will Smith shows why making your big league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
- The Juice: Brandon Phillips flip sets up Todd Frazier walkoff for Reds
- Josh Hamilton makes great catch, destroys part of fence at Safeco Field
- Something’s amiss at the Big 12 championship
