Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Kobe Bryant Will Never Top Michael Jordan

Langosch: Paul Maholm Probably Gone

PITTSBURGH - AUGUST 17:  Paul Maholm #28 of the Pittsburgh Pirates pitches against the St Louis Cardinals during the game on August 17, 2011 at PNC Park in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  (Photo by Jared Wickerham/Getty Images)

We've discussed both these topics at length already, so I don't think any sort of hardcore analysis is really necessary. But here are a couple notes from Jenifer Langosch (both via MLB Trade Rumors).

-P- She guesses that the Pirates "are ready to move on" from Paul Maholm. That might be fine if they can get someone decent to replace him, but the Bucs aren't known for signing good free agents. And one of the four remaining starters they'd be counting on would be Kevin Correia

-P- She says Joel Hanrahan, Charlie Morton, Jeff Karstens and Evan Meek are the only arbitration-eligible players who appear "absolutely certain" to receive contracts this offseason. That leaves Garrett Jones, Chris Resop, Jose Veras and Jason Grilli in the who-knows category. Ross Ohlendorf, Brandon Wood and Steve Pearce are arbitration-eligible too, but I think we can probably assume that they won't be tendered.

Comment 224 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Is there a reason why you don’t think Wood will be tendered? I’m asking because it seemed to me that, while his bat left much to be desired(obviously), he fielded pretty well and filled in well enough while Pedro was out. In any case, if Pedro continues his downward spiral then I feel that Wood would be the best option for us at 3rd given how unpolished d’Arnaud looked in the field last year, though he has much more upside with the bat.
As far as the remaining arbitration-eligible guys on that list, I agree with the 4 sure things that Langosch lists, and I think that GJ, Resop and Veras will likely be tendered as well.

by Akshay R on Oct 10, 2011 4:59 PM EDT reply actions  

Is there a reason why you don’t think Wood will be tendered? I’m asking because it seemed to me that, while his bat left much to be desired(obviously), he fielded pretty well and filled in well enough while Pedro was out.

You can get a guy who fields pretty well and whose bat leaves much to be desired for the ML minimum. No need to go to arb with a guy who has that skill set.

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

And who says that Wood can't be kept for league minimum?

You gotta aim high to fail so big. - Trace Beaulieu

by IAPiratesFan on Oct 10, 2011 5:19 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions  

The people who made MLB’s collective bargaining agreement? Maybe the Pirates can reach a deal with him for an NRI, but if I’m Wood and the Pirates try to do that, I’d probably see what the free agent market offered first.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 10, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's what I meant.

If nobody else wants him in free agency, the Pirates might be able to get him back for league minimum.

You gotta aim high to fail so big. - Trace Beaulieu

by IAPiratesFan on Oct 10, 2011 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, that’s pretty much my take on it. I have no idea what the front office thinks about it, but Wood just had his best year, and he was little better than replacement-level.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 10, 2011 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Josh Harrison?

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 10, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ciriaco, Chase & Ronny

all do, though.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 10, 2011 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

and if we’re keeping Ciriaco over Wood… it’s a terrible decision. Ronny will be the starter or not retained. Chase might be starting as well but if not he’s an ok choice.

by Mr. E on Oct 10, 2011 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Just sayin' is all...

if BWood is due an increase, they may wish to look elsewhere for the same production.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 10, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Harrison’s hitting is a boost over anyone else we had at 3rd last year, but I’m still not quite trusting of his fielding; he has the ability to make some spectacular plays, but also mess up routine ones by trying to make them look spectacular.

by Akshay R on Oct 11, 2011 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

like Luis Rivas? and Ramon Vasquez? and Bobby Crosby? I’d take the bird in hand here for 100K over the minimum.

by Mr. E on Oct 10, 2011 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

like Luis Rivas? and Ramon Vasquez? and Bobby Crosby?

More like D’Arnaud or Mercer. Or if you want a veteran alternative, there are always have-glove-will-travel guys like Josh Wilson available as waiver claims or NRIs.

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, just for reference:

Ramon Vazquez as a Pirate: 66 OPS+
Bobby Crosby as a Pirate: 63 OPS+

Brandon Wood, 2011: 69 OPS+

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, but Wood has 72 OPS+ potential. I just know it.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

But he was one of BA's top 50 prospects in 2008!

Just like Franklin Morales, Jordan Schafer, Adam Miller, Andy LaRoche, Angel Villalona, Deolis Guerra, and Jeff Clement!

Er…

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

If it hadn’t been for the whole murder thing, Villalona would have been a beast. :)

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 10, 2011 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

So we can expect to acquire those other guys at some point . . . .

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

After Schafer gets a 100 game suspension. He had already served a 50 game suspension in 2008. And got arrested for possession of marijuana last week.

Schafer arrest

by Thunder on Oct 10, 2011 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

I hear the Bengals have already called him . . . .

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions   3 recs

So Neal is bidding against the Bengals ;-) That’ll end well.

by Thunder on Oct 10, 2011 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Rec.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 10, 2011 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

No wonder the dude couldn't hit

Isn’t that why the Aussies call it “Zombie”?

by Lomez969 on Oct 11, 2011 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

and neither of those guys can/could field SS adequately. Nor can d’Arnaud currently. Mercer I’ve heard conflicting reports on.

by Mr. E on Oct 10, 2011 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

From my limited viewing, I think Mercer is a legit SS.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 10, 2011 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Same here.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

ditto

ive seen Mercer about a half dozen times. looked more than capable even though not one difficult play hit his direction

by white angus on Oct 11, 2011 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Mercer is fine at short.

D’Arnaud has the tools to be fine there as well. He just needs to work through his rookie jitters.

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 9:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

True enough. My argument was the same as IAPiratesFan’s, that he played well enough in the field to be worth keeping, and it’s unlikely he’ll get much in free agency so if he’s willing to stay for the minimum he’s as good an option as any, though I suppose you’re right in that going to arbitration with him isn’t the best option.

by Akshay R on Oct 11, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

GJ, Resop and Veras

Disagree. Though I mentioned below that a case can be made for Jones, I don’t see any way (or reason) to offer arbitration to Resop or Veras. You can easily find these types of pitchers all over the off-season for just a notch over league minimum. Why would you want to pay more for them?

Though, I will say that Resop and Veras would not have an easy time in arbitration since they don’t have great stats, nor things like saves that they can point to. Veras can at least point to his consistency over a period of time. Resop doesn’t even have that..
Would be quite shocked to see the Pirates offer tenders to middle relievers anytime soon!

by impliedi on Oct 10, 2011 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

I would be surprised if they didn't retain Veras

He would be well worth the modest raise it will take to get him back. Play that card and hope he pitches as well next year as he did this year and flip him at the trade deadline. He could have brought back a pretty decent haul this past season had the team not been playing over their heads at the trade deadline.

by pskell02 on Oct 10, 2011 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

It says a lot about this organization, none of it good, that a replacement level drudge like Correia is a lock to stay in the rotation but they’re going to let Maholm walk. They seem to think the goal is to have the lowest cost per win, not to have the most wins.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 5:19 PM EDT reply actions  

Sounds like Smiziktalk to me

Banned!

BTW, hope that’s a clear joke, as I agree with WTM 100%.

by JRoth95 on Oct 10, 2011 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Cutting Maholm loose in the expectation that we’ll be able to replace him on the free agent market seems like a very bad idea to me.

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 5:19 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

It’s a really simple question: Can they use $9M in a way that makes the team better than it would be with Maholm? The answer is almost certainly, No.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah. Not without getting into contracts that have long commitments, which I’m sure the front office would rather not do.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 10, 2011 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

(and which might not be possible anyway)

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 10, 2011 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why?

I don’t understand this logic.I think the language needs to be changed in these discussions. Instead of saying that the Pirates “can’t” sign certain free agents we should use “won’t”. If in fact they “can’t” sign them due to market inequities, ownership should work to fix those inequities.

by superope on Oct 11, 2011 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

If in fact they "can’t" sign them due to market inequities, ownership should work to fix those inequities.

It’s not that they can’t sign them due to market inequities. It’s that they can’t sign them because those players don’t want to come here. We’re a perennial loser in a small market in a cold-weather area with below-average attendance and a minimal national media presence. There are no beaches, minimal night life, and an extremely small Latin population. Oh, and unlike Texas and Florida, we have state income tax, not a trivial consideration when your annual salary is in the seven-to-eight figures.

The only one of those things that we can really fix is the “perennial loser” bit, and even that’s going to be the work of years.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

Then why even try if your the Pirates? What’s the point if you have no chance to acquire the best players? Olney wrote earlier this week about the Reds looking to trade Votto because he will cost to much for them to keep. Even when a smaller market drafts and develops well, they still can’t win.

by superope on Oct 11, 2011 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

What’s the point if you have no chance to acquire the best players?

You have a chance to acquire the best players. You acquire them through the draft or as international free agents. if you acquire enough of them at the same time, then you get to win for a while.

It’s not an equitable system, but it’s not impossible, either.

by Vlad on Oct 12, 2011 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

...or via trade.

As the players get better, they’ll also be more desirable in trade packages, which we’ll be able to use to bring in better players, as well.

Did I say that right?

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 12, 2011 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jake Westbrook is a very similar pitcher to Maholm—groundball guy with very low K rate who’s basically a 4.00-odd ERA guy. Their career FIPs are nearly identical—4.21 for Maholm, 4.18 for Westbrook—and Maholm’s five years younger and doesn’t have Westbrook’s injury history. Westbrook is signed for 3 yrs/$25M. I have to think Maholm will get 3 yrs at a salary very close to his option. Which in turn means that replacing Maholm will cost about what Maholm would have cost the Pirates, except they’ll have to commit to multiple years.

Letting Maholm walk will be an extremely stupid move, as well as a damaging one. And it’ll call into question the FO’s ability to upgrade the roster any time it means doing anything beyond bringing cheap rookies up. I honestly am beginning to think they don’t understand the difference between getting a bargain and building a good team. And I’ll give Dejan credit—he once said they seemed to think that every single contract had to be a bargain, and I think he was right.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Which in turn means that replacing Maholm will cost about what Maholm would have cost the Pirates, except they’ll have to commit to multiple years.

And even that assumes that they’ll be able to convince a Maholm-level pitcher to take their money in free agency.

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, there's that, too

Realistically, bottom line, assuming they let Maholm walk, it’s simply a decision to downgrade the rotation in order to save money. Period.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah but the question is

Would you really be winning to give a pitcher like Paul Maholm $9 millon? I wouldn’t.

Pittsburgh Sports: Creating sports history and legends since 1887.

by Bradley James McEachern on Oct 10, 2011 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Would you really be winning to give a pitcher like Paul Maholm $9 millon? I wouldn’t.

Maybe you wouldn’t, but there are probably 15-20 teams in MLB that would. $9M is just how much mid-rotation starters cost these days.

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

If they want a mid-rotation starter, then it does. And are you really comfortable with the idea of a 2012 rotation that doesn’t have Maholm in it?

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

too early to say

more than 5 months to get bent out of shape about it.

more than a few people on here pulled their hair out when Zach Duke was sent away. funny how hes barely an afterthought.

by white angus on Oct 11, 2011 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

more than a few people on here pulled their hair out when Zach Duke was sent away

Like who?

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

I complained about it at the time, so there was at least one guy.

Duke had a pretty crap season, but Correia was just as bad for essentially the same money, and he’s here on a two-year deal instead of a one-year deal. As such, while it didn’t hurt us much, it’s not like we came out any better from the decision.

by Vlad on Oct 12, 2011 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

So you're bald now?

Replacing Duke with Correia is certainly something to complain about, but it’s a different issue.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 12, 2011 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

Imagining Vlad's shiy pate

is not something I wish to do right now, thank you.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 12, 2011 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

"shiny"

Gah.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 12, 2011 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

If 1 year of Duke is a good thing, isn’t 2 years better?

And I know I know, pitcher wins, but KC still had a lot of them. Random luck or whatever, it still worked out better so far

by Mr. E on Oct 13, 2011 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Neither would I

But that’s because I don’t have $9M.

If I was a major league team, though, yeah, I would. Because major league teams do that all the time. The Cards did it with a nearly identical pitcher in Westbrook and they seem to know what they’re doing.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

But the Cards have a legit #1 and #2

In Carpenter and Wainwright when he’s not injured. Pirates don’t. What comes first? Paying a #3 or #4 pitcher $9 million or finding a true #1 and #2.

by buccobob_houstontx on Oct 10, 2011 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

What comes first? Paying a #3 or #4 pitcher $9 million or finding a true #1 and #2.

In our case, paying the #3 pitcher $9M, because we have one of those who’s willing to play for us for that salary. The only way we’re ever going to attract a #1 or #2 is to develop him ourselves, and neither Cole nor Taillon is going to be ready for at least another two years.

We still need to sell tickets in 2012, and a lot more people are going to be willing to come out for a mediocre-ish team with a $9M Paul Maholm in the rotation than a ghastly one with a $5M Aaron Cook. Or, God help us, a minimum-salary Brian Burres.

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Fixed
Or, God help us, a minimum-salary Brian Burres pitcher whose name we’re not allowed to say any more.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 10, 2011 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

They can come in either order. :) I don’t see what one has to do with the other, honestly, since it’s not as if the Pirates can just go get a No. 1 or a No. 2 with that money.

Also, Maholm is better than a No. 4.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 10, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

I disagree

Who the hell is Paul Maholm. (Statement, not a question, so don’t answer.)

by azibuck on Oct 11, 2011 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

Who the hell is Paul Maholm. (Statement, not a question, so don’t answer.)

?

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

I believe he meant that it was a rhetorical question because no matter how you spin it, “who the hell is Paul Maholm” is a question.

Put on your dancin' shoes.

by PensFan024 on Oct 11, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

And with what is he disagreeing?

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

I’m not certain but I think he is disagreeing with “Also, Maholm is better than a No. 4.”

Put on your dancin' shoes.

by PensFan024 on Oct 11, 2011 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions  

Nice study

Wish to hell he’d used ERA+ (especially since offense has cratered since ’06), but the point remains.

And actually, an aside early in that article helped bring something home to me: he mentions that the ‘03 Mariners got 162 starts from 5 pitchers, which is of course an outlier. But what it made me think of is that there are events like that that happen every so often – maybe not 162 starts by 5 guys, but say 150+ starts from 5 guys. Probably happens for one team per year, on average. Which makes it seem remarkable, but not impossible. But for any given team, that’s going to happen once every three decades(!).

This is a point you’ve tried to get me to see, Vlad, but I don’t think it quite sank in. Common, but infrequent, kinds of luck only happen to any given team once in a great while. So if, every year, there’s a breakout rookie (or 2) that no one expected to become an All-Star, that still means that any given org will only get one of those every decade or two (setting aside organizational quality).

Not revelatory at all, of course, but it just snapped into place in my head.

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Glad you enjoyed it. And you’re right about ERA+.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, very, that's the word

I was using hyperbole to make a point, that Maholm is not that good. His career ERA suggests he’s a 3/4, so not “very wrong”. It wouldn’t surprise me if he put up an ERA under 4 or over 5 next year. I suggest we just move on, and yes, I’m prepared to have a poor staff next year. I don’t see a way around it with or without Maholm, unless some young pitcher make significant leaps forward.

by azibuck on Oct 11, 2011 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

yes, I’m prepared to have a poor staff next year.

OK, if you understand and accept that risk, that’s a reasonable position to take.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, I'm guilty of being lazy

As that article (which is good, thank you) points out:

When pundits talk about a free-agent pitcher, they often refer to him as a “#3 starter” or, say, a “#4 starter for a contender.” It’s common enough usage that most baseball fans know what that means, or at least know what the pundits are getting at.

Of course, this usage is extremely imprecise: one man’s #2 is another man’s #4, and there’s no clear way to settle the debate. Taken literally, a pitcher’s position in the rotation depends entirely on context:

I was using my own perception of a #3, or what one looks like. I should have responded differently.

by azibuck on Oct 11, 2011 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

It’s all good. I probably jumped on you a bit harder than I should’ve, too.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

the same stuff was said about Duke when he was let go...

and, IMO, it worked out for the best for our Pirates.

for the record, Maholm is the better pitcher of the two.

by white angus on Oct 11, 2011 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

No, not really

When Duke was let go, the debate was about whether he was replaceable on the FA market. He was, and they did, more or less. But the Dump Maholm side in this discussion seems to be coming down to “We don’t need no stinking starting pitchers.” There’s a long list of available SPs down below, and I haven’t seen anyone naming names of preferable options. Instead we have Kosstic with his usual Lose Now platform and a bunch of grumpy, anti-Maholm sentiment with no discernible plan for replacing his 175 IP.

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

I am grumpy, thank you

And my plan is to go with a 4 man rotation. Discerned!

by azibuck on Oct 11, 2011 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

and, IMO, it worked out for the best for our Pirates.

Duke got $4.25M guaranteed for 2011, and put up an 80 ERA+. Correia got $8M guaranteed over two years, and put up an 80 ERA+ in the first of those two seasons.

How on earth is that “working out for the best for our Pirates”? We paid basically the same money for basically the same quality of performance, except we had to give the replacement an extra guaranteed year to get him to sign.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

We got an extra 80 crappy IP?

We won’t know until Duke signs his next contract, but it seems at least plausible that we’ll end up getting more IP for less money at comparable performance.

Maybe “best” sounds too positive, but the bottom line is that we would have been a somewhat worse team in 2011 with Duke instead of Correia, unless you speculate that Lincoln would have taken Duke’s lost IP and performed at his SSS 4.03 FIP. Although IIRC Duke was injured while Lincoln was injured, so that may be a false speculation.

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

so you’re saying we missed out on 6 weeks of Burress? Bring back Zach!

by Mr. E on Oct 12, 2011 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

We got an extra 80 crappy IP?

I assigned zero value to those, since Correia was a replacement-level performer this year by Fangraphs WAR (0.0 on the nose), and replacement-level innings are by definition valueless. We didn’t happen to have a replacement-level performer on hand to soak up those innings, but that’s a separate problem/source of criticism, since there’s really no excuse for a team getting caught with its pants down like that.

I also think that Duke would probably have been available to pitch Correia’s innings if he’d been here instead of Correia, since his innings total was limited on the front end by a truly fluke injury (he broke his hand when he was hit by a line drive) and on the back end by ineffectiveness, since Arizona had better SP options available. That’s kind of a side consideration, though.

by Vlad on Oct 12, 2011 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm less sanguine about locating replacement-level IP

I remember 2007 and 2008 all too well. Not to mention spring of 2010. I don’t think that it’s ever fair to assume that a team can have/should have multiple, replacement-level arms available. Obviously, your #6 SP going into the season should be at least that, or you haven’t been trying, but considering that our pre-ST #7 started the season at #5 – which I think is a typical outcome – I don’t blame NH in the least for failing to have an 8th SP under contract who’s at least replacement level (especially since it would not have been an unreasonable premise that one of the MiL SPs could have stepped up and been able to contribute).

by JRoth95 on Oct 12, 2011 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

I remember 2007 and 2008 all too well. Not to mention spring of 2010

It’s not all that hard to locate replacement-level innings if you actually give a shit about building adequate system depth through minor league FAs. If we went solely by Littlefield’s example, we’d think that a whole lot of things were impossible: Finding a starting first baseman who can hit, determining whether or not a given player is injured, gaining talent through the draft, etc.

by Vlad on Oct 12, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

It was worse than that

It would have been our 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 8th (Ohlie, Duke, Olsen, Lincoln) SP options out.

This year our 9th SP option will be…
Mac, Charlie, Karstens, Lincoln, Correia, Locke, Owens, ? Burress ?.
We better bring in a couple insurance arms.

by Mr. E on Oct 13, 2011 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

How does letting Maholm go get you closer to finding a #1/2?

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, if we let Maholm go and replace him with a marginal Correia-ish retread, we’ll be terrible next year, and can use the resulting high first-round pick in the 2013 draft on a starter who might be a #1 for us in 2017/18…

Profit!

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with premise that a #1 or #2 has to come from within. Hypothetically, that $9 million per can be used to tip the scales to attract a legit hitter – say a Aramis Ramirez. We can all agree that scoring more runs makes every pitcher a bit better.

by buccobob_houstontx on Oct 10, 2011 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

In theory, that’s not a bad idea, but in practice, there’s no way Ramirez is signing with us. Particularly not after the bad treatment he received under McClendon.

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

isnt that stretching it a little?

given that there’s v little of the old org that Ramirez saw left now…

by BurgherKing on Oct 10, 2011 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Players generally don’t see it that way though.

by buccobob_houstontx on Oct 10, 2011 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Plus, Aramis has said he wants to play for a contender. Just like roughly 100% of first- and second-tier FAs.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

Just Like Arizona?

Last year the Diamondbacks lost 97 games and ended up winning the division last month. The Rays traded or let go their highest paid players last off season and made the playoffs.

So, who is to say who is a contender and who isn’t? The players? Or the players who think the teams with the most money are?

I am guessing most teams last off season would have loved to go to Boston over Phoenix and Tampa Bay b/c the Red Sox have a ton more money. But who made the playoffs?

by Kodiak32 on Oct 11, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's all well and good

But the evidence is that that’s not how players think. First of all, let’s be blunt: they’re jocks. I’m not saying all ballplayers are dumb, but they’re not being selected for their analytic powers.

More important, they tend towards very simplistic understandings of how baseball works. They still believe in pitcher wins. They emphatically believe in RBI. They believe in veteranosity. And they believe that good teams will stay good, and take a long time to believe that young teams have become good.

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

i believe in RBIs

ive seen em. on TV. they are even on baseball cards.

by white angus on Oct 11, 2011 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Was that the long form or short form card?

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

whatever one has the career stats per year

not the lame “last 3 years” bullshit… ugh.

by white angus on Oct 11, 2011 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Does it have a raised seal?

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

So, who is to say who is a contender and who isn’t? The players?

Yes, and they almost uniformly say that we aren’t one.

I am guessing most teams last off season would have loved to go to Boston over Phoenix and Tampa Bay b/c the Red Sox have a ton more money.

Who looks more like a contender? Us, or a team coming off a season where they won 96 games and took the AL East title?

And what top- or mid-tier free agents did Arizona sign last offseason? Geoff Blum? Sean Burroughs? Zach Duke? Melvin Mora? Xavier Nady? Willie Bloomquist? Henry Blanco? Mike Hampton? Their only FA pickup with any cachet at all was JJ Putz… and they got him by offering him the chance to close, which is pretty much the only exception to the “good players won’t sign with bad teams” rule (as with our signing of Octavio Dotel, for example).

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's another reason to keep players off Twitter

Maybe we can sign 5 top-rate RPs by telling them all that they can close. “Just don’t tell anyone quite yet, Frankie.”

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

That’s pretty much it, yeah. It’s like they don’t understand that quality free agents don’t want to come here.

by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

It’s like they don’t understand that quality free agents don’t want to come here.

I know that’s the conventional wisdom on the part of a lot of people, and it may be quite true in the minds of baseball players, but that should not be the case and is actually quite erroneous.

Free agents should go to where they can get the most money, pure and simple. And the reason for that is good players will usually end up in the post-season in October, regardless of which team they sign with in April.

So, if I’m an agent, I’d advise every one of my clients to sign for the most money.

If you sign with the Pirates (or Orioles or Nationals or whoever) then usually one of two things will happen. 1. If by some miracle the team makes it to the playoffs, then you go to the playoffs (and you’re likely to be seen as a big reason why your team went to the playoffs meaning even bigger bucks next off-season). 2. The team tanks, and at the trading deadline you get dealt to a contender, meaning you make the play-offs.

The only players that you see take less to play with a contender are usually the over-the-hill vets looking for one last chance.

The smart FA’s sign for the biggest $, regardless of the team.

So, I have to disagree. The Pirates don’t miss out on big free agents because guys don’t want to come to Pittsburgh. They miss out on free agents because they are rarely in a position to offer the top dollar for a guy.

by impliedi on Oct 10, 2011 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t think this accurately reflects the dynamics.

First off, whether you think they should or not, many players do sign for less money to play in a place they prefer. It usually takes the form of extensions. Nearly every time a player declines to go on the market, he’s signing for less than what he could get elsewhere. Most big contracts now are extensions, not FA signings. Or it’s a player re-signing with his current team after becoming a FA. That’s what de la Rosa did last winter. He wanted to stay in Colorado, but they were pursuing other pitchers. Once those other guys signed elsewhere, they made an offer to DLR and he signed immediately with them. He didn’t even try to get better deals from the Pirates or Nats, both of which really wanted him.

Plus, less salary doesn’t necessarily mean less money. These guys make a lot in endorsements and the like, and playoff money is pretty substantial now, too. Opportunities are better just about anywhere than in Pgh. And playing with the Pirates is probably perceived as hurting your marketability long-term. Most quality FAs probably figure this won’t be their last contract. (And if the player doesn’t think about that, any competent agent will.) If you’re a pitcher, especially, you have to be worried that your numbers will be hurt by bad defense, combustible bullpens and deadball-era run support. The fact that the Pirates may have been better in 2011 (except for the offense) isn’t going to carry much weight with other players until the Pirates actually start to win. They’ll figure there’s still a lot of risk of regression. Letting Maholm walk will hurt perceptions of the Pirates, too.

But even if the Pirates set out to outbid the Yankees, Red Sox, etc., they just can’t. First of all, their “pain threshold” is not as high. As much as fans refuse to believe this, these are businesses and have budgets, and those budgets have to make sense. The wealthier teams have far more margin for error and when you’re talking about top FAs, the PIrates can’t outbid them.

Texeira’s a good example. The Nats REALLY wanted to sign him. To get an idea of how badly, you just have to look at the crazy deal they gave Werth. But the Yankees just sat back and waited for the Nats to set the market for Tex, and once it was clear the Nats had gone as far as they could, the Yankees swooped in and beat the Nats’ offer. I don’t see the point of the Pirates acting as a stalking horse for Scott Boras.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

I get what you're saying, but....

I don’t really count guys who re-sign with their teams, there is a comfort level there and often as long as a team pays roughly the going-rate for one of its own, then it’s true, the guy will stay.

What I’m talking about are guys who test the FA market and sign with someone other than their former team. And the Pirates, are NEVER going to be in the market for a top-of-the-line free agent from another team looking for a multi-year deal (say, more than 2 years). That shouldn’t even be part of the equation, because it will absolutely never happen. The Pirates will never have that kind of financial flexibility (barring a drastic change in revenue sharing or market size).

So, when it comes to the Pirates, the only players in the equation are guys only looking for a 1 or 2-year deal. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I don’t even begin to count the guys who sign 7-year deals, because they will never be in that market. So while what you are talking about applies to these types of guys, I don’t consider them even part of the equation. Even in the Pirates go on to have 15-straight years of play-offs. The Pirates do not have that kind of money to outbid every team on a multi-year, top-of-the-line free agent.

So, eliminating those guys, the Pirates still CAN sign a top-flight free agent who is only looking for 2-years or less. But, again, it will always come down to how much they are willing to spend.

My point is, it’s all about the money. The play-offs will typically come to the recently signed star free agents, regardless of who they sign with in April.

by impliedi on Oct 10, 2011 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Top-flight FAs don’t look for 1- or 2-yr deals. The guys who look for those sorts of deals are exactly the sort of guys we’ve signed before, and that doesn’t work too well.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

That's not true, at all. MOST top free agents sign short-term deals.

There’s this misconception that teams throw around these long-term deals to other team’s free agents. Doesn’t happen a lot.

Look at last year.

31 guys were designated as Type A free agents.
Do you know how many signed 1-2 year deals? 16.
2 had their options picked up and 2 more retired. So 16 out of the 27 Type A free agents who actually signed, signed 1-2 year deals.
5 more signed 3-year deals (though 2 of those, Jeter and Konerko, re-signed with their old teams),

So, out of 31 designated Type A free agents last year, there were exactly SIX who switched teams and signed long-term (over 3 year) deals.

So, yes, I’ll agree, the Pirates will never be in play for those 6 guys. But, will they sometimes be in play for some of the other Type A’s who sign shorter deals? I believe so. And it won’t be because they are in Pittsburgh, that they may or may not land them. It will be because they did or did not spend the most money.

I guess we see 2 different sides of the coin. For instance, when we look at Jayson Werth. I say that Werth took the largest contract. And Washington had to pay more than anybody else to get him. Not because they are in Washington, but because they have to outbid the other teams.

You’re probably going to say that the Nationals had to pay extra because they are a losing franchise.

Personally, I think most free agents will go where the money is. And Pittsburgh will rarely be in the market where they can outbid everybody else.

by impliedi on Oct 11, 2011 1:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

And there were 40 Type B free agents last year.

Do you know how many switched teams and signed for longer than 2 years? FOUR. All of them signed for 3 years with new teams.

So, out of 71 designated Type A & B free agents, exactly six of them switched teams and signed a deal longer than 3 years.

A total of 47 Type A or B free agents last year signed 1-2 year contracts.

Since 5 Type B’s didn’t sign with anybody, that means that there were 47 Type A and B free agents, out of the 62 that signed, who signed 1-2 year deals.

by impliedi on Oct 11, 2011 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

A lot of those type As were relievers. And some of the type As and many of the type Bs were guys like Brad Hawpe and Kevin Correia. Yeah, sure, the Pirates can sign guys like that, but they’re not my idea of quality FAs. There are very few FAs on the market every year who are real difference makers.

And Washington absolutely did pay way the hell more than anybody else would have for Werth because it was the only way he was signing there. They did it the only way a losing franchise can—they made a foolish offer that was so far beyond market value he couldn’t turn it down.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 6:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

A lot of those type As were relievers.

No, that’s not true either. Only 8 of last year’s Type A’s were relievers. And three of those guys signed 3-year deals with new teams! So, there were only 5 relievers last year that signed 1-2 year deals.

They did it the only way a losing franchise can—they made a foolish offer that was so far beyond market value he couldn’t turn it down.

So, by your definition, then the Mets, Dodgers and Cubs are also forced to vastly overpay?? Of course, the Werth $ were high, but, unless we know exactly what the 2nd highes offer was, it’s hard to say for certainty that the Nats had to pay a “little extra” for being a bad team. I still firmly believe they paid a “little extra” so that they could outbid other teams.

by impliedi on Oct 11, 2011 7:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

The Nats’ bid on Werth was so far beyond market value, and Werth jumped on it so quickly, that nobody else even had a chance to get involved seriously. Werth never really tested the market.

And the Type As didn’t include just relievers. A bunch of them were aging veterans, many with significant injury risks and limited to DHing. Guys like Manny Ramirez, Vladimir Guerrero, Magglio Ordonez, Miguel Tejada, all type As included in your definition of “top free agents.” Or Benji Molina, a “top free agent” who didn’t even get a contract. Derrek Lee only got a year because he was coming off a bad year and thumb surgery, which was why I didn’t want the Bucs to sign him. There was also Mariano Rivera, who’s included in your 2-year deals; I’m sure the Pirates could have signed him if they’d just offered $19.95 more than the Yankees. Then there were 41-year-old Arthur Rhodes, 41-year-old Takashi Saito, and 35-year-old Matt Downs . . . oh, wait, Downs got three years. So did “top free agent” Matt Guerrier.

No, the real top free agents get more than two years.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

So, by your definition, then the Mets, Dodgers and Cubs are also forced to vastly overpay??

Maybe a little, but not as much as us. The Mets, Dodgers, and Cubs play in large markets with numerous endorsement opportunities and a national media presence, and all three have been contenders in the not-too-distant past. Also, NY and LA have large immigrant populations that would be attractive to a Latin player (not sure about Chicago).

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

Chicago

has the highest Latin population outside of the southwestern U.S.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 11, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

Also

as of a few years ago, at least, Chicago had the 2nd largest Polish population in the world, behind only Warsaw. I have always found that amazing.

by Wizard of Woz on Oct 11, 2011 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

And it comes together

When my grandparents moved out of their (once) mostly Polish neighborhood nearly 30 years ago, it was about to complete the flip from Poles to Hispanics.

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

DO NOT WANT

The Pirates should never be in play for type A free agents looking for one- or two-year-deals, under the current CBA — because those guys cost you your first-round draft pick or your second-round pick, if it’s in the top half of the round. And that will never be a good deal for the Pirates.

I was going to say that maybe, when the Pirates are gearing up for a playoff push, they could sign a bunch of type A’s (since you can only lose your draft pick once), especially if they’re getting a first-rounder back from losing a type A free agent. But even then I think losing the pick would be a big deterrent.

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 11, 2011 7:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

I would agree that the Pirates shouldn't make it a habit....

but, if the Pirates think they are close…I’d certainly rather see them sign a Lance Berkman for a year to put them over the top. That kind of signing is certainly worth a draft pick, because, theoretically, if the Pirates are in/near contention, then that draft pick they would be losing would be in the lower half of the 1st round.

So, I’d agree that while the team is rebuilding, those draft picks are more valuable. But a Berkman for a year would certainly be worth giving up, say, the 22nd pick of the 1st round.

by impliedi on Oct 11, 2011 7:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

Berkman’s a perfect example of the sort of FA who wouldn’t sign with the Pirates. He’s said he’ll retire rather than play for a non-contender. And nobody expected this big season from him after years of decline and increasing injury problems. He’s even said he won’t take a two-year deal with a non-contender over a one-year deal with a contender.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions   3 recs

signing a player is always easier said than done.

people were angry that we signed Overbay. which is fine.
but people shouldnt assume that he was first choice.

im sure our FO has talked to many many FA’s out there, and theres been evidence that the Bucs were willing to spend some money for the right players (de la rosa)… those players are not going to come to Pitt unless we are in contention for a couple of seasons. period.

by white angus on Oct 11, 2011 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly.

Which is why it was so disappointing to not see a significant trade last off season and why it will be crushing if we don’t see significant, positive acquisition or two of major league talent this off season.

It took me a while to accept it, but (as Wilbur has been saying for years) no good, known quantity player is going to choose to come here unless they are paid astronimically more than their other opttions. Thus options for decent, established major leaguers for something in the realm of fair market value generally need to be picked up unless there is no room for them on the roster (an issue we haven’t seen in some time).

To be clear, I at this point last year I felt that the Bucs were, unfortunately, a year away from unquestionably needing to make some serious trades to bring in quality big league players. That said, I thought the argument could be made that it was okay to jump last year. Then management came out and said “now is the time” and they did nothing significant. The highlight of which was signing Overbay which is what signaled that nothing big was going to happen on the trade front.

This off season the team needs to either acknowledge that they are "behind schedule’ or make the big trade. I think they need to be aggressive, which means making the move early in the off season.

Good day.

by UncleNate on Oct 10, 2011 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

overbay was certainly not the 1st choice.

people assume this and its completely false. Diaz was signed as a backup, which was fine, but anyone mad that we signed Overbay has to realize that no one else was willing to come here.

by white angus on Oct 11, 2011 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

anyone mad that we signed Overbay has to realize that no one else was willing to come here.

If Overbay was the best player they could get, they shouldn’t have spent the money at all. Just build a big fire on the pitcher’s mound and burn the lot.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Then you'd have to pay to replace the rubber

You can be really impractical sometimes, Vlad.

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

totally

by the way, Pirates were 54-52 with Overbay…

been a few hours since i mentioned that.

by white angus on Oct 11, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

They also had a better record when McCutchen didn’t start than when he did.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

McCutchen for Overbay? Straight up, or do we need to sweeten the pot?

"WHITESNAKE! DOKKEN! NIGHT RANGER!" -- Ronny Cedeño

by Superstar25 on Oct 11, 2011 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think

even Cheap Nutting knows that you need a new rubber every time.

I think even Littlefield knew that.

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Chipper Jones didn't

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 11, 2011 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Then you’d have to pay to replace the rubber

Naw, just use a brick of charred $20s. It’d be like a weekend at Ugueth Urbina’s ranch.

by Vlad on Oct 12, 2011 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

Meh i'm not that torned on him

He’s a inning eater, but that’s pretty much it.

Pittsburgh Sports: Creating sports history and legends since 1887.

by Bradley James McEachern on Oct 10, 2011 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jen guesses he's going...

I’m guessing he stays.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 10, 2011 5:27 PM EDT reply actions  

I hope you're right

I shudder to think of which veteran stiff Huntington will sign to replace him.

by maguro on Oct 10, 2011 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Book it, Dan-o.

.

.

.You can thank me later.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 10, 2011 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Get some good insider info from Neal or Frank during the rumbunter podcast?

Maybe some stuff that didn’t make it to the podcast?

You gotta aim high to fail so big. - Trace Beaulieu

by IAPiratesFan on Oct 11, 2011 4:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

I am not at liberty to say….

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 11, 2011 6:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

Can we at least Aki him and get a decent LHRP?

by Mr. E on Oct 10, 2011 5:31 PM EDT reply actions  

last I heard (late august/early sept) he wasn’t a type B nor close to it.

by Mr. E on Oct 10, 2011 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

oops

not sure why i thought he would be…

by BurgherKing on Oct 10, 2011 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

hard to know what to think of that Maholm "news"

Langosch writes as if the option doesn’t exist and Maholm is now free to test the market. For instance,

If the Pirates were deeply interested in retaining Maholm, I’d have guessed the club would have made a run at him before the 29 other clubs were allowed to contact him

I’m not sure if she forgot about the option or what, but the situation she’s describing is not the reality. It would probably be better to ignore this article altogether.

I agree with most of you in believing that not exercising Maholm’s option would be really stupid, but his health is the real wild-card in that situation. I’ll probably get upset if they don’t bring him back, but it’s worth remembering that we don’t know what the medicals look like at this point.

by epoc on Oct 10, 2011 6:22 PM EDT reply actions  

Maholm himself said the meds were good

Good point about Langosch, though. It wasn’t clear that she realized he has an option.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Either that...

or it’s been stated behind closed doors that they won’t exercise the option. I will say that if they don’t exercise Maholm’s option, there’s pretty much no chance they’d exercise Doumit’s.

by Thunder on Oct 10, 2011 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think this is more likely than the idea that she doesn’t know about it.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 10, 2011 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can’t possibly believe that she doesn’t know about it considering that even sports talk shows knew about it in the middle of the season.

by Schide on Oct 10, 2011 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

With Doumit, there were articles at the end of the season that made it clear he knows his option won’t be exercised. I haven’t seen anything like that with Maholm, so I guess I’m still hoping they might exercise his.

I also doubt Langosch has any kind of insider info on this. If she did, I don’t see why she wouldn’t just say that it’s not expected to be exercised. She said they haven’t discussed an extension. Why would the option be a big secret?

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

It shouldn't be.

Then again…a minor leaguer tweeting that a teammate has been promoted shouldn’t be a problem either.

by Thunder on Oct 10, 2011 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Actually, it should. It’s not the least bit unusual, in just about any business, to want to withhold news until it’s official. In the Pirates’ case, they’ve had a number of situations where they’ve called players to Pgh not knowing for sure whether, or when, they’d be added to the active roster. They don’t want reports out that a guy has been promoted if it might not happen, especially since that means somebody else has to go.

It’s not exactly asking a lot of a player to tell him not to tweet something like that a few hours before it’s official. Nearly any adult should be able to comply with directions like that. And there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with expecting them to.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah. A guy finding out that he’s being promoted through back channels isn’t the big deal in and of itself – it’s the knowledge in the locker room that to make space for the guy, someone else is getting a visit from the Turk. If you’re going to cut someone, you really don’t want him hearing from a third party before you have a chance to tell him yourself, man-to-man.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

in sanchez' specific case

one also needs to remember his tweeting about umpiring quality, something tht undoubtedly made his employers quicker on the trigger…

by BurgherKing on Oct 11, 2011 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, according to Dejan the Pirates were being “thin-skinned” (even though Sanchez’ tweet said nothing about the team) because they didn’t like their top catching prospect getting himself suspended. Imagine that.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Speaking of meds

Just curious. If you were the Indians, would you pick up Grady Sizemore’s $9 million dollar option? This seems like a tougher decision than Maholm because of the injury situation but the upside seems to be much higher.

I wonder if Sizemore can play first base?

by BrianO' on Oct 11, 2011 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

If you were the Indians, would you pick up Grady Sizemore’s $9 million dollar option? This seems like a tougher decision than Maholm because of the injury situation but the upside seems to be much higher.

Their lack of OF depth is also a contributing factor.

I’m honestly not sure. A lot of it hinges on the medical reports.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think someone like Crisp could be had cheaper...

Reoccuring knee injuries on a CF… no thanks.

I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson

by Cheap Beer on Oct 11, 2011 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

give Grady a 1B mitt...

laporta isnt setting the world on fire. Hafner is eventually on his way out too.
1B/DH

by white angus on Oct 11, 2011 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

I seem to remember a NH (radio) show in August where he said that exercising Paul’s option was an “easy decision” with the season he was having. I can’t imagine that his injury, that didn’t require surgery, would change NH’s mind this much that a decision to decline his option has already been made.

Does anyone else remember NH saying this on his weekly Sunday radio show?

by Danatural08 on Oct 10, 2011 6:43 PM EDT reply actions  

Not me, but I hope your memory is good.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

If we don't

exercise his option, are we allowed to offer arb to get (assuming it’s in the new CBA) a draft pick? If so, do we do it? Does Maholm accept?

I’m still iffy on this area of baseball.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 8:11 PM EDT reply actions  

They can decline the option and offer arb

But they won’t get a draft pick since Maholm didn’t make the Type B cutoff.

by maguro on Oct 10, 2011 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

we are allowed to offer arb

but maholm isnt type B (i messed this up earlier in the thread :P). If he was, we certainly should have offered arb, if we weren’t going to keep him.

by BurgherKing on Oct 10, 2011 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

What

the hell, I swear he was a safe B all year. Ugh.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

If wins count, it’s not surprising.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 10, 2011 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Let's

both agree we aren’t crazy, and he was a solid type B for most of the year… yep.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 11, 2011 4:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

Eek. Not Close at all. On July 5, he was farther away than the is now. Same with the July 20 estimate.

by Wizard of Woz on Oct 11, 2011 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

Related, but seperate question

Is the Type A/B status locked in stone for this off-season, or can the new CBA come and throw all of this for a loop?

Iffy on this too…

I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson

by Cheap Beer on Oct 11, 2011 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

It probably could

but I imagine that it is in everyone’s best interest to keep most thing the same for this off-season. Teams have already had to make decisions on what they assume will be the playing field. I would think if there are any major changes, they would start next off season, to give teams a chance to know the field they are playing on.
Unless, of course, the changes will greatly benefit the Yanks and Sox, then they may be immediate, or even retro -active.

by Wizard of Woz on Oct 11, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'd have to think that Jones is pretty much a lock to get tendered, as well

Unless:
1. The Pirates think that Jones will ask for absurd money in arb strictly based on the HRs (which we know can be a goldmine in arbitration).

AND

2. The Pirates have a clear-cut plan for 1B. (Which is probably not the case, unless they’ve already had some behind-closed-doors discussions with Derrek Lee, or somebody like him.)

Getting Jones back at 750k or 800k wouldn’t be a bad thing, but if it’s going to take over 1M to get him back, then I’m not so sure. If it’s going to be more like 2M, then I’m thinking it’s bye-bye Jones.

Any guess as to what Jones would ask for in arb (and what the Pirates would likely counter with?)

by impliedi on Oct 10, 2011 9:48 PM EDT reply actions  

And I should clarify #2....

by “clear-cut plan”, I mean that they’ve already had discussions (whether legal or not!!) with a first baseman about signing with them and it’s basically a done deal. I don’t mean this, as a clear-cut plan: “well, we’re going to go into the off-season and hope to get a 1st baseman.”

by impliedi on Oct 10, 2011 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed

It’s hard to imagine a plausible arb award for Jones that wouldn’t be worthwhile for a team with no alternative of any kind.

I don’t even like going into 2012 with Jones as Plan A; the thought of someone inferior as Plan A is horrifying.

It is of course always possible that they’ll find someone better cheaper. It’s also possible that Sabathia is planning to opt out so that he can sign with us for a below-market rate.

by JRoth95 on Oct 10, 2011 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agree!

Even though I like Jones, I also don’t want to see the Pirates looking to him as their Plan A.

But, I think he could come back at a reasonable price and be a very solid back-up at 1B and RF and, obviously could fill-in for extended periods of time, when the obligatory injury to someone else occurs.

Again, if the Pirates have already had secret negotiations with some other player and it’s pretty much just needing the official signatures, then I don’t have a problem letting him go.

I know the amazing John Perrotto has already proclaimed that only the 4 pitchers are going to get tendered and the others will not. I’d agree (as I mentioned above), that offering arb to the middle relievers (like Resop or Veras) is just silly because you can sign a bunch of similar vets for 500K, so why go into arbitration with these guys and have to pay more.

But Jones is another case. And my concern with non-tendering him and then trying to sign him to a lower contract (he’s already making the league minimum, so I’m not sure how you go any lower than that!!!) is that suddenly you are competing with other teams, instead of just with yourself. There’s always that possibility that some crazy team will swoop in with a relatively large contract and then the Pirates are left with nothing.

And I’m not quite sure on B Wood. The numbers he could use in an arbitration hearing are pretty horrific. So he doesn’t have much to stand on. But, I wouldn’t mind seeing him come back for a little over the league minimum (500-550k). He’s a decent back-up at multiple positions. You give him another year to see if the bat starts clicking. If not, then you non-tender him next year.

by impliedi on Oct 10, 2011 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

So my list would be....

LOCKS: Hanrahan, Morton, Karstens
ALMOST LOCKS: Meek, Jones
DECENT POSSIBILITY, IF IT’S A VERY SMALL RAISE: Wood
UNLIKELY POSSIBILITY, BUT STILL A SLIVER OF A CHANCE: Peace, Ohlendorf
NO WAY, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS: Grilli, Veras, Resop

by impliedi on Oct 10, 2011 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Mostly agree

Is Grilli really due for a raise? That seems unlikely. But what do I know?

Otherwise, yeah. I think Ohlie’s gone, but I wouldn’t be stunned if they keep him, on the premise that he’s a known quantity, and surely won’t get a raise. Lord knows he’s preferable to a Burres.

by JRoth95 on Oct 10, 2011 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Freudian slip on my part to say that "Peace" is an unlikely possibility??

Obviously it’s Pearce.

Yeah, it looks like Grilli can still be offered arbitration.

Even though he’s 34 years-old and has been traded twice, was selected in the Rule 5 draft once, purchased once, been released by four different organizations, and has made appearances in NINE different major league seasons, he STILL has less than the required 6 years of service time to no longer be eligible for arbitration.

by impliedi on Oct 10, 2011 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Is Grilli really due for a raise?

He’s got an extra year of service time, and didn’t play badly last year, so yeah, probably.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

I would like them to attempt to bring back one of the Veras/Resop/Grilli crew

Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott

by C Shint on Oct 11, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

I’d prefer Resop/Grilli… the innings Veras pitched this year ups his injury/bust risk next year imo…

I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson

by Cheap Beer on Oct 11, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

Trying to think this through . . .

Seven bullpen spots minus the closer and at least one (preferably two, but they need to plan for one in case they can’t find anybody else) lefty. That leaves five spots for righties. You need depth because somebody is going to suck, somebody is going to get hurt, etc. Of course, you also have to have guys you can send to AAA. I think they probably need to be 8 deep. That’d come out of (* means can’t be sent to AAA, + means arb-eligible):

Veras*+
Grilli*+
Resop*+
Leroux*
Meek+
D.McCutchen
Hughes
Crotta?
Ascanio?
One or two Veras-types on minor league deals
Random Tim Wood/reclamation type(s)

I think they need to keep two out of Resop, Veras and Grilli. I don’t think they can keep more than two, because then there’d be no room for Meek, McCutchen and Leroux. I think they need at least two, though, because I don’t trust Leroux much and Meek is a big question mark. If they can add somebody like Veras cheaply, great, but they probably won’t know in time to make non-tender decisions. At that point, or if they find a second lefty, McCutchen could be sent down.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I should bookmark this

And just link it every time we discuss RPs between now and mid-January.

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Im not overly concerned either way

But id rather let him go and use the money on the draft and internationally.

People are getting awful worked up about approximately 2 WAR in a dead season.

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Oct 10, 2011 11:47 PM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Well, most of the moves we’re going to be talking about this offseason will pertain more or less exclusively to this “dead season.” Personally, I’m not sure why you even follow the Pirates in months other than June and July.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 10, 2011 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Gotta agree with Charlie.

Kosstic, I don’t think people are getting awfully worked up. (Though I’m trying to figure out who this 2 WAR is that you’re talking about!!! Doumit maybe??)

And I don’t think that re-signing or not re-signing Maholm will have the slightest impact on draft or international signings.

Really, it comes down to whether or not re-signing a guy like Maholm or (Doumit) is worth it for the money. I’d imagine that if these guys aren’t re-signed, they will spend most of that money on other free agents (or arbitration raises). So the money is going to be spent, one way or another, whether it’s a “dead” season or not.

Personally, the one thing that I took from the Pirates’ mid-season success this year is that ANY TEAM, given the right circumstances/injury situation/good pitching or hitting or defense or some combination of those, can compete for a period of time. The hurdle (pun intended) the Pirates face is finding out what does it take to take to go from competing for 6 weeks to competing for most of a season. I don’t believe the Pirates will ever just punt on a season, so it’s important to try to utilize the resources the best you can. There is always a possibility Every season, every team has a chance. Even if it’s a slight chance.

And I don’t want people to say that I’m saying that just because they competed in 2011, that they will improve upon that in 2012. My point is that any team can make a run in any season. The Pirates have to find a way to make a much longer run than they did this year.

Personally, I think the way they should do that is to invest almost all of their resources into their pitching staff. Try to make the pitching staff into a solid strength. One that can overcome a lack of offense. And the reason I say that is that the offense (especially if Pedro continues to struggle) is more than one or two pieces away from being a strength. And it would cost too much to try and swing the offense from a negative to a strength. But, the pitching is a different story. It was a strength and then ran out of gas. It would be much easier to throw a few more good arms in there and build off of the staff, then to leave the rotation alone and try to go out and buy offense (at this point in the Pirates’ development.)

by impliedi on Oct 11, 2011 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

2 WAR

Maholm has been at about 2 WAR on Fangraphs for the last couple of years — I assume that’s what Kosstic’s talking about.

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 11, 2011 7:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Oct 11, 2011 10:02 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

How can you not?

The major league club exceeded expectations this year by a pretty significant margin, unless you had unrealistic expectations. Even though the season was dead from a playoff prospective, it was very successful with multiple break outs and a 15 game improvement. Unlike almost everyone else on this site, I couldnt be happier with how things went this year.

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Oct 11, 2011 10:01 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Not about WAR

It’s more about spending $9 Mil for 200 innings of somewhat competent ML pitching. This keeps weight off the system, the Pirates need less stopgaps in the rotation, pitchers in the minors don’t need to be bumped up levels early, it’s a chain reaction type of thing. Keeping Maholm next year at a reasonable price could pay unseen dividends in future years. It also helps with the perception and reputation of the organization. Say what you will about the Lee and Ludwick trades, they had to be made to show that the Pirates would step up and attempt to improve the team when it was warranted. This Maholm option is much the same type of deal. 9 mil is not an outrageous salary for a pitcher of Maholm’s ilk, if they are unwilling to pay the going rate, it reinforces players preconceived notions about playing for the Pirates.

by superope on Oct 11, 2011 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

Very well said

Especially the point about knock-on effects. Last week I wrote about how the cascade effect from the stupid, stupid failure to protect Joe Randa in the ’97 expansion draft cost us over 20 wins between ’98 and ’06, including almost certainly breaking the Streak in ’99 (when we were already a Pythag .500 team with sub-Randa production at 3B).

MLB doesn’t actually let you skip years. You have to play 162 every season, even if you know going in that you can’t win 90.

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

Its about finding undervalued assets and acquiring them while selling overvalued assets.

At best Maholm at that price is evenly valued.

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Oct 11, 2011 10:03 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

At best Maholm at that price is evenly valued.

Yes. And at an even value, he’s very likely a better value than what we’d spend the money on instead. I’d rather spend $9M for 2 wins from Maholm than $5M for zero wins from this year’s Correia.

We can’t just drop the difference into amateur talent acquisition, either (since I know that’s likely to be your retort). We’re pretty near the point of diminishing returns on that already.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

No maholm fan

While I’m not inspired by Maholm, as stated above, $9mm is pretty much market rate for a pitcher like him. With that in mind, he holds value. One thing I didn’t see above: couldn’t we exercise the option and then flip him in the offseason?

To me, this is the most reasonable course of action. The 2012 Bucs don’t need a $9mm pitcher, but they also can’t let 2 WAR walk out the door for nothing.

by Fat Jimmy on Oct 11, 2011 11:18 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

The 2012 Bucs don’t need a $9mm pitcher…

If anything, I think we need two or three of them.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

couldn’t we exercise the option and then flip him in the offseason?

Yeah, that’d be part of the point, IMO. If we get lucky and Owens or Locke steps it up, it’d make sense to move Maholm to make room. If he pitches well it should be possible. If he doesn’t, well, everybody has to take risks. Although Maholm seems pretty low-risk to me, as pitchers go.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, that wasn’t clear. I was thinking more in terms of flipping him at the deadline. But for the right deal I’d trade anybody and, as far as I know, there’d be no reason he couldn’t be dealt in the off-season.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah

Fat Jimmy makes a good point. Even if the Bucs didnt really want him, it’s pretty much a lock that someone will lose a starter before the season gets into full swing. They could do much much worse than Maholm at that point. So, we should be able to get at least a reasonable prospect out of it, if such a scenario happened.

by BurgherKing on Oct 11, 2011 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

I would be for bringing back Maholm if this was the case.

Because then we could save money on his salary for the final 2+ months of the season and get prospects in return, where right now we get nothing (other than the saved money of course).

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Oct 11, 2011 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Very well said superope.

Put on your dancin' shoes.

by PensFan024 on Oct 11, 2011 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

People are getting awful worked up about approximately 2 WAR in a dead season.

Well, we’re fans. If we’re going to spend time watching the games or money going to the games, we’d rather see the team win those games than lose them, even if we’re a near lock to miss the postseason. That’s the nice thing about baseball – even truly crappy teams get to win a game or two a week, on average.

I would’ve expected a Pirates fan to understand that by now.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

If we were limited to discussing 5+ WAR players, this would be Death Valley.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Maholm

The fact that it is a one year commitment is the only thing that makes picking up Maholm’s option a reasonable thing to do. Back problems, shoulder problems, decreasing fastball velo, and the general inconsistantcy of pitchers with mediocre stuff are plenty of reasons to turn away from him.

I would place more value in Morton, Karstens, and McDonald. I would place equal value in Lincoln and Correia. However, I also think we need about 7-8 starting pitcher options at the start of spring training, so there is a need for a guy like Maholm. But maybe we should be looking at D. McCutchen or Tony Watson instead.

If given the choice between re-signing Doumit and Lee, and letting Maholm walk, I think I’d let Maholm walk. I’d prefer they do both, but I’d rather they upgrade the offense.

by ballparkfranks on Oct 11, 2011 11:49 AM EDT reply actions  

If we don't tender Maholm, who replaces him similar production but less money?

Starting pitcher free agents:

Erik Bedard (33)
Mark Buehrle (33)
Chris Capuano (33)
Bruce Chen (35)
Bartolo Colon (39)
Aaron Cook (33) – $11MM mutual option with a $500K buyout
Kyle Davies (28)
Doug Davis (36)
Ryan Dempster (35) – $14MM player option, no buyout
Zach Duke (29) – $5.5MM club option with a $750K buyout
Jeff Francis (30)
Armando Galarraga (30)
Freddy Garcia (36)
Jon Garland (32)
Aaron Harang (34) – $5MM mutual option with a $500K buyout
Rich Harden (30)
Livan Hernandez (37)
Hisashi Iwakuma (31)
Edwin Jackson (28)
Kenshin Kawakami (37)
Scott Kazmir (28) – $13.5MM club option with a $2.5MM buyout
Hiroki Kuroda (37)
Rodrigo Lopez (36)
Paul Maholm (30) – $9.75MM club option with a $750K buyout
Jason Marquis (33)
Kevin Millwood (37)
Sergio Mitre (31)
Roy Oswalt (34) – $16MM mutual option with a $2MM buyout
Brad Penny (34)
Oliver Perez (30)
Joel Pineiro (33)
C.C. Sabathia (31) – may opt out of remaining four years, $92MM
Javier Vazquez (35)
Tsuyoshi Wada (31)
Adam Wainwright (30) – $10MM vesting option for ’12, $12MM for ’13
Tim Wakefield (45)
Chien-Ming Wang (32)
Brandon Webb (33)
Dontrelle Willis (30)
C.J. Wilson (31)
Chris Young (33)

I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson

by Cheap Beer on Oct 11, 2011 12:08 PM EDT reply actions  

If we don’t tender Maholm, who replaces him similar production but less money?

Maybe Garland, if he comes back strong from his torn rotator cuff? Or we could try to gamble on a rebound from Pineiro or Penny or Cook or Marquis?

It’s not a very promising list.

I could almost sign off on Pineiro, if we weren’t going to spend yet another goddamn year screwing around with Pedro at third, instead of a real third baseman.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not promising at all

Assuming Maholm’s shoulder is fine, then any such replacement acquisition comes with many questions. It would be an absolute gamble, and that hasn’t worked out all that well for the bucs.

Looking at Maholm as an individual player is fine, but you have to look at the list of possible replacements to gauge if the 9mil+ is proper money to spend for the production. You could make a point that it is not, but they’re shaky… at least you know what you’ll get out of Maholm.

Hoping they can decline the 9+ and offer something like a 2 year $15 mil contract… optimal imo.

I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson

by Cheap Beer on Oct 11, 2011 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hoping they can decline the 9+ and offer something like a 2 year $15 mil contract

IMO, there is NO way he would consider that contract. Like him or not, I think he is more in line for a 3/27 or so deal. taking 2/15 would leave a lot on the table.

by Wizard of Woz on Oct 11, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

It’s not a very promising list.

“Depends on your point of view.”

— Dr. James Andrews

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

by WTM on Oct 11, 2011 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

You are en fuego, Señor.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 11, 2011 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Francis isn’t a bad pitcher, but as a BIP-heavy guy with groundball tendencies, he isn’t a great fit for our current infield defense.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

I wouldn't be averse to taking a ~$2M flyer on Harden.

Capuano would be a good fit, too (fairly high K rate, flyball pitcher), but he’d be a difficult get, I’d imagine.

Hard work always beats talent if talent doesn't work hard.

ARE YOU F#$%ING KIDDING ME!!!! ADAMS!!! JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST YOU HAD 24 SQUARE FEET AND YOU MISSED IT ALL!! - OlenWhitaker

Certified Grabbo Lover, though only by accident.

Total Internet Points: 9001

by wg1of5 on Oct 11, 2011 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Be fair

wg1of5 is Mrs. Harden. Mama needs a new pair of shoes!

by JRoth95 on Oct 11, 2011 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, if it's all the same, I'd much rather just get Sabathia and Wilson.

Since we’re trying to stay in the realm of reality, though, I’m only going to suggest guys we might actually have a snowball’s chance in hell of signing. If it’s not someone like Harden, it’ll just be another Correia. Given the choice between the two of those, I’ll take the high-risk, high-upside guy every time.

(Of course, the best course of action would be to exercise Maholm’s option, but this whole discussion is predicated upon the assumption that we won’t.)

Hard work always beats talent if talent doesn't work hard.

ARE YOU F#$%ING KIDDING ME!!!! ADAMS!!! JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST YOU HAD 24 SQUARE FEET AND YOU MISSED IT ALL!! - OlenWhitaker

Certified Grabbo Lover, though only by accident.

Total Internet Points: 9001

by wg1of5 on Oct 11, 2011 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

give Kazmire a NRI

by Mr. E on Oct 12, 2011 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Any shot at CJ Wilson?

I’m hearing he’s probably going to command a 100 million dollar contract, but I figured he was more in the neighborhood of what Jorge De La Rosa got last year, a bit higher.

Sergio Mitre’s a guy I could see Huntington taking a cheap flyer on. He was disastrous in NY this season, but fared well in short time in the NL Central.

I’m guessing Edwin Jackson will have too many viable suitors to play for the Pirates unless we overpay, which I wouldn’t do for him.

Harang’s a decent name after the season he had, but I suspect SDP will pick up that 5 million dollar option he has.

This one you can take to the mutha f’ing bank though:

Scott Kazmir will be in the Pirates organization in 2012.

by jlk9697 on Oct 11, 2011 4:25 PM EDT reply actions  

Any shot at CJ Wilson?

The Yankees are indicating that he’s their primary FA target for this offseason. If that’s true, it doesn’t exactly improve our chances.

Sergio Mitre’s a guy I could see Huntington taking a cheap flyer on. He was disastrous in NY this season, but fared well in short time in the NL Central.

Mitre would be decent filler, though he’s more of a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency guy than a primary rotation option.

by Vlad on Oct 11, 2011 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

It can’t hurt to throw 10m/year at Jackson

by Mr. E on Oct 12, 2011 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

It couldn’t, but it won’t do us much good when he gets $12-13M per from someone else.

by Vlad on Oct 12, 2011 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Can we discuss Josh Harrison?
Small
middle of the pack ISO
Insetcommodoreperry_small
Guess the Score Game 45: Cubs @ Pirates
Small
I can't be the only Pirates fan that wants Huntington to trade for Kevin Youklis.
Small
Analyzing why Huntington's drafts have left us weak in hitting.
Insetcommodoreperry_small
Guess the Score Game 44: Mets @ Pirates
Small
Take a page out of Maddens book.
Small
My thoughts from the Tuesday Night Mets Game
Bloody_mary_small
Bucs / Mets o'flow.
Pirates_small
Cole v. Bauer v. Bundy

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Charlie_small Charlie Wilmoth

Editors

18470r_small Vlad

Davidtodd_small David Todd

Authors

Img_1692_small WTM

Mark_profile_pic_small MarkInDallas