Huntington: Free-Agent Market Stinks, And Paul Maholm's Option Isn't Expensive, But We Still Won't Pay It
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 13, 2011 12:49 AM EDT
Email
PrintNeal Huntington in Rob Biertempfel's new article on the Paul Maholm situation:
"Does it make sense for us to bring him back for $9.75 million? Probably not," Huntington said. "If Paul ends up getting more money than we're willing to pay, that's great for him."
The Pirates could bring back Maholm with a new contract. However, Maholm's agent, Bo McKinnis, has suspended talks with the club ...
"We'll explore the free-agent market, the trade market and compare it to what we have internally," Huntington said. "This will be a very, very weak free-agent market."
Allow me to translate. Maholm could well get more money in free agency than the Pirates are willing to give him, which essentially means it's pretty likely that the $9 million option is a good deal. And it's a really poor free-agent market, so we aren't going to be able to replace him. But, uh, nonetheless, we don't really feel like paying the $9 million, even though our payroll is at basement levels.
* * *
Now, it's worth pointing out yet again that the entire offseason is ahead of us, things happen, and it could be that in a few months this whole debate will look really silly, for one reason or another. But the Pirates' reasoning completely baffles me here. Huntington is essentially saying that he knows Maholm's option isn't that expensive and that the Pirates are unlikely to be able to replace him in the free-agent market, and he still won't pick up the option. Maholm fills an obvious position of need, and he fills it pretty well. The Pirates have very few payroll commitments, so they do, or should, have money to spend.
So what gives? It's way too early to accuse the Pirates of punting the 2012 season to save money, but I am now pretty concerned that they're going to do that. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting the Pirates should jack their payroll up to $80 million in 2012 or anything like that, only that they spend a modest amount of money to ensure that their team isn't totally incompetent. The Maholm option would have been an easy way to begin to do that.
401 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's too early to accuse the front office of punting.
But I expect that by Christmas time, the long snapper will be on the field, and we’ll be getting into punt formation.
Is there something wrong with Maholm that I don't know about?
Is he injured or something? It’s an affordable option for a consistently solid pitcher. I’m just struggling to find a way to justify this.
And if anybody says, “lost season” and “better draft pick” in the same post, I will internet slap them.
"WHITESNAKE! DOKKEN! NIGHT RANGER!" -- Ronny Cedeño
Sigh.....
I have defended Huntington in the past.
But this makes no sense. Even if there was a strong fee agent market this year, it makes no difference. NO ONE WANTS TO COME HERE. We have to overpay for marginal players. Our pitching is going to be worse and since Doumit and Snyder are going to be gone, catching will be worse too. This looks like a big step back to 100+ losses next season.
Our losing streak may get to buy a beer at the game after all. By the time any of our pitching prospects are ready to go, our “core” hitting will be long gone. No hope at all….
Too bad there hasn't always been a DH...then we never would have to hear about this Ruth guy...
haha
“By the time any of our pitching prospects are ready to go, our "core" hitting will be long gone. No hope at all….”
Core hitting huh?
They're pretty good at hitting apple cores.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Hence...
The " "
Too bad there hasn't always been a DH...then we never would have to hear about this Ruth guy...
by Brad Spontak on Oct 14, 2011 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I wanted to think that maybe he thinks they can re-sign Maholm at a better price than the option. But then NH outright states that he knows this will be a weak market. Which will only drive up Maholm’s price.
I just can’t figure this one out. The only explanations that make any sense to me are SALE THE TEAM type of explanations. :\
This is starting to translate as, “We can’t compete in Pittsburgh.”
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
This is the most important post
You’re exactly right, WTM. That’s the fear I have in all of this. If the response to a successful 2011 gate is to let a reasonably priced value walk, it does not portend well to getting our young talent to stay. Let’s keep our fingers crossed and hope something else is at play: Maholm is more injured than he’s letting on, this is just about Huntington’s obsession with price/WAR, or something else besides “we can’t compete here.”
by Fat Jimmy on Oct 13, 2011 7:46 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
it does not portend well to getting our young talent to stay
Exactly my thought. The growing pattern with these guys—and I really think this is an issue with Coonelly and NH, not with Nutting—is that they insist that every contract be a bargain. McCutchen isn’t going to sign for a bargain price. He’s got a three year track record now that shows he’s a very low risk for both performance and injury. Plus, every agent in the business is probably terrified of having a client sign a Longoria-type deal. If they truly won’t pay a market value for anybody, McCutchen isn’t staying, nobody any good is staying, and nobody worth having is going to be acquired.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
It is like they are obsessed with a sale
and not with the goods that are on sale. There’s a reason that bananas are $.10 a pound this week. Sometimes you have to skip the “Manager’s Special” and just buy some normal pork chops. I’m not looking for steak here, but shit, getting old ham hocks and dried peas and telling me that its a dinner for a king is getting old.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Precisely...
and I mimmicked these sentiments in my lengthy post below that, even if nobody else reads, let me vent and feel better.
At some point the Bucs need to turn this perception around. I believe the Tigers did this with a well above-market deal for Pudge. I thought that was stupid. Now I think the Pirates need to do something similar.
All anybody here wants is for the Pirates to spend intelligently in furtherance of winning. That does not mean being cheap. To the contrary, it means getting value for your money.
Good day.
The only hope is this is a Steeler-esque move
in that they let their average or marginal FAs walk and re-sign the key guys like Ben and Polamalu. Maybe they just really believe in Locke and Owens. Of course, that better work out or we’re in trouble.
The leash gets shorter every day, Neil.
by Vlad on Oct 13, 2011 7:32 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Neil = Neal
Haven’t had my coffee yet.
by Vlad on Oct 13, 2011 7:36 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
This has to be the product of an organizational decision
One that included Nutting. I can understand the Pirates refusing to give Maholm a long term contract. I can’t grasp refusing to pick up his option.
If the Pirates do not want to give Maholm a reasonable contract, someone will, especially since the FA market sucks, according to Huntington. So, the Pirates have publicly committed themselves to signing an pitcher inferior to Maholm, going with a prospect or, perhaps, making a trade.
This move — the Maholm option refusal — only makes sense if one believes the team refuses to spend money to be mediocre. It’s akin to folding on a mediocre hand when one knows that that hand will not win the pot.
There is, in the end, no bluffing in baseball. Everyone shows their cards when they take the field.
s.zielinski
Rethinking Pirate earnings
Is it possible that the upswing in attendance didn’t yield the revenue or profitability figures that various people have projected?
Did financial results this year fall well below what they would have expected for so many fans, and now they’re rethinking their spending strategy?
by Fat Jimmy on Oct 13, 2011 8:11 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
One that included Nutting.
I disagree. He may have been informed, probably was even, but I doubt he’s doing more than accepting the advice of his baseball people. Based on what I’ve seen and heard, I think people wildly overestimate Nutting’s involvement with day-to-day affairs. Coonelly runs this team, which is how it’s supposed to work when you have a CEO. I think this whole thing is an issue with how Coonelly and NH view valuation.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I didn't mean to imply that Nutting ordered his people to implement this strategy
Apart from that, I mostly agree that “…this whole thing is an issue with how Coonelly and NH view valuation.” My way of expressing that point:
This move — the Maholm option refusal — only makes sense if one believes the team refuses to spend money to be mediocre. It’s akin to folding on a mediocre hand when one knows that that hand will not win the pot.
s.zielinski
I don’t understand. What leash are you talking about? The Pirates just gave him a three-year extension. Are you talking about the leash that YOU personally have given Huntington?
by dirkcalloway on Oct 13, 2011 9:50 AM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Why don’t people look at the whole picure here. Maholm is 53-73 with a 4.36 ERA since 2005. He ended the season on the 60 day DL with a strained left (pitching side) shoulder. I think waiting out to see if there is other interest out there is smart. If other clubs are afraid to take a chance on him after an injury year maybe we can rework his contract to keep him. If not, so be it. Move on to your prospects. It’s time to see just what we have with Lincoln, and I’d give Locke a shot in the spring too.
Maholm is 53-73
Pitcher wins mean nothing – you might as well offer up his blood type as evidence.
Move on to your prospects.
None of them are ready to assume a role in the rotation, with the exception of Lincoln, who should be deployed as a replacement for the inadequate Correia rather than Maholm. The others might be by midseason, or by 2013… which is why the ability to have a solid mid-rotation starter on a market-value one-year commitment made so much sense.
Not to mention that Morton’s surgical recovery may go longer than expected, or that Karstens may turn back into a pumpkin. The rotation is in a very fragile state, and we just took out the main support beam.
The one year committment is key here
We have prospects coming, During the course of the next year we will have opportunity to find out what we really have with those guys. Having a league average pitcher for market price seems like a great idea. If the rotation gets too crowded, Maholm could be moved. I don’t see ANY sense in this.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 8:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Yep
This is why I didn’t want Maholm extended for multiple years. Exercising the option is just a matter of spending payroll that they can easily afford and for which they’re extremely unlikely to find a better use next year. It doesn’t hamper the long-term prospects the way an ill-advised long-term deal might. And that’s why it borders on a decision to punt 2012 for purely financial reasons.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Pitcher wins may mean nothing
But a 4.36 ERA isn’t quite as easy to gloss over. The bottom line is, this is a soft-tossing lefty who goes through phases where his sinker is biting and he gets people swinging and missing. Then overnight he’ll lapse into periods where people lay off the his off-speed stuff and tag his 90-mph fastball.
He has some value in that he’s been fairly durable throughout his career, but a lot of his perceived value (at least to us) is that he’s been among the best of a very mediocre crop of Pirate pitchers. None of which makes him someone who can’t be replaced.
In my mind, he’s just never passed the eye test. When he’s on, it’s possible he can win. But even when the Pirates were playing well early in the season, when I’d see Maholm’s name in the lineup I’d assume we’d have to score a bunch of runs that night to win.
If Maholm were back in spring training next year competing for a job, it wouldn’t bother me. But if he’s not, there are plenty of guys on the scrap heap who’d fill me with just as much confidence as he does. And hopefully we can use the difference in cost to lock up what little young talent we actually have.
But a 4.36 ERA isn’t quite as easy to gloss over.
It doesn’t need to be glossed over. It’s a decent performance, and it’s better once you account for defensive quality.
In my mind, he’s just never passed the eye test.
I’m sure that this is true – but the “eye test” isn’t worth anything on the field, in terms of runs.
Saying that W/L record has no meaning is untrue.
"Prince Fielder is too fat even for the Oakland A’s" - Billy Beane
Saying that W/L record has no meaning is untrue.
This is correct in the purely tautological sense. Pitcher wins mean that the pitcher was credited with a win by the scorekeeper for that game. It doesn’t really tell you whether or not he pitched well, though.
I'd say it probably does
in a cumulative sense. Perhaps not wins directly, but great and good pitchers tend to have good career W/L% and bad pitchers vice versa. It’s not a very good metric, but it’s still a metric. If all you knew about two pitchers was that they had career records of 250-150 and 150-250, I’d say most people would want the first guy in their rotation.
Well, would you take the guy with the 267-204 record for a very shiny .5669 winning percentage, or the guy with the 324-292 record for the much less good .526 winning percentage
Pitcher A is Jamie Moyer
Pitcher B is obviously Nolan Ryan
Other pitchers with better career winning percentages than Nolan Ryan- Matt Morris, (.568 winning %) , Bartolo Colon (.588) Bob Walk and Steve Blass, Brad Penny, Randy Wolf, Barry Zito, Kevin Milwood, and 500+ other names some laughable some not. The worst player I named had a .539 winning % (Zito if you were wondering) to Ryan’s .526
"you might as well offer up his blood type as evidence."
You know, AB- is really undervalued in the draft.
"Curiouser and curiouser!"
.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 13, 2011 8:23 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Your logic breaks down when you make the assumption that if Maholm gets more money in free agency then his current option, his current option would have been a good deal.
Why would you assume that the price paid in free agency was or was not the actual value Maholm could produce? Price =/= value.
At $9.75 MM, if he produced at roughly the same level of the last two years (2.0 and 2.1 WAR), he would be a break even in terms of how his price related to value, subject to the new $/WAR in this year’s free agency market (which, by the way, is not the actual league wide $/WAR because it only includes players acquired thru free agency). The Pirates don’t have the financial resources to be paying for break evens in a year in which they have 0 chance of competing. Let’s not forget that Maholm had his lowest average fastball velocity of his career during 2011, registering 87.4 mph on a career average of 89.0. He has also broke 200 innings only once in his career. During 2011, Maholm has a lucky BABIP and HR/FB rate, while having a decreasing GB% that was the lowest of his career.
Either put the money toward the draft/international signings or put it towards the extension of a player who will let us buy out FA eligible years that we want to keep for the longer term.
The shift in sentiment based on a guy who is likely to be a break even in a season where we won’t even be going .500 is hilarious.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I Agree
For us Maholm has filled a need but he is not much of a need for a team that would be lucky to play .500 ball. I like Maholm but he is who he is. I doubt if playing for the Bucs he will get much better.
He may get better and provide more value for a team that needs a 4/5th starter, but not for the Bucs. We have plenty of 4/5th starters.
I’d take him back for a 2 year $5M/yr, but not for almost $10M/yr. He is not going to provide us that much value. I’d rather give those innings to someone who could help us when we are ready to compete and is in our future plans.
I agree
on both of these, assuming the money is put to use elsewhere. There’s no guarantee of that, but I believe it will be.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions
What you’re all ignoring—well, except for MITT—is the extreme unlikelihood of the Pirates being able to find a break-even player for that money. We’ve been through this time and time again, to the point that NH effectively acknowledges that he can’t replace Maholm in the FA market. The trade market won’t be any easier, because just about any pitcher of Maholm’s ability will come with a salary similar to Maholm’s, and they’re saying they won’t pay that. “Break-even” is just another way of saying that Maholm’s option accurately reflects his market value. If you won’t pay market value, you’re very unlikely to replace the asset. The end result is going to be the same as every other time NH has tried to fill needs on the market. He’s going to end up with the guys nobody else wants.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I disagree that if you won't pay market value you are unlikely to replace the asset.
I’d argue that most players in this league are either under or over paid, and not correctly paid based on a price to value standpoint. There is no rule that says the replacement has to come from free agency, it could be acquired via trade or internally. I’d much rather have a season of 0.5 WAR or 1.0 WAR from a league minimum guy than a 2.0 WAR season from a $9.75 M guy in a year that is irrelevant from a W-L standpoint at the major league level.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I’d argue that most players in this league are either under or over paid, and not correctly paid based on a price to value standpoint.
What happened to your faith in the free market?
There is no rule that says the replacement has to come from free agency, it could be acquired via trade or internally.
There are no viable internal replacements, and giving up talent in trade rather than money for a free agent is still paying a cost, just in a different form. Giving up $10M worth of players rather than $10M worth of money doesn’t get us anywhere.
1. My faith in the free market is still here, we are free to not use FA if it doesn’t provide a transaction in which we believe we can benefit. We can just use internal options.
2. I’d be willing to run out Locke, Wilson, Lincoln, or Owens instead of paying Maholm that money. Obviously there is a good chance they will not produce at the 2.0 WAR level at this point in their careers, but I’d rather run out the young guys for the league minimum than pay Maholm that money. Even if they were only a 0.5 WAR producer or a 0.0 WAR producer in their rookie year, I’d still be willing to make that move during 2012.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
we are free to not use FA if it doesn’t provide a transaction in which we believe we can benefit. We can just use internal options.
So it’s your contention that Maholm isn’t better than the internal option who’d do the job instead (i.e. whichever of Lincoln or Correia wouldn’t make the rotation if he came back)? That’ll be a tough case to make – good luck.
Even if they were only a 0.5 WAR producer or a 0.0 WAR producer in their rookie year, I’d still be willing to make that move during 2012.
Which is why your opinion on this is irrational. The only one of the four who’s a good bet to be over replacement level at the start of next year is Lincoln, and if you’re using him to replace Maholm then you can’t also use him to replace Correa, who’s put up 0.0 WAR in each of the last two seasons.
Unfortunately Correia is under a guaranteed contract
He is a sunk cost.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Which isn’t a reason not to replace him. McClatchy never understood that.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
He absolutely needs to be replaced, but its not a pressing priority during the 2012 season.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
He absolutely needs to be replaced, but its not a pressing priority during the 2012 season.
Only if you don’t care whether or not you win any of the games.
Well
I personally see this issue as very black-and-white.
If we aren’t making the playoffs, I want to draft first. Now, there is something to be said for progression and results that naturally come from that, but I’d much rather save the 9.5 million, give the spot to Jeff Locke, “lose” two wins, and draft 5th in June 2013 rather than 8th (which is where we would have drafted this year had we lost two extra games).
I admittedly realize that I’ll be in the minority on this and the city of Pittsburgh/the casual fans don’t like that concept, but I’m just not a shades of gray type on this subject.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
I would be more willing to accept that tradeoff if I thought that Locke were ready to start in the majors, but I genuinely don’t think he’s ready yet.
Fair
enough. I do. I don’t think another season at AAA versus starting in the bigs is going to stunt his development at this point.
He’s going to be 24 in a month, he’s not a high priority prospect, and he’s thrown over 650 innings at the minor league level. If not Locke, then give it to DCutch or whoever.
Who the hell is our projected starting rotation with (for argument’s sake) Paul Maholm.
Karstens
Maholm
Morton
JMac
Correia
Yes, for the optimal ability to win, we should keep Maholm and put Lincoln in where Correia is, but in my above (slightly off) scenario, just keep Correia in the rotation and put Lincoln in Maholm’s spot. We will probably lose 2-3 wins with the drop off from Maholm to Correia (best-case in my opinion, I see Maholm as getting worse and the injury is a bit worrisome), save 9.5 million dollars, and the 2-3 wins will improve our draft position.
Send Locke to AAA then.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions
2-3
losses**
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions
What did you see out of Jeff Locke that makes you think he is ready to start right now?
What i saw of him at the end of the year tells me that he needs a year at Triple-A and he better get some size on that frame of his otherwise the career arc of Joe Beimel may be calling except when Beimel bombed as a starter he was able to reinvent his delivery to effectively get left handers out. i don’t see Locke even as an option yet.
I'm
saying I wouldn’t mind starting him. I wouldn’t expect him to excel, but it’s moot if you ask me because bringing back Maholm simply blocks Lincoln.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Who builds a team with the strategy of losing more games?
by Fat Jimmy on Oct 13, 2011 2:22 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The Rays.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
true
but the Rays would have traded Maholm in June, when they knew his trade value was the highest and also knew they weren’t going to exercise the $9.75m option at the end of the year.
by insane_sanity on Oct 13, 2011 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions
That is absolutely correct.
Huntington’s biggest mistake as general manager was to acquire players at the deadline in 2011 and not trade them away.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
they may not have traded him
Paul would have had more wins this season which may have made him one of those B free agent thingies.
remember, the Rays traded practically no one in 2010 and 2011
But if Maholm wasn't a type B FA, the would have probably traded him.
Or if they though the return was greater than the Type B return.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
but
in order for him to be a “B” free agent, we would have had to decline his option AND offer him arbitration.
Do you think this FO would have risked offering Maholm, who loves Pittsburgh, arbitration and risk having to pay him market value?
I think not. Again, we would have lost him without getting anything in return.
by insane_sanity on Oct 14, 2011 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
It's
moot. There is no problem in losing Maholm, because there’s no way you trade him at the deadline this past year. It’s too disastrous as a PR move. Look, I hate the concept of having to make PR moves, but it’s reality, and the benefit of likely a B- or C+ prospect we would have gotten back from Maholm is outweighed by trading away next to nothing, keeping Maholm, and making a genuine show of good faith to the fans.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 14, 2011 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If
anything, MAYBE you could argue we should have traded him away two years ago.
But here’s what Jake Westbrook fetched at that same damn trade deadline, and Westbrook, being younger and slightly better, had more value.
25) Corey Kluber, RHP, Grade C+: Possible fifth starter or long reliever.
That’s right, that’s the 25th ranked prospect by Sickels in a decent, but not super deep Indians farm system. The return value would have been marginal at best. Maholm has been handled fine, AS LONG AS any money that’s being saved gets “reinvested” back into the Pirates in some capacity.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 14, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Maholm has been handled fine, AS LONG AS any money that’s being saved gets "reinvested" back into the Pirates in some capacity.
One Correia and one Overbay, coming right up!
Lol
I’d prefer it to go elsewhere, like stash it for future free agents, or into the draft budget, or special cases like Josh Bell, but I guess that’s impossible.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 14, 2011 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Couldnt agree with Vlad more here.
These are not the types of players we should be going after at all. We should have saved the money and used internal candidates for both slots, 2011 was dead years before it started.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Oct 15, 2011 8:45 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Matt
Garza??
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 14, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Should
be a reply to the “Rays traded no one in 2010-2011.”
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 14, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
at the trade deadline
we were discussing teams in contention trading guys at the deadline, not off season.
everyone is contention in the offseason
Thats not true.
We, as well as a number of other teams, have 0 chance of making the 2012 playoffs.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Oct 15, 2011 8:46 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I’d rather run out the young guys for the league minimum than pay Maholm that money
Are you a Pirates’ shareholder whose financial well-being is directly tied to the team’s balance sheet?
If not, then why do you care if they trot out Owens, Locke, Lincoln, Chaff, Flotsam or Jetsam over paying Maholm? Are you happy to watch crappy baseball players playing crappy baseball?
It's just my two cents. Could be worth more, could be worth nothing.
Because I'd rather allocate the resources to a future competitive team.
Not one that is dead at the MLB level during 2012 before it starts.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Because I’d rather allocate the resources to a future competitive team.
But you’re not the one allocating the resources. It’s not your money.
Besides that, there is no guarantee that any money not spent this year would be spent on future competitive teams. Bob Nutting may waste it on hookers and blow in Thailand next January, or he may just build a Joker-style bonfire in his backyard with bales of money.
It's just my two cents. Could be worth more, could be worth nothing.
Bob Nutting may well be a terrible owner, but I wasn't argue for or against him anywhere in this thread.
I’m speaking strictly from a resource allocation standpoint.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
And
I’d much rather have a season of 0.5 WAR or 1.0 WAR from a league minimum guy than a 2.0 WAR season from a $9.75 M guy in a year that is irrelevant from a W-L standpoint at the major league level
Bolded, +1’d etc.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions
W-L record is not irrelevant. It effects attendance, merchandising, branding, overall earning, and therefore future payroll and competitiveness. You can’t just punt on any season when you’re not likely to go to the playoffs. Sure, sometimes you have to do it for a year or two while you rebuild, but now, after 19 seasons of losing and four years into the NH/FC rebuild, it’s just not smart, from a business-of-baseball perspective, to be giving away ML wins. We need to be adding ML wins, if at all possible (something that would be far more possible if we didn’t start the offseason by letting Maholm walk).
Until this is quantified its basically either side being extremely subjective in the argument.
We don’t know how much it affects all of those things you listed, and how much more we would gain from picking higher and revenue sharing.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
interesting
I hadn’t thought of revenue sharing. The draft pick vs. wins argument is easily quantifiable, and wins are worth far more than higher draft slots. A marginal win is worth $5M, more or less, and moving up a draft slot is worth $1-2M at most.
But I’m not sure how revenue sharing works, exactly. I suppose it’s possible, theoretically, to increase revenue by decreasing the quality of the on-field product. It’s hard to imagine MLB would allow such a disincentive to exist, but sports’ leagues generally aren’t run very rationally.
You’re right, though, that I can’t quantify the value of, for instance, McCutchen possibly being more inclined to sign a long-term contract if the Pirates make good faith efforts to improve the team.
I think there is some confusion here.
We know buying a WAR in 2011 FA cost roughly $5M, but that doesnt mean winning one more game brings $5M more to the Pirates bottom line.
In terms of the draft, the $1-2M estimate may be a rough average of thr difference in value per pick (although I have never seen that estimate before) but the variance of the outcomes is so wide that it makes using the average inaccurate. For instance, if you quantify the difference between a draft bust ( negative value because you paid a bonus) and a guy that produces 2.0 WAR a year for the 6 years we have him under control ($60M in WAR minus bonus and salaries), the difference is massive.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Oct 14, 2011 6:35 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Most players ARE underpaid or overpaid. The CBA assures that. A 0-6 player works for less than what he’s worth, a 6+ player inevitably gets overpaid. But the 0-6 players are almost never available unless you either develop them or pay a very high price, because they’re so incredibly valuable. Nobody wants to trade them. That’s the point you’re missing. All that’s available to replace Maholm falls into the “inevitably overpaid” category, and the Pirates aren’t even willing to pay Maholm a maket price.
I’d much rather have a season of 0.5 WAR or 1.0 WAR from a league minimum guy than a 2.0 WAR season from a $9.75 M guy in a year that is irrelevant from a W-L standpoint at the major league level.
This is exactly the thinking that got us Lyle Overbay and Kevin Correia. So now we win the Dollars-Per-Win Bowl. Great, what do we get?
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Actually its not
Because we paid millions of dollars for 0 WAR performers, when we could get them for the league minimums. It’s now where near close to the same type of thinking.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
So we should be looking for 0 WAR guys who are cheap? Great.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
As opposed to 0 WAR performers who cost millions, absolutely.
I’d rather have a rookie with some promise, even if it is limited, than Maholm for that cost during 2012.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Um, Maholm isn’t a 0 WAR player.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Correia and Overbay are, who you referenced in this chain.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
funny
you keep crying about future usage, but you are willing to burn up service time of a promising rookie in a year that means nothing, when he could have been seasoned better and been more ready to contribute in his years of control.
by BurgherKing on Oct 13, 2011 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
this
Bringing up a pitching prospect early is by no means cost-free, since it burns a year of control. And even if you think that Locke isn’t going to be important to us five years from now, it turns him from a guy who’s available for the minimum in a couple years to a guy who we need to take to arbitration in a couple years. So it may be pushing costs onto a year when we hope to contend.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 13, 2011 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
The service time concerns for young players are a completely valid concern, and the toughest part about the entire decision.
Unfortunately, I don’t think we have enough depth right now at starting pitcher to have the luxury of manipulating service times. If you can fill out a rotation with 5 guys on opening day 2012 who are inexpensive, even if they are between 0.0-1.0 WAR, I’d rather have them to protect service times. With Morton’s injury, that would look something like:
Karstens
McDonald
Correia
Lincoln
?? (Morton when he is back)
At worst you are short 1 guy, could be more if there are injuries. We would need to find at least 1 fill in to protect the young guys service time, which I’m completely fine with, as long as the fill in is cheap OR if the fill in his Maholm only if we plan to trade him at the deadline.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
"Unfortunately, I don’t think we have enough depth right now at starting pitcher to have the luxury of manipulating service times."
Not if you exercise Maholm’s option.
Even with Maholm we don't have that much depth.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I'm not sure that "option price"
accurately reflects market value. There could be a lot of deflationary factors this year – bad economy, big-spenders like the Yankees or Cardinals or Mets (who are rumored to be dropping payroll to $60 million) being up against the wall, mediocre free agents (products) that teams (consumers) won’t be enticed to overbid for.
Hypothetically, what if Maholm hits the free agent market and the best he can sign for is 2 years at $6 million/year? Then by exercising the option the Pirates have overpaid.
Everyone assumes that because the Pirates don’t sign a player, it must be a horrible decision. But I believe we offered a reasonable contract to Adam LaWhiff last year (or two years ago, already?) and he thumbed his nose at us, only to sign a similar, or lower-priced contract.
Just sayin’ its a possibility.
What does that mean?!
The Pirates don’t have the financial resources to be paying for break evens in a year in which they have 0 chance of competing.
Yes, actually, they do. They don’t need that money for other internal players, and they aren’t going to be able to invest it in contracts with any free agents as good as (or better than) Maholm, certainly not at better than break-even rates. So their choices are spending the money on Maholm, spending it on inferior players, (maybe) spending it on similar players at a less-advantageous price, or not spending it all.
Let’s not forget that Maholm had his lowest average fastball velocity of his career during 2011, registering 87.4 mph on a career average of 89.0.
Or that he was perfectly effective with that velocity, or that many lefty starters (such as Ted Lilly) have remained effective even with substantially less velocity than that.
The velo drop would be a concern if we were talking about a three-year extension… but we’re not.
He has also broke 200 innings only once in his career.
And has broken 180 in three of the last four, as a member of a rotation where nearly every other member ran out of gas before 150 last year.
Either put the money toward the draft/international signings…
We’re at the point of diminishing returns on that type of investment.
or put it towards the extension of a player who will let us buy out FA eligible years that we want to keep for the longer term
There are none of those.
Questions.
1. Why would they have to spend the money at all? Why Waste resources at the MLB level if you are not competing?
2. The velocity is less of the problem, and the trend is more of the problem. I’d rather not have pitchers with that trend.
3. That doesn’t mean he is good, or that he does or doesn’t deserve to be paid $9.75 M.
4. Proof of diminishing returns at our spending points, please.
5. Yes there are, I would be actively looking for extensions with McCutchen, Walker, Morton, and Hanrahan past their arbitration eligible years as long as the price was reasonable.
Let me clearly state that I am for keeping Maholm, ONLY if I thought there was a very high chance we could flip him for prospects at the deadline or get a comp pick for him at the end of 2012.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Why would they have to spend the money at all?
Because the union would come after them if they just decided to abandon all pretense of competition, like they did with the Marlins.
Why Waste resources at the MLB level if you are not competing?
Trick question! They aren’t “wasting resources” – they’re improving the team’s performance.
The velocity is less of the problem, and the trend is more of the problem. I’d rather not have pitchers with that trend.
The velocity and the trend are both less important than the results.
That doesn’t mean he is good, or that he does or doesn’t deserve to be paid $9.75 M.
No, but his performance in those innings means that he’s good, and the market value set by the free market means that he deserves to be paid a market rate for his abilities.
Proof of diminishing returns at our spending points, please.
You can only put nine players on the field at a time.
I would be actively looking for extensions with McCutchen, Walker, Morton, and Hanrahan past their arbitration eligible years as long as the price was reasonable.
They’re already working on one with Walker, McCutchen reportedly isn’t interested if it means giving up one or more of his FA years, and extensions for Morton and Hanrahan are bad ideas at this point.
1. At what level of payroll do you suggest the union would come after the Pirates? Are you suggesting we spend money on Maholm just to please the union?
2. If you are improving the teams performance in the short run during a season where you will not make the playoffs but sacrificing resources for a season where you had a chance to make the playoffs, is that a good trade off?
3. The results are roughly 2.0 WAR, we have established this. I’m stating that its not likely to be significantly higher than this going forward based on his declining velocity, among a number of other factors.
4. This goes back to price =/= value. Just because 1+ other teams is willing to pay a certain price, that does not have any effect on his value.
5. Why would extensions for Morton or Hanrahan be a bad idea? At some price they are bad ideas, but at other prices they are great ideas.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Are you suggesting we spend money on Maholm just to please the union?
Not so much to “please the union” as to “not get sued by the union and then sanctioned by the commissioner”. We’re going to spend the money one way or the other – the only question is whether we spend it on Maholm or on something else.
If you are improving the teams performance in the short run during a season where you will not make the playoffs but sacrificing resources for a season where you had a chance to make the playoffs, is that a good trade off?
I’m not sure why you’re asking this, because bringing back Maholm would not involve “sacrificing resources for a season where you had a chance to make the playoffs”. If anything, giving his job to an unprepared rookie who’d get hammered would be “sacrificing resources for a season where you had a chance to make the playoffs”, since we’d be burning that rookie’s service time and either spending more on him in seasons where we’re a contender or prematurely losing him as a FA.
I’m stating that its not likely to be significantly higher than this going forward based on his declining velocity, among a number of other factors.
Yes, and I already noted why the velocity thing doesn’t matter as much as you seem to think that it does.
Just because 1+ other teams is willing to pay a certain price, that does not have any effect on his value.
There’s no central bank of MLB. The value of wins is set by the price that teams are willing to pay for them.
Why would extensions for Morton or Hanrahan be a bad idea?
An extension for Morton is a bad idea because he’s currently recovering from major surgery, and there’s no reasonable way to place an accurate value on him going forward. An extension for Hanrahan is a bad idea because hard-throwing relievers tend to be fairly large collapse risks. Look at Broxton, for example, or BJ Ryan.
There probably is, in theory, a price at which extensions for both would be a good idea, but in practice neither of those players are at all likely to agree to an extension at those prices.
Two main problems with your analysis
1. The market does not decide the cost of a WAR, it only decides the cost of a WAR in free agency. The league wide cost of a WAR is also decided by league minimum salaried players and arbitration eligible players. The overall $/WAR when factoring in these players is much lower than $5M/WAR that we saw in the 2011 offseason, last time I checked I think it was ~$2.8 MM/WAR if you include all players and all WAR. I do not have the numbers for $/WAR excluding free agency eligible players, but the laws of mathematical averages let us know it is some number well below the total average of ~$2.8 MM/WAR.
2. We won’t know about extension prices until we ask, we just got Tabata to sign a deal that was unbelievable for the team and terrible for him. I’m not saying its likely to happen again, but we shouldn’t assume its impossible.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
The market does not decide the cost of a WAR, it only decides the cost of a WAR in free agency.
When most people talk about the “cost of a WAR”, they are referring to the “cost of a WAR in free agency”.
We won’t know about extension prices until we ask, we just got Tabata to sign a deal that was unbelievable for the team and terrible for him. I’m not saying its likely to happen again, but we shouldn’t assume its impossible.
You aren’t just checking to see whether it’s possible. You’re criticizing someone else for not doing it, without having any knowledge of whether or not it is possible, which is a totally different thing (and completely unreasonable, to boot).
Im not saying Huntington asked or didnt ask
Im saying he should ask, with saved money in hand. He may well be asking right now or already have asked, in which case if the players wont sign team friendly deals I hope he allocates the resources elsewhere.
The overall cost of WAR matters more over the long run because FA isnt our only way to acquire players.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Oct 15, 2011 8:52 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
He may well be asking right now or already have asked, in which case if the players wont sign team friendly deals I hope he allocates the resources elsewhere.
You’re always very glib about the logistics of “allocating the resources elsewhere”. There aren’t as many opportunities for us to do so sensibly as you seem to think.
This
Are you suggesting we spend money on Maholm just to please the union?
Matt Morris….paging Matt Morris …. please report to the Pirates, who will pay you $10 million just to fight the perception that they’re cheap.
Also, “…the trend and velocity are less important than the results.” So I see that everyone agrees that Pitcher Wins are an important metric.
What does that mean?!
If it any point in time under Huntington we are spending money to please the union the cause and all hope is completely lost.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
If it any point in time under Huntington we are spending money to please the union the cause and all hope is completely lost.
I actually find it encouraging to think that they might have been spending money to please the union last year, because the alternative is that they have one or more scouts on staff who thought that Lyle Overbay would be a good and useful player.
If 5M difference is enough to piss off the union
Id rather have that money allocated toward an extension 5M higher than what we would have got on a player we actually wanted as opposed to a player nobody rational wanted.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Oct 15, 2011 8:54 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Velocity
The velocity argument isn’t the smoking gun some people think it is. Ted Lilly’s velocity went through a nearly identical decline he improved significantly while it was doing so. Mark Buehrle’s (sp?) velocity was always well below Maholm’s. You can’t look at LHP velocity the way you do RHP. And it’s of especially limited relevance since this is a one-year commitment and Maholm is coming off a very good season despite the drop.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
yep, maholm pitched his best baseball as a pirate in 2011
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually, Maholm had a better K/9 rate and a less lucky HR/FB rate in 2008.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
absolutely true
He did well the year before Joe Kerrigan got here.
He also did well the year after Joe Kerrigan left.
Just sayin’
by insane_sanity on Oct 13, 2011 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure if Kerrigan was brought up...
…but I’d agree that this Maholm’s performance has absolutely nothing to do with him.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Since
this is related… Vlad where are links about no arb to Doumit? This is driving me crazy.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 8:59 AM EDT reply actions
No arb?
That I haven’t seen. I’m already pissed off enough without adding that to it.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
It's
Vlad said. I’ve seen nothing about that. Maholm doesn’t bother too much. If we pass on a draft pick for no freakin reason, then out of principal I will no longer support NH cause that’s just retarded. There is some justification for passing on Maholm’s option. There isn’t any for not offering arbitration to Doumit.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions
There isn’t any for not offering arbitration to Doumit.
The justification would be that they don’t want to run the risk of him accepting it, and ending up back on the team at an arb-award salary.
the Pirates can get a Hernandez/Barajas
at half of Doumit’s option salary
The big question is (we know the answer) are they willing to come to the Burgh for at least the next couple years
the Pirates can get a Hernandez/Barajas at half of Doumit’s option salary
But can they get the same production from Hernandez/Barajas that they would from Doumit?
It's just my two cents. Could be worth more, could be worth nothing.
defensive value would obviously be better
Hitting wise I’d rather have Hernandez
the Pirates can get a Hernandez/Barajas
at half of Doumit’s option salary
I’m unconvinced that Hernandez or Barajas will be willing to sign with us at all, let alone at a rate better than Doumit’s option price. Three years ago, we were turned down flat by a greatly inferior catcher, Paul Bako.
This same issue came up with Tim at his site. People always assume that, if a guy is making $X somewhere else, the Pirates can get him for $X. It’s not a correct assumption. And the unwillingness of many players to sign with the Pirates is just part of the issue. The other teams don’t just passively sit back and wait to see what the Pirates do. If the Pirates offer Barajas $3M or whatever, some other team just has to beat that, or really just match it, because a player will just about always choose the other team. It won’t take long before the price is more than what the Pirates are willing to pay, especially since we have ample evidence that this FO places lower valuations on players than most/all other teams.
This is what happened with Texeira. The Yankees just sat back, waited until the Nats had bid up as far as they could go, then swooped in and made a better offer. The Nats tried REALLY hard to get Tex, but it’s not just a matter of “opening the wallet,” as so many fans like to think. The same thing will happen on a much smaller scale with guys like Barajas and Hernandez. In fact, that’s exactly what always HAS happened. Some other team will always have the willingness or capability to outbid the Pirates. It’s a losing game, which is why a guy like Doumit or Maholm, whom the Pirates control at a reasonable cost (OK, it’s arguable with Doumit, but not with Maholm) is worth MORE to the Pirates, in the sense of needing to keep him, than to another team.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Oct 13, 2011 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
that Moneyball scene
about Johnny Damon (in which Oakland offered 7.75 and then Boston made it 8) is a textbook example.
Agents will ALWAYS look out for the big markets. Small markets will never be able to outbid no matter what.
Let's be clear...
Maholm is a mediocre pitcher. This isn’t about him. This is about the Bucs decision making, which apparently will culminate in letting go of an asset which, though mediocre, is of real value to the immediate future of the Pirates. Put another way, the replacement cost clearly trumps the cost of keeping Maholm.
The only baseball reasons to not pick up the option are (a) if there are health concerns, or (b) there is a framework already in place to significantly upgrade the team such that there is no room for Maholm from either a fiscal or roster perspective.
We have heard nothing to suggest option “a”. Option “b” is unfathomable for many, many obvious reasons. I’ll believe the “b” scenario if and when I see it, and I do not expect to see it.
Translation: I fully agree that this is a really bad decision. It is perhaps, among a growing list, the most significant cause for concern so far for sophisticated fans about the state of the franchise.
I find it interesting that three months ago I was arguing that despite the Pirates legitimate playoff hopes, Maholm should be traded because his value was a high point, he isn’t that good, he could garner a good return (a big league ready piece) and there was every reason to expect him to regress to his norm. Yinzer fans were apoplectic at the idea. Today I’m pissed because it appears that we will let Maholm go for the same reasons I thought we should trade him 3 months ago but without any practical competitive benefit.
If the rationale for not exercising Maholm’s option is as it appears, it is nothing less than total incomptence and/or the total absence of testicular fortitude in the front office for not trading him in July. Barring as yet unreported health concerns, there has been no change to any of the key factors in this decision since mid-June 2011.
As somebody else recently posted, I think ownership & management want to win, but they are too focused on getting great economic values instead of reasonable deals. That supposition, in turn, leads to the conclusion that management is incompetent and/or has decided that the only hope for competing is a whole bunch of Tabata-esq deals. However it is patently obvious that Tabata type deals are not going to happen en masse. Thus we have little choice but to conclude that the front office is either incompetent or it realizes that the present ownership cannot afford to field a good team.
Am I connecting too many dots? Perhaps. Regardless, this sucks.
Good day.
To clarify my "let's be clear" post...
I’m not giving up on current ownership and management, but I’m seeing there is far more cause for concern than optimism. Let’s see what they do. Despite their staunch refusal to put a timeframe on the team being competitive, 2012 represents the fifth season for this management team. All signs circle back to one of just few possible conclusions:
1. Incompetence (read: poor performance to date)
2. A belief that the team cannot compete due to either:
a. The economics of MLB, or
b. The financial constraints of current ownership, or
c. Both A & B.
Good day.
I'm with you on 2C
And, FWIW, these Maholm threads make me think it’s going to be a long Winter. White Angus, on another thread, made the point that he wants to see what the 25-man and 40-man rosters look like at the end of March. Me too.
The level of agida on these Maholm-option threads seems way too high, to me. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing him come back, assuming recent health concerns are resolved, but $9 mil seems like a lot for anybody with his record and trends. Don’t want Doumit back at all.
The FO seems to have a problem communicating their intentions and strategies. Foot in mouth disease? Didn’t we go through this with the Wilson/Sanchez extensions?
The fan base, on the other hand seems to tend to fall in love with their guys. Understandable; I have my favorites too. But not always a good idea when you’re in a business where the deck is already stacked against you.
Lino Donoso
Something rotten in the state of Denmark...
This whole act from the FO is getting a little old. I’ve defended them in the past, both here and over on Sideshow Bob’s Blog of Despair, because I felt like they were going in the right direction. Having a strategy in the draft, actually signing worthwhile international prospects instead of Yoslan Herrera; NH and FC appeared to be putting the Pirates’ ship in order.
However, and I pray I am wrong, it appears that their intention is to have one of the lowest payrolls in baseball no matter what. I get that Maholm may not be “worth” $9.75MM, but for the love of all that’s holy in the universe, where is it written that they can’t have a player on the team making more than the league minimum? Doumit isn’t coming back, nor does it appear likely that Snyder will be putting on the black and gold next year, so with the subtraction of those two plus Maholm, there’s about $20MM off the payroll in 2012. Do they actually think they get a prize for having the lowest Payroll Dollars per Win ratio, because last I checked, you get the prize for winning more games than the rest of your division, with the prize being a trip to the postseason?
I’m a lifer with this team, going all the way back to the late-1970’s, but each and every year that goes by with this nickel-and-dime garbage, I grow more and more disinterested. To me, they’re not even trying to hide their agenda at this point, blatantly throwing it in the faces of the fans that their main objective is maximizing profits rather than trying to actually field a winning team.
Maybe I’m wrong, and they’ll announce a 6-year, $90MM contract for Cutch this offseason, thus giving us some indication there was an actual plan to improve the team with the departures of Doumit, Snyder and Maholm.
I’m not ready to go over to the Anti-Nutting side just yet, but every day that goes by with crap like this, I’m starting to think that maybe they have a point.
It's just my two cents. Could be worth more, could be worth nothing.
by Bishop1973 on Oct 13, 2011 9:02 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
its still way too early to say our payroll will be so miniscule
just because we dont resign Maholm doesnt mean that the entire roster will be made up of guys making 6 figures.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Not the entire roster...
but very possibly 20 of the 25. As of now, based on early returns, the only millionaires on the team before free agency…
Correia
Alvarez
Cedeno (if his option is exercised)
Hanrahan
Karstens
This assumes that Ohlendorf doesn’t get offered arbitration, and that Cutch is not a Super Two. I don’t see Jones, Meek or Morton getting million dollar arby awards.
still way too early
over 5 months until opening day.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Guess you missed...
“before free agency” in the first sentence. Unless you are all for resigning Overbay and Diaz?
why not?
we were better with them than without them.
>:-D
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah, i saw it
but my argument only works if it appears that i didnt.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
This is starting to remind me of the movie TRADING PLACES
Is this just a $1 bet between owners and the GM as to how many losing years a team can have in a row and still make money? Winthorp!
Excellent movie.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Throwing
out a hypothetical. Allegedly Josh Bell was a “special case” outside of the normal draft budget. Any chance that we decided we’d pay Bell whatever he wanted (within some reason – not a 50 million dollar signing bonus) and decided we could do that by not paying Maholm this offseason?
If it was literally one of the other, would people be less angry because we got Bell. I know, I know, that makes little sense using common sense and according to what the Front Office has told us about budgets, but I’m throwing spaghetti at the wall right now and I’m praying it sticks.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 9:36 AM EDT reply actions
The problem here...
…is that if they have to rob Paul to pay Josh, and all Josh got was $5MM, then there should be big red neon warning lights going off everywhere about BN’s financial state and ability to continue to own the team.
I think we all understand that the Pirates don’t have the same revenue streams as teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox, nor do they have deep-pocketed owners willing to spend pretty much whatever it takes to satisfy their own vanity, but if they cannot pay a “special case” bonus of $5MM without letting a productive, market-priced major-leaguer go, we’ll never see a winning team under this ownership group.
It's just my two cents. Could be worth more, could be worth nothing.
I'm
just saying it’s a trade off in a year we aren’t/weren’t going to be competitive. That statement may be the bone we are picking, but I don’t think keeping Maholm and Doumit, and even spending in the free agent market in addition to picking up the options would have fielded a competitive team, sans signing Fielder AND Reyes.
I mean, we spent 17 million dollars on the draft. That’s a huge freakin chunk of change. If it comes down to spending 7 million on the draft and keeping Maholm, or 17 million and not keeping him, give me the former.
I understand your concerns that it means in the future we can’t do both, but it simply could be that with the large amount we spent on the draft forced Neal Huntington to look harder (at Nutting’s directive) at saving money somewhere else UNTIL we can field a competitive team that will make it financially possible to spend on both. That expense appears to be Maholm under my crazy hypothetical.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
If it took not paying Maholm next year to get Bell...
this team is totally screwed financially. We had a $42M opening day payroll. Added maybe $7M at the trade deadline…and had the 4th highest attendance in team history.
If the Pirates already can’t survive on a $55M-$60M payroll, then the future is pretty much a pipe dream. The Pirates WILL NOT be able to keep their young players into free agency, except by signing Tabata-like contracts, and there aren’t going to be many of those. And everything this FO and ownership group will have stated about future spending will prove to have been lies.
The most annoying thing
Will be when they go out and sign $9M worth of below replacement scrap heap dreck because those guys were “bargains”.
Blech.
I would rather have Kyle Davies than Correia. He at least generally provides positive WAR.
by thecheeseisblue on Oct 14, 2011 3:06 AM EDT up reply actions
in Maholm's 6 seasons in Pitt, he had only 2 seasons where he was noticably "above replacement"... 2008 and 2011
in those other seasons, he was arguably worse than Correia.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Huh?
Maholm has been noticeably above relacement and better than Corriea every year of his career.
Maholm WAR 2008 – 2011: 2.8, 3.2, 2.0, 2.1
Corriea WAR 2008 – 2011: 0.6, 2.5, 0.0, 0.0
Angus is using B-R WAR, which doesn’t properly account for our terrible defense during Maholm’s time with the team.
and i put above replacement in quotations, because im not a believer in that system
maholm, for the majority of his career, was not a very good pitcher. his pitching in 2011 was a big step up for him. despite the low velocity, he kept RH hitters off balance by finally pitching inside.
hopefully for Paul, he can continue that success
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
maholm, for the majority of his career, was not a very good pitcher.
If you properly account for the impact of our perennially shitty defense on his numbers, this isn’t true.
you said the same exact same thing about Duke
and look at him now, bench fodder for the D’backs. Maybe the defense isnt so piss poor as you think it is?
by the way, i agree with you on this to a point. i believe Maholm improved his pitching this past season. but i refuse to put blame on his defense for many of the poor games he pitched in the past.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Nope
its pretty piss poor. There are some statistics and numbers that show that, but I know you are against using any formula that wasn’t used by writers in the 1950’s
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
so youre saying that Maholm is a very good pitcher with a good defense?
hell, I COULD BE a very good pitcher with a good defense. thats not pitching, thats T-Ball.
Maholm in 2007: awful.
his defense behind him? Laroche, Sanchez, Wilson, Bautista… 3 of those guys had really good defensive seasons. The outfield wasnt great but not awful either.
i guess we blame Bautista for that 5.02 era Paul put up.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
in Maholm's two good seasons, he flat out gave up less hits.
some of that can be attributed to good defense, but you cant blame it all on defense when his numbers dont look so good.
shizer.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
so youre saying that Maholm is a very good pitcher with a good defense?
He’s a perfectly average #3 starter. If you put him in front of a terrible defense, he’ll put up an ERA like a #4, and if you put him in front of a bunch of glove-wizards, he’ll put up numbers like a #2. That’s just how baseball works.
Maholm in 2007: awful.
his defense behind him? Laroche, Sanchez, Wilson, Bautista… 3 of those guys had really good defensive seasons. The outfield wasnt great but not awful either.
In 2007, we ranked 20th among ML teams in UZR/150. Bautista was awful at third, Bay was awful in left, McLouth was a corner OF playing center, and none of the starters were as good as any of those three were bad.
Maybe the defense isnt so piss poor as you think it is?
Have you actually watched any games over the last few years?
extra innings, baby
i think youre looking to blame something other than Maholm himself on his past struggles. Yes, the defense has struggled, but enough with blaming them entirely. You said the exact same thing about Duke. EXACT. You said he would be a much better pitcher with a better defense. He had an opportunity to prove that to be correct this season, and he failed.
look, i said Maholm pitched the best baseball of his career this season. thats obvious because I WATCHED ALMOST EVERY GAME HE PITCHED. he was throwing inside often. his hook had more bite to it. he limited the long ball.
he did that on his own. he pitched very well. and his defense helped as much as it hindered.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
You said he would be a much better pitcher with a better defense. He had an opportunity to prove that to be correct this season, and he failed.
Nine starts, after coming back from a major injury. That’s some opportunity.
Not to mention that by non-defense-independent numbers, Duke WAS better this year. His ERA was eight tenths of a run lower. His WHIP was nearly 0.10 better, too. And this in spite of the fact that his K rate dropped significantly – he was putting many more balls in play and going to a bigger hitter’s park… and still got much better results than he’d gotten with us.
and got banished to the bullpen
great job, zach. heres a mop.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
and got banished to the bullpen
great job, zach. heres a mop.
Because the Diamondbacks were smart enough to understand that he wasn’t actually pitching any better, even though his raw numbers improved. His xFIP in both seasons was nearly the same – 4.31 in 2010, 4.27 in 2011.
it doesnt mean hes a good pitcher, and that he pitched better with a better defense
numbers go up and down all the time. if his xFIP stayed the same, that would be shocking
it doesnt mean hes a good pitcher, and that he pitched better with a better defense
Isn’t that the point? The defense hurt his traditional numbers, when he got a better defense, his traditional numbers got better, but his defense independent numbers stayed the same. Same pitcher, but the numbers are better because he has a defense. This is the concept you were arguing against earlier on this page.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
were saying
guys like Duke (or any pitch-to-contact type of pitcher) can be USEFUL with a good defense behind them. He isn’t any better or worse of a pitcher. He just gets better results with a better defense.
Guys like Duke and Maholm will fluctuate more in this regard than pure strikeout pitchers.
However, pure strikeout pitchers are usually more expensive. Instead of paying Strikeout Pitcher X 12 million per year, if I have a good defense, I can pay Contact Pitcher Y 5 million per year and get the same results. It’s all about value.
i know what you guys are saying...
but the pirates have had almost nothing but pitch-to-contact hurlers and some of them have had success, sorta, with the same defenses behind Duke.
just face it: Duke got hit and hit hard.
at least Maholm kept hitters off balance
And perhaps coincidence but those two years were “contract” years—2008 was his last year before arb and ultimately his contract. Of course next year would be a contract year too, but I wonder if he put more stress on his arm this year which is what led to his shoulder problems. Can he pitch effectively in 2012 without putting too much stress on the shoulder?
And perhaps coincidence but those the two bad years were “Kerrigan” years?
by insane_sanity on Oct 13, 2011 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
The Pirates aren't gonna win for another couple years anyway
Until Cole/Taillon show up it’s rather pointless to get mad at this time.
The Pirates are banking on hoping (and even praying) that Owens will bounce back while Wilson (who can be a shutdown LHRP) needs to show he can be a dependable starter in spite of his bad control numbers. Even Locke needs more seasoning as his September callup performance has proven. It’s possible that McPherson can join the fray (as he is on the 40-man roster). One of those 4 will HAVE to step up to replace Maholm.
It’s not worth 9 – 10 mil to keep Maholm. They made that decision a long time ago.
Shields, welcome to the Burgh!
McCutchen for Shileds straight up…
Presley to CF, Jones/FA in RF, Bring Lee back, Bring Doumit back… done.
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
Oh, and resign Cedeno
My stance: when intellegent people make odd statements like, then I never have the full picture of whats going on behind the scenes… I’m really thinking that there are other things in play that are leading to this statement, specifically in the trade market.
With that, I’m going to drool over a Shields/Taillon/Cole rotation in 2013/14 rather than trying to specualte reasons why things don’t make sense now.
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
no way
cutch for Bumgarner straight up. shields, as awesome as hes become, will be hugely expensive in a couple of years while Bumgarner has some control left over
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
2012 30 Tampa Bay Rays *$7,000,000 $7M Team Option, $2M Buyout
2013 31 Tampa Bay Rays *$9,000,000 $9M Team Option, $1.5M Buyout
2014 32 Tampa Bay Rays *$12,000,000 $12M Team Option, $1M Buyout
Flip at the deadline in 14’ if not in contention…
That’s surely not expensive if we can justify 9 mil for Maholm… I like Bumgarner too… but I feel like this is a bit more plausible giving the abundance of arms in TB and our abundance of OF’s that profile well at CF.
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
Bumgarner salary in 2011: $450,000.00
and also a power arm to build around. by the way, SF has an abundance of LHP:
Bumgarner
Sanchez
Surkamp
Verdugo
Zito
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions
IMO, bumgarner can be an ACE for many many teams
Cutch is OUR best player, granted. but i would totally make that deal.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Jonathan Sanchez
I’d go after him. Far cheaper acquisition price and he’s expendable as their 6th SP.
Hell
Presley and a B or B- prospect would fetch JSanchez, if that much.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 14, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Sticking with Shields
Not that I don’t agree with you that Bum would be an ideal option, but I’m not sold that SF would pull the trigger… I think TB would.
A rotation of Cole/Taillion/(Shilds/Bum/etc.)/Jmac would be an absolute beast!
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
I'd scratch Zito...
from that Giants LHP list. While he may remain on their roster…no one…including the Giants, considers him an asset. He’s got an albatross contract that still has at least 2 years to go.
I may have missed one...
but the only team option I can remember the Pirates picking up since the current FO took over…was Akinori Iwamura. And everyone pretty much agrees that the trade that acquired him was a bust.
Absolutely no way does SF make this trade.
by Monkeyking42 on Oct 24, 2011 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Just as a little reminder...
That $9M+ team option in Paul Maholm’s contract. It wasn’t put there by Dave Littlefield. It was put there in January 2009 by…NH and FC.
So?
Whoever put it there, it is serving its purpose well. Giving the Pirates a chance to evaluate the value of Maholm, and giving them an out if he can’t stay healthy.
by ballparkfranks on Oct 13, 2011 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Unable to stay healthy??
Prior to when he went on the DL in August…he had missed MAYBE 4 starts in SIX seasons. And all 4 of those starts were at ends of seasons where the Pirates were massively out of the race. Two of those were at the end of the 2006 season when his innings were capped. The other two were early in September 2007.
whats that got to do with anything?
its a team option, not player/mutual
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
This FO seems to have a habit of signing contracts that have NO chance of running till their expiration (including options). McLouth, Maholm, Doumit, Tabata. Cedeno is about 50/50 on his. And most of those were obvious when the contract was signed.
Thunder we all know how much you hate the F.O
But I’m sure as hell glad We didn’t have a chance to pick up McLouth’s option this year haha fucking pathetic
Not much chance of that...
since we traded him 3 months into a 3 year contract.
Thank God we did
Nate McLouth = FUCKING PATHETIC!
If the Pirates FO thought McLouth was that lousy...
why the hell did they sign him to the contract in the first place?
maybe they correctly guessed others would find him attractive
maybe they did a better job of identifying what they had than the Braves?
you think we're the only team that does that?
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
It will look real good...
when the Pirates go to offer Cutch a contract and it has a team option for say $20M in 2017 (purely hypothetical). And Cutch’s agent is smart enough to ask…“When was the last time you exercised a large option? Why should we take this deal?” Especially when the answer to the first question is…Never.
dont most players have option years on their contracts, thunder?
wether it be player option, team option, mutual option; its not a pittsburgh entity
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
In general, agents don't want the clubs to pick up team options
Free agency = More money for the agent.
yeah
The agent ONLY wants the team to pick up the option when the player can’t get more on the open market. If a team has a habit of declining options for dumb reasons, then the agent will be happier to sign an option.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 13, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
""When was the last time you exercised a large option?"
“Would you like to add wings to this pizza order for just $5 more?”
Neal: “Yes.”
I seen it!
Market Values?
I don’t hate Maholm, I don’t mind if they pick up Maholm’s option, or if don’t pick up his option, but this post is about the over-the-top anger at not picking up his option.
Here are my thoughts on the “market value” argument. If you look around baseball you will find that the biggest mistake or failed contracts are handed out to closers and mediocre starting pitchers. These are risky investments due to injury and inconsistancies. The market value of $8-10 million a year for closers and $10-12 million a year for mediocre starting pitchers is where teams make the most mistakes. These mistakes can be buried in payrolls exceeding $100 million, sometimes. The Pirates really can’t make this mistake. Teams with players like Lilly, Lowe, Zito, and Cook are stuck with pitchers they wish they hadn’t signed. Those are off the top of my head, and recent history is filled with those type of contracts.
The only reason I don’t care about whether they pick up Maholm’s option is because it it for one year. That limits the mistake to short-term if he stinks. Lets not forget that Maholm could be in a similar place as Morton and and Ohlendorf injury wise. There is no real knowledge of when he might pitch again, so is he really insurance against Morton not being ready?
I don’t ever want the Pirates to pay “market value” for closers or mediocre starters. That would be my moneyball strategy in this market.
by ballparkfranks on Oct 13, 2011 10:27 AM EDT reply actions
Too many people are assuming that Maholm’s shoulder is healthy. Just because he doesn’t need surgery at this time doesn’t mean that it’s sound. It’s fine to not trust this FO, but we have to at least acknowledge that their decision is based on a lot more information than we have.
Health
This is another point worth discussing. We want to pick up his option because he is a 2 WAR player, but we aren’t willing to set the odds on him doing that again.
Here is a scenario that could be very real: We pick up his option because we could always trade him. Nobody is willing to trade for him until he gets to spring training to prove his health. The shoulder pain returns during spring training and surgery becomes the next option. The first option to an injury should be to rest it and come back to it later, but that doesn’t always work. Most surgeries start out with exactly what we are seeing with Maholm.
by ballparkfranks on Oct 13, 2011 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
And it might be worth remembering how angry some were that we didn’t up our offer to sign JDLR last winter. That was also based on an assumption of health despite the fact that he had health concerns.
and THAT contract would have paid JDLR more than Maholm!!!
which, IMO, shows that the FO really is willing to spend some money. now they are back to being cheap again??? p’shaw
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
exactly
If we would have signed Jorge last off season and he had tommy john surgery here, oh man MR.Thunder and everyone else would be out here ranting and raving about how dumb Neal Huntington is and that JDLR was damaged goods and how couldn’t they know he would have had a arm injury.
The point is you can never win. People like Thunder only want to see the Pirates spend all kinds of money on a player, no matter if the player is any good or not.
Actually...
people like Thunder want the Pirates to bring in talented players, whether they cost all kinds of money or not. Our current FO hasn’t shown they can bring in talented players consistently or spend all kinds of money.
We’ve seen too many guys like Crosby, Vazquez, Rivas, Overbay, Diaz, Church, etc.
and other than Overbay, those guys you list were all brought in to be backups
we’ve all argued about this repeatedly.
A pitcher goes on the DL once in 6 seasons, and all of a sudden he is an unhealthy pitcher? If we got rid of every pitcher that has ever been on the disabled list, we’d have about 3 pitchers on staff.
Another red herring
The report on this was posted somewhere here the other day. Maholm is expected to be fully healthy for spring training. Surgery was never even discussed.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I could have easily missed it, but the only report I’ve seen referenced Maholm saying he’d be ready. And until a pitcher is fully healthy, the expectattion of that doesn’t mean much. Beyond that, my concern wouldn’t be whether he could start the season healthy after 7 months of rest, but whether breaking down this year is a sign of things to come.
I guess...
being on the DL one time in 6+ seasons means we take him out behind the barn and shoot him like a broken down horse?? The doctors supposedly gave him a clean bill of health.
Guess that means we should get rid of Correia, since he was on the 60 day DL. Or Meek…or…you get the idea.
or maybe, instead of the exaggerated analogies
they considered the risk in the next year and made a decision based on that?
Only having 1 DL stint in 6 years is nice and all
But it kind of hurts when you consider that it happens just as the player is at the point of the contract where his option is either picked up or he walks. Had this happened last fall and he had been healthy at the end of this year, none of this health talk we even come up.
Josh Bell and Derek Lee?
I don’t think I’ve seen this idea floated here, but consider: the Pirates shattered records with their draft class this year, while also dropping a pretty penny in Latin America and raising payroll to acquire players at the trade deadline. Maybe not picking up a $9M option on Maholm is just the necessary response?
Trying
not to come across as a douchebag, but look about 10 posts above at the post that starts with
“Throwing out a hypothetical”
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions
i think the FO sees Maholm as not having an 8 figure arm.
if they want to pay someone borderline ACE money, they may want someone more ACE like.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
$9M isn't borderline ace money
It’s average starting pitcher money. That’s the whole point, you can’t someone better than Maholm for $9M.
sure you can
as well as Maholm pitched in 2011, and it was easily his best as a pirate, there are better pitchers out there who make less. they may not be free agents, but MLB has plenty of them.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Well
then we would have to trade for them and you can include the value of prospects we would have to pay in the “million” column and that number would presumably exceed 9 million.
Either way, I’d rather save 9.5 million and be in a better draft position, and give Lincoln a shot in the rotation (which seems to be contingent upon Maholm leaving unless we are dumping Correia).
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
you got to trade some of the prospects once in a while, man
you cant just hoard them down on the farm and hope they outperform their peer in Pittsburgh
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree
but this isn’t the year. I’m all for doing what the Brewers did this offseason, when the time is right. The thing is..
They had Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hart, and Gallardo. Then they added Grenkie and Marcum
We have McCutchen, Alvarez, Walker, Tabata, and Morton.
It’s not particularly close at the moment, but next offseason it may be. I just don’t see adding James Shields and Anibal Sanchez (picked two names out of thin air) and giving up Starling Marte, Steston Allie, Kyle McPherson, Matt Curry, and Alex Presley as a good idea right now (if that would do it – Brewers gave up Cain, Escobar, Lawrie, Jeffress and Odorizzi.. I guess they got Yunkiskey back as well, so maybe we can get John Buck or something in addition) .
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't know too many people...
that would want the Pirates to pick up Betancourt, so I can’t say that the Brewers adding him was all that positive.
we cant say it was a negative either... hes been their SS since opening day, and hes played better this season
in fact, his last 2 seasons have been statistically his best. you hide him on a team like the Brewers instead of the Royals and his imperfections are hidden much better.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Hell...
Betancourt’s WAR the last 2 seasons has been lower than Cedeno’s. By both FanGraphs and BB-R.
doesnt matter
when you surround Betancourt with Braun, Fielder, Hart, Weeks… his shortcomings arent so noticable.
and once again, not a believer in the WAR
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
C'mon Thunder
Keep it to AVG and FLD%
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
sigh
thinking that every player on your team needs to have a positive WAR is crazy. it doesnt happen.
you can be valuable to your team and not have a positive WAR.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
thinking that every player on your team needs to have a positive WAR is crazy
Thinking that every player WILL is crazy, but wanting every player to do so, and pursuing that goal, is entirely sane and rational.
i agree Vlad
but you dont need WAR for that. you can watch Walker and say he doesnt have range. you can watch Pedro and say he needs help with recognition. you can watch Maholm pitch to see that if hes hit hard, a great defense may not even stop it.
finding better players is always the goal. but expecting every player to be above average is just not realistic.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
positive WAR isn't supposed to mean "above average" though
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 13, 2011 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s correct. They’re two different things.
Wins above replacement level – it’s right in the name.
I think the dictionary would be applicable
Replacement and average are not the same word, do not have the same definition and are not interchangeable.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
No insult
you mentioned two tools, and I just directed you to one that may help this misuse that you often perpetuate , calling 0 WAR average, or + WAR above average. Not offense.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
you directed me to look in a dictionary
how am i supposed to take that? or am i too dumb to know that too?
i think i dislike WAR more than Josh Hamilton
Well, just looking at a few teams from this year
The rangers had 100 ABs given to negative WAR players, Cardinals, about 125, and the Reds had only 1 player below 0 with siginificant AB, Paul Janish. Teams can, and do operate with an entire team with above replacement value. The Reds did, and didn’t even make the playoffs.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Vlad and I just argued this last week
Many good, even great, teams have had significant PAs/IPs from bad, or at least roughly replacement level, players. Some teams avoid that almost entirely, but there’s no magic cutoff between teams that are all positive-WAR and teams that are not. Mostly because, in terms of wins in a 162 game season, the difference between a 5th OF worth +0.2 WAR and one worth -0.2 WAR doesn’t even round up to a win.
Doesn’t mean, btw, that it’s BS. It means that not every part of a team is equally important. Worrying about negative WAR guys is like worrying about guys who don’t hit homers. It’s fun to have a team with 5 guys each hitting over 15 HRs, but that doesn’t automatically put you in a different category from teams on which only 3 guys do so – especially if two of them mash over 30.
I was really just responding, in a round about
and work interrupted way, to the statement that players with a negative WAR can have value, which is kinda against the definition. I was getting there, but got interrupted by the boss.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
if you surrounded Cedeno with those guys his shortcomings would be less noticeable
Can I talk you into believing in on-base percentage? Yuni’s OBP this year was .271 to Ronny’s .297. Last year it was .288 to Ronny’s .293. Yuni has quite a bit more power than Ronny, but that’s still a guy who’s bad with the bat. And Yui doesn’t make up for it with the glove — I understand not believing in UZR, but I don’t think anyone thinks Yuni is a good defensive SS.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 13, 2011 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
hes definately not as good as Ronny
OBP is great, and a real damn stat too.
Betancourt has not hurt the brewers this season. hows that?
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
is it fair to say that...
you’re down with OBP?
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 13, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
How do you know...
that Betancourt HASN’T hurt the Brewers this season…other than the fact that they haven’t asked us to trade Cedeno, Ciriaco or d’Arnaud to them?
Winning teams have winning players. Only. That’s how it works, right?
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
good players and complimentary players
thats all ive ever said. ive defended the complimentary players for 2 years on here, but to everyone else they:
suck
stink
blow
spew
are: garbage
trash
useless
I doubt...
you can find many Royals fans to agree that Betancourt was a good SS when he played with them.
Not sure if you looked, at all
but the brewers blog, this article in particular, posted this week, repeatedly references Yuni’s suckiness. So, other people also realize that when a player sucks, especially in a one on one sport like baseball, he sucks. Period, whether he is on the Yankees or Brewers or Royals or Pirates. Shitty players are shitty, and thier association with winning does NOTHING to change the fact that they do, in fact, suck (compared to other MLB players, or course).
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 14, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
well...
most fans are morons, especially guys who spew venom at their own players on blog sites. thats how i see those guys on the BrewersBlog.
why are you reading that stuff anyway? i would rather watch betancourt play than to read that nonsense. ugh!!
by white angus on Oct 14, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
You made an assertion that
most Brewer’s fans aren’t complaining about Yuni because they are winning. I found that hard to believe, so I went to the SB Nation Brewer’s blog and searched for Yuni. I don’t read it, but it took me all of 10 seconds to find proof that Brewers fans still think he sucks. You made a baseless point in response to a point that I made so I disputed it.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 14, 2011 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
blogs and forums
are almost always dominated by cliques. The one you went to certainly is. Yuni is actually pretty good defensively. He’s got good range to his left, has good actions around the bag and has a strong arm. Strangely, he sometimes makes plays deep in the hole to his right.
Offensively he has been awful most of the season with 2 notable hot streaks. He had a stretch in the middle of the season that lasted IIRC about 3 weeks where he was white hot. He’s been hitting pretty well at the end of the season and in the playoffs.
He hurt the team at the very beginning of the season when he was rough defensively and offensively outside of those hot streaks.
But he’s been nowhere near the “worst starting player” in baseball.
Weeks has been hurt or awful a good chunk of the season. But because he has a shiny reputation, its just “oh well.”
One is fashionable and one is not.
"Prince Fielder is too fat even for the Oakland A’s" - Billy Beane
It also could be because Weeks finished the season with a .269/.350/.468 line
and Betancourt finished with a .252/.271/.381 line. 150+ points of OPS generally will make it “fashionable” to think of one player as performing better than the other at the bat.
He might not have been the worst starting player in baseball, but his bat and glove are below average every year in the past 4 years recorded by TZ, UZR, DRS, and fans scouting reports. He’s been calculated to be worth 1 whole win less than Ronny Cedeno this year. Whereas Weeks has been calculated to be worth over 1 whole win better than Cedeno this year as a player.
"not a believer in the WAR"
Johnny Carson (most of you are wondering, “who?”) always used to say, “you buy the premise, you buy the bit.” I’ve never bought the WAR (or VORP) premise, based on what the acronyms stand for.
The notion of someone providing X wins over a fictional replacement player seems way too squirrelly for me. Baseball just doesn’t work that way. Players contribute to wins – and losses- in all kinds of not-always-quantifiable ways, and usually as part of a team effort.
However, I do respect sabermetrics in general, so I’ve opted to think of WAR simply as a stat-based player-value indexing, and trust that it evaluates enough player performance criteria to be meaningful. Given that acceptance, and despite its dorky acronym, I can willingly accept it WAR as a useful evaluation tool. Not that anyone cares what I can or can’t accept .
For
the record.. I like this.. alot.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Depends on the situation
It’s not every year that TB/SF will be thinning their pitching staff, or say a Dodgers team needing to trim payroll.
Other teams dictate the return.
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
So we only have a $30m budget for next year? Because that’s about what we’re on pace for without Maholm/Doumit/Snyder. I think they just want the option to spend the $10m elsewhere
The Pirates FO has stated on numerous occasions that the budget for ML payroll has nothing to do with how much is spent on amateur player acquisition.
There is no way that can be true, even if they state it.
It’s not as if all of the money is in different places. They aren’t two separate legal entities, one can’t go bankrupt while the other survives. Resources have to be allocated from the same initial pot to either one of those two sources, whether management admits it to the public or not.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
+1
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Put it this way...
Hardly anyone on here besides a select few think the Pirates can compete next year anyways right?
So what is the point of picking up Paul Maholm’s option for next year??? Realistically were all hoping to start to compete in 2013 right when Taillon and Cole can be on there way. So why not see who else is going to be in the rotation with them when they arrive in 2013, cause we sure as hell no Maholm won’t be here. Let the Lincoln’s, Locke’s, Owen’s even possible Wilson and Morris get another chance at starting and see which one sticks, Plus you have McPherson, Cain, Dodson, ZVR and others that will be coming along. Especially McPherson I can see being pushed through fast next year with a couple good months in the minors, he will be 24 Years old next month and is on the 40 Man roster. He made tremendous strides this year, he could be given his shot next year.
I’m just saying we have a lot of kids on the way that will need a chance to prove themselves, If we don’t think we can compete anyways next year then who cares if Lincoln or Locke start the year in the rotation and struggle? Gotta see who’s going to be here for the long haul, and in my opinion that’s not going to be Paul Maholm.
Too early to gauge being a contender in 12'
The landscape could be drastically different in the central, especially with the rumblings of a Votto trade (acknowledge that it’s unlikely).
The bucs may have a legit shot in what may be a weak division next year.
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
definately too early
everyone said the exact same thing at the end of 2010; no chance for the pirates in 2011. yet the team was in first place after nearly 100 games, and those same people were sitting in the back of the room just dying for the team to start losing again.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree
I’m just going off of what everyone is saying on here, people don’t realize new players are born every year and young players continue to get better and grow to reach there potential.
Well ya know if we get rid of the great Paul Maholm and Doumit how can we compete?
I’m just going off of what all the wide spread panic is being said here, that were downgrading the team, regressing, because of not picking up Options on Paul Maholm’s and Ryan Doumit’s of the world… Players do get better with age in baseball if your anygood, This past year was Alvarez, Walker and Tabata’s 2nd year in the big leagues, sophmore season’s if you will. I’m Willing to bet all 3 put up better statistic #s next year, of course Alvarez can’t do much worse but still, Baseball is a game that you get better with as you go on and get more comfortable. I think they could win next year if Alvarez produces easily.
Yep...
you went way out on a limb predicting Pedro’s numbers would be better next year ;-).
So what is the point of picking up Paul Maholm’s option for next year???
To create a bridge to the young starters who aren’t ready yet but might be in late 2012 or early 2013, while also making the team more watchable in 2012?
Not to mention...
some younger pitchers MIGHT be able to learn something from a “crafty left handed veteran pitcher”.
Maholm has worked out with this kids in spring training for the past couple years.
I think your overestimating that, That’s totally worth picking up his option because he might be able to teach Locke or Owens something? Give me a break, I’m sure they never picked his brain before or talked to someone else who’s a professional left handed pitcher in the bigs right?
i agree with you again.
Maholm wasnt even a “crafty left hander” until this season. before that, he was the guy that might be, MIGHT BE, better than zach duke.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I wonder if his option was only for $4.875 Million you know half...
If Thunder or anyone would else would consider him a crafty veteran? They just think hes worth it cause they just want to see the Pirates spend money, money, and more money. Cause that’s the only way they will be any good! The Rays will tell you about that.
i have no idea what they are thinking when it comes to Maholm
he pitched very well this year, but this team could do better VIA TRADE for the same amount of money
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
They just think hes worth it cause they just want to see the Pirates spend money, money, and more money.
No, they think he’s worth it because the numbers say that he’s worth it.
He had a 5.10 ERA in 2010 with a WHIP of 1.565
What makes you think his numbers won’t go back to that??? I mean to the rest of you guys no one else will improve…Karstens, Morton, McDonald will just regress right? So why wouldn’t Maholm???
how about
the fact that Joe Kerrigan is not back in the dugout?
Last good season Maholm had…2008. The year before Joe Kerrigan arrived.
by insane_sanity on Oct 13, 2011 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions
What makes you think his numbers won’t go back to that?
Because that spike in his numbers was a function of us having the worst defense in baseball that year. Unless we bring back Iwamura and Delwyn Young and hit Walker in the head until he forgets how to play second base, we’re probably safe.
Of course, we seem to be sticking with the Pedro-at-third thing past the point of all reason, so I guess you never know…
what about 2007 Vlad.
maholm didnt pitch well at all and the defense was fairly good.
what happened to him?
Maybe he had a bad year?
Don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure I remember there was a good player who had a bad year at some point. Some time in the last 50 years, I think. There may have been another one back in the 1890s, too.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
but if they do have a bad season, hes garbage...
hes brandon wood
hes pedro ciriaco
hes lyle overbay
you know, guys that people literally call trash
Acutally
some guys are, at this point in their career, just garbage.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Bring Capps back as a starter?
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
Or even...
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 13, 2011 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Holy
balls. Teh win.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 13, 2011 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions
You actually think Maholm will make that big of a difference next year???
To me Morton, McDonald and Karstens should only get better, Plus add in Correria for 4 spots next year already. To me Brad Lincoln needs his chance to start from the start of the season, if he fails he fails, but he needs his shot already to see what he can do.
Plus you don’t know what the Pirates will do at the winter meetings, they might go acquire starting pitching via trade.
Plus you don’t know what the Pirates will do at the winter meetings, they might go acquire starting pitching via trade.
So now not only are we needlessly cutting loose our best starter, we’re also trading away our hard-earned prospect depth in order to replace him? This gets better and better…
by Vlad on Oct 13, 2011 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
gotta trade them once in a while, vlad
the biggest problem with this franchise, IMO, is standing pat with our prospects, many of whom will lose value to us if they underperform at upper levels in the minors.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions
gotta trade them once in a while, vlad
Sure. Fine. Trade them to fill one of the numerous holes on the current team, rather than creating a new hole and then trading prospects to fill it.
What are you going to do with all those hard-earned prospects?
And how the hell do you know who will they replace him with?? What if they acquire a front line starter for are “hard-earned prospect depth”? You don’t know. That’s why were sitting here talking about it, not involved in what happens. To make this big of a deal about not picking up Paul Maholm and his 9.75 million dollar option coming off his first good season since 2009, is just ridiculous to me. Not worth it, all you guys ever see is regression that’s what I see then, hes a finesse lefty, with below average stuff. Never know what kind of year you will get from him.
What are you going to do with all those hard-earned prospects?
Either wait for them to mature, or cash them in for one of the many other things that we already need. Like a third baseman who can play third base, or a first baseman who can hit like a MLB-caliber starter, or a catcher better than McKenry, Jaramillo, and Pagnozzi… there isn’t any shortage of areas on the roster that need work.
Never know what kind of year you will get from him.
Do you want to know what kind of year you’ll get from him? Start with an ERA a hair above 4, and then adjust it up or down depending on the quality of the defense you’re putting behind him. Problem solved!
So Morton, McDonald, and Karstens will improve too or have similar #'s
If we put the same team on the field next year?
Im saying cash them in for something, why wait?
Either wait for them to mature, or cash them in for one of the many other things that we already need. Like a third baseman who can play third base, or a first baseman who can hit like a MLB-caliber starter, or a catcher better than McKenry, Jaramillo, and Pagnozzi… there isn’t any shortage of areas on the roster that need work.
I agree with you if your saying move them. But you want them moved for different needs. Your arguing why move them for pitching when we can just pick up Maholm’s option right?
Morton, McDonald and Karstens should only get better
That’s the hope, but it’s far from a given. Morton will have surgery in the offseason, and Karstens is liable to pumpkinize any minute. Besides, you’ve put forward 5 pitchers exactly, all of whom may or may not be ready for the start of the season, but you can bet your last dollar that we are going to need starts from at least another 3.
by BurgherKing on Oct 13, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
its far from a given that maholm would pitch as well next year as he did in 2011.
hes never had 2 good years back to back!
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
hes never had 2 good years back to back!
Actually, he has. You just don’t realize it because you don’t understand or won’t accept defensive stats.
by Vlad on Oct 13, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i dont understand? trying to push a button here, vlad???
because you believe in something that i think is horseshit makes me a dumbass???
im sorry but im a dumbass for lots of other reasons.
If you choose not to use them, fine
but your objections to the statistics that you dislike often show a misunderstanding of the stats themselves. For example, your misuse of replacement and average. WAR does not mean wins above average, and I was well would argue against it.
When you misstate the stat’s usage and limitations, and use that as an argument for the uselessness of that stat, you come off as ignorant, willingly or not.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
my hatred for the new metrics is based on this:
a player’s value is more than the stats he puts up. I know what WAR is, ive read the stuff over at other sites. I know that replacement level is bad. Im not ignorant to your beliefs in that.
a beef i have is judging a player entirely on his WAR or UZR or whatever.
for example: Matt Diaz was trounced badly on this blog this season. some even say he is a bad baseball player. you see, that comes off not as ignorant, but hatred for a guy having a bad season. if he were truly a bad player, he wouldnt have been in the majors for this long.
many labeled Cedeno a bad defender, by UZR, before this season.
well i called them all blind. i watched him last year, he wasnt bad.
now Ronny is a “great” defender, yet nothing has changed.
new metrics havent taken over because guys like me think theyre shit.
if it makes me IGNORANT, so be it. i’ll have fun watching the games nonetheless.
FYI
Most people that use UZR like to use it on a 3+ year sample size.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
didnt stop anyone from trashing Cedeno last season, did it?
we’re all looking for the perfect ballplayer, and he doesnt exist.
how did he fall off in 2010?
he was much worse in 2009? he has actually improved going on 2 years now.
I don't know how to get numbers for you
but he played really crappy defense the last 6 weeks of the year.
a player’s value is more than the stats he puts up
Where does that value come from? Good at cribbage? Likes to buy Budweiser for the team? Religious? What? I don’t understand how, in what is a one on one game, that one mans intangibles help another to perform. I don’t believe it, and there is no proof it exists. Your faith in this fairy tale of veteranocity, or “winners” is just unfathomable to me.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Evidently, whoever was buying the Budweiser for the Red Sox pitching rotation just saw his value drop considerably.
Nah.
You know who was to blame for the Sox collapse? One of the best hitters in baseball:
“The gift of leadership also eluded Adrian Gonzalez. On the field, Gonzalez’s overall production was superb, but he provided none of the energy or passion off the field that the Sox sorely needed.”
— Boston Globe
SALE TEH GONZALEZ!!!
As if we needed one.
I was, of course, joking with the SALE TEH GONZALEZ line, but I spent an hour last night reading some of the 699 comments on the Globe story and a lot of them are positively Smizikian, much “Time to clean house!” ranting (about a team that went effing 90-72!), so maybe we can pick up some bargains this winter at the Red Sox fire sale.
Agree
I always thought people who tried to “lead” team sports were pretty lame. Everyone do what you are capable of and if your team is good it will work out. Of course I played for the love of the game so maybe it does have value when you have 8-20 guys on your team that are just in it for the money.
Matt Diaz was trounced badly on this blog this season. some even say he is a bad baseball player. you see, that comes off not as ignorant, but hatred for a guy having a bad season.
I don’t hate Matt Diaz. During spring training, I pointed out that he donated a large chunk of his salary to fix up a public playground, and praised him for it. I do think, though, that his abilities have slipped as a result of age, and that he is no longer a MLB-caliber talent.
I’m not sure why you seem to be interpreting criticism of a player’s on-field abilities as also being criticism of his personal character or individual worth. It’s certainly possible that a bad person could be a bad player, or vice versa, but it’s hardly a given.
many labeled Cedeno a bad defender, by UZR, before this season.
UZR becomes more accurate with larger sample sizes, just like most stats. Also, Cedeno DID look like a better defender this year, at least to my eyes. He didn’t have that one week that he always seemed to have in his past few seasons, where he’d lose his concentration and make a dozen careless errors in a span of a few games. So, big surprise, his UZR in 2011 was better…
winning games is better than losing games
Even in years when you’re not competing.
And if we kept Maholm, we might be able to trade him for a prospect.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 13, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
oh i agree with this...
just dont see why people are jumping off bridges that we may lose Maholm.
by the way, wasnt it maholm’s AGENT who broke off ties??? says so in the article.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
just dont see why people are jumping off bridges that we may lose Maholm.
Because it means that we’re going to lose more games than we would if we had kept him.
If you’re still confused, see Zane’s post above.
thats a guess, and you know it
you have no idea who would take Maholm’s turn in the rotation, and what kind of numbers he would bring.
did you or any predict Karstens pitching like he did? hell no.
morton coming back like he did? no way.
everyone was wrong on this site about the pirates at the beginning of the year.
everyone!!! we all said they would stink, and for 4 months they showed that we know absolutely nothing about baseball.
by white angus on Oct 13, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Truth
everyone thinks they know how it will all play out. We are going to lose more games cause we lost Paul Maholm.
The Rays thought that too I’m sure…Crawford, Pena, Garza, Bartlett, Soriano, Benoit, Qualls, Wheeler, Balfour, etc. Just to name a few, and they still made the playoffs this year. They lost there starting LF, 1B, SP, SS, and CL. Now I’m not saying were the Rays but I find it hard to believe if we lose Maholm and Doumit it will affect us that much.
thats a guess, and you know it
It’s an educated guess. It’s not bulletproof, but it’s right more often than it’s not.
everyone!!! we all said they would stink, and for 4 months they showed that we know absolutely nothing about baseball.
And then they stunk like rotten fish the rest of the way, and for the year as a whole ended up exactly where people said they were going to end up. Which is why they play the entire season, rather than just doing a month’s worth of games and extrapolating the rest.
actually everyone thought they would be much worse than 4th place
most were confused by the pirates success this season. they sat along looking at the numbers and couldnt understand why the pirates were in first place. they sat there with thumb up ass, drool drippin down chin, just waiting for their math to show the truth.
now they have meaning in the world again.
Placement has little to do with it
Vegas line for PHG, along with many readers thought 70 wins was about where they would be. The had a strange distribution f those wins, but in the end, had right around that mark.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
How can you even say that
Paul Maholm has a bum shoulder and went on the 60 day DL, didn’t even pitch the last couple months. How do you know how he will be this year? He could hurt his shoulder the first week of the season and be out you don’t know. Yea if all goes right but nothing ever goes all right all the time. He’s never posted back to back good season’s in his career, just looking at his career numbers and his trends. To me he’s NOT worth it.
How do you know how he will be this year?
Dr. Andrews said that he’s fine, and Dr. Andrews knows more about pitchers’ shoulders than any other man alive.
He could hurt his shoulder the first week of the season and be out you don’t know.
He could get decapitated by a meteorite, too. Sure, shit sometimes happens, but you take the best available information and go from there. Right now, the best available information says that he’s fine. If that changes, we’ll change the conclusions to incorporate the new information.
Yea if all goes right but nothing ever goes all right all the time.
Says the same guy who’s convinced that all three of Morton, McDonald, and Karstens will be even better next year.
He’s never posted back to back good season’s in his career, just looking at his career numbers and his trends.
Then you’re looking at the wrong numbers. Try defense-independent ones.
Says the same guy who’s convinced that all three of Morton, McDonald, and Karstens will be even better next year.
I look at Morton, McDonald and Karsten as really first year guys even though they weren’t, who gained valuable experience this season, and all have better stuff than Paul Maholm and won’t cost us 9.75 million next year. And I believe the Pirates are fielding a better core behind them, though you can say since 2005 Paul hasn’t had a good team behind him until the first couple months of this season. Was that the reason for success? I don’t know.
Your overvaluing what Maholm is…a finesse left who’s stats will vary year to year, with you never know what your going to get. Compared to a McDonald and a Morton who’s stuff is far superior it’s easier to project, you can say WITH Jmac’s and Morton’s stuff they SHOULD be able to get hitter outs with this pitch or get more swings and misses, with Maholm his stuff is so mediocre he’s hard to project is it going to be like 2010 5.10 ERA or last year couple months of 3.66 ERA??? To me 9.75 Million is not worth the risk to find out.
remember, BigB... karstens improvement is an outlier... he cant possibly be a good pitcher because he never was before
Oh, Karstens/McDonald/Morton all achieved highs in Innings pitched this past season. Good job all around, and especially to JMac who was awful in april.
Maholm? Lowest innings pitched in his career.
i really want to make this last point... im not a Maholm fan nor do I dislike him
his personal beliefs get on my nerves, but hes a likable guy and a servicable pitcher.
but hes definately replaceable. he had a very nice 2011 because he changed his approach on the mound. his success was because of himself, not his defense. defense helps, but he truly changed his approach.
good luck to Paul and lets hope his shoulder truly is okay.
but hes definately replaceable
I hope you’re right, but I can’t see us acquiring a comparable replacement unless we pay much more than $9.75M for it.
I know that's how people think on here.
But idk i guess we can’t be that big of idiots if were thinking the same thing Huntington and Coonelly are thinking about Maholm! Or could we???
I look at Morton, McDonald and Karsten as really first year guys even though they weren’t, who gained valuable experience this season, and all have better stuff than Paul Maholm and won’t cost us 9.75 million next year.
I look at Morton, McDonald, and Karstens, and I see three guys who haven’t had as many full seasons in the rotation combined as Maholm has.
all have better stuff than Paul Maholm
You’re really going to try to make the case for Karstens having better stuff than Maholm?
is it going to be like 2010 5.10 ERA or last year couple months of 3.66 ERA?
That depends. Are we going to put the worst defense in baseball behind him, or not?
Good points, Vlad
But my only point of slight contention would be to take an improved defense in 2011, then take Maholm’s slightly improvement from the negative three-year trend in periperhals, etc, and then make it appear to a far gone conclusion that those two are correlated.
Yes, Maholm is a pitch-to-contact guy, but I’d value data collected over three years more highly than over three months.
Apology in advance if that is not what you were saying.
Yes, Maholm is a pitch-to-contact guy, but I’d value data collected over three years more highly than over three months.
There’s very little variation over the last three years in the rates that Maholm can control: K, BB, GB, etc. The variance is mostly coming from stuff he can’t control, like defensive support (via hit rate), bullpen support (via strand rate), HR/FB, etc.
“You’re really going to try to make the case for Karstens having better stuff than Maholm?”
One throws harder and has a better curveball and slider. changeups are a wash. Are you really going to try to make the case Maholm has better stuff than Karstens?
One throws harder and has a better curveball and slider. changeups are a wash. Are you really going to try to make the case Maholm has better stuff than Karstens?
Yes. Last year, per the Fangraphs numbers on pitch type values, Maholm had a better fastball and change, and Karstens had a better curve and slider. And if you look back to pre-2011 numbers, Maholm passes him on slider, too. Karstens’s fastball may have been slightly faster than Maholm’s last year, but it didn’t generate nearly as good of results when he threw it – look at his HR rate.
In rereading Charlie's original post...
I chuckled at NH’s quote that he cited. It’s almost word for word the same things he said just before ditching Jack Wilson, Freddy Sanchez and Zach Duke.
It certainly seems reasonable from a market perspective to keep Maholm around for another year, but it’s hard to get too worked up about a pitcher who could make us a 95-loss team instead of a 97-loss team.
Another way to think about this situation would be to measure Maholm against comparable pitchers who we probably wouldn’t want for the same money. Do you think we’d be clamoring to sign up Jeff Francis for $9.75 million if he was available? He’s pretty close to Maholm in most respects, but I doubt there would be much interest in handing out that money to him for a one-year contract if he was on the market. My guess is that we’d call him a soft-tossing lefty with limited upside and say the money would be better used elsewhere. What makes Maholm that much different?
I’ll also add that according to Fangraphs, Francis was slightly more valuable than Maholm in 2011 (2.6 WAR vs. 2.1), despite making only $2 million. Kansas City is expected to non-tender Fancis, as well. If we do dump Maholm, Francis could make some sense on a 1-year, $5 million deal.
And if you rolled your eyes at the idea of signing Francis for $5 million and are in favor of keeping Maholm at $9.75, I’d be interested in knowing why.
What if we used the money saved on Maholm
to upgrade at 1st base, assuming that Derek Lee will seek a return to the East Coast? For example, the Diamondbacks’ Lyle Overbay might be available in the off-season…..
What does that mean?!
Nice to know...
that Overbay is an upgrade over the guy that played the first half of the season here. What was his name again?? ;-)
After reading all 300+ comments
I still think it’s best when compared to the Steelers strategy of letting average/mediocre players walk in FA and only retaining the true core guys. Build through the draft and hang onto the top of the line guys only.
Though I like the way the Steelers do it
the structure, bot monetarily and developmentally, are totally different. If the Steelers decide to pass on a player, they can go draft a replacement, or draft a replacement 1 year ahead of the anticipated release. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work in the MLB.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 14, 2011 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions
dave littlefield once thought as you did
He tried drafting for need often and look where that got us (he had other problems as well, but famously passed on wieters because of our “catching depth” in mlb)
by titanlord91 on Oct 15, 2011 12:46 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
PiratesProspects already covered this
Along with reviewing Doumit’s situation
It’s a slow season and this is a great topic to get people riled, especially when taking the contrarian stance (duh, GMNH obviously elects not to exercise the option).
Zero chance anyone with a brain exercises Maholm’s option.
Hey everybody! CO_Bucs thinks like half of you don’t have brains!
It’s beyond me why you’d think I and others are the ones taking a “contrarian” stance when there are plainly a ton of people, probably a majority of those who have an opinion, who think the Pirates are making a mistake. As if I sit around writing pieces based on what I think is going to upset people and not, you know, on what I actually think.
Thanks for your input, CO_Bucs.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 14, 2011 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Really, that’s your response, Charlie Wilmoth?
The vast majority that have an informed opinion, and thankfully it only has to be NH, realize it would be significant mistake for Huntington to exercise Maholm’s near $10M option year. Teams like the Pirates don’t do that.
Oh, do what you ask? What’s so “beyond” you here? Teams like the Pirates do not/should not make relatively expensive, high-risk, adverse-outcome-likely decisions involving 30-year-old pitchers. Aside from this year, all his peripherals and IP have been in a downward trend the past three years.
NH has Lincoln, Locke, Owens, and Wilson (any more?) ready to compete for/push into a big league job. There’s a considerable chance of putting similar numbers to what Maholm would put up in 2012, with obviously higher upside long-term. NH is going to need all of those players moving forward with a 2012 pitching staff that will likely need more SP than it did through the first, what, 75% of this year. Felt like we went with 5 guys until the wheels started falling off in August.
What he doesn’t need is Maholm @ close to $10M.
So many other arguments available, including how best to spend around $10 M – how to use that money to improve your offense which is the major component that needs help.
I’m sorry, I’m not going to engage in an argument with someone who doesn’t accept that I have an informed opinion and thinks I don’t have a brain. I’ll spare you, as I’m sure that would be a very frustrating argument for you.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 14, 2011 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
The "brain" comment was not to suggest you don't have a brain
But I think it’s clearly an argument that you wouldn’t win going into the debate – and you have now lost exiting the debate.
Maybe next time we can have a discussion. Sorry you took such a strong offense.
And no offense intended on THIS point – but, there is nothing to suggest in your initial post that your opinion was informed (aside from a newspaper citation). It was mainly full of remarks on what you thought Huntington thought and included some misguided notion that a high-risk Maholm @ 10 M, with cheaper and effective pitchers waiting in the wings, fills a need “well”.
The whole things sounds something like the rational that may have been used to acquire Matt Morris, or some other type of Littlefield-esque decision-making process.
The vast majority that have an informed opinion, and thankfully it only has to be NH, realize it would be significant mistake for Huntington to exercise Maholm’s near $10M option year.
[Citation needed.]
Teams like the Pirates do not/should not make relatively expensive…
[Citation needed.]
…high-risk…
[Citation needed.]
…adverse-outcome-likely decisions…
[Citation needed.]
Aside from this year, all his peripherals and IP have been in a downward trend the past three years.
Maholm HR/9, 2008: 0.92
Maholm HR/9, 2009: 0.65
Maholm HR/9, 2010: 0.73
Maholm HR/9, 2011: 0.61 (Career-best for a full season.)
Lincoln, Locke, Owens, and Wilson (any more?) ready to compete for/push into a big league job. There’s a considerable chance of putting similar numbers to what Maholm would put up in 2012…
[Citation needed.]
What he doesn’t need is Maholm @ close to $10M.
[Citation needed.]
So many other arguments available, including how best to spend around $10 M – how to use that money to improve your offense which is the major component that needs help.
Maholm ERA, 2011: 3.66
NL ERA (average), 2011: 3.81
NL ERA (average), SP only, 2011: 3.94
Pirates ERA, 2011: 4.04
Pirates ERA, non-Maholm SP only, 2011: 4.33
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
- 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
