Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Now They've Screwed Spurs, UEFA Willing To Review Rule

In Which A Post About Lyle Overbay Becomes A Pretext For More Ranting About The Perils Of The Free-Agent Market

PITTSBURGH, PA - JULY 04:  Lyle Overbay #37 of the Pittsburgh Pirates celebrates a run with Paul Maholm #28 during the game against the Houston Astros on July 4, 2011 at PNC Park in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  (Photo by Justin K. Aller/Getty Images)

The ridiculous thing that follows began as a community projection review of Lyle Overbay's season, so here goes.

Player Community ZiPS Actual
Lyle Overbay .261/.346/.432 .244/.336/.423 .227/.300/.349 (with Pirates); .234/.310/.360 overall

No one predicted Overbay would have a slugging percentage beneath .400, so no one in the community was particularly close. I myself didn't issue a prediction, but if I had, it probably would have been near ZiPS, with a low batting average but with some walks and power. As it turned out, all we got was the walks. Overbay was -.8 wins below replacement level with the Pirates, which is remarkably bad.

Collapses of this magnitude will always be possibilities for players Overbay's age, and a collapse seemed particularly possible in Overbay's case after a 2010 season in which his batting average had dropped 22 points from the previous year, suggesting the possibility that he was having trouble reacting quickly enough to get around on balls. But you didn't have to believe Overbay was going to be anywhere near this bad to see from the outset that signing him wasn't a good idea, since even the rosy projections for how he might hit weren't particularly impressive. 

Whatever. At this point, the less said about Overbay, the better.

... Oh, what the heck. Apologies, everyone! I'm going to talk about Paul Maholm again! I'm going to beat that drum until it breaks! Earplugs may be necessary! Apologies all around!

Fun fact! Lyle Overbay and Kevin Correia made a combined total of $9 million in 2011. (Actually $10 million, since Correia had a $2 million signing bonus, but let's assume, for the sake of fairness, that the bonus is distributed over the life of the contract. So ... yeah. That fun fact was neither fun nor a fact.)

Now, Paul Maholm's 2012 option also costs $9 million ($9.75 million minus a $750,000 buyout, which is a sunk cost). 

Overbay is a lot older than Maholm, and Correia is a couple years older as well. Older players are more likely to rapidly decline than younger ones. But let's assume that Overbay's total collapse wasn't foreseeable. There's still the fact that Neal Huntington had $9 million to work with, and he went and got a 34-year-old first baseman who'd been 1.3 wins above replacement the previous year, and a starting pitcher who'd been exactly replacement level.

Maholm has been two or more wins above replacement in four straight seasons. So, okay, if you're opposed to picking up the Maholm option, why? Is it because you believe that Huntington can do better with that $9 million in the free agent market? Because the evidence is staring you right in the face that he can't. Last year he had $9 million, and he spent it on a replacement-level starting pitcher and a moderately useful, but aging, first baseman - and the Pirates got absolutely nothing out of them. (And lest you think I'm cherry-picking, his other offseason free-agent acquisitions haven't been much better.)

Now, if you think the Pirates shouldn't pick up the Maholm option because they should plow every penny they have into the draft, or because all that money will be necessary to re-sign Andrew McCutchen, or because you for some reason think that the Pirates simply shouldn't ever spend $9 million on one player, that's fine, I guess.

But let's stipulate, hypothetically, that the Bucs are going to spend $15 million this offseason. If you don't think they should pick up the option because they'll find a better use for that money this offseason, I humbly submit that you are probably wrong.

In fact, I'm about 90 percent sure that if the Pirates made a list of the top free agents from the best to the worst, and started calling each of them in order and offering them each a one-year, $9 million contract until someone took it, they'd end up calling Maholm. And then Maholm would turn them down, and the Pirates would end up calling about a dozen more players before finding a taker. No one wants to play for the Pirates. This is how the Pirates end up signing the likes of Lyle Overbay and Kevin Correia.

In fact, the only place where the Pirates' barrel-scraping offseason act actually works is the bullpen, because relievers just generally don't make a lot of money. But picking up Maholm's option isn't going to preclude Huntington from spending a few hundred thousand bucks on the next D.J. Carrasco or Jose Veras

So, okay - this post was supposed to be about the Pirates' first basemen in 2011. But here's my point: the lesson I take from the Overbay signing is essentially that the Pirates typically can't get good talent in the offseason free agent market. Someone pointed out at the time of the signing that if signing Overbay had been something the Royals had done, we Bucs fans would all have been laughing hysterically. It was a bad signing at the time that turned out to be even worse than it looked.

I won't fault the Bucs too much for the "even worse" part, but for pete's sake, when the Pirates have a bird in the hand like the Maholm option, they should probably take it, or else the free-agent market is going to destroy them. They don't have the money to be players for the top free agents, which already means their talent pool is going to be aging role players and players who are seriously flawed. Add in the fact that, for now, very few players with a choice will come to Pittsburgh, and you've got a terrible combination that leads to silliness like paying $5 million for Lyle Overbay. So when you get a shot at $9 million for Maholm, who pitches pretty well and fills a position of need, just take it. I'm not saying Maholm is a great player or that he doesn't have any risk of collapse himself. But unless the Pirates have something special up their sleeves (and they never, ever do, at least not in the offseason), Maholm is probably the most attractive gamble they're going to see.

It should be noted here, too, that I'm not saying that Neal Huntington is a bad GM who can't be trusted to spend money properly. (Although I do think all his major offseason acquisitions last year were bad ideas, and I said so at the time.) I'm saying he's been dealt a terrible hand. Hypothetically (and non-politically) speaking, let's say there's an ambitious young candidate for president. He's bright, he has good policy ideas, he performs well in debates, and so on. The problem is that his name is "Peter Buttwrinkle." There are two things I know to be true in this world: no one (well, except maybe emotionally-stunted bloggers writing posts at 4:30 in the morning) wants to vote for a man named Buttwrinkle, and no major-league veteran wants to play for the Pittsburgh Pirates. The talent of the candidate or GM in question ain't got nothing to do with it.

I hope to be proven wrong. I really do. But the next time the Pirates are able to actually pull off a genuinely splashy, intelligent free agent acquisition will be the first in eons. What I suspect will happen is that we'll hear about how the Pirates made "competitive" offers for players like Ramon Hernandez and Carlos Pena and Derrek Lee and Edwin Jackson but were ultimately, frustratingly, unforeseeably turned down, and then somehow ended up stuck with Gerald Laird, Russell Branyan and Joel Pineiro

Oh yeah, Derrek Lee. He was really good, wasn't he? That was a nice acquisition. Note that it was a trade that brought him to Pittsburgh. He did not join the Pirates by choice. Huntington corrected the error he made in the offseason free-agent market with a good trade in-season. That kind of move is possible for a team in the Pirates' position. Just getting Lee at the beginning of the season in the first place probably wouldn't have been. If I were a free agent, I'd much rather go to the Pirates than the Orioles, but I think I'd be in the minority on that one.

Comment 106 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Huntington corrected the error he made in the offseason free-agent market with a good trade in-season

this sentence makes it sound like Overbay was the first and only choice for 1B last season, even though we know he wasnt.
in fact, i would bet money that Overbay was one of the last choices.

but i agree with charlie about the wants of NH: he will make offers for certain players but more than likely end up with someone like a Russell Branyan. Until the Pirates youngsters prove they can play for 6 months, no one is coming to the Burgh.

by white angus on Oct 15, 2011 7:10 AM EDT reply actions  

The point was

Overbay shouldn’t have been A choice. At all.

by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

why? because of hindsight?

career wise Overbay as a hitter was fairly decent, and his glove was good. A lot here didn’t like the deal and they proved right over the course of the season, but going by career numbers, projections, and his ability to play solid D, he should have been “a choice” whether it be the last one or not.

Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott

by C Shint on Oct 15, 2011 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

That’s how I interpreted Charlie so now I’m going further into what I only suspect to be true but… it really wasn’t hindsight at all. This was a pretty highly likely outcome (30-50%) for his season, and thus, a poor allocation of resources.

by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2011 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Eh, we voted for a man whose name rhymes with Osama

We’re a partially evolved society, we might vote Buttwrinkle.

The think about Maholm, for me, is my valuation of him. I think I could do better with 9-15 million dollars, so that’s what I think the team should do. Given NH’s clear record though, I really do get the other side of the argument. I guess I’m willing to let NH try again to find the underrated cheap vet/journeymen to fill the holes in 2012.

by azibuck on Oct 15, 2011 8:29 AM EDT reply actions  

I don't understand this gambit with Maholm, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

1. Huntington is not stupid.
2. He and the ownership are trying to improve the team.
3. Most of us have trouble seeing past our own players, because we’re fans.

I suspect that azibuck is right about the plan, but I’m not sure. An alternative is that the FO has concluded that Maholm is hurt and simply not worth the money.

Viva Clemente!

by Roberto on Oct 15, 2011 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well, that political jab was totally warranted and necessary.

by thecheeseisblue on Oct 15, 2011 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

This is a different argument than the other Maholm thread.

Every sane person would have taken Maholm over Overybay and Correia, even at the beginning of last season. No one is arguing that with you. The real question is why take any of them and instead allocate that roughly $20M elsewhere (which doesnt nessecarily have to be into FA)?

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 8:41 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Yeah, that’s why I said this.

Now, if you think the Pirates shouldn’t pick up the Maholm option because they should plow every penny they have into the draft, or because all that money will be necessary to re-sign Andrew McCutchen, or because you for some reason think that the Pirates simply shouldn’t ever spend $9 million on one player, that’s fine, I guess.

But let’s stipulate, hypothetically, that the Bucs are going to spend $15 million this offseason. If you don’t think they should pick up the option because they’ll find a better use for that money this offseason, I humbly submit that you are probably wrong.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 15, 2011 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

given the current state of the franchise

i think the shot at doing better than Maholm is probably worth it, although for the various reasons you’ve pointed out, they may not actually be able to do better. The better cases are that they get someone like Lee to come here that can replace Maholm’s wins on the other side of the ball, and get a guy in FA on the cheap that ends up being steady with the ball (2011 Francis).

The worse case is that they end up with a Correia level producer and an Overbay level producer. Assuming 0 value added (yes, I know Overbay was worse), we’ve lost 2 wins in Maholm, which is no great shakes. It’s worth the shot, imo.

by BurgherKing on Oct 15, 2011 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't understand

why the Pirates can’t just keep Maholm and make all the upgrades you’re suggesting. I don’t even see how whether or not the Pirates can replace Maholm’s production for $9M is even relevant. If the Pirates can indeed get a two-win player for $9M on the open market, why shouldn’t they do that and also give the two-win player they already have $9M? If you can upgrade on Maholm, great, but that means you can also use Maholm to upgrade on Correia.

Think of it that way: If you want to improve slightly on Maholm, don’t you also want to improve vastly on Correia? Well, we can! All we have to do is exercise Maholm’s option.

(Obviously, the Pirates have a limited payroll and can only afford so many upgrades. But not including Maholm’s option, they only have about $20M committed to next year’s roster. Unless Nutting truly is cheap and the stuff about raising payroll as attendance increased was total BS, they should have $30-35M to spend this offseason, meaning there’s room in the budget for Maholm and other upgrades.)

by epoc on Oct 15, 2011 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

There can be many reasons for this

Obviously, money is one, as you’ve pointed out, and the issue of whether Nutting is cheap is of course still open.

Even if they have the money to sign Maholm, though, there may be multiple reasons to move away:

[ A ] That they may need to commit similar money to someone who could help beyond 2012 in a multiyear contract. Or, given the choice they’d spend that kind of money on someone like Lee rather than Maholm. Similar result in wins.

[ B ] That they consider playing time as an important resource, and might want to find out about multiple players, by giving them playing time, even if it means 2 wins less in 2012.

[ C ] While they do want to improve on Correia, it’s a sunk cost at this point, and they might as well figure out what they have or might have in others. Obviously, that would mean they’ve decided that they can do without Maholm’s 2 win contribution.

by BurgherKing on Oct 15, 2011 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Obviously, that would mean they’ve decided that they can do without Maholm’s 2 win contribution.

This is the crux of the issue. By declining Maholm’s option, they are saying that they feel like they don’t need two extra wins next year. I don’t understand why any team, especially a 90-loss team, would feel like they don’t need two extra wins.

by epoc on Oct 15, 2011 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

i m not sure thts what it says

what it says is that they feel they can get them elsewhere, and will take the chance of losing those wins for a shot at someone who could potentially get those next year, as well as perhaps a year or two beyond.

by BurgherKing on Oct 15, 2011 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

We must be talking past one another. I understand they feel they can get an equivalent player (or better) for the money. I’m saying that that’s irrelevant, because they could get that equivalent player and also keep Maholm. Whether they get the equivalent player or not, they’re giving away Maholm’s two wins.

by epoc on Oct 15, 2011 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

in the same vein...

why can’t they replace maholm’s two wins… and then add more as well. We don’t have to get those two wins from paying Paul $9m.

by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2011 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think I understand

The argument against picking up Maholm’s option is not just that they can replace his contribution on the open market, but that they can replace it several times over, up to the limit of their budget? So if their budget is $55M, they can effectively get four Maholm replacements for $9M each?

I’m skeptical, but at least that reasoning isn’t illogical.

by epoc on Oct 15, 2011 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's just it, it is hypothetical

Why should the Pirates have to spend 15M in the first place?

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

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

by Kosstic518 on Oct 16, 2011 1:01 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

If this last offseason/season taught us all anything its that the only way the Burgh’ is getting impact players it is to bring them here against their will.

NH has to know this too.

I am going to guess that we see a very different offseason where the FO looks heavily at the offseason trade market.

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

by Cheap Beer on Oct 15, 2011 10:02 AM EDT reply actions  

Good point

And the Implication is: Some of our prospects will be leaving. We won’t be getting something for nothing.

Lino Donoso

by Lino Donoso on Oct 15, 2011 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

ugh

I am more and more inclined to sharpen my pitchfork and fire up my torch. just disappointing.

by Wizard of Woz on Oct 15, 2011 11:26 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

This is what happens when you are a small market team

and you have a bad track record. You won’t be able to draw the interest of top free agents to your team unless you offer them upwards of $2-$4 million a year more than what other teams are offering them. When your team has a payroll of $42 million, it isn’t logical to put a fourth of that into one player, albeit if he is a really good player. If I was in the position of NH, I would pick up the option, one to have a good pitcher to anchor my rotation, and two, I know a team like the Cubs or the Cardinals have the money to lock him up to pitch against the Bucs.

by dasox313 on Oct 15, 2011 11:28 AM EDT reply actions  

What I suspect will happen is that we’ll hear about how the Pirates made “competitive” offers for players like Ramon Hernandez and Carlos Pena and Derrek Lee and Edwin Jackson but were ultimately, frustratingly, unforeseeably turned down, and then somehow ended up stuck with Gerald Laird, Russell Branyan and Joel Pineiro.

Yes, we’ve seen this movie before The Pirates will spend $9M (probably more) on a bunch of scrap heap guys who, put together, won’t come close to Maholm’s production in 2012. The only question is what the names will be. Gerald Laird or Jason Kendall? Russell Branyan or Jorge Cantu? Joel Piniero or Kyle Davies?

by maguro on Oct 15, 2011 11:53 AM EDT reply actions  

The sad part is...

based on 4 years of history…that if the Pirates spend $15M on free agents (which I seriously doubt) this season, there’s a good chance that Maholm and Doumit outperform whatever gets signed.

by Thunder on Oct 15, 2011 12:16 PM EDT reply actions  

i would be fine with throwin a mil at branyan

and hope he can bounce back. Low risk high reward.

by buccobat on Oct 15, 2011 12:32 PM EDT reply actions  

Do they find out if he would be an A or B before the date they have to pick up the option by any chance? That could factor maybe, for some reason NH announced to everybody that they would try to trade him maybe and then release him if they can’t, even though everybody knows that now and will just wait, so compensation might be a factor. It doesnt even sound like doing a new deal would be an option either, maybe 2yrs14 mill or 3 for 20 or something then you could move him later on and it still wouldn’t be too bad of a contract. I just don’t think you can find anybody better for that money to come here. I hope the FO valuing system isn’t too far off on these major league players, I think they come in way under what they think players are worth with there system, players are worth whatever they can get, they theoretically could spend that money better by their standards but that doesn’t mean they will and most likely won’t .

by SteelCity G on Oct 15, 2011 12:38 PM EDT reply actions  

Maholm is, I believe, not even a Type B, so compensation isn’t a factor.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 15, 2011 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Doumit and Snyder are B's.

Maholm would have had to go about 15-6 this year to be a B. There is NO chance of him being an A or B this year.

by Thunder on Oct 15, 2011 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Looking at charlie's last paragraph

That, to me, might be the only scenario in which decking Maholm’s option makes sense. If they use the money that would’ve been spent on Maholm to acquire a player under contract via a trade, like Aki for example (I’m talking about the idea, not the execution obviously), then there could be some merit to freeing up that kind of money.

by biggyv on Oct 15, 2011 12:46 PM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Jesus not again

“So, okay, if you’re opposed to picking up the Maholm option, why? Is it because you believe that Huntington can do better with that $9 million in the free agent market? Because the evidence is staring you right in the face that he can’t. "

You just don’t get it.

by CO_Bucs on Oct 15, 2011 12:47 PM EDT reply actions  

Maholm is hurt

We’re ducking out for the same reason we ducked out of De La Rosa last year

by bmcferren on Oct 15, 2011 1:13 PM EDT reply actions  

And it seems like that was a good decision. He’s only pitched 180 innings the last two years.

by CO_Bucs on Oct 15, 2011 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

i dont think thats correct

I believe we didn’t get DLR because he took less money to stay in colorado? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

by titanlord91 on Oct 15, 2011 7:26 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

And he received a nice player option

that, plus the fact he wanted to stay on Denver

by Wizard of Woz on Oct 17, 2011 8:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

exactly correct

JDLR turned the pirates down.

by white angus on Oct 17, 2011 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

but not for less money. I think he got an extra year and equal or greater yearly salary. I doubt our final offer was ever released to the press though

by Mr. E on Oct 17, 2011 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t think we ever found out what DLR turned down. The Rox hadn’t made him an offer because they had prioritized three other guys—Lilly, Garland and somebody else. Once the last of those three signed elsewhere, the Rox made DLR an offer and he immediately accepted. It could be he’d have gotten more elsewhere, or he may even have had an offer for more elsewhere. But he really just wanted to stay in Colo. so he didn’t try to find out whether he could get a better offer.

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

by WTM on Oct 17, 2011 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

If Maholm’s actually hurt to the extent that there’s a good chance it’ll affect his output next year, that’s not ducking out. That’s a smart baseball move.

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

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

Certified Grabbo Lover, though only by accident.

Total Internet Points: 9001

by wg1of5 on Oct 15, 2011 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

We're going after Snyder

he is more reliable than Doumit

Doumit is a DH, we only use a DH 9 games a year

by bmcferren on Oct 15, 2011 1:19 PM EDT reply actions  

Yeah...Snyder's more reliable...

NOT. Doumit has played 80 games more than Snyder the last 3 years.

by Thunder on Oct 15, 2011 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Over the last 3 years,

200 games for Snyder, which is about 67/year, and 276 for Doumit which is 92/year.

Absolutely none of that is good

by Superstar25 on Oct 15, 2011 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

but what are the alternatives?

100 games of gerald laird? Id much rather take 100 or so injury plagued starts from doumit and snyder with mckenry picking up the rest than go with most of the FA choices out there.

The only other alternative is giving 162 starts to a mckenry/jaramillo/pagnozzi combo, which also sucks

by titanlord91 on Oct 15, 2011 7:29 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

I think you are overlooking the trade market and our AAA starters, Charlie.

by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2011 2:32 PM EDT reply actions  

I’m ignoring the AAA starters for two reasons: 1) they’re going to get plenty of PT anyway, with Correia currently occupying a rotation spot and Morton potentially starting the year on the DL and 2) they don’t appear to be very good.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 15, 2011 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Situation:
You’re the GM of a small-market team with a small-market payroll. You ignore your younger AAA starters.

Fail.

by CO_Bucs on Oct 15, 2011 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

they’re going to get plenty of PT anyway

I’ll just copy-paste that.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 15, 2011 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I suppose there are too many variables this far away from April 1 to pick this fight.

by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2011 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

“Is it because you believe that Huntington can do better with that $9 million in the free agent market? Because the evidence is staring you right in the face that he can’t.”

If that’s the case, then I’m not sure he’s the right GM for the Pirates. The ability to find useful players in the bargain bin is one of the most useful skills a small-market GM can possess.

by bolton on Oct 15, 2011 2:35 PM EDT reply actions  

And that’s one of the big reasons some of us were not fond of Neal getting a 3 year extension.

by Thunder on Oct 15, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's true

Something Huntington acknowledged himself, that he needs to do better in the FA department. At least he’s aware of this recent shortcomings.

by CO_Bucs on Oct 15, 2011 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

true

Neal needs to do much better. But even assuming billy beane or theo epstein or a genius is running the pirates, he can’t, as they say, turn chicken shit into chicken soup. The pirates are still at a major disadvantage in the FA market, and many other gms have found worse ways to spend 9 million on free agents.

Even if they make all the right moves, FA is no guarantee

by titanlord91 on Oct 15, 2011 6:14 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Why

isn’t GJones in the conversation ? I’m not saying he is a long term solution but unless NH pulls off some miracle they will again pay millions for some washed up player who won’t give them anymore production than Jones. They don’t have to spend alot to get somebody to platoon with him.

How does that saying go about repeating the same thing over and over and hoping for different results? Well that is what NH does with these free agents he acquires.

by oldfrothingslosh on Oct 15, 2011 2:53 PM EDT reply actions  

Please look at Jones’ numbers vs left handed pitching. You will find your answer there.

by Thunder on Oct 15, 2011 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

if they find a cheap RH platoon partner for jones

That’d be completely fine. Still doesn’t affect the maholm/doumit situations that much

by titanlord91 on Oct 15, 2011 6:10 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

titanlodd91

The point I poorly was trying to make was if the Pirates didn’t waste 8 or 10m on a washed up 1st baseman they could sign Maholm.
As for Doumit unless he would sign for a reasonable amount it is time to part ways…he is not worth 15.5 for two yr in anyway shape or form and will not get that on the open market.

by oldfrothingslosh on Oct 15, 2011 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Too Rough of a jab at Correia?
Last year he had $9 million, and he spent it on a replacement-level starting pitcher and a moderately useful, but aging, first baseman – and the Pirates got absolutely nothing out of them.

I don’t think it is quite fair to say the Pirates got “absolutely nothing out of…” Correia. Regardless of the ridiculous inclusion of him on the All Star team, he did a fine job of gutting out innings and racking up quality starts in the 1st half. He reverted to norm and five of his last seven starts were horrid, but beginning with that cold opener in Chicago, I remember everyone being quite fond of his make-up and effort (also amazed he wasn’t getting hit harder with the junk he was throwing, but….)

Side note: He is as soft as they come, but Javier Vazquez signed a 1 yr., 7 mil. contract with FLA at the beginning of last year. Tough to argue that Maholm is better.

by Hit'EmAllDock17 on Oct 15, 2011 3:25 PM EDT reply actions  

Correia started off well

And then he started leaving his pitches up in the zone… start after start. He’s K/9 plummeted, compared what seemed like his career norm.

In 2012, I’d definitely take Correia at $3 M every day of the week over Maholm’s $9.75 M. Plus, via PiratesProspects info, Correia has the potential for $1 M in performance bonuses for 2012 (IP/starts).

by CO_Bucs on Oct 15, 2011 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

or

You can take both. Keep maholm AND correia in the rotation, if you think correia is due for a bounceback

by titanlord91 on Oct 15, 2011 6:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

His K/9 was worse than career marks, yeah. It wasn’t something that occurred solely in the second half of the season, though; here are his K/9 marks by month:

April: 4.02
May: 3.56
June: 5.20
July: 5.74
August: 3.98

His homer rate did balloon unrealistically in August, but it’s not like he was consistently getting strikeouts in the first half of the year, either. And over the whole season, his batted-ball profile closely matched his career marks, so he didn’t really run into luck either way in that regard. He won’t bounce back, because there’s nothing for him to bounce back to – the pitcher we saw this year is the pitcher that Kevin Correia is.

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

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

Certified Grabbo Lover, though only by accident.

Total Internet Points: 9001

by wg1of5 on Oct 15, 2011 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

for the record

I don’t think correia is likely to bounceback and have a great year. I was just saying, if you think maholm is expendable because you think correia will bounceback, you might as well keep them both and have two good pitchers.

But I don’t think correia will come back with a great year, making retaining maholm all the more appealling

by titanlord91 on Oct 15, 2011 6:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Gotcha.

Yeah, my reply was mostly to CO_Bucs, now that I look at it again, so it probably should’ve gone there. But yeah, Correia’s presence is not exactly a compelling argument for cutting Maholm loose. You might as well argue that we have Burres at league-minimum, so there’s no reason to keep Maholm for $9.5M.

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

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

Certified Grabbo Lover, though only by accident.

Total Internet Points: 9001

by wg1of5 on Oct 15, 2011 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

How about the 7.71 Home ERA? or the 7.23 2nd half ERA?

by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2011 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, I generally believe that home/road splits are a result of luck or park factor, rather than pitcher skill. And that’s the case here: Correia posted a .346 BABIP against at home, compared to .246 on the road; his LOB rate was 57.1% at home, compared to 81.0% on the road. So neither his home or road split is a very good indicator of what he’ll do going forward.

And as for time splits, he posted a 2.90 ERA in April, mostly as a result of a .233 BABIP against. After April, he never had another month in which he posted a sub-4 ERA.

Bottom line, Correia posted a bunch of SSS outliers last year, which can’t reliably be used individually to determine his success going forward. His whole year, and the whole year before that, and the ones before that, are the best indicator of what he’ll do in the future.

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

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

Certified Grabbo Lover, though only by accident.

Total Internet Points: 9001

by wg1of5 on Oct 15, 2011 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m cool with that. I’m just hoping the unlucky parts will even out and the lucky parts will continue

by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2011 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vasquez signed a sweetheart deal/has nothing to do with Maholm

He wanted to play for the Marlins and they told him they didn’t have the money. He worked out a deal that fit their budget.

by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2011 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Are you sure that you are not a free agent Charlie?

I am pretty sure that if you get competitive offers from Baltimore and Pittsburgh, you’ll be free to sign with the latter.

by WestCoastBuc on Oct 15, 2011 4:29 PM EDT reply actions  

That’s true. I’ll sign with Pittsburgh. I’m tall and left-handed, too!

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 15, 2011 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Apocryphal (probably) story:

When Alex Karras was still in the NFL, one week while in the daily defensive meetings (preparing to face either the Vikings or Giants, who had scrambling QB Fran Tarkenton), the D coach remarked “Now, you have to watch out for that Tarkenton when he’s scrambles – he’s ambidextrous.”

Karras apparently broke out laughing loudly, loud enough to make the coach stop the film and ask, “What the hell are you laughing at, Karras? You’re too dumb to even know what ‘ambidextrous’ even means!”

Karras replied, “The hell I don’t – it means he runs with both feet.”

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 15, 2011 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think that it is too early to pass judgement on this issue

Maybe Huntington doesn’t think much of the Bucs chances next season and figures that there is not much difference between, say, 67 wins next season with Maholm and 65 wins without him.

If so, he could be planning to spend the money on FAs that are likely to have more trade value at the deadline than Maholm will – specifically relievers. The Pirates are likely at less of a competitive disadvantage in signing FA relievers since an extra $500K to a guy who has a $2MM offer might mean a lot to him, and the relievers all know that if they pitch well, they are very likely to be dealt to a contender at the deadline anyway.

by WestCoastBuc on Oct 15, 2011 4:51 PM EDT reply actions  

Decent relievers are easier to trade at the deadline than mid-rotation starters

I’d bet that NH has tried to trade Maholm at both of the last two trade deadlines and didn’t get an offer he liked.

by WestCoastBuc on Oct 15, 2011 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

its possible

He got a decent offer at this year’s deadline, but couldn’t justify trading him away with the team in contention. This year, even if were in the same situation, you’d think with one more year of progress from lincoln/locke/owens and the guys from AAA, someone could step up by the deadline if need be.

by titanlord91 on Oct 15, 2011 7:40 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

also

Not sure I buy the idea that relievers bring more at the deadline than paul maholm would. A durable, veteran, relatively-cheap lefthanded starter putting up a 3.5 or less era is something many teams would like

by titanlord91 on Oct 15, 2011 7:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

I'm sure they would

unfortunately we can only offer Paul Maholm. Ya know, that guy who has never posted a 3.5 or less ERA in more than 42 IP and only twice has bested a 4.44 ERA.

by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2011 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

its possible

but i suspect if that were true, NH would have been a little more keen to hang onto him.

by BurgherKing on Oct 15, 2011 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

of course

But I suspect that it is true, so it confuses me. But yeah, if neal doesn’t think he’s worth it, that’s all that matters. I just think he’s letting a potential asset go, whether its in pitching or prospects

by titanlord91 on Oct 15, 2011 10:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Ohlendorf

~$3m price tag. Probably a fairly even bet to be as successful as Paul next year and also under team control still.

by Mr. E on Oct 15, 2011 9:53 PM EDT reply actions  

It worries me that the Pirates might agree with this. I’m not sure if it would be more troublesome to find that Nutting refuses to raise the payroll above $45M or that Huntington truly believes he can replace Maholm’s productions with someone like Ohlendorf.

by epoc on Oct 15, 2011 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd be a lot more worried about...

Ohlendorf’s health than Maholm’s. He missed the last month of 2010 and 4 months this season.

by Thunder on Oct 15, 2011 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

He was healthy most recently

though I wouldn’t expect more than 150 innings or so. It’s just another option, not something I’m excited by or endorsing.

by Mr. E on Oct 16, 2011 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

We should play a game where we sneak Paul Maholm into every conversation during the off-season!!

But, besides that, Charlie, I think you left one variable out of your discussion: timing.

You, yourself have said numerous times that the Pirates have just about zero chance of competing next year. And when the Pirates finally are competing, Maholm will be gone anyway.

Now, this isn’t to suggest that you don’t try to win in 2012 and that you never have players now that you won’t need then, but the Pirates as an organization gain a lot more for the next few years by giving at least 15 starts (I know, I said this in the last thread) to Lincoln, Locke and Owens. The major league experience these guys would gain far outweighs what you get from Maholm for the 2012 season.

Obviously, this is not an either/or situation. You could have BOTH Maholm and those guys, but what would the point be? To win 5 more games in 2012? And when you have guys that you want to take a look at for the future in major league game conditions.

I actually would have no problems going into 2012 without even replacing Maholm, because you can still field a reasonable facsimile of a nearly competitive team with the rotation they have.

The bigger problem is that they STILL have gaping holes at 1B and 3B. To even field the resemblance of a major league team, they have to address these 2 positions. I’d certainly rather see them plow their off-season money into these two positions. Will they be able to bring in great players at these positions? Probably not, but I’d like to see them try WITHOUT having that 9 million dollars already gone to Maholm.

If the Pirates were on the cusp of competing, a Maholm re-signing could make sense. Just not for this year.

This is why I didn’t initially have a problem with the Overbay signing. He was a very cheap (in today’s value of cheap) player brought in to bring at least a small amount of stability to a gaping hole on the roster. Did he fail? Absolutely. Could the Pirates have brought in someone better? I certainly like to think they tried. I won’t hold the Overbay signing against them, as I’m thinking this was a “best they could do at the time”kind of signing (unless someone has evidence that someone better was waiting at the table and the Pirates CHOSE Overbay over that person). Plus, he didn’t cost much. Small gamble: didn’t pay off.

You talked about looking at the Overbay signing from another team’s point of view, Charlie, now imagine if Maholm had been with another team for his whole career and the Pirates sign him this off-season for 9 million dollars. Would you have been happy with this signing (I don’t know your answer, which is why I’m asking). I would imagine that a lot of people here would be unhappy with this move. There would be plenty of comment about why a Pirates team that isn’t going anywhere in 2012 is signing a 30-year-old pitcher (who, of course will only go downhill, since many people here have told me that all player’s skills immediately begins declining at 30, Haha!) who had two bad seasons in his last four is committing 1/5 or 1/6 of their payroll to him. Or maybe not. Maybe you would be writing 6 stories about what a wonderful acquisition that NH had just made. But I imagine much of the Bucs Dugout Nation would be blase or even disappointed with that signing.

by impliedi on Oct 16, 2011 8:53 AM EDT via mobile reply actions   1 recs

Yes, he does.

It could have been done, however, without the C-Death snark against Charlie.

Who gives a shit how many articles are written about Maholm? Everyone’s responding to them, and there’ve been some good comments / points made.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 16, 2011 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

yes, his point was very good

if Maholm were a FA this season, and after playing elsewhere his whole career, would we be pissed off that the front office signed him to a $10MM deal???

abso-f’ing-lutely.

by white angus on Oct 17, 2011 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

You talked about looking at the Overbay signing from another team’s point of view, Charlie, now imagine if Maholm had been with another team for his whole career and the Pirates sign him this off-season for 9 million dollars. Would you have been happy with this signing (I don’t know your answer, which is why I’m asking).

Yes. And I don’t get why people keep bringing up the percentage of the payroll Maholm would get as a reason not to do it. Maholm would get a large percentage of the payroll because the Pirates’ payroll is incredibly tiny and because Maholm is a real major-league player who is in a position to make some money. The percentage of the payroll says more about the size of the Pirates’ payroll than it says about Maholm.

More things I am not clear on:

1) Why $5 million on an obvious stinker like Lyle Overbay is “very cheap” and a “small gamble,” while $9 million on a competent player like Maholm is “1/5 or 1/6 or their payroll.”

2) Why people (and you’re not the first) want to cite the likes of Rudy Owens and Jeff Locke as reasons not to pick up the option. Owens did absolutely nothing this year to suggest he would do anything but get crushed at the big-league level, and I fail to see how that would benefit him. And Locke wasn’t particularly impressive either, at least not from a visual standpoint, and Brad Lincoln is a million years old. Also, even with Maholm on the team, one of the Pirates’ five starters is still Kevin Correia. If the AAA guys do well, there will be big-league opportunities for them, even with Maholm there.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 16, 2011 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Percentage of payroll.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Let me try to state it another way: given the Pirates’ current situation (still growing, but not nearly ready for contention), there is no need to place a large contract on a league-average pitcher, when hou have other options in your organization that you have an interest in seeing and you are sitting with TWO absurd gaping holes at the corners of the infield.

Again, Paul Maholm as a pitcher is worth the 9 million he’s due. I won’t argue that, because that’s what pitchers like him get paid. I just fail to see the point in investing in him for the 2012.

Proponents of exercising the option, like yourself, keep saying that Maholm is a good deal at 9 million. I think very few would argue that. My point is not that he’s not worth it, but why.

I mean, what exactly do the Pirates, for both 2012 and also the future, stand to gain by having Paul Maholm on their roster? Does it make the rotation more formidable in 2012? I guess you could argue it would be more formidable than a young replacement, but what does that truly mean for the Pirates? More than a fourth place finish in 2012?

All I’m saying is that it’s just the wrong time. I don’t see what the Pirates gain.

As I mentioned, sure, the Pirates could have Maholm and look at the young guys too. But again, what is gained for the organization for having Maholm? What’s more important to the Pirates at this stage? Getting a solid start from Maholm or using those inning to get more looks at the 3 I mentioned? Certainly Locke, Lincoln and Owens all may turn out to be busts, but why would you not give yourself the most looks you can, rather than giving them spot starts here and there or letting one of the, fill-in while Morton recovers.

It’s an honest disagreement that we have. On this particular point, you’re more interested in the short term benefit for the organization and I’m much more interested in the long-term. Before you jump on me about that statement, note the qualifier “on this particular point”.

As for Overbay, I know you hated the signing from the beginning and stated so, and were proven right. I don’t think anyone here was overly enthused about the deal. For me, I felt like he would solidify, if nothing else, the defense over there and, if all went well, a little bit of offense. He ended up being neither. In hindsight (and for some of you, in foresight!!), yes, that was a wasted 5 million. Personally, if he would have played solid defense and hit maybe 10-15 points higher (everyone, please spare me about how AVG doesn’t mean anything, I’m using it to make a generic point), it wouldn’t have been a terrible waste of 5 million, just a less than stellar investment.

I guess, for me, I’d rather see them sink just about every off-season dollar into a 1B and a 3B. And that includes Maholm, Doumit and Snyder’s option money. Now why do I say that when I’ve already made a fuss about 2012 being meaningless in the grande scheme of things? Because when you take Maholm out of the rotation and replace him with young guys, the rotation will almost definitely be worse, but it will not collapse and the Pirates gain valuable knowledge about some of their younger players. If the Pirates subtract 9 million for Maholm in their quests for a 1B and 3B this off-season, not only are you guaranteed to land the Overlays of the world, but this offense will be a laughing stock. A year of Josh Harrison at 3B and Matt Hague at 1B, not only doesn’t make the Pirates good in 2012, but it does next to nothing in terms of evaluating for the future. Obviously, this could change if Pedro gets himself righted.

Basically, that’s the reason why I’m not in favor of picking up Maholm’s option: he’s a nice guy and a solid pitcher, but he’s not necessary for the 2012 version of your Pittsburgh Pirates.

by impliedi on Oct 16, 2011 3:20 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Because when you take Maholm out of the rotation and replace him with young guys, the rotation will almost definitely be worse, but it will not collapse

Oh, I don’t know about that. I think you are overestimating their capabilities. And I say that as someone who wants them to improve and succeed next year, and I still think that’s possible. But based on the information we have now … I’m not sure I see the value in giving guys like Locke and Owens “looks” at the big league level just because we can. They need to prove themselves at the AAA level first. Locke only had a few starts there last year, then got rocked in the big leagues; Owens had many starts at AAA but was really bad. Whatever they need to learn, they can start out by learning there. I don’t really thinking resigning Maholm is detrimental to the long-term interests of the franchise in any way. This is particularly true because, even with Maholm, Kevin Correia is one of the starters, and Charlie Morton is currently hurt. Lincoln will get plenty of looks even with Maholm, and my guess is that Locke and perhaps Owens will as well. And if the pitch really well at Class AAA, they’ll definitely get chances.

There isn’t, in my view, a huge hole at first base. Certainly I agree that they need to be heavily involved in the free agent market there, and they shouldn’t be satisfied with what they have, but Garrett Jones is a perfectly viable option against righties. They do need someone who can hit lefties, and it would be fine if they re-signed Lee or got Carlos Pena to make Jones a bench player, but overall I would say first base is less of a hole than the last spot in the rotation is. And as for third base, they clearly need to do something, but I don’t think you can sign someone too expensive, because you’ve got to be able to be flexible if Alvarez turns things around. He’s much more important to the future of the organization than anyone else we’re discussing here. I would want to sign someone like Wilson Betemit who can be easily moved into a bench role if Alvarez proves he deserves the job.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 16, 2011 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Owens put up a 4.07 FIP at Indy. Not great, but not terrible. Has Wilson been ruled out as a SP yet? There’s also a maybe 10% chance Mcpherson can be up by midseason and give us average production as a rookie. No guarantees but with 3-4 options, one of them probably matches Maholm’s level of play. And yes, at least 1 more arm needs to be either signed or traded for.

by Mr. E on Oct 16, 2011 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Because when you take Maholm out of the rotation and replace him with young guys, the rotation will almost definitely be worse, but it will not collapse

Very, very dubious assumption.

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

by WTM on Oct 17, 2011 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Any reason at all to think

the Pirates could be pinching pennies now to stockpile a war chest for a year when they seem to be on the cusp of competitiveness for a division title? A sunny-day fund, as it were? Or is there some requirement that books have to balance (income = outgo) every year?

by bucdaddy on Oct 16, 2011 10:26 AM EDT reply actions  

Vlad mentioned in another thread that the plaers union won't let us do that

without them filing suit. He indicated that we either had to spend the Maholm option money on Maholm or in free agency.

Assuming Vlad is correct, one possible way around this dilemma is to spend the money now on something that will help us in the future, say, buying out one or more of Cutch’s FA years by paying him the Maholm/Doumit option money next season. This approach could satisfy almost everyone.

Cutch might be happy to be collecting $15 million next season instead of a mere $450K.

The Pirates would be spending enough to satisfy the union.

Guys like McCutcheon’sTruth would be happy since we’d not only be extending his favorite player but also not doing anything that might casue us to win more games next year and spoil our draft position.

Most of the critics of not picking up Maholm’s option would at least see some sense to this move.

And you and I would be happy because they were using the money to, in affect, help the team in the future when it might matter instead of next season when it almost certainly won’t.

by WestCoastBuc on Oct 16, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

Andrew McCutchen won't want to spend an extra day in Pittsburgh, let alone an extra season.

If he stays healthy and continues to improve, he will want to go for the bigger bucks with a winning franchise. The Pirates will trade him well in advance of FA in order to get the best return possible.

パトリック

by patthatt on Oct 18, 2011 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

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

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Charlie_small Charlie Wilmoth

Editors

18470r_small Vlad

Davidtodd_small David Todd

Authors

Img_1692_small WTM

Mark_profile_pic_small MarkInDallas