Brad Lincoln, Jeff Locke, Rudy Owens Not Worth Clearing Space For
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 16, 2011 2:01 PM EDT
Email
Print
Right now it looks like the Pirates have four pitchers in their rotation: Charlie Morton, Jeff Karstens, James McDonald and Kevin Correia. As you know, I have a preference about who the fifth should be, and we don't necessarily need another post about that person. But I would like to mention one of the arguments that has come up repeatedly in those threads, which is that the Pirates don't need another starter in part because they have guys like Brad Lincoln, Jeff Locke, Rudy Owens and Justin Wilson at the Class AAA level.
I'm not a big fan of these arguments, for two reasons. The first is that, even with the addition of a fifth guy (whether that's you-know-who or someone else) the Pirates already are giving one rotation spot to a replacement-level player in Correia, and another to Charlie Morton, who will have had an offseason surgery that has a long recovery time. There will be opportunities for the Class AAA guys to get starts.
Second, there's the separate question of whether giving starts to these guys is a prima facie good thing. Now clearly, if one of them starts performing really well in the International League for a couple months, the Pirates should clear space for them, and given the position the franchise is in, it would be ridiculous if they didn't. If Rudy Owens starts terrorizing Class AAA batters, we can all call for him to be promoted, and that includes me. Unfortunately, though, Owens had 71 strikeouts in 112.1 innings at Class AAA last year. He did pitch pretty well in July after struggling through May and June, but at this point, he has done little to show he would do anything but get pounded at the big-league level.
As for Wilson, it's not even clear that he's a starter at this point. He has control problems, so the Pirates tried him out of the 'pen at the end of the year. He continued to have control problems there, but he was throwing really hard, so the Pirates might continue using him as a reliever, where he has fantastic velocity for a lefty. Regardless, he had 94 strikeouts and 67 walks this year, which isn't the mark of a player who will be able to help as a big-league starter right away.
Locke pitched pretty well at both Class AA and AAA, but his stuff is unimpressive, and no one thinks he's likely to become more than maybe a middle-of-the-rotation guy in the long term. Also, he only has 28.1 Class AAA innings to his name, and he walked twice as many as he struck out in a small sample in the big leagues. More time at Class AAA might actually help him at this point, and there isn't yet a strong indication that he can step into the big-league rotation and succeed.
And then there's Lincoln. Of the four, Lincoln's performance record most strongly suggests he can survive in the big leagues. But he'll be 27 in May and has never had much success in the majors. He's been competent at Class AAA, but unspectacular. If he has to take some starts for the Pirates, that's fine with me, but he's certainly not good enough to consciously clear a spot for, or at least he hasn't been so far.
The Pirates will need depth this year. Lincoln will almost surely get his chances, and if Locke and Owens perform well, there will be space for them too. But these are not Grade-A prospects. In fact, in the cases of all except Lincoln, they haven't even shown they're ready for extended shots in the Pirates' rotation. Let them prove themselves first. Even with the addition of another pitcher, the Pirates' current rotation is weak enough that the Class AAA guys will get plenty of opportunities. If one of them emerges as a legitimate big-league starter, we'll know.
125 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Haven’t been here in a while but respect your work. Who’s the fifth starter you like? These guys you mention are young — they might be wannabe’s but at least they’re not has beens. Locke is a fighter, but I was disappointed with his Brian Burres-like stuff.
He-who-must-not-be-named
Jim: Charlie’s talking about the starting pitcher mentioned here and
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 16, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
FAIL
…and here, and I think he’s not mentioning his name because he feels that we’ve already kind of talked that subject out, and doesn’t want to steer this thread into further discussion of that guy. No offense meant — it’s hard to tell what he’s talking about if you don’t know, and it’s also hard for him to make it clearer without spurring that very discussion.
Incidentally if this thread does turn to discussion of That Guy, I totally intend to derail it by asking Charlie questions about Anthony Braxton.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 16, 2011 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I personally don’t care if we discuss Voldemort further, but it does seem to be bothering some people.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 16, 2011 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Oops, I forgot...
here too….but that’s just in the last week!!!!
I’ll stop now. Don’t worry, it’s all in good fun.
Thanks WG Zane Smith.
I’d go after offense via trade, not free agency. I’d move Stetson Allie, 100 mph with no control but tons of potential for an established hitter who makes $10-plus million and is signed for several seasons.
I’d also look into a Logan Morrison-type hitter, a young guy with power that doesn’t whiff like Pete Incaviglia or Dave Kingman. More of a Mike Greenwell type.
Hey, JimBibbySweat
First time I noticed you posting here, I’ve only been posting about the Pirates beginning this season on this blog. Pirate fans under a certain age who weren’t alive during Jim Bibby’s time with the Bucs, may not realize what a terrific pitcher he was for Pittsburgh(Bibby started Game 7 of the ’79 WS, and gave the Bucs four strong innings of shutout ball).
Those of us who enjoyed watching Bibby pitch during the late 70s-early 80s, noticed the effort Jim was exerting on each throw. He would rear back, and really bring it, Bibby wasn’t a small player, and his fastball was excellent. The other aspect about Bibby was the sweat which began in the early innings of his start, then consistently drop off the bill of his cap while he was on the mound. The drops just kept coming, even though you saw Bibby wipe his forehead off periodically during the game. It must have been a little distracting, but you wouldn’t have known it by Bibby’s performance with the Bucs. One year he nearly won 20.
by SteelStealth on Oct 16, 2011 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I couldn’t have said it any better about Bibby. RIP
by JimBibbySweat on Oct 16, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
greenwell
As a Pirate fan living in the suffocating red sox grasp of New England, I’m pretty much programmed to hate all things bosox. Of all the Boston players, Greenwell may be the guy who annoyed me the most (though Trotsky Nixon would be just a tick behind).
What made Greenwell so irksome IMO was the whole cliche redneck-stupid personna. I was actually quite surprised to see he had a career OPS of .831. So, when you say a greenwell type, I’d certainly take that, but I guess I’d hope for someone with a triple digit IQ. Oh, and not a complete mechanic in the field. Greenwell looked like he was playing left field on roller skates.
I wasn’t aware that Greenwell wasn’t so bright, though I do remember him feeling robbed of an MVP because of Canseco and his steroids more recently (I also liked the young version of Kal Daniels from that era). Any word on the next Red Sox coach or GM?
by JimBibbySweat on Oct 16, 2011 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
sox gm
Most likely Ben Cherington, who IIRC pulled off a couple of decent deals when Theo was having his temporary retirement snit a few years back. I believe he managed to unload renteria for andy marte who he then flipped for coco crisp; he may have also been done the beckett deal but my memory is too foggy to recall for sure.
Greenwell may not actually be as dumb as he acted.
Lucino
Ben Charrington will take over on paper but Lucino is the one that will really be making all of the decisions. Hopefully that will keep him from whining to MLB about how much the Pirates and Marlins spend.
Yinzers uber alles
lucchino the bogeyman
Not sure I buy that completely. A lot of the epstein acolytes are advancing the theory that LL “forced” theo to sign, to name two examples, crawford and lackey…in order to “make a splash” during recent offseasons.
That conveniently overlooks a lot of the bonehead moves the boy genius made over the years. One of my favorite theo quotes was, “jeremy giambi is an onbase machine!” Not everything he did was pure brilliance. Plus, he showed a shocking lack of humanity in his heartless treatment of the mentally challenged. That would be Dave Littlefield.
He definitely deserves credit for re-establishing the Boston farm system. For all the people who want to fall over themselves giving NH credit for that with the Pirates, look at all the homegrown talent on the sox, who generally don’t draft in the top five.
One of my favorite theo quotes was, "jeremy giambi is an onbase machine!"
That’s a strange thing to complain about. Jeremy Giambi had a lot of faults (as both a person and a player), but he WAS an on-base machine. Even in his season with the Red Sox, where his offense totally cratered (.197 BA!), he still put up a solid .342 OBP. And it’s not like they gave up anything particularly valuable in order to get him – just a solid-but-unspectacular RHRP in Josh Hancock.
who’s complaining
“That conveniently overlooks a lot of the bonehead moves the boy genius made over the years.”
nah
Just having some fun. I actually respect a lot of what theo has done, most notably IMO the farm system. Another point in his favor – the 04 team was largely Duquette’s, but they don’t win if he doesn’t trade Nomar.
Like Cashman, he had the budget to paper over FA mistakes butit also helped enormously that his farm system was producing players who came up and contributed. Well, maybe not Brandon Moss, but other guys.
I think he’s been a solid GM overall but I’ve just never accepted the “best GM in baseball” talk that gets thrown around (I think people are taking their cue on that from Gammons). Of course, if he gets the monkey off the cubs’ back, I might have to reconsider.
Lonnie Smith...
invented playing left field on roller skates.
yes, they actually called him "Skates"
I still vividly recall him in LF for the Phils during the 80 LCS vs Houston; every routine fly ball was an adventure.
Upon reflection, I think Greenwell looked more like he was wearing snowshoes.
What does it matter?
The Pirates remind me of a one leg man in a race every year with a two legged man and the one leg man is so poor he can’t afford an artificial leg all he can afford is new shoelaces every year .Thankfully they come in pairs so he only has to buy them every other year.
by oldfrothingslosh on Oct 16, 2011 3:07 PM EDT reply actions
What does it matter? Someone once asked me the same question about my oldfrothingslosh beer can collection — but I still have ‘em. Maybe in another 100 years they’ll be worth something.
by JimBibbySweat on Oct 16, 2011 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Frickin Awesome
Great observation. So good i had to read it to the wife.
Oh god how did I know this was coming
Arguments 1, 2, 3, and 4 not worth reading.
Thank you for furthering the discussion
with your intelligent and well-reasoned comment.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 16, 2011 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Gawd you guys need to lighten up..
I only meant it tongue in cheek.
by oldfrothingslosh on Oct 16, 2011 3:23 PM EDT reply actions
CO_Bucs’ response wasn’t directed at you.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 16, 2011 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Use the “reply” function when you’re replying to something, and things will become clearer. :)
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 16, 2011 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
All clearly correct points, Charlie
The AAA guys will get their shots one way or another. Meanwhile, except maybe for Lincoln none of them is ready. With pitchers especially, I’m convinced it can be counter-productive to bring a guy up before he’s ready. I’ve seen this too many times—you bring a Rudy Owens up when he still hasn’t mastered AAA, he posts a 10+ ERA in three starts, then he goes back to AAA and is worse there than ever.
In any event, the PIrates undoubtedly see things the way Charlie does on that one point. Owens and Locke won’t be considered for a rotation spot, and Lincoln will probably be in Morton’s (anybody who thinks Morton will be ready to start the season should stay away from casinos). What bugs me is that they’re letting you-know-who walk knowing that they have to replace him. With the same inevitably as Pedro Alvarez facing an 0-2 count, the replacement is going to be a Kevin Correia-like, replacement level pitcher. If there’s one absolute certainty in all of MLB this winter, that’s it.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I agree, but for some context
Player A at age 23 (in AA and AAA) had an ERA of 3.70, with 8.4 hits per nine innings, 3.2 walks, and 8.2 strikeouts.
Player B at age 23 (in AA and AAA) had an ERA of 3.30, with 6.8 hits per nine innings, 3.7 walks, and 5.7 strikeouts.
Which would you prefer? Which do you think will be better in 2012? BTW, one will cost you $9 million more than the other. Both would be well served by more time in AAA.
Viva Clemente!
Looking back on Maholm's age 23 season isn't particularly enlightening
Because although not every guy that posts those type of numbers at age 23 will go on to establish himself as a mid-rotation starter in MLB, we know that Maholm did so. You can say that Locke’s upside is Maholm and I won’t argue with you, but Locke’s chances of having as good a career as Maholm aren’t all that great. Less than 50% certainly, and probably a lot less.
Getting rid of Maholm because you’ve got a guy with a 20% chance of being as good as Maholm doesn’t strike me as a great strategy.
Based on what I saw in four starts, Locke’s chance of being a replacement level MLB pitcher is somewhere around 10%, with his chance of being Maholm’s equal less than 1%.
The dude has no command, or at least he didn’t have any command in those four starts. I suspect a lefty who throws 90-93 can get by just fine even in the upper minors just by throwing strikes, even if he has no command within the zone. Locke shouldn’t even by in this conversation.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 16, 2011 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s true that none of those guys are worth clearing roster spots for. It doesn’t necessarily follow that one of them won’t do as well as He-who-can’t-finish-a-season-and-was-throwing-batting-practice-in-August. I can’t say that I see any of those three performing well at the MLB level this year, but, then, I couldn’t see Karstens, Morton, or He-who-can’t-finish-a-season doing so well (for half a season, at least) as they did this year.
I’m really surprised about all this hand-wringing. Taking Maholm on a one-year flyer would give the Bucs a marginally better chance at winning 73 games next year, but probably a worse chance at winning 82, as the move would lock up a guy whose ceiling at this point in his career is a 3-win player. That money could be turned into two guys with ceilings of 3 wins apiece, albeit a lower chance of achieving them, and a rotation spot would be given to one of these three apparent bums, who just might, with luck or improvement, end up replacing two (or dare I dream for all three?) of his possible three wins. The hand-wringing just seems so antithetical to the past three or four of argument on this board and from fans like those who frequent this site.
I don’t actually believe the Pirates will do anything more productive with the $10M. I’m not sure the owner will spend it rather than enhancing profits, and I’m relatively confident that NH would fail at picking out the bargain guys who will rebound this year if he did get the money to spend. I’m positive the money won’t be banked towards some future bold move. In light of all of this, I would have been happy for the Pirates to pick up the option on Maholm. But I’m not particularly upset by the decision, and I fail to see why all the “What, were we breaking up the ’27 Yankees?” apologists are more up in arms over letting Maholm go rather than pay him a premium rate to contribute (maybe) 2-3 more wins to a crappy team for one more season than you were over trading Bay for dog-leavings rather than paying him a bargain rate to contribute (a much more likely) 5-6 more wins to a bad team over a season and a third.
I dunno ...
even Littlefield lucked into one great year of bargain-basement pickups (Sanders, Stairs, Lofton etc.). If he can, literally anyone can.
even Littlefield lucked into one great year of bargain-basement pickups (Sanders, Stairs, Lofton etc.).
Unfortunately, the only reason so many bargains were available to us that offseason is that the owners were engaging in collusion.
The link is unpersuasive
There were allegations of collusion. But did they have any merit?
In this context (collusion against multiple players who stand to earn millions of dollars per year), a $12 million dollar settlement with the union is actually an indicator that there was not much merit to the allegations. Compare $12 million in 2004 dollars and player salaries to $280 million in 1990 dollars and salaries.
But perhaps you have other, better links.
In any event, there are bargains to be had every year. NH probably won’t find them, but that’s no reason (at least it has never been thought to be a reason among posters at this site) to settle $10 M on a guy who could, at best, add three wins, at a price where some combination of GM skill and luck could get you six wins, plus, perhaps, an improved line-up that would net additional wins that would be allocated by WAR to other players’ improved performances.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 17, 2011 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions
But did they have any merit?
The owners agreed to pay the players a settlement, which would be unusual behavior if the suit didn’t have merit.
In this context (collusion against multiple players who stand to earn millions of dollars per year), a $12 million dollar settlement with the union is actually an indicator that there was not much merit to the allegations.
The collusion in this case was not as widespread or significant as it was in past instances, and as such, the penalty was lighter. In this particular case, teams were (allegedly) sharing information about their offers to free agent players with the league, which then made that information available to other teams interested in signing those players.
In any event, there are bargains to be had every year.
Yes, but not as many as there are in an environment where teams are illegally engaging in practices designed to hold down the prices of mid-tier FAs – which is why I brought up the collusion.
that’s no reason (at least it has never been thought to be a reason among posters at this site) to settle $10 M on a guy who could, at best, add three wins, at a price where some combination of GM skill and luck could get you six wins, plus, perhaps, an improved line-up that would net additional wins that would be allocated by WAR to other players’ improved performances.
I know you don’t want to accept that quality free agents are reluctant to sign with us if they have other options, even if we make the highest offer on the board, but that doesn’t make it any less true. “GM skill and luck” aren’t really the restriction that’s in play here. It’s the size of the market, the lack of a national media presence, the weather, the lack of a significant local Latin population, the lack of quality players born in the area, and most of all the losing.
The owners agreed to pay the players a settlement, which would be unusual behavior if the suit didn’t have merit.
Not really. If, for example, it’s going to cost more than $12 million to defend the suit, then you’ll settle for $12M.
There was no admission of guilt, as there sometimes is during a settlement, and it’s not fair to say “well they did settle it, so I’m calling them guilty anyway”.
There was no admission of guilt, as there sometimes is during a settlement, and it’s not fair to say "well they did settle it, so I’m calling them guilty anyway".
Given their extremely checkered past history, I don’t see any need to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. They were already a repeat offender at that point.
Pitching
The only way the Bucs are going to improve their pitching is to take a flyer on a guy with good stuff like we did with James MacDonald. JMac was a castoff that the Dodgers had given up on, but he has worked out on some level for the Bucs. Let’s face it – there are a million Kevin Correias out there.
the pitching will be due to regress next season
with or without Maholm.
The Pirates need to find a way to acquire a power corner bat for 2012.
They need to shop Hanrahan and see who they can be able to acquire to supplement the Cole, Taillon, Marte, and even Grossman.
They also need to shop GFJ. He is nothing more than a LH power bench bat who can only feast on fastballs.
This team, no matter the moves, will barely reach 70 wins next year.
"the pitching will be due to regress next season"
I couldn’t agree more. Even before the loss of Maholm and Morton’s injury, it was highly unlikely the 2012 pitching staff would perform to the same level. Anyone counting on Karstens duplicating his season should also consider the lottery for their retirement plan. The only pitcher I see how has a legitimate chance at taking a step forward, is McDonald. After that, I think there’s a good chance the Pirates have the worst pitching staff in the NL next season. So it will take a massive increase in offense to offset that. Even a productinve Alvarez and healthy Tabata may not be enough to overcome that. Even more so when you consider catcher and 1b will likely be well below average offensviely. For those suggesting there’s an entire offseason, I understand that, but ask you look at every single offseason Huntington has ever had and then try to convince me it will be any different.
Honestly, it’s hard to get too fired up about losing a pitcher who will likely make little difference for a team that is going to lose 90 to 100 games next year, but the part of dumping Maholm that makes no sense is that we get absolutely nothing for him. I know they couldn’t have really traded him when the team was in contention this year, but he is still a moderately valuable commodity, and if bringing him back next year means we could flip him for a couple B prospects next July, it’s better than just dropping him now and getting nothing.
Ultimately, I think this debate is about how we maximize the value our resources. I don’t think we’d be clamoring to spend $9.75 million for one year of another soft-tossing mid-rotation lefty (Francis, Capuano, Buerhle) when we know we’re not going to contend next year anyway. But Maholm is one of the only tradeable commodities left on the roster, so it would seem to be poor resource management to just give him away for nothing.
but the part of dumping Maholm that makes no sense is that we get absolutely nothing for him.
When the same thing happens after all of these trades (i.e., the Bucs end up getting nothing for a player), we are reminded that trading players for prospects isn’t what it used to be, that these guys aren’t the ’27 Yankees, and so on.
They got nothing for Maholm because they were actually in contention when the designated time to trade him arrived. (Had they not been in contention, they’d have gotten nothing because Maholm isn’t much of a trade chip, because trading players for prospects isn’t what it used to be, because, c’mon, Maholm isn’t a member of the ’27 Yankees, and for lots of other reasons.) I would gladly trade Jeff Clement, Tim Alderson, Andy LaRoche, Brian Morris, Craig Hansen, and even Jeff Locke and Gorkys Hernandez for another four months of winning baseball, even if it turns out to be a mirage.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 16, 2011 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess I probably see the situation the differently. The four-month mirage was fun while it lasted, and I wouldn’t have wanted them to trade Maholm even in retrospect, but I’d rather roll the dice with prospects and trade Maholm in July than hold onto him for a full year and get nothing. No doubt, we’re not going to get any bluechippers for him, but if we could flip him for a McDonald-type young starter or a blocked firstbase prospect, I’d do it. Obviously, those trades haven’t worked out so well for us recently, but I’d rather lose 95 games and pick up a few potential starters than lose 92 games and have Maholm pitching every five days.
Yep.
My feelings exactly.
You gotta aim high to fail so big. - Trace Beaulieu
by IAPiratesFan on Oct 16, 2011 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Why would you want Jack Wilson and Nate McLouth back? They wouldn’t contribute to winning baseball.
by thecheeseisblue on Oct 16, 2011 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Or Jason Bay, Freddy Sanchez, or Xavier Nady for that matter. I wouldn’t want any of those guys back, even though the prospects we traded for them haven’t done much of anything. I would rather have taken the chance on those prospects than have a bunch of aging, expensive players.
According to Baseball Reference, Jason Bay was a 5.6 win player with the Red Sox, and if you ignore defense (which fluctuates crazily) he was a 6 win player.
But, anyway, the point you are making (that players in Maholm’s situation in the past who have been sent packing while under control for months or a year have not been productive) supports my general position that keeping Maholm is not a great bet. That they got nothing in return for those past players by trade supports my position that losing them by trade or FA matters very litte. These aren’t the ’27 Yankees, after all.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 17, 2011 7:57 AM EDT up reply actions
If we drafted
two B prospects (instead of flipping a $10 million pitcher for them) and gave them each a $5 million bonus, can you imagine the screaming?
That’s kind of what we’re talking about here.
I think both POVs (keep Maholm/dump Maholm) are about equally valid, which must be a pretty rare occurrence in any argument, especially on these here interwebs.
So Charlie, I keep running across your name on the Tricentric Foundation site
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 16, 2011 8:27 PM EDT reply actions
These are all fair points, Charlie.
I was going to respond about this in the previous thread since we were discussing this topic there, but since you made a new post, I’ll respond here instead.
Since I’m one of those people you refer to who has listed the AAA guys in my arguments, I’ll explain my feeling a little further.
I want to make it clear that I don’t believe in making a habit of having these year-long tryouts for guys, however, the big difference here is that 2012 is (hopefully, fingers crossed) the last of the Pirates “throwaway” years. I see no real benefit to the Pirates (now or in the future) in exercising the option of The Guy With the Option Who Shall Remain Nameless (or TGWTOWSRN) outside of a small amount of stability to the 2012 rotation (but, in reality, is that a big deal?)
I also want to make it clear, that I’m not saying or implying that Locke, Owens, and Lincoln have even necessarily earned these prolonged looks, but, to my eyes, TGWTOWSRN just takes away innings that you can be using for evaluation. He is not a part of the future, and next year’s innings are meaningless (as far as wins and losses go). I hope that innings are more valuable in 2013, and then I wouldn’t be advocating this way of handling them.
The reason I mention Owens, Locke and Lincoln is because (again, if all goes well), hopefully EVERY year the Pirates will have a handful of minor league pitchers banging on the door trying to break the rotation. I think next year is really the last real chance to give a Lincoln a look before you move on to someone else. The Pirates should take next year as a chance to really evaluate their current rotation.
Somehow I get the sense that you don’t like Kevin Correia, Charlie is that true?? Haha! However, Correia is basically money already spent, whereas “the other guy” is money that hasn’t been spent yet.
Hopefully it’s okay if I discuss the other two areas we were previously discussing here in this discussion.
Perhaps 1st base is not as big of a hole as I think it is, but personally, I’d rather see Jones as the 1st guy off of the bench, rather than starting everyday at 1st base. Plus, I’m not 100% sold that Presley/McCutchen/Tabata is a sure thing in the OF, and the flexibility of throwing Jones out there, as needed, is a good one.
I think you are underestimating the hole at 3rd base next year and the importance of signing a 3rd baseman for the short term. For all we know, Alvarez may NEVER get out of his funk and may turn out to be a failure as a MLB player.
However, he IS important enough that the Pirates should prepare themselves to ease him back into the line-up, if necessary, or get ready to move on, if he can’t regain his swing.
So, from my viewpoint, the Pirates should try to get a competent one-year veteran 3rd baseman (if they can find one, I know that’s not an easy task, and it wouldn’t exactly be a glory job for any vets out there.) You get somebody that could play 120 games or more, if needed, so that Alvarez can play as much or as little as needed. This way you can ease Alvarez in or play him for a straight month, and if he’s still struggling, you can put this other guy back in.
I know it may seem like a waste of money to bring in a one-year guy that you have no interest in keeping just as an insurance policy, but I think Alvarez is important enough that the Pirates should give themselves a safety net so that they can play him as much or as little as is needed at any given moment. You can give Alvarez a bunch of starts in a row, if he still seems over-matched, you can temporarily move him to the bench (or Indy), play this new guy for awhile until you are ready to give Alvarez another shot.
To me, this is a much more important use of money for the long-term health of your organization (and your franchise bat) than bringing back a solid pitcher for your rotation.
If Locke and Owens aren't the answer...
I guess the next shots are going to go to McPherson and Irwin, at least from a cursory look at Altoona’s pitching numbers. But even at that, I’d guess that since they only pitched half the season at Altoona, any hope that they would be in Pittsburgh would occur toward the end of the 2012 season. I’m not well enough versed on them to know whether this would be a reasonable progression.
The potential rotation (barring trades and FA signings) in April should put chills down your back and not in a good way. Karstens and McDonald aren’t the major problems (other than the HR rates). Correia is cannon fodder, and I don’t expect Morton will be ready for a starting role on April 5th (although possible, I’d think more like May).
McPherson said
he hadn’t been notified as to whether he’d be starting next season at Indy, but NH & FC both sounded like that’s where he’ll be.
There’s also the slimmest of chances he’ll go north out of ST.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 16, 2011 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Is May realistic for Morton?
or are we dealing with the possibility of August?
Also, will 3mill now be spent on Ohlendorf?
Timelines I've seen...
are 4-6 months recovery from surgery…which is anywhere from February to April. Then you have to get him in shape to start. I can’t see that being Opening Day. If he meets the recovery timelines I’ve seen…it SHOULD be well before August.
We’ll see on Ohlendorf. Personally, I doubt they are willing to go $3M with him. They weren’t very happy about $2M this year.
The guys with options should be decided in the next 2 weeks (unless there’s a bunch of rainouts in the WS). Free agency begins with the conclusion of the WS, with a 5 day exclusivity period. So we should know on Lee and Ludwick real quick.
Most of the 40 man roster moves will be done by November 18th (reserve lists due), but contracts don’t have to be tendered until December 12th.
Playing catch...
is much different than pitching.
Absolutely.
I was merely listing it as the starting point from which Morton will begin to throw anything. Obviously it will be some time before his hip and arm will be back into pitching shape.
If Maholm had got just a little bit of run support in '11.....
would we still be having these discussions ?
"Pitch me outside, I will hit .400. Pitch me inside, and you will not find the ball." - Roberto Clemente
I guess that would affect those using wins as an arguement
Haven’t seen to many of those, but I guess, to those people, you may have a point.
You may have posted that comment on the wrong blog.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 17, 2011 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I would phrase it as how can we best increase our expected wins—from one of Locke, Lincoln, Owens, Morris, Watson, Wilson, and McPherson plus the $9 million or from keeping Maholm? The answer isn’t clear to me, but I think it’s too simplistic to only think of one of the above replacing Maholm without considering where the extra $9 million goes. And while a case can be made against any one of the seven, I would also say that there are decent odds that one of the seven surprises—kind of like betting the field against the favorite in a horse race.
Watson, Wilson and Morris aren’t really starters. I mean, they theoretically could be, but I don’t understand why they keep coming up as potentially realistic options. If we’re really at the point where we’re arguing that the Pirates’ top options for the fifth starting spot include three relievers and two other guys (Locke and McPherson) who have only a handful of starts above Class AA between them, that kind of underscores my point that the Pirates need to do something to fill that spot. And yes – there’s a chance that one of them will outperform Maholm, but Maholm is a much better bet than any one of them, and again, we’re going to need these extra guys anyway. Kevin Correia is still in the rotation, Charlie Morton isn’t healthy, etc.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 17, 2011 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t understand why they keep coming up as potentially realistic options.
Because people have already reached the conclusion that getting rid of Maholm is the right move, and while none of them are entirely realistic options, none are any less realistic than the alternatives, either.
And those that criticize the move have already reached the conclusion that getting rid of Maholm is the wrong move? How does a comment like that help the discussion?
Instead, how about the idea that some of us try to figure out what the Pirates are thinking based on their actions? It’s not that I agree with a decision but once a decision has been made I try to understand it instead of simply agreeing or disagreeing with it. For example, a line of thought might be:
1. The Pirates make a decision that doesn’t seem to make sense;
2. They have information I don’t have;
3. Given that, what’s a logical explanation for the move.
Of course at #3 some will say they’re just cheap and others will say they’re just “idiots.” While they obviously have to put bounds on their spending, I’ve seen enough to convince me that they’re not cheap. And while I don’t know if they’re smarter than some on this board, I know they have a lot of data that we don’t have.
In this specific case, that line of reasoning makes me think that they believe the group of pitchers can provide the depth and the $9 million will go to a SP that they like more than Maholm. It also makes me wonder about his health—not that he won’t be ready for ST but whether they believe he can pitch a full season.
1. There’s nothing wrong with expressing an opinion about something at the time the event takes place. Even if that means changing that opinion when more information becomes available.
2. Based on what we’ve seen from Huntington, what makes anyone believe the replacement for Maholm will be better than Maholm. At best it may be a lateral move, but likely with a committment to more years. But more than likely, it will be a lesser pitcher (Capuano, Francis) signed for less money than Maholm’s option.
Based on that and my opinion NH needs to start making the Pirates a better MLB team, I see no reason to express distaste for this move.
1. The Pirates make a decision that doesn’t seem to make sense;
2. They have information I don’t have;
3. Given that, what’s a logical explanation for the move.
The only logical explanations for their decision to let Maholm go involve either malfeasance (i.e. lots of lying about the actual state of his shoulder) or one or more significant errors in judgment (e.g. the team can get an equivalent performance from other internal options, the team can attract a superior alternative through free agency, etc.).
Maybe
Like most businesses they are just trying to maximize their long-term profits and they don’t think that paying Maholm $9 MM + next season for an extra couple of wins is prudent given their primary goal.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 18, 2011 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I would prefer not to believe that’s true, because if it is, it’s a pretty damning indictment of ownership.
There could be some variation of that theme without it being a damning indictment though
For instance, ownership may be committed to bringing winning baseball to Pittsburgh and at the same time have a strong desire to earn a profit. Given financial constraints and the performance of the 2011 team especially in the second half of the season, they may see 2012 as a rebuillding year and, therefore, bringing back Maholom at $9 MM as inconsistent with either one of their goals.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 18, 2011 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Given financial constraints and the performance of the 2011 team especially in the second half of the season, they may see 2012 as a rebuillding year and, therefore, bringing back Maholom at $9 MM as inconsistent with either one of their goals.
It’s not a coincidence that the team’s second-half collapse occurred while Maholm was out. The rest of the rotation is shaky as hell.
Rebuilding is well and good, but we don’t have an internal alternative ready to step into Maholm’s role, and the team needs to devote at least a little money to ML payroll in the interest of respectability, even if they aren’t going to try and contend.
IMO, it doesn’t. There’s nothing more useful they’re going to spend the money on. It won’t keep them from spending what they need to spend on amateur scouting, it won’t keep them from extended McCutchen and Walker, and it won’t keep them from signing any big-time FA, which isn’t happening anyway. If they spend that money, it’s going to be on the next version of Overbay and/or Correia. I’d rather they just kept Maholm.
Meanwhile, it’s important for business reasons that they not dissipate the limited goodwill they created in the first four months of this season. You can’t be in tear-down mode indefinitely.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Those points are at least debatable.
For example if they are trying to extend McCutchen and have made a credible offer that he has refused, adding in the Maholm (and Doumit) option money could make the difference. One of the biggest inducements to extending Cutch that the Pirates have right now is the ability to offer significant up-front money to a guy who is not making a whole lot right now.
It wouldn’t surprise me if you are right though and they do spend the money on the 2012 version of Overbay (hopefully not Overbay himself) and Correia.
It seems pretty speculative to argue that exercising Maholm’s option is important for business reasons. We’re talking about 2 or 3 extra wins here, right? And only then if Maholm returns to form and stays healthy and that they just waste the $9 million saved on players who provide no value.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 18, 2011 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
If excersizing Maholm’s option is a waste of 9 million, what will you call it when they use it to sign Jeff Francis (for 2 years), Russell Branyan and Edgar Renteria? Feel free to replace the names should it be a different combination, but history proves that’s what NH will do this offseason.
by BillMadlock on Oct 18, 2011 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
You are just being argumentitive now
Maybe NH has learned something from the mistakes he has made in the past, and if he hasn’t and your logic is sound then I guess history proves that he never will learn anything. In that case it doesn’t really matter what they do with Maholm since we will need to wait for a new GM who either already know what he is doing or at least one capable of learning from his mistakes.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 18, 2011 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe NH has learned something from the mistakes he has made in the past…
Possible, but unlikely, given that he apparently still hasn’t demonstrated an understanding of the fact that high-quality free agents simply won’t come here.
I didn't say that it would necessarily hurt their rebuild
but paying $9 million to a player who figures to add 2 or perhaps 3 wins (if he manages to return to form and stay healthy) to maybe a 65-win team will probably hurt their bottom line without helping their rebuild.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 18, 2011 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Not picking up Maholm’s option doesn’t hurt their rebuild nor does hurt their bottom line. They will likely spend that money on a few lesser players, likely with multiple year contracts. Doing so not only doesn’t help their rebuild, it hurts it more than picking up Maholm’s option.
In no way does excerisizing Maholm’s option hurt the rebuid. And likely helps it more than the eventual alternatives.
by BillMadlock on Oct 18, 2011 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Well again that is at least debatable.
Let’s at least wait and see what they do and how Maholm does next season before rendering judgement on this FO decision, if in fact the decision has been made.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 18, 2011 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Maholm pitching poorly in 2012 won’t change my opinion about how they should excersize his option. There’s obviously a risk he could pitch poorly or get hurt. That risk is true with anyone. But I’d rather take that risk with a pitcher with a history of producing to Maholm’s level than say Chris Capuano or Kevin Correia 2.0.
The Pirates didn’t publicly announce they weren’t picking up his option to turn around and do so. And the Pirates have about as much leverage in working a trade as they do attempting to get anything of value for Chris Snyder. Meaning zero.
by BillMadlock on Oct 18, 2011 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
If they actually do have zero leverage after exercising
the option, doesn’t that suggest that the other GMs with teams thin at SP agree with NH that Maholm is not worth $9 million then?
If Maholm pitches poorly (or not at all) in 2012 that might not change your opinion of the wisdom of exercising the option, but it would be a pretty good indication that the FO knew what they were doing.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 18, 2011 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
What team is going to give up anything of value for Maholm when they can wait two weeks and get him without having to lose anyone? That translates to the Pirates having zero leverage.
Whether Maholm pitches well or poorly in 2012 doesn’t change the fact it’s a failure in philosophy. The same flawed logic was used with Matt Capps. How did that work out?
by BillMadlock on Oct 18, 2011 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions
One possiblity is a team that doesn't want to get
into a bidding war with other teams and would give up something to be sure that they could get Maholm for one year at $9 MM, instead of, say, three years at $25MM.
Or if other GMs really do think that Maholm is a bargain at $9MM surely NH would know about this and be able to exercise the option himself before making a trade.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 18, 2011 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions
If other teams think...
Maholm is a bargain at $9.75M…they are going to keep their mouths shut until he’s a free agent in 2 weeks. Why bid the price up?
Because they know once he becomes a FA
the price will get bid up and they won’t be able to get him for the bargain price $9.75 million.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 19, 2011 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions
$9.75M isn’t really a bargain price. It’s very close to what comparable pitchers are signed for. He won’t get much more than that, if he gets more at all. If I’m an interested GM, I’d rather risk having to pay another few hundred K to avoid having to give up a prospect.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
After all of these threads and posts
on this topic, I am interested to see what Maholm gets in free agency.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 19, 2011 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
"maximize their long-term profits"
More likely “to pay down their long-term debt,” right? Or have they done that and everything is pure profit now? I don’t think so.
Typically debt is repaid with income from future periods.
If the Bucs in fact have a high level of debt that would seem to make it less desirable for them to pay Maholm $9MM plus for next season, than it would be for a team not so encumbered.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 19, 2011 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Not that it does the current situation any good, but in April, it will be apparent what state Maholm’s shoulder is in (and it probably won’t be Pennsylvania ;-) )
I can’t imagine that Maholm would be lying about his shoulder being fine. If there is a “significant error in judgment”, it wouldn’t be the first time, and likely not the last.
I think it’s too soon to reach that conclusion about Wilson. Some scouts have said that his stuff is the best of the bunch but he has got to be better about repeating his delivery. Pitchers are often moved to the pen when they need to work on that. Watson and Morris probably aren’t starters, especially not next year so you can take them off the list (personally I hope they’re given another shot at starting but that’s more hope than expectation).
I’m not sure why you’re comparing them to Maholm as a response to my post because the point of my post is you also have to factor in how the $9 million might be used. I’d take Maholm over any of that group (I’ve always been a fan of Maholm) in a minute. And if we’re the Yankees, the move would be nuts. But say you lose 1.5 WAR going from Maholm to the best of the bunch, but gain 2 WAR by using the money to sign a better 1B—we come out ahead despite replacing Maholm with a weaker alternative.
More likely it will be much simpler than that—most of the $9 million will go to a free agent SP (perhaps one that gets non-tendered) and it will be something similar to replacing Capps with Dotel.
But say you lose 1.5 WAR going from Maholm to the best of the bunch, but gain 2 WAR by using the money to sign a better 1B—we come out ahead despite replacing Maholm with a weaker alternative.
Neither Charlie nor I believes that we’ll be able to attract a 1B of that caliber as a free agent, based on past precedent.
you also believe, based on past precedent, that NH cannot find those wins by dumpster diving in the offseason.
I know the obvious response to that- we’ve seen him sign FAs in the past and they’ve flopped. That is not enough reason to not do it again. If that were the case, then NH needs to be fired. He’s never going to get very far using limited financial resources. That said, I do want to see Maholm’s money put to use, and I bet NH is looking to use it to upgrade somewhere as well as hoping to find someone on the cheap who could have a bounceback/breakout year…
Until we make ourselves a more attractive target to free agents, no GM is going to be able to attract quality free agents here. The fact that NH can’t attract those kinds of free agents isn’t an indictment of him. His inability to grasp that fact, even this late in his time as a GM, however, might be.
no, i agree with that part of the argument
but that doesn’t necessarily mean he shouldn’t be trying new things with the available roster spots. Maholm is what he is, and while that would be nice for the current Pirates team, it’s worth a few fliers at this point in the hope of finding something that sticks.
by BurgherKing on Oct 18, 2011 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions
They've been taking fliers...
for 4 years, hoping something would stick. What’s going to change their approach or skill in assessing fliers now?
I think you underestimate the randomness factor of this strategy. He could have 20 failures in a row and that’s just variance. Although it does help somewhat, I think “luck” is the overwhelming characteristic in successes, not talent evaluation.
I was disappointed that a lot of his “fliers” last year were on guys like Wood and Pagnozzi, who have basically no chance of becoming useful ML players. If he takes relatively high-percentage bets and loses on those, that’s one thing, but guys who haven’t shown any sign of being ML-caliber talents in years?
I didn’t mind Wood. I was disappointed he didn’t do better when he came up.
Pagnohit is a different matter. It’d be extremely difficult to find a guy with a lower ceiling.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
what Mr. E said
but besides that, I am pointing out a general approach. A team like the Pirates needs to take these fliers in the hope finding something. Good scouting and evaluation should help that. If NH is not the right person to do it, he needs to be fired. But the approach needs to be a part of the strategy.
Um ... Isn't all precedent "past"?
Sorry, copy editing is my life.
Well, thanks.
I was going to note the same thing about “mistakes” (someone above mentioned “past mistakes”), but then I got to thinking, you could do something NOW that wouldn’t absolutely prove to be a mistake for, say, six months, such as, say, letting Maholm walk, but then time started to get all bendy and I wound up in a dimension where I didn’t exist, and THAT caused all sorts of problems for the fabric of the universe, so I came back.
"And bad past mistakes, I've made a few."
See? That doesn’t work at ALL.
actually the title of the post raised another thought for me
perhaps the rule 5 crunch has something to do with this? I dont really know how “crunchy” it is going to be, but its a thought, at least?
It's a shame we can't package several of our crappy players
for one standout starting pitcher from Japan. I can think of several prime candidates.
パトリック
What a flurry of activity you are....
Where you been, amigo?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 18, 2011 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Unfortunately...
Neal’s more likely to trade for a former standout pitcher, hoping they can fix him. Like Matsuzaka.
Pass the torches to Arizona
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/non-tender-candidate-joe-saunders.html
30 year old low K, low walk LHP coming off a 3.69 ERA season probably not going to be paid his estimated $9m salary next year.
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
