Time To Stop Punting
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 24, 2011 7:39 PM EDT
Email
PrintWTM in the comments to the last thread:
More and more the "plan" just seems to be to punt until Cole, Taillon, Bell, et al., arrive. I could understand punting in 2009-10. It had to be done. But they’re past the stage where they can afford to keep punting, IMO.
Seriously, this is it in a nutshell. Especially after 2011 showed the benefits of not punting (not that the good parts of 2011 resulted from not-punting; but ceteris paribus, not-punting gets you better results, and 2011 showed just how much better results can help).
Yeah, pretty much. I'm certainly not suggesting the Pirates should blow up their farm system, block genuinely promising young players, or anything like that, but four years into Neal Huntington's tenure, it should now be possible for the front office to both behave responsibly and avoid 100-loss seasons, and I expect it to do both those things. That might mean spending a little bit of money here and there. The events of this offseason so far have done little to convince me that the Pirates are serious about this. And yes, I'm talking about Paul Maholm again.
I'm at the public library right now and don't have the time to elaborate further, but the points WTM and JRoth are making need to enter the discussion among Pirates fans.
233 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not so coincidently...
@Maholm28paul maholm
Got the official good to go from the doc so no more appointments. Thank goodness. Now to ramp up the workouts and whip this body into shape.
I disagree with this
for the same reason that I disagreed with the outrage over (potentially) non-tendering Maholm.
[ A ] The source of this feeling seems to stem from the idea that the expected team for 2012 doesn’t seem likely to top 72 wins. I disagree with that at this point. While it may well turn out that way, I see no reason that it can’t be as good as 2011 with the right moves. If Pedro rights himself, that alone will have the Pirates back to the 2011 level after losing Maholm, Snyder and Doumit. Assuming we can make some good additions, I see no reason to believe this team is headed downward from the 2011 level.
[ B ] The Pirates shot at contention (legit contention, i.e.) in 2012 would have come from the likes of Andy LaRoche and Alvarez (besides Walker and Cutch), and some turn-arounds from the likes of Milledge, Clement, etc. and graduations of guys like Morris, Owens, Wilson. Once Laroche and the lottery tickets failed, and Morris, Owens, Wilson had a setback, that chance was more or less gone. It meant the Bucs would play the waiting game a little longer.
[ C ] For the various arguments I’ve put forth in the previous Maholm threads, which I really don’t want to rehash, we might end up being 2-3 wins above, but it might have been necessary to find out about some other guys. Yes, we are running the risk of being 4-5 wins worse. shrug I would certainly not be happy if we were making wild deals to cover up the failure of some of the players acquired earlier.
The problem with...
your scenario A is that NH has not shown the ability to make good additions during the winter in ANY of his offseasons. The only decent additions he’s made at the major league level were a few trades at the trade deadline. The fact that we have subtracted talent and do not appear to be adding a lot (based on the free agents available), means a step backward, not forward. There’s no help arriving from AAA this season. We’ve already seen what could have been expected to arrive in 2012 (d’Arnaud, Harrison, Watson, Hughes, Moskos, etc). Alvarez is just as likely to stay in the tank as he is to turn it around.
The Pirates need just about everything to fall right to even challenge .500 in 2013. And everything falling right doesn’t happen very often at all.
The problem with…
your scenario A is that NH has not shown the ability to make good additions during the winter in ANY of his offseasons.
Oh, I agree with this. But simply because he hasn’t done so in the past is not enough reason to take the safe 2 WAR Maholm route. I think most of us agree that the strategies NH has used have been correct, by and large, but the execution has sucked. They need to keep faith in those strategies, and hopefully, NH is learning from his mistakes. However, if NH isn’t the right person to work offseason pickups, he needs to be fired, and someone else charged with similar responsibilities.
I think most of us agree that the strategies NH has used have been correct, by and large, but the execution has sucked.
That’s not the problem in this case. It’s not just the execution, it’s the concept. The only advantage from letting Maholm go is that it saves the money. That’s only an advantage to the extent that NH can use that money to make the team better on the field. But he can’t. That’s why his history in the FA market is so relevant. Overbay and Correia weren’t the product of bad execution. They were the product of bad strategy. They’re all the Pirates can get in the FA market, so they shouldn’t be forcing themselves to look to it to fill holes. And the trade market hasn’t worked, either, because to get players who are real upgrades, the Pirates will have to give up the sort of high-upside prospects that are the whole point of the rebuilding plan.
The point to me isn’t, “NH is an idiot who can’t evaluate talent” (although his ability to judge hitting talent has to be seriously questioned at this stage). It’s that he’s putting himself in a position where he’s dependent on routes for acquiring talent that don’t work for the PIrates.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Oct 24, 2011 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
One definition of insanity is...
repeating the same action over and over, and expecting the outcome to change. So we keep letting Neal sign crappy free agents during the winter, and hope that sometime in the next 10 years, Nutting or FC gets smart and fires Neal??
The opposite way of thinking like that
is that you learn from your past mistakes and target different types of FA’s than the ones they previously signed.
Problem being...
Neal hasn’t shown that he’s learned from past mistakes.
Well
What does it take for him to “learn” in your view? If he ships out Maholm/Doumit and brings in guys like Kotchman, Barajas, and Jackson and they move up to say, 80 wins? Kind of a question for everyone…since we haven’t seen him “learn” so to speak, what would you want to see from him in terms of FA signings?
One thing I would not want...
is signing washed up free agents…like Overbay, Church, Gomez, Olsen. Either sign actual decent free agents, or don’t sign free agents at all.
"...don’t sign free agents at all."
And be accused / griped out for sitting on his hands and not doing anything.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 26, 2011 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
And it has been shown that signing crappy free agents has worked out worse than not signing them at all. Once you get past the bullpen…has there been a successful major league free agent signing by this front office? In 4 years? Remember, Jones was signed as a minor league FA. And that’s the only one of the minor league signees that I can remember having an impact at the ML level.
So,
if the Pirates do not, for whatever reason, sign an “impact” FA, nobody will be unhappy with them?
Will you, personally, be okay with going into 2012 with the existing roster? I doubt it, my friend.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 27, 2011 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Like I tweeted at the trade deadline,
“I can’t wait for the deadline to pass so we can see if NH is damned if he did, or damned if he didn’t.”
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 27, 2011 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions
my answer on this is based on *1* thing
What does the 2013 draft class look like?
Is there a Harper or Strasburg in it? If so…lets TANK!
by insane_sanity on Oct 27, 2011 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
No I wouldn't be...
but I would be even less happy if they sign Jake Westbrook or the 2012 version of Lyle Overbay.
or
keep maholm and doumit, AND bring in kotchman, barajas, and jackson, and suddenly we move up to 85 wins.
Why does it always have to be either/or? Improve the team everywhere if you can.
Seriously
To the extent that signing any FAs is feasible, giving up Maholm and Doumit is a dubious path. After their “free” income boost in 2011, a $60M budget shouldn’t be impossible – a stretch, but far from impossible. If they were to parlay last season plus some sexy offseason signings into a significant season ticket base bump, it wouldn’t even be that much of a stretch.
I’m not saying that’s the best or wisest course; I’m saying it’s a plausible one, and it’s a better option all around than punting. The sooner they end the Streak, the sooner they can play the FA market on a (relatively) level field, and the sooner they can start increasing revenues at a meaningful clip.
Punting every season until they project 95 wins is a fantasy.
I realize it's only November...
or will be when FAs can be signed.
Assuming no options get exercised (Cedeno is the only maybe), the only players that can count on being in 7 figures are Correia, Alvarez, Hanrahan and Karstens. Some of the Arb 1 guys, like Cutch and Jones are likely to join them. Even so, you are probably looking at $20M for about 8 players…and maybe $10M for the remainder of the 25 man roster. Barring a significant free agent signing, we could be looking at the 2nd lowest Opening Day payroll since PNC Park opened (lowest was $32M in 2004).
Oops...
my bad…which actually makes it worse. That’s less money that NH/FC will be spending, raising chances that we hit the 2nd lowest payroll in PNC Park history.
“raising chances that we hit the 2nd lowest payroll in PNC Park history. make a significant free agent signing”
Or
resign Cutch to a long-term deal.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 25, 2011 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions
That's the one thing
that would make me OK with all this. There’s no real excuse for being unable to afford a 90-win team in 2012, no matter what they pay Cutch, but if he gets a $16M signing bonus (that is, the combined values of Maholm’s and Doumit’s 2012 options) this winter and signs for 1 or even 2 FA seasons, then all is forgiven.
That's fine, but...
Signing Cutch wouldn’t absolve management from the need to otherwise significantly upgrade the big league roster in a responsible and intelligent manner.
That is my opinion, anyway.
Good day.
True
But I would trade 5 wins this year for the 5-8 that Cutch would bring in 2016, when Taillon, Cole, and/or Heredia will be here.
As I said, I don’t really buy that they can’t do both. BUT. I don’t think that Cutch plans on staying, so I think that we may be in an extraordinary situation where they really need to overpay to keep him, and that puts them up against hard cash constraints. Part of my thinking on this is that, again, they’ll never, ever get a Cutch-grade FA to sign here. Therefore, the only way to have a Cutch-grade player in 2016 is to get him to stay longer, which may mean an overpay. It wouldn’t truly be an overpay because it’s the only way to get that performance on our roster. When there’s one bottle of water in the desert, $20 isn’t an overpay, because you pay what you need to to survive.
I’m certainly not suggesting the Pirates should blow up their farm system, block genuinely promising young players, or anything like that
Of course, if the “Altoona four” hadn’t all stumbled this year and Tony Sanchez fallen flat on his face, hanging onto Maholm and Doumit would be obviously the wrong move. But they did. What I’m not seeing is any strategy at the major league level for improving the team. It’s just sit back and wait for the flood of prospects, and in the meantime don’t spend money. They can’t just bank everything on the farm system. No matter how well the system develops, NH will still have to make improvements at the big league level, but he’s not showing that he can do it.
When it was a question of trading veterans for prospects, it made sense. The veterans served no long-term purpose, the team was going nowhere in the short term, and there was some chance of getting a return. When it was a question of not wasting money on short-term veteran band-aids and instead giving opportunities to long shots like Clement and Milledge, that made sense, too. The veterans weren’t going to be around at any time that mattered and there were guys who had some outside chance of being longer term pieces. All the screaming and whining about the low payroll was just people fixated on spending money for the sake of spending money. The payroll was a byproduct of baseball moves that made sense.
But now, these moves don’t make sense. The veterans who could be traded for a return have been traded. There are no more guys like Clement and Milledge to try and the prospects aren’t ready. We’re going to get nothing for Maholm and Doumit (I won’t be surprised if they don’t offer arb. to Doumit). They wouldn’t be blocking anybody. And the situation has changed. They’ve had multiple years of punting. To have any credibility with the fans, the team needs to continue to show progress. In the absence of any viable, long-term alternatives, Maholm and Doumit would be useful for that purpose. Letting them go has no upside, only downside. It’s just not spending money for the sake of not spending money.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Oct 24, 2011 8:26 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
maybe they will make improvements at the big league level?
Still plenty of time.
I won’t be surprised if they don’t offer arb. to Doumit
I will be pissed if this happens. It would be the first real strong indication to me that they are going cheap, i.e. not running the risk of Doumit accepting arb, even though there’s a good chance he’ll turn it down. Besides, if he does accept, there’s plenty of payroll space, and he’d be a good bat.
At this point I would be very surprised if the offered Doumit arbitration. I hope I’m wrong. But I’m counting on that not happening.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 24, 2011 8:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
i m not sure why
it seems that there’s a general perception that the Bucs are going cheap, and this is a product of that. While it appears that the FO certainly doesnt want Doumit back, I’d be v disappointed if they chose to play it that way (by not offering him arb)
That's the frustrating thing
They could help the team next year by offering Doumit arbitration. If he rejects it and signs with another team they get a pick (i think), but if he comes back they spend a couple million for a guy who can be your starting catcher for the first half of the year and then trade him to a team that’s contending after the all-star break and add to our stockpile of prospects.
Well, I’m on my phone now, so this is off the top oft head, but Doumit made what, $5 million and change this year? And he hit very well. If he got $7 million in arb, that wouldn’t be that different from what the bucs would have paid him with the option anyway. Granted, it’s for one year instead of two, and there’s a good chance he wouldn’t accept arb, but it seems like the distance between offering him arb and just picking up the option in the first place, which we already know they won’t do, isn’t huge. It certainly exists and is probably the path I would have chosen, but I’m not hopeful the fo will, esp after the Maholm decision.
Decision.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 24, 2011 9:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I think the difference between one year and two is pretty big
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 24, 2011 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions
That would be my reason for pursuing that path. But then that would be an excellent reasOn to puck up the Maholm option as well, and the fo didn’t do that.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 24, 2011 10:02 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
the difference between maholm and doumit
is that the FO may have decided that Maholm has little to no chance of a return in terms of draft picks or prospects, and they chose to go another way.
by BurgherKing on Oct 24, 2011 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
That doesn’t seem quite analogous to me. With Maholm, the question is, “Do we want him for another year at this price or not?” With Doumit now, it’s “Do we want to risk getting landed with him for another year, getting a draft pick if he doesn’t take arb?”
Still, good point. I’d probably have wanted to see if I could bring back Doumit for one year instead of two, but I’d also have picked up Maholm’s option.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 24, 2011 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. It’s not exactly the same. I’m just guessing here.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 24, 2011 11:01 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
“They can’t just bank everything on the farm system. No matter how well the system develops, NH will still have to make improvements at the big league level, but he’s not showing that he can do it.”
Some Pirate fans have been saying this for years.
Yeah, they were saying from day one that he’d hadn’t shown he could do it.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Or more accurately, they’ve been saying it for the last two years when the evidence first began to mount. Only to be mocked and eventually banned from other message boards where objectivity and critical thinking (the same objectivity and critical thinking you’ve expressed the last couple of weeks) aren’t welcome.
Or maybe for trolling under fake identities pretending they were girls.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
There was that too. But maybe you should mention that to whomever did that.
Although despite pretending to be a girl, he/she was simply banned for proving how right he/she was about the acquisition of Aki Iwamura.
Although despite pretending to be a girl
You know something about that, do you?
he/she was simply banned for proving how right he/she was about the acquisition of Aki Iwamura.
Sure, Jacen.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Of course I know about it, I read that board. Doesn’t make me Doumit’s Girl.
Want to talk about the guy who pretended to be a financial planner from Seattle? The irony of someone from OBN doing the exact same thing as Doumit’s Girl is off the chart.
Don’t know anything about the Seattle guy. Personally, I don’t condone that sort of thing. Everybody knows who I am, assuming they even care.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
The financial planner was one of your associates at Pirate Prospects.
by BillMadlock on Oct 24, 2011 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
So ban him, or whatever. Ask me if I care.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
You cared enough to bring up Doumit’s Girl. I wonder if you had the same level of condemnation for WiH as you do Dale Berra’s Stash.
by BillMadlock on Oct 24, 2011 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m talking to WiH (yeah, sure, deny it). I’m not talking to DBS.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I don’t care if you think or know I’m WiH. But answer the question. Do you judge WiH and DBS equally? They did the exact same thing.
by BillMadlock on Oct 24, 2011 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I know what you did, and I know the amount of trolling you did at OBN. And I know it was you (or WiH, whatever if you want to keep denying it) posting as Doumit’s Girl. (And I know that WiH has an extensive history of posting under fake IDs while refusing to admit who he is.) All I know about this fake Seattle thing is what you’re telling me now, and I have no way of knowing whether it’s true. If he did the exact same thing you/WiH/whomever did, then he’s equally blameworthy and the answer was to ban him from wherever he was doing it.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
My reaction to all that is probably not what you’re expecting, but that’s all I’m going to say.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I had no expections, just pointing out some of your associates are trolls and many of your fellow posters at OBN will defendy everything and anything NH does.
by BillMadlock on Oct 24, 2011 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions
So?
How is that my problem?
According to that thread, a whole lot of YOUR fellow posters are trolls. Are you responsible for that?
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Where did I say it was your problem? Just pointing out for all the judgement and resentment you seem to have for “trolling”, one of your associates is equally guilty.
Also, I’m just pointing out that this newfound criticism and skepticism you have for Neal Huntington, has been expressed by many fans for many years. Fans you openly mocked for expressing the same criticism and skepticism you now express.
by BillMadlock on Oct 24, 2011 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
are we talking about this board?
coz i dont remember it and i was around…
by BurgherKing on Oct 24, 2011 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions
No. No reason you should care about this.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
No, “from day one” was pretty darn accurate.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 24, 2011 10:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Not with the group of fans I was talking about.
2009 and 2010 were massive red flags for this orginization. From Tony Sanchez to Lyle Overbay and the numerous blunders in between, the writing was on the wall. Of course those who wanted to believe NH had a plan refused to acknowledge any of those blunders while making such absurd comments as “2010 was inevitable”.
by BillMadlock on Oct 24, 2011 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
dude
everyone but me slammed the Overbay signing. and many guys on here did NOT want tony sanchez, they wanted shelby miller.
most on here respect what NH is doing, almost no one is saying he got everything right.
by white angus on Oct 24, 2011 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Sadly, I was like 8,000 comments too late
which means I probably had to defend him somewhat at the time. GD early birds
I keep wondering who these people are who think everything NH ever did was brilliant. I don’t see that much. The basic breakdown I see is people who think that, if you don’t write “NH is a moron” with every single sentence, you’re a FO lackey, and people who think some stuff has been good and some stuff has been bad, which is kinda like, you know, real life.
You can still see what I wrote about Overbay and Correia a year ago, as RCN hasn’t taken my old site down. I said the Overbay signing was like “the directionless days of Dave Littlefield.” But, damn, when I wrote about an Altoona game I saw and didn’t say “Starling Marte sucks,” I guess that made me a FO lackey. In fact, i don’t think I’ve ever, not once, written that I thought NH was a good GM. Personally, I’ll always go with people who don’t think you have to be 100% pro or 100% anti, 100% of the time.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I must have missed the critical posts by Xiga, gamecckfn, scrapiron, vapirate, dave3ba, bornrf, Pirate Prospects and Dale Berras Stash.
by BillMadlock on Oct 24, 2011 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess you track these people more industriously than I do.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Whether I do or don’t doesn’t change the fact there are numerous posters who will support everything this organization does. Whether you’ve paid attention or not doesn’t change that fact.
by BillMadlock on Oct 24, 2011 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
making such absurd comments as "2010 was inevitable".
2010 was inevitable. There was literally no way for the team to prevent it. That die was cast years before.
Are you saying NH acquired Church, Crosby, Donnelly, LaRoche, Milledge, Gallagher, Ledezma, Clement and Taschner so they could all be some of the worst players in baseball at their respective postians and help the Pirates inevitably lose 105 games?
The 2010 Pirates were always going to be a poor baseball team, but nobody should excuse that level of failure.
by BillMadlock on Oct 25, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Are you saying NH acquired Church, Crosby, Donnelly, LaRoche, Milledge, Gallagher, Ledezma, Clement and Taschner so they could all be some of the worst players in baseball at their respective postians and help the Pirates inevitably lose 105 games?
The only three of those guys who were acquired to play any substantial role on the team were LaRoche, Milledge, and Clement. Everybody else was a bench player or bullpen arm. And of those three, Milledge wasn’t actually that bad: a 94 OPS+ from a corner OF isn’t a good year, but it’s not a disaster, either.
Huntington stepped into a situation where the team had very few established players under team control for 2010, almost none of the incumbent players who were due to become free agents were good bets for an extension, and there was almost no upper-minors talent on the farm. The only way to bring in new players was through free agency… and we’ve already established ad nauseum that no decent free agents will sign here.
So, yeah. The die was pretty much cast on 2010 several years before. If you go back in the archives on this site and others, you can see people like Charlie and WTM and I making comments to that effect back in 2007 and 2008 – some of them before Huntington was even hired.
I know I was arguing literally years before DL was finally fired that every day he stayed on the job was two more days it would take the next guy to straighten the mess out. I certainly think that extends thru 2010. Beyond 2010 . . . I dunno. I didn’t like NH stocking the bench, those first few years, with washed-up vets like Monroe and Rivas, but there was almost no chance of long-term impact. But now, that’s not true any more. It’s much more important now for NH to make moves that accomplish something at the ML level, even when it’s bench guys and the like. If the chance of finally being competitive is still so remote that those moves are irrelevant, then something is very wrong. And I’m not seeing any coherent approach at the ML level. Like I said the other day, it just seems to be sit back and bide time with the sort of dreck we’re now looking at behind the plate, waiting for waves of prospects.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
It appears most agree punting the 2012 season is unfortunate. However, the punting isn’t as simple as not excercizing the options on Maholm and Doumit. The current state of the Pirates, along with personel decisions like that, are what’s causing the Pirates to punt. Furthermore, the current state of the Pirates is directly related to numerous moves/non-moves NH made since the day he was hired. Perhaps had he done a better job creating a plan and executing that plan, we wouldn’t have to hear fans dismiss the loss of Doumit and Maholm as insignificant.
Seems to me there’s a disconnect with the fans claiming 2010 was inevitable while simultaneously criticizing the potential punting of the 2012 season.
Seems to me there’s a disconnect with the fans claiming 2010 was inevitable while simultaneously criticizing the potential punting of the 2012 season.
I don’t see any contradiction between the two positions.
Nobody here is saying that we’d contend with both Doumit and Maholm in 2012 (or at least I’m not saying that), but winning games is still a worthwhile goal in a non-contending season as long as it doesn’t interfere with player development, and in this case it doesn’t because we don’t have any internal candidates ready to step in for Maholm or Doumit in 2012. We’re in a situation where we need to spend the money on something this year in order to stay in compliance with MLB’s position on team payroll, and we’re unlikely to get anything better than Doumit or Maholm on the open market, so voluntarily deciding not to spend it on them is a dumb decision.
I completely agree with you regarding 2012. But my point is had NH done a better job heading into 2010, perhaps things are brighter moving towards 2012 than they truly are.
Jacen
I don't totally disagree with you in general
But I still think that you’ve got that list a bit wrong. Out of that list of players, one of them should have been productive in 2010. Out of Church, LaRoche, and Milledge, the smart money would have said you’d get a few wins – conceivably a half dozen. In retrospect it looks like all bums, but that wasn’t the case at the time.
On preview, Vlad beat me to it.
To have any credibility with the fans, the team needs to continue to show progress. In the absence of any viable, long-term alternatives, Maholm and Doumit would be useful for that purpose. Letting them go has no upside, only downside. It’s just not spending money for the sake of not spending money.
… how about credibility with the players? If I’m Andrew McCutchen, do I want to re-up with a club whose plan A, B and C is hoping its prospects pan out? … a club that isn’t willing to pony up to strengthen the team and enhance its chances of success? … a club that, for the vast majority of his life has been shipping out its top players and having unprecedented failure on an annual basis?
it’s entirely plausible that when the times comes, cutch will bolt for big dollars that the pirates can’t hope to match… but really, they shouldn’t be making it so easy for him to waltz out the door…
by Captain Easychord on Oct 24, 2011 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Let it go
Maholm pitched way above his usual numbers. He can easily return to the guy who doesn’t have a way of getting a righty out. Doumit is just too broken down to sign period. You guys just seem to complain about everything. If they weren’t spending big money on the draft over the past three years you would be justified.
Maholm pitched way above his usual numbers.
No, he didn’t. If you adjust for the Little League defenses he’s had behind him most years—i.e., don’t just blindly look at his ERA—his 2011 season wasn’t out of line with his typical performance. It was better, but not by that much.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
And we've got a few righty starters...
that can’t get a lefty out (Morton and McDonald). And yet you seem to be counting on them.
I'm talking about performance...
not pay raises.
hey… it’s Oct 24th… not sure everyone realizes that.
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
Does that mean there’s plenty of time to give Russell Branyan a 1-year/4 million dollar deal and Jeff Francis a 2-year/5 million dollar deal?
OR work a trade to SF/ATL/TB for a good young arm
and use the money saved from Maholm on bat(s).
Point being it’s just too frickin’ soon for this much yinzer talk.
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
Hell I don't know
How about Alderson Allie to start with… If we’re not going to contend what do we need an elite closer for… seems like all the top position prospects are OF’s… etc.
This is the first offseason where I feel there is adequate depth to start moving in pieces via trade.
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
I’m fine dealing someone like Allie. I just question what sort of Major League Players the Pirates could get for him and more importantly, if NH and his staff could accurately evaluate him.
by BillMadlock on Oct 24, 2011 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Was there any turnover on the saber-side of the equation?
Because from what I understand, this FO likes to use their numbers…and those haven’t helped very much either.
by insane_sanity on Oct 25, 2011 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I really don’t understand the uproar. The Pirates will be punting the season with or without Maholm, Doumit and Snyder. And, for the record, I wouldn’t pick up the options, either.
I concur (how could I not) that Huntington has a miserable track record in free agency, but it’s not like he’s failed 10 years in a row. Perhaps he learned something from the Overbay fiasco.
Wait, I have one that was brilliant
Octavio Dotel
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
I always except relievers when I say that.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I guess I just remember similar conversations about the Capps situation
… though I acknowledge the major difference between RP/SP…
I simply think all of this is a bit premature.
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
musta read that wrong
then he’s .666 (2/3) on Major League Free Agents signed to be starters (I’m counting Closer as a starter). Overbay whiff/ Correia and Dotel hit. What an awful track record…
and you guys can cry all you want but I’ll pay $4m every year to get 12 pitcher wins by July.
er, sorry
Correia is not a hit, even though I’m on your side of the argument. I don’t see why minor league FAs dont count, though— it seems an artificial restriction.
by BurgherKing on Oct 25, 2011 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
A minor league free agent...
is usually signed to help the minor league teams. Jones was not expected to be on the Pirates roster, he was expected to be at Indy. He forced his way on to the Pirates roster by hitting .307 for 3 months at Indy.
Neal didn’t sign him to be the Pirates 1B or RF, he signed him to be Indy’s 1B or RF, and just happened to get lucky.
Not fair, or true
Most of these guys are signed to provide depth for the major league team. What they do in AAA is incidental. In Jones’ case, the Pirates were impressed with him in spring training and ended up giving him a lot of playing time. He continued to impress them at Indy and, when a job opened up, as one always does, he got a shot. A real shot—they put him in the starting lineup immediately after calling him up. A lot of these guys get called up just to fill roster spots and do little more than pinch hit for a while. A lot of them hit very well in AAA and don’t get called up because the team isn’t convinced they can hit in the majors.
I know you think NH is a moron, but it’s not necessary to try to spin every single move as idiotic or just blind luck.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Like it or not, we never sniff 1st place without Correia. Overall, it was a successful year for him. Next year might sway it back to negative though.
Overall, it was a successful year for him.
A “successful” year where he provided, on the whole, replacement-level value.
he was the anti-adam
he performed well at the beginning of the year and gave the team a big boost before they were out of contention.
The point is
what he should have learned is “don’t think you can improve the team with FA signings until you’ve’ won enough games that ‘Pittsburgh Pirates’ isn’t a Leno punchline”. And the follow-on from that lesson is “keep assets you control rather than hoping to match them in free agency.”
Maybe its just me
but the ragging on Huntington’s lack of getting high quality talent on the big league roster through FA is getting old. People complain about the FA signings, yet in the same breath speak to how top FAs don’t want to come to Pittsburgh. Which is it? Can he not sign them because he isn’t good at his job, or can he not sign them simply because they don’t want to come here? We threw a highly competitive offer to JDLR and he chose to stay with his club. We don’t know who NH has talked to over the years, but I’m sure he is throwing out competitive offers that are getting laughed at because its the Bucs.
In my view, NH has done a pretty good job in acquiring guys in trades, so seems to me that he has an idea of what he’s doing.
its probably pretty unethical to mention whom you are trying to sign to come to Pitt...
and same goes for the players who turned down NH’s offers. im sure he has made offers to many guys over his 4 seasons, and rejected by the vast majority.
but that happens with every ballclub. there’s even guys who turn down the Yankees.
by white angus on Oct 24, 2011 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions
See above
IF you cannot sign good FAs (because they won’t come to Pgh), THEN you need a strategy that doesn’t rely on FAs. THEREFORE, don’t decline options on decent major leaguers who are due reasonable salaries.
That’s why so many of us are freaking out. It’s really really hard to see what rational strategy NH is following right now. It may not be his fault that he can’t sign decent FAs, but he needs to plan with that in mind. I can’t dunk, so I shouldn’t base my basketball team’s strategy on getting me the ball underneath so I can throw the ball through the hoop.
by JRoth95 on Oct 24, 2011 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Totally not my point or issue
I agree with it being a bad move to not pick up the options or his strategy being flawed. I like most of his trades, so to me, it seems he knows what he is doing, at least a little, in terms of evaluating talent.
My point being, a ton of people key in on the FA angle, when I believe, it is totally unfair to call him a failure in that regard. Rip him all you want for declining them, I will agree all day long. But until I hear that he is not making real offers to the better players, I will hold my stance in this regard.
Overbay keeps being brought up, but didn’t he even come out and say something along the lines of thinking that he was probably the 4th or 5th option for the Bucs? Its not like they came out of the gate swinging and saying him and Correia were “the guys to get.”
If I get this right, JRoth’s problem is not that NH doesn’t try hard enough to sign the best FA available, it’s that no one wants to come to PIT (not NH’s fault), and we have to settle for the 3rd or even 5th tier guys.
It means NH shouldn’t focus on the FA market to improve the major league team, because all he can get is the Overbays and the Correias of the world, and that’s not helping.
Exactly
Try this: I may not think my girlfriend is as hot as I’d like. But dumping her so I can go to South Beach and date a supermodel isn’t a plan. Being insufficiently hot/rich/famous enough to date a supermodel isn’t really a flaw on my part, but it would be a flaw for me to pretend that it’s not the case and to act as if I could get a supermodel to date me.
Note that, in this analogy, “supermodel” covers everyone from Pujols down to J. De LaRosa and Derek Lee.
hey, on to something more important... what the hell happened to all my PAMPAS GRASS posts??
i put alot of hard work copy/pasting dem bitches.
As an addendum...
If they’re going to punt (and I don’t think they should), they could make it a little bit less obvious by not going into next year with a catching trio of McKenry, Pagnozzi, and Jaramillo.
No jinx no jinx no jinx.
and Fryer
I think Fryer has the best chance of all the internal options of turning into a decent major leaguer.
That doesn’t mean I think he has a good chance.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 24, 2011 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah. I think I may have written a few weeks ago that if the fo doesn’t acquire a catcher, the best course of action might be to make Fryer the starter, since he’s the only option with much of a prayer of becoming a good enough hitter to really deserve the job.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 24, 2011 11:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
ive seen Fryer play quite a few times
i dont see how hes an improvement over the Fort. his swing is alot like d’Arnaud: funky.
his defense is not as good as the Fort or Sanchez’s. He looks like a super utility guy to me, but ive been wrong before.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but he’s the only one with a statistical profile that’s even remotely promising.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 25, 2011 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions
not if youre looking to put in a driveway...
asphalt————- Sanchez
gravel——————Fryer
bark———————Pagnoz
jello———————Kendall (j/k)
eating-wise, I see Fryer as more like a mushroom
It might turn out to be great, it might turn out to be exciting, it might turn out very poorly. You’d really like to have some other options so you can see what you’ve got before you completely commit to it.
(I suppose eating-wise, Fryer is really a chicken.)
(Also, no actual information here; I’m just going on gut feeling, so to speak.)
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 25, 2011 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
lemme just say
Chicken from the Fryer gives me a good gut feeling.
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 25, 2011 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Doc Ellis says:
Hell yeah!! Mushrooms!!
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
Eating + gut feeling
Nice.
[burp!]
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 26, 2011 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Not exercising Maholm/Doumit options, and the eventual possibility of not offering them anything in arb or once a free agent, is not “punting”. It’s called good general management.
In WTM’s comments above, I read the phrases “credibility with fans” and “long-term viable upside” in the Maholm/Doumit context. Such a poor, foolhardly argument… it’s almost embarassing to read it on this site/blog/board.
Your condescension-to-content ratio was really high on that one, I’ll give you that.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 25, 2011 12:03 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 3 recs
For the last ten days or so, on these related topics, your content-to-words ratio has been abysmally low. It’s like you’re auditioning to be Littlefield’s research assistant.
We all know WTM is intelligent, with valued his opinions and writing – what’s why the above quotations with respect to Maholm and Doumit were so.. let’s say unexpected.
The basis of your post is a good one – this organization should spend some money, or perhaps make a well-evaluated trade involving a prospect(s), to acquire major league talent and improve the major-league team.
But then you went down that road again. Sad.
Charlie, Vlad, WTM, JRoth, whoever else wants to respond
How many games do you predict the Pirates to win right now for 2012? How many games would you predict the Pirates to win in 2012 with Maholm and Doumit?
Side bet, over under on how many of the four will actually answer the question?
I think with our current roster we would win 71 games without them and 74 games with them.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Oct 25, 2011 7:49 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Considering we don’t even know who’s going to be on the roster in 2012, don’t you think this question is a couple months early?
I mostly want to see what people, especially those four, think in terms of how much those two help the team.
Ill probably change my predictions before the season starts as well, im just asking based on what we know right now.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Oct 25, 2011 8:18 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
im with superstar25 on this one
way to early to predict anything. we dont even know if we’ll have a rule5 guy this season
And what if you had to predict?
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
then i would say something really stupid and take the attention off the subject.
last year i predicted 49 wins with Morton winning 18 of them…
And if you didnt do that and had a real prediction?
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Seems accurate.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I am not one of the fab four (although, along with Trog’s charts, they are most of the reason why I check this site a couple times a day) but I will answer your question. I don’t think our current roster wins 71 games.
And the difference with Maholm and Doumit?
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Oct 25, 2011 8:19 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
So you think Maholm and Doumit combined are 8-9 WAR
Am I reading what you wrote correctly?
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Oct 25, 2011 10:22 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
not necessarily
That means there’s an 8-9 WAR difference, or gap, between Maholm/Doumit and their replacements. We can’t assume that their replacements will be exactly 0 WAR.
In other words, it might be closer to 2.5 WAR each for Maholm and Doumit, and then -1.5 WAR for whoever takes those spots. That sounds pretty fair for the catcher situation, at least.
by Garrett122 on Oct 25, 2011 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fangraphs has Correia, Overbay and Diaz at a composite -1.8. So -1.5, if NH fills these spots in the FA market, is a realistic possibility.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
What are your predictions?
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Fangraphs has Correia, Overbay and Diaz at a composite -1.8.
That’s the problem right there. It is certainly difficult for the Pirates to bring in good free agents, but they have to at least be able to find guys who are above replacement level. If they can’t occasionally come up with cheap 1.5 – 2.0 WAR players to fill holes, they’re never going to compete.
Or at the very least use players making the league minimum to do the same thing.
I’d rather have Locke+Hague+Presley than those 3 and we have to pay almost nothing to do so. They also have a good shot of putting up much better results.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Fair points, but I just want JRoth to clarify if that is what he meant.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Garrett got it right
Just as important as the direct replacements (e.g., JJ for Doumit, Locke (?) for Maholm) are the knock-on effects, especially with pitcher. Whoever takes Paulie’s slot will just about inevitably go less deep into games, putting added stress on the bullpen and forcing Hurdle to rely more on his worst relievers – would you like to see an extra 50 IP from Danny Moskos and his 6:5 K/BB ratio? Then the 2012 Pirates are the team for you!
At catcher, we’ve already seen the implications of depth (or the lack thereof). It’s conceivable that we get 162 slightly above replacement starts from Fryer, JJ, and Fort. It’s more likely that one or more of them will be injured, and now we’re looking at serious dregs – Pagnozzi or Cervelli or whoever.
You also need to take into account that FO resources now will be directed to more holes to fill. There’s a finite amount of time between now and ST. We already had a big hole at 1B, a need for a credible option besides PA at 3B, and good reason to want another viable SP. To this we’ve added a huge hole at C and a need for something at SP – not just an Olsen, but someone who’s actually likely to contribute. IOW, IMO it’s now less likely that we improve 1B, 3B, or the 5th SP.
by JRoth95 on Oct 25, 2011 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Do you believe Maholm and Doumit are going to play at last year's level? Better? Worse?
If you think they are going to play at last years level, that’s 2.0 and 1.8 WAR, or 3.8 WAR total. To get to an 8 WAR swing, we need a -4.2 WAR performance from our C and the SP spot that replaces Maholm, a -5.2 performance for a 9 WAR swing. Seems moderately unlikely to me.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
There’s also an opportunity cost. If we use Lincoln to plug Maholm’s hole in the rotation, for instance, we can’t also use him to replace Correia, who’s been exactly at replacement level for the past two years. And then if one of our other three starters gets hurt or is ineffective (which isn’t particularly unlikely, given Morton’s surgery, Karstens’s track record, and McDonald’s lack of experience), depth becomes even more of a factor…
Yep
You’re not replacing starters with the next-best player in the org, you’re replacing them with the last guy in line. Maholm walking means more chance of Burres getting starts.
or Locke or Owens or Wilson
i know none of these had great 2011s, but they still have a shot with a future in the Burgh… Burres is filler, and always has been.
Clearly
Somewhere else I suggested Locke for ‘12. But again, the point is that you can’t hope/assume that Maholm’s lost IP will go to a young SP with a bright future and a tolerable present. Burres is a more realistic representative of the kind of guy we’ll see whom we otherwise wouldn’t.
yes, and no
this team didnt HAVE a locke, or owens, or wilson, or even a lincoln, just 2 years ago.
burres was added 2 seasons ago to be filler and unfortunately had to pitch in the Burgh more than anyone would have liked.
but things are different now. theres some youth to fill in.
True
If we have just moderately good luck, we won’t see Burres, or his likes, in 2012. But in terms of known quantities, you shouldn’t rule it out.
Put it this way: of our current top 5 SPs (Morton, McDonald, Karstens, Lincoln, Correia), how many would you feel comfortable betting even $50 on having a significantly above replacement (or, since you hate WAR, let’s call it “above Correia”) season in 2012? I mean, all 5 are capable. But all 5 are also capable of ~5 ERAs with fewer than 6 IP/start. Which means that we could start moving down the depth chart wicked fast. And no one below them on the depth chart is anything like a lock to be as good as Correia. You hope, and the odds are that we end up with 140+ starts from pitchers no worse than Correia. But hope’s not a plan, that’s still not a great outcome, and ~20 starts from sub-Correia starters could really add up to some badness.
Probably 1.0 WAR
Although that’s tricky since FG at least uses FIP for WAR, so you could have a guy with a 3.50 ERA coming out with a 1.0 WAR because his FIP was 4.25. I don’t know which I care about more – in the end, results matter, which argues for ERA, but I hate to see a guy getting killed by his defense be punished for it (or to look at Karstens’ 3.38 ERA and say he was “really” a 4.29 pitcher).
Let’s say 2 of 3 metrics (ERA, FIP, xFIP) below 4.00. Would you really put $250 down that all five of those guys will meet that threshold? For reference, only Morton did it (3.83, 3.77, 4.08), although Karstens came close enough (3.38, 4.29, 4.00).
For myself, I’d probably only bet for Morton to do it, albeit with great reservations (I probably wouldn’t really agree to do so until he throws some ST innings). I would comfortably bet against Correia and McDonald (whom I’ve started to sour on), and I wouldn’t bet either way on Lincoln or Karstens.
4.5, sure. Simply better than Correia’s 4.80 or whatever it was, was what I meant for 5/5.
4.00 nah I wouldn’t.
Since his xFIP was 4.38
I wouldn’t call 4.5 “significantly” better. Hell, over 180 IP (more than any of these guys can be expected to do), the difference between 4.8 and 4.5 is 6 runs. Especially given the vagaries of ERA, that means nothing.
I agree any or all of them could be visibly better than Correia, but we need (a lot) more than that. Every single one of them is liable to either pitch like crap or spend significant time out of the rotation – there’s not a horse among them. Which is my whole point.
Correia was above replacement by xFIP, though
If we think that xFIP is the way to measure true talent/results/whatever, then I’m not complaining about KC’s season. So it seems to me that 4.8 is a reasonable level to set as replacement (assuming that offense stays at 2011’s low level), and 4.5 isn’t a bad level for “significantly above.”
I’d still agree that you can’t expect all five guys to do it.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 27, 2011 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions
so how is Rudy Owens health these days?
He was very solid in 2009-10, then meh in 2011 before being DLed for the remained of the season. Fair chance the poor performance was health related. If healthy again, I think he’s the best of the bunch on the farm, maybe as good or better than Maholm.
by Brian Cartwright on Oct 31, 2011 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Unfortunately Correia is guaranteed money, Maholm isn't.
I’d pick up Maholm if I was assured that we would move him before the deadline, otherwise I don’t want to waste money on a season where you yourself said we have an average outcome of 69-74 wins (with a wide error I understand).
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Unfortunately Correia is guaranteed money, Maholm isn’t.
Correia’s money is a sunk cost at this point.
I don’t want to waste money on a season where you yourself said we have an average outcome of 69-74 wins (with a wide error I understand).
I don’t see winning those additional games as a “waste”, as long as Maholm isn’t blocking a ML-ready SP prospect (which I don’t think that he would be next year). Winning games is a good thing, in and of itself. If we didn’t want to see the team win, why would we watch the games in the first place?
And it's not a big amount anyway
If Correia were guaranteed $9M, then it would be very tempting to run him out there and try to get some value back. But for just $4M, we can live with him in the bullpen if 5 other guys are clearly better options. Paul wasn’t subject to such considerations – he was a near-lock to be one of our 2 best SPs (I see Morton as the only one with better than even odds of besting him).
That's part of my point, Maholm would become a sunk cost as spending on him would not lead toward a playoff birth.
The only justification for spending on him is if we can flip him for prospects.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
So if we were on track to win 85
We also shouldn’t sign a Maholm? Because 85 isn’t going to get you a playoff berth, so why bother?
Win all the games you can, every year, with an eye towards future viability. That’s it. There’s nothing you can do to bank wins from one year and redeem them at a later date. Sure, sometimes you need to rebuild, and take a year or two of big losses, but giving up 4-5 wins in 2012 won’t gain us a single game in 2014. All it will do is reduce revenues and lower fan interest.
If we were on track to win 85...
not trying to pick up 4 or 5 wins could cost us a playoff spot. The last 7 years, the NL wild card has won 88 once, 89 once, 90 3 times, 91 once and 92 once. And several times, at least one of the division winners won less games than the wild card.
Since we aren’t on target to win 85 any time soon, the point is moot.
Not quibbling with numbers
My point is that Kosstic is saying every season in which we’re not odds-on favorites to win the division or wild card, we should punt. So, if we were on track for ~85 wins with Doumit and Maholm, you may as well drop them.
Why would I assume that for Doumit?
Dude got 236 PAs last year. Yes, he’s injured all the time, but that’s the worst he’s done since 2006. Paul also missed 1/4 season, so I’m not sure why I’d take 2011 as a baseline.
Between the two of them, I would guess between 4 and 4.5 wins. I also expect the bullpen to be worse by a win or two, per knock-on effects (150 IP at 4.55 is 20 runs better than 182 IP at 4.75). I expect McKenry to be overexposed, and so to perform worse than he would as Doumit’s backup. If they use Pagnozzi at all, he could cost them half a loss in hardly any playing time at all.
And all of that is before considering that, IMO, they are now that much less likely to get additional wins from 1B, 3B, or another SP slot.
thats assuming no career seasons from any of the other players
or regression by the ones who stood out in 2011.
I don't think any of the relevant players have upside
IOW, there’s close to zero chance of replacing Doumit’s starts with a league-average C (even if Fryer steps up, all that means is that instead of Doumit/Fryer combining for 3-4 WAR, you get Fryer/McKenry combining for ~1 WAR). Same deal at SP – you’d need almost everyone to step up and stay healthy to avoid giving lots of innings to replacement-level (or worse) pitchers.
At other positions, it’s kind of irrelevant what has happened with Doumit & Maholm. I expect a blend of natural progression and inevitable regression to gain us a few wins from 7 positions and 4 SP slots. But I anticipate 2 black holes in the rotation and behind the plate, and I think the odds have gone down of finding Jones’ ideal platoon partner or a guy who can back up a breakthrough Pedro or step up for a Pedro who gets sent down in May.
if the money owed doumit/maholm goes to another position...
the, i cant believe im saying this, WAR generated by that aquisition could be enough to overlook the lack of offensive production at catcher yet the defensive improvement behind the plate helps the pitching staff immensely.
by white angus on Oct 25, 2011 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm going to consider
that I’ve won this discussion just because you just used WAR.
More seriously, it’s distantly possible that we could get a $16M FA who doesn’t suck, and recovers maybe 3 of the 4 WAR we lost. But I don’t see how we do that without also signing him for 2013 and maybe 2014, and now I have my doubts that this theoretical FA is going to be a good deal for us.
if we sign a 16M guy
i hope he does 4 WAR or more, but I dont see why its a bad deal if he’s here for 13 and 14 too. Unless he’s 36+.
He probably gets more expensive and performs worse
That’s why. Even if we managed to sign a legit FA – itself unlikely – it would surely be at least a mild overpay. Let’s say a 3/$54 contract ($16M, $18M, $20M), and the return is probably something like 3 WAR, 2.75, 2.5 Assuming we don’t see a collapse.
But whatever the specifics, my point is that I find it hard to imagine a contract that’s good value over multiple seasons – and that would have been unachievable with either Maholm or Doumit on the roster.
I’m not a huge fan of pitcher WAR but I think you could get Edwin Jackson to produce more “wins” and I doubt he gets $18m per over 3 years.
If the Pirates sign a Cardinals starter...
it’s gonna be Jake Westbrook.
those kinds of guys dont get that kind of money
They also get more years, but I’d be pretty darn pissed if we signed an Edwin Jackson for that kinda money.
The likeliest way to end up with a guy who makes that money is by trade. And that’s not v likely
by BurgherKing on Oct 25, 2011 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Well we wouldn't want the years
So we’d pay more for fewer. Plus the overpay to come to Pittsburgh.
IOW, a true-talent 3 WAR guy, age 31, could sign with, I dunno, CWS for 5/$70 or us for 3/$54 (and a mutual option for $16 to make him feel better about the total $$). That seems plausible to me, and to plausibly lead to the outcome I suggest above.
And maybe that guy’s a decent deal in 2012, but it seems very unlikely that the deal, as a whole, is a win for the Pirates.
Of course
it also assumes that the world doesn’t explode tomorrow, among a bevy of other things. Are you implying that we should count on one of those things, or just pointing out the obvious.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 25, 2011 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Knock-on
Paul has averaged 6.18 IP/start for his career. A typical 5th SP goes 5.39 IP/start. Our 5th SP is very, very likely to be worse than an average 5th SP, so I’m going to say that swapping Paul for Olsen, Jr. adds 1 IP to the bullpen’s load every turn of the rotation, for an extra 32 IP.
Those IP aren’t coming out of Veras, Resop, or Hanrahan. They’re coming out of Watson (4.20 xFIP), Moskos (4.68 xFIP), NoRelation (4.78 xFIP), or worse. Furthermore, those pitchers will now be more fatigued and less reliable in the ~150 IP they already were going to throw. It’s not just every 5th turn through the rotation that gets harmed; it’s every night that Hurdle needs to turn to an overworked bullpen.
How many games do you predict the Pirates to win right now for 2012?
Current roster with Doumit, Maholm, and Lee gone and no other significant changes?
Mid/high 60s, with significant downside risk if the wrong guy gets hurt.
Not a very useful prediction, though, given that we almost certainly aren’t going to go into the season with the roster I described above.
I know its not your final prediction, everyone's will change between now and April.
So mid/high 60s, is that 64-69 or what range? How many more with Doumit and Maholm?
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
So mid/high 60s, is that 64-69 or what range?
Something in that vicinity, yeah.
How many more with Doumit and Maholm?
Kind of depends on a few assumptions that are difficult to make accurately with known data: How healthy will Doumit be, and how will his positional use be divided? How likely is it that we’ll get a spring training breakout from one or more of the young SPs? How willing is the organization to pull the plug on Correia if he comes to camp looking shot? Etc. Maybe five wins total, with a giant error bar in both directions?
Okay so 5 wins is the information I was looking for from you.
If you think its 5 wins (with a margin of error, I understand), then you think we are a 69-74 win team with Doumit and Maholm, is that correct?
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
A year ago...
As we approached the 2011 season, I felt – begrudingly – that the Bucs were probably a year away from being at the point where they needed to markedly upgrade the major league roster. I thought it was a close call and an argument could be made to start the process immediately. Then management came out and said that they needed to start the process immediately.
Then they struck out on Beltre and whatever else of significance they had in mind, which became painfully clear with the waving of the white flag that was the Overbay signing.
Now, heading into the 5th full season for this management team (and I know that nobody in this management group put a timeline on the team not sucking any more) the only argument that can made against markedly upgrading the major league roster is that the franchise has not yet developed enough, which would necessarily imply either poor performance by the recently extended GM or a lack of commitment by ownership/management. The only other reason that it will not happen is that the management people are not good enough to make it happen.
The tough part is determining how to markedly supplement the major league roster responsibly. I wasn’t excited at the prospect of signing Beltre, but last night during the game I was thinking about how wrong I was – and that was before I read this post. I don’t know what this year’s corollary is, but the team needs to make it happen.
Any just for the record, I am of the opinion that it may be possible to overpay (and I’m primarily referring to money, not trade cost) for a player or two and still be responsible. We need NH and FC to make good decisions. This means they need to be bold, aggressive, and – most likely – fast moving in the major league talent market. And they’d damn well better get it right.
The consternation that is now dominating this board – and which I began experiencing a year ago – revolves around the fact that this management team has not yet exhibited the listed traits. Until now the absence of same could arguable dismissed by saying that the timing was not right. That is no longer the case.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Oct 25, 2011 9:06 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
we tried to sign Beltre???
i seriously doubt the FO was ready to move Pedro off of 3B in his first full season for Beltre.
Seriously don't understand why we aren't picking up Maholm's option
Its doubtful the Pirates can find someone better than maholm on the free agent market THAT WILL SIGN HERE and he can be used as a trade piece come July or we get a draft pick after he leaves in 2012.
If Maholm stays in 2012 and pitches by his standard, there’s approximately 0 chance he will bring a compensation draft pick back. According to MLB Trade Rumors, he’s the 16th starting pitcher below the Type-B threshold. And even if he could outproduce a few of the guys ahead of him (hello Chris Narveson and …hum hum … Kevin Correia), he’s not jumping 16 spots.
I would have argued Maholm would not bring back anything valuable in a trade by pointing at the Marquis trade this summer, but Arizona gave up a more-than marginal-prospect for him. So, you have a point here.
Not sure about that
Performance-wise Maholm started only 4 games between the trade deadline and August 17th. He was not particularly good (maybe he was playing injured) : 22.2 IP with 6.75 ERA and 1.59 WHIP.
During the same period, Bedard started 3 games for Boston and was better (2.38 ERA and 1.31 WHIP in 16 IP).
Also Bedard was not good in September, Maholm actually wouldn’t have helped Boston.
Now if you’re talking about the price they had to pay for Bedard over what they could have payed for Maholm, I kinda agree with you. I don’t think they would have had to give up 4 prospects, even with Maholm’s 2012 option year.
by From France on Oct 26, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Forgot to mention that's in hindsight.
But as a GM, if I have the choice between Bedard for 2 month or Maholm for 2 month and a reasonable option year, knowing I’ve got prospects to trade and money to cover for my mistakes, I bet on Bedard.
by From France on Oct 26, 2011 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Duh, of course
No way to foresee the injury (although conceivably an exam at the deadline might have caught something), but yeah.
I was more thinking that, in general, their starters collapsed down the stretch, and a nice, steady 4.00 ERA lefty would have looked awfully attractive.
It's a matter of point of view then
In my mind, when you’re the Red Sox, if you need a starter for the last 2 months, you try to get a difference maker : here it was Harden or Bedard. They both have more ups and downs than Maholm (especially because of their health) but when they play they both are better player than him.
And I honestly don’t think if you replay the same scenario while replacing Bedard by a healthy Maholm, it ends up with a different result.
I think those teams do think that way
And I think that, on balance, it’s a mistake. The Yankees got incredibly lucky with Garcia, Colon, and Nova; a much more responsible, and likely to succeed, plan would have been to bring in a Maholm. But that’s not the Yankee way.
It’s interesting how the Phils straddle that a bit; they’re now heavyweights like the Sox and Yanks, but the guy they brought in (Pence) is a distinct notch below the kind of guy the other 2 would chase. I’m not knocking the acquisition; I’m just saying that, while it added strength to strength, it was more the kind of trade that normal contenders make than the kind of “F you” addition NYY and BOS prefer.
I think those teams do think that way and I think that, on balance, it’s a mistake.
Well, they do it because they can. If it blows up in their face, they have the opportunity to compensate as soon as the next offseason. They have the luxury they don’t need to play it safe or to outsmart the competition. Of course, we don’t have that luxury.
The Yankees got incredibly lucky with Garcia, Colon, and Nova; a much more responsible, and likely to succeed, plan would have been to bring in a Maholm. But that’s not the Yankee way.
I find it ironic that each year the Pirates (and other small market teams) try to find one (or two) veteran FA hoping he would bounce back. And of all people, it’s basically the team which doesn’t absolutely need to find one who hit the jackpot this year. If the riches start to get lucky on top of that, where are we going ?
the guy they brought in (Pence) is a distinct notch below the kind of guy the other 2 would chase
IIRC, Pence was the 2nd best bat available at the deadline. So, in my mind, PHI did go after one of the best guy available at one of their position of need. He’s not Manny Ramirez, but there ain’t a Manny on the market every year.
Only because it was a fluke season
His BABIP was crazy through the trade deadline. He was way outperforming his career numbers. He was a huge risk to regress (in the event, he didn’t; the rich got lucky again).
But my point is that, while his 2011 numbers were better than any available player other than Beltranª, as a betting proposition going forward, he was pretty weak. Indeed, he was a lot like Paulie would have been had he had Karstens’ luck in the first half. Somewhat better career numbers, but fundamentally an averagish guy with lucky numbers leading to a career year.
ª Reyes was I think theoretically available, but in a massive overpay only
But yeah on the bitter irony with the SPs
If we’d signed Garcia or Colon, I suspect there would have been a lot of grousing around here – maybe not Overbay levels, but I’m pretty sure Matt Morris’ name would have been mentioned. Instead they end up the signings of the decade. Grumble.
Why would I have complained about Garcia or Colon? Unlike Overbay, both would have filled a need. And while Colon in particular had serious durability issues, he was also extremely productive when healthy in 2008 and 2009.
I'm not always talking about you, Vlad
Seriously, I wasn’t thinking of you as a likely grumbler. But I think that there would have been a mixed reaction. I don’t recall what the contract terms were, but assuming they were more than NRIs, I feel pretty certain that some people (I don’t know which ones) on this board would have looked at them as guys unlikely to contribute and brought in more to sucker casual fans and/or make NH look like he was doing something than to actually make the team better.
Sorry.
I saw the Overbay thing, and figured it was a reference at least in part to me, since I was kind of at the front of that particular lynch mob.
It’s usually pretty safe money that at least one or two guys will be against just about anything.
No problem
And you’re right that someone always complains. But I think that – again, depending on the terms – signing Garcia in particular would have raised hackles.
Not sure I agree with JRoth...
Garcia and Colon at $1-1.5M would probably be considered good risks based on their past. Garcia and Colon at $4-5M a season(the Overbay-Correia ballpark), probably would have got some grousing and grumbling when signed, as well as crow-eating at the end of the season. Myself included.
If Maholm stays in 2012 and pitches by his standard, there’s approximately 0 chance he will bring a compensation draft pick back.
Not really, no. In addition to Narveson and Correia, you’ve got one guy who’s said that he’s retiring (Vazquez) and another who might be either retiring or going to jail (Livan Hernandez). Not to mention that Elias’s cracktastic method uses two-year totals for pitchers, so while Maholm’s going to be replacing his awful 2010 numbers with some (presumably better) 2012 ones, some of the guys ahead of him in the 2011 rankigs primarily on the strength of their 2010 seasons (Bronson Arroyo, Josh Johnson, Jake Westbrook, etc.) are going to be dropping.
Interesting
I had no idea how Elias figured it, and once I saw that Correia was ahead of Maholm on the list, I decided to write it off as incomprehensible.
Livan Hernandez
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 27, 2011 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Can the Elias ranking system can be any more unbelievable ?
I took those ups and downs in consideration when I said Maholm would likely improve his ranking. I only gave 2 obvious examples of guys who would go down to support my point. But a jump of 16 spots is still rather unlikely, IMO.
I don’t think it deserves any further study, because the decision is already made, and we don’t need another “why are they letting Maholm go” 200 posts argument.
Honestly, I have more problems with the NH not willing to offer arbitration to Doumit or Snyder (I don’t remember if they said they intended to offer arbitration to Lee) than letting Maholm leave. I don’t see any major downside and a couple of free draft picks to gain. When your creed is “draft and develop”, you cannot let this opportunity go !
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
