Paul Maholm, Or Chris Capuano? A Bird In The Hand Isn't Bad
it's been a quiet week, and there isn't much news. I went to a concert last night and didn't see the game, tragically, so I'm still riding the same old hobbyhorse. I've been thinking about a piece Tim wrote a few days ago about the Paul Maholm and Ryan Doumit situations. The gist of it is that there will be better deals for players like Chris Capuano and Rod Barajas on the free agent market, so Pirates fans shouldn't be concerned about the Pirates not picking up Maholm's or Doumit's options.
If I’m going to lobby for something, I’m lobbying for the free agents. I don’t think it would cost the Pirates more than two years and $8 M for Barajas. I also think that Capuano could be had on a two year deal for $10-12 M total, or a one year deal for $6-7 M. In each case, you’ve got upgrades over Maholm and Doumit, and at a cheaper price.
I wasn't in favor of picking up the Doumit option (although the idea of the Pirates sticking with Michael McKenry and the random assortment of fellow backups and AAA guys behind him scares me, and I'm not certain of the Pirates' chances of actually signing Barajas or Ramon Hernandez), so let's just concentrate on the Maholm option. The problem with the decision between picking up the option or turning to Capuano on the free agent market is that it's a false choice, for two reasons.
First, the Pirates could have picked up the Maholm option and signed someone like Capuano. That would have given their rotation a level of stability it currently lacks. The fact that you might be able to get a better deal on Capuano shouldn't necessarily matter unless you're unwilling to spend on more than one player or if there will be lots of legitimate bargains on the free agent market who are good bets to outperform Maholm. The only one Tim names is Capuano, and in fact, he lists Capuano as his first choice, Maholm as his second, and Erik Bedard as his third.
Now, I like Capuano, but with his extremely dicey injury history (he's had two Tommy John surgeries and missed the better part of three years), I think it really is arguable whether giving Capuano a two-year, $10-12 million deal (as Tim suggests) really is better than a one-year, $9 million deal for a reliable (and apparently-healthy) pitcher like Maholm. And that's just one guy.
Now, to be clear, there will always be players on the free agent market who will turn out to be bargains - guys whose values are depressed because they aren't healthy or had a bad season who will nonetheless come back next year and pitch well. The problem is that we don't know who those guys are right now. One Fanshot recently pointed out that, for example, the Pirates could have gotten Ryan Vogelsong last offseason for just a few hundred thousand bucks. Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean it would have been a great plan for the Pirates to sign someone like Vogelsong last year and pencil him into their rotation. Someone like Maholm, who reliably eats innings, is a much better bet right now. A bird in the hand isn't anything to sneeze at. (It would probably fly away.)
Similarly - and this is reason no. 2 why I think Tim is setting up a false choice - the decision isn't between Maholm at $9 million (and by the way, the decision on Maholm boils down to $9 million, not $9.75 million, since the Pirates will have to pay the $750,000 buyout whether he plays for them or not) and Capuano at two years and $10-12 million. It's between Maholm at $9 million and, uh, we're not really sure what the other options are.
What made the Maholm option attractive was that the Pirates wouldn't have to enter the free agent market at all, and wouldn't have to subject themselves to a market where players have the choice not to play for them. Capuano might indeed sign for one year and $6 million, say. But if he does, he won't necessarily do that for the Pirates. He might not want to play for the Pirates, for any of the millions of reasons other players don't want to play for the Pirates either. If we knew Capuano would be willing to play for the Pirates for one year and $7 million, or two years and $11 million, that would be one thing. But we don't.
In fact, let's say Neal Huntington were to hold a press conference this afternoon. On the day of Game 7 of the World Series! What a jerk. He has no idea how to handle the press. Anyway, at this press conference, Huntington will announce that Capuano is their top free agent target. Luke Ravenstahl will surprisingly step out from behind a curtain carrying the key to the city, which he will promise to Capuano if he signs with the Pirates. Capuano will have beautiful women feeding him grapes while he rests on his own La-Z-Boy in the clubhouse. The only stipulation is that he has to sign for less than Maholm.
Would he sign? I don't know. I'm not sure I'd put that at better than even money. And the Pirates can't even offer the key to the city.
If you think all the focus on Chris Capuano is particular is a little weird, I respectfully submit that you are wrong.Here's the list of free agents, and here's a good review at FanGraphs. There are some interesting players, but there aren't going to be a ton of great deals on players in the Pirates' price range, and if there are, the Pirates aren't likely to be the ones getting them, for all the reasons that have been mentioned at Bucs Dugout approximately a billion times. I could see them signing someone like Jeff Francis or Bruce Chen. I'd rather have Maholm.
The possibility that some of these Maholm-alternatives, like Capuano, get multiple years makes it all the more clear that Maholm's option would have been a good idea. Multi-year contracts for starting pitchers are usually a bad bet, and the fact that Maholm's option only covered one year is a crucial one.
Is there a chance the Pirates could get a better deal than the one they could have had with Maholm? Sure. But I don't think the probability of that is all that high, and with Kevin Correia and the injured Charlie Morton among the four pitchers currently penciled into the Pirates' rotation, there wouldn't be any conflict in adding someone like Capuano or Francis in addition to Maholm.
Given that the Pirates aren't going to pick up the option, I think advocating for Capuano is perfectly realistic and sensible. But that doesn't mean the Pirates will be able to sign him, or that they couldn't have used both Maholm and Capuano.
134 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
WHYGAVS: It’s hard to convince a free agent to come play for the Pirates?
Neal Huntington: It hasn’t been the easiest, which is a tough thing to admit. I’ve had an agent tell us we’d have to vastly overpay in terms of years and dollars if we wanted to get his client and that’s just not something we’re interested in doing. It’s not good, sound business practice.
I guess you can choose to believe Huntington or not believe him or accuse him of making excuses or something, but until the Pirates win something I’m going to find it hard to believe that anyone of any value with any other options will choose to play in Pittsburgh.
http://www.whygavs.com
http://twitter.com/whygavs
Hah! Really?
“If Clint can impact that belief in Lyle Overbay and Matt Diaz so that they want to come here…”
Thanks, Clint!
Agent: “You’ll have to vastly overpay in years and dollars to get Jayson.”
Mike Rizzo: “Where do I sign?”
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
The reason thiswhole Maholm thing really bothers me..
is that we’re letting him go and neglecting his potential trade value. From a wins/losses standpoint, I honestly don’t care too much if we lose Paul’s 2 WAR to someone 0 WAR. It’s not going to make a difference to the 2012 team (Other than maybe taxing the bullpen more often) and frankly, isn’t the main reason to get upset.
Maholm would’ve been traded this season had the Pirates not given the illusion of a contender. This put the FO in a tricky situation and they decided to make subtle additions instead of selling anyone. Had the Pirates been exposed earlier, I have little doubt Maholm would’ve been sent packing, and probably gotten something decent in return, though that’s pure speculation on my part.
Now, going into 2012, there’s a reasonable belief that Maholm can put up similar numbers, or at least career averages. There’s also a reasonable belief that the Pirates won’t exceed expectations and have a rotation that pitches well over their heads for half the season. This puts the Pirates in a selling position at the deadline. Given the fact that the Pirates have plenty of money to spend and are choosing not to is a bit infuriating.
The team doesn’t need to be in prospect mode to still think about the future. My main point is that in a situation such as ours, the team not only needs to think about the value to the team in terms of what he can bring every 5th day on the mound, but also the overall value of the asset to the club, which can be used to upgrade the team.
So other options and bare with me here:
Eric Bedard
Mark Buehrle
Kyle Davies
Jeff Francis
John Garland
Rich Harden
Edwin Jackson
Jason Marquis
Roy Oswalt
Brad Penny
Javier Vazquez
CJ Wilson
Dontrelle Willis
I really think we can a combination of at least 2 of these guys for the price of a Maholm. Obviously this may not include the likes of Jackson or Oswalt or something but I think all of the guys listed can be of 2 WAR value. I also think a handful of them would come to Pittsburgh without us grossly overpaying. Sure we have to include another 1M-2M which kind of defeats the purpose and favors the argument of keeping Maholm but its not like there are other wordly pitchers out there, these guys can be had for reasonable prices.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
Prude.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 28, 2011 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe not for 9M exaclty
but in the case of Capuano, say he signs for 7M. Maybe we can get someone else from the list for 4-5M. Now its not so bad right? we get 2 pitchers and save 2-3M that can be re invested in say a C or 1B
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
Why are guys like Wilson, Buerhle and Jackson in that list? You can’t get those guys cheaply.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
they certainly wont be
Jackson was thoroughly discussed on here the other day, I cant see the others making much more than him, they are not bonified stars. While good, I just thought Id throw them on the list, maybe we go after just 1 pitcher (one of the ones you named) rather than quantity. Its just a thought
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
That would be fine with me. I just don’t think anyone of Jackson’s caliber is likely to sign with the Bucs, honestly.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
nor do I
but its worth putting them on there for discussion as I felt they would fall into about the same category as a Jackson. As I said, maybe it would have been best to make two different lists rather than mash them all together
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
I think there is probably at least one combination of two pitchers that would be willing to sign with us for that money. Davis and Willis is probably the most likely bet, since neither is someone you could rely on at all (and Davis is terrible to boot).
What’s he thinking? There are so many more lovable players out there. Like Lyle Overbay, Brandon Wood, Matt Diaz …
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I just don't understand a $9 million investment for a guy who:
A. won’t be here beyond this year
B. in a season you have already written off as a non-contending season.
You keep pointing to reasons why Maholm is a reasonable option at 9 million dollars (which many, including myself, agree with)…what you haven’t shown is WHY should the Pirates throw that kind of money at Maholm for a useless year?
what you haven’t shown is WHY should the Pirates throw that kind of money atMaholmOR ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER for a useless year?
Because the alternatives are really, really dicey, because Maholm (or whoever) wouldn’t be blocking anyone who needs to play, and because there’s value in collecting a few extra wins. There have been extensive discussions here about why punting isn’t good; I’m not sure what you feel I have to show.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
there going to have to throw it somewhere, why not at a reliable starter like Maholm, who the fans know and like. keep the team strong and please the fans at the same time
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
i was just answering your statement
and were going to have to spend some money or we’ll get the Florida Marlins treatment I would assume. It makes sense to bring in at least one pitcher to give us depth in the rotation
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
If it's just about spending money to add payroll...
then go out and pick up three $3 million pitchers and throw them into the mix. Perhaps one shows a reason to be kept beyond 2012.
How would that work? Either the Pirates would be taking on multi-year commitments for these pitchers, which is usually dumb for lots of reasons, or they’d be free agents after the season anyway, just as Maholm would. Are you expecting them to have a great year and then stay out of the goodness of their hearts? What $3 million pitchers are you talking about?
One of the things that makes Maholm’s option attractive is that it’s only one year, so the Pirates aren’t messing around with entanglements that could screw things up if at some point they’re finally able to contend.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Charlie, can't you just make a Maholm Open Thread,
so that everytime you want to rehash how the Pirates should retain Maholm, it can be kept in one tidy area instead in numerous stories?
People have been banned from here for repeating their love of Lars Anderson.
And you are always quick to re-direct people to previous threads when they delve into a previously covered topic, yet you keep re-hashing this Maholm thing with just a slight variation, making it another story.
That middle paragraph didn't make sense....
I meant to say:
“People have been banned from here for repeatedly posting their love of Lars Anderson, yet I keep seeing the same “Keep Maholm” stories from you.
Comparing the Lars Anderson gibberish to Charlie’s posts on Maholm is truly asinine.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Great point!
Lars Anderson could actually contribute to the FUTURE of the Pittsburgh Pirates. Maholm won’t.
I'm sorry
1.) There is no proof that Anderson would contribute anywhere but Indy, and
2.) This Maholm talk is at least coherent….the original Lars Anderson post came across (at least to me) as some sort of drug-induced rant…it was quite a spectacle, actually.
by insane_sanity on Oct 28, 2011 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
No one I can recall has ever been banned for discussing Lars Anderson. There was one guy who talked about Anderson a lot who was banned, but that was for posting all manner of filth. It had nothing to do with Anderson.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't worry, Burgher, I'm done for a while.
Beyond the Paul Maholm daily update, Charlie has taken to mocking me just about every time I post now. It’s a bit unbecoming, but that’s how he chooses to discuss things when I’m involved. So, I’m checking out until Maholm signs elsewhere….but then I’ll be back!!!
This is how you entered this discussion.
If that’s how you want to start a discussion with me, that’s fine, but don’t get the vapors when you get a little bit of light mockery in return.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions
if you really must get the vapors...
do it here, please… thanks!
by Captain Easychord on Oct 28, 2011 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Pirates had a reasonable (or even an outside shot) at contention this year...
it makes for a reasonable argument.
But, all the Pirates would do is be wasting money, UNLESS, you are signing him for the explicit reason of trading him.
to give the fans the benefit of being able to watch the team win
once in a while, and generally be more competitive.
Even if you don’t agree with it, it can’t be that hard to understand that there is no reason fans should care about money that goes into Nutting’s pockets
Do you really think that more people will show up because Paul Maholm is pitching???
The guy is worth TWO wins above replacement.
Am I understanding something wrong here? A replacement level pitcher in place of Maholm gives them two LESS wins. Is that such a drop-off in competitiveness that no one will show up??
no, you are confusing two v different arguments here
i’ve said in all the previous Maholm threads that I think letting Maholm go is not a big deal, and players like him are replaceable. I have no intention of rehashing those, but that seems to agree with your stand.
The part I do not agree with is that you feel the Pirates can pocket the money saved and go home and play someone else there. I don’t agree. I would agree that they can fill slots with low salary players when they are ready. This Pirates team has plenty of holes that are candidates to be filled externally because there aren’t guys ready. I would like to see the team make an effort to recover those wins, as a spectator. So yes, I’d be annoyed if we were happy throwing replacement level players out there.
Second, just because Maholm adds 2 wins over the player is not all there is to this. The 2 wins are spread out over multiple games that are closer because Maholm starts— IOW, even games they eventually lose are closer because of Maholm. I’d rather watch a competitive lost game than non-competitive lost games. So, yes, I’d say you are missing stuff here.
I don't think we're that far apart on this.
I’m not saying that the Pirates should pocket the money and just play whoever.
I don’t have a problem bringing in outsiders, especially if there’s even a remote possibility they will be here beyond this year.
But throwing money at Maholm simply for the sake of being competitive seems perilously close to playing for 82 wins.
Sure, the Pirates can afford Maholm. Sure he makes them better in 2012. But what does that do for the Pirates organization?
I don’t understand why people like Charlie think it’s this huge deal to re-sign Maholm. To me, it’s no big deal one way or the other. Signing Maholm is certainly not a necessity for this organization. Nor will they completely collapse without him.
many of the same people wanted to keep Duke around
i think its familiarity more than anything. you know what your getting with Maholm, which isnt too bad, but you dont know what youre going to get with his replacement.
With the awesome track record NH has in FA
I feel like we have a good indication. Its not good.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 28, 2011 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
to give NH a little credit...
only Overbay and Correia were signed to recieve a bulk of playing time. everyone else, unless im missing a name, was signed to be a backup or platooner
I don’t think it’s that huge a deal, honestly. If it weren’t October, when we have little else to talk about, it probably wouldn’t seem that way. It’s just that it’s one of the few interesting topics that people want to debate right now.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
one of the few interesting topics that people want to debate right now
I could always ask you some more questions about Anthony Braxton.
I haven’t actually been listening to that much of his stuff since the early Ghost Trance Music days, though I did see him at Iridium. How would you describe Diamond Curtain Wall and like that in relation to the GTM stuff? I have a little trouble listening to the GTM stuff on the record just because of the Sitzfleisch needed, though it’s not strictly a matter of duration — I don’t have a similar problem with all the continuous sets from the Crispell-Dresser-Hemingway days.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 28, 2011 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, those were serious questions before? Ok. Well, honestly, I haven’t played with Anthony since 2004, so I’m not at all sure my answers will be up-to-date. I think he was just starting to roll out the Diamond Curtain Wall stuff when I was playing with him – I saw (what I think was) his first SuperCollider concert in 2004 or so. He was also working on this thing called Falling River Music, which was these scores that were graphic notation – they looked a lot like those graphic titles of some of his pieces.
The GTM stuff is these streams of quarter notes. They got more jumbled and abstract the more compositions he wrote, but his GTM pieces were still mostly based around melodic lines. With the Falling River stuff, there’s no requirement that things be that way.
Without having played with him recently, it’s hard to tell exactly what his working methods are now, because he has tended to view his work as a whole, without boundaries, so he’s always blending things he did a long time ago with newer works. But that’s my basic impression of the differences between the categories. Which, again, may not be up-to-date.
“For Alto” and Crispell-Dresser-Hemingway stuff were what got me hooked on Anthony’s music. The musicianship on those records is incredible. I worked some with Dresser in San Diego when I went out there.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
It was mostly a joke about derailing the thread from Maholm discussion, but people actually seemed interested in the discussion so I didn’t get too off-topic. But I am seriously interested in Braxton — mostly got into him through the 70s stuff (especially Creative Orchestra and anything with George Lewis) but I find all his work pretty fascinating. The Iridium show was where I really began to hear the Henry Brant influence he’d been talking about. (Partly because I hadn’t heard any Brant until I’d been listening to Braxton for a while — I was at <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=henry%20brant%20milwaukee&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZVU5DnRwyMc&ei=bjurToOlH8H30gHauqCMDw&usg=AFQjCNFWhIQxI9q3kDxu9xmxs0bkQxX-kg&cad=rja">this gig.) It really seemed like every different kind of music was going on onstage at once. I guess that was the end of the Ghost Trance Music, but it sounded very different from the early streams of quarter notes.
Anyway, very cool, thanks for your answers. It was kind of funny to see your name on the Tricentric site, since that’s not where I’m used to seeing it.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 28, 2011 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions
ew
The Henry Brant link was supposed to go here (video).
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 28, 2011 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s cool. I didn’t know Braxton was interested in Brant. (There is a composition professor named Neely Bruce at Wesleyan who is a very serious Brant devotee – I wonder if that’s relevant here.) But it makes sense.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Now that I think of it, I’m not sure that it goes beyond an offhandish mention in an interview from Graham Lock’s book on Braxton (found here). It might’ve also come up on one of the audio interviews that’s on the Coventry quartet albums (many of which wound up in the book). Anyway, that’s where I first heard of Brant.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 28, 2011 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions
i dont terribly care that they sign Maholm
i think w.a.‘s argument above is simplistic and broken. What I really want to see is if they are willing to let a replaceable player go, without having an in-house replacement, then I want to see them replace those wins. I don’t terribly care how they replace it.
by BurgherKing on Oct 28, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This has been discussed extensively here.
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/10/24/2511786/time-to-stop-punting
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Depends on what you mean by contending, but probably not a realistic one, no. This isn’t about contending. It’s about putting a competitive team on the field – not because that’s the franchise’s ultimate goal, but because not having a 100-loss season is a good thing, and because signing a pitcher would not get in the way of anything important happening in the future.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
In theory, replacing Paul Maholm with a replacement level pitcher means
the Pirates lose 92 games this year, instead of 90.
I could see brining Maholm back as trade bait or if you thought he had a Pirates future beyond 2012. But, not just so the Pirates have a competitive team in 2012.
The trade bait idea is also a compelling reason to do it. I’ll take both.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I just think it's funny that people apply the 2.0 WAR label to Maholm
like it’s definitely gonna happen.
In Baseball-reference WAR-terms, it’s only happened ONCE before last year.
Still, I’d take that chance IF the Pirates were near contention.
By FanGraphs WAR, which takes into account the Pirates’ atrocious defenses over that span (I believe BB-ref’s do not), Maholm was at two wins or more in all four seasons.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha, Charlie, don't get me started!!!
if that’s your argument, then shouldn’t you be very, very concerned about the Pirates infield question marks? Right now the Pirates don’t have a 3B or a 1B written in stone. Who’s to say that Maholm won’t have an atrocious defense in 2012??
In fact, there’s a very good chance that the Pirates will not have a very good infield defense in 2012.
I am concerned about the Pirates’ defense. But every pitcher the Pirates use will have to contend with it, not just Maholm.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Not if they bring in a high flyball guy!!!
Seems Maholm’s success is very dependent on the infield defense behind him.
Those guys
are terrible or expensive. High FB guys give up lots of HRs. Which is fine if you keep guys off base. Which you can only do through some combo of high K and low BB.
Explain to me which pitchers with good K/BB rates want to sign here?
WAR calculations
Well, Fangraphs pitcher WAR is just FIP and innings — walks, Ks, HRs, nothing else. BBRef pitcher WAR does try to take account of team defense; IIRC it’s supposed to compare runs given up to the number of runs a replacement pitcher would have given up with the same defense. So it’s supposed to take the lousy defense into account, but it may not quite get it done. (It actually only thinks the defense cost Maholm double-digit runs in 2010; every other year it was no worse than -5 runs for him, by their stats.)
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 28, 2011 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Is his 2006 performance at all relevant to what he might do in 2012? No? Ok, then.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
You're absolutely right.
Maholm’s been trending downward, and since he’s 30 now, he may fall below those 2006 levels.
I would disagree
2 bad years of Joe Kerrigan’s approach sandwiched between 2008 and 2011?
That’s not really a “downward trend”, is it?
by insane_sanity on Oct 28, 2011 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, FanGraphs lists 2009 as Maholm's best WAR year.
It was more of a joke, because every single time I bring up someone over the age of 30, certain people on this site tell me, with absolute certainty, that guys over 30 begin a quick decline.
any idea the difference between fangraphs and baseballref?
baseballref is what I typically look at, and they really hit him hard in 2009/2010 (1.9 total) vs. 2008/2011 (6.3 total), while fangraphs paints a MUCH more uniform picture over the last 4 yrs.
by insane_sanity on Oct 28, 2011 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know exactly, but the differences seem to be related to differences in xFIP. Fangraphs seems to weigh them, while BB-ref does not. I looked for info on BB-ref’s WAR before I posted that and couldn’t find anything, but if you look at various players’ pages, that seems to be pretty clearly what’s going on.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the difference
is that B-R has a really ugly website, while FG’s is reasonably pleasing to look at (and use).
by JRoth95 on Oct 28, 2011 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
so should we consider more reliable, and why? (non-saber-guy here — attempting to learn)
by insane_sanity on Oct 28, 2011 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
The FanGraphs ones, which aren’t penalizing Maholm for the Pirates’ awful defenses.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
whoops, missed this comment before I posted
But see above — BBRef actually tries to adjust runs allowed for defense. If you look at their value stats, there’s a column for the runs a replacement pitcher would’ve given up, and a column for runs saved/cost by the defense (which is included in replacement pitcher runs); the pitcher RAR is the runs they allowed minus replacement pitcher runs.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 28, 2011 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions
both are unreliable in their own ways
I guess I’d consider Fangraphs more reliable, but I’d really rather just look at FIP/xFIP and even ERA.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 28, 2011 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions
not Charlie, but
I’d have to say yes. Given the 2011 contended for about 4 months, I have to say the 2012 has an outside shot at contending.
Yeah, I think there’s some fragment of a chance of that happening again. But that’s not really why I think the Pirates should at least try to take 2012 seriously.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
i agree, as i already posted earlier
this was answering his specific question that, yes, decent teams always have an outside shot at playing over their heads and putting themselves in unlikely positions.
By the way, it should be noted...
that I was consistently saying that I thought the Pirates had an outside shot next year (since they just needed to find a way to make 4 months into 6 months…no easy feat, but possible nonetheless), and I was told repeatedly, flat out by Charlie, that they had no chance in 2012.
This is why I keep bringing it up.
I don’t remember what you’re talking about, but I think it’s probably a semantic difference between “absolutely no chance whatsoever” and “no chance worth realistically worrying about.”
It must be hard keeping track of all the logic traps you’ve snared me in. Do you have a spreadsheet somewhere?
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
i wonder
if Charlie and impliedi will stop bickering at some point. Given that I’ve seen good arguments from both of them, the board certainly loses when you guys aren’t playing together.
im just glad im not on the losing end of a squabble this time
i say, let em crash
by white angus on Oct 28, 2011 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
btw
i gave the rec on that — I’m pro-crash as well!
by insane_sanity on Oct 28, 2011 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
It it's just about taking 2012 seriously...
shouldn’t you be just as upset about the Pirates not bringing back Doumit and Snyder?
If they are brought back, the 2012 team is more competitive, and those re-signings don’t inhibit future development either.
I don’t think Snyder’s option is a good price. Maholm’s is. And I don’t want to pick up that second year on Doumit’s option.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
This isn't about value, it's about making the Pirates competitive in 2012.
So, it shouldn’t matter if the Snyder option is not a good price or bad price.
Yeah, good thinking. Have we officially declined the option yet? If so, maybe we should call Snyder and see if he’s take a year at $20 million.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
YOU are the one saying the Pirates should throw money
at Paul Maholm for the purpose of being competitive in 2012.
Why would 6 million more for Snyder make a difference, then?
I think it’s foolish to spend 9 million on anybody for 2012 that will not be on the team beyond 2012, UNLESS the Pirates believe they have some shot of competing.
Can you honestly not see why, as a default option, I would want the Pirates to make a reasonably-priced signing that might help make the team a little more competitive, but I would not want an unreasonably-priced signing?
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
No. I believe, like Clint Hurdle says, in "all in" or "don't bother".
If all you care about is being competitive in 2012 and not getting in the way of future development…then why should it matter if the Pirates re-sign Snyder.
They will almost certainly be better in 2012 with Snyder then with his replacement. So why should the amount of money matter??
I guess, for my personal purposes, if the choice is between Snyder at $6 million and nothing at all, then the amount of money doesn’t really matter. It isn’t mine, after all. I’m just not going to fault the Pirates for not throwing away $6 million on a player who isn’t likely to be worth it. I’m not going to advocate it, either.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
But, at the end of the day, if the net result is an improvement of the team
is $6 million really a waste?
I guess I have a hard time understanding this.
You’re arguing that Maholm is a good deal, Snyder a bad deal, therefore go with Maholm and not Snyder.
I’m saying that neither is worth it for a team like the Pirates in 2012.
You’re saying that Maholm makes the team more competitive.
I’m saying that being competitive in 2012 in not important.
However, I am saying, that if being competitive in 2012 IS important, then being a good deal or less than good deal is irrelevant (within reason, of course), because the Pirates are spending money to be better in 2012.
To me, if it’s all about 2012 (which it would be by re-signing Maholm), then it stands to reason that we should be as upset about losing Snyder as we would about Maholm.
Maholm vs Snyder...
There is a MUCH better chance that Maholm is healthy in 2012 than there is that Snyder will be healthy in 2012. Sorta tips the scales in my eyes.
So what you're saying
is that every Nov. 1, the FO should decide whether or not the team will win the WS the next year. If the answer is “yes”, then they should act like a normal team that tries to win games. If the answer is “no”, or even “probably not”, then they should cut every player making more than league minimum and see how good a draft pick they get with a $10M payroll.
I don’t see any problem with that approach.
I know you're being facetious, but
no, that’s not at all what I’m saying.
The Pittsburgh Pirates are working to make themselves into a better organization, which I believe is far more important than the number of wins in 2012 or putting out a competitive team next year.
The re-signing of Paul Maholm will only impact 2012’s wins and losses. Re-signing him or not has little to no impact on the Pirates as an organization.
I have been told, numerous times, by numerous people, that the Pirates will not contend next year (contention doesn’t mean WS, but at least within striking distance of a playoff spot throughout the year.)
So, what you are advocating is that a Pirates team spend 9 million dollars to have Paul Maholm in the rotation for one more year for a team that will not compete, nor be significantly more competitive with him in the rotation, than without him? Thus making the Pirates marginally better for next year, while not impacting the Pirates’ future. What point does that make?? And if it’s about building a competitive team for 2012 without hurting the playing time of the young guys, then we should all be up in arms that Doumit and Snyder will be gone. All 3 make the Pirates marginally better than without.
If the Pirates are going to go into 2012 with question marks at 1B, 3B, & C (and perhaps LF & RF), make no effort to improve SS, than what impact do you see Paul Maholm having??
Or, to put it another way....
If the Pirates truly believe they might be able to make a run at 2012…then:
sign a veteran C (or re-sign Doumit/Snyder), 3B & back-up OF
sign an FA 1B
improve the SS position
sign a FA SP
AND THEN
I’d be all for re-signing Paul Maholm.
All of these things could be done without hurting the future of the franchise.
Perhaps I’m just jumping the gun, but I keep looking at that 9 million spent on Maholm in a vacuum, not expecting much else to be added.
If that’s the case, why bother?
interesting
I fail to see how “making themselves a better organization” includes publicly tipping our hand on Maholm and Doumit in October.
We currently sit in the position of “shopping” them, while everyone knows we need to trade them or risk losing them for nothing in return.
by insane_sanity on Oct 28, 2011 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
What's the upside?
You’re arguing for a specific course of action: lose as many games as possible in 2012. How, exactly, does that help the team in the big picture? I’ll spot you “better draft pick.” Now account for everything else.
non tender
Hanrahan then. His contributions to the team wont put us over the hump, so why waste the money??
by titanlord91 on Oct 28, 2011 5:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Joel Hanarahan will likely be here for 2 more years.
He has a part to play for the future of the Pittsburgh Pirates.
Unless you’re advocating signing a multi-year deal with Maholm, Maholm will walk after this year.
then
Pick up maholms option and trade him for assets. Or, if we unexpectedly contend again, keep him. Not that hard
You guys are doing a Maholm thread without me?
I’m offended.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Oct 28, 2011 3:41 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
My apologies! You can take over for me. Please.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2011 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Charlie...
you can’t bail now…you’re in FAR too deep!
by insane_sanity on Oct 28, 2011 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Every time I think I'm out
they pull me back in!
by matskralc on Oct 28, 2011 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
All this fuss over Paulie...
.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 28, 2011 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
This is all so very intriguing, but I think it best that I take a self-imposed hiatus from BD
until Paul Maholm signs with somebody else.
I don’t think I can take any more analysis of Maholm’s worth.
The Problem Is ...
we are talking about players like Maholm, Doumit and Snyder. Maholm is a #4 in most rotations, if that, and Doumit and Snyder are back-up catchers.
Options deadline...
all the guesswork about which options are going to get exercised (not only for the Pirates) won’t be guesswork for much longer. All option decisions must be made by 11:59 PM EDT Monday night. Teams lose exclusive rights to free agents at 12:01 AM EDT next Thursday. Per numerous tweets from Joel Sherman about MLB announcements.
And now, evidently...
MLB and MLBPA have agreed to push back all those deadlines 24 hours. All potential FAs become free at 12:01 AM Sunday morning, which means the options at 11:59 PM Tuesday night and loss of exclusive rights at 12:01 AM Friday morning.

by 


















