Pirates Offered Edwin Jackson Three-Year Deal
The Pirates evidently offered Edwin Jackson a three-year deal in the neighborhood of $10 million a year. They also offered him a one-year deal. That's good, I guess, even though he didn't take either of them. At least it shows they're willing to compete for these sorts of players, although the next one they sign will be the first. It also probably shows they know their starting pitching is currently a problem. A cynic might say, of course, that there was little chance of Jackson signing a three-year deal worth $10 million a year from the Pirates, and that there was therefore little risk, but you never know.
4 months ago
Charlie Wilmoth
116 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Ah, beat me to it!
He also reports they made a 1 year offer, but doesn’t know the value of that. This could explain why they haven’t moved on FA pitching lately.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
At least they tried
And good on whoever in the Pirates FO informed Rosenthal of this. I said I wanted a serious good faith effort and it appears one was made.
This, by the way, pretty much confirms the virtual impossibility of ever signing a Boras client FA and why we’re almost certain to bid goodbye to guys like Alvarez, Cole and Bell whenever they hit free agency. He simply doesn’t want his free agents here.
How often does a guy turn down a multiple year offer to sign a 1 year deal outside of the team being a bigtime contender….and it’s by no means certain the Nats can compete effectively in a division with the Phillies, Braves & retooled Marlins.
Boras and Jackson basically turned down $20 million dollars rather than play for the Pirates. Think about that.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
it’s by no means certain the Nats can compete effectively in a division with the Phillies, Braves & retooled Marlins.
No, but that rotation certainly makes them competitive. Add in Ryan Zimmerman, Espinosa, Ramos and Morse, and they have avg to well above avg players at all those positions. If they can find a CF, and Werth manages to hit again, they should be competitive.
Agreed that the Nats can contend
He’s also not going to be the main/only starter in Washington: Strasburg, Zimmerman, Gonzalez will be around him (not sure what order). This can have the same effect that Baltimore used with Sidney Ponson: padding his win total by facing off against 3-4 starters instead of aces.
I was thinking that this was Boras finding a decent park for Jackson to put up some good numbers and angle for a better long-term deal next winter. The Washington Post suggests the same thing, saying:
In the past, other clients of Scott Boras, Jackson’s agent, have also used so-called "pillow contracts" — one-year deals aimed at rebuilding free agent value.
Also:
Jackson will make $11 million in 2012, not $10 million as had previously been widely reported, including by The Post. Jackson’s deal also includes significant award bonuses for making the all-star team, receiving Cy Young and MVP votes and postseason awards.
+1
: padding his win total by facing off against 3-4 starters instead of aces.
That’s a really good angle, hadn’t thought of that before.
by Wizard of Woz on Feb 8, 2012 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
Big ifs there at the end
Werth is at best a coin flip to rebound and it appears they’ll have CF manned by a Rick Ankiel type again. That could end up killing them.
They also seem unwilling to take off Strasburg’s training wheels (read that once he reaches 150 innings there’s a good chance he’ll be shut down for the year, even if they’re in contention) and I wonder if some of Zimmermann’s unsustainable peripherals (a 5.9% HR/FB rate for a guy who hovers around only 40% GB for one) will catch up to him. Plus he’s never tossed more than 161 innings in a season.
Would it surprise me if the Nats contend? Absolutely not. Would it surprise me if they topped out at 80 wins? Nope.
Fact remains though that Jackson spurned $20 million bucks to come pitch in Pittsburgh. That says a lot and none of it good.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
actually i didnt mean to put those ifs with "competitive" at the end
I meant to say that if they found a legit CF and Werth hit, they would have very very good playoff odds.
Spurned $20 million?
Not really. Taking $12 million this season with the hope of parlaying that into something quite a bit better than the $20 million is what is actually happening. Sure there is a chance of major injury, but there is a better chance that he gets a heck of a lot more than that $20 million and the chance to pitch for a contender.
by ballparkfranks on Feb 6, 2012 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
Huge gamble
1) Injury
2) Bad year
3) Walks into a crowded FA pitching market
Boras can do some mighty things, but this is a big roll of the dice.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
Huge Gamble?
If it is a huge gamble then we shouldn’t be trying to sign him in the first place. You can’t have it both ways. He is either too big a risk for us to sign, or he made a decent decision by weighing the odds of this gamble.
by ballparkfranks on Feb 6, 2012 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
I'll speak slowly
By signing with the Pirates, Jackson would have been guaranteed $30 million no matter what happens.
Instead he chose to take $11 million for the Nats in hopes of getting a bigger deal than 3 years/$30MM next offseason.
That’s a gamble for him based on the factors I listed above. I’m not talking about the gamble the Pirates would have taken in signing him.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
Risk is risk
No need to speak slowly, I can’t hear you.
by ballparkfranks on Feb 6, 2012 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
I was pushing/hoping for a 4 year offer
bc I think he takes it for the risk factors you listed. At the same time, I’m not sure the same risks exist on a 3 year deal. It won’t take much for E-Jax to get more than 2/$19M after this season and if he does, then it’s a good gamble. A 4/40 offer with an option for a 5th would have been more like the long term deal Boras wanted. 3/30, while competitive, didn’t offer Jackson the extra incentive they needed.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 6, 2012 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
I was as well...
There is a very good chance he would have accepted something like 4/45, which would have been great for the Pirates. Unlike the win now teams, Jackson would have more value for the Bucs on the back end of a 4-year deal. He would have provided stability to a very young staff in 2014-15, when this team should be much better and ready to contend.
It also would have put the Pirates over the hump as far as serious free agents go. You don’t get taken seriously in this market until you actually get it done the first time.
I am very glad these offers were made, but NH has to realize that if we wants a FA, he has to do better than just offer what other teams offer.
www.drstrangeglove.com
I agree with the strategy
I’m not sure that I’d offer 4/$40, but I think it gets the job done. I think Edwin made a perfectly reasonable decision, even with next year’s fat class.
Risk for Jackson not Boras
Which I think is the main point. Boras (assuming 10%) gets 1.1 mil this year with a shot at a big payday next year. If they took the Pirates deal he gets 1 mil for three years. The shot at a bigger payday is worth the risk to Jackson’s career. And if Jackson gets hurt, Boras moves on to the next guy.
It is not always about the player. In fact, it may usually be about the agent.
by SojourningPirate on Feb 7, 2012 1:57 AM EST up reply actions
hmm, interesting
I wonder what it would have taken to get him to sign here. Also probably shows Jackson was really more interested in the where than the for-how-much
I see it the other way
no one came close to matching his price so he chose to try again next year. Once a 1 year deal is decided on, of course he’ll want the better chance to win.
perhaps
i was basing it off of the fact that I just dont see how he’s going to have a better market given the other potential FAs (even accounting for those that sign long term with their current clubs)
I think it's best
I don’t think his inconsistency, coupled with the “first big contract in a long time” tag, would have played well in Pittsburgh.
Disagree
From a PR standpoint, it would’ve been a bigtime gesture by the front office and a nice signal to the fans that almost makes sense from a purely baseball perspective.
Financially, $10MM a year for 3 years is hardly financially crippling, even to the Bucs.
And in terms of baseball, Jackson would’ve been the #1 guy in the rotation easily and that’s never a bad thing to sign. Bedard might have more pure talent, but you can count on Jackson for 180-200 innings whereas if Bedard pitches 150, it’ll be a minor miracle.
Signing Jackson would’ve made it possible to argue the Bucs can actually compete this year if the bats would come around. (Big if, I know, but he would’ve filled a giant hole in the rotation and been a good bridge to Cole & Taillon)
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
"Also" makes sense not "almost"
Somebody I’ll learn to type
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
by Raybin on Feb 6, 2012 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I meant from the media
If Pittsburgh is 10 games out by July, everyone (who cares) will focus their blame on Barmes and Barajas because they were signed to “big” deals this offseason. If Jackson were here making ~$10 million, the media would light him up, especially given how inconsistent he is on a start-to-start basis. The Pirates could have essentially said “Hey, look, we’re spending money!” while detractors brought up several Edwin Jackson implosions. I’m all for the team spending more and trying to win; I just didn’t and don’t think that Edwin Jackson was the answer for that.
I don't think
that the Pittsburgh baseball fanbase reacts like that, and I think that the media mostly follows suit. The fanbase is antsy about a lot of things, but not start-to-start outcomes for SPs.
They might get there some day, but I don’t think that’s where they are now. Hell, Jones is still popular based pretty much exclusively on 3 (amazing) months that ended over 2 years ago. If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s patience.
With the Pirates (fair or unfair) rep for being cheap, if they splurged and spent $10+ million on one player, especially one who’s very inconsistent and can look downright ugly at times like Edwin Jackson can, they and he will both be attacked by sports media. This and other Pirates-based blogs are different: we (mostly) understand the value in players beyond BA, HR, and pitcher wins.
I’m not talking about just start-to-start; Jackson never really got on a roll until he got to St. Louis last year. Jason Kendall was a homegrown talent and he got the boo birds when he was merely playing above average.
Still not sure I understand his desire for a 1 year deal
Have you looked at the starters in next year’s free agent class? To name a few:
Matt Cain
Zack Grienke
Cole Hamels
Brandon McCarthy
Anibal Sanchez
Gavin Floyd
etc.
Not all of them are necessarily ahead of him, but the depth next year is insane.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
A few of those guys will probably be settled before the offseason
I think it’s likely that Hamels and Greinke are extended by the Phillies and Brewers respectively before they hit free agency. I also think that Cain and Floyd will be traded if they’re not signed. I don’t think any mega-name will hit the market this year, at least not anyone with the cache of Cliff Lee or even C.J. Wilson.
Looking to be the 2nd Choice Perhaps?
If he is able to put up good numbers at Nat’s Park as the 3 or 4 starter he is going to be the choice of the teams that don’t land either Hamels or Greinke…when those teams fall out of the running they will head to Jackson and likely overpay to get a deal closed and it will likely be more than a 3 year – $30M deal…
Its a gamble but a reasonable one for Jackson to take…
Floyd has a reasonable team option for next season
But your point is well taken.
Putting on my prophet hat:
I think Cain is the most likely to hit free agency ….you read about where the Giants are in terms of payroll and I can’t help but think it’s a choice between him or Lincecum for them and I think they’ll go with Tim.
Hamels doesn’t look to be giving the Phillies a hometown discount and I don’t wonder if they have to bid him adieu while paying Ryan Howard $25MM a year for the next 5 years to decline.
Call it a gut feeling, but I think the Marlins & Brewers extend Sanchez & Greinke.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
Obviously, not all of them hit
But there are some I left off as well. Cain will definitely, I agree they can’t keep him and Timmy both. I find it hard to believe Hamels is in Philly after this year, given how much they’ve already invested in pitching. He could get traded, but I think they’ll need him down the stretch, same with Cain. Sanchez on the other hand, I could see staying around since they missed on CJ Wilson
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
Not all of them are necessarily ahead of him, but the depth next year is insane.
Probably half of those guys will sign extensions before they get to FA.
You think?
I would strongly bet that at least Cain, McCarthy, and Hamels won’t, and the Brewers could likely go full rebuild after this year. Plus I can easily see Floyd testing the free agency market. I would think Sanchez would though.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
this sucks
but i dont think it necessarily means he WOULD NOT EVER sign with the pirates in any situation rather that maybe he thought he was worth that original contract he was asking 4 years 55 million or whatever it was
I agree. I believe Jackson would have signed with the Pirates if they offered multiple years at a higher annual salary than he received from the Nats. Three years/$37 million might have gotten it done. We’ll never know, of course.
right
fact he signed with Nationals tells me he didnt really care where he signed it was more about money. which stinks. really wanted him. Shouldve offered 3/37. or at least 3/36 for easy math purposes
If it was about the money...
…he would’ve taken the guaranteed $20 million he left on the table here in Pittsburgh.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
Oswalt
Now they need to take that money and offer it to Oswalt, who is a better pitcher than Jackson. There’s little chance he’ll take it, but given the state of his negotiations with other teams yaneverknow.
I'd do it
There’s only about a 3% chance of him accepting $10MM from the Bucs, but as you say, one never knows.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
If the other deals
are only for $5-$8M as reported, he might…
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 6, 2012 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
Good to hear this
Reaffirms my belief that Edwin Jackson would not come to Pittsburgh even if he was offered somewhere in the range of $15m per season. FAs do not want to commit “career suicide” coming to Pittsburgh. The history of losing is so deep that all of the guys in current and future FA classes can’t even remember the last time the Pirates had a winning season. They were 5-6 years old. There is a 0% chance of building a competitive team through free agency no matter how deep Bob Nutting’s pockets are.
Some of this offseason’s free agents’ ages in 1992:
Edwin Jackson – 9
C.J. Wilson – 12
Mark Buehrle – 13
Roy Oswalt – 15
Albert Pujols – 12 (allegedly)
Players today don’t care much about the laundry and most don’t care about a team’s recent W-L record; they care about the money. If Pittsburgh had offered Edwin Jackson $15 million for 2012, he’d be wearing black and gold next month. I agree that building via free agency isn’t the answer, but it’s absurd to think that many players routinely spurn more money to not play in Pittsburgh.
i think youre wrong and heres why...
because.
.
.
.
.but seriously, most players do not want to come to Burgh for many reasons, the biggest being that if the team plays poorly the FA could be dealt at the deadline OR his numbers fall off so badly that it affects how he pitches.
the nationals are going “all in” this offseason. Jackson knew he wasnt going back to STL so he chose a team that many believe will compete. And you know Boras is going to lead him in the best direction possible, and right now, if ever, thats not in Pittsburgh
Boras is going to lead him in the best direction possible, and right now, if ever, thats not in Pittsburgh
I disagree; I think that Pittsburgh’s the perfect place for a guy to build up some numbers in an effort to get a big contract next year.
1) PNC played as a pretty strong pitcher’s park last year. Helps keep his ERA down and minimize the damage from the walks.
2) The Pirates can’t score runs; but every GM knows that and every one uses peripherals to determine a pitchers value. If Jackson is 7-6 with a 3.20 ERA and 1.30 WHIP at the break, GM’s will realize how incredible he’s pitching in spite of the absence of wins (i.e. King Felix getting the Cy Young with just 13 wins; I know GM’s don’t vote CY, but he was generally considered the top pitcher in the league.
3) A trade to a contender would likely help his value. If/when Pittsburgh dealt him, he would definitely be going to a club contending in July (as opposed to the Nats, who may or may not be contenders at that time) and he’ll get buzz/credit for sparking that team on to whatever success they achieve.
4) The Pirates literally have nothing else and they’re not likely to sit ~20% of their payroll. If Jackson struggles, he’ll get the opportunity to work out of it, without worrying about a manager pulling him early or sitting him down or anything. If he’s healthy, he pitches.
If Pittsburgh had offered Edwin Jackson $15 million for 2012, he’d be wearing black and gold next month.he’d be earning slightly more from the Tigers next year than his current deal guarantees him
Fixed that for you.
eh?
I don’t follow this — how do the Tigers play into it?
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 6, 2012 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
I think
I could have worded my original post with a little less snark. Obviously a little sarcasm went into the FA age comment. Basically this comment was in response to those who go the ‘Nutting won’t ever spend $’ route who take the easy road and complain that the Bucs never land a big fish because they’re too cheap. The jokes and disdain for the Pirates across the general public created over the last 20 years is a serious hill for the FO to climb. So far the strategy of building from within has some potential, but they are going to have to be willing to spend to keep the better players around. A $10m offer to a free agent pitcher is a great sign, IMHO, that there will/is money to spend; now and in the future.
A $10m offer to a free agent pitcher is a great sign, IMHO, that there will/is money to spend; now and in the future.
Money to spend is only helpful if there are free agents willing to take it.
Vlad
The money to spend comment was relative to my sentence “…but they are going to have to be willing to spend to keep the better players around.” They’ve got to sign and keep their own “good” (quotes because everyone has a different definition of good) players before they can try to attract someone else from the outside. That seems obvious to me, and maybe you, but some think that all it would take is a shower of $ to bring in Pujols and Fielder and Nutting is too cheap to do it.
I think he means that Pittsburgh would trade him at the deadline
I’m assuming they would. And he’d get to be the super popular free agent acquisition that solidified their pennant race. How much more attention did Jackson receive after he was dealt to the surging Cardinals? What would Doug Fister get on an open market this offseason? Like I said above: I think that inflates his value.
I will give the front office credit for at least making a “good faith” offer to Jackson, instead of an “internal value” offer. That’s the first (or 2nd if they offered De La Rosa what was reported last year) time they’ve gone big with an offer, and we’ve actually found out about it. Jackson isn’t necessarily who I would have gone after (the number of teams he’s pitched for in the last few years is a red flag), but at least they were competitive out there. The next step is actually signing one.
Oswalt
I’d actually prefer Oswalt if we are talking about 1-year deals. I wouldn’t offer him that 3-year, $30 million deal. However, Oswalt seems to be getting real picky about where he’ll pitch. He seems determined to pitch for an obvious contender, or close to his Mississippi home.
Oswalt has been saying that for the last couple of years, it’s not a news flash. So he’s not “getting picky”, he’s already there, and has been. Pittsburgh doesn’t meet either of his criteria at this time. The Phillies were an obvious contender, so they did qualify.
Free agent
I don’t believe I said it was a newsflash, just a simple sentence. Oswalt is a free agent for the first time this offseason, and this is the only offseason I was referring to. As his choices are disappearing, he is certainly not caving in to “the best offer”.
by ballparkfranks on Feb 6, 2012 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not so sure it's out of the question
Alot of teams have shown interest but apparently the Cards are out, the Rangers are unlikely, the Reds do not seem to have the money and the Sox do not want to spend big and their offer was only $5M.
Oswalt wants to start, wants $10M and wants 1 year. The Pirates need a starter, and the Jackson offer shows they’re willing to do 1/10 if they like the player. Oswalt’s not likely but not impossible.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 6, 2012 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
From your MLBTR link about the Cards:
Oswalt was asking for a significant guarantee in terms of role and salary, but the Cardinals aren’t looking to add payroll.
This makes no sense to me. They added Beltran, but weren’t they planning on spending another $10 million or so on Pujols? Why not put that money into Oswalt, minimize the danger of Wainwright starting back slowly, and put a solid season in after Pujols and LaRussa both depart?
Maybe this will put to bed the “NH can’t evaluate ML talent” for a while. IMO, it is and always has been that quality ML talent does not/will not sign with the Pirates and that NH is getting the best that is available. I have to believe that the team has made plenty of offers like this and JDLR but they haven’t become public. I hope that whomever is leaking the offer info continues to do so, to shut up the people that say the team isn’t trying to field a competitive team and/or land a quality FA.
i totally agree and have been harping on this for ages
its like the Overbay signing from last season. he was NOT the first choice by NH, and more than likey was one of the last choices.
we have no idea whom NH has offered contracts to over the last few seasons, and judging by the replacements we have signed for the maholms/doumits/etc, NH was obviously hoping to make bigger splashes after all.
but we’re punting, cuz the FO doesnt want to win.
Even if the Pirates gave Jackson their best offer.
the Lerners would’ve found a way to outbid us (with Bora$$ help of course)
love hearing things like this..
This gives me more confidence in what NH is trying to do…
On the other hand; I hope Jackson blows out his arm this year and never pitches again…
Although I understand what you're saying
I can’t wish that on anyone (who didn’t sign with the Yankees).
Nice to know at least
I was also heartened to know that they at least tried. I was beginning to invent conspiracy theories as to why the would not go after such an obviously solid rotation candidate.
One guy I’d like to see them take a shot at in a trade: Alexi ogando (Rangers). He’s probably getting bumped to the pen because Texas is stupid loaded, he’s got 5 years of service time and he tore up the minors. Admittedly, he’d be expensive, prospect-wise, but maybe worth it.
Redeemed.
Well, apparently, that didn't go well.
That was supposed to be Yoda. My first attempt a posting an image. FAIL!!!
by Midnight Moose on Feb 8, 2012 5:53 AM EST up reply actions
fail or fail not
There is no attempt.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 8, 2012 10:00 AM EST up reply actions
Sounds like they, made the same offer as everyone else
Then the news gets “leaked” that an offer was made jackson had plenty of 3 year deals he wanted a 4th so this is the show of good faith. Nh is saying we thought he was worth what everyone else thought he was. after saying himself he has to overpay to sign free agents i dont see the effort
by tbote123 on Feb 6, 2012 9:06 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Eh im probably just pissy cuz nothing has happened all year
They may have made a better 1 yr offer than washington sorry i freaked back there guys
by tbote123 on Feb 6, 2012 9:11 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
it takes a lot to admit overreaction
especially for some of the people on here.
by PuncSpeedChunk on Feb 6, 2012 9:40 PM EST up reply actions
I'm sure yinz will contort this and somehow spin this as the front office not trying.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I am not saying the Pirates didn't try
I’m also not going to say that reports of one offer (well, two I guess) made to one player is really a good indicator of what the front office did/does/will do. However, something that I do notice about the deal is that, while competititve, the Pirates were not willing to offer Jackson that “something extra” that could have brought him to Pittsburgh. Apparently there were several 3 year deals on the table and Jackson wanted more. The market value for Jackson appeared to be about $10M/year and the Pirates didn’t want to offer more. It seems like the team did make a perfectly reasonable and competitive offer to E-Jax. What they didn’t do (at least it would appear based on this one report) is offer up something that other teams wouldn’t. I’m not sure it would have made a difference but offering a 4th year might have been enough. To be honest, I’m surprised they didn’t. IIRC, they offered JDLR a 3 year deal last offseason didn’t they? I don’t see why they wouldn’t be willing to gamble an extra year on a guy that is two years younger and much more of a workhorse (~200 IP every year).
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 7, 2012 8:54 AM EST up reply actions
That something extra is a risk the Pirates can't afford to take, literally.
And judging by his 1 year contract, it was a risk 29 other teams didn’t want to or could not afford to take.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I disagree
If the Pirates were willing to offer 3/30 why could they not afford to offer 4/40 with a mutual option for a 5th year? The 4th year would have been paying Jackson $10M (a lot but not a team crippling amount) in 2015. That year, Jackson would have been 31 so it’s unlikely his production would fall drastically because of age (or at least we have no evidence this would happen). That’s also the same age JDLR woudl have been in the 2nd year of the proposed 3 year deal. The 2015 team doesn’t seem to be one that is horribly overpriced or incapable of handling an extra $10M.
The actions of the other 29 teams is also irrelevant. If the Pirates are going to land a young, talented, productive FA to a long term deal before the team starts winning, they will have to make some concessions and offer things other teams won’t or can’t. In this case, that would be a 4th year. Considering their previous actions with JDLR and the type of player E-Jax is, I think this would have been about as safe of a gamble as they will find. Their offer was fine, but I wish they would have tried harder.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 7, 2012 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
Because it adds significant risk
If he gets hurt, its another $10MM eaten up by and injured player that a club like the Pirates cannot afford.
The bottom line is no other team was willing to take that 4 year risk, so I don’t think its appropriate the criticize the Pirates for not spending.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
But the risk of injury
is always there and never going away. It will forever be a gamble. Rolling the dice on a guy like Prince Fielder is a massive risk (no pun intended) because of his body type. A four year deal on a 28 year old pitcher who is able to give you 200 innings a year is as safe as you’re going to get it.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 7, 2012 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Ah... not sure about the "safe as you are going to get" part
Give me a same age position player on a same length deal as EJax and I’d take the position player as the “safer” bet, just because of the inherent risks of pitching.
Actually, 4 years is less safe than 3 years.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Of course it is
although, the potential return is higher as well. The Pirates can’t expect to land guys like E-Jax by being safe, though…
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 7, 2012 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
It's not like Jackson is a once in a lifetime guy
I’d rather hand that contract out when we have a good core and it could actually matter. Why take excessive risk when the payoff doesn’t matter because you are going to be a sub-.500 team anyways? If you want to take that risk in 1-3 it would be a much better proposition. Other guys like Jackson will come along.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
No, no more of this
No more of this “they can’t afford” business. If they can’t afford the stakes, they shouldn’t be sitting at the table. I know most of the regulars here don’t want to hear it, but BN owns a major league baseball team, if he “can’t afford” it he should get rid of it. Much like that family member we have that buys a BMW or Merc and is shocked at what a brake job costs. At some point, they have to sell the car and get a Honda. I really thinks as fans we need to stop making excuses for the teams lack of competitiveness.
What BN can and can’t afford are irrelevant to all things Pirates baseball. It’s about what the team can afford. If Cuban/Mario bought the Bucs (because I’m sure thats what your getting at), you would not see the payroll increase. And why is that? Because smart owners do not drop their personal fortune into the team they own. Period.
When the teams starts generating more revenue through ticket sales, etc., the payroll will increase and they can begin to offer guys like EJax that extra $2M a year that it would require to get him.
sigh
2010 attendance 1613399
2011 attendance 1940429
I must have missed the increased payroll part this off season.
No, I’m not pining for Mario or Cuban, I’m just being realistic. We’ll see what happens, I don’t belive that the current ownership will ever make a significant long term financial commitment to any player.
And that still shitty attendance puts them in the ass end of all MLB figures. They have $20M+ in potential payroll that was offered to Lee and EJax. Either of them sign and the team is in the mid $50’s. They aren’t exactly sitting on the money and trying not to spend it.
And no, the ownership should not commit to any player if it requires them to infuse the team with cash. The team should spend what it can afford. Revenues continue to increase and the team can spend more. Easy.
At $15.39 per ticket
that would give the Pirates an extra $5,032,992. Prince Fielder signed for $214M. I don’t think taking your dog to PNC for “Pups in the Park” night quite got them there…
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 7, 2012 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
Which is barely 1/2 a year of Jackson
superope argument here is not based in reality.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Any Finance person will tell you that you spend based on EXPECTED FUTURE REVENUES, not just past revenues
300,000 more people showed up in 2011 than 2010, great. Now do you expect attendance in 2012 to be at 2011 levels? Also, did you not notice that from 2010 to 2011 spent a total of around 10 million dollars more? The payroll from 2010 to 2011 jumped from around 42.5 million to 52.4 million, figures taken from PiratesProspects excellent charts here
http://www.piratesprospects.com/2009/10/2010-pittsburgh-pirates-40-man-roster.html
http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/10/2011-pittsburgh-pirates-40-man-roster-and-payroll.html
So the Pirates increased payroll 10 million dollars, with some of that coming at the trade deadline after the expected future revenues at least for 2011 were expected to be even greater than before, thus allowing additional spending that potentially could increase revenue even more with playoff chances and the chance that some yinzers would buy season tickets if we broke the streak.
Since we DIDN’T make playoffs, or indeed break the streak, the Pirates future revenues don’t seem to be getting a good boost until we do one of those things. Do you expect Pirates fans to show up in droves just because free agent signings? We did that under Littlefield and I don’t think the Pirates attendance got big boosts due to it. Fact is, that a free agent signing better help us win games that put us over the top, or be good enough to get traded for players who will win the games to put us over the top or you’re just saying that we need to spend for the sake of spending just to show fans ownership wants to win so bad they will throw spend just to get from 73 to 75 wins, and that that difference really matters.
Unfortunately, about 80%+ of this website can't understand your last paragraph conceptually.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
What the "yinzers" seem to want is a super rich owner who doesn't care about his money and wants to own a winning baseball team for the sake of a winning baseball team
and the adulation of a group of fans that will go turncoat on a moments notice if the team doesn’t win, who will decry people with potential as pieces of crap until they are extremely successful, (read Smizik’s stuff about Chuck Noll back in the day) and then say they saw the greatness that would be there all along, and who will not even bother to realize that the trades of Nady and McLouth actually helped the Pirates at all.
BOOM
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
First
Watch who you call a “yinzer”.
Where did I state that attendance would rise in response to free agent signings? I understand and agree with the concept that the Pirates should build through the draft. I do not believe that the current regime is doing this effectively. I am also unwilling to take the leap of faith that ownership will ever spend past their own “internal value” for any player, under any circumstances. Past actions tend to predict future behavior. Thus, profit>winning, which is their prerogative, and it is completely legitimate. As far as turning on a team that doesn;t win, I’ve been following this team since 1978, when I was 7, and there are far more losing seasons in that span than winning ones.
Most of the "regulars"
don’t like hearing that BN should sell to a rich owner because it’s not a good argument. If Ron Burkle (who is super effing rich) bought the Pirates he would not dump an assload of money into overpriced free agents and take a bath just so fans would clap and be happy that the team won 86 games and finished third. This would be especially true since those same fans would revolt the following offseason when he tried to raise the LOWEST TICKET PRICES IN BASEBALL a little bit to soften the blow.
The super rich in this country, by and large, are good businessmen. Good businessmen do not light money on fire. Drastically overexteding a business with a limited revenue stream (third lowest in baseball) is a dumber financial decision than lighting money on fire because at least if there was a fire, you could claim it was an accident and try to collect insurance.
Nutting can afford players (not all of them) he just has to be careful about when and where he spends the money. Teams like the Yankees can take more risks on players because if they gave Jackson $50M and he got hurt, they would simply move on to the next free agent and try to replace him the organization generates enough revenue that they can afford to do this. They do not simply have Hal Steinbrenner cut them another $50M check…
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 7, 2012 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
Most of the “regulars” don’t like hearing that BN should sell to a rich owner because it’s not a good argument.
Exactly. Some of the richest owners in MLB are also the cheapest. Carl Pohlad was an annual fixture on Forbes’s list of the richest Americans, with a net worth of more than two and a half billion dollars, and he still nickel-and-dimed the Twins. Drayton McLane was worth more than a billion dollars, but that didn’t keep him from running the Astros on a shoestring.
The list is almost endless
The Athletics ownership group of Lew Wolff and John Fisher might be the richest in baseball
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 7, 2012 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
This post is a joke.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Oswalt
Doesn’t look like he’s even giving the Bucs a chance
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
Not to start this again
but he also said he didn’t want to play for the American League and two of his “final four” are the Rangers and Red Sox. He also apparently spurned the Indians because he want’s to play close to his home in Mississippi…except that he’s willing to listen to offers from the Reds.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 7, 2012 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
He also apparently spurned the Indians because he want’s to play close to his home in Mississippi…except that he’s willing to listen to offers from the Reds.
Cincinnati is significantly closer to Missouri than Cleveland is. They’re on opposite ends of the state.
Can't tell if this was tongue in cheek or not
Just in case Cincy is an 11 hr drive as opposed to a 14 hour drive from Cleveland. Neither is close…
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 7, 2012 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
Just in case Cincy is an 11 hr drive as opposed to a 14 hour drive from Cleveland.
The Google Maps trip estimate for driving to St. Louis is a little over six hours from Cincy, and a little over nine hours from Cleveland. That’s a non-trivial difference.
Not to mention that the Reds are a legitimate contender in the NL, while the Indians are a second-division club in the AL, and he’s expressed a preference to play for a contender in the NL.
Oswalt doesn't live in St. Louis
he lives in Mississippi which is why your driving times were wrong. MapQuest sets Cleveland at 14 hours and Cincy at 11. Again, neither is close.
Also, while the Indians aren’t contenders, he turned them down, along with Toronto and Detroit, because of the distance.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 7, 2012 4:49 PM EST up reply actions
his two teams of choice also happen to be participants in the last World Series...
convenient.
plus St Louis is an awesome baseball town and larussa is GONE. thats 2 pluses.
he lives in Mississippi
Sorry about that. I saw M-I-S-S and my brain filled in the rest.
The Reds are still one of the six or seven teams closest to Mississippi. The only ones closer than them are the Cards, the Braves, the two Texas teams, the Royals, and maybe the Rays (depending on what part of Mississippi we’re talking about). We know that he’s interested in Rangers and was interested in the Cards until they signed Jackson, the Braves and Rays can’t afford him, and the Royals and Astros aren’t contenders. So it makes sense that he’d be OK with the Reds – there isn’t much else out there that meets his needs.
....well apparently we tried, yay!! However........
…..as Pirate fans our patience has been tested for far too long and it’s kinda getting old to be left standing at the altar (of free agency)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
