Pirates Sign Joe Randa

by Charlie Wilmoth on Dec 28, 2005 2:27 PM EST in News

The Pirates have signed Joe Randa to a one-year contract worth about $4 million.

My first thought is to wonder what this accomplishes in the grand scheme of things. This money would be better spent elsewhere, on scouting and development, or on the Bucs' 2007 budget. Randa is at best a marginal improvement, and he's a short-term improvement to boot.

My second thought is to wonder whether Randa is even a short-term improvement.

Randa:
2003: .291/.348/.452
2004: .287/.343/.408
2005: .276/.335/.452

Beware the falling batting averages. Of all the players on Baseball Reference's list of similar players to Randa through age 35, not a single one was ever good at age 36 or older. I'll repeat that: not one was ever good at 36 or older. Many of their careers ended in their mid-30s after they lost the ability to make contact.

Also, beware the funky splits. Randa got 180 of his 555 at bats last year in the Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati, which is a great park for hitters. Nine of his 17 home runs came in that park. True, Randa posted a fine .796 OPS on the road, but do you feel comfortable putting an aging right-handed hitter with power stats like Randa's in PNC Park, which stifles right-handed power?

Here's Freddy Sanchez:

2005: .291/.336/.400

Sanchez will be 28 next year. It could go either way, but I'd bet on him outperforming Randa in 2006. In my mind, that makes Randa unnecessary, at least as a starting third baseman.

One positive thing this acquisition does is bump one of the Pirates' okay utility infielders (perhaps J.J. Furmaniak or Yurendell DeCaster) back to Indianapolis, replacing him with a better player in Sanchez. But why would you pay $4 million to improve at the utility infielder position?

I watched Randa play a lot of games in San Diego last year, and I like him. He seems like a nice guy who likes playing baseball. But his acquisition isn't helpful for the Pirates. It doesn't help the Pirates at all in the long term, and it only helps them a little in the short term. It doesn't make sense to spend millions on players who don't help much, and that's what Dave Littlefield has done here. Bad signing.

Thanks to KPatrick.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Silver Linings

Hey, at least it's not David Bell.

by KPatrick on Dec 28, 2005 3:25 PM EST reply actions

Value For Money

If Randa is the difference between 68 and 72 wins, then this is wasted money. I don't completely agree with Charlie's earlier post suggesting that the disappearances of Perez, Wells and the Wilsons should not have been surprising, and I think that high performance from them (1) is at least possible, and (2) would definitely boost the win total.

But that goes back to the part of Charlie's post that, regrettably, is tough to dispute, which is that they weren't contenders in the first place. If Ollie and Kip win 20 each, Jack rings up 200 hits, and Craig goes .275-35-110, well, OK. But THAT was the unlikely result. And it's no more likely -- probably less, if such a thing is possible -- than it ws last year.

Joe Randa is not going to make this team a contender. He MAY be part of the puzzle that makes this a .500 club, which is clearly mgmt's goal -- a goal that is not a bad one, even if only because it would force Ron Cook to rewrite his connect-the-dots form that he fills in to write Pirates columns. But he's 36, and whether his stats suggest he's in decline or not, it's more likely now than it ever was.

You're telling me this $4m wouldn't have been better spent on T-Bonds or something? And the hell of it is, the average fan that DL is trying to reach with this flurry of activity isn't going to give a frog's fat ass that Randa signed. It's a lose-lose.

by KPatrick on Dec 28, 2005 4:00 PM EST reply actions

Two things

If Randa is the difference between 68 and 72 wins, then this is wasted money.

I don't disagree, but - there is no way Randa is four wins better than Sanchez. That's quite a lot. Even an optimist would have to admit it's less than that.

I don't completely agree with Charlie's earlier post suggesting that the disappearances of Perez, Wells and the Wilsons should not have been surprising

Actually, I think I was saying that the disappearances of Perez and JACK Wilson should not have been surprising (which is, of course, not to say they were inevitable or something, just that they were a good possibility). Craig being out more than half the year was surprising. I didn't say anything about Wells.

Anyway, over the course of a season, you've got to expect surprises and disappointments. The Pirates got some of those, but they shouldn't have been intense ones; and the Pirates also got some pleasant surprises too.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Dec 28, 2005 5:11 PM EST up reply actions

fair enough

I inadvertently projected my view re Wells' spectacular failure onto you. I do, however, maintain that Wells' spectacular failure, while not beyond the realm of possibility, couldn't have been expected pre-2005, and we shouldn't count on a repeat of it. That's worth a few wins.

Whether Randa's worth 4 more wins or 2 more wins -- or any at all - is a stat that, while I find it interesting, I'll let the hardcore numbers crunchers figure that out. I can't add to that discussion and until we're talking about the difference between 85 and 90 wins, it will only depress me.

by KPatrick on Dec 28, 2005 5:56 PM EST up reply actions

Difference

I think it's far more likely that Randa is the difference between 68 and 67 wins. Which pretty much wipes out the one or so wins Sean Casey is likely to add.

by WTM on Dec 28, 2005 5:29 PM EST reply actions

To echo...

To echo everyone else's sentiments so far, I agree, this isn't great. However, it is an upgrade. Sanchez becomes the more than adequate all purpose backup infielder. If someone gets hurt, or Randa completely falls off, there won't be an emergency situation. And after all, it's just a one year deal. This is worse than a 2 year deal for Meuller or acquiring Koskie, but better than acquiring Hinske, David Bell, or Jacque Jones.

Does this about wrap up the "major" offseason moves we're going to see? Is DL still going to find a RF?

by ILLZ on Dec 28, 2005 5:46 PM EST reply actions

Freddy Randa or Joe Sanchez?

Offensively, Randa and Sanchez is close to a wash. I want to know how Randa is defensively? Is he a leader in the field? I'm guess he has decent range, decent arm, etc., but I'm not sure. Can anybody who's watched him play the field lately comment?

Sanchez is a fine fielder, but he doesn't have good natural instincts for third. He blew more than a few coverage assignments in 2005, but that was probably due in part to the fact that he's had more experience at SS.

Maybe the Pirates can trade Jack Wilson to Boston and start Sanchez at short now. I am just kidding, but stranger things have happened.

by JimBibbySweat on Dec 28, 2005 8:23 PM EST reply actions