ContactQuestions? Comments? Tips? Email: WHYGAVS [at] gmail [dot] com WHYGAVS? PollSearchBest of WHYGAVSThe Garrett Mackowiak ExperienceWhy I can't stay away from the ballpark Super Bowl XL The Pirates/Office Space Comparison Pirates and Royals: LIVEBLOG One Craig Wilson Logo History Masumi Kuwata Elimination Challenge Letter to the Nuttings Moving Day WHYGAVS Goes to Camden Yards WHYGAVS Night Photo Essay Why's he calling me meat? I'm the one driving a Porsche In the Canyon 16 years  |
mocasdad
said:
|
...The point made by Bishop in my post from last night is probably the truth: Ollie's had five years in the league and there's just not a lot to indicate that he can duplicate 2004, which makes him a waste of our time. Ollie was putting fannies in the seats in 04, so in yet another of Littlefield's bonehead decisions, OP was allowed to increase his IP count by over 70 compared to both of the previous years. I'm not a stats wonk, but I know I've read that the recommended year over year IP increase for young pitchers is in the 25-30 innings range. He wasn't too shabby in 07, unless you dislike 15 game winners who K 179 while walking only 79. With our defense, it would be nice to have a strikeout pitcher. However, his 105 BBs last year are worrisome, and probably tell much of the story about his slippage. As for Baldelli, I'd have no problem with him. |
|
Captain Easychord
said:
...most of the resources, should go into the developing the minor leagues because the big league club can't contend right now. is this even possible? I mean, if you put $10 million into the draft, $10 million into international signings and another $10 million into the minor league teams, scouting, etc... you're still not going to hit the major league payroll (not to mention other expenses for the big club)... isn't there a practical limit on how much can actually be spent developing the farm system? |
|
Captain Easychord
said:
|
... er... that was supposed to read TEN million (with the dollar sign, a one and a zero)... |
|
Pat
said:
|
... That was bad phrasing on my part, Captain Easychord (it's what happen when I blog from work). It should be the human resources focusing on the minors now, but all I really meant was that there's no point in wasting financial resources to sign free agents that aren't going to help the team compete. I don't mean Ramon Vazquez by that, but rather more of a Jeromy Burnitz-type signing that's spending money just to spend money when it might be spent in a better place somewhere down the road. |
|
Bishop
said:
|
... Pat - Rocco Baldelli is exactly the kind of free agent signing I can get behind; he's still got intriguing upside, is not going to break the bank, and if he turns out to be OK, they might be able to get him locked in for a few years, which he might take as security. What I, and I think you are advocating as well, is the Pirates need to avoid the big dollar guys who are not going to either a) be impact players when the team is actually able to contend or b) be significant upgrades to what they already have. Bobby Abreu is a fine hitter, albeit with some serious defensive deficiencies, but is throwing 8-10 million at him really going to change the outcome of the 2009 season? They're still going to suck, and he may be worth 2-3 extra wins; most of the "stats" that get focused on when talking about Abreu are his RsBI, with his six-season streak of 100+, but does anyone think he is actually going to drive in that many runs in the 2009 Pirates lineup. He has been able to do that because he batted in a lineup the past few years behind Jeter, A-Rod, Giambi, Damon, etc.; things would get a lot different when he's are batting behind McLouth, Sanchez and LaRoche. |
|
Dr. Mattitude
said:
|
... I'd like us to sign Baldelli for all the good reasons mentiond such as his upside and low financial risk and for the fact that we have too many simple names (excluding Nyjer Morgan) playing for us. "Rocco" would be a welcome change to "Nate, Jack, Adam, Andy, Ryan, Paul, Zach, and Tom." I know, I'm not that funny. Oh well. On another note, who do you guys think would be a better signing, Oliver "The Mexican Enigma" Perez for 3 years at 8 mill per or Pedro Martinez for 2 years at 10 mill per? |
|
w.k. kortas
said:
|
... You sign Pedro Martinez, you better have some damn fine long relief, 'cause Pedro can't even go five anymore |
|
bwzimmerman
said:
|
... i want 'em both. i'm greedy and i know there's money available. however, !!!NYJMO!!! is gonna rock all y'all. you'll see... we are but spectators to the Next Most Awesomest Rickey Henderson Rickey Henderson Show. |
|
gregschuler
said:
|
... In some respects - there is no limit on how much you can improve a farm system simply by pouring in money. You could go out and add another affiliation, hire more and better coaches (not likely since Kyle Stark and Troy Buckely are apparently very domineering and have no desire to be questioned by anyone. It's back to the party line, moreso than under Graham) and add scouts to scour the land. All of which would theoretically improve the organization and at some point, the MLB club. From a rules standpoint, there is no limit on spending on anything in the MLB. Even the big league payroll is unlimited if you don't mind a bit of revenue sharing tax. But that's a crazy land the Pirates will never ever get to, so it's irrelevant. |
|
gregschuler
said:
|
... You mean Ramon Vasquez too, since he is pretty useless at his price range. The only way Vasquez makes sense is if the Pirates trade Jack Wilson, which they won't be able to do until mid-season and even then, it will be for payroll relief. And when did Bay become a useless old player? Quite a change in tune, it would appear. The goal of the organization should be to improve the talent level across the board - end of discussion. It should be to win. You can do all of this at once. Who exactly was Jeromy Burnitz blocking? No one. It might not make sense to some of the intelligentsia to not want to provide a decent product to the paying customers, but from a business perspective, Burnitz made sense. There seems to be a real disconnect between the average fan and those ambitious enough to run a blog. I find the defense of this organization by some baffling - what exactly have the Pirates done to make people defend them? Sell low om Bay? Play hardball and then cave in to Boras after violating the CBA to sign Alvarez? Sign a few extra draft picks to above slot bonuses? If that is all it takes, man, the Pirates will have it easy. |
|
gregschuler
said:
|
... Do we know that Baldelli won't break the bank? Fine, sign him for a low risk one or two year deal - and then what? He still has a few years of arbitration left and if he rehabs and becomes healthy and productive - he's a 29 yo OF with a clean bill of healthy and those fiv e tools. He'd be out of Pittsburgh so fast it wouldn't even be funny. Or traded for chaff at the trade deadline like Bay. In the meantime, all Baldelli would have done is push Morgan to the bench - where he should be to begin with. It's not a given that Baldelli would have improve the roster one iota (and yes, I do understand risk/reward) but Baldelli could be as meaningless a signing as Reggie Sanders. The Pirates should go out and sign Adam Dunn - he hits homers, is still young and even though he "hates baseball" (Marty Brenneman is an old doddering fool) he would immediately improve the Pirates more than Baldelli. If the free agent prices are plummeting as some suggest, strike now. Otherwise, the MLB payroll will have suspiciously shrunk - again. And plenty of people refuse to call the Pirates on that fact. |
|
Bishop
said:
|
... My point was that Baldelli was not going to run this team 8 - 10 million per year like an Abreu or Dunn would, thus not breaking their bank, albeit a self-imposed bank. As we've seen with Tampa Bay and Florida, payroll size has very little to do with on-field success. So what if the Pirates' payroll shrinks? Should they go out and sign some big-ticket free agents just so they keep their payroll at a specific level, even though said signings will not do anything to meet the stated long-term goal of NH, which is to create a system by which the team can consistently compete through development of their own players through the draft and Latin America? If NH goes out and violates his core belief just to keep Ron Cook, Mark Madden and the casual fans happy , then he is just as bad as Littlefield. They have to stick to rebuilding, 100 percent, or else we are going to be back to picking up the Pete Schoureks and Derek Bells of the world, trying in vain to maintain a "legitimate" MLB payroll while not actually moving the team in a positive direction. I'd much rather they have a 20 million dollar payroll and squirrel away the rest of the money for future use than spend it on fading stars (Abreu, Griffey, et al) or guys with delusions of grandeur (Ollie Perez). |
|
BSpar
said:
|
... NO! Ramon Vazquez is well worth the cost. He may not have the offensive numbers of some free agents. Due 100% to his lack of ability to hit LHP. He should never see a left handed pitcher the rest of his career. He can eat up RHP, and from the left side with dead pull power could put up very good numbers at PNC. PNC plays very similar to Arlington for LHH. His ability to play multiple positions, especially SS with a + glove is well worth the money. Our MI depth is horrendous at best. Bixler needs to play everyday to work the bugs out or bust, not at the ML level but at AAA. Vazquez, though not a "sexy" or "big time" signing is well worth 2 million a year, to sure up the MI. that last year looked like water going thru a sieve. Vazquez serves an important role until some of our prospects reach the higher levels of the minors. He is a quality 23, 24, 25th man at a very small cost overall. |
|
BSpar
said:
|
... Perez would be a solid signing at 8 mil per year. He would only be 30/31 at the end of the contract, and perhaps mature a little to the point where it was an excellent contract value. Regardless 8 mil is nothing on Perez, and would not be too difficult to unload if necessary. |
|
gregschuler
said:
|
... Two million for a 32 yo player who had a career year offensively in a ballpark that inflates offense at approximately 7 percent and judging by his defensive metrics is decidedly below average? How does that make a lick of sense? It only makes sense if he plays everyday and Vazquez won't do that ahead of Wilson or Sanchez - who are going to start the season in Pittsburgh. If Bixler really is toast and the Pirates didn't want to do better than wasting money on a redundantly mediocre player like Vazquez - why not? It's not my money, after all. But if the goal is to "rebuild" or "improve", Vazquez does neither. He is a more expensive version of Gomez and Rivas, but won't be that much better to warrant a guaranteed multi-year deal. Imagine how many reality show contestants and baseball players from places that don't play baseball the Pirates could have signed for two million. Mind boggling. |
|
gregschuler
said:
|
... Provide legitimate solid irrefutable proof that the money squirreled away is actually going to be there at a later date. Unless you can, it's simply the same dreadful propaganda the organization has been spewing for many years. Same for spending more on the minors and draft - the Pirates spent more last year, but they had to after the Moskos debacle. In fact, the spending in the minors is probably less because the Pirates are hiring less experienced and I'm guessing cheaper coaches and staff that willingly abide by the Stark-Buckley regime. Is Dunn better than Morgan? It's a simple question - yes. Is Dunn more capable of helping the Pirates win more games in 2009 than Morgan (or anyone else on the roster)? Yes. Your opinion is such a minority that you fail to see that the team cannot stand more losing seasons and the treadmill of "rebuilding". The organization can absolutely do two things at once - it can rebuild and it can concentrate on putting together a capable team at the MLB level. Unless the sole goal of the regime is to simply lose and put together assured profits from revenue sharing - in that case, anyone that supports the team is a "useful idiot" (thank you, Comrade Stalin for that endearing term). If the team is going to rebuild, you don't dicker over what extra C level prospect you are demanding for Jack Wilson - you take Hu and Young and move on. You make every effort to unload the carcass of Sanchez and you try as desperately as possible to find someone that will take LaRoche. This is what you do, and maybe you even put McLouth on the market - when the Pirates are good in 2012 (optimistically) he'll be starting the downside of his career, so why even bother. This team as it stands now has a legitimate shot at a 100 loss season. If the Pirates do that, they are dead. Another 90 loss season tears apart another large chunk of the casual fan-base that won't have much money to spend anyway. The only hope is to put a better product on the field or be completely honest and rebuild from the ground up instead of half-assing it. |
|
BSpar
said:
|
... The ball park he payed in last year really only inflates Right Handed hitting. For Left handed hitters the Park Adjustment is the same for PNC and Arlington. Actually across the board in the NL Central, with the exception of Milwaukee I believe, all parks play very well to left handed hitters. Vazquez should not be an everyday player, no way. He would see too much left handed pitching, which would negate his value. His offensive value is against Right Handed Hitting, 846 OPS in 08. Which is actually nice due to the fact that he becomes more usable. Overall there are more RHP than LHP in baseball. I don't know where you got you defensive metrics from or which ones you are using. But for the most part Defensive metrics are so,so when it to being reliable. But if we use range factor, Fielding % and Zone Rating the guy is average for his career as a SS (4.20, .972, .820) and 2B(4.96, .987, .776). In 08 he took a lot of innings at 3B where he is not particularly strong, it wasn't bad but not necessarily good. Like I said before Bixler needs to play everyday. He won't get that at the ML level. Not with Jack on the team. If the team trades Jack or he gets injured, then Bixler or whomever is ready should get the opportunity to start. Vazquez wasn't brought here to start over any youngster. Unless they just are not ready or can't handle it. Vazquez was brought in to keep Sanchez and Wilson fresh, to back them up in case of injury, be a late inning defensive replacement that won't hurt a team with his stick, and even used off the bench as a pinch hitter in certain situations. In other words provide affordable depth, that is not a significant drop off from the regulars. Primarily he will be used as the MI back up. He shouldn't see much time on the corners. And like I said he should see very few AB's against Left handed pitchers, none would be preferred, but that's very unlikely. 2 million a year on a quality MI backup/bench guy, that plays to the home park strength and actually division park factors, has the potential to really pay off. If nothing else he's league average, which works cause the investment doesn't kill us and we need it anyway. So 1 million on a Gomez or Rivas who couldn't play SS, or 2 million who over the course of a season sees action in maybe 80-90 games |
|
Write comment
The Bloguin Network allows advertisers to promote their products and services to our ever-growing number of visitors. We offer both site-specific ad placements as well as the ability to run a network-wide campaign. If you're interested in working with Bloguin to meet your advertising needs, please 
The Bloguin Network is always looking to expand. Here are some of our high-priority areas that we're specifically looking to grow. If you're a blogger and interested in joining our network, please fill out our 
The Bloguin Login gives you full access to everything our network has to offer. Your name and password will work for each and every one of our sites. Signing up is simple, and will allow you to post in all our forums, create member blogs, and access other cool features! What are you waiting for? 