Trades: For winning or money?

By Bob Smizik | Monday, 12;15 a.m.

It has been the stance of this blog to look favorably upon the recent trades made by Pirates general manager Neal Huntington.

I wrote that the trade of Nate McLouth to Atlanta, while significantly weakening the team in the short term, had the kind of long-term potential that made it a worthwhile risk.

The deal that brought Lasting Milledge and Joel Hanrahan to the Pirates for Nyjer Morgan and Sean Burnett also was a good one because the Pirates were taking on players who might not be as useful for Neal Huntingtonthe 2009 season but who had a considerably higher ceiling and therefore could produce a better future.

I thought the trades were examples of the team breaking its traditional mold and thinking outside the box.

Furthermore, if the Pirates are successful in their attempts to trade second baseman Freddy Sanchez, their leading hitter, they’ll get no argument here.

Not everyone agrees. Many in the fan base and some in the media maintain the deals are examples of the kind of thinking that has helped produced 16 consecutive losing seasons. They think those trades, like so much of what the Pirates have done over this wretched stretch, were motivated by a desire to save money and not improve the team.

Maybe those people are right.

Certainly they have reason to be suspicious of the Pirates. There’s a belief  held by many, if not all, that finances are more important to Pirates ownership than winning, and there is a ton of evidence to support that thinking. So maybe these trades, and the ones to come, are a continuing extension of the money-first, win-second philosophy.

It’s worth taking a look.

The Pirates already knocked about $2 million off this year’s payroll by trading McLouth. Free-agent-to-be Adam LaRoche, who is making $7.05 million, is as good as gone. If the Pirates are successful in attempts to trade demoted starter Ian Snell, that’s another $3 million off the payroll. If Sanchez is traded, a distinct possibility, $6.25 million will be deducted and if Jack Wilson is dealt, also a possibility, that would knock $7.4 million off the 2009 payroll.

Of course, those players must be replaced but it has been the Pirates way to replace them with players earning at or near the major-league minimum or bargain-basement free agents.

Huntington said on his radio show yesterday that because of economic conditions the free-agent market this off-season will be buyer friendly and the Pirates could use some of the money coming off the books to lure multiple free agents to the team.

Or maybe not.

The Pirates traditionally have had a hard time luring free agents. If they can’t get the ones they want, it’s conceivable they’ll go with cheaper models.

Wouldn’t that be something! People who have bitterly complained about the team’s almost-annual $50 million payroll could be looking at one of $40 million or even $35 million.

That’s the case for finances first, and it can be convincing.

Call me naïve but I don’t buy it. I understand owner Bob Nutting is a bottom-line guy. But he’s making a nice profit with a $50 million payroll, there’s no need to drop it even further. Nor do I believe president Frank Coonelly would have left a good job at MLB to run a franchise that had no commitment to winning.

So let the trades roll on if that’s what Huntington wants. The Pirates are going nowhere this year or next -- if not longer -- with their current personnel. If things don’t work out, the Pirates will continue to be losers and so will Huntington, who will surely lose his job.

 


Posted Jul 13 2009, 12:15 AM by Bob Smizik

Comments

ForbesFielder wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 12:35 AM

Dejan has reported there is no trade interest in Adam LaRoche or Snell.

Snell wouldn't be another $3 million off the payroll. The Pirates have already paid him for half the seaso. If he was traded by the end of this month, they would have paid 2/3 of his '09 salary. I can't believe a team would take him and take on the $4 million+ that he's owed next year.

Adam LaRoche is a player they should want to trade. He's going to be a FA and there's no interest in bringing him back, which is correct.

Rook wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 12:44 AM

As I posted on the PBC blog. We will all be able to read about the Nutting's master plan in Michael Lewis's book in 2013 titled Moneyball II: The Art of Raking in Profits While Alienating Two Generations of Fan Bases of a Once Proud Team.

pghboyinca wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 12:53 AM

 I believe like you do that the organization wants to win. I still am not convinced however that the expertise in player evaluation is in that organization. Time will tell. I hope you are not referring to Dejan's blog as a way to measure sentiment. DK is tremendous and that blog is very nicely done, there are a few knowledgeable folks on there but it has been basically over run by around 15 folks who post 20 times a  day to hear the sound of their own voice. I have talked with a ton of folks who read DK's stuff but don't read the comments or post because it is basically "private" chat room. There are a lot of middle aged folks who have too many frat Pirate memories to completely give up and realize there is some new blood in the front office but the clock is ticking and by 2011 there should at least be a competitive ball club out on the filed at PNC park . (with a Pittsburgh uniform on, there actually usually is one competitive team there now each game)    

jtp2106 wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 12:57 AM

I think if you take a good look at the Pirates operation from top to bottom, it looks like they're making a genuine attempt to build a playoff caliber team.  They're unloading their players at the highest value and stocking up their minor league system with prospects.  It's a painful process, but it needs to be done.  It does lower the payroll, but they're spending on drafting and scouting.  They finally have a presence in Latin America, which will help them immensely down the road.

People are upset about the Pirates unloading Freddy Sanchez, but look at the prospects they're reportedly after.  If you watched the Futures game today, Eric Young Jr. looks like a stud.  Jonathan Sanchez just pitched a no-hitter for the Giants.  If the Pirates could pry one of those prospects away, the future will look even more bright.  Think about the Pirates roster in a few years.  If everything works out, they'll have Tabata, McCutchen, and Milleage in the outfield.  The infield will have Neil Walker and Pedro at the corners and hopefully Eric Young Jr at 2B or SS.  The rotation will be solid.

And we'll never have to watch Adam LaRoche strike out ever again (for the Pirates at least).  Have a little faith...I know it's hard

(I am constantly amazed how people project major-league success for players struggling to do the same in the minors. -- Bob SmiziK)

Morning links: A real, live break wrote Morning links: A real, live break
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 1:16 AM

Pingback from  Morning links: A real, live break

ajruffa wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 1:21 AM

I am very interested to see what is going to happen next.  Although at first these recent trades were surprising but when you start looking at the minor leagues you can see some promise coming up.  Don't forget last year McClouth wasn't going to be a starter, most believed that Morgan wasn't going to make the team this year either.  Jack and Freddy are the heart of the team but make a lot of money and deserve to play for a contender.  Let's trade them for prospects and see.  Get rid of La Roche and his high salary.  Then with the extra money next year go out and sign a few veterans in the couple million dollar range that have high trade value.  Keep them til July and trade them for more prospects.  Come 2011 these current prospects should be ready and you still have about 15 million to sign whoever you need to fill holes.  Every year there are free agents who sign 1 year deals who are valuable to contenders come July.  

MarkInDallas wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 2:15 AM

It only goes to reason that if the Pirates could field a winning team with a low payroll, they would make more money than with a losing team and a low payroll. It also makes sense that a winning team with increased attendance could raise payroll, and still make more money than a losing team with low payroll.

So those who say management has no interest in fielding a winning team are not thinking through the problem.

The obvious answer is, the FO does want to field a winning team, but they have a constraint - they must find a way to do it so the payroll is low when they start to win.

The good thing is that they are not flying blind. They have good examples in other small market teams that have had similar payroll restrictions and have managed to build winners.

Whenever the Pirates are able to put together their own formula to duplicate the kind of success the A's, Rays, Brewers, Indians and Twins have had, then it will be up to the sports fans of Pittsburgh to show management how much they want their favorite players to be retained beyond their bargain years.

Right now, the Pirates are working on their part to bring Pittsburgh a winner. Sometime in the next 3-5 years, it will be up to the people of Pittsburgh to do their part to help them keep it.

PaulH wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 3:11 AM

Bob,

Great piece!  Ok, so this isn't the "right time".   So the question arises as to when is the "right time" for the Pirates to draw a line in the sand; for Bob Nutting to start keeping players such as Bay, Nady, McClouth, Adam LaRoche, Sanchez and Wilson?

In your opinion, when exactly over the next three years will we be able to say we are or are not in just another Bob Nutting salary dump cycle?

roxtar wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 5:46 AM

The money committed to Adam LaRoche is already gone.  The odds of getting some other team to pick up the balance are slim.  He is not part of the future and, as such, is taking playing time away from Garrett Jones, who might be part of the future (but at 1B, not in the outfield).  The less we see Jones at 1B, the less information we have to decide whether to offer him a contract before he becomes a FA at the end of the season.

The money committed to Snell is also gone.  If we can rehabilitate him to the point where he can regain value (either to the Bucs or as trade bait), that's fine, but having him at Indy isn't hurting the future, since Morton and Vasquez are able to show us whether they are part of the future (Morton, yes, Vasquez, probably not).

Sanchez and Wilson are far less replaceable, if only for the fact that there is nobody at AAA  who has shown that they deserve a chance to be part of the future at this point.  (Delwyn Young might be the future at 2B, and if Freddy is traded, we'll get a chance to find out, but women and small children should look away, 'cause it might get ugly.)

Wilson is simply irreplaceable at this point from within the system.

Grabow is a goner to FA, and I have to believe a contender would be interested in left handed relief.  

In the OF, bring up Milledge and play him and Moss every day.  We need to know if they are part of the future, too.

The FO, by building depth, has some chips to play with.  By my calculations, there are the trading chips we have to play with (not including bench guys like Salazar):

LaRoche

Grabow

Sanchez (but a top-level middle infield prospect such as Brandon Wood MUST be part of the deal)

Jaramillo or Robinzon Diaz

Capps

Veal (only if the Cubs are a trading partner)

Even if we deal all of those guys, we are left with a starting lineup of:

Milledge, McCutchen and Moss

Andy, Jack, Young and Jones

Doumit behind the plate.

Plus, we'll have whoever we get as a result of the above trades. If we get a Brandon Wood type, I'd put him at 2B and use Young as the #1 supersub coming off the bench to give guys days off, PH, whatever.

We'd save money, but we could do so without hurting the performance this year, and the advantage we'd gain by separating the contenders from the pretenders would, in part, offset any short-term decrease in performance.

Joey Bats wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 5:53 AM

It's the Nutting Pirates...FINANCES are more important than winning baseball.

Keeping revenues & cash flowing flowing from PBC to Seven Springs and the Nutting Newspaper Enterprises is what the business model is all about.

BFGrad wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 6:43 AM

The only to know for sure what the answer is, is to do what journalists and top newspapers do and investigate the question. If it's found the Nutting's newspaper business is losing money or Seven Springs or any of their other enterprises are losing money,  then it's likely they are using the Pirates as a cash cow to finance their other interests. Let's see the details on how MLB's revenue sharing works and what the Pirates get in TV/radio revenue and all their other sources of income along with their debts and expenses. That would be a story worth reading.

TJK33 wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 8:00 AM

I think part of this article is rather silly and one sided.  Its easy to get people stirred up thinking its about a salary dump when you start saying by trading LaRoche you'll shave 7mil, Snell 3mil etc.  But here is the problem....  they have played half the season already.  So they are not going to shave 24mil off the payroll as Bob is making it sound like.  

One thing I would like to point out however...  it does appear that the team is putting more money into foreign players than ever before and spending on drafted players.  So its not like the team isn't spending money any where.  

(I did not say the Pirates would be saving money by trading those players. I said that money would be deducted from next year's payroll. I was trying to show how  low the payroll could go next year. -- Bob Smizik)

NYCPirate wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 8:09 AM

I was unfortunately at the game on Saturday night to watch us blow a good lead in the last inning.  I love Matt Capps as much as any Pirate but it was clear from the start of the inning he didn't have his stuff.  In pain I watch as Russell did absolutely nothing to pull him out to stop the bleeding.  As much as everyone talks about our future who believes that Russell is capable of running this team?  I know this game meant nothing for us this year but when one of your best pitchers is off what is so hard about bringing in someone else?  Grabow was good and I am sure he could have gone another inning against all the lefties thrown at us.  As far as I was concerned after this game the moral of the team could never bounce back after a loss like this.  Oh, and one other thing.  When leaving the game I have never seen such a poor display of fans from Philadelphia.  Watching one after another come up to me to say the words I could never repeat on this blog was sickening.  I could never patronize Philadelphia again.  

Navy Author wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 8:16 AM

Bob, I hope the Nuttings do make money from the BUCs, only in the same manner as the Steelers by having a successful product. I think that chances have to be taken to build a winner and I have no problem with that. But before I dealt away Jack and Freddy I'd ensure  some prospects were ready who can do the job.  Delwyn Young can hit but what's his defense like? Bixler at short Please, Nooooo!.! One of the most entertaining things about this team are the smooth plays from the middle infield. Also, how will a less than steller middle infield affect our young pitchers? That experience behind them with Frddy and Jack has to give them some added confidence on the mound.  One unrelated question Bob; is Garett Jone the real deal? Maybe they hit pay dirt  this time.  He looks pretty darn good out there. I think young player development is the only thing to hold fan interest for the remainder of this season. But if they keep finding guys like Jones then I have some cautious hope for the future.

BFD wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 8:18 AM

There is no question about Nuttings intentions.... Use our beautiful ball park to rake in millions while putting a pitiful product on the field.  

The savings made by trading our few descent players mid season has been going on for many years.  Payroll starts at 50 million, and by the end of the year it is actually around 40 million.  

As far as posts about all of this money being put into foreign prospects, I don't see it?  Are we talking about the 2 Indian reality show stars?  The Dominican kid we are supposably going to go after?  Who have we signed?

As far as spending money in the draft?  I would agree that we did last year, but didn't we take a catcher this year projected to be a "back-up" in the league some day (per ESPN)?

As long as the Kool-aid drinkers continue to believe, Nutting will continue his same way of doing business.

MLB should be stepping in here and forcing Nutting to spend more, open his books, or sell!

Raising the Jolly Roger in Jersey wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 8:45 AM

If the Pirates management have given up on this year and next, so will I. My wife and I usuall  travel from New Jersey and attend at least 2 weekend series a year. This will not occur this year. I will also not renew my MLB TV package this year (got almost half the year free because I subscribe to the NHL package). I know it is a very small dent but this is my contribution.

Thanks Neil, Bob Nutting is not the only person you are saving money for.

Pirateshosefans wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 9:15 AM

The McClouth trade opened Pirate ownership to questions about their motivation for owning the team and questions like profit vs winning.  

McClouth was presented to the fans as a core player on the team.  4 months late we wake up one morning and Nate's in Atlanta, his Pirate teammates as disappointed and surprised as we the fans were.  

Though that trade didn't save the club much money, it indicated that management no longer believed the team could win and thus opened the door for possible Sanchez, Wilson, LaRoche, trades that would save the team money.

Jtownjohn wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 9:19 AM

I don't understand when people say that small market teams all have low payrolls.   There are 2 lower payrolls in mlb.  San Diego and Florida.  Those 2 have markets 50% and 2x bigger than Pittsburgh, they choose to have smaller payrolls, like the Pirates.  The other small market teams Payrolls are around $70 M, not the %50M of the Pirates.  Hoow can they manage it while the PBC has never come close to those levels.  It's all about cash flow to the Nuttings.

richinomaha wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 9:42 AM

Until the acquired prospects make to the big league level, and then prove they belong, the trades will continue to appear as nothing more than salary dumps. I am sick and tired of hearing of the great potential at AA or the upside of taking a chance with someone like Milledge.  At this time potential and upside does nothing for a team now 12 games under .500 and well on its way to yet another losing season.  Nor does it serve to placate fans who’ve had it with the constant losing, the tight purse strings, and management’s willingness to ship stars out of town with ease and regularity. Ownership should be ashamed for the sham it’s conducted in running the team. It owes the city and the fans an apology for the way its augered this franchise into a sporting world abyss.  

tomowhit wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 9:50 AM

Bob I have gone along with "the program" for the last 15 years. I grew up going to Pirate games in Forbes Field in the 1950' (born 1946), and many of those early teams were pathetic. But by 1957 the worm turned, and good basebal returned to the "House of Thrills". This year with the trade of McClouth (after previous trades of Bay, Remires, Gonzo, Giles, ect, ad nausaum. I've had it. The great people of the Tri-State Area deserve much better than an ownership committed to being a minor league franchise while charging major league admissions.

PNC has never had the honor of being referred to as the "House of Thrills" as did Forbes Field, but an appropriate name would be the "House of Humiliation".

CortexBomb wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 9:57 AM

At one point I would have shared the skepticism that the Pirate farm really is that decimated and that the Pirates really are that desperate to restock the larder. The reality is that the system is desperately in need of this. I went down to Toledo to see Indy play over the weekend, and the farm is basically made up of 2 types of players: guys we've already seen come and blow it in Pittsburgh, and old and/or poor players. Half of the Indy roster has batting averages hovering either right at .200 or well into the .100 range. The team that was fielded on Friday night literally depended on Bixler, Milledge, Pearce, and Myrow for hits. We've already seen Bixler and Pearce. Milledge there is definitely hope for. Myrow is a career journeyman. Beyond that, the lineup was devoid of hope. Seeing this just nailed home for me how decimated the farm level is and I challenge anyone who thinks the Pirates are operating purely out of money concerns to not go down and see an Indy game and not at least give some credence to the argument that we desperately need new, young players in the system.

Ibanez6str wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 10:09 AM

Pittsburgh should have let this team leave town when it had the chance. For all you 'old-timers' that wanted to keep this mess here, guess what, you will never see a winning team the rest of your life. Hope you enjoy paying the extra taxes for the stadium. Ah, the stadium, wasn't it Kevin McClatchy that stated that the Pirates needed a new stadium to generate more revenue to attract free agents and to be able to sign their own players? How has that worked out? In case you are wondering where the money went, it is in Bob Nuttings pockets. I know, it is the Yankees and RedSox fault that the Pirates can't compete. Why don't you tell the players to demand that the union accept a salary cap and then things will be fair.

 Face it, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. While I don't disagree with the recent trades, do you think it really matters?  There is no hope of winning and no hope of being competitive.  I feel bad for Andrew McCutchen because I think he is going to be a star. Advice to Andrew, don't sign any extensions!!

JuniataKid wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 10:13 AM

I think the front office is doing the right thing and should continue trading to build for the future. The question we anxiously await the answer to is what's Nutting doing with his Pirates profits? Is he putting a chunk aside for that future? Or is he plowing it into his other interests? In 2015 (or whatever) will he have the money to keep Alvarez from becoming a free agent? Or will he have spent all the money he's raking in now? Until that time comes, it's all speculation. I don't care if next year's payroll is $1 million. One million or fifty million, they still don't contend. But at least if it's $1 million, they can be saving for the future. If that's what they're doing.

imbetterthenyouare wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 10:45 AM

The more relevant question one must ask is when wil MLB finally wise up and either move or contract this franchise which is single handedly killed its sport ?Pittsburgh neither wants or deserves a MLB franchise anymore. Move them to a city where they can and will compete

Taiwan wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 11:01 AM

Snell, what has Bob been drinking today?  The only way the Pirates will be able to trade Snell is if they pay part or all of his contract.  I doubt someone would want to pay $3 million for a guy who doesn't even want to play in the majors.

Taiwan wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 11:08 AM

Imbetterthenyouare, what does having a team in Pittsburgh or another city have to do with competing?  Bob Nutting could run the team in any city and still produce a loser.

jwilli6230 wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 11:17 AM

I don't believe the Pirate Management team knows what it takes to win. Yes I understand a small market team can not pay the huge contracts to keep players. However, Jason Bay and McClouth were under multiyear contracts. With Bay, McClouth and McCutchen or Nady or Morgan we had under contract one of best outfields in baseball. Wilson and Sanchez are 2 of the best all round middle infielders in the game. LaRoche is strong at 1B as a role player and not a guy that is counted on to carry a team. Doumit is a top catcher. An. LaRoche is serviceable at 3rd. Our pitching staff has been solid. This team was capable of contending while staying within a small market budget. If management extends the budget to bring in a little help for the stretch drive than we would be competing for the division. Build the minor league system through the Drafts, shrewd player acquisitions off waivers and some trades like the Morgan trade. The point is we had the talent in house and under contract to compete now and we mindlessly traded it away in the hopes that maybe someday the players we acquired might get to the level of what we had. Even with all these trades there has been no improvement in our minor league teams records? Shouldn't the fruit of all these prospects be showing somewhere in the system?

Rich wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 11:50 AM

Ok people need to stop assuming Neil Walker will ever play in Pittsburgh as anything more than a utility player.

gerardsmith wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 12:06 PM

Hey, Bob---Think there's a snowball's chance front office's thinking "outside the box" will ever penetrate that bunker mentality emanating from the dugout?  The "front office" thinks inside the box when their managerial evaluations determine a triple "A" club is perfectly suited and deserving only of triple "A" managers.  Are "they" waiting for the club to become "major league" before  the necessary job evaluation or do they believe an improved team on the field elevates even the thought processes and decision-making of its leader.  You know, sorta like Patton's 3rd Army really became good and then George suddenly blossomed into this phenomenal general?  Methinks not!

WhatThePuck wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 12:19 PM

I agree with you Bob.  If the new Pirates management believes in building from within, i can understand that. The moves they have made recently while not not popular, i believe are good for the future. Whats the point in keeping Sanchez, Wilson, or Larouche if Alverez, Talbata, McClutchen, and Milledge will not be ready to produce for a few more years.  Here is my beef!!!   If you dump all these salaries, at least lower the prices on concessions and ticket prices. Give a family of four a chance to bring their kids to the ball park. Charging 5 dollars for a watered down coke is ridiculous!!  Make up a slogan  COME GROW WITH US or something. Look at how many younger fans the Penguins have now.  The fans can relate to their players because they are young and exciting to watch.

WhatThePuck wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 12:34 PM

I also wouldnt give up on Ian Snell.  He is an emotional type of player that may have dealt with failure for the first time in his career. People react differently.  Remember how cocky he was when he was winning for us a few years ago.  He needs to find that cockiness again to be successful.

DWS wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 1:18 PM

Please BOB, enough. I no longer can watch the Pirates bring up players from the minors and watch them inprove and then trade them to a contender for prospects. If the Nuttings want to maintan a AAA team then they should charge for it. When I pay to see the Rolling Stones I do not expect to see The House Rockers. The Nuttings need to sell the team or MLB needs to force them to spend more of the money they are getting from MLB on the players and get us a contender. The current baseball players agreement has Pittsburgh out of contention forever. Small Market teams like Pittsburgh will never get to the big dance unless they luck out with their 20 year olds who have career years in the first few seasons because as soon as the players get to free agency they will be gone. Watch what happens to the likes of Tampa Bay.

postgazetteReader wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 1:19 PM

When you trade away your better players, the win/loss record goes down, and you get better draft position (in other words, first dibs on the prospects).    Unfortunately, this argument doesn't hold with the Pirates due to their propensity to draft the cheap guys and not the best guys.  They hurt themselves twice over with their frugal ways.  Once by dumping their better players, and second by drafting the cheap prospects over the good prospects.

daquido_bazzini wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 1:31 PM

The bottom line is that the latest trades (and the trades that are coming at the end of the month) are all made for money reasons.

Under no circumstances will the front office tell the public.

They will continue to paint the false picture that it is a "plan", and they have to build within, etc.

It's the state of the art lip service in MLB.

Let me make one thing clear....I'm not against trading players from a last place team.

What I am against is "giving away" the few real major league players that the Pirates have on their roster.

In the past 5-10 years, upper echelon clubs (Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, etc) have put their foot down (again).

They have all decided that the days of giving up "top prospects" are over.

They're aware that it's only a small amount of time till a team like the Pirates, Royals, Nationals, etc. will cave in for monetary reasons and trade their "real" players for 2nd rate prospects.

A 2nd rate minor league prospect will fail to make it in the big leagues a very high percentage of the time.

This is what the Pirates have been acquiring for the past year....2nd rate minor league prospects.

If it was up to me, I'd put my foot down if I was a "smaller market" team, and the larger market team wanted real players....for garbage.

Unfortunately....This is where people like Bob Nutting & crew come into the picture.

They could care less about the team....and even less about the fans.

Nutting needs to sell and get out....It's the only hope.

pantherpride wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 1:46 PM

I'm still of the opinion that this is the course that should have been followed FIFTEEN YEARS AGO! I don''t know if alot, or any, of these prospects will pan out....and neither does everybody else. But it has to be tried and the FC/NH regime has to be given a chance; the only way to fix this organization is to strip it bare and start again; that's exactly what they're trying to do.

Besides Bay and Aramis Ramirez....the Pirates have not had a legitmate star for years. You're not going to get top-rate prospects when you don't have top-rate players. McClouth, Sanchez, Wilson, LaRoche....all are legitimate major league players imo....all are also nothing more than spare parts on a good MLB team.

So when the trading continues, please try not to gripe and moan too much when we don't get David Price or Tommy Hanson as return....we simply don't have the talent to offer for #1 prospects. And as all know, most "buyers" are getting away from throwing the top young talent at the bottom-feeders anyhow.

One particularly hilarious thing is when people say "what will we do when Wilson and Sanchez are gone with our defense up the middle?". How will we survive....those two are undoubtedly the difference between losing 95 games instead of 105. Get a grip, folks....this organization needs so much help that we can't afford to sit still with slightly above-average players if there's a demand for them!

For better or worse, imo, this "plan" makes the most sense of any I've heard in the past 16 years.

P.S. WhatThePuck....anytime a professional "quits" on the team he has to go. I don't care if Snell goes 12-1 with a 0.91 ERA in Indy....he has to go. Its one thing to be immature - its another to be a quitter. We should've just released his carcass on the spot rather than let the cancer spread to Indy.

kilo-watts wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 3:33 PM

Bob that's the same thing I heard from NH in the offseason, how the downturn in the economy would make it easier to get a right handed power bat and a starting pitcher. They're not even waiting for a year to pass before rolling out the same old tripe. How foolish do they think some of us are?

(Don't answer that...LOL)

gilbpman wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 4:17 PM

Bob, it makes little difference to me whether the trades are for improvement or money.  At the rate the Pirates are aquiring

new talent (call it what you want), they won't be able to field

enough talent, soon enough to win.  If my memory is correct none of the players Neal Huntington has traded for have shown any significant talent or potential.  And Free Agents!

Won't other teams offer more money than the Pirates even for medium caliber players?  Just because they cost less, I think the Pirates will continue to be out- bided.  

Another point,  we often hear and read about some players

not wanting to play in Pittsburgh.  OK., what about quality

front office people and management?  Aren't they as important to building a winning team as the players? Just look

at the organizations in the central division, the Cubs with

Sweet Lou, and the Cardinals with Tony L. And here comes

the Buccos with Neal H and John Russell.  17 years and counting........

jwilli6230 wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 4:36 PM

The dearth of talent we have in our minor league system is the result of repeatedly bad decisions on draft day. Passing up impact players because they are to expensive to sign or reaching on players when we have top 10 or better picks every year. Our team is not that far away from winning. Look at this lineup of players we have had and tell me that its not capable of competing for a championship.

1. McCutchen CF

2. Sanchez 2B

3. McClouth LF

4. Aramis Ramirez 3B

5. Jason Bay RF

6. Ryan Doumit C

7. Adam LaRoche 1B

8. Jack Wilson

9. Pitcher

We had all these guys under contract this time last year with the exception of Ramirez. By simply putting out a little more $ we could have the team mentioned above plus a 3rd basemen. Now could we keep it year in and year out? I would venture to say for the next couple years we could keep the core and lose a Ramirez. At which time Alvarez would be ready. Its not a stretch its doable. And we still are able to trade players like Nady, Morgan etc and replenish the farm system. Jack Wilson and Sanchez are not average middle infielders they are excellent all round players that you can build a team around.  

kevin morris wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 4:58 PM

JuniataKid, I can't believe you expressed a bit if distrust related to Mr. Nuttings long-term intentions to provide us with the championship level team we deserve, if only we continue to support the franchise for another six years (you do reference 2015). And here I thought you were a "real fan!"

Californication wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 5:06 PM

I am the radical fringe element who sees the latest Pirate ineptitude as starting with a financially handicapped owner, one Robert Nutting, principal owner of the Pirates and other ventures…..Ogden Newspapers and Seven Springs Ski Resort which, in my radical fringe element opinion, are bleeding cash.   With that said, let's look at this from the TOP down...

1) 2010 Pirate Operating Budget...Businessmen are very budget-centric in their planning and Ops budgets are put together multiple years in advance and revisited/revised cyclically.   Then their minions are evaluated on how well they execute to the plan.  I believe Nutting has a plan that requires the Pirates opening day roster salary to be <$20M.  I believe that trading Nate early and first was meant to be viewed as a “bold move” by the minions who must execute to the plan.  In actuality the McClouth trade was meant to accomplish two items, one clandestine, the other public:

    A) The Pirates come nowhere near a winning record in 2009;

   B) Future 2009 trades are framed as part of a “rebuilding” plan.

2) FO..THE Front Office....Not their fault.  They current group is playing the hand they have been dealt.  I’m not thrilled with the value the Bucs got in the Nate trade with Atlanta but it is less about the value and more about the drivers that led the trade.  When you're hand is forced you do your best.  Also, while much fun is made by me and others about “bobbleheads and fireworks”....just imagine what is must be like working in marketing for the Pirates….not exactly a job I’d like to have in Pgh, PA.

3) Reporting...It was mentioned in the above comment that some “investigative reporting” may be in order wrt Nutting’s plan…I agree wholeheartedly.  Dejan needs a Pirates FO Deep Throat to either confirm or deny the fringe element’s salary dump conspiracy theory and any other accounting tricks that are going on….THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE.  There usually is collateral damage when cutting operating expenses and this collateral damage causes people to lose their jobs and that (and some Scotch) loosens lips.

4) Ownership Change…. It’s my fringe element belief that the financially handicapped Nutting is not ever going to spend money on players salaries even to the average MLB salary level.  He needs to come to his senses and sell the team to someone who is willing and able to INVEST some money in order to chase titles.  It took the Chicago Tribune almost two years to unwind their Cubs investment, selling the team for $900M.  Sell the boat Mr. Nutting!   There is no need to either conceal or hide the fact the team is on the block…..the value is the value.   The Pirates are estimated by Forbes to be worth about $288M….that’s quite a discount to get into the league, invest in the team, build it up and sell it in 5 to 10 years at a tidy profit.  Sure, we’d rather see a new owner have the last name of Rooney and stay forever and maybe he/she does after they make the return on their investment but at this point, even at the risk of losing the team, a change in ownership needs to occur.

More Mencken for you Bob S….Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.

mercerboy wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 5:53 PM

Anyone who is talking about the Pirates needing to lower ticket prices is insane.  The Pirates have THE lowest ticket prices in the major leagues in terms of "bang for your buck."  The $27 infield box seats at PNC are about $50 at any other stadium.  I'm honestly surprised they haven't raised prices to stay competitive, but then again...the team isn't competitive anyway.

Secondly, anyone who thought that Bay/Nady/Ramirez/anyone else good enough to start on a good team would stick with the Pirates once they reached free agency is equally insane.  The team was losing 95+ games with these players!  How can you expect them to win as they get older and still have little/no talent outside of a couple of guys?  

Onto these trades...this team was completely barren of talent a year ago.  There is a TON more potential talent in this system after the trades and the draft.  The Pirates had no choice; to build a consistent winner, they had to completely change their philosophy of using retreads as starters, draft good talent and sign them, develop said talent, and trade for talented younger players that can help sustain a winning team.  

I understand that everyone wants to bag the owner/management for not spending money.  It certainly looks like they don't care, but I am willing to give the new management team a chance to show that they can turn the entire organization into a competent small-market franchise.  They are starting to do the right things right now.  Let's see where it gets them in a few years.  If after that time they continue to lose and continue to sell players off to reduce their payroll, then I'll probably be done with this team too.  The real question will be that if these younger players do show REAL improvement and the team becomes a franchise that can sustain an 85-90 win season, will the ownership spend the money necessary to keep said players and bring in good FA's that will put the team over the top?  That is when we'll know the true intentions of the owners.

daquido_bazzini wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Mon, Jul 13 2009 6:25 PM

Mercerboy....A TON of talent???

The Pirates don't even know the term talent.

All there is now is more garbage on garbage to choose from.

As I mentioned above....These are all 2nd rate prospects at best.

I'll tell you what....While you and a few others give this regime several more years....Myself and many more will continue to put pressure on Bob Nutting to clear out.

There has to be a way to get him OUT of those offices at PNC Park.

He doesn't deserve to be there.

I'm interested in hearing any legal ideas to get him OUT.

mercerboy wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Tue, Jul 14 2009 3:44 AM

What I said is that the talent they have now is better than they had before.  The top 10 players in the Pirates' minor league system before last year was pitiful.  But now, at least a few guys could be major leaguers.  Several of the players acquired were in the top 10 of their respective teams' prospect charts.  They aren't getting a bunch of Bobby Hills and other useless pieces as they used to.

Look, I don't really trust the owner either.  They should be spending more money on the team, but to be honest, they have no reason to.  The team has been and still is awful at the major league level.  Huntington/Coonelly are trying to stock the minor leagues with prospective talent like successful "small-market" teams such as Minnesota and Oakland have done in the past.  Surely they are being budgetized by the owner, but at least these guys look like they know what to do to use the resources they're given to do that (as opposed to Dave Littlefield).

Good luck trying to get Nutting out.  The only ways he may leave is if they pay down the debt on the team and sell to the high bidder or if MLB gets rid of revenue sharing so that he can't make money by losing.  Until then, he's not going anywhere.  I wouldn't waste your time trying to drive them out.  Don't go to the games and tell your friends not to go either (as I'm sure you aren't already).  That's all you can do.

mustang95 wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Tue, Jul 14 2009 11:00 AM

even-handed analysis. people are rightly asking "are any of the guys we're getting any good?" wait and see.

JimmyC wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Tue, Jul 14 2009 1:18 PM

Dab Gummit! The bottom line is the Pirates need to get back to the World Series and on national TV broadcasts once again.

Seventeen years. Seventeen years and not a hint of pennat fever!. I don't remember anyone asking for a cure.

Why it's been so long that the last time the Bucs contended "Blog" was not a word. We had to make long-distance phone calls to talk baseball with each other.

Let's see Democrats throw a Bush out of the White House, Pirates in last place. Democrats toss Bush's son out of the White House and the Pirates are still in last place.

People, we  have a problem. Whether it's ownership  or us is the question.

WhatThePuck wrote re: Trades: For winning or money?
on Tue, Jul 14 2009 6:20 PM

pantherpride   I would take a guy who is having trouble with his career and saying he needs time away to clear his thoughts than Manny Ramirez whom only thinks of himself  and his bank account by taking steroids and letting his team down.  Its the same thing but because Snell was struggling, its easy to cast him aside. What about his team letting him down when he was pitching good and yet he got no offensive support.  I hope Snell does get traded and he becomes a dominant force while the Pirates get nothing in return

Bob Smizik's Blog wrote Letters: Open Pirates books
on Sat, Jul 18 2009 8:25 AM

Saturday, 1 a.m. Q: The money vs. winning debate is not resolvable, but it can be put on a more informed