PBC Blog

Authors

Post-Gazette beat writers Dejan Kovacevic and Chuck Finder blog about the Pittsburgh Baseball Club.

Join the Pirates forum for more conversation.

Register to comment
Guide to commenting

Syndication

Morning links: Understanding arbitration

By Dejan Kovacevic | 12:40 a.m. Thursday

No matter how it was spelled out in the news coverage of Ryan Doumit getting close to an extension and Nate McLouth getting nowhere near one, there will be a misunderstanding. There always is. The email will come about how the Pirates either a) are great for keeping their core players from leaving or b) are too cheap to do the same.

The more grounded view is this: Neither is going anywhere, anyway, barring a trade. At least not for three years.

For those unfamiliar with baseball's economic system, here is the most basic of primers:

1. Your first three full years in the majors, you make however much money the team feels like paying, which usually is at or close to the major league minimum. That was $390,000 this year, but it goes up annually.

2. Your next three years, you are eligible for salary arbitration. If the team tenders you a contract, that means you are guaranteed to get paid something for at least the following year. You and the team can figure that out between yourselves -- which is how most of these get done -- or an independent arbitrator picks either your preferred salary or the one the team thinks you should get.

One way or another, extension or not, the team can tender you like this for each of those three years. Doumit, McLouth and Paul Maholm are just entering this second phase. So, if the Pirates extend them through these three years, they are doing nothing more than setting cost certainty for themselves, guarding against dramatic potential increases in that span. For the players, guaranteed money is the prime benefit.

3. After six years are up -- and that means six full years of actually being on a major league roster, hurt or not -- that is when the player can become a free agent. If Doumit, McLouth and Maholm stay on their current career paths, they can become free agents after the 2011 season.

Linkage to the general coverage ...

Much ground to cover, from the Doumit/McLouth developments to injury updates from Kyle Stark on a couple of prospects to some other stuff.

A couple Pirates topics pop up in the boss' chat.

And from other realms ...

Finally, Rafael Furcal makes up his mind and goes back to the Dodgers. Paul Kinzer, Furcal's agent, has some explaining to do after a crazy week.

Henry Schulman, who covers the Giants for the San Francisco Chronicle, writes that he expects the Pirates to "go hard" after Ty Wigginton. I am told that it might not matter how hard they go. Apparently, Wigginton was not all that thrilled with his time here, players who know him say, and has no wish to return.

Jenifer Langosch of the Pirates' official site writes that management "had its eye" on Ray King in the Dominican. Not independently confirmed.

Charlie Wilmoth at Bucs Dugout had no use for the Q&A answer I gave yesterday about the Jason Bay trade, and I respect his views as much as anyone in the blogosphere. But I do feel compelled to note, before you click over there, that I never once have written that I thought the Bay trade was a good one, regardless of the actual return. Some national outlets and others did express that, as Charlie notes, but I never did.

Pat Lackey at Van Slyke disagrees with me, too, and he uses some statistics to make his point.


Posted Dec 18 2008, 12:40 AM by Dejan Kovacevic

Comments

bucsfancents80 wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 12:53 AM

DK,

For some reason the link to the McLouth/Doumit story isn't loading....".page not found"

uglyken wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 12:55 AM

DK << But I do feel compelled to note, before you click over there, that I never once have written that I thought the Bay trade was a good one, regardless of the actual return. >>

The first thing that I thought was that he was putting words in your mouth that wern't there.

Iceman wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:05 AM

DK,

I have always got the implicit impression that you, in fact, did NOT think the Bay trade was a good one...

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:07 AM

I'm trying to figure out why DK respects "Charlie's" views?  Seems like Charlie is making up stuff as he goes along. I remember DK, who is not a columnist, inviting us to look at the need for the Bay trade that had nothing to do with AnLa's performance or any other player we got from that trade, but rather to look at the players the PBC had after the Nady/Marte trade and whether the PBC could build around them.  I didn't think it took a rocket scientist to figure out why the question was raised, but apparently it was too subtle for Charlie.

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:12 AM

One other thing I almost forgot--I don't even recognize Charlie's description of  Bay; sounds more like he's mixing him up with Burnitz.  I know the Boston fans would not recognize Charlie's description of Bay, nor would may PBC fans.  Sounds like he had one good half year and was about to be put out to pasture---Sheesh!

uglyken wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:15 AM

Frankly, I have never detected how DK felt about the Bay trade one way or the other. I can only recall that a Bay coupled with a Nady trade suggested that the PBC may pursue a salary dump strategy. Not necessarily praising or condemning it.

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:16 AM

The second thing I almost forgot--Bay wasn't going to win any gold gloves, but he didn't need a batting helmet in Left Field.  His arm is probably below average, but other than when his knees were bad he was a pretty good fielder and was used in Center Field at times because he was a good fielder.

And I think Charlie forgot Nate won the gold glove. OK, I'm done,for now.

bucsfancents80 wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:24 AM

Stay away from Ray

JL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:33 AM

Arriba and Ken and Ice pretty much hit open what I'd want to say.

And even though I may, or may not, part company with my forum brethren on this following note, I personally hated the Bay trade then, hate it now, and can only hope that I am all wrong about it, going forward.

Now then, as for the $390,000 minimum (which should go over $400K in '09), I'm joining Baywatch in trying out for the Orioles. With minimums like that, who needs _________ (complete the saying with your favorite metaphor)?

Carnegie Chip wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 2:43 AM

Honestly, every time DK posts responses from those two guys (Pat and Charlie) I feel like throwing my Jack Wilson bobblehead at something.  Those guys continually defend the WORST RUN franchise in baseball, and usually use a bunch of dubiously arrived at statistics and suppositions to support their poorly thought out conlusions.   Math can prove an elephant can fly but that doesn't make that so either.

Plus, neither addressed the basic facts that A) if you're not getting the top prospects back in trades, why trade?  and B) the market is now driven by keeping your prospects which floods the market with borderline vets who, except for the few stars, can be had for modest prices.  Had we kept Bay, maybe added a couple 2nd tier vet starters, and traded Nady for the other young arms, our payroll would probably increase by $10-14 while having a competitive team.  Why is that so outrageous?

I can understand loving baseball and supporting your team but there's a point it becomes blind loyalty.  They've far passed that bridge.  It is enormously frustrating that people keep having faith "wait 'til next year!"  when next year never comes.  Isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same things over and over and expecting a different result?

PI Stingray wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 3:20 AM

@Chip: Agree with you, i.e; they can't see the forest for the trees........

Iceman wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 3:21 AM

Carnegie Chip,

Welcome to the Asylum, you make exceptionally good points!

Unfortunately I have run completely run out of gas and MUST go to bed, but I must say that everything in your post makes perfect sense.

juan pizarro wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 4:46 AM

No matter what the SF Chronicle says , I cannot believe  the PBC is going hard after Ty Wigginton (and hope it's true they are not). According to mlbtraderumors, Ty was projecting at 2 yrs @ $12M. Now they are saying he is after at least Casey Blake money (3 yrs at $17.5M).

i had originally thought Ty could be a cheap FA pick-up, a right-handed bat for OF and 1B platoons, or a backup to AndyL in case his woes continue. But no way the PBC will (or should) do this for that $$$ commitment.

PI Stingray wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 6:10 AM

I for one, like the idea of locking up Doumit for the next few years. Would really have liked to have heard that Nate was interested too. With the several year deal, he has security if he has a bad year or gets injured. If that happens on a one year deal, his value could decrease severely, especially if seriously injured. Most players don't make the big money until they've past their arbitration years anyway, so I don't see what he gains by not signing long term.....

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 6:17 AM

Morning links part 2 before part 1

Baseball Winter Meetings bring back memories

www.pioneerlocal.com/.../1336271,ch-timeout-121808-s1.article

Happy Birthday Joe Randa!

www.royalsreview.com/.../happy-birthday-joe-randa

JosePagan wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 6:21 AM

@ Stingray: On the other side of that, perhaps McLouth thinks if he has an equal or better year in '09, that improves his chances to get a mega-deal at the end of '09.

Hard to fathom what is going through their heads (or filtered through their agent's head and then into theirs) when they make these risk/reward decisions.

Look at what Ty's rumored desires are, I mean, come on...

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 6:35 AM

a few links from the THE OFFICIALLY UNOFFICIAL PBC BLOGS AND MLB LINKS:

If the Pirates kept Bay and built through free agency

http://mvn.com/mlb/pirates/

Wild and Crazy Relievers

http://raisethejollyroger.com/

Free agents vs. prospects

www.honestwagner.blogspot.com

Scratch that... LA to re-sign Furcal?

theburghblues.mlblogs.com

These  Men Are The game

www.oldbucs.blogspot.com

MLB Hot Stove Updates

bleacherreport.com/.../87380-mlb-hot-stove-updates

NuttingHostage wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 6:50 AM

DK:

I never impression one way or another of what your personal opinion was on the Bay deal.

All I've seen you do is report on the deal, and comment on post trade analysis.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 6:58 AM

Oh, and please.

Just say no to Ray King.

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 7:40 AM

Good morning asylum members!

Personally, I truly appreciate what DK pointed out about arbitration, and what it does or doesn't mean for Nate to take the deal. It's not like the Bucs are throwing him out to FA or anything, he belongs to the Pirates.

Maybe it's my cynical attitude about this side of the game, maybe it's just that I'm used to not having any extra money, but throw out any six figures to me and I'm thinking "how can that not be enough?"

It's the question I repeated in my mind over and over on Pedro night.

NH - if they lock  Doumit up my friend you WILL get your desk video. Srsly.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:12 AM

POH,

First, if the Bucs do lock up Doumit, I'll send you a video too. - Doumit is my favorite Pirate as well. - Remember, catchers rule!

As far as the Nate negotiations go, this could get interesting. I'm disappointed to hear that Nate and the Bucs are so far apart becase besides from the benefits of security for the player and cost certainty for the club, I think another important aspect of locking up a player through his arbitration years is the opportunity to avoid the actual arbitration hearings each year.

From everything I've read, it is not a pleasant process for a player to sit there and hear his employer knock him and oftentimes can result in irreversable hard feelings on the players part.

I hope that doesn't happen with Nate. - We need him every bit as much as we need Doumit, if not more.

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:21 AM

Hostage

Maybe they are confusing Ray King with the Mystical, Magical Burger King--he is creepy enough to scare batters into striking out :)

Bucco_Joe wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:28 AM

One thing that all seem to take as a given is that Andy LaRoche is a total bust.  I do not think that is necessarily the case.

I tend to think that he came back from the thumb injury too quickly and it was the direct cause of the dismal performance.  Let's not call the deal a bust quite yet...

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:37 AM

Bucco_Joe--I don't think people are saying the deal's a bust or that AnLa is a total bust.  I think the point is even if AnLa works out and Moss works out and  Hansen finds the plate the PBC was closer to contending sooner with Bay as one of the building blocks. Certainly people disagree but it's too early to say the deal in the long run was a bust because we're still in the short run.  What no one can seriously dispute is that based on the on-the-field evidence since the trade it doesn't look good whether you agreed with it or not.

jersey joe wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:39 AM

may I suggest any dance routines be put directly on youtube

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:39 AM

JAL -

check your email. I wrote one of contrition for being too late on the MLs.

NH - an exchange of backend-slapping, hi-ho silver desk trotting videos - certainly a present for the whole asylum!

AND - I agree. I don't cotten to the idea of Nate sitting in a room listening to the PBC reps list downsides. I don't. I want everyone to have peace love and joy this Christmas on the PBC so when Santa brings this club Pujols for first, they're all one big happy Fam-a-leee!

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:47 AM

POH

Read and responded :)

LarryZ wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:49 AM

It feels like it's been decades since the Pirates have have a top caliber third baseman, We may need to go way back to Mad Dog Bill Madlock. Andy Laroche won't cutit.  I doubt Neil Walker is the answer either. We unfortunately must wait for Pedro.

And Ty Wiggington is a decent, but second rate infielder, utilityman. Otherwise, why would teams be dumpinghim after a season or two. I mean, the Pirates didn't like him 5 years ago. Why would they ask him back, and for more money to boot. Makes no sense.

jersey joe wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:51 AM

May I further sugges to check the OS for suggested dance routine

Bizrow wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:53 AM

Morning, inmates

Its still early in the negotiations with Nate, (haven't read DKs article, try to save that till when I get home), but I don't think its unusual for the parties to be far apart, sometimes negotiations go on till the last minute, so there is still hope.

Maybe all we'll get for Christmas is Doumit signing.  That is much better than coal.

And isn't Ray King like 87 or something?  Why would we want him?

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:56 AM

LarryZ---does the name Aramis Ramirez ring any bells or is that such a painful subject that we put it out of our minds?  And there is a guy named Freddy Sanchez who looked pretty good when Tracy had to play him when Randa went down.

jersey joe wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:03 AM

LarryZ, I have to side with the opinion it is way too early to say anything about Andy.  Injury plus change of footwork plus losing job because of the injury pluse being traded, all and still a rookie, almost, I think is a burden that allows a fresh start and I think we should give him that much at least.

I do not see him moving to second for any duration, his first step is not quick enough.

I have questions after the stat work that says he does not hit with second or third occupied.  I do think he is a much better player than when he played here the first time and he does deserve credit for the work to have attained a better game.

jersey joe wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:06 AM

Arriba of course Aramis but a very good point to the way freddy played third.  I, too, say he looked pretty good on the corner.

LarryZ wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:07 AM

I guess, yes, I did put that giveaway out of my mind.

I do though recall Aramis being often booed as a Pirate because - and I agree - he was not the best fielder at  the hot corner. In 2003 he made 23 errors in 96 games with the Pirates before being traded (given away).  In 2000, he had a .917 fielding percentage. Madlock was a more complete 3B, fielding and hitting wise.

jersey joe wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:08 AM

Larryz oops that ending was about Ty, so sorry for the confusion.

Baywatch wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:16 AM

Good morning, Arriba, LarryZ, JAL, JJ, Plenty, Bucco Joe, JosePagan ... and PI, if you're still around (blogger buddy in yon Far East, down Phillipines way!)

And Happy Birthday Joseph Gregory Salvatore Randa! (nice little KC blogger link)

@Plenty - "NH - if they lock  Doumit up my friend you WILL get your desk video."

Then Hostage will be the one at his desk, slapping his hind quarters and singing, "Yippi-ti-yo-ki-yay!"

@JAL - "Maybe they are confusing Ray King with the Mystical, Magical Burger King--he is creepy enough to scare batters into striking out :)"

I'm assuming that you're going with the antecedent here, saying the MBK is the one creepy enough to scare batters into striking out - not Ray King? He seems a little creepy, too!

also@Plenty - "when Santa brings this club Pujols for first, they're all one big happy Fam-a-leee!"

Has anyone searched to see if there's a YouTube video of Albert singing "I'll Be Home for Christmas" ... with Bing dubbing, of course.

@LarryZ - "I mean, the Pirates didn't like him (Wigginton) 5 years ago. Why would they ask him back, and for more money to boot. Makes no sense."

A little variable called Dave Littlefield? He may have stunk up the joint for Wigginton ... a slight possibility.

LarryZ wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:18 AM

Hey Baywatch. Yeah, I wonder how many players held disdain for Littlefield in private.  Littleifled is what, now merely a roving scouting coordintor of something of that ilk? That's a step down for him but ight be reflective of his reputation in the business?

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:20 AM

LarryZ--I wasn't real sure if you were focusing on defense or the total package;  AR is still playing 3B for the Cubs and is in the upper echelon of players,at least offensively, in the NL.  If he were still a Pirate, and had the numbers fielding and offense he has put up for the Cubs, I don't think anyone would be saying, "hey, we need a new third baseman."  I'm just saying we had the kind of guy I thought you were talking about, we just gave him away, but he was here.  And the knock on Freddy as a 3B was that he didn't hit enough HR's, not his defense or hitting.

LarryZ wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:30 AM

With Aramis' production numbers at the plate, it's easier to accept his 'average' fielding I guess.

The loss of Ramirez in return for literally nothing of value must go down as the worst of the worst in the history of this franchise.

Baywatch wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:31 AM

I agree that Freddy was a good third baseman ... What would be wrong with putting him back over there (if and when all his sight and shoulder issues get rectified). I mean the move to second was all a big Tracy/Castillo thing wasn't it?

Of course, when I say why not put him back over there, that means if all other serious 3B options like LaRoche, Walker, etc., fail. Then again, bringing Vazquez into the mix is going to help, too, hopefully.

Was anyone besides me and UglyKen blown away by what he said about being proud, as a Puerto Rican, to put on the same uniform worn by Clemente? I mean in an age where you figure players might cop a complex coming to the Burgh ...

CandelArea wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:33 AM

@CC

"I can understand loving baseball and supporting your team but there's a point it becomes blind loyalty.  They've far passed that bridge.  It is enormously frustrating that people keep having faith "wait 'til next year!"  when next year never comes.  Isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same things over and over and expecting a different result?"

In light of why we are all here...  Isn't the definition of insanity being a fan of the Pittsburgh Pirates?

And, to all, as far as arbitration with Nate goes...  Though they may not reach agreement for a long term deal, they can still reach agreement on a one-year deal before the arbitration hearing (I believe).

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:34 AM

Larry

While he wasn't great, Jeff King , who held down 3b from 1989 to 1996 was pretty solid 3b.  

LarryZ wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:35 AM

Another thought - in the 1970s and 1980s and before, shortstops were not really expected to hit, with the emphasis more on defense. Frank Taveras, Ozzie Smith, Freddie Patek...these guys couldn't hit their way out of a paper bag.  Jack Wilson would be regarded as a God of shortstop in those days. How times have changed. We should be happy with Jack as our SS for now. He retires a Pirates and hopefully someone emerges from the farm system in a couple of years to replace him...  Just a random thought.

LarryZ wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:37 AM

Baywatch - Vazquez made that comment?  That's heartening. Give him credit. Sounds like a good guy.  

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:37 AM

Bay

Yes, it is the MMB King who is creepy and would scare batters.  :)

Baywatch wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:37 AM

I may be a little late on this, but I was just wondering what's happened to Brad Eldred over the break ... He signed with the Nationals in November. I can't find any news on it, other than the wikipedia article. I'm assuming it was a minor league deal.

He was out for six weeks with another broken thumb while playing for Charlotte (AAA for White Sox) last year, and still had 35 home runs and 100 RBIs. Looks like he tanked real bad in the Venezuelan this winter, though. Feast or famine with that boy!

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:44 AM

Bay

It was a minor league deal

mlb.mlb.com/.../article.jsp

UncleDirtNap wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:44 AM

I'm glad to hear the news about both Doumit and McClouth.  

McClouth had a decent year in 2008 but really an .853 OPS isn't exactly gang-busters now and it came as a result of a really hot start, hitting 13 home runs in the first two months of the season then the same number over the remainder of the season,  that he couldn't keep up for very long.  

I'm not convinced yet McLouth can hit well enough to hold down a corner outfield spot and think the Pirates need to see another full season to see what they really have in McLouth before they go throwing money at him to do so.

irate fan wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:47 AM

@CandelArea - <In light of why we are all here...  Isn't the definition of insanity being a fan of the Pittsburgh Pirates?>

That is why we call ourselves inmates in the asylum. See JAL or BK to get your straightjacket.

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 9:48 AM

@Bay:  <<Was anyone besides me and UglyKen blown away by what he said about being proud, as a Puerto Rican, to put on the same uniform worn by Clemente? I mean in an age where you figure players might cop a complex coming to the Burgh ... >>

I was. Bless his heart and the hearts of all who remember how great baseball once was in this city and WILL BE AGAIN. HAVE HOPE. HAVE PLENTY OF HOPE.

Bucco_Joe wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:08 AM

As much as it may pain me to say this, I don't think it would be a terribly bad idea to trade McLouth to the Yankees (in particular).  Got to strike while the iron is hot, and Nate's iron may cool down by May of 2009.

I know he is a potential building block, but what could he bring from the Yankees in return?  Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy?

SteveG wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:09 AM

Chip wrote: "Plus, neither addressed the basic facts that A) if you're not getting the top prospects back in trades, why trade?"

The problem with is that it ignores that they did trade for top prospects.  On the Bay trade…LaRoche absolutely was a top prospect (rated 2nd best in the Dodgers system in 2008), and Morris was a 21 year old former first round pick with good upside).  

On the Nady Trade…They got Jose Tabata (obviously a top prospect), as well as McCutheon (Dan), another legit top pitching prospect.

To pretend otherwise now in hindsight is to be either misinformed, or disingenuous.

CHIP WROTE: "Had we kept Bay, maybe added a couple 2nd tier vet starters, and traded Nady for the other young arms, our payroll would probably increase by $10-14 while having a competitive team.  Why is that so outrageous?"

It’s not outrageous, but it’s absolutely a recipe for perpetually extending the losing.  This team simply was not that close to competing.  

They were not a couple 2nd tier vet starters away.  It’s wishful thinking to believe that.  It assumes a fairy tale land where every good performance last year is repeated this year, and that every down year is reversed.  

It buys into the nonsense we heard before last season about under performers being the problem in 2007.  

Yeah, under performers were the problem…but in a totally predictable manner, some of the under performers got back in the groove (see Bay, Nady, Maholm), while others had off years (see Sanchez, Gorzo, Snell), while others did what they always do (Ad. LaRoche).  None of this even factors in the reality of injuries (see Jack Wilson).

To pretend that keeping Bay and adding a few middling starters would make us completive is a pipe dream.  It assumes that EVERYTHING goes right for 2009.

And while some of the hoped for things probably will occur (maybe a resurgence for Gorzo and Snell, Maybe Ad. LaRoche hits a full year, maybe An. LaRoche turns it on), reality tells us that it’s almost certainly going to be the case that others won’t.

Someone(s) important will have an injury causing significant missed time.  Some players who had great years will likely have off years.  Some will continue to under perform.  This is the reality of baseball, and of life.  

Building a team based on hoping that everything breaks your way in the coming season is what Littlefield constantly did and is a big factor in why we are where we are.

And while I agree that this has been the worst run franchise in sports, the current management team has been in control less than 2 years, and at least seems to get that you have to acquire large quantities of talent in order to really compete.  Acquiring that talent is proving to be a huge challenge.

CHIP WROTE: "I can understand loving baseball and supporting your team but there's a point it becomes blind loyalty."

This is just plain silly in regard to the two bloggers under discussion.  Until the new management came in, there were few folks more critical of the horrid management practices than were Charlie and Pat.  

Just because they happen to agree with the current managements philosophy in general doesn’t mean they suffer from blind loyalty (and if you’d actually read them on a regular basis, you’d see they are critical of new management when they disagree as well).  It’s just an unfair charge to the two bloggers.

CHIP WROTE: "sn't the definition of insanity repeating the same things over and over and expecting a different result?"

But here’s the rub…this is the first time that management (again, only in control for less than 2 years) has NOT done the same thing.  You are the one here suggesting the same thing that Littlefield did over and over.  

Sign big extensions to the one or two actual talents you have as they are approaching the downside of the career, adding a couple of 2nd tier vets (Burnitz and Randa anyone), and crossing your fingers that everything breaks your way next season.  All while neglecting to acquire talent at the minor league level.

Regardless of the difficulties of the market, these guys are actually doing something different in trying to stock the lower levels with talent through these types of trades and the draft.  

Unfortunately the type of short sightedness you are advocating was the hallmark of Littlefield who left the system nearly devoid of talent, and cleaning up that mess is going to be a challenge and take time.

Finally, DK himself often states, and I want to remind, that evaluating the trades at this point is a fools errand.  It's simply too early.

LarryZ wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:11 AM

Eldred had 35 HRs last season? It amazes me how the Bucs - so power starved it's pathetic - could allow Eldred to go.  I'd almost rather have him at 1B than Adam (wake me up when it's June 1st) Laroche.

Bizrow wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:11 AM

I brought this up yesterday but couldn't get a rise from the inmates.  What if we went after Baldelli as a FA?  Wouldn't that be the kind of a building block we'd be looking for?

Srsly

LarryZ wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:13 AM

Bucco Joe - I agree with McLouth. I'm not totally sold on him yet. There's the whole Sophomore Jinx thing. Give me another 20+ HR year. Though I was disappointed about his base stealing in 2008.  He could/shouldnhave had closer to 40 SB, given his successful ratio in prior years.

Baywatch wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:15 AM

@Bucco_Joe - "As much as it may pain me to say this, I don't think it would be a terribly bad idea to trade McLouth to the Yankees (in particular) ... what could he bring ... Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy?"

You make a good point, BJ. Sometimes a GM's got to roll the dice. But I'm afraid if he rolled it that way now, they'd be NOBODY in the stands at PNC next year ... that may be considered a 2009 punt!

LarryZ wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:18 AM

Rocco Baldelli would be a positive step in the right direction, as long as there could be a relative guarantee that his health would not be a factor. He was/is pretty close to a 5 tool type player.  Why has there been no news on teams going after him? Or has there?

PiratesFanSince1960 wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:25 AM

Mclouth ad Doumit.... 1yr and now we are all the ga-ga.... Don't get me wrong here, I truly have no idea if these guys have turned the corner and are top of the line major league players or not... All I know is: ITS ONLY BEEN ONE YEAR!

Kendell comes to mind, 7yr $63mm contract.... And we all know that history, eventually traded, we were still saddled with $42mm of it which we paid around another $10mm while he was with the padres was one third of our entire team salary, etc, etc... I ADMIT, at the time, I wanted Kendell to stay, thought we could build a team around him, and the guy is simply a stud, even today. What am I saying? Whatever we do, I am sure the Pirates will muck it up. LOL with 16yrs of tears in my eyes, with the fear 2009 looks like tears and vomit..... Go Pirates, and surprise me with smart decisions this off season, arbitration, spring training and during the season... All I ask for is .500 and the beginnings of a team that seems to be maturing...

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:30 AM

I honestly think you have to weigh the one year of Doumit and McLouth differently because of the extreme change in opportunity for them under Russell.

DMac wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:33 AM

Good Morning every one!

And what great news to wake up to...Doumit's deal being nearly done!  I wish Nate's were too, but it's not like he's gone...it will just be a year to year thing for now.  I'm very happy and if that's all that gets done before Christmas, then that's fine by me!

RE:  Andy LaRoche...I don't think we've seen enough of him to say he's a bust.  Those 2 months he was here were pretty much most of his major league time...Can't we give him until at least Spring Training to see what he has to offer?

@Bay...I don't think Freddy's arm can handle 3rd anymore.  At least that's the answer I got when I pondered putting him at SS if Jack went away.

DMac wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:34 AM

And I nearly forgot...thanks DK for clearing up the arbitration thing.  It can get really confusing.  :-)

Kragbax wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:44 AM

Not knowing the figures thrown about between Mclouth and the PBC, it's not unrealistic to think the Pirates are trying to lock him up over the next three years (possibly 4) for close to league minimum. I'd imagine probably 400-750k for each of the next 3-4 years. It may be guaranteed money for Mclouth, but you have to believe he's thinking he'll put up comparible numbers over the next few years and will be worth a lot more then that. And if he does put up comparible numbers, he indeed will be worth a lot more. We'll be saying goodbye to him come his first free agent year.

On the other hand, if 2008 was a fluke, and he plays like Jim Tracey and his scouts had expected for all those years he was overlooked in the system, he really wouldn't be losing much, if anything, by NOT signing a long term deal now.

About the only thing that could ruin things for Mclouth would be if he broke a leg and was forced to miss a lot of playing time. Or maybe if he went blind. Other then that, it's likely the low-ball Pirates offer (just a guess of course) wasn't hard for him to turn down.

Being the first gold glove center fielder (or any fielder for that matter) in a Pirates uniform in quite some time in addition to the numbers he put up offensively are going to naturally drive up his value.

LarryZ wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:47 AM

Pirates Fan Since 1960 - "16 Years of Tears in My Eyes".  Could be the title of the new Bucco fight song. Get Donnie Iris or Joe Grushecky to record it....

Anything's better than that terrible "root, root, root, for our hometeam, everybody shout let's go Bucs...".  makes me wanna take a birdge :)  

Bizrow wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:51 AM

@ LZ - Re Rocco, there is a thread on MLB rumors that says Cinci is now interested due to new diagnosis on him, he's from Rhode Island, and folks were expecting the Bosox to jump all over him, last I read that hasn't happened, but maybe Bosox are waiting for Tex to make his move first.

Wouldn't it be great to get a possible young JBay through FA?

Kragbax wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:54 AM

I agree with DMac about Freddies arm, shoulder trouble or not last year, he had a hard time making the throws to 1B from second. He'd be bowling the ball across the diamond from third!

LaRoache was overmatched at 3B last season, but as has been said, it was really his first "real" time playing at the MLB level. Look at it this way, he CAN'T get any worse defensively! He's likely to get much better as the comfort level increases. Also, his offensive production will likely increase as well.

The b-side is, there really isn't anyone else to play there, yet.  Walker certainly isn't ready, and it will likely take a few years for PA to climb through the system. (He'll likely overtake Walker inside the next 12-18 months)

The c-side is, we've really got nothing to lose by playing him. We've invested (via trade) the best player we had. Until he shows some kind of improvement, we'd have to pay to get rid of him. Might as well let him learn, improve and drive up his value for when PA is ready to joint he MLB club, right?

Kragbax wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:55 AM

Baldelli would be a great addition. Won't happen though.

Ah well.....

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 10:56 AM
PiratesFanSince1960 wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 11:02 AM

$400-$750k per year? Not that I know. I would not expect him to accept such an offer. I would think we would offer more per year.  Michaels signed for $750k with the Astros and is a bench player vs everyday. I do agree that it is in his best interests to see if he can duplicate his numbers next year both for himself and the pirates. I make pretty good coin in my biz. How I would love to say no to $750k per year!!! Or even $375k!! Mostly I just say during my day; YES DEAR and damn those pirates :---) Again, to all; I want to wrong, proven stupid, and eventually laughed at regarding my opinions and armchair pirates insight.

Oh, funny that song title "16ys of Tears in my Eyes"!! Like it!

JHadar wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 11:23 AM

Candel -- << I can understand loving baseball and supporting your team but there's a point it becomes blind loyalty.  >>

Oh, absolutely.  Pirates vs. Yankees, we know that they are a better club than we are day in and day out.  But we root for our guys -- and, hey, we took 'em two out of three.  Blind loyalty is what being a fan of any team in any sport is about over time.  It's sport, and that's one of the few areas in life that we can have that sort of passion.

True, no one enjoys losing -- but changing loyalties is really out of the question for most of us.  Still, blind loyalty to the team does not mean that we can't discern between good play and bad play -- or that we don't want things to change.  

JimmyO wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 11:25 AM

I used to side with the owners in regard to small market, freeagency, etc.

The Pirates love it when the fans think every prospect they get in a trade, will be a solid player in the future, if not a hall of famer.

You built around a Jason Bay, who would have resigned with the Pirates if they wouldn't lowball him in contract negotiotions.

Nate McLouth was never appreciated here untill last season, he was always considered a 4th outfielder at best.

Why should he sign a multi-year contract with the Pirates, usually when a player does here he gets traded anyways.

Every new GM blames the previous management team as the reason for our failures.

Dave Littlefield was the worse GM ever, but the GM before him was blamed for his contract signings as well (Mears, Kendall, Young, Giles etc)

Huntinton 5 years from now will be fired and blamed for trading the core of our team for prospects that won't pan out.

Bizrow wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 11:26 AM

JAL - Thanks for the Rocco links - RATS

No wonder my medicine bills are so high..

Wouldn't it be great, if JUST ONCE, the PBC made a splash?

UncleDirtNap wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 11:28 AM

"It amazes me how the Bucs - so power starved it's pathetic - could allow Eldred to go.  I'd almost rather have him at 1B than Adam (wake me up when it's June 1st) Laroche."

The Pirates let hi go because he's a one trick pony who's trick couldn't and won't ever be able to make the trick work at the major league level.

He's an extremely impatient, free swinger with a long swing full of holes who punishes the ball when he connects with it.  In the minors where he's facing a bunch of second and third tier pitcher he gets lots of pitches to hit and turns them into home runs and nothing else.

The pitchers in the majors a are a bit better and they exploit his lack of discipline unmercifully.  He's so one dimensional he probably isn't even worth a spot on someone's bench.  

That the old Pirate regime couldn't recognize his multitude of shortcomings, were dazzeled by the home run totals and invested as much time in him as they did was evidence on to of same that they had no clue what so ever when it came to evaluating hitters.

Bucco_Joe wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 11:56 AM

Nate McLouth - 3 arbitration years...

I'm guessing he'd want about $18mm+ and we offered about $13mm.

Everyone gets a raise in arbitration, so this year Nate's going to be at about $2mm, next year at $5mm, and his last year of arb about $8MM.  $15mm for three plus add another to buy out his first year of free agency less discount for long term security.  Fair contract would be $21-23.5 million for 4 years.

Just my honest opinion.  

Doumit somewhat less, say 4 year $18-20.5 million

21sthebest wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 12:07 PM

Personally, I wouldn't offer Nate or Doumit a long-term deal until you know that 2008 wasn't a fluke or you don't feel like you're spending too much.  Sometimes people say that could lead to a poor negotiation down the road, but I don't agree.  I believe you don't make decisions until you have to.  Sounds like Nate is rolling the dice and he certainly has that right.  If he has another good year, he'll get a better long-term deal than he would have this year and I'd give it to him then.

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 12:50 PM

I think we have seen enough of both to know they are not flukes.  

McLouth in 2007  hit .258 with 13 HR in 329 AB---2008 was .276 with 26 HR in 597 AB  That's consistent over two seasons for someone who should hit 20 plus HR and bat somewhere between .260 and .280.  The increased BA also show development.

Doumit 2007 was .274 with 9 HR in 252 AB and 2008 was .318   15 HR in 431 AB.  Again consistent with growth.  Had Doumit stayed healthy all season he would been around 20 in HR

Neither were rookies so no soph jinx--last year was just their first as regulars rather than platoon players.  There both first appeared in the majors in 2005 and both are entering what should be their prime years.

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM

Ant marching--Pirates pick new announcer

Buc Fever wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:00 PM

Ok, while I can understand where Charlie and Pat are coming from, they were indeed off base in trying to paint an inaccurate portrait of how Dejan has assessed this whole Bay trade. Dejan has remained neutral throughout the entire thing as it pertains to the actual players received in the trade. His stance has been that the Pirates were at a crossroads and that trading Bay would signify a total rebuild. Once Bay was gone, our chances for doing anything in 2009 went out the door with him.

But I don't think that Ian's question from yesterday was really about the Pirates signing free agents to compete in 2009. His question was about the Pirates taking advantage of a seemingly down market and identifying guys who can help you 2-4 years down the road and going after those guys hard. Furcal was a perfect example of this type of acquisition. He signs for about $10 million/year with the Dodgers. Now, whether or not he would have had any interest in coming here is another question alltogether. My point is just that in this down market, Furcal at $10 million/year is a steal. The way his deal is structured, Furcal will make as much as Jack Wilson this year and next. That is using the market to your advantage. The Dodgers didn't think they would have a shot at resigning Furcal, but the market dictated that they could either trade prospects for JW or sign a much better player for roughly the same amount over the next 2 years. That's a no-brainer!

Rocco Baldelli is another guy that I'd LOVE to see the Pirates take a run at. If the market is indeed down, which it *seems* to be, he might be a great bargain with a huge upside.

I just don't see why this teams outlook for 2009 should automatically shape their activeness in free agency this year. Identify a solid contributor and sign him to a long term deal for 3-4 years. We will expect to contend within that time frame, so why not take advantage of a buyers market in FA?

Bizrow wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:24 PM

Amen, Buc Fever and thats the kind of move (Rocco) that would turn us all into POHs (sans dance)

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:34 PM

Buc and Biz

I agree, Rocco would be a good addition.  If he is healthy he has all the tools to be a very good player.  But if the Red Sox are really interested, ain't gonna happen.  Not many can compete with the Sox and Yanks when they set their sights on someone.

As for Dejan--his job is stay neutral--he is a reporter, not a commentator or analyst.  It is Cook, Collier, and was Smizik who have the jobs of voicing opinion.

Demery44 wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:43 PM

I think Andy LaRoche went to visit Don Long for a few days. Maybe Long got a look at raggedy Andy and told Huntington to start looking for a third baseman. Thus Ty Wiggington.

Bizrow wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 1:52 PM

JAL - am sure you are right regarding Rocco and RSox, I would just be happy to hear a rumor PBC is talking to him, that to me, would show there is a plan, this is the time to buy, what with the market and all.

Much better than hearing about that Boot fellow (no offense intended)

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 2:06 PM

Biz

It would be better hearing but that could also just be PR.  For all we know they may asked his his agent about the possibility and been told told no chance.  If they drop a players name just to say "we tried", that's PR.  There was no reason for the Pirates to even ask about CC because it was clear from the start they had no chance.  The Brewers had to make an offer because they traded some prospects to get him but most teams didn't stick a toe into the water.

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 2:08 PM

Looks like the Cameron-Cabrera deal is dead

sports.espn.go.com/.../story

Bizrow wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 2:17 PM

JAL - when you live in the asylum, you are even happy with smoke and mirrors  : }

Bizrow wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 2:18 PM

Plus smoke and mirrors are cheaper than the meds or a new straight jacked every so often

JAL wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 2:34 PM

Biz

smoke and mirrors are cheaper and safer :)

Bizrow wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 3:26 PM

Anything to ease the pain, my friend

DMac wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 4:28 PM

Well Hell's Bells...I don't know which thread to put this in, so I'll most likely double post...

I may have to permanently disown Duffy now...he's in a division rival's system...Milwaukee of all places, though I should be glad it's not Chicago or New York.

sports.espn.go.com/.../story

DMac wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 4:34 PM

Okay...I thought about it.  Permanently is a little hasty.  I want to see him play, so I'm glad he's going to get a shot at that.

I just wish it was someone outside our division.  

JHadar wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 4:39 PM

There's a Duffy thread on top now...

radio wave wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 8:41 PM

I want to re-visit the Jw issue for a moment. Last evening, I called on the air to XM radio mlb channel. I asked the hosts Dave Sims (Mariners announcer), and Kevin Kennedy (Fox baseball) about JW. They said he was overpriced, and not as good a player as Cesar Izturis.  Did the Pirates make a mistake at the 2007 trading deadline? I don't think so.

Columbus_fan wrote re: Morning links: Understanding arbitration
on Thu, Dec 18 2008 11:15 PM

I think the pirates made as good as trades as possible when they traded Bay & Nady. I think they had to make the trades and get the best players they could in return. The Pirates had to decide if they thought they could turn the team into a contender in 2009. If they could not (which they couldn't) then they had to make the trades. The Pirates were going to lose both players after the 2009 season regardless. They had to make the trades to get something in return.