PBC Blog

Authors

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

Register to comment
Guide to commenting

Syndication

Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?

By Dejan Kovacevic | 8 a.m. Thursday

Click here to submit a question.

We have Qs ...

__________

Q: Hi, DK, just a simple question: Why would anyone pay to see this team? 

Can't be to see the "fan favorites."  I just can't contribute even $1 to line the pockets of the Nuttings. They don't deserve it.

Through all the losing, I'd always been able to share the suffering with my Dad.  He passed away in July, and I just can't take it anymore. I can't shake my loyalty, but I won't donate my money.

Dave Meglen of Yardley

KOVACEVIC: Lots and lots of these continue to come in, though they certainly declined with the sweep over the Brewers.

To answer the question you have there, Dave, the people who would continue to pay to watch the games probably fall into three categories:

1. They genuinely believe in the approach management is taking and like the idea of being on the ground floor of something they see as promising.

2. They will come unconditionally and support what they see and like, much like the very highly enthusiastic ovation Paul Maholm got coming off the mound last night.

3. They simply enjoy a day or night at the ballpark, which clearly has proven itself to be an attraction unto itself.

Let me also throw this at you, though: Bob Nutting is very much aware of potential customers like yourself who are turned off and unwilling to go to PNC Park, on principle. And I am reminded of his answer to a question I asked him back in January about winning vs. profiting, when he stressed his view that there is no reason the two cannot go hand in hand and, in fact, that more winning = more attendance = more profit. Thus, though he did not say this, he would be a much more popular owner.

__________

Q: Dejan, with all of the dumping of players over the past two seasons, would it be safe to say that the Pirates are not a Major League Baseball team but a developmental team for the rest of the majors?

David Staaby of Womelsdorf, Pa.

KOVACEVIC: Until the Pirates prove otherwise, that absolutely is safe to say, based on rock-hard precedent. The management team is adamant that, at some point, the moving of players for prospects or money will stop. That remains to be proven.

__________

Q: With the pop in his bat, do you think Ronny Cedeno is a long-term fit at short? 

Also, how much of our pitchers' performance against the Brewers was a result of Dave Kerwin's coaching?

Eric Cathcart of Scott Township

KOVACEVIC: I asked Cedeno late last night how he hit a ball that hard off someone as skilled as Yovani Gallardo, even though I was aware Gallardo had hung a slider.

His response: "You know what they say: He hangs it, you bang it."

Delivered just like that in a second language.

The Pirates have told Cedeno they want to see defense from him as the real test for whether or not he can be the everyday answer at the position, and he very much has gotten that message. The bat is a bonus, and it obviously has been a pleasant bonus to this point, but Cedeno has had trouble hitting breaking pitches all through his career, and that has to be addressed for this power spurt to be meaningful.

On an intangible level, though, Cedeno is interesting. Boundless energy, but usually pretty serious.

Oh, and Mr. Kerwin should get as much credit for his pitchers' successes -- they were all terrific vs. Milwaukee -- as blame for their failures.

__________

Q: Dejan, it seems to me that, through this embarrassing stretch of late, the only constant positive has been Andrew McCutchen. His comments after the drubbing in Chicago sound like the stuff of clubhouse leadership. Is he as mature a 22-year-old as he seems or is it just "baseball speak" coming from the kid?

I hope it is for real, because it sure is hard find a silver lining right now.

Bill Holt of Wheeling, W.Va.

KOVACEVIC: I could not envision McCutchen fitting, say, into the Doug Mientkiewicz mold, but your sense for that quote is very much on the money, Bill. McCutchen has shown quite a bit, on and off the field, that has really stood out with these post-trade Pirates, and that bodes very well for the future.

He is a bright young man, extremely composed, unafraid to speak his mind and, above all, just oozing confidence. The latter trait alone is the type of intangible that can rub off on a team.

__________

Q: Do you get the impression that Kevin Hart is not all that enthused about being a Pirate?

This may sound odd, especially coming from a guy who watches games on TV rather than in person, but his body language just seems to say that he isn't all that happy in Pittsburgh. Also, the fact that he stiffed the media after his first start sure didn't help leave a good first impression.

Matt Slaba of Wagner, S.D.

KOVACEVIC: I really have little feel for Hart or a lot of the newer guys, Matt, other than, really, Charlie Morton. That stuff takes time. First impressions that I had about Ross Ohlendorf, Jeff Karstens, Andy LaRoche, Craig Hansen and others last summer turned out to be not all that close to how I view them now. That comes with time.

That said, lumping Hart's media matter into this, I think, is off base. He has explained since then that he had a misunderstanding and that he did not know when and where he was supposed to be. In other events as related to the media, he has been as cooperative as anyone.

Whether or not Hart likes the city or the team, only he can say. In my only conversation with him on that precise topic, he came across as genuinely enthusiastic about the opportunity to pitch in a major league rotation regularly, something he was not getting in Chicago.

__________

Q: Garrett Jones is batting .384 with nobody on base and .097 with RISP. His 13 home runs have generated only 15 runs. Is this a statistical anomaly or do some players just normally not hit in those situations?

Are the Pirates aware of these amazing stats?

Richard Nathanson of Bel Air, Md.

KOVACEVIC: The Pirates are aware, and you should know that the Legend is aware and painfully so. Even when he homers, he still talks about this or that at-bat in which he might have left a runner in scoring position.

There are some who dispute the very existence of clutch, mostly the game's more statistically inclined followers. I happen to be a believer in clutch, to the extent that players can lack clutch as opposed to having it. (Maybe this will help explain that sentence.) But there also is a lot of evidence to support the idea that disparities such as Jones' tend to close sooner rather than later.

For the better part of July and this month, the Pirates have not been a good on-base team, to be kind. That has much more to do with all of this, I suspect, than Jones.

Let me add this: There seems to be a perception that Jones somehow has gone cold in August, and this is wholly inaccurate. He had a .310 batting average in July, .290 in August. He had a .361 on-base percentage in July, .362 in August. He had an outrageous 10 home runs in July, three in August, which is still one per week.

__________

Q: Hi, Dejan, while Jose Tabata has hit for a nice average at Indy, his hits have almost exclusively been singles. He has only three for extra bases. His numbers at Altoona were only slightly better with 15 doubles, one triple and two home runs in 228 at-bats. Is his lack of power becoming a concern or do the Pirates feel that will come with age?

He is certainly very young for this level, having just turned 21 last week.

Sean Epstein of Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh

KOVACEVIC: I would say there is legitimate cause for concern, Sean, but not because of age.

Tabata has been bothered all summer by a left wrist issue, one that obviously is not serious enough to shut him down right now but nonetheless has had a clear impact on his power, if not his contact. Wrists are to hitters as elbows are to pitchers, so the Pirates must be worried about that to an extent.

Many are talking now about Ryan Doumit's lack of power since returning from that fractured wrist. Even though the wrist is fully healed, it takes a while for that focused strength and flexibility to return.

As for Tabata's age, though no one is likely to make a case of it, there are more than a few skeptical that he is 20, so he might not be as advanced as it looks. Here is a video Pete Diana and I did back in spring training, where you can see and hear him for yourself.

Oh, and Tabata did homer last night. He has two with Indianapolis now.

__________

Q: Hello, Dejan! I haven't gotten to send a question in a long time, respectfully reading the Pirates Q&A in between my trips to the Mellon Arena during these last two playoff springs. I still like the Pirates and want them to do well, though, so I want to put in an observation from reading the responses in a recent Q&A.

I remember another time when your Q&A was a solace for a dedicated/infuriated readership that couldn't believe the depths to which their team (and their spending) had sunk. Now, that was a different time and a different sport, but I recall that team also beginning a new rebuilding phase more painful than ever before. It had traded some of its best and favorite players in Jaromir Jagr, Alexei Kovalev and Martin Straka, among others. The trades were followed by some abysmal losing, including an 18-game losing streak. The top prospects people really wanted to see were still in the juniors or minors, and the big-league team had never looked worse. And the fans wrote the Q&A and asked whether their team would ever regain competence.

That scenario ended all right.

It's not all the same. The NHL's salary cap and saner drafting policies far better allow reinvigoration of losing franchises. So, maybe that tempers the Pirates results by half. It's also possible that their effort fails completely. But I will state that, from a believer in the darkest-before-the-dawn school-of-thought here, it looks like the first real shot at rebuilding success in the past 17 years.

Mathew Calland of Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh

KOVACEVIC: As you seem to note there yourself, Mathew, such comparisons rarely click on many cylinders.

I covered much of that 18-game losing streak in February 2004, including the game in which those miserable Penguins broke it in Phoenix. Some of those players came in the trades you cite -- Rico Fata for Kovalev, if memory serves -- but most of it was guys who simply did not belong in the NHL. Unless I am mistaken, Brooks Orpik and Marc-Andre Fleury were the only players on that team who hung around to lift the Cup, right? Most of the trades you cite, notably the Jagr one, brought the Penguins little of worth. They were salary dumps, and the Penguins, to their credit, acknowledged as much at the time.

Also, anyone who recalls the standing ovation that team got going off the ice after the final home game that year will know that there never was the cynicism with the ownership and management of the Penguins that exists with these Pirates. The baseball team has much, much work ahead to repair the damage done by this year and, really, the previous 16.

Stretching your comparison out, just for fun, how many of the Pirates' current 25-man players would be on a championship team in the same time span, five years from now?

__________

Q: Dejan, love your work and, as an out-of-town Buccos fan, it is a pleasure every day to log on and read what you have to say.

Whatever happened to the "Things I Miss About Pittsburgh" and the compilation of all those in the past that you promised to provide a year or so ago?

Jerry Davis of Longwood, Fla.

KOVACEVIC: I appreciate all that, Jerry, and you are not the only to ask about the Pittsburgh feature, both about the compilation and about the apparent discontinuation.

On the latter, I had to greatly limit my time at the laptop this past spring for medical reasons, so that was one of the many items I crossed off my list. Once I stopped, I found it kind of hard to restart. I would like to again next year, but perhaps with a different twist. I am open to ideas.

The compilation is supposed to have been done for a while, and there was some discussion a good while back as to whether it would get published (honestly) or simply posted online. I cannot imagine that it would be anything other than online, but I will check.

PHOTO of Tabata: Peter Diana/Post-Gazette


Posted Aug 20 2009, 08:00 AM by Dejan Kovacevic

Comments

Demery44 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 8:15 AM

   FIRSTIES!

CA Pirate wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 9:40 AM

To Dejan's question about how many current Pirates would be on a championship team 5 years from now.

Andrew McCutchen - certain, if healthy

Garrett Jones - probably not

Lastings Milledge - possible

Andy LaRoche - probably not, unless Alvarez switches to 1st

Charlie Morton - maybe

Ross Ohlendorf - maybe

Zach Duke or Paul Maholm - unlikely, but possible 1 would stay

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 9:43 AM

I'd say I fall into categories 2 and 3 with a little bit of category one.  I like most of what management is doing but not everything.

But mostly, I just love going to the ballpark.  I felt the same way about going to TRS so I don't care where they play.  I go to support my team in my city.  I just love sitting there with my wife and son who also love the game.  I played baseball through high school.  My parents and grandparents were season ticket holders for years at Forbes Field.  I grew up 3 miles from Forbes Field.  I just love the game.  I read the boxscores and standings almost every day and have since I was probably 10.

Frankly, I don't understand why some question why others go to games.  Has management been a problem?  Sure.  But for me, I don't dwell on that aspect. I wouldn't think of criticizing why some don't go.  We're all different.

Woomer wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 9:53 AM

I have to disagree with point 3 in the answer to question 1.  If you're only goal is an enjoyable night at the ballpark, then why would you spend $28 a person to sit behind home plate and watch it?  If that's your goal, go to a minor-league game.  You get the same experience for much less.  I was at a Curve game last week, and the ball played is pretty darned good.  Plus the tickets were 2 for 1 that night -- meaning that we sat behind home plate (35 rows up, but still) for $3 per person.  Plus the hot dogs were 2 for 1.  And there was a full fireworks show at the end of the game.  And I think Pedro was 3 for 4 with a couple doubles.

And please don't tell me you have to drive farther to get to minor league parks.  Considering how many there are (I'm just using the Curve as one example), and how much traffic there is getting to PNC on a week night, at worst it's a push.

NC Dave wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 10:00 AM

The answer to Dejan's question depends on how many current Pirates are traded to championship caliber teams.

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 10:04 AM

scrutiny ponders what is the projected development of the 25 and is that projected developement to be included in the guess?

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 10:17 AM

Woomer

I have to disagree with point 3 in the answer to question 1.  If you're only goal is an enjoyable night at the ballpark, then why would you spend $28 a person to sit behind home plate and watch it?  If that's your goal, go to a minor-league game.

___________________________________

Couple things, I have enjoyable nights watching JR. Legion baseball and ST, but IMO nothing tops watching the Bucs at PNC. 28 for a ticket, never happens for me, you can get a ticket for 15 and get a good seat, as for traffic, that can be a big problem if you don't know your way around, I will admit that, but over the years I have learned how to get around.

38thousand one night and I was gone from the stadium and going down RT.65 in less than a 1/2 hr.

As far as minor league games, they are great to see, your right on about that.

Just my opinion.

cmh_steeler_fan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 10:19 AM

I just read Richard Justice's piece in the Houston paper that DK linked to in the morning links. Two comments really stuck out for me.

"The Rockets aren't going to win a championship this coming season, but they will be young, fast and interesting. Their young players will grow together and hopefully get better"

"One thing he shouldn't do is stay the course, because the course isn't working. He might be surprised by how fans will buy in if he's willing to step to a microphone and say what almost everyone already knows to be true"

Richard Justice thinks alot of fans will buy into a rebuilding plan if the FO just publically says they are rebuilding now for the future? That makes me laugh. Richard does not realize how many fans will instead take the conspiracy route and claim that the owner is just trying to line his pockets with more profit.

And, according to Richard Justice fans should be happy with the Rockets because this year they will not compete but they are young and interesting, and that the team will hopefully get better.

I think that Richard is naive with regards to many fans. That said, most of what Richard proposes as a fan's point of view for his team is the point of view that I have already decided to subscribe to for this Pirates team.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 10:23 AM

Just as all the Pirates who were recently traded have a chance to be on a championship team, so do almost all the Pirates on this squad.

As for those who may still be starters on the Pirates in 5 years, I'm going to say:

McCutchen, Jones, Ohlendorf, Morton and Hart

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 10:28 AM

Q: Dejan, with all of the dumping of players over the past two seasons, would it be safe to say that the Pirates are not a Major League Baseball team but a developmental team for the rest of the majors?

_______________________

KOVACEVIC: Until the Pirates prove otherwise, that absolutely is safe to say, based on rock-hard precedent. The management team is adamant that, at some point, the moving of players for prospects or money will stop. That remains to be proven.

---------------------------------------------------

Dejan and I will have to disagree on this one, the Pirates are no where near a developmental team and they are a major league team. True they have young players, but like all young major league teams, players are fighting for jobs and all young players you hope would continue to develop.

The reality of the situation is that there are only about 3 players that are legitimately fighting for jobs that might not make this team next year, I am not including the bench players.

That would be Moss, Jones and Pierce.

Pretty hard to be called a developmental team when every position except 1st and RF are taken for next year.

I am not saying nobody will be traded and moves will not be made over the winter, the Buc management is always working on this team.

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 10:38 AM

Leadoff I am with you on this one.  They are team in developemnet but so what.  The two are not the same.

Each player may have had an underdeveloped day here and there, so what again. But, when you see they can compete on those days not under develiopement stress, they are major leaguers and deserve to be called so.

FormerSoxFan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 10:54 AM

Charlie at Bucs Dugout referred to the current Pirates as a "garden variety bad team," and I think that's pretty accurate.  They weren't as bad as that last road trip would indicate.  They're obviously also not as good as the sweep of the Brewers would indicate.  But there are useful ML ballplayers on the club, particularly in the rotation.

CMH, re: your Rockets analogy, there are a couple of differences.  With the NBA's cap, it's not really a payroll issue, as much as their need to get younger and reload a bit.  And as for the fans' reaction, they figure to be more understanding, as the reason the Rockets are punting on this year has more to do with the injury to Yao more than anything.  Also, there is more of a history of good personnel moves, with the drafting of Carl Landry, Aaron Brooks, etc.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:01 AM

The Pirates certainly ARE a development team in the sense that they are putting an extreme focus on developing players with raw talent. And yes, those players might go on to also use those skills with other clubs after their Pirate stint is done.

I don't think this means they aren't an MLB team though. They are just using a competitive advantage that they have over high revenue clubs.

If they can be very good at developing players that others don't want, that's just as good as having more money to spend.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:05 AM

PGServer/JJ

The Pirates certainly ARE a development team in the sense that they are putting an extreme focus on developing players with raw talent. And yes, those players might go on to also use those skills with other clubs after their Pirate stint is done.

________________________________

I think developmental is taking a kid out of college or high school and sending them to our developmental facility in Bradenton. You would not do that with any of these players.

I think of players like DY and Jones and some of the pitchers as being coached, some get it some don't. But they are already developed when they are 25-29 yrs. old.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:26 AM

@leadoff -

You're right. I'm not suggesting these players don't have MLB skills right now. They are on another level from the Bradenton crowd, of course.

Having this many new and wanabee MLB starters on the club is a temporary situation due to the disaster that was inherited by the FO.

Nevertheless, if the Pirates show they can develop players to a superior degree than other clubs, that is competitive advantage that they can and should use for as long as possible.

I'd point to the Texas Rangers having a wonderful track record of developing hitters, due to their batting instructor Rudy Jaramillo.

So far, the Pirates have shown they might have that same advantage with their infield fielding coach and pitching coach.

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:31 AM

leadoff and JJ--I think you are misinterpreting the questioner's question and DK's response about whether they are considered a "developmental team."  The idea of the question and the response was that they are a developmental team for the rest of MLB.  I think the idea is supported by the fact the bucs have developed and then traded to other teams players over the last 17 years rather than keeping them and paying them.  And no, I don't want to get into a debate about whether they should have, etc.  The fact is that is what they have done, and I think DK's point was until they keep some players and prove (not just say) they want to win then it is fair to say they are a developmental team for the rest of the teams.  To talk about what they are doing with the players on the field right now is kind of irrelevant to that question until they prove it by keeping some of them.  And no, Doumit and Maholm aren't proof that it is wrong since we've already seen how that can change in an instant with Nate.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:31 AM

PG

Nevertheless, if the Pirates show they can develop players to a superior degree than other clubs, that is competitive advantage that they can and should use for as long as possible.

I'd point to the Texas Rangers having a wonderful track record of developing hitters, due to their batting instructor Rudy Jaramillo.

So far, the Pirates have shown they might have that same advantage with their infield fielding coach and pitching coach.

_______________________________

I agree, the Bucs are banking on a system that can develop talent and weed out the ones that don't have enough talent.

When you hear a Milledge talking about the difference in the Pirate system than the other two teams he was with, kind of gives us an idea of what the Bucs are up to.

The info on a lot of the things the Pirates do does not appear to be public, just kind of leaks out from time to time.

It is an area that would be interesting to me if I got a chance to find out more about what they do with players.

I am reasonably sure the Pirates want the players in the minors to know the Pirate major league system so that when they come up they fit right in.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:33 AM

Rudy Jaramillo.

=========================

Any relation to Jason?

And do you know if Colton Cain has any relation to SF Giants Matt Cain?

CA Pirate wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:38 AM

If the Pirates are not a MLB caliber team, then which players should still be in the minors?

Looking at the current 25 man roster I would say:

Denny Bautista

Chris Bootcheck

Steven Jackson - maybe

Brian Bixler - probably

Luis Cruz

Steve Pearce - trying to determine his level

The other 19 players clearly belong on a major league roster somewhere. The Pirates problem is that they have quite a few players that are A) mlb players, but not strong ones; B) just getting established; or C) both.

DMac wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:38 AM

Why go?  I love the game, I love going to PNC...it's 10 minutes from my front door to the parking lot, so still cheaper than going to Altoona for me.  

I'd be lying if I didn't say I had some disillusionment from the recent trades, but I go to cheer for the team that goes out on the field.  Those guys go out there and play hard, and I appreciate it.  

I guess I just can't NOT go...heck, if I could afford it, I'd go to every game.  I lived for 10 years where people look at you like you're from another planet if you like anything but Husker football....needless to say, I thoroughly enjoy living in a city with a big league team again.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:39 AM

Arriba

IMO, I think Dejan was trying to say that because they are a development team that they are not a major league team.

_________________________________________

Dejan, with all of the dumping of players over the past two seasons, would it be safe to say that the Pirates are not a Major League Baseball team but a developmental team for the rest of the majors?

KOVACEVIC: Until the Pirates prove otherwise, that absolutely is safe to say, based on rock-hard precedent. The management team is adamant that, at some point, the moving of players for prospects or money will stop. That remains to be proven.

________________________________

I think what has happened the last 2 years is being lumped into what has happened the last 17.

The Pirates did not develop any talent that anyone wanted.

The Players the Bucs traded away were mostly not home grown. Nate and Bautista were, the rest were not.

The team that is on the field now is a new team, new does not mean developmental to me, nor does it mean they are not a major league team. I will say that there was a stretch where they did not resemble a major league team and there might be a couple more coming up.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:46 AM

CA Pirate

If the Pirates are not a MLB caliber team, then which players should still be in the minors?

Looking at the current 25 man roster I would say:

Denny Bautista

Chris Bootcheck

Steven Jackson - maybe

Brian Bixler - probably

Luis Cruz

Steve Pearce - trying to determine his level

The other 19 players clearly belong on a major league roster somewhere.

______________________________

I agree with some of the names you have up there.

You bring up a good point though.

Does every team have more than 19 players on the team that are major league caliber?

And if we are not a major league caliber team, how many besides us are not?

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:48 AM

DMac

I guess I just can't NOT go...heck, if I could afford it, I'd go to every game.  I lived for 10 years where people look at you like you're from another planet if you like anything but Husker football....needless to say, I thoroughly enjoy living in a city with a big league team again.

________________________________

I could be wrong about this, but I think you are trying to say that some of us are lucky to have the choices we have and lucky to have a major league team in our town.

If that is what you are saying I will second that.

DMac wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:55 AM

Leadoff...Yep...Pretty much that's what I was trying to say.  Thank you.  :-)

mlaser wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 12:07 PM

I go to the ball game because I think baseball is the greatest sport in the world.  The Pirates tickets are cheaper than most (if not all) of the tickets in other MLB cities.  There is just something about attending a MLB game that I love.

I live in Erie and also attend many AA games, and while they are fun, inexpensive, and for the most part well-played games,,, its not the same as the majors.

Wabbit_Season wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 12:09 PM

About the time one gives up...

Well, well, well.

I have to think that if the Pirates can beat the Brewers consistently, then they have to turn their attention to the Cubs and the Cardinals.  Simply put, winning within our division is the hallmark that, to me, signals real progress.

I loved Jack and Freddy and hated to see them go, but it certainly looks like the scouting department knew something about Delwyn Young and this Cedeno kid.

Delwyn is producing in the two hole and is looking more and more comfortable at 2nd base.  A real credit to the player and the coaching staff to take a spare part from the Dodgers for less than chump change and turn him into gold.  Kid can hit, man.

Cedeno has shown to be a capable, above average, replacement for Jack.  His fielding style isn't as ... idunno ... hectic as Jack's.  Cedeno appears more under control.  Not as flashy as Jack.  But more calming in the infield mix.  And to his bat - I don't know if the talent evaluators just got lucky or what, but this kid seems to run into one once in a while.  From what I'm seeing on the teevee, Cedeno has pretty good bat speed - seems to get the bat through the zone in a pretty direct path with quickness and - surprisingly enough power is generated to hit home runs to LEFT field at PNC.  Very interesting pickup.

Garret Jones is for real.  Loved that bunt single against the shift the other night.  Delicious.  Loved the laser into the right field seats too... you know, the one that was hit on a line so hard that there was no arc in the flight path.  Just a dart, just over the wall and ka-POW into the seats.  Yummy.

I leave you today with this:

@DMAC - I know you've heard this before, but your PBP is tops.  Someone should hire you.  I very much enjoy your descriptions when I can't get to the tube for the game.  Thank you for that generosity you give to the community here.

"DUCK DODGERS IN-THE-24TH-AND-A-HALFTH-CENTURY!!!!"

D.Duck... in deep space...

Wabbit

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 12:12 PM

Wabbit

I have to think that if the Pirates can beat the Brewers consistently, then they have to turn their attention to the Cubs and the Cardinals.  Simply put, winning within our division is the hallmark that, to me, signals real progress.

______________________________

I totally agree, that should be a primary goal.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 12:20 PM

Hey not to get ahead of ourselves, but it is a REAL possibility that we could roll this into 6 games.  Cincinnati is pretty terrible and now Cueto is on the DL (uh oh, Volquez and Cueto??!?!?).

But, I don't wanna get ahead....

Because then our Bucs will go out and get swept.

LETS GO BUCS!!! THIS WEEKEND AGAINST THE REDS!!!

PiratesFanSince1960 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 12:31 PM

I love to go to the ballpark. If team is losing, not as many fans, room to roam. If winning, place can shake from the vibrations of stomping feet! I fall into that catagory of paying to go to the ballpark. I will say the food at AT&T park in San Franciso is HORRIBLE. I am more than shocked. Cheap, cold, bland. Its freaking San Francisco!  How is it at PNC? Walking the asile Vendor food at AT&T is better than going to the outlets in between innings.

Pirates Team. When they win, its an exciting, young, fun to watch team, lots of potential. Maybe I am wrong about management and team molding skills.... Oh and the day or night they win is much more enjoyable...

Pirates Team. When they lose, and am really suggesting the games we lose and score zero to two runs. There are lot of those! Team sucks, no leaders, told you the Nuthouse Gang was just a group of circus circus clowns dressed in Talent evaluation suits and ties.

Bottomline, who knows, my way is not gonna be done. team was imploded. I am now trying to have fun with what we got, get on the train that says, Nuthouse gang, make sure you continue to tweek the team this summer, make sure we have top of the line off season programs for these young buccos, and top of the line dugout manager and coaching for this team in 2010. If they do and we do. 2010 has potential.

cheers

David

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 12:47 PM

Daquido -

Anxiously awaiting your next addition of the "Blundering idots known as the best management team in baseball".

3 in a row...... I'm calling for my playoff tix!

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:11 PM

DK,

I'm not sure what this was supposed to mean???

"Bob Nutting is very much aware of potential customers like yourself who are turned off and unwilling to go to PNC Park, on principle. And I am reminded of his answer to a question I asked him back in January about winning vs. profiting, when he stressed his view that there is no reason the two cannot go hand in hand and, in fact, that more winning = more attendance = more profit. Thus, though he did not say this, he would be a much more popular owner."

FormerSoxFan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:12 PM

NuHo,

I think DK was making an assumption which is pretty basic, that if the team wins, Nutting will become more popular.

JuniataKid wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:19 PM

I think I fall in to each of the three possibilities actually. I believe in what the front office is doing, I'll go no matter what (like rooting for Steve Kemp), and I love the ballpark. I guess I basically root for the uniform.

Still, if Nutting Hostage turns out to have been right all along (we'll know around 2012), then I'm pretty much done until they actually start winning again.

Aw, who am I kidding. I'll still be there. Idiot.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:23 PM

FormerSox and NutHo -

and richer.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:28 PM

DK,

I think there are two additional categories of people who attend, and/or continue to attend games beyond the 3 you mentioned:

4. Family entertainment seekers - I think there are lots of Mom's and Dad's who are not necessarily baseball or Pirate fans who take their kids to 1, 2, 3 games a year out of a sense of parental obligation. - The same as they would take the kids to Kennywood. - They just think it is the right thing to do for their kids, and I think it probably is. Regardless of how the club performs year in and year out, these people will keep bringing their kids a few times a year. - Maybe without even knowing if the Pirates are good or bad in that given season.

5. Business Entertainment - Most of the luxury boxes and many of the regular season tickets are purchased by corporate customers. They buy the plans as an entertainment expense and bring employees and customers in an effort to maintain and build relationships. Same as above, I see this category continuing to attend, regardless of how the club performs.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:32 PM

DK,

"The baseball team has much, much work ahead to repair the damage done by this year and, really, the previous 16."

I think this response is interesting in that after 16 miserable losing seasons, the club continues to do "damage" year in and year out.

I don't necessarily think we even have an end in sight either....I can easily see any combination of Duke, Maholm, Doumit, and Capps traded between now and next July 31st, and I can easily see .400ish baseball being played between now and then as wel.

End of the day, I just wonder when the ball club will simply cease inflicting "damage" each season.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:35 PM

Freddy Sanchez has now missed 7 of the 20 games since the trade to San Fran. Another 7 or 8 and he will miss his 600 PAs.

Jack Wilson has missed 6 of 19 games so far for the Mariners.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:37 PM

PgServer

Freddy Sanchez has now missed 7 of the 20 games since the trade to San Fran. Another 7 or 8 and he will miss his 600 PAs.

Jack Wilson has missed 6 of 19 games so far for the Mariners.

________________________________

I feel sorry for both Freddie and Jack, but they both had to go, the system has to be built and they were part of the indirect building blocks.

moneytalks wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:38 PM

@all...

Ironically, when talking about GOING to the games... the Pirates in these dismal yearly stretches, actually manage to do well at home.  

So, if you are talking about going to the game, and possibly seeing a win... the odds are favorable you will see a "decent" product on the field.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:51 PM

moneytalks

So, if you are talking about going to the game, and possibly seeing a win... the odds are favorable you will see a "decent" product on the field.

__________________________

So true, baseball is a great game, the Pirates play some terrific games, some not so terrific, but isn't that the way it is with all major league teams.

The Pirates gave up 17 runs in one game this year.

The Yankees gave up 22 runs in one game this year.

You never know what you are going to get when you go to the ballpark.

I think one of the problems with the Bucs right now is they do not have that superstar draw that many of the richer clubs has.

Bring up Pedro and lets see what happens to attendance.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:56 PM

NutHo -

+ Maholm is under contract and reasonably priced in 2010 and 2011.

+ Doumit is under contract and reasonably priced in 2010 and 2011. 2012 or 2013 he will probably be traded to make room for Tony Sanchez.

+ Capps has 3 more years of club control.

+ Duke is scheduled to be a free agent in 2012. He is the only one who could possibly be traded next year in the case the Pirates' FO can't or chooses not to extend him out past 2011.

+ If any of the others are traded, it will not be for financial or pending free agency reasons. It will be because the FO feels they have better talent coming back than they are giving up.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 1:59 PM

PG Server,

I have some wonderful beach front property in New Jersey I would like to sell you dirt cheap.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:08 PM

NutHo -

If these players are fairly cheap and performing well, why do think the FO would trade them if they didn't get something they liked better in return?

Do you still think that the McLouth and Morgan trades were salary dumps? Even when you yourself have been supportive of the Morgan trade...how is the McLouth trade any different?

Those are the only examples that I can think of where Huntington traded players who were inexpensive and productive players.

All the others were players approaching free agency.

moneytalks wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:20 PM

@PG Server Hostage (formerly MarkInDallas)  

<<All the others were players approaching free agency.>>

And, like Nady... luckily at the top of their value (I know, the Bay one has not worked out quite as well).

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:30 PM

sORRY Moneytalks -

can't agree with you.....There hasn't been a meaningful game there in  17 years..... Therefore (in my opinion) there ere hasn't been descent ball played at Pnc Park or 3 Rivers for 17 years.

I see all of the reason stated for paying to see this team, and quite frankly non of them make sense to me.  I liken it to continuing to go to a pizza shop even though you know they use old moldy, old cheese.  Would most people continue to frequesnt this pizza joint? No.  they may love pizza, but you would not pay "good" money for this subpar product.  You would spend your money elsewhere.

moneytalks wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:39 PM

@BFD

I agree with you .. there has not been a *meaningful* game in years (well, I was at one when we had a chance to go over .500 in July - but blew it in the 9th - but that is another story)

Your pizza analogy is incorrect.  When going to PNC - we talk about see the product on the field.  In the last several years, it is 50/50 that they will win.   But, even some losses can be entertaining.

I can use the example of going to the movies.  Some go see a movie no matter who the writer/director/etc is... and sometimes they see a good one, sometimes they don't.  When the see a bad one, do they stop going to see all movies - even by the same writer/director who has produced bad ones.

And finally ... so what why people like to go.  Some people like to go to clubs and drop dollar bills.. to me that is wasting money.  But, if they want to go... it's their dollar.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:46 PM

@PG Server Hostage (formerly MarkInDallas),

Are you going to eventually change your nickname to be just a symbol?  That would be good because your name now is a bit too much too type.  I was considering:

PGSHfMithebigD

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:47 PM

I am by no means trying to tell anyone how to spend their entertainment money..... I just woln't put in Nuttings pocket.

I am by no means a "fair weather fan" either.  I stuck by them for the 1st 9 years...... stuck by the Pens during their down time (although that was only 4 years) and never complained about Rooney "not spending" when we were coming close, but not getting the one for the thumb.

I just very strongly feel this owner (not to begin this again), cares very little about the city, fans, or the team.  I don't even accept free tix, because I don't want to show Nutting support.  I support the "team and city", but not Nutbag.

Didn't mean to get on a rant.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:49 PM

I don't know if that pizza analogy is all that far off base.

Chris Gomez was pretty moldy.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:50 PM

The pizza analogy doesn't work because one can try pizza at many other places until you find one that you like.  I don't think people can be expected to just adopt another team to follow that easily.

The passion that we have towards sports team is like nothing that's easily explained, IMO.  The Pirates are like an adopted family member to me.  I'll always support them and be devoted through the good and the bad.

Excuse me while I get a tissue.

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:56 PM

ok.... if you don't like the pizza analogy how about a bar serving flat beer in dirty beer mugs?  hAha

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:58 PM

Freddy Sanchez has now missed 7 of the 20 games since the trade to San Fran. Another 7 or 8 and he will miss his 600 PAs.

Jack Wilson has missed 6 of 19 games so far for the Mariners.

=======================================================

I know Freddy was checked by the SF Docs, but could either SF or Seattle cry foul and somehow get these trades voided?  Just a question if anyone knows.  I don't think so, but if I receive bad merchandise, I certainly have the right to return it...don't I?

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:59 PM

BFD makes a good point here. For many people, sports are a way to inflate their own sense of self worth by identifying with a winning team.

So, they can say - "hey I'm a Steelers fan" and that means their life experience is worth more than a Bengals fan.

For these people, even though the Pirates might win more games at home than not, proving that they ARE playing quality baseball during those games (sorry, winning normally means you played better), that is completely irrelevant. Winning the game they are watching means nothing. As long as they still have a worse record than some other team, they themselves feel their life is worth less than that of a Yankees fan.

Seen in this light, I certainly can understand the vitriol these people feel for Bob Nutting and Neal Huntington. After all, it's not just the baseball team that Nutting has to feel responsible for. They are also responsible for lifting the entire self worth of people who need the Pirates to fill that deep dark hole that they themselves have failed to fill.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:00 PM

BFD,

I'm in the same camp as you.

I consider myself a loyal fan of the club, but I attend very few games, and none I pay for out of pocket, because I don't agree with how Bob Nutting operates the club.

I supported them and went to 10-20 games per year throughout the lean years of the 80's and also the mid 90's.

I follow the club now daily online, in print, and on TV, but have made a personal decision to not buy the product until such time I am satisfied the owner is providing the fans what they deserve.

I don't think this makes me any less a fan than anybody else.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:01 PM

"I am by no means a "fair weather fan" either."

I'd say the jury isn't in on that yet.  The proof would be if you start going to games if they begin winning with Nutting as the owner.

And by not going to games BFD, you're penalizing the players - not the owner.  If not going to games is something you feel strongly about, by all means don't go.  We all have our causes and things we like to boycott including me.

If message boards had begun around 1935, I sometimes wonder what a Steelers message board would have looked like around 1968,

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:05 PM

Pizza?  Moldy cheese pizza and a baseball team--they hit your senses differently.  Pizza has some sight and smell appeal but is mostly taste.  Basball works sight and sound more.  

OrigDanno wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:06 PM

@why I didn't

Doubt Seattle can claim foul.  I think Wilson was hurt while playing for them.  Sanchez may be another story but tough if not impossible to void.  Their doctors had the medical file and even examined him prior to the trade.  Doubt any arbiter would void that unless the Pirates purposely hid something from them.

moneytalks wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:06 PM

@NuttingHostage

I am glad i wasn't drinking anything - I can't believe you just said you will go to a game, but you won't put money into Nutting's pocket by spending your own money.  That ticket you are using is putting money into his pocket.  Someone paid for it.  Just not you.

So, back to the pizza analogy then.  you go get a pizza at a place, it is crappy... but you still talk to people about the restaurant constantly, and tell people don't go.  But, if someone gave you a piece for free, you'd take it.  As long as it is not your own money being spent.

Ok.. I think I see the analogy now!

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:10 PM

So for me, there has been meaningful baseball played in Pittsburgh - in fact just yesterday!

The Pirates swept the Brewers. That's meaningful to me. Paul Maholm put himself back on track. Ronny Cedeno gave us hope. Delwyn Young continued to impress. Brandon Moss continued to un-impress.

All of those things are meaningful to me. And most of those things were very enjoyable.

OrigDanno wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:11 PM

@21sthebest

I stopped going to PIrate games four years ago because I, like NutHos, did not want to support what the Pirates were doing.  Once they change front office leadership, I went back and attend about 10 games a year (although falling off my pace a little this year).  

I didn't feel like I was penalizing the players at all.

By the way NutHos.  You are putting money in Nutting's pocket by watching or listening to games on TV.  The broadcast rights fees are directly related to audience.  Now, like most of us, aren't filling out a diary for radio or are monitored on TV by Nielsen so we don't affect the ratings one iota.  But it would be interested if arbitron or nielsen called you to see if you would change your habits.  

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:12 PM

Mclouth, Sanchez, Wilson are are out for while--that is 3 traded Pirate players from this season.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:13 PM

Money,

Your logic is very short sighted.

There are professional obligations one must fulfill.

If a company purchases a luxury suite plan, it is a sunk cost. Whether I agree to go or not, no more or less money is being spent.

So go back to the pizza analogy. If your boss buys 3 large pizzas for your department and tells you to have some, but you decline, that won't change the fact that he already purchased the pizza. You might not eat that piece, but it is paid for and somebody else is going to eat it. Plus your boss will label you as anti-social and not a team player.

moneytalks wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:13 PM

@Why Didn't I

If they can go after us for Freddy... can we get credit for the Hansen medical mystery?  Pirates have had the same thing happen to them numerous times.  

If their dr's checked him and found nothing - not much they can do it would seem

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:15 PM

SERVER HOSTAGE -

Nice to see you still like to sit in your glass house a throw stones....nice back handed dig D-bag.  I don't need to get self worth thru this pathetic team, Steelers, or anything else.

That may be the case for you..... come out of your moms basement which I am sure you live in and get some fresh air .... maybe then you woln't make such stupid, idiotic comments.....D-bag

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:16 PM

moneytalks - that's good. :) Reminds me of that joke...

Two women are at a restaurant. One woman says, "The food at this restaurant is terrible!" The other replies, "I know! And the portions are too small!"

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:17 PM

I have my home phone registered on the do not call list and do not answer survey phone calls.

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:18 PM

I think they can only void the trade if there is evidence the Pirates misled them.  Since their doctors checked him out they probably have no case--especially since he played some games for them.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:19 PM

Teams can only void trades on grounds of damaged good when the injury was not disclosed by the first team, and the second team discovers it in the initial physical.

This is actually how the Pirates got Freddy Sanchez in the first place.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:21 PM

I wonder if the Giants are benching Freddy, or if he is benching himself because he decided now that he has been uprooted, he may as well become a free agent vs. having his option exercised and stay in SF for a year and then have to move again?

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:23 PM

I live in NJ (but the extended family is mostly located in Saxonburg), so when I get back to Western PA, it is usually imperative that I get to PNC Park.  I enjoy watching MLB in a stadium.  When the Pirates come to Philly I usually get down to "The Bank", but now that the city of Philadelphia has basically "invented" baseball, I find Phillies fans to be too much.

I guess I just love the game of baseball (and since the Pirates play baseball in Pittsburgh) I guess I just love the Pirates.  PNC Park is a great place to watch a game (I've been there 2wice and am 2-0) and tickets are pretty affordable (by other MLB club standards).

I'll always find a player to root for, or a guy who's doing so bad (ala Andy last season) that I find it funny and support them no matter what (a little back story on why I adamantly support Andy at 3B).

I just love baseball (I think I said that already), and know that when this Pirate ship finally reaches "dry land" (aka a WS victory) it'll only be that much sweeter.

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:24 PM

BFD

If you want to disagree with someone posted, fine--but no reason to call them names

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:27 PM

"but have made a personal decision to not buy the product until such time I am satisfied the owner is providing the fans what they deserve.

When did you begin this personal decision and did you buy tickets for the All Star Game?

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:29 PM

"Freddy Sanchez has now missed 7 of the 20 games since the trade to San Fran. Another 7 or 8 and he will miss his 600 PAs."

Why didn't I,

According to my calc, at his current pace Freddy would be just under 600.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:31 PM

"I didn't feel like I was penalizing the players at all."

OD,

But if you're not there, the way I see it you're penalizing the players.  That's just the way I look at it.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:32 PM

Why Didn't I -

Here, here! Here's a virtual toast to all the baseball lovers like yourself!

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:34 PM

21stthebest -

I calculated that Freddy normally gets 4.5 ABs per game. I think you may have used an even 4.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:38 PM

Thanks for the info on voiding trades guys.  Just popped in my head after I saw all the games these guys are missing.  

I watched the Mariners/Yanks series over the weekend with my friends (who are yank fans) and saw that J. Wilson was playing SS and I thought he was injured, and my firend was like no it's Jack.  But then they flashed a close up of the guy and I was like, "NO WAY IS THAT JACK"

Turns out Seattle now has two players who play SS with the name "J. Wilson" (Jack & Josh).  Thought that was pretty crazzy.

Another question....Do you think SF GM is maybe re-thinking the Freddy Sanchez/Tim Alderson deal?

CometLittlefield wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:39 PM

Re: Meaningful baseball -

Anyone remember the Shawon-o-meter lighting up in 1997? That was meaningful baseball....

Baywatch wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:41 PM

@21sthebest - "Excuse me while I get a tissue."

Man up, 21! Real men don't use tissues! Maybe Kleenex but not a tissue ... that's right: You'll never catch me eating gelatin, only Jello! :-)

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:41 PM

Comet,

Do you remember the game Dunston hit two bombs?

That is the last meaningful game I remember.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:43 PM

21sthebest said...But if you're not there, the way I see it you're penalizing the players.  That's just the way I look at it.

==========================================

Since it's obvious the Pirates must rebuild the season ticket base in order to spend more on payroll, the way I see it is they are penalizing all of us.

"We have met the enemy - and he is us" - Walt Kelly

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:44 PM

PGServerHos

Thank you.  I just got the impression that we were talking about why we support/don't support the Pirates so I thought I'd weight in.  I also coach (American Legion) and am trying to get back into playing.  Even though the NFL and NHL (I'm not a big NBA guy, although I love me a good pickup game of basketball) are exciting, baseball will always be my favorite sport.  I think it combines skill and smarts the way no other professional sport does.

Kragbax wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:45 PM

NuHo said: "

I have some wonderful beach front property in New Jersey I would like to sell you dirt cheap."

Actually, there IS some wonderful beachfront property in NJ. If you have some cheap, I'll buy it! Now, if that was oceanfront property in Arizona, I'd have to pass :)

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:46 PM

Baywatch,

Are you up to speed yet on the Alamo basement?

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:46 PM

Why Didn't I -

I think San Fran has plans to keep Freddy for some time, so I don't think they would be regretting it quite yet.

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:47 PM

meaningful baseball can be different for different people.  Sometimes it seeing the future.  Sometimes is beating a team you dislike even is nothing is on the line--like the sweep of the Brewers.  Sometimes it getting out of the basement--like sweeping the Reds would do.  Sometimes it is playing for a spot in the playoffs.  Sometimes it is the playoffs.  To each their own.  

CometLittlefield wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:48 PM

@ NuHo -

I do remember it vividly - I'm 99% certain it was his first game after we traded for him!

1997 went down to the last weekend of the season when I think the Astros swept us to kill the race.

I also remember the Pirates beating Curt Schilling with Kevin Polcovich playing a prominent role. Maybe that's why I wasn't so hard on Polky for my All-Worst team from yesterday.

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:49 PM

Dejan posted a thread on Pirates-Cubs makeup Sept. 30 but no game thread yet.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:50 PM

Yea, NuHo, where's this beach front property down the Jersey Shore?  If you're selling cheap, I'll get a group (of friends) together and we'd be glad to take that off your hands!

Timothy Thimos wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:51 PM

Dejan, with all of the dumping of players over the past two seasons, would it be safe to say that the Pirates are not a Major League Baseball team but a developmental team for the rest of the majors?

KOVACEVIC: Until the Pirates prove otherwise, that absolutely is safe to say, based on rock-hard precedent. The management team is adamant that, at some point, the moving of players for prospects or money will stop. That remains to be proven.

Dejan often insists (and even gets defensive) that as a beat reporter he doesn't offer opinions, but rather just reports the facts.  He doesn't advocate, etc. etc. etc.  His answer to this question further illustrates that not only does he offer opinions, he presents his opinions as fact (hence, the "rock-hard precedent" wording).

Calling the Pirates a developmental team for the rest of the major leagues is clearly an opinion.  The blog posts debating the opinion is further proof that its exactly just that...

Trading players who you don't think are going to be long-term answers for your club, for whatever the reason may be, doesn't make you a developmental team for the rest of the league.  It simply means you are an MLB team that happens to trade away commodities that aren't viewed as long term solutions based on production, age, salary, injury history, or whatever it may be.  

If the Pirates trade Andrew McCutchen, who will be the best CF in the game shortly, then a stronger case can be made that the Bucs are a developmental team.  But until then, each of the players traded by Huntington has had some major flaw that didn't fit with the teams long-term interests (including McLouth, who covered less ground in CF than Jeter does at SS and Bay, who was going to demand inordinate amounts of money).

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:53 PM

@ JAL

Aren't the Buccos off today?

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:55 PM

NutHo -

I was quite saddened when I went to the Alamo that they had removed Pedro and Inez.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:57 PM

"who will be the best CF in the game shortly"

Hmmm.

That looks like an opinion being presented as a fact to me.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:58 PM

"Since it's obvious the Pirates must rebuild the season ticket base in order to spend more on payroll, the way I see it is they are penalizing all of us."

No argument with that.  But I still like to go and support the players regardless of who they are or how talented they are or aren't.

mlaser wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:02 PM

Any given game can be a meaningful game whether your team is in it or not.  The beauty of baseball is that any starting pitcher could have a great night an pitch a perfect game or a no-hitter (karstens almost did last year).  At any given game you could bear witness to a rare play (Jack's triple play).  A batter could hit for the cycle, or maybe hit three homeruns in a game.  While the outcome of the game might not be "important" or "meaningful" - the individual performance could be.  This is what makes baseball great!

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:02 PM

PG Server,

Baywatch claims he recently visited the Alamo but is unaware of it's basement?

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:02 PM

Timothy -

You better watch it with the reasoning. BFD is gonna give you the smack down!

Seriously, I don't have a problem with DK giving opinions. I think all factual observations are subject to the observer's viewpoint anyway.

I learned that from reading about quantum physics in my mom's basement.

:)

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:02 PM

Why Didn't I

my error--yes, they are off today  

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:04 PM

If anyone has seen the movie "Step Brothers" and needs a bit of a laugh today:

www.youtube.com/watch

Sorry it's not PBC related, but I love this clip and there's no other stuff thread.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:06 PM

21sthebest - I meant the people not paying for tickets are penalizing us. They are the ones not allowing a payroll increase.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:06 PM

Oh please cram this parsing crap about "meaningful".

Please tell me you people are so thick as to not understand the context of "meaningful" in this discussion. "Meaningful" in the respect that it impacts the clubs chances for post season play.

If you attend a Pirate game in August and they are 20 games out of first place and eliminated from playoff contention and it's meaningful to you as individual for some reason, good for you. That's wonderful. I'm happy for you.

But knock off the parsing crap.....

JHadar wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:09 PM

NH << That looks like an opinion being presented as a fact to me. >>

Say it ain't so, not on this blog.  Say it ain't so, NH.  No one would do that.  Would they?

moneytalks wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:12 PM

@NuttingHostage

<<Oh please cram this parsing crap about "meaningful".>>

just let people have their conversations.  I think pretty much everyone knew what was meant.

However, I go back to my statement.  I saw them almost go over .500 in July.  To me.. THAT was a meaningful game.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:15 PM

Here's what I did MarkInDallas,

The Giants have 42 games left meaning that Freddy has had the opportunity to play in around 120 games.  Not sure if that's exactly accurate since he obviously switched teams.

So with 441 PA's on the year, that's an average of 3.675 over the 120 games that have occurred so that accounts for games that he hasn't played in.  Over a 162 game season, the 3.675 works out to 595.

I'm sure there's other ways to project this.

JHadar wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:15 PM

O No!  Now people are parsing right out in public.  

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:15 PM

Hadar,

I found it particularly ironic that one would present an opinon as fact in the very same post in which they are accusing DK of the same.

You must excuse me if that offends your fragile sensibilities.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:17 PM

"I saw them almost go over .500 in July.  To me.. THAT was a meaningful game."

I am glad I wasn't drinking something when I read that.

"almost go over .500 in July".

Ha! - Now that right there is funny, I don't care who you are.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:18 PM

NutHo -

A visit to the Alamo's basement is a must. I'll bet the tour guides get pretty fed up with that question, though. :) Baywatch really needs to get caught up on his American history.

Speaking of the Alamo, a friend of mine was Billy Bob Thornton's (Davy Crockett) sidekick in the Alamo movie. A bunch of them went to get tattoos that said "Remember the Alamo". My friend's tat was unfortunately spelled "Rememler the Alamo".

JHadar wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:18 PM

NH -- It's truly shocking the things you have to put up with.

Timothy Thimos wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:22 PM

NuttingHostage....

I am not a beat reporter and don't claim that I only report the facts.

Dejan's general attitude toward the Pirates seemed to dramatically change after the McLouth trade.  I think he became frustrated that he lost a good bit of his "inside sources" for information, because he was clearly pretty close with Bay, McLouth, Doug M, Jack, Freddy, etc.  I'm just guessing it's a tad more difficult for him to do his job now, and if that frustrates him, it's understandable.

But he does offer opinions, and that's a fact.  

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:23 PM

Back to the pizza analogy....

Someone on the here said by boycotting paying for tix you are making it hard for Nutjob to increase payroll.....BS

A pizza shop owner doesn't serve crap pizza with the promise of if enough people spend money on his crap pizza eventually he will buy better cheese, sauce, etc....

I realize "meaningful baseball" can mean different things to many people, but I think we can all agree that the MOST meaningful games are one which affect making the post season and actual post season play....neither of which has happened since I was in highschool.....17 years ago.

And yes Hostage.... I would like to smack you around.... I bet you were the kid in class that acted smart trying to make others feel/sound dumb until someone knocked those duct taped glasses off your over sized mellon

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:26 PM

21sthebest -

Your way shows that he is on pace to miss the 600 PAs, but doesn't show that he won't get them.

I took the games he has played in with the Giants, and that shows with their offense and his position in it, he gets 4.5 PAs each game he plays.

He currently need 159 PAs to make 600. If he plays in 35 more games, that comes out to 158 PAs. So if he misses 7 or more games the rest of the way, he's not going to get to 600 PAs.

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:28 PM

clarification.... my last comment was aimed at SERVER HOSTAGE

CometLittlefield wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:28 PM

Does anyone else feel completely that the REAL NuHo actually looks like his Avatar? I don't know why but if I try to envision him typing at his desk, he looks exactly like Bob Nutting with a big read slash through his face.

He could, in reality, be fat and bald, very tall and very skinny or black with an afro...but in my head he looks like the  NuttingBusters logo.

(Nutting Busters, heh heh)

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:29 PM

Hostage

Yoiu certainly like the word "parsing" but I do see parsing here--

Take the sentence AMAC had a very good game--now to parse it

Amac--Noun proper  subject of sentence

had--verb past tense

a-article

very--adjective

good-adjective

game-noun--object of sentence

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:30 PM

BFD,

No, I was the guy who kicked the snot out of you.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:31 PM

"I am glad I wasn't drinking something when I read that."

Unfortunately, I was drinking something when I read yesterday that you thought we should have left Cutch in the minors so as to not start is arb clock.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:31 PM

Timothy

Dejan, with all of the dumping of players over the past two seasons, would it be safe to say that the Pirates are not a Major League Baseball team but a developmental team for the rest of the majors?

____________________________________

I don't have a problem with DK having an opinion about the Pirates, I don't happen to agree with it, especially the part where he agrees that the Pirates are not a major league team.

If they are not, there are a lot of other teams that are not also. I would like to know which teams are and how they got be major league and the Pirates are not. Winning or losing does not make you a major league team. My favorite team the 52 Bucs won all of 42 games and they were considered major league.

Opinions are they not wonderful

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:34 PM

Nuting Hostage....

YOu must not have seen my clarification post......directed at SERVER hostage.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:37 PM

"Your way shows that he is on pace to miss the 600 PAs, but doesn't show that he won't get them."

Well nobody could show that he won't get them.  Who knows how each game will pan out.  Maybe he'll play every game the rest of the way, maybe they Giants will bat like crazy and he'll score more.  I'm just showing one way in which he is currently on pace for 595.  If he hits that number, it would be purely by coincidence.

But the one thing I think we're both showing is that it might go down to the wire.  Especially with his bum shoulder.

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:37 PM

Every classroom has a bully... why did I expect here to be no different?

I disagree with the pizza analogy because the statement included consistent use of moldy cheese. Sometimes, Pirate games are hot, fresh and delicious - Paul Maholm was not moldy cheese, my fellow inmates. Matt Capps striking out Fielder in the ninth was NOT moldy cheese. It was hot, saucy and oh so worth seeing in person or on TV.

If you go to Starbucks, and sometimes you get a killer iced coffee (just the right amount of cream and sweetener) and sometimes it tastes like what cow pee would taste like if you had to think about it - that's a better analogy for the games.

Listen, Pirate baseball is my favorite past time.  A few years ago I lost my dad to cancer, and dad and I were tight. We went to a LOT of games together, just us, when I was in high school. We talked Pirate baseball when I lived out west, he kept me linked to the team. Now, my package tickets are for me and my mom. We go together, and a lot of times it's just a whole lot of fun. Aside from her wanting Garrett Jones to be my stepdaddy, and her covering her eyes sometimes when Capps comes out, we somehow manage to see more wins than losses. After my sister in law and her husband were killed in a car accident two days after Christmas, I started to realize daily that what we have today, we may not have tomorrow. So every game with the Bucs - knowing every time I see this player or that whom I follow may not be here again next week, or next year, knowing I get great entertainment by my standards for my money, with my mom, who won't be here forever, makes every game meaningful baseball to me.

So there. Srsly.

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:38 PM

oh--I missed the post about leaving Cutch in the minors--i hope someone explained that his arbitration clock has not started--this is free season for the Pirates because of when they brought him up.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:44 PM

BFD - You're absolutely right. I was the kid that others felt threatened by because I was smart, and they did tend to make fun of my glasses and the fact I played violin. And yes, there were bullies who tried to call me names and hurt me. You are really right on there.

Your mom must be very proud of you for beating up kids with glasses.

JHadar wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:46 PM

PoH -- Fragile though my sensibilities may be:  that touched my heart.  Thank you.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:50 PM

That was NutHo who suggested they leave Cutch in the minors. I'm not sure if he was serious or not, but he said they might have kept him in the minors until Alvarez was ready to come up so they could have them all together for longer.

I said that if they consistently did that, they would lose leverage with other players they might want to sign in the draft.

CometLittlefield wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:53 PM

I DO NOT feel like JHadar looks like dog or Moneytalks looks like a large-breasted Anime-type nurse in Red holding duct tape.

I do however, get the feeling that JAL looks like his Avatar

And I assure you, I most certainly do not look like a Comet imploding into the Earth

JHadar wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 5:05 PM

Comet << I DO NOT feel like JHadar looks like dog >>

Thank you.  

The avatar is my dog Sport. I think Moneytalks is a lady pirate and that's a short cutlass.  JAL used to have a picture of himself and he does not like Wilbur Cooper.

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 5:06 PM

Probably time time to march to newer thread so

Ants marching=============================================

JHadar wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 5:07 PM

Ooops -- Omission -- I think JAL likes Wilbur Cooper but he does not look like Wilbur Cooper, and JAL I managed to get past the not before dropping a word.  ;-}

InZiskWeTrust wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 5:21 PM

NuHO,

Couldn't every home game from here on out be considered meaningful by your own standards of:

"Meaningful" in the respect that it impacts the clubs chances for post season play.

If the Pirates continue to win, they drop further down in the draft selection rankings. This directly impacts their chances for post season play by disallowing them the chance to take one of the top 2-3 rated players next year.

mlaser wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 5:23 PM

nnuho

Oh please cram this parsing crap about "meaningful".

sorry, i forgot... only your viewpoint matters... thanks for getting me back in line.

Woomer wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 5:26 PM

With the rate at which the Pirates get traded,  the best -- most cost-effective, best seats, etc -- way to see the "Pirates" is to see their farm teams play.

I've been to at least one of each of the following games this year -- Indy Indians, Altoona Curve, and SC Spikes -- and they were all a blast!

Just as examples:

I saw Cutch, Garrett Jones, Steve Pierce, Daniel McCutchen (starting that night), and Brian Bixler in Indy -- all from the 10th row behind home plate for $14.

I saw Pedro et al in Altoona in the second deck behind the plate for $3.

And I saw Brock Holt et al in State College from behind the dugout for free (although it was a $10 ticket)

IMO (and I know many will disagree, which I respect) but as long as the annual trades continue, that's the Best way to see the "Pirates".

Mizery wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Why pay to watch?
on Thu, Aug 20 2009 11:54 PM

I like to go through these posts when I need a break from reality, and the doomed state of the Pirates!! I'm sorry I can't get excited about this team, but maybe one day I can wear the gold P with pride. I think the Pirates can win by 2050, and everyone will feel sorry for the city of Pittsburgh because Nutting is our owner, and they forfeit their games against the Pirates. Then they win by forfeit all the way to a WS championship.