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: Pity for PNC Park

By Dejan Kovacevic | 8 a.m. Thursday

Click here to submit a question.

We have Qs ...

__________

Q: If the Pirates record the magical 82nd loss at PNC Park, will it be the most historically significant game played at the facility, excluding the All-Star Game, the tag-team no-hitter and the initial opener?

I just thought, with no playoff games ever, it might fit the bill.

Does it seem sad to you that this ballpark could easily go 15 years without seeing a meaningful game?

Steve Voyak of Rogers, Ark.

KOVACEVIC: I would rank them this way, in order of most significant ...

1. The All-Star Game, the only game in PNC history with playoff implications, never mind a genuine buzz related solely to baseball.

2. The inaugural game at PNC in 2001. The opening of any stadium is special and memorable, especially when it is accompanied by another memorable event, as was the passing of Willie Stargell the same day.

3. The 82nd loss this year. Setting records that span all sports of all time, over such a sustained period, that does not happen often.

__________

Q: Hello, Dejan. The response yesterday from Ryan Doumit's agent was very interesting and welcome in my opinion. Yet it seems there is a contrasting paragraph at the end of the same article: If, as his agent states, Doumit had not been pouting, was giving full effort and was happy to be in Pittsburgh, then what caused the tension to be building up between him and some coaches over recent weeks?

His performance?

That doesn't seem to explain his being benched in the middle of a game, even if you add in throwing a helmet. 

I still don't have full understanding of the incident. Maybe that's the way it will remain and should remain. Better to just move on.

Marda Hook of Wexford

KOVACEVIC: Moving on sure seems what Doumit and the Pirates are eager to do.

Suffice it to say that there are many different views on what all led into Doumit's falling out of favor with some, but it is now quite clear that the singular incident that brought the benching was the helmet toss.

Doumit sounds deeply convinced he has played hard through all this, and some on the coaching staff do not see it that way.

__________

Q: Hey, DK, I just had a question about the performance of some of the Pirates' young players acquired in the Jason Bay trade: This trade could not be seen as anything less than a failure to this point. Craig Hansen was bad, then out for the year. Brandon Moss is a fourth outfielder, with a bad approach at the plate. Andy LaRoche is solid defensively, but is consistently 1 for 4. And Bryan Morris is a head case.

In your experience covering baseball, have you seen a trade that looks worse at this stage, and do you see any hope that Moss becomes a power-hitting corner outfielder, and Laroche starts to hit more than one single a game?

These players had minor league track records of power and consistency, but they have tremendously disappointed. Please tell me they can develop into something other than what they are.

Sam Griffin of Shaler

KOVACEVIC: There is no question the trade looks bad, Sam, on just about every level, not the least of which is - and this is one area few seem to acknowledge, probably because of the acceptance of the idea the Pirates could not afford him - that Bay has proven to be a productive player in Boston. (Though he has slid since the season's start.)

When a team trades its best player -- and that is how most saw Bay at the time -- it simply cannot miss with all four players in the return. One or even two, sure. But all four is way, way too many, and it raises appropriate questions about the Pirates' evaluators who recommended the acquisitions, as well as those who executed this deal with less than seven minutes before the deadline.

Can those players improve?

Sure, anything is possible. But there has been a pretty decent window open for LaRoche and Moss for a while now, and maybe the part that is most disconcerting about both is that their performance levels -- as you seem to suggest -- are very much consistent. Not much high, not much too low, but quite a bit right in the low range.

Hansen sounds as if he would be lucky just to pitch again at this point, and this as the result of a condition no one could have foreseen.

And it is way too early to give up on Morris, though he certainly has gotten off to an awful start in the system.

Now, all that said, it really should be underscored here that the same people who brought you this trade also evaluated and executed the Xavier Nady/Damaso Marte trade that has been very lopsided in the Pirates' favor, especially when one considers the value of starting pitching in the industry. If the Pirates end up with two-fifths of their rotation and a reliable reliever -- to say nothing of an everyday outfielder in Jose Tabata -- that might be enough to counter-balance the above all by itself.

__________

Q: In the game Tuesday, I noted that Charlie Morton jogged to first on a ball he had bounced up the middle. The Reds' second baseman managed to glove the ball well behind the bag and throw out Morton by 4 or 5 steps.

Why shouldn't pitchers show more hustle?

Pitchers spend so much time running in practice, you would think running out a grounder wouldn't be asking too much.

Bernard Quarrick of Millersville, Md.

KOVACEVIC: I have zero history of excusing a lack of hustle, so take this in that context: Morton was shut down by a hamstring injury immediately upon being promoted by the Pirates, and the training staff has been careful to ensure it is not aggravated. Hamstrings are different than most injuries in that they never fully heal but they can be maintained.

Morton is very much advised not to go bursting down the line when it is not very visibly necessary.

__________

Q: Since Pedro Alvarez's time on the major league clock doesn't start until he plays a major league game, would there be any reason we would see him in the bigs next year?

This is assuming, of course, that the Pirates are not in contention in July or later. Even if he tears up Class AA or AAA pitching, it seems like next year would be a waste to have him up in Pittsburgh.

Matt Slaba of Wagner, S.D.

KOVACEVIC: Not necessarily, Matt. Remember, that even the very talented players need their Prince Fielder time in the majors, to strike out, to make adjustments at the plate, to learn how to play with a second-deck backdrop at all the stadiums, to get used to crowds much larger than they have seen, etc.

Maybe the Pirates will feel that 2010 is a great time for Alvarez to get all that out of the way and, as a result, be better prepared to star in 2011.

Either that, or they will see him as genuinely ready to take off right away. A lot of that, from what I hear, will depend on the conditioning Alvarez does this offseason. If he comes into next spring training blowing people away with his physique, there might not be any delay at all. The Pirates' evaluators are of the mind he could hit in the majors right now if not for that issue.

__________

Q: I notice that Yoslan Herrera, pitching at Altoona and Indianapolis, has what appears to be an outstanding record. Do the Pirates consider him still a prospect or a career minor leaguer?

Neal Samuels of New Castle

KOVACEVIC: Herrera is, in fact, 12-1, with a 3.01 ERA, and those are impressive by any fair standard. But that is just about where it ends.

Herrera is 28, and he spent the bulk of this season in Class AA, which will tell you far more about how the Pirates feel about his potential than anything they might say publicly. He also had very modest numbers beyond the record: .268 opponents' batting average in Class AA, 70 strikeouts in 107 2 /3 innings. And, most important by a wide margin, he maddeningly never rediscovered a fastball that was supposed to be clocked at 92-93 mph upon his signing and, actually, never has relied much on the one he does have.

He is a really nice guy who has a great back story in having fled Cuba on a boat, and the Pirates' previous management invested a ton of money - three-year, $1.92 million guaranteed - but the current management clearly expects to see much more than what is there.

__________

Q: Why do you refer to Garrett Jones as "the Legend"?

Bill Lauer of Gibsonia

KOVACEVIC: Just for fun, Bill. The phrase often used in other forms is that "the legend grows by the day" or something like that, and that pretty much tells the tale, I think, of Jones' remarkable rookie season. Every time one might assume that all these home runs have to end, that somebody will find a hole in his swing, that his numbers have to come down at least to his career minor league levels, he just keeps on hitting.

It has been fun to watch for a lot of people, I would imagine.

Besides, who doesn't miss the era when all baseball players had nicknames such as "Shorty," "Lefty," "Antelope," "Scrap Iron" and that sort of thing?

__________

Q: I was in town last week for a wedding and had the opportunity to go to the third game of the Phillies series. I always enjoy going to PNC Park, and it was a perfect evening with a perfect ending.

I thought, while sitting there enjoying the view of Downtown, that here we are at the 10-year point of PNC Park, and the years have gone by in a flash. I remember, when I lived near Pittsburgh and attended many, many games at Three Rivers Stadium about how everyone said we needed a new ball park. The revenue stream was the important thing. Well, we all know, the revenue stream hasn't helped and wondered this: Ten years from now, is everyone going to say we need a new ballpark?

Remember, Three Rivers Stadium only lasted 30 years.

David Farone of Bear, Del.

KOVACEVIC: Three reasons why I cannot imagine that happening, David ...

1. The beautiful thing about Camden Yards was that it sent baseball parks in a retro mode, and that sort of thing, in any architectural capacity, tends to outlast the models that take things in a new direction. We love the old, and PNC Park very much fits that mold, despite its many modern amenities.

2. The place is built to last. From the quality of the initial construction - it's all exposed for everyone to see - to the serious maintenance done by Dennis DaPra and his staff, PNC stands above the rest of baseball as much for its upkeep as its design and view. I regularly work in ballparks that have been built much more recently but look much, much older or never adjust with the times. Already, in less than a decade, PNC has seen many upgrades, from a new scoreboard to a new coat of paint this past winter to all kinds of stuff inside the closed areas.

3. People love it. That never was true of Three Rivers Stadium, which closed off the city and was seen as cold and not all that well suited for either of its two sports (though much better for football than baseball). And, as the first participant above noted, imagine what it will be like if there ever is important baseball played at PNC Park.

Ever hear how people talk about that 1978 doubleheader at Three Rivers where the Pirates swept the Phillies and seemed poised to take over the division? They remember walking or running down those old spiral ramps and chanting "Let's Go Bucs!" and they associate it with the place.

What is that memory at PNC?

Not some single-game fluke like the Brian Giles grand slam or the Rob Mackowiak doubleheader, but something truly meaningful that unites a fan base, its team and maybe even its stadium.

Kind of like how we all woke up early one morning to watch this ...


Posted Sep 03 2009, 08:00 AM by Dejan Kovacevic

Comments

Joey Bats wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 8:09 AM

Thirsty? ....oh no...firsty!!!!!

matt the rat wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 9:01 AM

"that Bay has proven to be a productive player in Boston."

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

He hasn't proved to be more of a productive player in Boston than he had been in Pittsburgh. I'm not sure if thats what you are suggesting (probably not), but really he is just playing as expected. I wonder what kind of contract Bay is going to get after this year. Truthfully, he hasn't played any better than he did when he was a Bucco. He'll hit about 33 HRs with 110 RBIs, which is right around where he was as a Pirate. Only his BA is well below his career average and he has dropped off significantly since the first 2 months or so of the season.

JoeBucco wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 9:05 AM

Dejan - Glad you brought up the Giles slam and the Mackowiak doubleheader.  Those are definitely the two in my head as I was at the Giles slam game with my dad, and listening to the comeback in the car while driving out of the parking garage and seeing the fireworks from the game winner.  Couldn't believe we left early, but so did pretty much everyone else and fr good reason. At least I also saw Vinny Castilla hit 3 HR's that same game, and a 4th that was robbed by Giles reaching over the LF fence. During the first 8 innings, I remember being upset that I was robbed of being in attendance of a 4 homer game.  Then the comeback made me not worry about that at all.

And the other, the Mackowiak day, will always be special because that was the day my daughter was born, just like Mackowiak's son.  Considering the circumstances, it was a pretty powerful even that really helped me out, as I've shared with you before Dejan (anyone else can Google "Rob Mackowiak Cubs") and they will find my article in the top spot.

And actually, I was at the All Star game with my dad as well.  I won the lottery to buy standing room only tickets, which was good to be there, but my dad's knees aren't really good for standing 9 innings these days. The spot we found to stand at was right behind two empty seats in LF that we sat in that remained empty the entire game.  Who doesn't show up for the MLB All Star game?  Funny, but it made it a very special night for me as well.  

So for a guy that lives in Columbus, you nailed the three biggest days in PNC Park History for me as well, even though I was only in person for two of them. Not that there was much competition, but even if there were, those would be it for me.

.

JuniataKid wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 9:07 AM

I still don't think Moss has been given the chance DK alludes to. Only 308 ABs and he's been on the roster all year.

Bobster wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:20 AM

Bay was a productive Pirate and continued to be productive with Boston. The Red Sox didn't trade for Bay and then just "hope" he would be productive. They traded for a proven commodity, the best player the Pirates had, a good hitter with power, a run-producer, and got what they expected.  

What bothers me so much about this trade is that the poor return the Pirates got is not really too surprising. Moss had never had more than modest power numbers in the minors and was being used as a reserve outfielder by the Red Sox. He has proven to be no more than a reserve outfielder with modest power. He didn't morf into something more than he was.

LaRoche had put up good power and hitting numbers in the offensive-oriented PCL but had not translated his minor league production into major league production in two brief trials with the Dodgers. He has proven to be unable to provide much production at the major league level with the Pirates. A terrific fielder but, at least offensively, he didn't morf into something more than he was.

Hanson was a scatter armed walk machine with a high ERA in Boston. Prior to his injury, Hanson was a scatter armed walk machine with a high ERA for the Pirates. He didn't morf into something more than he was.

Morris was an A-ball pitcher coming off TJ surgery. Any A-ball pitcher has a long way to go before making it in the majors. Many fall off way before that. Morris hasn't shown any signs that he can make that journey successfully.

There's still time, but these players were all unproven and all came with question marks. To become productive major leaguers, all had to do what they had never yet done. A failure by Bay for Boston would have been inconsistent with his past performance. But the Pirates took 4 players, none of whom had ever demonstrated the ability to do what was needed of them. That doesn't mean it can't happen for them.  But when you trade your best player, you need to get at least some player(s) with a proven track record, rather than settling for all unproven players who may or may not ever progress to what you hope they will become.  Maybe with 4 players, the odds looked good to NH.  But taking the 4 individually, there was a real possibility that each could fail to become what the Pirates needed them to become. And so far, it is playing out that way. I don't think a weak team with limited trading resources can afford to take such a gamble with it's best bargaining chip. But they did and it looks bad for them.  

sside67 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:21 AM

@JuniataKid..

If there's a number of AB's where you give up, what would that be?

Just to play a little Devil's Advocate, how do you like Steve Pearce?  I bring up Pearce as he has 117 AB to Moss 308..

Pearce:  avg-.231 obp-.302 slg .402

Moss:  avg -.244 obp- .307  slg .380

My point being, that not many are complaining about Pearce not given a chance,  and yet, Moss with almost 3 times the at bats, ends up with a slightly higher average, but lower power numbers then Pearce.  

What do you think Moss has that we haven't seen yet?  Do you think you are swayed by the fact that he came over for Jason Bay and you are maybe a little too hopeful that the trade wasn't a complete waste?  I don't see him getting cut - I mean he's going to be a utility outfielder for us, but to me he's not a permanent answer at RF.

Andy LaRoche - 432 AB - have we seen enough there?

His Slugging percentage is a nifty 2 points higher than Bixlers.  Not saying much for a corner position.

Thundercrack wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:32 AM

I am not happy with the return from the Bay trade.  Mainly because even though I wouldn't consider Bay a superstar I do believe he was our most valuable 'asset' -so your return has to be more right than wrong.  On the flip side, I also didn't think Nady was a superstar and the return for him has been great.

I think the worst trade of recent memory has been

A.J. Pierzynski  for Joe Nathan, Boof Bonser, and  Francisco Liriano.

Kevjac66 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:41 AM

I absolutely love that post, Bobster. Every bit of it.

JuniataKid wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 11:38 AM

SSide

You put your finger on a problem they created for themselves where they have three guys who need to play every day (Moss, Pearce, Jones) and only two positions for them to play. To answer your question, I'd take the ABs away from Pearce who IMO isn't offensively or defensively a very good first baseman. Had Moss played every day like LaRoche, we may know by now what we had in him. We really don't because he hasn't gotten that prolonged everyday shot like LaRoche. Not swayed at all by the Bay trade. Maybe by the Boston friends/colleagues who weren't happy to see him go.

wozzle wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 12:44 PM

You know it's a slow day here at Camp Kovacevic when the Bay trade is once again dissected...

I wonder if there were any other offers for Bay on the table when NH pulled the trigger?   I remember rumors of Tampa Bay and some other team showing interest, then backing off.  The return appeared pretty good at the time - we had lots of holes to fill.  We still do, but the fillers now appear to be in our system.  

@ Thundercrack - It's tough to realize that your greatest asset means so little to the rest of the league.

John Lease wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 2:09 PM

What is the constant whining about Moss not getting enough at bats?  When has he shown that he's worthwhile?

www.baseball-reference.com/.../mossbr01.shtml

He's had a full season as a Pirate so far if you also include last year.  His average is .236, his OPS is .695.  

www.baseball-reference.com/.../morgany01.shtml

Nyjer Morgan has had about the same amount of time as a Pirate.

His average is .286 and his OPS is .727

Was he the corner outfielder we needed?  Moss has had plenty of time, and he's shown nothing.

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 3:43 PM

Using words like meaningful with reagrds to baseball is silly.

meaningful is something you instill in others that gets passed along.

I think it just one more way of those who like to slam something to elevate or denegrate to thir liking.

Where is thundercarck?

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 3:48 PM

hamstrings do in fact heal with proper chiropratic treantments.

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 3:51 PM

if jason is not traded, they never sign Jones

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 4:11 PM

It's funny that some people are looking at the Bay trade as one of the worst of all time. I mean, come on. How about Babe Ruth for $100 G's?

There's no doubt it's not panning out well for the Pirates, but even if it's a bust, it wasn't a bad risk. The Pirates weren't going to win this year with Bay, and the Pirates have just as much chance to sign Bay during this offseason as they would have had if Bay weren't traded.

Sometimes things don't pan out as you hope, and sometimes they turn out better. The Nady deal is one of those other kinds.

As for a bad trade, how about....Rangers traded Adrian Gonzalez and Chris Young for Adam Eaton and Akinori Otsuka.

Gonzalez and Young almost immediately became stars, Eaton became nothing, and Otsuka was a middling bullpen guy.

That same year they traded Alfonso Soriano, who was the main piece they got for ARod, and received prospects all which turned into nothing.

The next year they traded Teixeira to Atlanta and got a load of great prospects which are now turning into gold for them - including a pitching phenom for those who believe Atlanta would never let Morton go if he could be any good.

Trades - no matter if they are for experienced players or prospects - hold great risk for both teams. Every team is bound to suffer some bad ones and benefit from some good ones.

The question is whether the sum of all a team's moves improves the team over a period of time.

Substitute2 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 4:11 PM

Simply do not agree on the Bay trade Three questions:

1. If we keep Bay, does he stay after this year? Answer NO

2. Hasn't he really become the average player that his numbers proved as a Pirate? Answer YES

3. Would we be in a better position in terms of winning this season or for that matter in the future? Answer NO.

Those who love Bay have allowed their passion for him overcome the attempt to improve the team long term. Everyone admits some of those players we got might develop into players that help the team become a winner and everyone knows that Bay was gone after this season anyway, so let's get real about that move.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 4:20 PM

jersey joe -

I think they would have been able to sign Jones anyway if they kept Bay. There would still be a hole at 1B.

My question for everyone still pining for Bay is would you sign him now? In fact, the Pirates are probably in a better financial position to sign him now than they were last year. They could spend $15-18M on Bay and still be within their budget.

But would you do it? Obviously, this year he would be better than Moss and you could move Jones to 1B. But with Milledge coming on strong, and Tabata ready to come up, would you make Tabata and Milledge split time, or use Tabata to spell one or both of them?

Would you sign Bay now?

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 4:35 PM

Mark, if they do not trade Jason they then are not looking, of course in some way anything is possible.

Last years trades are the mindset.  

DMac wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 5:07 PM

If they don't trade Bay, Adam doesn't become the sole "power bat" in the lineup and maybe that helps him, negating the need for Jones.  

There are too many variables involved for such a giant game of "what-if".  

sside67 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 5:09 PM

1. I can't imagine we'd ever make an offer to Bay.  (or any other 15million dollar a year free agent)  - The only way we get someone like Bay - is in the final year of their contract on a rental basis if we are in the playoff hunt - then we might trade for someone in their walk year.

2. I never had delusions of us re-signing Bay, but that doesn't mean you don't look at the players we got, versus what we gave up and evaluate the trade with a year of results on the basepaths.

3. I look forward to a year from now, and where we might be with the McClouth trade.  Gorkys is still hitting at .250ish at AA, and Morton is solid one start, bombed the next.  

You might support the strategy of making all these bold trades to bring more talent into the organization, but the key to me that will determine whether the Huntington regime is successful is whether they can evaluate talent.  

And we will know much better, about this time next year, whether they've brought in a solid core of players through the trades, or whether it's been an unmitigated disaster.  Nevertheless - it all comes down to their talent evaluation.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 5:17 PM

Another question...for those who like free agents.

I suggested getting Hank Blalock in the offseason on a one or two year contract to play 3B next year.

The advantage for him would be that he could prove himself after a down year, and then he could be traded for prospects once Alvarez was ready to come up. That would benefit both Blalock and the Pirates.

The other alternative is simply to audition both Walker and LaRoche next year as Moss/Jones/Pearce/Young have been auditioned this year.

It seems that the winners of this year's audition are Jones and Young. Next year we'll probably be looking at an audition of Walker/Young/LaRoche for 2B once Alvarez comes up.

What do you think - continue the audition process or get a 3B like Blalock that might break out and be flipped for prospects when Alvarez is ready?

bugsy_watson wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 5:32 PM

The problem is not that Bay is gone.  An important fact is not whether or not Bay has been truly "productive".  The fact is whether or not the FO has a clue in evalutating talent that they can get back in trades.  The Bay trade would suggest that the NH regime is far from infallible, and this is worrisome indeed, since the lifeblood of the new Pirate system will be to make sure that any talent they are likely to lose/not be able to afford is traded for worthwhile players.  The return for Bay suggests that NH and his crew have a long way to go before they are good enough to make this plan a sustainable model.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 5:39 PM

sside67,

If you don't think they would ever get a free agent like Bay, then you also believe they will never keep their own players once they reach free agency. From a financial standpoint, there is no difference between signing one of your own players or signing a different team's leaving free agents.

I do believe the Pirates will do that, as long as there is a chance for them to trade that player nearing the the end of their contract. For example, if they were to sign Bay to a 3 year deal, they might keep him 2 years and then trade him if they could extend him or didn't want to.

BTW, I'm not suggesting they would or should do that with Bay in this instance. I don't think they will nor should they. Mainly because they shouldn't take playing time away from Tabata or Milledge. Both of those players have the ability to be as valuable or more to the Pirates as Jason Bay.

I agree with you as far as how well they evaluate talent will determine how successful they are. Also how well they develop that talent.

It's also a given that no matter how good they are at evaluating talent or developing it that there will be some failures.

This year, we've had some pretty nice indications of successes - Ohlendorf, Hanrahan, DY, Jones, and Milledge.

And some indications of failures - Andy, Moss

Jury is still out on Morton, Hart, and DanMac.

In the minors, there are some positives - Alvarez, Tabata, Tony Sanchez, and some negatives - Gorkys, Morris

When looked at overall, it's fairly encouraging.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 5:46 PM

DMac - Adam didn't produce to expectation when the Pirates had him together with Bay, Nady and McLouth, when all 3 of them were having career months. It's pretty clear he wasn't in the long term plan after last year.

Anyway, Jones had narrowed down his choice between the Pirates and the Phillies, who certainly weren't in desperate need for a power bat at his positions.

The Pirates would have pursued Jones no matter what.

DMac wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 6:04 PM

I guess I don't agree with that...Adam started out better this year, then Ryan went down with an injury and they traded Nate.  I think his numbers were hurt a great deal by a lot of that.  I do not think it was a given he was gone, but that's my opinion.

Cajun Thunder wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 6:14 PM

I think people are missing the boat when it comes to the LaRoche-Walker situation. LaRoche has not performed well enough offensively to be ENTITLED to a full time starting role at this point. Walker has his deficiencies as well.

However...Andy LaRoche is carrying a .635 OPS vs RHP...Walker at Indy...had a .835 OPS vs RHP. Why not have Walker start against righties...and LaRoche against lefties...where he has an .839 OPS?

Both players get playing time...Walker gets acclimated to the majors...and we get a hint as to whether he may be capable of playing at this level. If not...then we have more of an idea how to design the 2010 lineup.

Or does the idea of a platoon make too much sense to be implemented?

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 6:27 PM

Thunder, that is a good idea except that it slows the acclemation of everyday playiong for walker

When it happens,  

                      WALKER IS A ROCKER

ConcernedChris wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 6:37 PM

Am I the only one that read this AP headline today "Glaus likely bit player with Cardinals" & took it 'out of context'???

I really thought Glaus pulled a 'True Blood' on a teammate :p

www.post-gazette.com/.../995299-63.stm

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 6:46 PM

Thunder - that could be a very good idea. I hadn't checked Andy's splits before you mentioned it.

Andy against LHP this year: .292 / .370 / .469 / .839

That would put Walker playing about 70% and Andy 30%.

wozzle wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 6:53 PM

So how 'bout dem Stillers, hey?  

Here's the thing, folks.  We are operating under new rules (in baseball, new rules mean rules < 25 years old).  A prediction - some day our Clutch will be playing for the Doodledandies, or the Cerise Hose, or possibly the Smog (always hoped some LA team would be called the Smog).  It's how MLB has evolved - or, more precisely, what it has allowed itself to become.  Steinbrenner rules, to be even more precise.  

To me it's disgusting.  We just have to keep hoping that a particular combination of good, relatively inexpensive players can get lucky / develop chemistry / sell their souls enough to emerge victorious in the Whirled Series.  Then we wave them a fond farewell and wait four or five years (if we're lucky) to cheer on a new group of good, relatively inexpensive players hoping to do the same thing.

NFL and NBA have learned that it's better for them financially to encourage parity.  MLB is sucking their smaller markets dry, because they're making big money from a very few large markets.  Aftr this generation is gone, whither baseball?   How many of us are under 30?  Damn few, I'd bet.  Baseball also competes for athletes with NFL, NBA and even NHL - it didn't have to compete for great athletes before about 1963.

Are we watching the demise of the great American pastime?  Sure.  Does anyone really care?  Does anyone really know what time it is?

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 7:03 PM

As much as I had from last year written Adam off, I agree with DMAC that the Pirates had not.

I think his start gave them much hope, maybe plenty of it.

I think they go into the season waitng to see and willing to sign him.

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 7:23 PM

Well, since I am alone and the topic is to be bad or not to the bone, I guess maybe if the FO had heard this from me last off season he is a pirate

www.youtube.com/watch

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 7:57 PM

wozzle -

It may indeed be better for the game to have more parity than it does now, however the salary cap in the NFL, NHL and NBA has not really ensured that players remain with their original teams.

In fact, it actually means it's generally impossible to keep all your superstars on a championship team together no matter what team you are talking about.

Generally, you can only keep maybe one or two superstars on a team long term and allow the others to leave.

Eventually, the Penguins are probably going to have to choose between Crosby, Malkin and Fleury. Maybe they can keep one or two, but probably not all three. The Steelers will keep Ben for as long as they want, but at the expense of others.

75 years ago in MLB there were 16 teams, and New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Philly and Boston had 9 of them.

Detroit, Cincy, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Washington had 1 each.

The attendance at Yankee Stadium was extremely similar to a bad night at PNC Park for the Pirates this year - around 12K/game. This was to see some of the game's now legends of Ruth and Gehrig.

Now there are 25 MLB markets, not 10. Before, New York overwhelmingly was in almost every World Series. If not the Yankees, then the Dodgers or Giants. Now, major markets still dominate, but to a lesser degree than in the old days, and there are more of them.

So, saying baseball is in decline because there's no salary cap doesn't bear out from the facts. Baseball is more popular now than it has ever been. Football may be more popular than baseball, but that's not because baseball has gotten less popular.

Certainly baseball may be less popular in Pittsburgh, but that's not a reflection of the overall state of the game. Just a reflection on the bad performance of the Pirates over 17 years.

From 1918 to 1948, The Phillies had exactly 1 winning season. The average attendance during those years was 2500. The Philly A's and Pirates during this time drew 4000-11000. How would the state of baseball seem to Philadelphians if the A's hadn't been there I wonder?

If the Pirates can become a contending team with a low payroll, like the Marlins, then they will have enough revenue to keep Cutch as long as he wants to stay here. They will have to make choices, just the same as if there were a salary cap, however. They will probably only be able to keep at most 3 players at the level of $10M-$18M.

Will they try to keep Cutch, Alvarez (if he wants to sign), and a pitcher? What happens if someone gets hurt?

In the end, even with a salary cap and nothing in the minors, then you'd have to do the same thing the Pirates did the past two years by trading your older players for prospects, because there'd be no other way to restock your system with players quickly.

This is exactly what Branch Rickey did with the Pirates in the 1950's, when money for paying players was not an issue. People hated him for it, but he paved the way for the championship Pirates of 1960 and the golden years after that.

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 8:11 PM

Mark, it was not that long ago I remember the eight teams.

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 8:23 PM

mark, nice work on that post

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 9:08 PM

Here's some food for thought based on what I think are facts, in no particular order:

Pirates's attendance is either up or pretty steady from last year;

MLB overall attendance is down from last year;

Perry Hill says he was assured that the Pirates had no intention of blowing the thing up this year;

Frank Coonelly says they didn't "promise" any coaches that they would not trade any individual player or group of players;

Neal says they made reasonable, serious offers to Freddy and Jack and were not intent on trading them;

Bob Nutting and Frank Coonelly say they are not punting on 2009;

Frank Coonelly says when Nate is traded, Hey,Neal brought it to us based on an offer he couldn't refuse, so that's why when we said Nate was part of the "core" we were not lying;

Bob Nutting says when he said he expected improved W-L results from the 2009 team he was talking about a different team that would not have been blowed up;

based on the reduced attendance in MLB and the Yankees new stadium, the Pirates expect severely reduced revenue sharing next year.

Did they make the trades based on the long term talent health of the organization or did they do it for the long term financial health of the organization?  (For those so inclined, you can insert the long term financial health of BN for "the organization.")  If it was the latter, it is not the reason they have given.

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 9:23 PM

Jason Stark looks at the Mets and it ain't pretty

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

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 9:30 PM

Arriba, if i thought for one moment that tehey made the trades sinmply to reduce payroll i doubt I would be a baseball fan any longer.

To me it absurd to think they are here for the reason, to pad the bank account,   they did not have to spend a penny on the latin casino  why bother.

actually I do not see how anyone could get so involved in the FO to the point to be consumed and then go to a single game.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 9:47 PM

"Did they make the trades based on the long term talent health of the organization or did they do it for the long term financial health of the organization?"

Both.  

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 9:51 PM

JJ--I was just setting forth what I take to be facts.  It's your conclusion from them that has you exercised.  Is the conclusion you reached beyond the realm of possibility?  do you disagree with my "facts?"

And I'm still going to go Friday to a game (I'll hold my nose) because my daughter and son-in-law live out of town and have not been to a game this year.

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 9:54 PM

21--and what has been their explanation for why it has been done?  One other fact to add--they have consistently stated that these moves were not financially motivated.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:05 PM

Wilver, I've never relied much on what the front office of any sports team says because they always seem to trip over their own words and/or say what they think the fans want to hear.  And that appears to be the case as well with the Pirates front office.

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:08 PM

I do not diagree with your facts although If I have to decide so on one opposietes I would say i believe the actual words from FC over hearsay about perry.

I think your observation about Bob Nutting meaning the team before the trades is a keen observation and one i have thougfht but you are the first to make that clear hear on the blog.

Everyone who just wants to slam them leave that important common sense out of their slam.

I was not trying to comment about you going just trying to say how I lokk at it for myself and maybe a bit puzzled how others do not see it th e same way.

I also tend to think that Perry and the team are still in talks.

Smizek says this week i think it was that the offers to Jack and Freddy were more than fair and may just be the best offers that end up coming their way this year.

I think when  Jack sealed the deal when he went public and I think they did have every intention of keeping both.

The stat geeks have shown over that the talent level has seen big time improvements, big time.

I think that is a slam dunk.

Who knows how they play out.  

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:12 PM

Aribba and 21, I think much boils down to ones evaluating who we had and how they fior into the future world series drives.

I accept  that as someone staed this morning that only clutch is on a worls seris team now because of the youth of the team and before because of the topped out level of the former players.

I think they aw many of them as injury prone and look how many of them are not playing.

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:32 PM

JJ--everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but I had the exact opposite reaction to FCs response about Hill.  Hill said he had been "assured" etc, etc,

Frank's response was we didn't "promise" a particular player or group of players would not be traded.  You have to assume that FC knew what it had been reported that Hill said.  A contradiction would be that Hill was not "assured" that they wouldn't blow up the team.  But the response was, we didn't "promise" that any "particular" player or "group of players" would not be traded.  Well, of course not, there would be no reason to if the assurance was that they weren't going to blow the team up!  And remember, FC is the lawyer and Hill is the "working guy."

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:38 PM

Arriba -

I'm 100% certain that the Pirates could keep a payroll of $55M without being in financial difficulties, even if revenue sharing does decline somewhat next year. When they say "these trades are not financially motivated", they are saying "we do not need to lower payroll below where we already are". They don't mean that money isn't part of the equation. Of course, it is.

As a matter of best practices for a team like the Pirates, they absolutely cannot allow free agents to routinely walk away from the club without getting talent back that helps them stock the system and prime the pump.

Every business has to find its competitive advantage. The large market teams' advantage is they can spend more money. The small market teams' advantage is they can take advantage of the large market teams' quest to win right now and give themselves a better chance to grow talent from within.

So that is what the Pirates are doing.

It's possible that Huntington misjudged some things about the team this year. It's possible that he really wanted to keep Freddy and Jack because he didn't think there was a chance to replace them and get the kind of return he was able to. I myself am rather surprised he was able to get the kind of return he was.

So, while he may have told told Hill that he was hoping Freddy and Jack would be with the team for the forseeable future, as DY started to show signs of being able to replace Freddy, and the Giants were willing to part with Alderson, and Brian Morris apparently not living up to his potential, etc...he just came to the conclusion that if Freddy and Jack would sign for this, then it's worth it, but any more then no.

John Lease wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:56 PM

Ah, Jack and Freddy talked their way out of town.

I see.  I thought they were doing it for the long term health of the franchise, but it was just those pesky malcontents that had to be dealt with.

The only thing that is consistent with the Pirates is guys who are even marginally good are shipped out for cheaper guys.

Grabow couldn't be convinced to stay, because after all he'd be a free agent, and was a malcontent, and injury prone.

His ERA as a Cub is 0.00, so obviously he was jaking it as a Pirate.  Good riddance!

(This is sarcasm)

mazfromiowa wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 10:57 PM

I see Snell is still having his problems with the strike zone. In two innings he has 56 pitches.He is leading 3-2 though.JW is 1-1 and an error for one of Snell's runs.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 11:00 PM

Mark

t's possible that he really wanted to keep Freddy and Jack because he didn't think there was a chance to replace them and get the kind of return he was able to. I myself am rather surprised he was able to get the kind of return he was.

_________________________

They did make offers to Jack and Freddie, what would they have done if those two would have taken them?

So IMO, I don't think lying to Hill was what they were doing, I think things just worked out wrong for Hill.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 11:06 PM

Adam LaRoche is 1-4.I see Chipper Jones(6 time former all star)gets his 17th error.Boy the switchboard would be all lit up if Andy had 17 errors.

Wave wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Thu, Sep 3 2009 11:31 PM

The Intermittent Update on Neal Huntington's record as GM using a historical and present-day comparison.

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

Huntington (2008-2009, Pittsburgh Pirates):

120-176, .408 winning percentage

Andrew Friedman and Gerry Hunsicker (2006-2007, Tampa Bay Rays):

127-197, .392 winning percentage.

Branch Rickey (1951-1952, Pittsburgh Pirates):

106-202, .344 winning percentage

Dave Drazga wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Fri, Sep 4 2009 3:55 AM

Dejan,

Just for the record, you now have history of excusing a lack of hustle.

-

I was at that doubleheader in '78 -- first row of the upper deck in right, just inside fair territory.

I still remember Milo's calls from the post-game radio replay on the ride home.

"The ball rolls into the dugout.  Ott will come home.  The Pirates win!  The Pirates win!"

"And the Pirates have won a doubleheader on a balk call!"

-

I also remember the elation while walking down those ramps after the game.  Not to mention "The Bull Sh*ts" sign in left behind Luzinski.

By the way, with the wildcard, games like that are very possibly rendered completely meaningless, and regulars are rested the whole series.

-

I still say that during Game 1 of the '91 playoffs, when Van Slyke homered just below my lower deck seat in right in the first inning, Three Rivers was as loud and raucous as any Steeler AFC Championship Game.

I seriously thought the place was going to do what it eventually did in that video.  It crossed my mind, I swear – What if the upper deck collapses?

After the 1-0 loss in Game 2, when the big bats kept disappointing, the place was as solemn as after any Cowher home loss.

roxtar wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Pity for PNC Park
on Fri, Sep 4 2009 5:30 AM

Mark in Dallas:

Nice post, but a correction:

"75 years ago in MLB there were 16 teams, and New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Philly and Boston had 9 of them.

Detroit, Cincy, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Washington had 1 each."

Yanks, Giants and Dodgers in NY, Cubs and Sox in Chicago, Cards and Browns in St. Louis, Phillies and A's in Philly, Braves and Sox in Boston.  That's eleven teams among those 5 cities.  Hard to imagine that St. Louis was both the southernmost and westernmost city in America to have major league baseball.  Of course, at that time, the center of population in the United States was in Indiana.