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: Losses, losses, losses

By Dejan Kovacevic | 8 a.m. Thursday

Click here to submit a question.

We have Qs ...

__________

Q: How much longer is this going to go on?

I there any chance that Major League Baseball will consider having a salary cap, or are certain teams like the Pirates going to be farm teams year after year?

Shawn McLane of Wheeling, W.Va.

KOVACEVIC: There is little reason to think it will end soon, Shawn.

As detailed in my story from Houston the other day, what we are witnessing right now is one of the worst stretches of baseball in Pittsburgh not just during these 17 losing seasons but through any of the franchise's 123 years of existence. And forget the numbers. Just look at what you are seeing with your own eyes. (Or hearing with your ears, as the local TV rights-holder has found that there is a greater audience by repeating non-local college football games.)

People often discuss what constitutes rock bottom for the Pirates over these 17 years.

While there is no doubt that the minor leagues are stronger, strictly within the scope of the roster that is in Pittsburgh and its current performance, this might well be it.

Sure, they have competed. And they are young.

But sports is a pretty simple business to dissect at the end of the day: You win, or you lose. And this team loses a ton.

__________

Q: In your opinion do you think Brandon Moss, Neil Walker or Steve Pearce stand much of a chance of going north with the Bucs next spring?

Craig Coons of Muscatine, Iowa

KOVACEVIC: I would think all do, Craig, if only because Moss and Pearce will be out of options, and Walker clearly did well enough in the eyes of management to get promoted. Besides, as many have pointed out, if the Pirates are going to figure out what they have with Walker, it had better be before Pedro Alvarez arrives.

Which leads us neatly to ...

__________

Q: Greetings, Dejan. Just for the record, I was not one of these people constantly hounding you about Neil Walker getting a chance to play with the Pirates when he was struggling at Indianapolis.

Now that Walker has legitimately earned a chance in the big leagues and Andy LaRoche continues to struggle, why isn't Walker getting a regular chance to play?

Do you think this is John Russell's decision or perhaps, is Neal Huntington forcing Russell to play LaRoche to try to save some face from a trade that has turned out to be awful?

Edward Krajewski of Dravosburg

KOVACEVIC: Russell manages the team on the field in game situations, Edward, but there is no doubt that Huntington and Russell work together on major decisions such as the one you cite. That is not even remotely uncommon in baseball, though there surely are some managers more autonomous than others, like, say, Tony La Russa or Bobby Cox.

In this case, yes, I would be quite sure that Huntington has had input in the decision to stay with LaRoche rather than look at Walker. And, although no one with the Pirates would acknowledge such a thing, I would be equally sure that the trade had something to do with it.

How could it not?

If Walker fails, that is just another lousy pick by Dave Littlefield.

If LaRoche fails, that is a painful blow -- maybe the most painful one -- in what already is shaping up to be a bad Jason Bay trade.

__________

Q: I know that, in the past, there have been allusions to what the Pirates have requested from the league office in their schedule. Do you know what they requested this year?

My guess is that they requesting being at home for the holidays. I can't believe they got home dates for Father's Day, Memorial Day, the Fourth and Labor Day. I didn't check, but I bet we are the only team with that.

Secondly, do you think such a request sacrifices the team from a competitive standpoint?

I mean, come on, Houston to Milwaukee to LA was something Columbus' navigators must have thought up getting to India ... and we have better technology now! I probably don't need to get either of you started on playing San Francisco and Oakland or San Diego and LA on separate trips.

Craig Brewer of San Francisco

KOVACEVIC: There is no question it hurts performance, Craig, and we are talking about a team that currently cannot win on the road under the best of travel circumstances.

I have gotten no indication that the Pirates pursued anything related to this schedule other than trying to hook up Oakland and San Francisco on the same trip to try to cut out one of those California trips. That, obviously, was denied.

Frank Coonelly pledged, in the first interview I conducted with him, that the Pirates would prioritize the baseball over the business when it came to scheduling -- something his predecessors most definitely did not do -- but this schedule clearly is a step backward in that regard, even if it is solely Major League Baseball's fault.

The Pirates got the Cleveland series only by accident -- it is not part of their long-requested plea for an interleague rivalry, something that the largest cities get twice a year, not just once -- and, as you note, the travel itself is a geographical calamity.

Whichever software program is concocting this thing needs to understand that, just because teams are in the same division (Houston and Milwaukee), that does not mean they are somehow close.

And again, I will stress, this is not something personal: Chuck Finder and I split up the long trips, anyway, so it has almost zero impact on our travel. The coaches, players and staff of the team are affected quite a bit, though.

__________

Q: Hey, Dejan, was just looking over the just released Pirates schedule.  Any idea why the Bucs play the Phillies four times in Pittsburgh but only two in Philly?

Shane Brown of Crafton

KOVACEVIC: In the end of the day, Shane, it is all done so that the two New York teams, two Chicago teams and two Los Angeles teams can face each other twice a year.

That's not being glib, either. That's really it. The schedule is unbalanced, incomprehensible and, in large part, unfair for that simple reason. And, so long as the teams at the bottom of the priority list continue to simply take this type of treatment without speaking up or uniting -- as teams have in other sports -- that is what they will continue to get.

__________

Q: Does Zach Duke have a decent shot at winning a Silver Slugger Award for pitcher this season?

He has a decent average for a pitcher and has proved to be quite the good bunter.

Andrés Forero of Barranquilla, Colombia

KOVACEVIC: Agreed that he has performed well at the plate, Andres -- and in batting practice, as regular blog followers know -- but a Silver Slugger will not be easy.

Duke's .231 batting average ranks fourth in the National League among pitchers with 50 or more at-bats. The Rockies' Ubaldo Jimenez and the Reds' Micah Owings each are at .245 to tie for the lead, with Owings having three home runs. Carlos Zambrano is at .213 but with four home runs.

By the way, Duke's average is only eight points lower than Ryan Doumit's, and it is within 20 points of Andy LaRoche, Brandon Moss and Ramon Vazquez.

__________

Q: Interesting comments from Doug Mientkiewicz regarding the Nate McLouth trade.

Any validity to Nate refusing to move from center field once Andrew McCutchen arrived?

Could that have sped up the trade to Atlanta because Neal knew Andrew was ready to come up to the bigs?

Ron Anderson of Lincoln, Neb.

KOVACEVIC: McLouth did approach management about wanting to stay in center field, and he made no secret of his wish to stay there, having discussed it with me in several interviews going back to spring training.

But an outright demand?

Never happened.

If it had, McLouth surely never would have been as rattled by the trade as he was. And trust me when I tell you he was, even a good bit after it happened. He even said afterward that he could have envisioned an outfield for many years to come with him, McCutchen and Nyjer Morgan, in some form or other, understanding fully that he might well have been outplayed in center at some point.

McLouth's contention, as I took it, was that he should not automatically forfeit the position.

__________

Q: What do you think the Pirates will do with Matt Capps?

Is there a chance they will non-tender him?

John Taylor of Fairmont, W.Va.

KOVACEVIC: Capps is making $2.425 million and, despite his many struggles, his 25 saves are sure to get him a raise through his second year of arbitration.

Still, the Pirates will not let that go. As was being discussed here back during a time when the team routinely released or traded players at lowest possible value, those are the kinds of de-valuing moves a franchise cannot afford to make. Assets need to be built up.

Bad as this year has been for Capps -- as he acknowledged this week in Los Angeles -- we all have also seen how effective he can be over extended stretches and, most important, how impeccable his control can be when all is right. The velocity is still there, and no one -- on or off the record -- is complaining about his shape. But the command is not there, for one reason or another, and that answer has to be one of the Pirates' top priorities this offseason.

__________

Q: Now that the streak has been clinched, there's nothing more to do than appreciate it for the absurdity it really is: Seventeen years is an astonishing length of time, and I'm guessing that oddsmakers will set the over/under for Pirates wins well below 82 for 2010, as well. How far can it possibly go?

Consider that a child born on October 14, 1992 may now be legally licensed to drive. Will he make it to voting age without a winning season? Drinking age? Age of eligibility to run for Congress?

Consider that Alex Rodriguez debuted in 1994. He currently has 577 home runs. Can he hit 763 before the streak ends?

Mike Piazza won the Rookie of the Year award in 1993.  He retired at the end of the 2007 season and will likely be a first ballot Hall of Famer.  Could he go from rookie to Cooperstown, all within the span of the Pirates' futility?

Finally, I was in kindergarten when the 1993 season began. I'm now in grad school. Could I possibly go from kindergarten to a Ph.D. without seeing a winning baseball season in Pittsburgh?

Perhaps the only thing more unfathomable than the length of the losing is the idea that it will end soon.

Brian Leary of Los Angeles

KOVACEVIC: Good luck with that degree, my friend.

We will chat Monday, and the Q&A will return in two weeks.


Posted Sep 17 2009, 08:00 AM by Dejan Kovacevic

Comments

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 8:21 AM

Losses bring everyone down.  Best point is that there team has pitchers who batting almost as well as several of the regular players.

Demery44 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 8:22 AM

Firsties?

Demery44 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 8:25 AM

Frank and Neal have been very quiet lately.

Can you blame them?

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 8:37 AM

Demery,

I just got off the phone with Frank Coonelly and he said to tell you that he is "extremely disappointed" with the recent performance of the team but assures you that everyone within the organization is working very hard to bring you the championship caliber team that you deserve.

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 8:58 AM

Reposted from the Morning Links thread:

In re: The Schedule.

Has it occured to anyone that the PBC schedule stinks because the PBC provides nothing as far as an attraction to improve the other team's gate?

Was it Daryle who noted that he got tickets for 1/2 of face value that he couldn't touch previously simply because it was the PBC in the other dugout?

When this team starts being something other than a doormat than the grievances about scheduling will have more validity.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 9:08 AM

The Nuttings have absolutely no basis for scheduling grievances.

They have been subsisting off MLB for years under Nutting ownership while giving nothing back in return.

Come the day the Nuttings start contributing something positive to the sport, then he can complain.

Until then neither he nor his lackies should complain about the schedule.

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 9:12 AM

Nutting complaining about the schedule is like an fat lady complaining that she is getting bigger while polishing off a gallon of ice cream --- what the?

madturk2008 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 9:37 AM

Reposting for all since it was late when I added it last night.

Hey all here is a picture of little Willi on his first Birthday.  Soon we will not be calling him little Willi for he is growing fast.  Thanks to AG (Proud daddy) and JJ (for sending me the pics) .  Sorry AG and JJ that I took so long to get them out to the asylum.

community.post-gazette.com/.../default.aspx

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 9:48 AM

@ JAL:  The "link" comment was tongue-in-cheek. My poor attempt at humor was that JR's bit about "last night's loss" could be standardized and made part of your daily links, thus saving DK the trouble of interviewing him, posting the link, etc.

Jose

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 9:49 AM

I wonder what the net change in attendance teams experience when the PBC comes to town?

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 9:59 AM

Anyone listen (watch) Mike & Mike in the morning.  Today TIMMY! Kurkjian was on and, among other things, was talking about the Rockies.  He said something to the effect of, "You look at some of the guys and their performances and you say 'How is this happening?'" (not an exact quote, but I think I actually got it pretty close).

Looking at the PBC, if we're to get out of this rut, they're going to have to have a season where you look at the production of some of the guys who are really under performing and say "How is this happening?"

@ BFD

I apologize for not posting a commentary in a few days.  I will try and put one together today.

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:03 AM

Hey Turk, dont get mad because your link is bad this time.

fire that baby up

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:11 AM

Nutting complaining about the schedule is like an fat lady complaining that she is getting bigger while polishing off a gallon of ice cream --- what the?

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

@ BFD

I find your comment offensive to "gravity-challenged" individuals such as myself (to an extent hehehe).  I request that the moderator remove this post as it offends all large peoples and ice cream?  Say what you want about us BFD, but you leave ice cream out of this!

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:18 AM

Roberto -

How about if I replace Ice cream with rat feces hot dogs from PNC parks all you can eat seats?  We all know Bobby Nutting is trying to kill all of us with the contaminated food and contributing to the obesity rate :)

no problem with the Dialog.....we all get busy at times....

Matter of fact... some of you will be happy, but I will be gone for a couple of weeks and will be unable to post, but I am sure when I return the only thing that will have changed is NoHU's Wrong way Neil winning % will have dipped even further.  RAISE THE JOLLY ROGER WRONG WAY HUNNINGTON

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:22 AM

@ BFD

Good luck in wherever you will be the next couple of weeks.  Don't worry, barring some sort of miracle, we'll still be here bullishing and hasing and rehashing the same arguments with each other.

Can we have a motto for the PBC Blog?

"Same ol' ish, just a different day"

Shane wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:25 AM

I don't understand the complaints about the schedule. We get to open at home for the first time in years against the Dodger, which will be a big draw, and the team has a lot of home dates around the holidays, which is another good thing for the fans - the few that remain.

John Lease wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:28 AM

I'm eager to see the high quality FA's brought in next year since it'll be a bargain basement time for them.

I'll take Vladimir Guerrero, Brandon Webb and John Grabow to start, then maybe something from the buffet line.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:37 AM

On Walker not getting the starts....

I would guess this has to do more with Andy hitting .300 with 2HR since Walker got his first start, rather than management trying to justify a trade.

Although I would like to see Walker get more starts, I'm under no illusion the guy is a budding star. At most, he is probably a bench player.

Right now, Andy is better. Walker is there in case Andy starts tailing off again and Andy seems to realize this and is trying to concentrate more at the plate.

madturk2008 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:38 AM
pipecock wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:43 AM

maybe i'm drunk, but in that Murray Chass article linked in the daily post, when talking about the players the Pirates traded this year he said "You could almost put a team on the field with that lineup." DID HE WATCH ANY OF THE GAMES WITH THAT LINEUP?!?!?!

let's face it, right now we are playing absolutely terrible baseball. but is that really cause to reminisce about when we were only playing mostly terrible baseball?

we were not gonna win with those players. we can't afford the $400 million investment the Yankees made in the offseason to become a playoff contender. what else are we supposed to do? i know people talk about there being no excuses for "small market" teams not having success, but that is a load of BS. just because a team here and there makes something of a playoff run every now and then it doesn't make everything alright. we need to fight for salary caps and anything else to make it so that when McCutchen does come up to free agency, we have a chance of keeping him. as it is, no small market team can do that in MLB, but yet the Steelers and Penguins have no trouble with it at all. this is not a coincidence.

in the meantime, we are doing things the way we have to do them. i have no arguments, but it still makes me kind of sick to watch us play so badly.

jersey joe wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:43 AM

John, you can forget bone chip grabow.

pghboyinca wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:59 AM

From the Q&A,

  " If Walker fails, that is just another lousy pick by Dave Littlefield.

If LaRoche fails, that is a painful blow -- maybe the most painful one -- in what already is shaping up to be a bad Jason Bay trade."

   DK, Thank you fo rhaving hte guts and integrity to actually put in writing what most intelligent people here have realized for the better aprt of the last 3 months. The stated objectives of the front office in terms of putting the 9 best out on the field and having accountability determine moves are disengenuous. There will be good trades and bad but good front offices and ones with integrity always keep the best interests of the ballclub in mind.

  MArkindallas, Who ar eyou kidding with that post about Andy hitting .300 since Niles recall? #1 he was hitting under .200 for the prior 60 days so why was he even given hte chance because when te decison to keep playing him wa smade he was hitting below what a pitcher hits for a third of hte season. Secondly his average is .248 now and was .247 when Neil arrived so batting .300 raised it 1 point? Talk about selective use of meaningles stats? You would be a great defense attorney. "Your honor I know my client went on a5 month killing and looting spree but I think he should be set free because in the last 2 weeks while in jail he has been a decent guy and not broken any laws"    

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:04 AM

pipecock -

I agree that was a bizarre and ridiculous statement from Chass.

Plus, his main beef is apparently the $22M payroll, and as his main example, he goes on and on about the Nyjer trade, which didn't save the Pirates any money.

I sent him an email pointing out the Marlins and Rays lowered their payrolls to that same level recently, and produced a competitive team within a couple of years in each instance.

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:15 AM

Only in this forum would anyone (NuttinginDallas, and Pipecook) defend Nuttings pitifully low payroll.  -  The payroll and welfare check he recieves are facts which can not be disputed, defended, or denied

I often hear "would you rather be the Mets spending tons of money and losing?"  Let me answer this wil a YES.  At least in their case the owner trying to win.... is his attempt to win flawed...apparently, but he is trying which is more than I can say for that no good rotten  scoundrel Nutting.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:20 AM

pghboyinca -

My point is the Pirates should be doing what they say they are doing - that is ending the scholarships of players. That goes for LaRoche as well as Walker.

If Walker came in and immediately was hitting the cover off the ball like Jones and AMac did and was playing BETTER than Andy, then he would deserve more starts over Andy.

But that's not the way is has happened. Andy has gone 12 for 40 (.300 AVG) with a .378 OBP and 2 HR, and he's gotten a hit in every game he's started except 1.

Walker has gone 3 for 15 (.200) - all singles.

It's not to say that Walker won't get better when he becomes more comfortable. But the Pirates need to create real competition for jobs and end the scholarships - regardless of how they arrived at the organization.

It seems they are doing just that with LaRoche and Walker.

Now, if they would just do the same with Capps/Hanrahan I'd be happy. Notice how Capps was here before and Hanrahan could be used as closer to "justify" that trade. But they aren't doing that because they apparently feel it's in their best interest to try to lift Capps out of his quagmire of problems.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:21 AM

BFD -

So are you saying the Rays and Marlins are NOT trying to win?

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:22 AM

Re Chass: Selective reading gang. Chass states that the team would still be loser with that lineup, it just would take longer to lose that many games. Nowhere in that article does he say that the players traded constitute a "winning" group.

Y'all are picking him to shreds over something he did not say.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:22 AM

Dk,

I don't understand how justifying the Bay trade would keep Andy on the field?  Clearly that hasn't been seen with Brandon Moss when Pearce was brought up to get his "extended look" (and keeping G.Jones in RF w/ Pearce @ 1st).  Clearly that wasn't seen when they suspended Bryan Morris for conduct reasons. Andy was not the main piece in the trade either, another reason why it makes no sense that he's playing to justify a trade.  And, if Neil Walker were to start for a month, would anyone get the sense that they were giving up on Andy, or seeing what Walker can do for a month when Andy has been playing almost everyday for the whole season?  I'd say more of seeing what Walker has (rather than punting on LaRoche) which leads me to....

Obviously, someone or someones have made a decision that Neil Walker isn't in any sort of plan going forward, but Andy is.  Maybe that plan sees Andy become a guy off the bench.  Maybe it sees him stay the reg 3Bman and Pedro moves to 1st.  Maybe it sees him as part of a trade down the line.  Not sure.  What I am sure of is that Neil Walker has no future as a Pittsburgh Pirate.  Otherwise, he would've gotten a "Pearce look" in September.

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:27 AM

@ Mark: So 15 at bats is enough to determine that Walker won't hit better than Lil Stonehenge?

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:28 AM

Who would you guys take in the streak for cash on ESPN:

Royals (SP: Grienke) @ Tigers (SP: Jackson)?

Both SPs are pretty dominating, and the Tigers haven't been playing that well as of late, but the Royals are almost (or pretty much are) as bad as our Buccos so tough choice.  Wanted to get some input.

Right now its about 65/35 Detroit on people who have picked.  I'm seriously considering going with my man Zach.  People. persuade me!

Shane wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:32 AM

RE: Walker and LaRoche...I don't think most people are really saying that Andy should necessarily be benched, but maybe moved to second for a game here and there to let Walker get some starts. And now would be a good time with DY and his bad back.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:34 AM

Why Didn't I -

I would say Walker is not getting the Pearce look because he hasn't shown he deserves that kind of attention. Pearce has been given his extended look because he put up decent numbers in AAA longer than Walker has.

Walker really only had one good month in AAA.

Walker is going to get a chance to show he's better than Andy, but he's going to have to seize the opportunities when they come, just like every other minor leaguer fighting to stay on the MLB club.

Andy has really taken the challenge to heart and has performed better. Can he sustain that? I doubt it. But that's what challenges are all about.

Thundercrack wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:35 AM

I was surprised by DK's response to the question regarding Walker/ LaRoche - JR/NH.  I would be extremely disappointed if they kept playing LaRoche as some sort of justification for the Bay trade or because Walker is a Littlefield pick.  I would hope that they keep playing Laroche because they feel he has the better upside (and was higher rated prospect). Maybe they feel they know all they need to know about both players and they've decided to go with Andy.  But I would like to see Walker get some starts this season.

Regarding the Chass article, I too emailed him about his comments about the lineup we traded away.  And I wondered why he was using the Nyjer trade now as his main example----it happened 2 months ago.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:38 AM

JosePagan -

Believe me, I'm no LaRoche fan. I want to see Walker do well. I want to see him get more ABs. I'd like to see what he can do, and obviously we haven't seen that yet.

BUT - if Andy continues to hit well, then I can't fault them for not playing Walker more.

I do expect that Andy will not continue his recent "streak" of better hitting, though. And that will give Walker some starts towards the end of the year.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:46 AM

MarkinDallas

Andy did hit over .300 in the month of May.  He can sustain a streak for a lil while, but, as we've seen, he can also sustain streaks the wrong way (pun intended @ NuHo with his "Wrong Way Huntington") too.

I just don't see how DK can answer a question like that when other actions have spoken to the contrary.

StevePegues wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 11:47 AM

JosePagan wrote:

Selective reading gang. Chass states that the team would still be loser with that lineup, it just would take longer to lose that many games.

_______________________________________________

Well, THAT'S much better.  Does it really matter much when you go from having a pretty bad team to a really terrible team?

I suppose you coulda kept all the guys that were traded away and signed Hank Aaron, Mike Schmidt, Johhny Bench, Cy Young, Juan Marichal, and Sandy Koufax in the offseason to compliment them and then you'd have a team that...  Wait...  You say ALL those guys are retired and there's maybe one or two good pitchers (at most) and two or three hitters (at most) in any given free agent year?  And signing just one of those guys costs WHAT?!?!?  OK, nevermind.

pghboyinca wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 12:06 PM

@markindallas,

  Your arguement does not make sense. On one hand you are saying that no scholarships should be awarded yet prior to Walkers arrival Andy was hiutting .247 with no power yet he continued to play. Then you said "since Walkers arrival Andy his been hitting .300" again not true because now you say in his last 40 AB's and you somehow conveniently take out his 0-3 game on Sept 1st. In actuality Andy is hitting .279 since Neils arrival but that is such a short time frame that it is irrelevant. His body of work over 700 major league at bats is much more telling and remarkably  consistent. He is a hitter who will bat sub .250 with little power. He had over 100 major league AB's in 2007 close to 200 in 2008 and 500 this year and see what you have. Walker has 15 A.B.'s with 3 starts and never back to back starts and now has gone 5 days without an AB? What he said about existing players before this regime took over is obviously true. DK has everyone's respect here and has to be impartial and not openly bash the club or any player but look at what he wrote. Whether you care to believe it or not the Sept playing time of Andy was unjustified and not in the best interest of the PBC.      

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 12:23 PM

@ pghboyinca

MarkinDallas is also saying that (in his opinion) Neil has done nothing to warrant a "Pearce look" as he's saying that Neil basically put together 1 month (hey sort of like Andy in May) of good hitting.  So it does fit with his view that scholarships should end in the fact that it's not Andy's scholarship keeping him playing, but rather Neil's lack of performance at AAA and also his failure to take the team by storm when he's been given his limited opportunities.

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 12:27 PM

@ Steve: My point was that Chass was getting hammered by folks who portrayed him as thinking that the folks traded were winners. They weren't. He acknowledged that.

I am not waxing maudlin about players traded away these past 2 seasons - neither is he.

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 12:28 PM

You gonna have some splainin' to do Bobby Nutting!

NuttingHostage wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 12:29 PM

Bob Nutting is spending $20M less than the life support he receives by MLB.

That is morally and ethically wrong and it violates the collective bargaining agreement.

There is no excuse.

None.

IT IS A CULTURE OF GREED!

Srsly.

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 12:40 PM

"You gonna have some splainin' to do Bobby Nutting!"

No, not really.  The MLB is fully aware of the team's financial situation and what the cash is used for.  It would be nice if Nutting would believe in financial transparency for us fans, but he doesn't have to explain anything any more than we have to go to the games or watch them or talk about them on blogs.

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 12:45 PM

Now we know for sure that NuHo is really K. McClatchy and it is his desire to get MLB to investigate the Nuttings and DEMAND that they sell the club. Then he and his "smary" sidekick Grover Dill aka JP, or by his street name Dave Littlefield, will be swooping in to SAVE the city of Pgh, and ride off with the fair maiden. Then we can all live happily ever after with our "competing" Pirates of, you guessed it with a payroll of 80 million paid to such "stars',  such as Derek Bell, Pat Meares Jeremy Burnitz and of course our faves the Jack and Freddy show part 2

Forgive me if I tune out for that I am not a fan of reruns. Let's try something new and exciting. Hey it may not work out but going back to the same old same old and remembering how it used to be will  get us only so far.

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 12:52 PM

So folks got ahead of my self the previous entry should end with the line "Which is nowhere"

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 12:57 PM

Indiana -

Why does the 80 million dollar payroll have to include guys you mentioned above (pat mears, D BELL, and such)  I mean I know the FO stinks at evaluating talent, but maybe they could put the additional money (50 million) into good FA acquitions?  I guess you have as little faith in their abilities as me, NuHU JP, and Pghboy.... and Daquido who you Nuttingites ran off of here with your bullyish behavior.

Nuttingindallas -

No.  I don't  believe the Rays are big time losers like Nuttings gang.  I don't know enough about the Rays organization to conclude their owner is a crooked piece of garbage like Nutting though.  

JHadar wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:01 PM

Not baseball -- but maybe useful to a few

www.miamiherald.com/.../1234240.html

Baseball -- we have a catastrophe on our hands again.  We have a young team with no direction, pressing, beating themselves, and in desperate need of re"group"ing.  

Their record indicates how bad they have been -- right now they are actually worse than the record -- and there is no way to predict whether they'll get better or get worse -- except of course they are obviously still learning and the youngest team in MLB -- which should give reason for whatever hope there is.  Ninety percent of this game is half mental after all, and if these guys can figure that out, the athleticism and ability is there to make these guys into respectale -- not championship club, first things first -- but in the meantime this is the sort of thing that happens when you blow it all up and start over.

When things are this bad there is nothing anyone can say to the press or in any sort of public forum that will sound honest and right.  Including saying nothing at all.

JuniataKid wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:07 PM

"That is morally and ethically wrong and it violates the collective bargaining agreement."

Not if they're putting it back into baseball operations and/or setting it aside for the day when they actually have enough talent to compete and need money to keep that talent intact.

Now, if he's pocketing it or using it to prop up his causes and less-profitable business units, you're absolutely right.

We won't know the real scenario for a few more years, unfortunately.

JuniataKid wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:09 PM

@Jose

By the way, the Pirates are #11 in road attendance. Guess enough people left the region in the last 30 years to help bolster attendance in other cities.

InZiskWeTrust wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:10 PM

MarkinDallas,

There is no way that the PBC should have called up Walker and then forgotten his name and what he looked like because they haven't seen him on the field since they did.

I really don't care that LaRoche is hitting .300 since Walker's call up. It's only 2+ weeks of baseball. The 2+ MONTHS prior, he stunk the joint up 78% of the time he got into the batter's box.

If you are 20+ games out and make Sept. call ups, you should be getting those players reps. What's the worst that can happen? You find out that one of them can actually play better than a current roster member? Great....that's what you are hoping for when you current roster members are hitting a collective .255!

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:12 PM

COme on JKID - This is everything wrong with baseball.  Why would any of us think he is socking the money away for a later date?  DO you really think he is taking this money and putting into the Dominican?  As NuHo mentioned earlier, his payroll is less than the welfare money he recieves!

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:13 PM

Does it really matter who plays?  Walker or Laroche?  They both stink!

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:21 PM

BFD

Not trying to be "bullish". Just that so much of what I hear on here today is just ranting about the greed of the owner. I am truly convinced that there are people out there who are so against anything NUTTING that they would sell their soul to see him gone.

80 million is the amount that NuHo constantly places as the gold standard for having a "competitive" club. I do not want just a competitive club. I want to see WS titles. I also believe that by creating a team by adding "affordable" free agents is not the wisest move we could make. While we all desire the same thing it seems that there are some who like to make noise and decry ownership that is cheap.Your term not mine. I am withholding judgment until the time that Cutch is ready for arbitration. If there is no significant move to retain him then I will be right behind you. But to say Nutting is cheap because he chose not to pay Jack and Freddy, declining talents, but popular players, is an argument that may be shortly be proven hollow. If the club makes MAJOR strides next year, or 2011, your argument is silly. Now will you join me in saying that after the 2011 season, if this club has become and is playing championship baseball you will quit the anti-nutting rhetoric, then we can have a dialouge, but to deride me for the here and now on past evidence, is the surest way to get my dander up. Again not to be bullish, but...!

BTW, my faith in the ability of the FO to evaluate talent is still very much in the air. Again, I am looking at 2011 to see something. A final point for you harping on payroll equals winning. it is important to remember that if you do not have the resouces to support that large of a payroll you put yourself in a world of hurtin. the main reason the tribune and Co is selling the Cubs is becasue their 300 millin spent to get to the series has pushed the parent company to the brink of bankruptcy. Gotta be SMART, and you gotta be BRAVE. But sometimes it is better to be smart and play long term. I do not want just a couple of seasons of meaningful ball, I want multiple WS opportunities over decades . It can be done, but not just by outspending your peers. Give me that run like I remember from my youth and I will be happy and I think you will be too

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:25 PM

BFD, Finally something we can agree on Wlaker and LaRoche both stink. See was that so hard  LOL

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:29 PM

"Why would any of us think he is socking the money away for a later date? "

If you look at the Twins and the Brewers records and payrolls over the past 15 years or so, that might answer your question.

Of course, Nutting has never really spent so you're right in some respects - maybe he never will.  But I'm hopeful he will at an appropriate time which I place at after we've had an at or near .500 season.

I'm not sure which really good free agents would want to come here right now.  Sure, we could overpay but that comes with a huge risk which could put us back to the earlier part of this decade.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:30 PM

Does it really matter who plays?  Walker or Laroche?  They both stink!

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

@ BFD

You're on he right track (although I still pull for Andy), but both are looking like just place holders for Pedro.  Although this losing is soooo depressing, you can't tell me you're not excited for Pedro Alvarez at the hot corner.  Maybe a Pirates jersey I'll buy.

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:35 PM

Indiana -

Couple  things I know for certain right now is this team stinks, they do not have enought universally renowned talent in the minors, and payroll is pitiful.  This (in my opinion) equals buffoonary and a lack of willingness to spend.

As far as what we want.

I want to enter opening day not wondering when we will be mathmatically eliminated

I want to approach the trade deadline not wondering who will be traded/dumped away, but rather who we will acquire

I want to enter spring training not betting on how many games under 500 we'll be

My gosh.... I want to want to have a reason to end my 8 year boycott of putting money in the Pirates pocket, walk through the PNC PArk gates, smell the infiled grass, drink an $8 beer and buy a hot dog which doesn't contain Rat feces.....

Are these things too much to ask

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:35 PM

If we see Pedro before June of 2012 i will be surprised. I think this FO is defintely seeing long term. Cutch was in AAA for how long? This was our best player in the last 20 years before Pedro. Please do not put him in the same predicament as Bixler and Pearce, who were hurt by rushing them up before they were ready. We will get them when the FO feels they are ready.

JuniataKid wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:43 PM

@BFD

I have no idea what Nutting is doing with the profit and neither does anyone else, since they won't open their books. We can guess, of course. My guess? He's doing both, but leaning heavily toward using it to fund his other interests (green groups, newspapers, etc.). I hope I'm wrong. I hope he's true to his word about putting all the money back into the Pirates organization. Like I said, we won't know for sure for a few years. And only then if they have any talent from their current rosters (majors and minors) that are actually worth paying for. That, of course, is up to Huntington and Coonelly. Let's hope they force Nutting's hand soon.

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:45 PM

BFD,

Not at all, and I concur in your wants. But please understand that I too see a long path ahead, but I for one do not place this debacle at the feet of Robert Nutting. Would you pay top dollar for somebody else's garbage, which is where our talent level is right now. If you were to do that you soon would be out of money and be no better off. I place the blame for this team on Huntington. He has systematically destroyed this years team. He has traded away high-priced losers for flexibility. Freeing cash for future needs is a smart thing to do

This may or may not work here, it has worked in other places, but you never know.

The main reason that I am  not in favor of the Anti-Nutting line is the Matt Morris deal. He agreed to shell out major dollars for a veteran pitcher who was supposed to help the club. When it didn't work out and proved to be a costly major error. he held the person accountable, Littlefield. It may seem like a small thing but he did give his OK, I just hope that his first experience in doing it does not make him guns shy about doing it again and soon, i.e. Cutch

Fat Jimmy wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:54 PM

It seems to me that -- if the FO was making lineup decisions based on how the public will receive them -- they would be more inclined to sit Andy for Walker than play him.  Every day that he plays and stinks up the joint, it simply reminds us how bad that trade was.  If he was on the bench, perhaps Walker would shine and we'd forget about L'il Stonehenge.

You know, for a guy who goes out of the way to say that he does not editorialize, DK sure does editorialize a lot.  I don't have problems with him doing it -- it's part of reporting in the 21st century.  But he talks about the line between news and editorial like it's the holy trinity.  Then he goes and makes a factual statement without having any sources to confirm its validity.

I'd like to see Walker, though, btw.

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:56 PM

@ indiana: Boy! Talk about vile, personal attacks! Equating poor little old me to Dave Littlefield??!! Yikes!

Seriously: Look, I understand your point that money does not always buy success. For sure we have seen that in spades here with the dudes you listed.

My irritation with this FO is that they have gone whole-hog with getting prospects at the expense of the big club. Rather than try to field a competetive team and re-stock via the draft, international siginings and such over time they have gone whole hog and decided to restock NOW.

I would agree that the restocking is nowhere near complete, but I would have been much happier to see the club restored to a winning track record while investing at the same time in the farm system.

No, they didn't need to spend $80 million or even the MLB average of $70 million. However, with the pieces they had in place this winter, they could have spent $10 million on FA's, renegotiated with Jack and Freddie and still restocked via the draft.

Heck, winning might have actually meant an increased gate. More paying customers should be worth something to the PBC's bottom line.

I'm with you, I don't want to tread water and not move toward a Championship. I also don't want to spend every season at the bottom of the lake with a losing record chained to our collective necks.

nycrob wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 1:58 PM

Ah, Indianfanatic, I used to think like you, too.  Cutch won't get to free agency.  The FO hasn't let a quality player just walk in a long time, since that would require paying them arbitration numbers in the years leading up to free agency.  What they do instead is trade that player with a few years left, replace him with someone making the minimum, and say the move was necessary to avoid losing that player for nothing and they weren't going to win that year anyway.  For some reason, people on this blog seem to believe that it won't happen again, but it surely will.

$80 million is a good threshhold for competitiveness. It is also probably around break-even for the club.  When talking about how the club was bad before the trades, remember that with WIlson in the lineup, that team was over .500.  Essentially, the club was a decent back-up shortstop from being competitive.  Not championship caliber, but competitive.

But we will never win another WS until baseball imposes a salary cap or there is an ownership change and someone is willing to pump money into the team.  It just doesn't happen for small markets with miniscule payrolls.  So if being competitive and once in a while making the playoffs is all we can hope for, I'd at least like to try to get there.  Being last every year so Nutting can take millions in profit is getting old.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:11 PM

@ indiana

If Pedro has a year next year at AAA like he had this year between A+ and AA, then there's no reason to leave him in the minors.  He'll be 24 (going on 25) next season.  There's no reason (if he's beating the cover off the ball at AAA) to leave him down at AAA.  This team needs his help as soon as possible.

Shane wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:12 PM

I think we should wait to see Walker start at least 10 games in a row up here before concluding that he stinks. No one thought Jones was going to do what's he's done. Not saying Walker is going to be anything like that, but still, it's stupid to call him up just to ride the bench. Let him play a little and get some confidence and who knows. He isn't going to hurt the team, that's for sure.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:19 PM

Ya know what...

I say Neal signs B. Bonds this offseason.  Jose can have an entire year at AAA and we put B. Bonds in RF and G. Jones at 1st.  We can finally get him back, so why aren't we?  B. Bonds would prolly boost payroll $15-20 mil a season and he can prolly hit 20-25 HRs still with the short porch in RF.

Neal, BRING BACK BARRY! BRING BACK BARRY!

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:20 PM

"they could have spent $10 million on FA's, renegotiated with Jack and Freddie and still restocked via the draft.

Jose, that's exactly what I wanted to do but I admit that it's fairly high risk and flawed.  First off, I don't know what $10M gets you.  The Royals spent $18M on Crisp and Guillen and that blew up in their face.

If you don't win with that approach, you've potentially set yourself back financially and potentially on restocking the farm.  You're just delaying the process which again, I was okay with to try and win now, but it could really blow up.

It's tough.  Nobody has a crystal ball.  I just think that management is going with the approach that has the least risk.  Hopefully in the near term, we'll have something like the Twins do.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:22 PM

If anyone has ESPN insider account...

They are doing a series on teams that are now out of playoff contention.  What went wrong and what the future holds.  On Monday September 21 is the Pirates feature (today's is Milwaukee).

If someone has an account and could shed some light on this come Monday that'd be awesome.  Also, if you could let us know what they say about Milwaukee.

Here's a link to the page on ESPN:

insider.espn.go.com/.../story

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:24 PM

I had a great baseball conversation last night with BK, and he is heartily in the "I'm not setting foot in the ballpark until they clean house in the  FO" mindset and I'm "I'll watch the Pirates play any time I can get there" mindset.

To this we both agreed.

Next year - no matter WHO the manager is, after a loss, there should be a rule. The comment to the media should be "We lost. Nothing - not a great hit, not a delightful bunt, not a pitcher who 'was really better than his numbers showed' nothing - is going to brighten that up. We lost. Not acceptable. Thank you for your time."

That's after the first loss. For all corresponding losses, say "We lost. Unacceptable. That's all I have for now."

While this makes it hairy for a reporter, it's really all I want to hear from the boss about the loss.

Whoever drug my moniker into an argument I had no part of, stop it. I get in enough squabbles when I'm here, I don't need to be in onese that take place when I'm not!

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:38 PM

<<Of course, Nutting has never really spent so you're right in some respects - maybe he never will.  But I'm hopeful he will at an appropriate time which I place at after we've had an at or near .500 season.>>

That's an interesting idea. I don't know when the "right" time is to spend. If you're winning, do you spend more on what you have? If  you're losing, shouldn't you spend to turn that into winning?

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:42 PM

@ 21: Agreed on the crystal ball, but as much as I was against getting Dunn over the winter, he would have been a good pickup.

I do not think we had to spend the $10 million on one guy, but spreading it around a bit might have made for a nice result.

That said, is there an FA NH has signed that HAS worked out? If you can't evaluate major league talent well, then what does that imply about anatuer/minor league talent evals?

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:55 PM

This whole deal with the Pirates is simple not complex.

Anyone on this blog site that thinks the Pirates are building from the top down is absolutely right about sharing their wrath about the Pirates and their entire organization.

Anyone that thinks the Pirates are building from the ground up are on track if they are backing what the FO, management and the rest of the Pirate organization is doing. From the ground up it is going to look like it does because there is no other way and there is no argument that can change the fact that the Pirates are doing the process the right way.

It is painful to watch, but that is for everyone, not just a few on this blog site that think that this year is rosey to some people.

I know no one that is happy with the on field results this year or condones it's continuance.

We all want to win now, but some on this site understand the big picture better than others.

Any GM that takes over an organization with 9 or 10 legit players in the entire organization has a mighty tough road ahead of him.

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:56 PM

nycrob

Wilson was traded on July 31 and the Pirate record was 44-58,  that is 14 games under .500

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 2:58 PM

@ Jose,

Doug Mientkiwicz last season and Garrett Jones as a Minor LEague FA.  Craig Monroe looked like a steal out of ST (c'mon who didn't think that) but then UNDERwhelmed when given PT this season.

Gomez, RIvas, and Vasquez are (were) signed as bench players so I think they did an adequate job as bench players.  When they were forced into starting roles (not Vasquez, but Gomez and Rivas) they didn't work out so much but who expected them to?

InZiskWeTrust wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:01 PM

Jose,

The problem with trying to stock the minor through the draft while leaving the ML team alone is....

1. You will have years before most even come close to being ML ready meaning that you stretch out the window of time that it will take before you see the fruits of your labor

2. Most draft picks don't turn out to be ML players once they start facing players that actually are ML player ability

3. You still have an aging, over-priced bunch that costs you tens of millions of dollars and still can't break .500

Blowing the ML team up and going the route that this FO did is the right course of action. The only question now is...did they get ML talent in return for the existing ML players?

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:02 PM

Jose

Dunn puts up good numbers, as always, but it hasn't helped the Nats.  Nats played at .366 last season without Dunn and they are at .345 this season with him.  I am not saying he is the reason, just that he hasn't helped them win.  One would think with Zimmerman and Dunn in the middle of they lineup they would be an offensive force but they are 21st in runs in MLB--better than the Pirates but not good enough to win much.

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:10 PM

@ JAL: It is not my contention that any one FA could put them over the top.

@ leadoff, et al: So now that we have a blown-up club and we STILL don't have enough prospects, especially at AAA overall and middle infield throughout the system, NOW what do you do?

21sthebest wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:10 PM

Jose,

I had no problem with signing Dunn for 2-3 years either.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:15 PM

<<Of course, Nutting has never really spent so you're right in some respects - maybe he never will.  But I'm hopeful he will at an appropriate time which I place at after we've had an at or near .500 season.>>

________________________________

The Nuttings have spent in the past, the list of FA busts that they spent a fortune on would turn most normal people into misers.

The GM's brought the players to the table, the Nuttings okayed them and then watched their money go right down the drain.

Today's GM, brings players to the table that have true league dollar values placed on them.

I don't see Nutting as a factor in what happens with this club for a while, if at all. The payroll is his concern, but it is low and never should go high if the plan works out and Nutting does very little to my understanding concerning running of baseball operations. I could be wrong about that, thats the way I understood his role.

The whole idea of the new system is not to have to pay a fortune to FA, it is designed for plug and play, McCutchen reaches arb years, is their anyone pushing him, if there is trade him for upper level talent and bring up his replacement, if there is not, question is going to be, WHY NOT? they have at least 6 years to develop another center fielder to take his place.

That is the way the system is supposed to work in the future.

So if you have favorite players, like in the past, that era is gone, get used to players that you like movin on.

I think it might be interesting to see if he Pirates somehow develop a franchise player, what they will do with him when the time comes.

Holliday was pretty close to one and he is with his 3rd team right now.

BFD wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:28 PM

Gotta disagree Leadoff

Leadoff said "Any GM that takes over an organization with 9 or 10 legit players in the entire organization has a mighty tough road ahead of him"

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

How many do we have now?  Not many.....

@leadoff

We all want to win now, but some on this site understand the big picture better than others.

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

Big picture?  The big picture is promises, hope, and If's......

Nothing concrete

"So if you have favorite players, like in the past, that era is gone, get used to players that you like movin on."

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

The players dumped for salary reasons were not "favorites " (of mine), they just gave the team a better chance of winning than this pitiful bunch.

Back to salary, some on here continue to act as if the MLB payroll is not an issue.......I just don't understand this.  Nutting should be expected by MLB, the fans, and the city which funded their statium to pay at minium an avg payroll........ heck... at a minium more than the welfare money they take in....this is theivery at its worst.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:31 PM

Jose

@ leadoff, et al: So now that we have a blown-up club and we STILL don't have enough prospects, especially at AAA overall and middle infield throughout the system, NOW what do you do?

_____________________________

You are exactly right.

They do have middle infield help coming from low and high A ball, but none in AAA. They can only stock middle infield in AAA by trading for it.

If it is me, I evaluate the players on the major league team and the entire minor league system.

Who will be moving up to AAA next year? Who from the major league team will be moving down to the AAA team next year. Either way that alone will strengthen the AAA team.

AA has a large group coming from A ball next year. High A ball will have a bunch coming from W.Virginia next year.

That leaves us with our biggest problem, the major league team and what to do about it?

I think that their problems are above my expertise, I don't have stats that they have about these players, I don't know for sure how many of them figure to get better with maturity.

From a laymen's point of view, you could look at this team two different ways, you could say they need an outfielder, 2 infielders and 2 bullpen pitchers.

You could look at it another way and say they just don't have punch 2-6, fix that over the winter with trades or free agency and you automatically become better.

As far as trades go, I could trade Doumit, Capps, Cedano, Milledge, Duke, Maholm, LaRoach for major league talent and possible middle infield prospects.

Spike Crain wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:37 PM

@ Leadoff,

    I like the way you describe (what I consider) the proper philosophy or process or system for building a competitive team in our small market.

@POH,

   I agree with you about managerial comments to the media.  When I lived out in Oakland, we endured a terrible spate of losing - with Billy Martin at the helm.  Each time there was a victory (and they were few-and-far-between!) he went on-an-on about how this one win was the result of some radical change in the whole club's approach to the game - then they would go ahead and lose the next 4 games!  

@ JAL (from yesterday)

   I had to leave , and may have missed other comments about "Hitting Coach" prospects for our future successful team.  What do you think about John Wehner?  Didn't he have that position at Altoona awhile back - maybe when Dale Sveum was there?  (I seem to recall them being successful at the time....)  Anyway, I certainly can't argue with his assessments and analyses of our hitters - and others', too....

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:40 PM

BFD

How many do we have now?  Not many....

back to salary, some on here continue to act as if the MLB payroll is not an issue.......I just don't understand this.  Nutting should be expected by MLB, the fans, and the city which funded their statium to pay at minium an avg payroll........ heck... at a minium more than the welfare money they take in....this is theivery at its worst.

________________________________________

How many do we have now, not many.........

That is a correct statement IMO, but building from the bottom up required acquiring talent that is not ready for prime time, Alvarez is not hope, he is for real and there are many more coming with him.

The developed talent on the major league roster right now is very small.

As far as the payroll goes with this team.

Money is always an issue for everyone. To what degree is it a problem for the Pirates right now? I don't think it is much of a problem, in fact I think they have some to spend and should spend a little in the off season to make this team a little more competitive.

InZiskWeTrust wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:41 PM

BFD,

While I understand and share your anger towards the team not appearing to be putting the money into the ML club that it should by most accounts, spending money for the sake of spending money is a lot more detrimental to the organization as a whole than not.

Think of it in this manner if you would:

1. Owner X (could be any owner not just the Nuttings) is forced to spend Y on the ML team without a true, balanced revenue sharing system in place

2. There are usually 10 out of 100 FAs each year that are impact FAs and will make a real difference to a team

3. You have to spend Y so you get player(s) Z

Player Z put up slightly better than average numbers but is on the downside of the career roller coaster (Remember...players A, B, C, D and E are still going to the 3-4 clubs that can actually throw around the "BIG $$).

4. To complement player Z, you might bring in player V also at a rate that was higher than most were willing to pay....but you are forced to spend the money so you don't really have a choice. Now what you have just done is raised the average pay for a player of average to slightly above/below average production so that next year....you pay more and get even less.

Sound familiar? If it doesn't, you haven't been paying attention for the last 15 years. That was Cam Bonifay's, Dave Littlefield's and Kevin McClatchey's philosophy. It is also what you appear to be recommending.

Unless MLB's current economic structure gets the 2009 PBC treatment (completely blown up) and it replaced with a salary cap (floor and ceiling) and true revenue sharing, it will be a case of wash, rinse, repeat.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:43 PM

Spike

   I like the way you describe (what I consider) the proper philosophy or process or system for building a competitive team in our small market.

______________________

Thank you, but had things been handled right a few years ago we would not be in this mess, but we are where we are.

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:45 PM

Leadoff - It's nice to read you here today. I'm enjoying your posts.

@all: Since we just left the land of Doug, can anyone here think of another Pittsburgh athlete that was so embraced, so almost cult hero - that was, in truth, an average performer. I say that with respect to Doug - but it's not like he was a Mazeroski or a Sidney Crosby. Just curious - who else was elevated to that status by the fans that didn't have the game-saving numbers to go with it?

Goodtymes wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:45 PM

FYI - Pedro in Todays World Cup Game against Chinese Taipei

3-3 3 HR's 6 RBI's...Through 5 Innings!

US Up 14-3 in Bottom of 5th

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:51 PM

@ POH: Randy Cunneyworth.

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:53 PM

@ POH: Tim Foli comes to mind as well along with Rocky Bleier.

InZiskWeTrust wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:54 PM

Goodtymes...

This just in, that Pedro kid might have a future in Indy next year!

NC Dave wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:54 PM

POH - Gary Roberts

InZiskWeTrust wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:55 PM

Jose,

Rocky had a couple of 1000 yd seasons when it wasn't nearly as commonplace as it is today.

I would go with Jack Wilson most recently for the Pirates, for the Pens....Kasper and for the Steelers....Bruehner.

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:56 PM

POH

s nice to read you here today. I'm enjoying your posts.

_________________________________

Thank you, we (Pirate Fans) are on a long journey and we sure are on a rough road now, but when you start off with 1 legit major league prospect in your entire minor league system 2 years ago, then you look at the system now, you have to have hope.

Spike Crain wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:58 PM

@ POH: Pokey Reese

JosePagan wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:00 PM

@ Zisk - but the Rock was behind one of the most ridiculous offensive lines ever...

Demery44 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:00 PM

   IT'S A CULTURE OF WINNING!    

                            Srsly.

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:02 PM

Goodytimes

Thanks for the update.

Soon I hope your update will read...

"See Pedro Alvarez's line today vs. (insert NL Cental opponent)?  3-3 w/ 3HRs 6 RBIs"

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:03 PM

Watching San Francisco last night, I had to think of the Pirates.

Their pitcher is doing good, gave up 2 runs, then 1 on and bang, 2 run Hr. down 4-0, then the Giants get 2nd and 3rd occupied with one out, Freddie comes up and strikes out. How many times have the Bucs followed this formula this year?

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:03 PM

Georges Laraque anyone?

InZiskWeTrust wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:04 PM

Very true Jose....but it was still a major milestone that put him above "average" at that time.

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:07 PM

Those were all good answers - I said "oh yeah, that's right!" on most every one (one I didn't recognize).

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:08 PM

@POH, Scrap iron, Garner.

InZiskWeTrust wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:10 PM

PoH,

Who didn't you recognize?

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:24 PM

InZisk: Pokey Reese was the one that I didn't recognize.

nycrob wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:32 PM

I meant when they started dismantling the team, not when they completed it.  Jeter at short couldn't have helped at that point.  What I was referring to was the fact that in games that Wilson played (i.e,. wasn't injured), they had a winning record when the McLouth trade occurred.  

I believe that was also true last year before the Bay and Nady trades, but I'm not positive.  That year Wilson missed a lot of time, and the team won hardly any of those games because Bixler was a joke.  But when he was there, the team held its own, even with that abyssmal pitching.

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:45 PM

@nycrob

Great way to make my point.

Wilson has started both years, May to be exact, injured.

Why do we want to be spending major money to somebody who will spend significant time on the DL, same thing with Freddy. Adam and Nady were diferent in that they were both FA's to be and does anybody believe that they were worth the salaries they would have commanded?  we need to stop spending money on hasbeens and wannabes, and focus our money wisely. That is the question. Do I think this FO will accomplish that? I will tell you in 2011

Spike Crain wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 4:47 PM

@ POH:

    Pokey Reese is an infielder who played for the Buccos in 2002-2003 - career .248 hitter, pretty slick fielder (won 2 gold gloves, I believe with teither the Reds or Boston).  I always liked him, and he was popular here, during his tenure - but, a good example, I think, of someone we thought more of than the MLB scene genrally thought him - injury-prone, but a good guy, IMHO.  I don't know where/if he plays today.

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 5:12 PM

THS JUST IN

Tanner Scheppers the 2nd round pick of the Pirates during the 2008 draft just signed with the Texas Ranger. Bonus said to be 1.25 mil

leadoff wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 5:16 PM

Tanner Scheppers the 2nd round pick of the Pirates during the 2008 draft just signed with the Texas Ranger. Bonus said to be 1.25 mil

__________________________

Good Luck Rangers

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 5:18 PM

HELLO,HELLO ANYBODY HOME?

InZiskWeTrust wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 5:18 PM

indiana,

I hope that Scheppers' injuries are behind him and he has a good career.

If you were trying to make that as a slight against the FO for "not being able to sign him last year"....you missed the boat b/c he got hurt and wasn't worth the risk at that time.

Groat2Maz2Strangeglove wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 5:21 PM

We were going to give Tanner Scheppers between $900,000 and $1.1 mill to sign last year.  He gave up a whole year of progress to the Major Leagues for around $200,000.

Sounds like a foolish move to me.

nycrob wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 5:25 PM

I think that we disagree there.  I don't disagree with the Nady/Marte trade, as they seem to have paid great returns and they were free agents to be, but when you have a team with a payroll of $40M that can hang around .500 when they have their starting SS, and he tends to miss 30 or so games a year, that doesn't mean the whole team needs to be blown up, it means you need to find a good backup, which could probably have been found for $3-4M in the offseason.  They essentially had my little sister playing short when Jack was out.  Obviously, to contend they needed more, but reinforcements were coming (Pedro, Lincoln and Cutch).  

Water under the bridge now, but I find it amusing that people think that these trades weren't cash related.  

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 5:36 PM

Spike - thanks for the refersher. I was living in Colorado at that time and my main info on the Bucs was the agate sports page of the Pueblo Chieftain, and my dad, who thought they should be playing better than they were...

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 5:39 PM

InZisk--methinks thou doth protest too much.  In your knee jerk reaction to support the FO, you are attacking someone (indiana) who ain't knee jerking to bash them.   Sheesh . . . can't someone make a factual statement around here without being accused of some FO bias one way or the other?

i'm pretty sure Scheppers was looking for something like $2 mil last year, despite being injured, and I'm pretty sure Indiana knows that.

ants marching

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 5:42 PM

nycrob

Everything is cash RELATED, it is not always a salary dump.

There is a difference, we DUMPED Ramierez, we freed up salary by trading pieces that are not cash worthy, Snell,Wilson,Sanchez,Big LaRoche. The FO may not have received a great return on those trades but it seems that the only real bust of a trade is the Bay for nuttin trade.

But like you said water under the bridge, but that doesn't stop some from rhapsodizing about what coulda been. I still say that the ones we got rid of were either hasbeens like freddy and Jack or wannabes like Ian. Either way we still need to get MLB caliber players in return. Clemente BA his first year was 250 something It took him several years to truly develop. Willie was really never All Star caliber until 1971 and then had a bust of a series, it is still way to early to denounce these players but as it stands right now they are just AWFUL. The Pirates of the late 50's were awful and yet are the most remembered team due to what they accomplished not for what they were expected to do but what they did in 1960 with essentially the same team.

indianafanatic wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 5:46 PM

Thank Arriba

Was just going to ignore that one as I was just passing on info I found while surfing. I did know that and I remember that even NuHo roundly applauded the decision not to sign an injured player

I owe ya one

MarkInDallas wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 6:03 PM

BFD said...

Nutting should be expected by MLB, the fans, and the city which funded their statium to pay at minium an avg payroll........ heck... at a minium more than the welfare money they take in.

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

Revenue sharing is a narrowing factor on revenue disparity. So, this means that revenue sharing money can never push the Pirates PAST another team on the revenue totem pole.

Since the Pirates are in the bottom 3 or 4 in revenue, where is the justification for insisting the Pirates have an "average" payroll, which would presume the Pirates should be around 15th in revenue, not 27th or 28th where they are now?

If the Pirates do happen to have a payroll less than or about equal to their $27M revenue sharing check, then it will be a very temporary situation. Their payroll will automatically rise in the coming years as their players command more money through arbitration.

I would rather they save some of that money and use it later when they'll need it for real - not just to placate the fan base.

InZiskWeTrust wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 6:46 PM

Indiana & Arriba,

My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

I was in my "Nutting/FO is automatically bad/wrong" mode of thinking where I have to see what angle the bashers are coming from to attack the FO for reasons that are not there and I ended up doing the same in reverse.

Please forgive and overlook my temporary insanity. :)

JAL wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 7:10 PM

zisk

This is an asylum--insanity is the norm here :)

joerevs300 wrote re: Pirates Q&A: Losses, losses, losses
on Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:12 PM

This team is competing?

Now that is a ridiculous statement, for if a team isn't forfeiting every game, they are OBVIOUSLY competiting.

What this team is not doing is WINNING.  Especially on the road, which isn't going to get any easy next year with the same roster and just as many bad road trips on the docket.

Right now, every fan should be crossing their fingers this team can even approach .500 in 2011.  Next year they very well could lose 110 games, no question about it, given their 2nd half performance this season.  Again, this roster will be nearly the same.  Who wants to come play for the Pirates?  Honestly?

The Pirates would have to simply have the best talent evaluators, scouts and coaches in MLB, and even then it would be a stretch, to have any chance at .500.  Just as luck would have it, it appears a couple of our better coaches are moving on, and I don't frankly blame them.  They worked hard to bring up players and improve them, only to watch management trade them away, or let them walk away.

I want ONE PERSON to step up and tell me that the Pirates have any prayer to finish .500 in 2010, logically.  Not a bunch of "ifs".  Facts, as the roster is currently constructed, that point to this team being close to contention.

Since I know that is not forthcoming, we can just keep praying that 2011 will be our coming out party.