SB Nation User Blog: WTM

Payroll Again

WTM — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:04:58 -0000

Dejan on the PBC Blog addressed a question about the Pirates waiting until their young talent develops before increasing payroll. I suppose I should respond to his answer on the blog, but you can't really have an adult discussion about these issues there, so I'm responding here.

His characterization of the "outsider's" response to the Pirates' position--that they're waiting for the prospects to arrive before increasing payroll--was this:

A. So many have heard this before, and there is no way of knowing the money will be spent someday.

This is pretty inane. The idea apparently is that, even if the team is right that it makes no sense to add payroll now, they should do so anyway just to convince people they'll do it later. Of course, even if they threw away money like that, the criticism wouldn't lessen until the team started winning. There's no upside whatsoever, either baseball- or PR-related, to them pandering to the angry fans out there. It's very clear what the Pirates' strategy is. Even if you have reservations about the strategy, how rational is it to expect them to depart from it just to convince skeptics of what will happen in the future? Does any sensible person think a compromised strategy is the best way to succeed? The only thing that will silence the critics is winning.

B. The Nate McLouth trade, in particular, is going to keep fans here skeptical for a long time that even signing one of those promising players will mean next to nothing.

So what are they supposed to do about this? Undo the trade? It's very clear now that it was, at worst, a decent trade. McLouth is not a star, and Charlie Morton looks like he could be a very solid third starter, which makes him alone a pretty good return without considering the other players involved. Was it a bad trade just because Morton is cheaper than McLouth? That really seems to be the point of the criticisms, especially with regard to that trade: spend money for the sake of spending money. It's remarkable how the critics of the McLouth trade never address the actual talent involved in the trade. Huntington said he made the trade because he couldn't pass up the Braves' offer. The next time he has a chance to improve the team, should he pass it up if it would reduce the payroll?

C. Why should attendance rise before the payroll does? What other business demands more from its customers before it upgrades the product?

This really highlights the fundamental assumption that underlies all the payroll-related criticisms: $$$ = winning. These statements in the form of questions plainly assume that upgrading without a high payroll is impossible. The obvious problem with this assumption is that it's been proven wrong, most recently by the 2008 Rays. It's harder to win with a low payroll and becoming more so every year. But the consistent pattern of rebuilding teams has been to start winning before the payroll increases. The payroll has to increase over time, but increasing attendance should offset that. History shows that response C has it backwards. The Pirates will have to start winning first with a young, cheap roster in order to fund a more expensive roster.

And even if spending does equal winning, how are the Pirates to succeed? Are they going to outspend teams like the Cubs and Astros, which play in far larger markets? The fact is, if the assumptions underlying these arguments are correct, the Pirates can't win. Isn't it better to follow a strategy that has a chance of succeeding if these assumptions are wrong?

UPDATE by Charlie: In the comments to the post linked up at the top, Kovacevic links to this post, which I'd encourage some people to read a little more clearly. Nowhere does WTM state that the views Kovacevic described are Kovacevic's own. In fact, WTM specifically describes them as Kovacevic's "characterization of the 'outsider's' response to the Pirates' position" [italics mine]. WTM also highlighted that fact in a comment he posted here hours ago. I'm not sure what set Kovacevic off here, unless it was a comment in this thread. This is getting weird.

Tangotiger Fans Scouting Report

WTM — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:23:50 -0000

The Tangotiger fans fielding survey is open right now. The link is here.

The number of ratings submitted for the Pirates is kinda low now.

And now for the obligatory filler to get to 75 words. As if I needed encouragement to be wordy. Of course, I could do a "fanshot," but you'd have to scroll down to see it and nobody would and it'd defeat the purpose of this post. I guess I shouldn't use contractions because that's only one word instead of two.

The Worst is Yet to Come

WTM — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:35:28 -0000

Dejan on Friday's game against the league's best team:

Jeff Karstens will start tomorrow. He was chosen, John Russell just said, "because he's done it before." Russell is hoping to get 4-5 innings out of Karstens. After that, he will choose from Donnie Veal, Denny Bautista, Steven Jackson, Chris Bootcheck or Eric Hacker.

Words fail me. Unfortunately, I have to type 75 words, so here it is:

Oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit.

Wake me when it's over.

Some perspective on T. Sanchez and draft rankings

WTM — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:01:15 -0000

This may be coming a bit late after the draft, but since I still see references to the Pirates "going cheap" on Sanchez, I thought some perspective might be in order.

Do you still think the Pirates "went cheap" with Sanchez simply because BA ranked him the #32 draft prospect? (I'll leave aside the fact that lots of people disagree with BA's rankings.) Did you happen to notice that BA quoted several MLB people at various times before the draft to the effect that there was little difference between drafting near the top (excluding the top 2 of course) and drafting at #50? It may seem like there's a lot of difference between #4 and #32, but even in a normal year, which this wasn't, scouting is a hugely inexact science. And the scouts this year didn't see much of a difference.

More importantly, the Pirates weren't alone in their approach to this draft. For example:

--The very next pick, #5 by the Orioles, went on Matt Hobgood, whom BA rated #40, eight spots behind Sanchez.

--The #6 pick (Giants) went on Zack Wheeler, whom BA ranked #12.

--The #7 pick (Braves) went on Mike Minor, whom BA ranked #35.

--The Nationals used the 10th pick on Drew Storen, ranked #36.

--Houston used the 21st pick on Jiovanni Mier, ranked #44.

--The high-spending Angels used the 24th pick on Randal Grichuk, whom BA ranked 58th.

The Pirates' 6th round pick, Zack von Rosenburg, was rated #41, higher than Mier or Grichuk and just one spot behind the 5th pick in the draft. Their comp pick, Victor Black, was ranked #50, higher than Grichuk.

Kyle Gibson, ranked #4, lasted until the 22nd pick.

Maybe this wasn't as straightforward a matter as simply overdrafting a guy by 28 or so spots.

DH Follies

WTM — Fri, 22 May 2009 04:42:25 -0000

The Pirates evidently are exulting because they have some players who are experienced in the "art form" (Eric Hinske's phrase) of serving as a DH. Because they're blessed with some guys who used to play in the AL, things are going to be totally different in interleague play this year. Now they have the unparalleled advantage of choosing from among Hinske, Craig Monroe and Ramon Vazquez. As the Post-Gazette explains, this is a huge advantage for the team:

Vazquez went 0 for 2 in a DH role in his AL days, but the other two have a plate pedigree for it: Monroe is batting .231 in 84 games with 13 home runs and 46 RBIs, Hinske .254 in 88 games with five homers and 25 RBIs.

Uh . . . come again? .231? .254? A composite 18 HRs and 71 RBIs in 172 games?These are supposed to be good numbers??? And why exactly do Vazquez' whopping two at-bats as a DH make him a candidate for the role? Isn't that like saying Brian Bixler is better qualified than Hinske to pinch-hit because NL teams pinch-hit more and Bixler has had all of his major league experience in the NL?

Meanwhile, isn't there somebody missing . . . ? Oh, yeah, it's that Delwyn Young guy. He's only hitting .359 AVG / .419 OBP /. 436 SLG. And he's defensively challenged, so it's a bit of a mixed bag to get his bat in the lineup when he also has to use a glove. He's perfect to DH . . . but no, we can't pass up the opportunity to use some guys who stunk in the role in the AL, or one guy who happened to be in the ballpark when other guys were DH'ing.

Am I missing something, or is this discussion of the Bucs' DH prospects a pretty silly, irrational piece of anti-logic?

Pirates' Bench

WTM — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:17:26 -0000

I was struck by a comment Dejan made, I think in his chat, that the Pirates have a good bench this year and had a good one last year, too. Personally, I think the Pirates had a very bad bench last year. Mientkiewicz was a good bench player, but there wasn't much beyond him. Michaels had a few dramatic moments around mid-season, but he completely stopped hitting the last two months and his overall numbers were terrible. Rivas was a waste of a roster spot. Raul Chavez was a dime-a-dozen good-field, no-hit AAAA catcher. Gomez was passable as a pinch hitter but useless otherwise. He didn't hit enough to back up the infield corners and couldn't play the middle infield because he had no range at all.

This year, the pitching staff and Adam LaRoche are getting all the attention for the good start, but I think the bench is getting overlooked, and I think it should contribute more over time. It's easy to see the improvement from last year just by comparing:

Chavez/Jaramillo -- I'll leave aside Paulino, who presented Huntington with a special set of problems, and I'm counting Jaramillo even though he'll be the starter for a while because Doumit hopefully will return for the 2nd half. Jaramillo looks nearly as good as Chavez defensively and should be a much better hitter. I don't have any illusions that he's going to keep hitting the way he has so far, but he works the count and doesn't chase bad pitches. I don't see why he shouldn't hit .260 at least, with enough walks and doubles to help the offense. He's much younger and presents some upside, so having him sub for Doumit for a long period is not the disaster that it would have been with Chavez. And Diaz looks like he can hit a bit better than Jaramillo; the Pirates had nothing comparable to him last year. This is a big upgrade.

Vazquez/Gomez -- This is a moderate upgrade. There probably won't be much difference at the plate in the long run, but Vazquez is much younger and can play SS. I don't think his range is very good, but he doesn't look like anywhere near the statue that Gomez was. He doesn't have to be an everyday SS or 2B because if Jack or Freddy gets hurt, they can call up Bixler or Cruz, which they've just done. This gives the Pirates the option to go with Delwyn Young instead of a no-hit glove guy, so . . . .

Young/Rivas -- This is the really major upgrade. Rivas contributed nothing, a topic I won't belabor. Young can hit. He can't play short and maybe can't play second or third, but he doesn't have to. That's what Vazquez is for. If they ever manage to go into a game with 25 healthy players, Russell will have a much more flexible bench in the late innings when they're tied or trailing, which is where a bench becomes the most important. (Whether he'll use it or not is another issue. IMO Russell is a horrible in-game manager, but that's another subject.)

Hinske/Mientkiewicz -- Probably a wash. Mientkiewicz might be a better bench player in the abstract, because he rarely fans and has a very good eye, which makes him a very good late-inning PH. Hinske fans a lot but has far more power, and this team probably needs the power more right now. Mientkiewicz is a Gold Glove quality firstbaseman, but the Pirates need outfield backups more and Hinske is a better outfielder. He also should be better at third but most likely won't play there except in emergencies.

Monroe/Michaels -- Another wash. They're pretty much the same guy. Both started sliding rapidly downhill once they got past 27-28, and both did/should produce a low BA and low OBP with lots of Ks, modest power, solid defense and possibly the occasional dramatic moment.

Whole Bunch of Cuts Today

WTM — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:55:10 -0000

Per the PG:

Salazar, Bootcheck, Davis, Bautista, Garrett Jones, Erik Kratz (yeah, I know, who??), Virgil Vasquez, Phillips.

According to Kovacevic, that leaves 27, which includes Phil Dumatrait, who's going on the DL. With Vasquez cut, Karstens will start. So that leaves one cut left, and Jesse Chavez (who's been bombed all spring), Evan Meek (who has bronchitis), and Rule 5er Donnie Veal are still around. If you assume Meek is also going on the DL, the bullpen would look like this:

Matt Capps

John Grabow

Tyler Yates

Craig Hansen

Jesse Chavez

Sean Burnett

Donnie Veal

That could be the worst bullpen in modern baseball history. There's gotta be a trade or waiver claim coming.

Latin America & the Nats

WTM — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:39:09 -0000

BA has an extended article on the Esmailyn Gonzalez affair. It's not limited to subscribers.

It's worth a read because it makes clear just what a minefield the Dominican is, even now after all the efforts to crack down following Agegate and 9/11. It's made me completely rethink my reservations about the Pirates' reluctance to shell out seven-figures bonuses. When you add in the fact that it's virtually impossible to project what kind of player a 16-year-old will be, to say nothing of a 16-year-old who's grown up in poverty with poor nutrition and little coaching, I can understand Rene Gayo's view that it's better to spread the bonus money around.

Prospect Poll

WTM — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:34:31 -0000

There's a prospect poll being conducted at www.onlybucs.org. The method is the same as was conducted here last year, voting for each "slot" to get a top ten one at a time, or possibly twenty if there's enough interest. The farm system's improved enough now to make it more interesting than it has been for a few years. I thought I'd encourage anybody here who's interested to vote, as I'm very interested in how the fans rate the team's prospects as a kind of counterpoint to the BA rankings. (The Pirates' top ten is due to go online on 1/21.) You'd have to register if you're not registered there already. The poll for #1 is here:

http://forums.onlybucs.org/index.php/topic,2973.0.html

Obviously, it'd be necessary to keep checking for the #2, #3 slots and so on.

BA on Rule 5

WTM — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:09:24 -0000

Baseball America raises some interesting possibilities in their Rule 5 preview. It's in the subscribers' area and I don't want to get Charlie in trouble by copying from there, but some guys who struck me as maybe worth a shot:

LH relievers: Pedro Figueroa (A's) and Jose Lugo (Twins), both hard throwers. Lugo has a high K rate and is also a strong groundball pitcher.

RH starter: Matt Torra (D'backs), former 1st rounder who had shoulder surgery. Sinker/slider guy who looks like a 4th/5th starter/innings eater. (Yeah, OK, we're loaded with those.)

RH relievers: Morlan, of course. Also Dodgers' Javy Guerra (96 mph) and Cards' Luis Perdomo (nasty slider, RH batters hit .153 against him in 2008).

One interesting hitter: 3B Jesus Guzman. He's 24 and has bounced around, but had a breakout 2008 season, hitting 364/419/500 in the Texas League and following it up with a monster winter so far in Venezuela. He just signed with the Giants as a minor league FA.