The Pittsburgh Pirate Business Model?!?!?
by wxguy on Jun 8, 2009 8:28 AM EDT
11 comments
PIRATES: GM Neal Huntington wrote an open letter to the team's fans explaining that the decision to trade CF Nate McLouth to the Braves wasn't financially motivated.
The Pirates, who traditionally have one of the majors' lowest payrolls, are averaging a major league-low 16,588 in attendance. The low turnout is prompting speculation that the surprise McLouth deal last week was made to save money.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran an editorial encouraging the Nutting ownership group to sell the team to owners who are more interested in winning. The paper wrote, "It's time Pittsburgh baseball had ownership worthy of the game."
Does this business model sound familiar? At least the owner took the time to explain his actions.
wxguy
0 recs |
11 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I don't get the correlation
We have an owner that offered 200 million dollars to a FA this past winter and who is about to pay 25 mil for a draft pick. I don’t get where you are going? Its not like we traded away Zim for some prospect to save money (o yea another recent monetary commitment that some find above market value).
Who should we spend money on, I’d rather get beat down for a year and have a loaded rotation in the future then pay too much for some washed up Vets for a year or two.
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on Jun 8, 2009 4:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is the problem that Lerner's R teh cheep?
Or is it that they were too deferential to Kasten, who, in turn, relied too much on the priority-challenged Bowden to rebuild? Or did the Lerners directly intercede on signing decisions? I admit I don’t know enough about the front-office politics (or the rumors) to offer an opinion, here. The owners seem willing to spend in at least some instances, and they may have relied on bad employees (which they took to long to replace—in fact, technically never replaced, since Bowden quit). Of course, accountability flows upward—it’s up to the Lerners to hire the right managers and give them the resources to succeed.
BOWDEN!!
We are all jinxed in NatsTown™.
by Doghouse on Jun 8, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Correlation
at all. The Bowden pays for players, not to save money. Him, Jim Hendry, and Dayton More, and Brian Cashman are the GM’s that throw money at players to sign them
by thenatural313 on Jun 8, 2009 10:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pirates until maybe this season have been terrible talent evaluators
For 17 drafts now the Pirates have drafted in the top 5 and not one of those players has turned out to be a star player for anyone, nor have many even turned into starters. Granted they refused to sign Scott Boras controlled players during any draft until last season, but that is not the reason. Several years ago the Pirates had the Number 1 ranked farm system in baseball. That Offseason 4 of the first 5 guys taken in the rule 5 draft were Pirates. All 4 of those guys are now above average major league regulars. The Pirates system has not promoted4 solid major league regulars since then. In other words, they protected worse guys on the 40 man roster than the guys they left off. The Pirates just do not understand the kind of guy that makes it in the majors. They are to focused on arm strength and Tools and do not get any of the mental aspects of success.
Now if they had a $100 million to waste every year like the Yankees) then the bad talent evaluation would matter much less. But when you have total profits in the low 10s of millions you have to use that money wisely if you want to win.
In my opinion the Pirates might be turning the cornor. they certainly were thinking out of the box when they signed those two players from India. If they follow through and be the first team to start an academy there then they have a chance to really turn the team around.
"What you know is often the enemy of what you can learn" Bill James
by PhDBrian on Jun 9, 2009 12:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Look I am getting real tired of this not spending the money arguement because the evidence is just not there
The only time this team can be accused of not spending enough was on Crowe last year. This team can be accussed of wasting money on so many players the last 5 years such as Christian Guzman, Soriano, Dunn, DC, NJ, Dimitri Young, Belliard…. All of whom got way above market deals. What this team does is overpay for medoicre talent routinely. It does not refuse to spend money. It poorly spends it, period!
Bowden had the best signing record of any GM during his tenure. Only one player in 5 years did not sign (Crowe). If you compare that to any other GM you will find Bowden was the single best signer in the business. This was done because Bowden always paid overslot and in turn angered everyone else in the business.
Remember the scandle about the young player in the Dominican being much older. We thought we signed him at the age of 16, and gave him over a million dollars to sign. How is it cheap to give an undrafted untested 16 year old over a million dollars? It is a waste of money, not cheap!
Crowe had little intention of playing for the Nationals. That is why when offered the highest contract in the game for any drafted pitcher last season he still said no! It was by the way, the highest offered contract to a drafted pitcher in history. If I had been owner of the Nationals I would have told Bowden not to draft Crowe. But he did and Crowe made is offer so high noone would sign him. Now he might get his dream and get drafted by whomever he is dreaming to play! But the nationals would have had to give him the entire state of maryland to get him to play for us.
"What you know is often the enemy of what you can learn" Bill James
by PhDBrian on Jun 9, 2009 12:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One more vote for 'no correlation'
The only guy I think the Nationals have had who compares to McLouth is Ryan Zimmerman and the Nationals didn’t suddenly and unexpectedly trade him away, they signed him to a lucrative, long-term extension.
Couple that with the willingness to spend that PhdBrian pointed out, and I don’t see the connection at all.
by David M. Getz on Jun 9, 2009 9:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
see my other post. The cash is there - they just arent spending silly money.
Which when the economy is tanking isnt such a bad idea when ur revenues are down.
"Baseball is like church. Many attend; few understand."
by Mezza on Jun 9, 2009 11:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
PhDBrian and DMG,
Either you guys belong to the Lerner family, or you work for them.
The fact of the matter is that the Lerner’s waited until the last moment to offer Texira the big contract and this was only after the fans wanted to know why no free agents were really being pursued late into the winter free agent period. This way the Lerner’s could say they tried to sign a blue chip. The reality was there were other blue chip free agents available especially pitchers, yet the Lerner’s pursued none of them. the word is out on the Lerner’s and I expect few if any will ever play for them unless they are desperate like Dunn was.
The fact of the matter that a well sourced article appeared in the Wash. Post , I think late last year that detailed how the Lerner’s were micromanaging everything and everyone, including Stan Kirsten and Bowden. These folks could not act on their own on anything that cost money, and this includes players. Stan K. off the record has made it known that despite being a 10% owner of the Nats, he did not have free reign like he had with the Braves in developing a team . I stand by my prediction that both Stan and Manny will be gone after this season. Please also watch how many of our free agents resign with the Nats next year. Then come back and tell me if you think the Lerner’s are penny-pinching , micro managers. I would call them the Dan Snyder’s of baseball except Snyder spends money on anything that moves.
wxguy
by wxguy on Jun 10, 2009 10:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What "blue chip" free agents were out there, that would have come to DC
Especially pitchers, the FA class for pitching was pretty weak besides CC then the next closest guy is Burnett and Penny which is not worth the money.
In terms of bats it was pretty weak also
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on Jun 11, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
First off, the discussion was about whether or not the Nate McClouth trade mirrored the Nationals decision making and personnel moves, and I’m just not seeing that. The issue of whether the team needs to/would be advised to spend more money is separate.
I’m still comfortable with the team’s approach this offseason for the simple reason that with where the organization is right now it only makes sense to go after two types of players: ones who are so good they’ll be part of the core for years to come (i.e. Teixeira) or guys who can produce without being given a contract that ties the team’s hands in coming years (i.e. Dunn). Other than that, any moves the team could have made would have been putting lipstick on a pig; getting a 55 win team to a 60 win team (or 60 to 65, or wherever the Nationals end up being).
I disagree with your assessment of the free agent market. Other than Teixeira there wasn’t really anyone I would classify as a blue chip type player, and there certainly weren’t any free agent pitchers who fit that criteria. Given that, it made sense for the team to back off pitchers because free agent pitchers are, as a whole, one of the worst investments a team can make. They require a significant commitment in terms of both money and years, despite being a much bigger risk. Sure a big time free agent pitcher signing can work out well – Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson are good examples – but for the few you could put in that category there are tons of Barry Zitos, Kevin Browns, Carl Pavanos, Jaret Wrights, and Chan Ho Parks who are busts because of injury, inconsistency, or both. Sure if the Nationals had gone out and signed Derek Lowe and A.J. Burnett the two might have helped the team out a whole lot, but they might also have become an updated version of Denny Neagle and Mike Hampton, contributing nothing and preventing the team from making other, more pressing moves down the road. That kind of risk just isn’t worth it when you’re in charge of a team that’s going to be below .500 no matter what.
Of course, you may be right and the Lerners may be unwilling to spend under any circumstances but given that they’ve paid draft picks and players with expiring contracts, that there’s a perfectly good rationale to not being big free agent spenders right now, and that the team has explained a coherent, sensible plan to improve the on-field product, I just don’t see it.
by David M. Getz on Jun 11, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
GAMETHREAD SPONSOR
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
