BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Kovacevic: Take the Pirates’ money, please

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, February 10, 2012

Kovacevic: Take the Pirates’ money, please

Neal Huntington: King of the Flat Liners.

But this winter has brought a different harsh reality: The Pirates have tried to spend money above their still-too-low projected payroll of $48 million — actual big-splash money — only to see free agents turn up their noses.

...In the past week, it emerged that Huntington offered pitcher Edwin Jackson three years and $30 million. Not a misprint. Not an alternate reality. It really happened, and I can confirm that every penny was guaranteed, not couched in options or incentives. It would have been the team’s biggest deal ever by a factor of three Barmeses.

Jackson rejected it in favor of one year at $11 million from another losing team, the Washington Nationals.

...The Pirates aren’t lying. And it isn’t that they aren’t trying, as some suggest. It’s that top-tier talents still aren’t buying what they’re selling.

That has to change someday, obviously. But how?

“Honestly, we just need to keep playing better ball,” Huntington told me by phone Wednesday after another late night at PNC Park. “When we win, we’re going to see those results change, along with a lot of other things. We have a great pitcher-friendly ballpark. We have a lot of pieces in place. But the winning has to happen first. And it will. We still feel very good about the team we’ll have in 2012.”

Repoz Posted: February 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM | 14 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: business, media, pirates

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. JRVJ Posted: February 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4057873)

I don't really follow the Pirates, but from what I read last year, 2012 is still not their window. Better they spend money NEXT offseason, instead of this one.

2. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: February 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4057875)

AJ Burnett would take the Pirates' money.

3. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4057876)

I don't really follow the Pirates, but from what I read last year, 2012 is still not their window. Better they spend money NEXT offseason, instead of this one.

The Pirates have a not-bad core, but they need a lot more talent to compete - more than you can reasonably hope to add in one offseason. They've been offering multi-year deals to guys like Jackson, in the hope that Jackson will contribute in 2013 and 2014, and who knows maybe 2012 everything comes together.

4. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM (#4057877)

Isn't the issue here that their offer to Jackson wasn't that great?

If he thinks he's worth more then $10M p.a. (and he probably is - that's Jeff Suppan money from 5 years ago), he's right to take the one-year deal and hope for a better market.

If they had offered 3/42, then I'd say, "yikes, they can't give money away", but they didn't. Pitt looked for a bargain, and Jackson wasn't willing to sign a bargain deal.

5. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: February 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4057893)

Rosenthal tweated that Jackson had "multiple" three-year offers. So I guess the first question is whether the Pirates' was even the best of those.

6. sjberke Posted: February 10, 2012 at 11:15 AM (#4057906)

For Kovacevic to lump the Nationals in with the Pirates as 'another losing team' is disingenuous to say the least. The Nats were 80-81; the Pirates were 70-92. The level of talent on the two teams really can't be compared; lthe only position where the Pirates have a solid advantage is center field. I don't know if Kovacevic meant to imply that the Nationals and Pirates were similar teams; if they were, Jackson might not be in Washington.

7. flournoy Posted: February 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4057923)

I don't really follow the Pirates, but from what I read last year, 2012 is still not their window. Better they spend money NEXT offseason, instead of this one.

How often can a losing team hit its "window," and immediately find everything they need on the free agent or trade market? I can only think of one team that has nearly done this, the '91 Braves. (Pendleton, Bream, Belliard, Sanders, and Berenguer as free agents, Nixon by trade, and Pena by mid-season trade.) Perhaps Jackson could have played the part of Charlie Leibrandt.

8. i'm not STEAGLES and you shouldn't be either Posted: February 10, 2012 at 12:36 PM (#4058014)

...The Pirates aren’t lying. And it isn’t that they aren’t trying, as some suggest. It’s that top-tier talents still aren’t buying what they’re selling.

edwin jackson isn't really a "top-tier talent" to begin with. he's more of an above average innings eater with fading potential to be something more.

9. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 10, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4058063)

edwin jackson isn't really a "top-tier talent" to begin with.

He is, however, good enough to be above the level of FA that's typically willing to sign with the Pirates. They get rejected at a surprisingly high rate by guys a cut or two below him, even when they're the best offer on the table.

This is the thing that fans of rich teams screaming at the Pirates to spend more money often don't get: You can't force someone to sign a contract.

10. The Piehole of David Wells, Depends Salesman

Posted: February 10, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4058069)

If he thinks he's worth more then $10M p.a. (and he probably is - that's Jeff Suppan money from 5 years ago), he's right to take the one-year deal and hope for a better market.

You're probably overstating for rhetorical effect, but Jeff Suppan money from 5 years ago is $6.25M. Jackson at $10M per year is 20% cheaper per year than Kevin Millwood's last big contract (2006-2010), over the course of which Millwood had an ERA+ of 100 (slightly above average for a starting pitcher). Over Jackson's last 4 years, he's had an ERA+ of 108.

Does ERA+ smooth out the difference between leagues? If so, Jackson's probably Derek Lowe with the Dodgers, so just based on precedent (not actual value), he's worth maybe $15M per year (especially since Lowe is sucking balls now)?

11. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: February 10, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4058090)

You're probably overstating for rhetorical effect, but Jeff Suppan money from 5 years ago is $6.25M.

In year one of a 4/$40MM contract.

12. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: February 10, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4058121)

I don't know if Kovacevic meant to imply that the Nationals and Pirates were similar teams; if they were, Jackson might not be in Washington.

I might be stretching Kovacevic's intent, but I didn't read it that way. I think what he meant was that Jackson didn't choose to take a one-year deal with a commonly-accepted contender (i.e., Red Sox, Cards, etc.). The Nats might/could contend this year, especially if there's the second wild card, but they haven't built up much of a rep yet.

13. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: February 10, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4058127)

If he thinks he's worth more then $10M p.a. (and he probably is - that's Jeff Suppan money from 5 years ago),

It seems as though the days of a Suppan type getting that deal or anybody and everybody getting the standard 3/$27 from five or six offseasons ago have faded.

14. The Piehole of David Wells, Depends Salesman

Posted: February 10, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4058322)

In year one of a 4/$40MM contract.

I'm an idiot.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, February 10, 2012

Kovacevic: Take the Pirates’ money, please

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics