A couple of days ago one reader commented how well the Brewers and Twins were doing on low payrolls. Another reader stated he felt we should follow the A’s model while rebuilding with an emphasis on the draft and player development. Both were nice ideas until you stop and look at why those clubs have recently been succesful.
Take the draft, for instance:
For the record, compensatory picks come from losing quality players, Elias ranked ”A” or “B” status acquired from the draft or in trades, to free agency.
When one organization has more than twice the number of first round picks (including the supplemental round) than another organization has over a significant period of time, I think it’s fair to assume they should have twice the impact depth (assets) in their organization.
Now look at the chart above.. the A’s have had 25 first round picks in the last eleven years, the Twins 20, the Brewers 15. Now think about that a second – over the last eleven years, the A’s have had the equivalent of 1.2 additional picks per year before the Pirates even made their second board selection; the Twins 0.7; the Brewers 0.3.
Obviously each one of those organizations has a reinvestment strategy which is working. The Rays haven’t been around long enough to evaluate their reinvestment strategy yet but look at their average draft position in the first round over those eleven years – 5th! Wow. The A’s and Twins have higher overall pick numbers because of the higher number of supplemental picks weighing them down.
When you consider that the best pool of players to enter Major League Baseball comes primarily from the first year draft, and you realize that the cream of the crop typically goes in the first round or so, it’s pretty obvious what the resulting impact from the A’s strategy might be – impact players playing for their first six years then lost to free agency and replaced by another impact player plus another first round pick, and then the cycle begins anew. If a hole develops in the system since they always take best available on the board, they make a trade to get a player under contract short-term with high enough value so when they lose him, they also get the extra draft pick.
It’s brilliant, and it’s being done by quite a few of the smaller market clubs in one form or another.
Now we keep hearing how the Pirates should follow the A’s and Twins models and that sounds great in theory, but in reality we won’t be in that position for another decade or so because of the lack of “A” players on our roster that we might lose to free agency. Plus, we’ve already seen our ownership group refusing to spend for quality free agents to help jump-start that cycle.
But I think it is important to note that we were in such a position to start the cycle having had the ’best outfield’ in the game in 2007 with at least Bay, if not also with Nady and McLouth. But instead of ownership investing by taking on the financial commitment to Bay and then losing him, we saw him traded off for players who aren’t likely to ever qualify for an “A” rating (Morris being the longshot possible exception). The same was true of Marte, Grabow, and a few others under this new regime.
That is just one reason why some of the old timers around the Pirates are upset at current ownership – they had a chance to invest in the long-term product and they failed to do so. Their financial losses having kept players like Bay would have eventually been made up in gate proceeds during the last couple of years, two additional years of control with Andrew McCutchen, and the additional first round player picked in 2010 when Bay walked. All of those would have easily recaptured the Nuttings expense to Bay, not to mention the additional return from having had better results in the win/loss column.
Whether you agree with the Pirates strategy the last two years or not, we are watching Frank Coonelly and Neal Huntington attempting to position this franchise to build a cycle which will allow them to keep their young players for the full six years and then be lost to free agency or traded for higher impact youth. Right now Huntington is attempting to figure out if Paul Maholm will take his game to the next level over the next two years in order to qualify as no less than a “B” rated player, or if Capps will remain there, or if Doumit ever makes it, as examples.
That being said, it sounds as if the Pirates strategy remains focused on continual salary dumping and not keeping their 3-6 players through contract. Instead, they are trading them for what many categorize as questionable assets.
At some point there has to be reinvestment and today’s post shows you briefly just one of those ways. Until the Nuttings take that first step, we’re destined to remain a losing organization because other organizations have either implemented reinvestment strategies that are in a continuum cycle, or they have a ton of cash to blow.
We obviously don’t have either.
But what we have gained are ownership bottom-line aiding ‘player control years’ instead.
That’s the type of mentality which begets poor culture and/or challenges to the organization within the organization’s ranks. See: Ian Snell, Perry Hill, and Rich Donnelly as three recent examples. Other examples of players who were on track to possibly help us begin a reinvestment cycle but fell off the cultural cliff before the Pirates might have a chance to recapture include Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez, which I believe necessitated their being traded.
We’re heading into the third year with this regime and we’re still not witnessing any investment outside of a couple capital improvements, and even the extent of some of those like the Latin academy were questionable based on what was available, some suggest. The high-risk high school arms we’ve taken in the draft are just about as worthless because of the attrition rate, although they might have a better chance of helping us than a brand spankin’ new academy that we refuse to spend money to place impact talent in.
Are we really making sound decisions? Are we really heading in the right direction? Or, is it possible we simply have new blinders on because of so many additions from the trades?
–
Bobby Crosby signed. Well, there you go.. see above. We had Crosby in the system with Bixler, albeit I agree Crosby has significantly more upside with the glove.
Well, if he’s healthy and can play, that is.
Yawn.
Who would have guessed that we would be opening the 2010 season with Andy LaRoche as – perhaps – the best infield defender? My-oh-my we have major problems.
–
Dejan at the Post-Gazette interviewed John Russell Wednesday and this exchange made the hair on the back of my neck stand up:
On placing on an expectation of winning on such an inexperienced roster:
“I think they’re going to have to handle it. It’s time. There’s always going to be teaching going on with our staff, but it’s time. I think they got a taste of the majors, and now is the time to start gelling that atmosphere into winning.” — emphasis by Bucco Blog
Yup.. when there is no other choice, I guess they will have to handle it.
–
There was a blurb I read somewhere about the Pirates thinking they may keep Doumit through next year hoping his value increases. Ok, I can understand that considering he’s averaged about +2 WAR the last three years while playing 50% of the time so a net yearly value of +1 to +1.5 WAR certainly seems like it could be beat.
But let me answer all that by saying this: I think the probability of Doumit being dealt this winter is significantly higher than the probability of Doumit exceeding the +1.5 WAR value as a member of the 2010 Pittsburgh Pirates.
Git my drift?
–
Call[s] for Andy LaRoche? Yeppers, seems Mr. LaRoche has at least one team who inquired for his services, although I hear Huntington basically said he isn’t available right now. How about dem apples Mr. Hill?
–
Did you know that 5% of every ticket sold (since 2001) goes into a ballpark maintenance and improvement fund for the Pirates to use to offset those expenses? Let’s see, 15M tickets sold at an average cost of $20 the last nine years would mean somewhere around $15M has been put in that kitty.
