2015 Pirates

[element1286]

The problem is that Snider is going to Baltimore, where he will probably hit 20-25 home runs next year and we will have to hear how we got rid of him to early and now he is entering his prime and breaking out to be the player that everyone thought he could be. Regardless of what he was going to be for us, we will still hear it.

I am probably higher on Lambo than anyone else that posts here, and I would still rather have Snider. I do understand though that at some point you have to give Lambo a shot. Now is probably as good a time as any, so I can understand the move, but I am still not a fan of it.

One other thing I don't really understand, kind of a tangent here, why did Baltimore want to trade for Snider? I ask that because, projections have Snider and Lambo with almost identical stats. Which basically says they are equal players, a couple differences, Lambo is younger and has more cost controlled years left. What not trade for Lambo and control him for 6 years instead of the 2 you would have with Snider

Yeah, always the potential problem of looking dumb when trying to sell high, no disagreement there. And Snider has some pedigree and he is just entering him prime, so I wouldn't be shocked if he has a few good seasons in the works.

As for Snider vs Lambo, not sure, seems like something the Rays would do, or a general bad team looking for years of control, or a gem. Balt wants more certainty I would assume.

 

[element1286]

I just read that Ken Rosenthal is projecting a 4 year deal at less than $20 million per for Shields. Still well out of our price range, but it is getting to the point where we may actually want to start monitoring the situation a bit more closely. Possibly if it drops to 3/$54 range I think we could be players.

However, it still wouldn't follow the front offices MO, but at that point it wouldn't be out of realm of possibility.

That's damn affordable.

 

[element1286]

FWIW, seems like a lottery ticket, hard really to peg an upside on him right now, IMO. Although really easy to peg a downside.

Sickels opinion:

12) Stephen Tarpley, LHP, Grade C+: Age 21, third round pick in 2013, another Sleeper Alert choice, live-armed lefty posted 3.66 ERA with 60/24 K/BB in 66 innings in short-season ball. Inconsistent but athletic with good fastball and curve, finished the season very strongly after some mechanical adjustments.

Fangraphs opinion:

9. Stephen Tarpley, LHP Video: Tarpley was a wildcard in the 2013 draft, with questions surrounding his consistency, maturity and makeup dating back to his transfer from USC after his freshman year that led him to Scottsdale JC, the Fighting Artichokes (!). He lasted until the 3rd round but, like Wright, started to find consistency in the 2nd half of 2014. At his best, Tarpley sits 92-95 and hits 97 mph late in games, with a low-80′s curveball that flashes plus (one scout called it a 70), solid average changeup and average slider. The command shows flashes of average, but all five elements can be average to below on his bad days. There are signs that Tarpley is turning it around mentally and off-the-field with his full-season debut coming in 2015 as the next test.

 

[Darkstone42]

Jomar Reyes might be a PTBNL candidate, and I like what I see out of the young, big third (probably eventually first) baseman. Big raw power (he's 6-6 240), and a surprisingly advanced approach for a teenager. If he's the other guy coming back (seems like the upper limit of what we could have worked out), it would be a nice addition to our system.

 

[thecrow124]

Keller?

No it was Tanner Scott, not much about him except that he hit 100mph last year.

 

[Darkstone42]

No it was Tanner Scott, not much about him except that he hit 100mph last year.

100 mph is always intriguing...

 

[thecrow124]

Been reading and thinking and reading and thinking since last nights trade. The one thing I read that only one person has touched on, at least that I have found, that makes the most sense is that Snider was traded in anticipation or the three players going to arbitration. I believe the total difference in the filing process for all three combined is about $1.6 million or so, the savings with going with Lambo over Snider is about $1.5 million. The author, someone at Rumblings (not sure who), barely touched on it, but it was mentioned and it does make sense. So if the Pirates traded Snider in anticipation of losing all three cases, then it makes financial sense. You could also logically deduce that if that is the case we may be at the spending limit that Neil was givin for entering the season, payroll will almost assuredly go up as the season progresses unless we flop and move Walker, Pedro and Melancon at the deadline. If we are at our cap then taking each player to an arbitration hearing over a few hundred thousand dollars also makes more sense.

Then again, something that I just thought of and haven't seen anyone write about yet, if they are getting ready to extend someone, like Polanco or McCutchen, then they may need to free up a little money earlier in the contract to try to alleviate a little at the end of the contract. Just a rambling thought, but it does make some sense.

 

[element1286]

1.5 million is really a drop in the bucket, I really doubt the reasoning was money, although the benefit is there either way so there is really is no way to prove the negative.

 

[Ewa PGH Fan]

I've heard on the Baltimore radio stations that the Orioles were looking for a replacement for departed outfielder and left handed hitting Nick Marcasis(sp) in their line up. That's why they wanted Snider and his proven track record vs. Lambo's unproven one and why control and/or cost wasn't an issue for the Orioles.

Of course that doesn't explain why the Pirates were willing to deal Snider.

 

[Darkstone42]

Pre-Spring Divisional Outlook: NL Central | FanGraphs Baseball

Apparently, true talent, the Pirates were the best club in the Central last year, and they're projected just one win shy of the Cards for next year.

To kind of summarize the evaluation, Blengino assesses the Bucs as a high-floor, sort-of-high-ceiling team with Polanco as the big breakout candidate who could put them over the top. Depth is good everywhere on the diamond, and they can handle injuries to position players well.

He does think we lack starting pitching depth, which I'm not sure I understand, since we're a solid 7 deep in pitchers who have had at least moderate success, if even in short stints, starting Major League games, and 6 of them have sustained that success over a month or more, plus three prospects in Sadler, Kingham, and Sampson who have the potential to pitch at least reasonably well if needed, and Taillon, whose upside is obviously massive, returning from an injury later in the season. We have a ton of starting pitching depth, we just don't have top of the rotation depth.

Anyway, quoted below are all the parts about the Pirates.

2014 recap:

It seems like eons ago that the Pirates were pining for that elusive breakthrough .500 season. They have now established themselves as one of the few clubs in baseball that is above average in all phases of the game. Their offensive BIP authority was by far the best in the division, and their pitching staff nosed out the Cards’ for best contact management ability. Their staff yields tons of ground balls, which were hit more weakly on average than the typical grounder. Based on BIP authority alone, they were a 90-72 club, best in the division.

The Pirates’ offensive and pitching K and BB rates were all clustered around the MLB average; a bit better on offense, a bit weaker on the mound, keeping their projected record at 90-72. The Bucs really don’t get credit for the excellence of their offense, as their pitcher-friendly home park helps to tamp down their raw offensive stats. They also had the second best defense in the division, with a 97.7 defensive multiplier. This pushes their projection a game higher to 91-71, better than their actual (88-74) and Pythagorean (87-75) records; the Pirates were the best true-talent team in the Central in 2014.

2015 preview:

PITTSBURGH PIRATES – The “Meet The New Floor, Same As The Old Ceiling” Club
Talk about high floors. The Pirates, though a resurgent organization with improved cash flow and a rising payroll, still can’t afford to hold onto their successful reclamation projections, like Russell Martin and Edinson Volquez. That’s OK, they just buy low on A.J. Burnett after the Phils bought high, likely improving their rotation. Francisco Cervelli won’t be Martin, but he’ll likely be more than adequate, and the financial savings allowed them to take a crack at wild card Jung-ho Kang. They have the division’s best player in Andrew McCutchen, their staff will again yield a boatload of weak grounders, and the club will be well-tailored well to its ballpark.

Their depth and flexibility, very quietly, has become quite good. McCutchen may in fact be their only truly indispensable position player. Their ceiling might not stand out as much as their floor, but Gregory Polanco has substantial upside above his WAR projection, enough to potentially make the difference in the division race. One area of relative weakness; starting pitching depth isn’t great, at least until Charlie Morton and/or Jameson Taillon return from injury.

 

[steelparrot]

Assuming our bench would have been: Snider Stewart Kang Rodriguez and Florimon

The only one with options would have been Kang, and there is no way they bob him up and down with that contract.

Melancon, Bastardo and Watson wont be optioned.

Pimentel, Worley, Locke, and Liz are out of options.

And that might be our bp at some point, bad news for Hughes and Holdz

The only thing that makes sense to me is they felt they had to open up a 25man roster spot for a guy with options. They didnt want to have their roster set in 'no options' stone. Say they need a pitcher after an extra innings game and you can option Kang, Marte, Mercer, Cole, Watson or Polanco.. that is a bad situation.

I would have booted a bullpen guy long before Snider, but I can understand the need for 'roster flexibility'.

 

[Illinest]

His comment about starting pitching depth goes to show that the rest of the country is not impressed by the fact that we have 5 different #4 starters and only 2 of #2 starters.

 

[element1286]

Assuming our bench would have been: Snider Stewart Kang Rodriguez and Florimon

The only one with options would have been Kang, and there is no way they bob him up and down with that contract.

Melancon, Bastardo and Watson wont be optioned.

Pimentel, Worley, Locke, and Liz are out of options.

And that might be our bp at some point, bad news for Hughes and Holdz

The only thing that makes sense to me is they felt they had to open up a 25man roster spot for a guy with options. They didnt want to have their roster set in 'no options' stone. Say they need a pitcher after an extra innings game and you can option Kang, Marte, Mercer, Cole, Watson or Polanco.. that is a bad situation.

I would have booted a bullpen guy long before Snider, but I can understand the need for 'roster flexibility'.

Isn't Corey Hart in there too?

 

[steelparrot]

Ah I forgot about him, Kang Hart Stewart Rodriguez.

 

[sychmd]

bench now: Kang, Hart, Stewart, ROdriguez, Lambo

SP:
we have no #1,
we do have 2 1.75's who have potential to be #1. Cole and Liriano
We have 2 #3's - Morton and Burnett (When both are healthy)
We have 1 # 4 - Worley
We have 1 #5.5 - Locke
then we have 2 guys who could jump in as #2.5 - 4 (Taillon, Kingham)
then we the 3.5 - 5.5 grouphave the cumpton, sadler, sampson

so lots of depth, and with the shear numbers and potential, we should be able to find people to slot in at each # in the rotation if not higher.

i am pretty confident with a p < .05 that liriano and cole will slot as the #1, 2. and maybe 1, 1.5, but
to me the main worry is having to use so many starts to really see where the burnett, morton, locke, worley, cumpton, taillon, kingham slot in at to see who the other 3 #3's will be with consistency.
i believe we could have at worst 2 #2's and 1 #3, and 2 #3.5's
at best 2 #1's (cole, liriano), 1#2-2.5(morton), 4 #3's(burnett, worley, taillon, kingham), then injury depth(locke, cumpton, sandler, sampson) if needed beyond those first 7.

that is great for 162, but is it top heavy enough when only the top 3 pitch in a series against dodgers, nats, cards. this is where our balanced and deep offense needs to step up in those "see just the studs" series and make pitchers work to get deep counts to get to the pen.

 

[element1286]

i am pretty confident with a p < .05

2 #1's (cole, liriano), 1#2-2.5(morton), 4 #3's(burnett, worley, taillon, kingham)

Seems pretty optimistic for everyone.

I'd probably go #2's (Cole, Liriano) #3's (Burnett, Morton) #4's (Worley) #5's (Locke, Taillon) #6's (Kingham, Cumpton, etc).

The thing that the Pirates do have going for them though is the stellar IF defense, along with a philosophy that preaches ground ball pitching. Might be the type of inefficiency that we don't have a good measure for yet, so it's possible every guy is better than the their numbers actually suggest, or at least better within this specific framework.

 

[sychmd]

Seems pretty optimistic for everyone.

I'd probably go #2's (Cole, Liriano) #3's (Burnett, Morton) #4's (Worley) #5's (Locke, Taillon) #6's (Kingham, Cumpton, etc).

The thing that the Pirates do have going for them though is the stellar IF defense, along with a philosophy that preaches ground ball pitching. Might be the type of inefficiency that we don't have a good measure for yet, so it's possible every guy is better than the their numbers actually suggest, or at least better within this specific framework.

yes, that was my best case scenario, but they have all done that for a stretch of time, so not unreachable.
your prediction was like my realistic one without the possiblity of taillon or kingham being a significant upgrade somewhere.

measuring pitchers is very difficult. being a pirate fan all my life, stargell and nolan ryan were my idols. rayn because i was a pitcher and pitched D1. ryan was a great talent and dominating, but most of the time he pitched good enough to lose. sure he was on some poor teams and some astros teams that were winners but anemic, but ryan had a knack of losing 2-1, 3-2, 4-3. with his stuff, he should have won more. but how do you measure fairly what the pitcher can control, and when he can control it and what the fielders and offense contribute. so much of it is time and game situation sensitive that stats from even 5,000 feet miss when you need large sample sizes and cant measure all the intaangible nuances of the key situations that alter momentum and thus the final outcome.

reagardless, excited about this season for the bucs more so than any since high school in 1979. should be fun, but too bad the cubs did so much. they scare me a bit and unbalanced scheduling will hurt us.for the WC.

 

[thecrow124]

So I just read that James Shields is now looking for a 4/$70 type of deal, I think about now I would start talking. Then again, he would cost a draft pick, which is something that would be hard for us to absorb, not necessarily the pick, but the bonus money we could use. However, if he is healthy for the duration of the contract, by year three we would have a rotation of Cole, Liriano, Shields, Taillon and Glasnow.

 

[Darkstone42]

Seems pretty optimistic for everyone.

I'd probably go #2's (Cole, Liriano) #3's (Burnett, Morton) #4's (Worley) #5's (Locke, Taillon) #6's (Kingham, Cumpton, etc).

The thing that the Pirates do have going for them though is the stellar IF defense, along with a philosophy that preaches ground ball pitching. Might be the type of inefficiency that we don't have a good measure for yet, so it's possible every guy is better than the their numbers actually suggest, or at least better within this specific framework.

I think Burnett and Morton are both on the fringe of 3/4 as a baseline, and Worley on the fringe of 4/5, but everyone in the staff has upside. Cole and Liriano are definitely #2's, but they have the talent and a bit of a track record to suggest they can pitch like something close to an ace. We should only rely on them as #2s, but they can be more, at least for stretches.

Morton and Burnett are both inconsistent, but can be dominating at times. They both have short-term #2 upside (getting hot for a three or four starts in a row and being unhittable during that time). They can also have stinkers, though, which aren't so seldom as to dismiss them. Depending on how well they sustain hot streaks and limit stinkers, they could perform anywhere from #3 to #5. Worley's the same, but his hot stretches look more like a #3. He's just less prone to horrible blowups. Locke is much like Worley with a lot more blowup potential, so I see him as a 6 with 5 upside.

We have a nice collection of emergency 6s in Sampson, Cumpton, and Sadler. All of those guys have reasonable talent and could pitch effectively for a short stretch if needed. Taillon, if he recovers well, I think has a hard floor as a #5, but he could pitch upwards of as well as Cole and Liriano and be a huge boost to this rotation later in the season. Kingham I'm pretty high on, more than most, and I think he also has a #5 floor with #3 upside. There were some issues last year for a couple stretches with control, and his strikeouts fell, but he's a four-pitch pitcher with a mid-90s fastball and generally pretty excellent command, very durable, and he can chew up innings. It would not surprise me at all if he forced his way into the rotation this year and just didn't let go of the spot.

 

[Darkstone42]

So I just read that James Shields is now looking for a 4/$70 type of deal, I think about now I would start talking. Then again, he would cost a draft pick, which is something that would be hard for us to absorb, not necessarily the pick, but the bonus money we could use. However, if he is healthy for the duration of the contract, by year three we would have a rotation of Cole, Liriano, Shields, Taillon and Glasnow.

I'd prefer him at three years, but that AAV is very reasonable. I'd probably jump in with a 3/52 type of offer and go from there. I honestly don't think we need him past this year, or at the latest next, so the fewer years and the more movable the contract the better. With Taillon, Glasnow, and Kingham so close, and Cole and Liriano already here, I would think Shields would only be really worth the dollars for us this year, since we'd be able to replace a big chunk of his production next year for a lot less money.

Of course, even if we sign him for four years, the contract may be movable in the case that Glasnow forces himself in in 2016. Or I guess we could just bump Kingham. If our guys reach their ceilings, though, I think Liriano and Shields would be the 4 and 5 in that rotation you have up there three years from now, and that would be sick.