Wasn't the strategy at the time to rebuild by trying to add depth in the farm system by getting quantity of guys that might make it? Am I wrong, or does it seem like our 30th to 60th best players in our organization are better than most team's? Then we eventually lose guys faster than we have time to actually develop them?
How many of the 30th to 60th guys are in any other organization can you name, let alone can grade and compare to the equivalents in the Pirates system?
I think this is mostly just familiarity bias. Many, many other orgs are equally deep.
For sure some familiarity bias on my part. The 2022 minor league phase of the rule 5 draft had the Pirates lose 11 players while the rest of the teams averaged to lose around 2. I would say many many organizations are better at the top 30 spots (such as the Padres), but are willing to pick up guys that the Pirates leave unprotected.
I really wasn't trying to get in a debate or brag about the Pirates depth, but more point out a possible flaw in the plan.
His 2019 year he hit 9 guys in 50 innings. You might have, but I didn't see him being the all-star he was in 2022. The stat that really stands out to me is he has only given up 4 homers in 127 innings over his last 2 years with the Yankees.
I know theres people who argue both sides of what franchises can and will spend and this isnt to comment on any of that, but with how well the dodgers' franchise is run plus now spending cohen money, I just cant see how theres any fucking competitive balance in the current system
As is often true, you have a good point with logic that I cant argue with lol; count it up to frustrated grumblings from my porch as there are no kids on my lawn to yell at
I actually was not as upset with the last lock-out because I knew change was needed...... until they settled with no serious changes and then they made it 5 flipping years.
Who is motivated to change the CBA? The large market owners? Obviously not. The players? Salaries appear to be soaring, so I don't think so. Small market owners? Cynically, no, because they're reaping more in revenue sharing than ever.
Unfortunately fans don't have a seat at the table and we're the only ones who have reason to complain but given that fans of teams like the Pirates are vastly outnumbered by fans of teams like the Braves, Cubs, Dodgers, Yankees, ... we'd probably get outvoted anyway.
There's a public perception problem. There might be some owners who dig in for change. And don't forget, it's we the fans who ultimately pay their bills.
When there’s about 5 teams with a realistic shot at signing the best player in the game I wouldn’t say it’s fine for 90% of the league. These imbalances go far behind the 4-5 teams at the bottom.
Again, I'm not judging you for following the Pirates far more than the rest of the league - you're probably more well-adjusted and interesting than I am - but these are just Pirate blinders showing.
No team in baseball has signed more than two of the top 15 most expensive contracts in the sport and one of those teams is *San Diego*. Half the league or more has the financial power to sign up to about 99.9% of the players in the game and let's be honest without ourselves about the chances of the others - Pirates included - even if money were equal.
Think about the number of clubs - and their fans - who would be net *losers* of revenue in any scheme that actually made the Pirates and other bottom-5 markets equivalent and you quickly see how many more losers there would be than winners.
Good luck with that leading to better overall public perception.
And I'm still subscribing to MLB TV, and if Cherington adds a #1 or #2 starter, I'll be buying tickets this year :).
I'd love to see owners like Nutting take a stand, or fans of teams like the Pirates, Royals, Brewers, and Twins boycott. But Nutting sees his investment increase by an order of magnitude and, by definition, fans of small market teams don't represent a large enough share of the revenue pie to make a difference.
There just isn't the motivation for real change. The one thing we might hope for is a payroll floor for teams to receive revenue sharing. That would help--I feel like if the Pirates (wisely) spent about $25MM more this offseason, we'd have real hope of contending for the NL Central. Maybe we will.
It's a governor on free-spending owners, to try to hold them back with ever-increasing luxury tax rates. It works, but only after 2-3 years of spending past pre-set thresholds. What do you think the purpose is?
Why you believe the game needs drastically altered in order to pad owner wallets *even more* is beyond me. To each their own I suppose, whatever floats your boat.
Ohtani asked for that, so neither the MLBPA or the owners will argue for a change. Players should have the right to defer payment to help their team contend; owners are happy to oblige.
It's better than European soccer, though, because of the draft spending caps, the IFA spending caps, and the 6+ years of control teams get. Teams like the Pirates need to be smarter in acquiring young talent and better at developing that talent, but teams that are have opportunities to win it all.
"I just cant see how theres any fucking competitive balance in the current system"
There isn't supposed to be. MLB wants the Dodgers and Yankees in the WS every year. They believe that's the best way to maximize overall revenue. Teams like the Washington Generals . . . er, the Pirates get their payola out of central revenues in exchange for not making waves. Every last measure MLB implements is designed to maximize the effectiveness of the dollars that the big-revenue teams spend, hence the limits on draft and int'l spending, and outlawing strategies like shifting. The last thing MLB wants is effective moneyball-type strategies that might level the playing field.
This. Exactly this. They want all the attention on the largest markets with the highest household incomes. Sorry folks, but that ain’t Pittsburgh and Cincy.
Agree 100%, and the Pirates have never been able to win with the Draft, sign IFA's, and Develop simply because, they are always lacking in one or more of those area's. Right now, they have a fairly solid team of position players and hitters in place at the MLB level, and two already signed long term. In 2024 our pitching at AA could be better than what we will have in MLB.
Sadly, this could be our last year of dumpster diving to find SP's who can give us innings but not much more than that. The question is this - what can this franchise do to make sure we keep many of these position and pitching prospects for longer than 6 years?
I'm well aware journalists no longer understand or give a shit about the difference, but that still doesn't make it right.
Nobody says San Diego "broke IFA" because they dropped $60m on the class right before a cap was passed and that was far, far more impactful than what the Pirates did in signing Josh Bell.
Don't mean to sound cruel.. but this is not breaking news. I had a good conversation years ago and we agreed Ben could have spent lets say $30M more in the playoff years (and if OPEN books maybe would have been 'forced' to). However, the sad part of the conversation was, if Ben should have spent $30M more then the Cubs (if open books) likely should have spent $50M more, Mets (pre Cohen) maybe $150M more. Just think what the Yankees probably could spend.... I always close with Ben should (or should have) spent more.. but overall it is an ugly picture.
The marginal utility of that additional $100m is probably less than 1% increase in chances of winning a World Series. Almost completely inconsequential when factoring the inherent variability in the game itself.
The trick small market owners play on their fans is this false futility.
I disagree with the false futility notion. The Pirates have gone out of their way to not blame the system. Both NH and BC have stated multiple times that they can be competitive under the current rules. And why would Nutting want to blame the current system anyways? So long as he avoids long term/stupid contracts he’s profitable. And of course any owner that sells futility is wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to be a small market. Aside from the Rays and to a lesser degree the Guardians, pretty much none of the small markets have been consistently competitive.
In other news, Dodgers follow up signing Ohtani to biggest FA contract in MLB history, by signing Yamamoto to richest pitching only FA contract in MLB history.
Appears losing to small market Arizona has caused Dodgers ownership to channel their inner Steve Cohen. I personally hope their grand plan to buy a championship ends up in the same dumpster as Mets currently reside in.
I don't feel animosity towards the Dodgers--their owners are simply spending on the team instead of pocketing a higher profit. We should all be fortunate enough to have owners who are competitive enough to spend to win.
That said, all their spending will likely bump up their chances in a 5-game playoff series from something like 55% to 59%, so I'd still bet on the field. I.e., they won't be more loaded than the 1960 Yankees :)
The Dodgers owners are INVESTING rather than pocketing a higher profit now. They have always been the most popular MLB Team to Japan and other Far East countries and these two moves will only strengthen and expand their market - improvement of the product will just mean higher profits later.
I agree about the 5-game series point. SSS luck can always trump talent occasionally.
What pisses me off is how MLB allows them to defer basically the entire Ohtani contract, which then allows them to buy Yamamoto without having to pay the true luxury tax bill. As if large markets needed another advantage.
I guess MLB really hated having a small market team playing in the WS, and they’re doing their level best to ensure this doesn’t happen on even a semi-regular basis.
What a rigged game MLB has created.
And this rant is coming from a guy who doesn’t even think money is biggest driver of success in the sport.
The competitive balance tax was created by big market owners for the express purpose of reducing competition between them. It's an explicitly anti-free market policy with its only goal to allow elite owners to hoard more of their revenue as profit.
The Dodgers should be *commended* for beating the system.
You might want to read the CBT article on MLBtraderumors dated 12/23 so as to be able to reconsider your position! Over half the $200M in 2023 tax goes directly back to players. The other half goes to revenue sharing clubs like the Pirates.
I commend the Dodgers for getting the two best FA targets this year to sign with them. I do not commend Manfred for allowing the Dodgers to skirt $24 million of luxury tax each season for next 10 years. IMHO, he should’ve done what other Commissioners had done in the past when a team was attempting to upset the equity balance agreed upon by players and owners in the CBA, and told the Dodgers NFW! Instead, he stuck his middle finger up at the other 29 bosses of his (and their fan bases, too).
I think they are paying the luxury tax bill. They are paying 'current year dollar' equivalents to the deferred money throughout the life of the 10 year contract and while they will be writing checks for the deferred money in the future will not be paying luxury tax for those out years. I think I heard it was $40+M a year he would count in the luxury tax calculation.
Yes, they're in the highest tax tier and paying tax on Ohtani as if he was making $46MM. I think their deals this offseason means a few million more to the Pirates. What will happen to that extra revenue?
Exactly the point I was emphasizing to WTM earlier - how do we find a way to keep some of our prized pitching longer than the 5 or 6 years! Without going into the guys slotted for AA, we have Keller, Brubaker, Priester, Jones, Burrows, Nicolas, Ortiz, Falter, and Ashcraft in that AAA/MLB grouping. That is one helluva lot of trade value if it is nurtured, promoted, and managed at the MLB level - that should be happening this year if we can stop ourselves from signing guys we know will be gone by August.
Tired of hearing Jones will never amount to much more than a RP because he only throws 2 pitches. Going into his age 23 season and teams are salivating over him - I just hope the Pirates value him that well.
Paying Jameson Taillon five times as much as they paid Rich Hill for the same quality and production will not, in fact, be what elevates the Pittsburgh Pirates above their competition.
Nerd alert.. I think accounting wise this actually makes sense and is not unreasonable. But of course your second paragraph makes my nerdish comment inconsequential.
Pirates payroll just over $700 million in the last decade.
Dodgers new guaranteed money in 2024 off season nearly $1.3 billion. That's not including Betts or Freeman, it also doesn't include what Kershaw will get if he returns.
I get your comment, but if Dodgers have that money to spend then they likely made more money last year than the entire Pirate revenue stream - not profit (and likely more profit than even peak Pirate revenue stream - ie. contending and packing the stadium). I am NOT defending Ben at all, but this is apples to oranges.
It is apples and oranges in the sense that we'd expect different costs/payrolls, but I feel certain that we're spending a smaller percentage of our revenue than are other teams. What proof do I have? The lack of transparency is part of the problem, but I'm basing this on what we spent 8-10 years ago when revenue was lower and what teams in comparable markets have been spending. Even the frequent statement "we'll spend when the time is right" implies that they could be spending more now.
I think it is very likely that the Pirates and similar smaller revenue teams just can’t make these types of long term payroll commitments, and it probably has to due to the these teams’ collective dependence on revenue sharing funds. Being a revenue sharing recipient is both a blessing and a curse.
The % of revenue argument is apt but also problematic. Based on publicly available numbers, the Pirates could be spending a higher % of their revenue and still have the Dodgers with a payroll many multiples of theirs. The Dodgers aren’t taking any hit on profitably here, they are investing in what is a great market and spending out of the bountiful returns.
Good point. Can't say I fully agree (basically because we don't see anybody's books - lack of transparency is not a Pirate unique issue) in the % of spending although in early tank I am sure that would be true. Where I disagree some is 'willing to spend' to compete. My take is that they are so awash in cash that these decisions are just flat out easy if you are making $300M in profit each year (totally made up # I admit). My fear.. see post further up, is if it was based on % of revenue and ALL teams were forced to some mandatory amount, things could be even worse for the Pirates. Dang. I fell like i am becoming a Ben defender.. ARGH.. I am not. Net: revenue system in MLB stinks. Short gains in Ben(or any Pirate owner) spending will be dwarfed by others.
Which, lets hope the Pirates bullpen is absolutely dominating come the deadline, cause that'll likely be the area the Dodgers look to shore up. Then Ben can hopefully take advantage of the situation and get an overpay for a bullpen arm lol
We aren’t transactional for those sorts of those moves. And even if they were, they’d waste the value by prioritizing mediocre quantity over quality. For example, if we had traded them Glasnow and Margot, instead of taking Pepiot and DeLuca we’d have taken as many 15-30 ranked prospects as they’d give us.
I think what irritates me the most is the fact they could be like the Mets in 2023 who had about $300M on the IL at one point, but the Dodgers have the prospects to step right up into the MLB and likely not even miss a beat.
Jake Lamb? There has to be a truly stupid move coming - this is just to take a little of the edge off of that next announcement. Sort of like waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I would have said that was paranoia speaking but everyone said the same when Ali Sanchez signed and BAM! Endy goes down. I just think they did a veteran a favor for AAAA insurance but if someone shows up w a long term injury tomorrow we will know why Lamb is on the menu.
Ali was signed to a major league deal, Lamb was not. Every team, every year, signs former big leaguers at the end of their rope to minor league deals for depth purposes.
Paranoia is only reason to think this is anything different.
Surprised Jackson wanted to go to Japan. Seemed like he had an MLB job here or elsewhere - most likely in the bullpen. Maybe a couple years dominating NPB will get him another shot, as more than a 6/7 starter.
I was a little surprised to see MLB trade rumors say he will most likely go unclaimed once the Pirates put him on waivers. I know September can be a little misleading, but the 2 starts I was at, I liked him. If my memory is right he made hitters look stupid the first 3 or 4 innings, then couldn't find the strike zone. I thought he fell in the same category as a few other Pirates pitchers that are 3 to 5 inning guys.
I'm betting he'll come back to MLB in 2-3 years and will be out of our price range. Japan and Korea have become proving grounds for pitchers to work on their stuff and command, and if Jackson can improve the latter he'll be a quality pitcher.
Throwing all of the rotation pretenders at the wall, he seemed to have the best chance to do something positive based on the fact Statcast had plus run value numbers for 3 of his 4 pitches in 2023 with the Pirates.
My Rotation a few weeks ago looked like Keller, Gonzales, Jackson, Jones, and then a pick 'em of Priester, Ortiz, Falter, or Contreras. Then they added Perez meaning only 2 Rotation Slots available. The Pirates have equity in prospects Jones and Priester, and Bailey Falter is out of options. Jackson was out of options also, so he probably made a wise move.
So Contreras and Falter are both out of options? It sounds like they’ll acquire another starter, so I’ll assume the pecking order for the 5th spot is this:
1. Contreras
2. Falter
3. Ortiz
4. Priester
How many starts for this group before the Brubaker/Skenes/Jones start to push for spots?
My concern with Burrows is that by the time he is really back (he had surgery maybe a month after Bru), builds himself up, and gains effectiveness (he can stay in AAA - no rush) the season will be over. He also (pre-injury) was in line for more AAA work as IMO he was not major league ready yet but was trending towards a mid year callup if he pitched well. He didn't become MLB ready by having surgery so I look at him more as a bonus vs. Brubaker was a legit MLB starter. . If he comes back and hits the ground running that is great.. if not, let's plan for him in 2024.
I think I agree with that order. Though this is one of the rare spots where Spring Training will mean everything. Barring injury/disaster, Skenes will be up in June. Jones will be up as soon as he seems ready. Brubaker will have to prove health/effectiveness.
Jones and Skenes can be measured on performance. There is some health reality to Brubaker as I think he won't be back until maybe June (somebody will have better info). I am of the opinion Jones needs more time in AAA than what some other poster think. He made 15 good to decent starts, but that in itself does not make him MLB ready. I do expect to see him in 2024 but I don't see him in the running (and I agree) to start the year in the MLB rotation. I usually don't put a lot in spring training results, but I am anxious to see how Contreras (fastball speed), Ortiz (he fell apart - has he recovered), and Priester (can he K guys) all fair. I think Falter is what he is.
Agree with pretty much everything you said. I figured that group of Jones/Skenes/Bru will start pushing in June/July depending on performance/injuries.
I’d like to see Jones dominate, or at least be above average in AAA before pushing him up. Also kinda skeptical about Skenes debuting so early. Everyone has basically predetermined that he’ll be up immediately after Super 2, but Gerrit Cole spent 1.5 years in the minors. I think he’ll make it to Pittsburgh this year, but maybe not as soon as everyone thinks.
I agree with you on both Jones and Skenes and realized I didn't answer your question. I think the four you listed will get shots through July (realizing only 1 or at most 2 will actually be in the MLB rotation - and the other 3 or 4 will be first in line if the 'chosen' one fails). If for example Priester and Ortiz(they have options) end up in the AAA rotation then at some point they are basically in open competition with Jones/Skenes for a callup. I don't know what the plan for Brubaker will be. He was a legit backend MLB starter (better MLB success then any on this list we are discussing) so in theory he gets some re-hab innings and moves into the rotation. We can all dream that the competition is fierce vs. pitchers needing replaced for performance.
Related to the financial state of the game, has anyone ever read this book?
If so, do you recommend it?
Bottom of the Ninth: Branch Rickey, Casey...
by Michael Shapiro
Diego Castillo got dfa’d.
The whole Castillo/Park/Tucu UT thing sure went badly.
Makes you wonder why more teams don’t center their trade returns on offensively challenged second base types.
Wasn't the strategy at the time to rebuild by trying to add depth in the farm system by getting quantity of guys that might make it? Am I wrong, or does it seem like our 30th to 60th best players in our organization are better than most team's? Then we eventually lose guys faster than we have time to actually develop them?
That should tell you something about quantity over quality. The Reds emphasized quality and look at where they are at.
They did what now?
How many of the 30th to 60th guys are in any other organization can you name, let alone can grade and compare to the equivalents in the Pirates system?
I think this is mostly just familiarity bias. Many, many other orgs are equally deep.
For sure some familiarity bias on my part. The 2022 minor league phase of the rule 5 draft had the Pirates lose 11 players while the rest of the teams averaged to lose around 2. I would say many many organizations are better at the top 30 spots (such as the Padres), but are willing to pick up guys that the Pirates leave unprotected.
I really wasn't trying to get in a debate or brag about the Pirates depth, but more point out a possible flaw in the plan.
The Holmes trade couldn't have been worse. I hope we learned something...
What is there to be learned from the Clay Holmes trade?
Don’t make bad trades. They’re bad.
Haha, no lies detected.
2011 draft was pretty solid btw
Cole, Bell, Glasnow, Holmes, Trey Turner
His 2019 year he hit 9 guys in 50 innings. You might have, but I didn't see him being the all-star he was in 2022. The stat that really stands out to me is he has only given up 4 homers in 127 innings over his last 2 years with the Yankees.
Ha, the FO will just shrug their shoulders. Win some, lose some.
I know theres people who argue both sides of what franchises can and will spend and this isnt to comment on any of that, but with how well the dodgers' franchise is run plus now spending cohen money, I just cant see how theres any fucking competitive balance in the current system
What is competitive balance?
Doesn't MLB have far more equal distribution of winning than the other major leagues?
As is often true, you have a good point with logic that I cant argue with lol; count it up to frustrated grumblings from my porch as there are no kids on my lawn to yell at
Three effing more seasons until a new CBA. Surely changes need made.
I actually was not as upset with the last lock-out because I knew change was needed...... until they settled with no serious changes and then they made it 5 flipping years.
Who is motivated to change the CBA? The large market owners? Obviously not. The players? Salaries appear to be soaring, so I don't think so. Small market owners? Cynically, no, because they're reaping more in revenue sharing than ever.
Unfortunately fans don't have a seat at the table and we're the only ones who have reason to complain but given that fans of teams like the Pirates are vastly outnumbered by fans of teams like the Braves, Cubs, Dodgers, Yankees, ... we'd probably get outvoted anyway.
There's a public perception problem. There might be some owners who dig in for change. And don't forget, it's we the fans who ultimately pay their bills.
And for about 90% of baseball fans the system works just fine.
We have massive Pirate blinders here, because unfortunately our favorite team is one of the exceptions.
More fans would be pissed off by any transformational change to the current system than would support one.
When there’s about 5 teams with a realistic shot at signing the best player in the game I wouldn’t say it’s fine for 90% of the league. These imbalances go far behind the 4-5 teams at the bottom.
Again, I'm not judging you for following the Pirates far more than the rest of the league - you're probably more well-adjusted and interesting than I am - but these are just Pirate blinders showing.
No team in baseball has signed more than two of the top 15 most expensive contracts in the sport and one of those teams is *San Diego*. Half the league or more has the financial power to sign up to about 99.9% of the players in the game and let's be honest without ourselves about the chances of the others - Pirates included - even if money were equal.
Think about the number of clubs - and their fans - who would be net *losers* of revenue in any scheme that actually made the Pirates and other bottom-5 markets equivalent and you quickly see how many more losers there would be than winners.
Good luck with that leading to better overall public perception.
And I'm still subscribing to MLB TV, and if Cherington adds a #1 or #2 starter, I'll be buying tickets this year :).
I'd love to see owners like Nutting take a stand, or fans of teams like the Pirates, Royals, Brewers, and Twins boycott. But Nutting sees his investment increase by an order of magnitude and, by definition, fans of small market teams don't represent a large enough share of the revenue pie to make a difference.
There just isn't the motivation for real change. The one thing we might hope for is a payroll floor for teams to receive revenue sharing. That would help--I feel like if the Pirates (wisely) spent about $25MM more this offseason, we'd have real hope of contending for the NL Central. Maybe we will.
So big market owners can profit more while winning no fewer championships?
Definitely the deferral crap needs changed. It makes a mockery of the purpose of the CBTax.
What do you think is the purpose of the CBTax?
It's a governor on free-spending owners, to try to hold them back with ever-increasing luxury tax rates. It works, but only after 2-3 years of spending past pre-set thresholds. What do you think the purpose is?
lol, well, yes, that actually.
Why you believe the game needs drastically altered in order to pad owner wallets *even more* is beyond me. To each their own I suppose, whatever floats your boat.
Ohtani asked for that, so neither the MLBPA or the owners will argue for a change. Players should have the right to defer payment to help their team contend; owners are happy to oblige.
Of course Ohtani is grandfathered in. And he's a unicorn, but others will follow.
It's better than European soccer, though, because of the draft spending caps, the IFA spending caps, and the 6+ years of control teams get. Teams like the Pirates need to be smarter in acquiring young talent and better at developing that talent, but teams that are have opportunities to win it all.
"I just cant see how theres any fucking competitive balance in the current system"
There isn't supposed to be. MLB wants the Dodgers and Yankees in the WS every year. They believe that's the best way to maximize overall revenue. Teams like the Washington Generals . . . er, the Pirates get their payola out of central revenues in exchange for not making waves. Every last measure MLB implements is designed to maximize the effectiveness of the dollars that the big-revenue teams spend, hence the limits on draft and int'l spending, and outlawing strategies like shifting. The last thing MLB wants is effective moneyball-type strategies that might level the playing field.
This. Exactly this. They want all the attention on the largest markets with the highest household incomes. Sorry folks, but that ain’t Pittsburgh and Cincy.
Agree 100%, and the Pirates have never been able to win with the Draft, sign IFA's, and Develop simply because, they are always lacking in one or more of those area's. Right now, they have a fairly solid team of position players and hitters in place at the MLB level, and two already signed long term. In 2024 our pitching at AA could be better than what we will have in MLB.
Sadly, this could be our last year of dumpster diving to find SP's who can give us innings but not much more than that. The question is this - what can this franchise do to make sure we keep many of these position and pitching prospects for longer than 6 years?
Mel I am wondering if because of all of the injuries the Pirates don't want to lock players up for over 6 years (mainly pitchers).
Right -- the pirates 'break the draft' with Josh Bell and MLB can't change the rules fast enough to make sure that never happens again.
This is is just another fable crafted by the Pittsburgh media.
The Pirates only once spent more on the draft in the pre-cap era than they have while capped and players are now fetching $500m contracts.
Yet the delusion that the league targeted the lowly Pirates for spending $5m on Josh Bell pervades.
It was explicitly reported at the time that that’s exactly what happened.
And draft spending is up due to inflation. The sport is rolling in money and they have to get the slots by the union.
It was *speculated*, not reported.
I'm well aware journalists no longer understand or give a shit about the difference, but that still doesn't make it right.
Nobody says San Diego "broke IFA" because they dropped $60m on the class right before a cap was passed and that was far, far more impactful than what the Pirates did in signing Josh Bell.
It wasn't speculated. Some MLB official was overheard ranting about "Josh f.....g Bell" and his bonus.
Just think if the pirates draft from 2011 would have reached their potential in Pittsburgh.
Cole, Bell, Glasnow and Holmes. You could throw in Trea Turner if we could have signed him.
Don't mean to sound cruel.. but this is not breaking news. I had a good conversation years ago and we agreed Ben could have spent lets say $30M more in the playoff years (and if OPEN books maybe would have been 'forced' to). However, the sad part of the conversation was, if Ben should have spent $30M more then the Cubs (if open books) likely should have spent $50M more, Mets (pre Cohen) maybe $150M more. Just think what the Yankees probably could spend.... I always close with Ben should (or should have) spent more.. but overall it is an ugly picture.
Except this is still baseball!
The marginal utility of that additional $100m is probably less than 1% increase in chances of winning a World Series. Almost completely inconsequential when factoring the inherent variability in the game itself.
The trick small market owners play on their fans is this false futility.
I disagree with the false futility notion. The Pirates have gone out of their way to not blame the system. Both NH and BC have stated multiple times that they can be competitive under the current rules. And why would Nutting want to blame the current system anyways? So long as he avoids long term/stupid contracts he’s profitable. And of course any owner that sells futility is wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to be a small market. Aside from the Rays and to a lesser degree the Guardians, pretty much none of the small markets have been consistently competitive.
In other news, Dodgers follow up signing Ohtani to biggest FA contract in MLB history, by signing Yamamoto to richest pitching only FA contract in MLB history.
Appears losing to small market Arizona has caused Dodgers ownership to channel their inner Steve Cohen. I personally hope their grand plan to buy a championship ends up in the same dumpster as Mets currently reside in.
I don't feel animosity towards the Dodgers--their owners are simply spending on the team instead of pocketing a higher profit. We should all be fortunate enough to have owners who are competitive enough to spend to win.
That said, all their spending will likely bump up their chances in a 5-game playoff series from something like 55% to 59%, so I'd still bet on the field. I.e., they won't be more loaded than the 1960 Yankees :)
The Dodgers owners are INVESTING rather than pocketing a higher profit now. They have always been the most popular MLB Team to Japan and other Far East countries and these two moves will only strengthen and expand their market - improvement of the product will just mean higher profits later.
I agree about the 5-game series point. SSS luck can always trump talent occasionally.
What pisses me off is how MLB allows them to defer basically the entire Ohtani contract, which then allows them to buy Yamamoto without having to pay the true luxury tax bill. As if large markets needed another advantage.
I guess MLB really hated having a small market team playing in the WS, and they’re doing their level best to ensure this doesn’t happen on even a semi-regular basis.
What a rigged game MLB has created.
And this rant is coming from a guy who doesn’t even think money is biggest driver of success in the sport.
The competitive balance tax was created by big market owners for the express purpose of reducing competition between them. It's an explicitly anti-free market policy with its only goal to allow elite owners to hoard more of their revenue as profit.
The Dodgers should be *commended* for beating the system.
You might want to read the CBT article on MLBtraderumors dated 12/23 so as to be able to reconsider your position! Over half the $200M in 2023 tax goes directly back to players. The other half goes to revenue sharing clubs like the Pirates.
I commend the Dodgers for getting the two best FA targets this year to sign with them. I do not commend Manfred for allowing the Dodgers to skirt $24 million of luxury tax each season for next 10 years. IMHO, he should’ve done what other Commissioners had done in the past when a team was attempting to upset the equity balance agreed upon by players and owners in the CBA, and told the Dodgers NFW! Instead, he stuck his middle finger up at the other 29 bosses of his (and their fan bases, too).
I think they are paying the luxury tax bill. They are paying 'current year dollar' equivalents to the deferred money throughout the life of the 10 year contract and while they will be writing checks for the deferred money in the future will not be paying luxury tax for those out years. I think I heard it was $40+M a year he would count in the luxury tax calculation.
Yes, they're in the highest tax tier and paying tax on Ohtani as if he was making $46MM. I think their deals this offseason means a few million more to the Pirates. What will happen to that extra revenue?
They’re conveniently $15 million below highest bracket AFTER signing Yamamoto.
What? Did you think they offered to defer money because they couldn’t afford to pay him now?
Anyway you slice it, they’re breaking the spirit of the CBA and if Manfred had a spine he wouldn’t allow it.
Exactly the point I was emphasizing to WTM earlier - how do we find a way to keep some of our prized pitching longer than the 5 or 6 years! Without going into the guys slotted for AA, we have Keller, Brubaker, Priester, Jones, Burrows, Nicolas, Ortiz, Falter, and Ashcraft in that AAA/MLB grouping. That is one helluva lot of trade value if it is nurtured, promoted, and managed at the MLB level - that should be happening this year if we can stop ourselves from signing guys we know will be gone by August.
Tired of hearing Jones will never amount to much more than a RP because he only throws 2 pitches. Going into his age 23 season and teams are salivating over him - I just hope the Pirates value him that well.
Paying Jameson Taillon five times as much as they paid Rich Hill for the same quality and production will not, in fact, be what elevates the Pittsburgh Pirates above their competition.
$46 million as opposed to $70 million gives them an extra $24 million/year to spend towards Yamamoto and pay the same luxury tax bill.
WTM is absolutely right, they game the system in every way possible to ensure large market teams, preferably Dodgers and Yankees, are in WS.
Nerd alert.. I think accounting wise this actually makes sense and is not unreasonable. But of course your second paragraph makes my nerdish comment inconsequential.
Think of it this way,
Pirates payroll just over $700 million in the last decade.
Dodgers new guaranteed money in 2024 off season nearly $1.3 billion. That's not including Betts or Freeman, it also doesn't include what Kershaw will get if he returns.
I get your comment, but if Dodgers have that money to spend then they likely made more money last year than the entire Pirate revenue stream - not profit (and likely more profit than even peak Pirate revenue stream - ie. contending and packing the stadium). I am NOT defending Ben at all, but this is apples to oranges.
It is apples and oranges in the sense that we'd expect different costs/payrolls, but I feel certain that we're spending a smaller percentage of our revenue than are other teams. What proof do I have? The lack of transparency is part of the problem, but I'm basing this on what we spent 8-10 years ago when revenue was lower and what teams in comparable markets have been spending. Even the frequent statement "we'll spend when the time is right" implies that they could be spending more now.
I think it is very likely that the Pirates and similar smaller revenue teams just can’t make these types of long term payroll commitments, and it probably has to due to the these teams’ collective dependence on revenue sharing funds. Being a revenue sharing recipient is both a blessing and a curse.
The % of revenue argument is apt but also problematic. Based on publicly available numbers, the Pirates could be spending a higher % of their revenue and still have the Dodgers with a payroll many multiples of theirs. The Dodgers aren’t taking any hit on profitably here, they are investing in what is a great market and spending out of the bountiful returns.
Good point. Can't say I fully agree (basically because we don't see anybody's books - lack of transparency is not a Pirate unique issue) in the % of spending although in early tank I am sure that would be true. Where I disagree some is 'willing to spend' to compete. My take is that they are so awash in cash that these decisions are just flat out easy if you are making $300M in profit each year (totally made up # I admit). My fear.. see post further up, is if it was based on % of revenue and ALL teams were forced to some mandatory amount, things could be even worse for the Pirates. Dang. I fell like i am becoming a Ben defender.. ARGH.. I am not. Net: revenue system in MLB stinks. Short gains in Ben(or any Pirate owner) spending will be dwarfed by others.
Which, lets hope the Pirates bullpen is absolutely dominating come the deadline, cause that'll likely be the area the Dodgers look to shore up. Then Ben can hopefully take advantage of the situation and get an overpay for a bullpen arm lol
We aren’t transactional for those sorts of those moves. And even if they were, they’d waste the value by prioritizing mediocre quantity over quality. For example, if we had traded them Glasnow and Margot, instead of taking Pepiot and DeLuca we’d have taken as many 15-30 ranked prospects as they’d give us.
I think what irritates me the most is the fact they could be like the Mets in 2023 who had about $300M on the IL at one point, but the Dodgers have the prospects to step right up into the MLB and likely not even miss a beat.
It also gives the Dodgers the best minor league system in baseball (IMO)
Jackson was nothing special but seemed like an innings eater. And with the shape of their rotation this year they're going to need guys like that
Yeah, I kinda liked him in long relief role. But whatever.
Jake Lamb? There has to be a truly stupid move coming - this is just to take a little of the edge off of that next announcement. Sort of like waiting for the other shoe to drop.
They finally answered fans calling for Lamb!! Just about, five years later
I would have said that was paranoia speaking but everyone said the same when Ali Sanchez signed and BAM! Endy goes down. I just think they did a veteran a favor for AAAA insurance but if someone shows up w a long term injury tomorrow we will know why Lamb is on the menu.
Ali was signed to a major league deal, Lamb was not. Every team, every year, signs former big leaguers at the end of their rope to minor league deals for depth purposes.
Paranoia is only reason to think this is anything different.
Surprised Jackson wanted to go to Japan. Seemed like he had an MLB job here or elsewhere - most likely in the bullpen. Maybe a couple years dominating NPB will get him another shot, as more than a 6/7 starter.
I was a little surprised to see MLB trade rumors say he will most likely go unclaimed once the Pirates put him on waivers. I know September can be a little misleading, but the 2 starts I was at, I liked him. If my memory is right he made hitters look stupid the first 3 or 4 innings, then couldn't find the strike zone. I thought he fell in the same category as a few other Pirates pitchers that are 3 to 5 inning guys.
I'm betting he'll come back to MLB in 2-3 years and will be out of our price range. Japan and Korea have become proving grounds for pitchers to work on their stuff and command, and if Jackson can improve the latter he'll be a quality pitcher.
Throwing all of the rotation pretenders at the wall, he seemed to have the best chance to do something positive based on the fact Statcast had plus run value numbers for 3 of his 4 pitches in 2023 with the Pirates.
My Rotation a few weeks ago looked like Keller, Gonzales, Jackson, Jones, and then a pick 'em of Priester, Ortiz, Falter, or Contreras. Then they added Perez meaning only 2 Rotation Slots available. The Pirates have equity in prospects Jones and Priester, and Bailey Falter is out of options. Jackson was out of options also, so he probably made a wise move.
So Contreras and Falter are both out of options? It sounds like they’ll acquire another starter, so I’ll assume the pecking order for the 5th spot is this:
1. Contreras
2. Falter
3. Ortiz
4. Priester
How many starts for this group before the Brubaker/Skenes/Jones start to push for spots?
Add Burrows to that list as well.
My concern with Burrows is that by the time he is really back (he had surgery maybe a month after Bru), builds himself up, and gains effectiveness (he can stay in AAA - no rush) the season will be over. He also (pre-injury) was in line for more AAA work as IMO he was not major league ready yet but was trending towards a mid year callup if he pitched well. He didn't become MLB ready by having surgery so I look at him more as a bonus vs. Brubaker was a legit MLB starter. . If he comes back and hits the ground running that is great.. if not, let's plan for him in 2024.
Yeah, i have Burrows penciled in for a September start or two, but anything more than that would be surprising to me.
Oops.. 2025.
I agree--we shouldn't count on Burrows this coming season other than getting some MLB experience in September if we're out of contention.
I think I agree with that order. Though this is one of the rare spots where Spring Training will mean everything. Barring injury/disaster, Skenes will be up in June. Jones will be up as soon as he seems ready. Brubaker will have to prove health/effectiveness.
Jones and Skenes can be measured on performance. There is some health reality to Brubaker as I think he won't be back until maybe June (somebody will have better info). I am of the opinion Jones needs more time in AAA than what some other poster think. He made 15 good to decent starts, but that in itself does not make him MLB ready. I do expect to see him in 2024 but I don't see him in the running (and I agree) to start the year in the MLB rotation. I usually don't put a lot in spring training results, but I am anxious to see how Contreras (fastball speed), Ortiz (he fell apart - has he recovered), and Priester (can he K guys) all fair. I think Falter is what he is.
Agree with pretty much everything you said. I figured that group of Jones/Skenes/Bru will start pushing in June/July depending on performance/injuries.
I’d like to see Jones dominate, or at least be above average in AAA before pushing him up. Also kinda skeptical about Skenes debuting so early. Everyone has basically predetermined that he’ll be up immediately after Super 2, but Gerrit Cole spent 1.5 years in the minors. I think he’ll make it to Pittsburgh this year, but maybe not as soon as everyone thinks.
I agree with you on both Jones and Skenes and realized I didn't answer your question. I think the four you listed will get shots through July (realizing only 1 or at most 2 will actually be in the MLB rotation - and the other 3 or 4 will be first in line if the 'chosen' one fails). If for example Priester and Ortiz(they have options) end up in the AAA rotation then at some point they are basically in open competition with Jones/Skenes for a callup. I don't know what the plan for Brubaker will be. He was a legit backend MLB starter (better MLB success then any on this list we are discussing) so in theory he gets some re-hab innings and moves into the rotation. We can all dream that the competition is fierce vs. pitchers needing replaced for performance.