Frogskins

[Dane]

What are the pros/cons of accepting or declining a player option like Maholm, as it pertains to the Pirates current situation?

I ask this because the Pirates have players that most fans would like to see kept around. If the Pirates accept one of their current player options (no one in particular), will it hurt them more than using the money spent to extend a player such as Andrew McCutchen? He will most likely ask for a decent amount of money. Being a small market team, how much funds do you think we have for each situation?

The bottom line is: Do you think the money the Pirates are saving by declining a current player's option should be used to extend our current stars?

 

[magnumo]

A few thoughts in response.....

What is the meaning of the title "Frogskins?"

Maholm's option and the Pirates current situation:

Pirates' current situation:
The Pirates rotation tanked badly after the break, and imo, starting pitching is the Pirates' biggest need among many. I've posted elsewhere that I believe the Pirates need a front-of-the-rotation starter (or at least someone with the potential to be a #1 or #2) to lead the staff..... and that guy MUST be better than a Kevin Correia or a Paul Maholm. Charlie Morton's serious hip surgery makes the situation worse. However, when looking at the overall situation, the Pirates don't have enough good players to be competitive anyway. The pitching is mediocre, the lineup is full of holes, there's little help in the high minors, they can't afford top-quality free agents..... and with their announcement that they will decline options on Maholm, Doumit, and Snyder, it seems likely that both the pitching and the catching will be downgraded from 2011. I hope things magically change between now and 2012, but I fully expect a bad season, with or without Maholm.

Pros and cons I've seen for picking up Maholm's option:

Pro arguments for picking up Maholm's option:
1. His option represents the going rate for a pitcher of his talent & experience.
2. The Pirates are unlikely to find a cheaper option on the open market.
3. The commitment would be for a one year stop-gap only, giving time for other starters to develop.
4. Maholm is a durable innings eater.
5. Maholm performed well in 2011, better than his career norms, and that's likely to continue.
6. Maholm is a lefty.
7. The Pirates have the money to spend.
8. The last thing the Pirates need is a downgrade in the starting rotation.
9. If they pick up the option, they can trade him for something of value.

Corresponding con arguments for picking up Maholm's option:
1. The going rate is too high; $9-$10 mill is too high (at least for the Pirates) for a pitcher like Maholm.
2. Finding cheaper, better options is the job of a small-market GM.
3. The Pirates have other cheaper options already (e.g. Locke, Owens, Wilson) who may do as well as Maholm.
4. Maholm had a significant DL stint at year end, and is not worth the risk.
5. Although his ERA was good in 2011, his peripherals were about the same. He's likely to regress to career norms in 2012.
6. The Pirates have other lefty options with potential.
7. Available money would be better spent elsewhere.
8. Maholm's presence in the rotation will make little difference, one way or another.
9. Tried to trade Maholm in 2011 and could find no takers. Given his recent injury and higher salary, not likely to find any takers in 2012.

My take:
The 2012 Pirates are going to be pretty bad, with or without Maholm. Maholm is not a very good starting pitcher and is not worth his 2012 option salary to the Pirates.

On McCutchen:

I didn't say anything above (in the pros and cons about Maholm's option) about using declined option money to help lock up McCutchen. I don't see that happening, regardless of how much money the Pirates save elsewhere.

McCutchen's agent has indicated no interest in selling any of McCutchen's free agent years..... and if he won't do that, there is much less incentive for the team to pursue a multi-year deal. (I don't see "cost certainty" for McCutchen's arbitration years as a big plus for the team.)

It's likely that other teams will offer McCutchen significantly more money in free agency than the Pirates can afford. Both McCutchen and his agent know that. I believe McCutchen will welcome a move out of Pittsburgh as soon as possible.

I see McCutchen going year-to-year contract-wise and traded before he hits free agency.

Other thoughts:

- Huntington and company have stated many times for the record that they don't consider potential fan reaction when making decisions..... and many of their past decisions have demonstrated that position. (I support that position.) As such, I don't think they will consider "players that most fans would like to see kept around" in their decision-making. Their decisions and actions (how they spend money, whom they trade, which options they pick up, etc.) should be based upon making the team as competitive as possible with the financial resources they have available..... not on what the fans think. Sometimes those two factors coincide, but often they do not.

- This team has been bad enough for long enough that we don't have many "current stars," but I will accept that phrase to mean "our current best players." I've already given my thoughts on McCutchen. In general, my opinion is that the Pirates should use their financial resources as effectively and efficiently as possible..... in fact, if they can't or don't do that, they have no hope of becoming competitive.

But each individual case is different. A KEY factor is buying out free agent years at a good price:

- The Tabata deal was good because it's at a team-friendly price and has reasonable options for free agent years. As such, it's likely to be an effective and efficient use of resources. No, it's not a sure thing, but it's a good risk.

- Should the Pirates try to do the same with Walker? Sure.

- What about pitchers (e.g. Hanrahan or Morton)? Multi-year deals with pitchers are always high risk, because of their high injury risk. However, let's ignore that for a moment and look at the two examples: I probably would NOT try multi-year deals for either Hanrahan or Morton AT THIS TIME. Hanrahan has done it for one year only, and relief pitchers in general and closers in particularly often are inconsistent from year to year. Same thought holds true for Morton. He had a nice year in 2011, but that's only one year..... and he has yet to demonstrate that he can get lefties out with any consistency. So, I'd wait a while on both of those guys.

 

[Illinest]

Unless there's a surgery in his immediate future then It's a mistake to pass on Maholm.
Hyperbole aside - Maholm's performances to date show that his option is fair market value for him to within a million or so. His career ERA+ is 96. He's left-handed and durable. Pitchers in his situation usually make that much money.

The Pirates particularly needed to keep Maholm.
1. The Pirates don't get good or even decent starting pitchers at market value. Relative to our situation Maholm's option was a bargain. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if we end up throwing money at a Correia type and have to suffer again.
2. The Pirates don't need to replace just one starting pitcher now that they've let him go, they need two.

Now here we get into opinions but in my opinion Maholm is a guy who clearly deserves to be in someone's starting rotation. He wouldn't be in Philly's rotation of course but he'd be welcome in most other team's. The Pirates are one of those teams who needs to improve the rotation and it seems counterproductive to me - even if we somehow manage to attract an ace here - if you end up replacing Maholm's innings with one of those quad-A scrubs.
The candidates to replace him - from Correia to Locke to Lincoln and Ohlendorf and whoever else you want to throw in there - I think it'll take a stroke of luck to see any of those guys achieve Maholm's level of success.
They're just not that good.

Ideally you'd sign a top of the rotation starter AND Maholm because then you could boast 5 starting pitchers that you can feel reasonably good about. WHEN an injury happens you can work in one of those quad-A guys. If one of them surprises you then you've got a trade chip.

Look at the Penguins situation. Granted that the Pens have Sid and Geno on the books but look at how well the team plays even when 25 million dollars worth of talent is out with injury. The Pens keep on rolling because Ray Shero doesn't scrimp on depth. He has 8 defensemen who are proven capable of playing in the NHL for example. He doesn't look at his roster and say 'well let's get 4 defensemen who can play for certain and then see who sticks from our farm team.' That sort of approach is stupid, but it's what NH is doing to the Pirates.

The Pirates are signalling that they're still cheap and that they still aren't serious about winning games. If the day ever comes that a Pirates GM addresses holes in the lineup then we'll all know that it's time for hope again.

 

[Illinest]

About extending players:

Extending players early SAVES money for the franchise. If the franchise intends to keep McCutchen then they'll extend him for their own benefit.

There is no point in extending McCutchen if you're sabotaging other areas in the process. McCutchen could turn into Ken Griffey Jr. and it wouldn't matter because we're replacing competent starting pitchers with mediocre prospects off the farm team.

You pay McCutchen what he's worth because it's what he's worth.
You pay other players according to their worth and build a competitive team.

If you can't do that then you might as well quit. I don't know if I'll ever quit paying attention to the Pirates but I'm never going to accept the notion that we need to build toward 'competitive windows'.

Compete or don't.
Just don't pretend to compete. I'm fucking sick of it.

 

[element1286]

What are the pros/cons of accepting or declining a player option like Maholm, as it pertains to the Pirates current situation?

I ask this because the Pirates have players that most fans would like to see kept around. If the Pirates accept one of their current player options (no one in particular), will it hurt them more than using the money spent to extend a player such as Andrew McCutchen? He will most likely ask for a decent amount of money. Being a small market team, how much funds do you think we have for each situation?

The bottom line is: Do you think the money the Pirates are saving by declining a current player's option should be used to extend our current stars?

Absolutely, if it means they can keep Cutch/Walker for the long term, specifically Cutch. They can use Maholm's contract savings to include a large signing bonus in the deal, so he would get more money now.

 

[thedddd]

Makes sense to save the money to pay players but what if McCutchen doesn't accept any of their offers down the road due to no talent and bad teams?

Unless they start putting more talent around McCutchen I don't see any reason why he would stay in Pittsburgh.

Also I understand the need to let some of the prospects (talent) get a shot at the rotation but are really any comparible to the teams best pitcher at the major league level? (not meaning any of the recent top picks the ones at AAA).

As for the reason they don't have any takers for Maholm right now is that why would a team trade for him if they can just sign him when the Pirates non-tender him.

Last season it wasn't that no teams wanted him, NH wanted a big return since they were still in the playoff hunt to compensate for the loss.

 

[element1286]

Current production, Maholm is greater than Owens/Locke, but I don't see any reason why Owens and Locke can't both be as good as Maholm when they mature down the line (in 2 or 3 years).

That being said, 1 year 9 million, unless there were very, very bad medicals on Paul, I would have picked up that option for sure.

 

[thedddd]

Current production, Maholm is greater than Owens/Locke, but I don't see any reason why Owens and Locke can't both be as good as Maholm when they mature down the line (in 2 or 3 years).

That being said, 1 year 9 million, unless there were very, very bad medicals on Paul, I would have picked up that option for sure.

Sorry I was only thinking of next season in a few years that makes sense. Maybe next year is the start of that development at the major league level?


As for the Maholm that injury must be worse because I really don't get the lack of interest (or reported interest) in him.

 

[Darkstone42]

If Maholm is hurt, then I can see where the front office is coming from. They're not really in a position to offer $9 million to someone who may not be able to pitch for a little while at the start of the season. They need anyone they spend that kind of money on to be able to pitch all season.

Otherwise, it would be best to bring back Maholm, because what's out there in free agency that we can honestly expect to be able to get?