Baseball Thread 5 - #5 George Brett Has a Story to Tell

This. Changes. EVERYTHING.

 

I also noticed that Jeff Francoeur isn't good at baseball.

The apparent Official Argument from the WWL is that, holy moly, the Braves are stoopid, Francoeur >>>> Ryan Church, boo yah! Which is ridiculous, seeing how 1) It isn't actually true and 2) Who cares? Frenchy could have been traded for dang near anyone and it would have been a solid move by virtue of removing Francoeur from the team. End of story. That the Braves got a decent platoon partner for Matty Die-az is a bonus.

This is what Francoeur is: Hot hot hot start before anyone figured him out (and check it- dude faded down the stretch in '05), serviceable in 2007, claw-your-eyes-out awful everywhere else.

 

Didn't read the details, thanks.

 

At least Sanchez has some bullet points -- All-Star three of the last four years, a batting title -- that will make him attractive to other teams if he's a free agent.

Right now his main competition in the free agent class from what I can tell is Orlando Hudson, potentially Akinori Iwamura (coming off a major injury and team holds option for 4.25 mil) Placido Polanco, Felipe Lopez and I guess Mark DeRosa if you want to count him there.

 

I think this was Neal Huntington's way of trying NOT to pay both 2010 player options and attempt to sign them at market value, or what the front office believes the market value will be during the offseason.

The Wilson offer was fairly reasonable for a light-hitting, slick-fielding shortstop. There's no denying he's grossly overpaid.

As for Sanchez, he got lowballed big time. It's downright insulting, actually. He triggers an $8 million option for '10 if he reaches 600 at-bats and the Pirates offer him $10 million for two years, essentially asking him to forgo the option and take less money? Uh, yeah, like that'll happen.

While I haven't seen it up close, Huntington also has been entirely too candid during interviews. Heck, yesterday he had no problems talking about Wilson's offensive shortcomings. Not exactly the way to drive up the price of someone who has little trade value to begin with.

What makes this situation even worse is the Pirates have no legit middle infield prospects in the upper minors and that Wilson and Sanchez, at one time, wanted to stay in Pittsburgh.

New management has done some positive things -- putting more money into the draft, signing Pedro Alvarez and other picks to well above-slot deals, making a push to sign this year's top Latin prospect, Miguel Angel Sano -- but shit like this just screams "same old Pirates."

 

The Pirates have put the financial bottom line first, public relations second and the benefit of the team on the field last since 1992. Their handling of Sanchez and Wilson is just a reminder of that.

I think that is one reason that many of the times they have been willing the spend, the results have been disastrous. They have re-signed popular players whether they were the types who could be cornerstones of the franchise or not. Jason Kendall was the prime example, but not the only one.

I think that's what they were doing with Alvarez last year, too. They wanted to show they would step up and pay for a first-round draft pick after the ridiculous decision to pass on Weiters the year before.

The biggest difference between the Rays and the Pirates is that the Rays were willing to take the elite talent every time they got a chance, not just once in a while. The result was a very talented core that gives them a shot to contend despite their financial limitations. Maybe they can't sustain it for long due to their small market, but at least they are giving it every effort, something the Pirates will never do under their current ownership.

I truly think the Pirates are hoping that MLB will find that Sano is too young to sign. (I think that investigation is still ongoing, but I'm not sure). That way they can pass without looking cheap again.

 

The Kendall deal looked pretty good at the time he signed it, didn't it? A .300-hitting catcher with multiple 20-steal seasons, developing power, impressive durability outside of a horrible freak injury and a pretty good arm signed thru his peak years? He was still pretty good for them, even if the power didn't develop.

 

Loved Kendall with the Bucs, that was my boy. Just an example of a good player that didn't work out for the Bucs as he got older -- especially after that horrific injury.

 

Catchers are rarely good long-term bets. That said, they really didn't get "burned" by him. He had one really bad year and he lost his power, but I'll take a .399 OBP from my catcher any day.

 

That's what I was thinking. Maybe he wasn't a $60 million player, but $10 mil a year for a catcher with his skill set wasn't stupid outrageous, at least in baseball terms.

And if you look at his B-R page, he's on a Hall of Fame track. He won't make it, barring a visit with Drs. Clemens and Bonds, but he's been a very, very good catcher for a long, long time.

 

He hit for average, but that was about it. A decent, but not great defensive catcher. The power never came and the season before he signed the big contract was his last with over 20 steals.

Kendall was a good player, but no way worth that much money. You have to remember that $60 million for six years was a bigger deal even then than it is now. The average MLB salary in 2000 was $1,998,034. Now it is $3,240,000. (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/avgsalaries)

The Pirates were desperate to trade him for a long time before they finally found a taker in 2004, when they got Mark Redman, Arthur Rhodes and cash from Oakland. I never thought that was a good contract, not for a franchise that is so cheap overall. I still think it was done for public relations purposes rather than out of any belief that he was going to be the cornerstone of a winner.

 

That much OBP from your catcher is just so rare. Saying he "hit for average" doesn't really cover it.