Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:08 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
bassoondirector wrote:
Sisy, don't you care if they try to resign Martin next year? From your posts, it sounds like you don't.

Don't you think he is a valuable "piece" to keep in a Pirate uniform?

I'm not saying throw away money on Martin. I'm saying he is a very valuable member of this Pirate team and NH should do everything (within reason...and that is obviously debatable) to keep him playing in a Pirate uniform next year and beyond.

Make him a two or possibly three year offer that will be at least competitive to the rest of the league. Make a genuine effort to resign the guy...that's all I'm saying...

Read the posts. I list plenty of reason to resign him, and I list plenty of reasons not to, then express gratitude that I'm not the one who has to make the decision.

Somebody is going to offer him at least three years with at least $42M guaranteed dollars. I don't think that's an offer worth making for the Pirates, but it's a really tough call.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
StarlingArcher wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
Ralphie wrote:
Based on how good of a player I think he is. I don't think he's that good offensively or defensively.

We'll see; I hope I'm wrong. But he's 26 and his production to this point has been less than inspiring.

He's a decent hitter and a very good defender except for his mysterious throwing problems.


When I watched a couple of Indy games on MLB Network last year he was pegging guys out from his knees. Obviously it's AAA but he has a gun if they get his head right.

Who would've thought we'd be hoping for the defense to catch up to the offense.

Right, there is no question about his arm strength, it that doggone Steve Sax disease that has everybody worried. His pitch blocking is very good. Don't know about his pitch framing.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2175
sisyphus wrote:
Did you read anything at all that I said about Martin? Apparently not, because I talked a great deal about all of the reasons that the Pirates might not want to resign him. And you say that free agents are either too expensive or crap shoots? How is that any different from free agent Russell Martin? What is it about him that makes him an affordable sure thing?

Yep, I make a lot of cheap Nutting jokes, and I do it because people such as yourself make it sooooo easy. "Spend money, spend money, spend money, spend money!" It's a broken record. It's really easy to spend other people's money, though, isn't it?

Those perennial 90 loss teams of the past?

$38.5 million
$48.7 million
$48.7 million
$34.9 million
$46.0 million

Those were the opening day payrolls for those 90 loss teams since Nutting took over.

$78.1 million

That's this year's opening day payroll.

He is spending money. He's spending almost twice as much as he did in those days.

The problem is that there is no satisfying you and the cheap Nutting crowd. It doesn't matter what the payroll is, as long as there is one team who spends more, or one team with a better record, it's cheap Nutting's fault. Most of you don't even bother attempting a rational argument any more. Don't know exactly why that is. Maybe it's because you sound silly bitching and moaning about teams that win over 90 games; I certainly would feel silly about doing something that stupid. Maybe it's because you HAVE no facts to back up your arguments, since you have no clue what the Pirates revenues are. Probably a little of both.

The Pirates won a ton of games last year, way more than the most optimistic fan had any right to expect. They're well on their way to winning a ton of games again this year. And the cheap Nutting crowd is not satisfied. They CANNOT be satisfied. It was tiresome to listen to that crap back when the Pirates actually sucked. It's way beyond tiresome now, with every myth about total payroll limits or "internal salary caps" all blown to hell, and a winning team on the field. I don't think that there are enough disgruntled former Nutting employees out there to account for the number of braying mules out there, so I'm left with my hypotheses that some people cannot be happy unless they have something to complain about.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension as well...
First, I clearly stated that the difference with Martin is they are seeing how important he is to this club first hand for the last 2 seasons. They can negotiate with him before others jump in if they so desire. Funny that all the people who cover this team have been beating this drum for a couple weeks now. People who are a whole lot closer than you or I such as Tim Williams, Beirtempfel, DK, etc....All I said was sometimes you have to take a risk, which brings me to your favorite topic, Nutting's money and putting words in my mouth...

I've said a billion times here that I don't expect them to spend just to spend. I don't expect them to be on a Yankee/Dodger spending level. I DO think Nutting is tight with his money...too tight. He is worried about putting money in his pocket, which is his right. Most owners, as I've stated are OK with breaking even if it means winning. Owning a sports team is not where they are looking to make a bunch of money. They've done that with their other endeavors.

I stated that when you are a contender you may have to take a risk to get a player you think will put you over the top. You state Loney in another post as an example for your side, well then what about Jose Abreu. If they would have jumped in with a higher offer maybe they have him on first base instead of Davis plus still have another good middle infield prospect in their farm system. And your numbers above...The 90 loss teams were made up mostly of poor players making lower salaries. The contending team now has good players making higher salaries. Hmm...so good players cost more than poor players. Thanks for that newsflash...oh and Nutting should get a gold star sticker for paying some of them...got it! They deserve credit for their persuasive skills because they got Cutch and Marte to sign team friendly deals. They did go out of their comfort zone to sign Martin, but lets not go overboard patting Nutting on the back for having the current payroll.

I CAN be satisfied. I have a consistent record, dating back to the original board, of complimenting moves I think are good and criticizing moves I think are bad. Sometimes my opinion turns out to be right, and sometimes I have to admit I'm wrong. So if your spitting your venom in my direction you are pointed the wrong way. I simply think there is a time to take a chance with some money when you are the owner of a contending team. One can think Nutting should take a few more financial risks on players(yes, that means the payroll would increase I know) without being part of the "spend, spend, spend" crowd. And for the record you don't have anymore facts about the team's revenue than anyone else. Lastly, none of us are spending Nutting's(or anyone else's for that fact) money. It's a goddamn message board where fans post their opinions. If it bothers you that much to read differing opinions from your own a messageboard seems like an odd place to frequent...other than I know you like to set us dummies straight!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:04 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5678
Here's the issue as I see it:

Sisy and his argument are correct. Signing Martin at/around 3 years/$42M makes it highly risky, if not outright improbable, that he'll produce enough (WAR) to justify the deal. And technically the Bucs DO have a cost effective back up plan in Tony Sanchez.

However, the balance of 'fiscal prudence' vs. assembling a winning club isn't fully dependent on $/WAR. You have to consider the aspect that you're not just paying Martin to produce based on $/WAR, but that the significant factor (or term) in "WAR" is above/over replacement. Looking over the Pirates' Catchers the last five years (or simply going off of memory) will remind people just how dire things were pre-Martin:

2010: Doumit/Snyder/Kratz/JJ at 0.0, -0.4, -0.3, and -0.7 WAR (this is the "Delta House" or "Animal House" group... yeesh! Put this lot on "Double Secret Probation"!)
2011: Doumit/Snyder/JJ/Fort at 1.1, 0.8, 0.1 and 0.0 WAR
2012: Barajas/Fort at -0.9 and 1.7 WAR
2013: Martin/Fort/TS/Fort at 4.8, -0.1, 0.2, and -0.3 WAR
2014: Martin/TS/Stewart at 3.0, 0.2, and 0.2 WAR

Martin has solidified the Catcher position and turned it from turnstile, replacement level production to one of the best in the league.

Obviously there are numerous factors which contributed to the Pirates rise in the standings over the years, but it's probably not coincidence that plugging in a veteran All-Star caliber player behind the plate for 100+ games turned the Pirates from fringe to frisky contenders.

The Pirates basically tripled (at least) production at one position with one signing. How do you walk away from that (even assuming that said production has some sort of 'half life')?

Even if Martin goes 'full Jose Molina' as he gets older, consider that the old fat dude produced positive, albeit not stellar, WAR well into his late 30's:

2006/31: 0.0
2007/32: -0.1
2008/33: 0.8
2009/34: -0.1
2010/35: 0.8
2011/36: 0.9
2012/37: 0.9
2013/38: 0.1

Granted, Martin is probably not as good defensively as Molina, but he's vastly superior offensively (Molina has never been remotely close to hitting as well as Martin). And who's to assume a complete drop-off in production?

Overall I think the signing is worth it. Not because it's likely that Martin will meet production based on the contract he signs ($/WAR), but that the drop-off to a presumed 'replacement player' is too bitter to contemplate. Three years of split-time behind the dish should help TS develop just fine (plus the Pirates have Reese McGuire in the pipeline), keep Martin fresh enough to produce enough to justify enough of his deal and/or to provide Martin injury insurance. Since he's still a controlled asset, TS' cost will be negligible.

So long as Martin is producing at 2.0 or better WAR (very doable---barring injury---as his lowest season WAR was 1.9 in 97 GP) then the consistency behind he provides behind and at the plate, combined with the SP/C synergy and PNC effects make him a 'worth it' signing (or risk).

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
PirateParrot wrote:
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension as well...
First, I clearly stated that the difference with Martin is they are seeing how important he is to this club first hand for the last 2 seasons.

How important he is right now has nothing to do with whether he'll be healthy enough to play for tens of millions of dollars over the next three years. Nothing.

Quote:
They can negotiate with him before others jump in if they so desire.

Right, because Martin and the agent that he is paying have no idea how much money he might be offered as a free agent.

Quote:
Funny that all the people who cover this team have been beating this drum for a couple weeks now. People who are a whole lot closer than you or I such as Tim Williams, Beirtempfel, DK, etc....All I said was sometimes you have to take a risk, which brings me to your favorite topic, Nutting's money and putting words in my mouth...

Jesus, now you're trying to support your argument with the opinions of sportswriters. Sportswriters all have one thing in common: They have never earned a single cent from trying to build a professional baseball team, and deservedly so, because they are writers, not scouts, not managers, and definitely not general managers.

Quote:
I've said a billion times here that I don't expect them to spend just to spend. I don't expect them to be on a Yankee/Dodger spending level. I DO think Nutting is tight with his money...too tight. He is worried about putting money in his pocket, which is his right. Most owners, as I've stated are OK with breaking even if it means winning. Owning a sports team is not where they are looking to make a bunch of money. They've done that with their other endeavors.

You are full of crap. A vast majority of sports owners are in business to MAKE MONEY. The exceptions are rare.

Quote:
I stated that when you are a contender you may have to take a risk to get a player you think will put you over the top. You state Loney in another post as an example for your side, well then what about Jose Abreu. If they would have jumped in with a higher offer maybe they have him on first base instead of Davis plus still have another good middle infield prospect in their farm system. And your numbers above...

Abreu? The guy you yourself admitted was a huge risk? Let me tell you something about risks like Abreu. If they sign a big dollar guy like that and he bombs, the team is crippled for the entire length of the contract. You could write off free agents like Martin abd trades like the A.J. deal until the contract is over; no money for any of that stuff. That's what happens when low revenue teams like the Pirates make a big dollar mistake.

Quote:
The 90 loss teams were made up mostly of poor players making lower salaries. The contending team now has good players making higher salaries. Hmm...so good players cost more than poor players. Thanks for that newsflash...oh and Nutting should get a gold star sticker for paying some of them...got it! They deserve credit for their persuasive skills because they got Cutch and Marte to sign team friendly deals. They did go out of their comfort zone to sign Martin, but lets not go overboard patting Nutting on the back for having the current payroll.

Well no kidding. Where did all those good players come from? Hint: Not from free agency.

Quote:
I CAN be satisfied. I have a consistent record, dating back to the original board, of complimenting moves I think are good and criticizing moves I think are bad. Sometimes my opinion turns out to be right, and sometimes I have to admit I'm wrong. So if your spitting your venom in my direction you are pointed the wrong way. I simply think there is a time to take a chance with some money when you are the owner of a contending team. One can think Nutting should take a few more financial risks on players(yes, that means the payroll would increase I know) without being part of the "spend, spend, spend" crowd. And for the record you don't have anymore facts about the team's revenue than anyone else. Lastly, none of us are spending Nutting's(or anyone else's for that fact) money. It's a goddamn message board where fans post their opinions. If it bothers you that much to read differing opinions from your own a messageboard seems like an odd place to frequent...other than I know you like to set us dummies straight!

You are sold out on signing one player at a big cost, and that player is very risky for reasons that I've listed elsewhere in the thread. And if they sign him and my worst case scenario comes true, I know exactly what your proposed solution will be: Spend more money. It's all you have. Yes, it's your opinion, and yes, we're all here to express our opinions. Some people like to defend their arguments by falling back on the old, "We all have a right to our opinions", and that is true, we do all have rights to form our own opinions. But opinions are not sacred. A person's opinion that the earth is flat invites criticism the second that it is made public. None of us has to respect any opinion that is unsupportable, and your opinion as to the Pirates revenues and what they can afford to spend it entirely baseless. You have no facts to support your argument. So do not be offended when I give your opinion precisely the respect that it deserves. Get some facts to support your opinion, change it to conform to what is known, or man up and take the criticism.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:22 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5678
From two different (not necessarily credible) sources:

Quote:
-Thus far, teams have allocated about $453 million in 2013 for an expected 98.7 WAR, which comes out to $4.6 million per WAR. The average per-WAR cost for last year’s free agent class was $4.5 million, so the market has remained essentially the same. In fact, assuming two percent inflation from one year to the next, the figures are exactly the same, with the extra $0.1 million simply a product of the general rise in the price level.

-The formula assumes players lose 0.5 WAR from ages 28-32 and 0.7 WAR after age 32.


Martin currently has a 3.0 WAR in 67 GP (101 total games elapsed). Last year he had 4.3 WAR. So lets assume a steady degradation to the tune of 0.5 WAR/year. That means:

2014: 3.8...*4.6... $17.48 M
2015: 3.3...*4.7... $15.51 M
2016: 2.8...*4.8... $13.44 M
2017: 2.3...*4.9... $11.27 M

If he maintains that steady rate of decline, he would be worth a total of $40.22 M/three years. So how far off would a three year/$42 M contract be? That yields a 'loss' (projected vs. actual production) of $1.78 M.

Worth it.

If he degrades based on the note above (-0.7 WAR after age 32) then...

2014: 3.8...*4.6... $17.48 M
2015: 3.3...*4.7... $15.51 M
2016: 2.6...*4.8... $12.48 M
2017: 1.9...*4.9... $9.31 M

In that scenario the Bucs post a 'loss' of $5.7 M. Worse, but not crippling. That costs them one Volquez-like SP over the course of three years.

Still worth it (also assuming that TS' steps up by 2017 and offsets Martin's decline by becoming a 2+ WAR player by then).

Statistically, it doesn't appear that a three year/$42 M contract is as bad as it seems.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2175
sisyphus wrote:
You are sold out on signing one player at a big cost, and that player is very risky for reasons that I've listed elsewhere in the thread. And if they sign him and my worst case scenario comes true, I know exactly what your proposed solution will be: Spend more money. It's all you have. Yes, it's your opinion, and yes, we're all here to express our opinions. Some people like to defend their arguments by falling back on the old, "We all have a right to our opinions", and that is true, we do all have rights to form our own opinions. But opinions are not sacred. A person's opinion that the earth is flat invites criticism the second that it is made public. None of us has to respect any opinion that is unsupportable, and your opinion as to the Pirates revenues and what they can afford to spend it entirely baseless. You have no facts to support your argument. So do not be offended when I give your opinion precisely the respect that it deserves. Get some facts to support your opinion, change it to conform to what is known, or man up and take the criticism.

Look, I've never been offended by anything you say, and I sure as hell don't care one iota if you respect my opinion.

Conform my opinion....you mean think exactly what you do...ok, got it.

Man up and accept criticism...well, no...I'll man up and tell you that you don't have any more facts than I do. You don't know the Pirates complete finances, nor do I. Thus, you don't know the Pirates CAN'T afford Martin. You are assuming that Martin's skills will erode, you don't know that. Just like I don't know that they won't. The crux of the issue is whether it is worth the risk(and I agree that it is a risk). THAT IS AN OPINION! My opinion is that it is worth the risk, and yours is that it is not. And by the way, what a clever analogy with the earth is flat thing...precisely the same as me thinking a third year is acceptable for signing Martin...exactly!!

As for the rest of it, I'm done addressing it because you just keep putting words in my mouth("spend, spend, spend"). Oh and apparently you are also a mind reader("I know exactly...."). Really? That's impressive....wrong, but impressive.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 12:22 pm 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 343
I think Russell Martin is a poor bet on a 3 year contract. I fully expect 3 years from now he'll be a sunk cost to whatever team signs him. With that said I expect he'll be productive next season and I have no faith in Tony Sanchez. His problem goes way beyond just throwing issues. It is a fallacy that he is good at blocking balls in the dirt.


Last edited by mjdouble on Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:48 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2501
Location: Tejas
In fairness, I haven't really been overly impressed with Martin's blocking either. Or, maybe more specifically, he tries to pick too many balls out of the dirt and misses on them. Neither makes me super comfortable on breaking balls to their right.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
NSMaster56 wrote:
From two different (not necessarily credible) sources:

Quote:
-Thus far, teams have allocated about $453 million in 2013 for an expected 98.7 WAR, which comes out to $4.6 million per WAR. The average per-WAR cost for last year’s free agent class was $4.5 million, so the market has remained essentially the same. In fact, assuming two percent inflation from one year to the next, the figures are exactly the same, with the extra $0.1 million simply a product of the general rise in the price level.

-The formula assumes players lose 0.5 WAR from ages 28-32 and 0.7 WAR after age 32.


Martin currently has a 3.0 WAR in 67 GP (101 total games elapsed). Last year he had 4.3 WAR. So lets assume a steady degradation to the tune of 0.5 WAR/year. That means:

2014: 3.8...*4.6... $17.48 M
2015: 3.3...*4.7... $15.51 M
2016: 2.8...*4.8... $13.44 M
2017: 2.3...*4.9... $11.27 M

If he maintains that steady rate of decline, he would be worth a total of $40.22 M/three years. So how far off would a three year/$42 M contract be? That yields a 'loss' (projected vs. actual production) of $1.78 M.

Worth it.

If he degrades based on the note above (-0.7 WAR after age 32) then...

2014: 3.8...*4.6... $17.48 M
2015: 3.3...*4.7... $15.51 M
2016: 2.6...*4.8... $12.48 M
2017: 1.9...*4.9... $9.31 M

In that scenario the Bucs post a 'loss' of $5.7 M. Worse, but not crippling. That costs them one Volquez-like SP over the course of three years.

Still worth it (also assuming that TS' steps up by 2017 and offsets Martin's decline by becoming a 2+ WAR player by then).

Statistically, it doesn't appear that a three year/$42 M contract is as bad as it seems.

Right, assuming all that you said above, plus assuming that he stays healthy, plus assuming that WAR is worth the paper that it's calculated on, which it really isn't.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
PirateParrot wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
You are sold out on signing one player at a big cost, and that player is very risky for reasons that I've listed elsewhere in the thread. And if they sign him and my worst case scenario comes true, I know exactly what your proposed solution will be: Spend more money. It's all you have. Yes, it's your opinion, and yes, we're all here to express our opinions. Some people like to defend their arguments by falling back on the old, "We all have a right to our opinions", and that is true, we do all have rights to form our own opinions. But opinions are not sacred. A person's opinion that the earth is flat invites criticism the second that it is made public. None of us has to respect any opinion that is unsupportable, and your opinion as to the Pirates revenues and what they can afford to spend it entirely baseless. You have no facts to support your argument. So do not be offended when I give your opinion precisely the respect that it deserves. Get some facts to support your opinion, change it to conform to what is known, or man up and take the criticism.

Look, I've never been offended by anything you say, and I sure as hell don't care one iota if you respect my opinion.

Conform my opinion....you mean think exactly what you do...ok, got it.

Man up and accept criticism...well, no...I'll man up and tell you that you don't have any more facts than I do. You don't know the Pirates complete finances, nor do I.

No kidding, and that's why you didn't see me arguing that they can't afford him. Nice of you to admit that your argument that they can is worthless, though.

Quote:
Thus, you don't know the Pirates CAN'T afford Martin.

I don't claim that. I claim that he probably won't be worth the contract that he's likely to get, not that the Pirates can't afford him. The only way that the Pirates finances are a part of my argument is when I state that they can't afford to make a mistake on a big dollar signing.

Quote:
You are assuming that Martin's skills will erode, you don't know that. Just like I don't know that they won't.

Nope, I don't assume that, either. I point out that it is LIKELY to happen. I also point out reasons why it MAY NOT happen. And, again, didn't say that they shouldn't sign him. I said that I'm glad I'm not the guy who has to make the decision.

Quote:
The crux of the issue is whether it is worth the risk(and I agree that it is a risk). THAT IS AN OPINION! My opinion is that it is worth the risk, and yours is that it is not. And by the way, what a clever analogy with the earth is flat thing...precisely the same as me thinking a third year is acceptable for signing Martin...exactly!!

Nope, because it is a verifiable fact that the earth is not flat, it's not an opinion. Your opinion as to what the Pirates can afford is not based on anything besides wishes and speculation.

Quote:
As for the rest of it, I'm done addressing it because you just keep putting words in my mouth("spend, spend, spend"). Oh and apparently you are also a mind reader("I know exactly...."). Really? That's impressive....wrong, but impressive.

Look in the mirror, you have me saying that they shouldn't sign him at all.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:24 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5678
sisyphus wrote:
Right, assuming all that you said above, plus assuming that he stays healthy, plus assuming that WAR is worth the paper that it's calculated on, which it really isn't.


It's easy to doubt.

In general, I still think your doubts are well founded. However, statistical analysis shows that in this case the risk appears worth it.

Nobody can predict if Martin will get injured or lose baseball playing abilities. It's possible, if not likely, that those things will happen as he gets older, but it's not fair to assume he'll instantly turn into a pumpkin because he signs a new deal.

Likewise, nobody can predict if TS will flame out when given the chance to take over the Catcher position (or that any replacements for Martin will do as the job as well as he has/does---both on and off the stat sheet).

Based on available data, it's probably more correct to look at guys like Volquez, Liriano and even A.J. and conclude, 'hmm. Too many inconsistencies. This may not be worth it; at least not long term.'

With Martin, the conclusion is cautious, but more of a bold, 'Screw it. If this comes back to bite us then such is baseball.'

Three years at $42 M is feasible. $45 is a stretch, but possibly still salvageable.

Based on position scarcity, Martin's history of production, and projections that show he should produce close to 90% of his cost, retaining Martin seems like the one 'go for it' move that the Bucs have to make.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:34 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5678
sisyphus wrote:
Right, assuming all that you said above, plus assuming that he stays healthy, plus assuming that WAR is worth the paper that it's calculated on, which it really isn't.


I will also say this:

I also agree that retaining Martin for such a cost is going to force the Pirates to make some tough team-building decisions. [Hypothetically] Committing $42 M over three years to one player is a big commitment which takes away from the overall team schematic.

However, how that hypothetical $42 M is otherwise spent is speculative. Who's to say that spending it on an SP, RP, 1B or other positional upgrade will yield better results (or ones as beneficial as maintaining a significant advantage at Catcher)?

Neither of us knows how best to invest (or save) that $42 M, all we can do is project based on available data and argue from there.

NH and the FO have done a pretty good job managing this roster. What weak points there are can be fine tuned. Tough decisions will have to be made, based on a variety of factors. It doesn't appear as if retaining a top-end Catcher like Martin, for three years at least, is a dangerous gamble.

He's a known quantity and the risks are projectable. Even if he does prove to be some sort of albatross, TS is still there to step in (albeit that $42 M becomes somewhat of a sunk cost).

Of all the tough decisions to be made this offseason, if Martin is retained it will be the most defensible one.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
NSMaster56 wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
Right, assuming all that you said above, plus assuming that he stays healthy, plus assuming that WAR is worth the paper that it's calculated on, which it really isn't.


It's easy to doubt.

In general, I still think your doubts are well founded. However, statistical analysis shows that in this case the risk appears worth it.

Nobody can predict if Martin will get injured or lose baseball playing abilities. It's possible, if not likely, that those things will happen as he gets older, but it's not fair to assume he'll instantly turn into a pumpkin because he signs a new deal.

Absolutely, you can't predict that he's going to get hurt, and you can't predict that he won't lose effectiveness. You're forced to make guesses based on what information you have available. The same goes for that statistical analysis. Just have to assign weights based on what you know, and this is a tough one.

Quote:
Likewise, nobody can predict if TS will flame out when given the chance to take over the Catcher position (or that any replacements for Martin will do as the job as well as he has/does---both on and off the stat sheet).

Based on available data, it's probably more correct to look at guys like Volquez, Liriano and even A.J. and conclude, 'hmm. Too many inconsistencies. This may not be worth it; at least not long term.'

With Martin, the conclusion is cautious, but more of a bold, 'Screw it. If this comes back to bite us then such is baseball.'

Three years at $42 M is feasible. $45 is a stretch, but possibly still salvageable.

Based on position scarcity, Martin's history of production, and projections that show he should produce close to 90% of his cost, retaining Martin seems like the one 'go for it' move that the Bucs have to make.

I just can't see committing $42M to him. I think that the risk is too great, and I'm pretty sure that Huntington will think the same. On the other hand, I'm the guy who predicted that Cutch would never sign an extension and forgo free agency, so take that into account.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4270
Location: Zelienople, PA
I'd offer him 3, and here is why.

You can move him to 3b in year 3 if his skills are winding down and Pedro is gone. He was good enough to be assigned SS for Canada in the World Play (before he backed out). He's athletic enough that you could consider that.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
ZelieMike wrote:
I'd offer him 3, and here is why.

You can move him to 3b in year 3 if his skills are winding down and Pedro is gone. He was good enough to be assigned SS for Canada in the World Play (before he backed out). He's athletic enough that you could consider that.

ZM

The entire point of resigning Martin is his defense behind the plate.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4270
Location: Zelienople, PA
Which you will have for two, maybe three years. If his defense starts to fall, he can play 3B and you will have value because he can also hit and get on base.

Or, you lose him to someone who WILL give him 3.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
ZelieMike wrote:
Which you will have for two, maybe three years. If his defense starts to fall, he can play 3B and you will have value because he can also hit and get on base.

Or, you lose him to someone who WILL give him 3.

ZM

It's good to have a fallback plan for him, but I'm not that worried about his defense failing to the point where he can't catch any more, I'm more worried that he'll either lose too much bat speed, or that he'll be spending too much time on the DL.

Also, if they ever do extend Walker, he'll almost certainly be moving to third.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:02 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6296
2 years. $25 mil with a mutual $15 mil option for a third year…..That would be my offer….probably won't get it though…. 8-) 8-)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Martin
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
Az Bucco fan wrote:
2 years. $25 mil with a mutual $15 mil option for a third year…..That would be my offer….probably won't get it though…. 8-) 8-)

I think the Bucs might go just a bit higher than that, but not much, and I agree that it probably won't be enough.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits