Andrew McCutchen met with the media in Pittsburgh on Saturday, and mentioned a few times that it was his dream to retire a member of the Pittsburgh Pirates. That dream involved winning a World Series in Pittsburgh. I’m sure many Pirates fans have that same dream, including McCutchen’s number being retired by the Pirates, entering the Hall of Fame as a member of the Pirates, and a statue going up outside PNC Park (screw the recent trend of stadiums having a 20 year lifespan — PNC Park is a timeless instant classic).
As I was writing up the article on Saturday, I stopped for a minute to imagine that scenario. I ignored the finances, figuring that if the sentiment was real, the two sides would be able to agree on something that the Pirates could afford, without McCutchen giving up too much. I ignored the prospect side of it, with Austin Meadows having no place to play if McCutchen stuck around. I ignored the down year in 2016, and went with the assumption that McCutchen would bounce back going forward and be an impact player for years to come.
It’s a nice dream to think about. Thinking about a star player spending his entire career in one city makes you think about baseball as more than a business. It makes you think there’s something magic in the sport which brings together a community, allows for father and son to share a tradition, or just adds another icon who becomes synonymous with Pittsburgh sports.
But then you start thinking about the reality of Major League Baseball, and you realize that this dream is just that — a dream.
First of all, there’s the issue of salary. If McCutchen was extended for the long-term, it would go one of two ways. Either he would have to take a big discount to stick around in Pittsburgh on a contract they could afford, or the Pirates would have to make an extremely risky financial commitment to sign him at near-market rate. It would be unfair to expect him to take the pay cut, and it would be unfair to expect the Pirates to pay what he’d be worth on the market at his best, especially with one of the game’s best prospects ready to take over.
There have been examples of small market teams extending a franchise player for the long-term, with examples on both sides of the above scenario. None of the examples have led to good things.
In terms of paying near-market rate, the Reds and Brewers did that with Joey Votto and Ryan Braun, respectively. The Reds owe Votto $22 M in 2017, $25 M per year through 2023, and a club option for $20 M in 2024, with a $7 M buyout. That’s for his age 33-40 seasons, if you include the option year. And that’s with a team that has maxed out at $115 M in opening day payroll, went over $100 M only three times in team history, and is now in tear down and rebuild mode.
The Brewers owe Braun $19 M per year over the next two seasons, followed by $18 M, $16 M, and a $15 M mutual option from 2019-2021, respectively. He has only played one year of an extension that was signed back in 2011, at a time when he was a 7 fWAR player. In his past four seasons, he has averaged a 2.1 fWAR, with his last two seasons putting up a 2.9 and a 3.2. The Brewers are a team that maxed out at $104 M in opening day payroll, and have only topped $100 M twice. They’re also in rebuild mode right now, and won’t find it easy to trade Braun with his recent history.
The contracts for Votto and Braun aren’t the reason both teams are in rebuild mode right now. But when your team has limited funds, and can barely top $100 M in payroll, and only do it for a few years, then having a guy making $20 M or more isn’t the best strategy. It doesn’t lead to the ability to build a good team, and leads to a rebuild sooner, rather than later, due to an inability to pay other good players.
Then there’s the team friendly scenario. The Rays have saved millions upon millions of dollars with their two Evan Longoria extensions. He signed his first extension shortly after arriving in the majors, guaranteeing $17.5 M over six years. His second extension replaced the final few years, resulting in a ten-year, $135.6 M deal. He is making $13 M in 2017, and won’t go over $15 M until the final two years, when he makes $18.5 M and $19.5 M.
The Rays are probably the lowest budget team in the majors, and have topped out at $75-77 M in payroll the last few years, which mark their highest totals in team history. So even though Longoria is still productive, and even though he’s cheap, you’re starting to hear some trade rumblings because of how much salary he takes up compared to their payroll.
The Pirates could probably afford a team-friendly extension like the Rays got with Longoria (which probably saved them about $70 M). The Pirates have a bigger budget, and the ability to spend a little over $100 M, which we saw last year, and which we should see again this year. And the hope would be that McCutchen would still be a 4+ WAR player into his 30s and beyond (Longoria has only played through his age 30 season, so the jury is still out with him).
But then you think about the alternative. The Pirates have Austin Meadows, who is one of the top prospects in the game, and knocking on the door in Triple-A. He could be ready at some point in 2017. Prospects are never a guarantee, but Meadows is safer than most, with a good approach at the plate, and some developing power that could make him an impact player in the majors. He’s similar to McCutchen in that he’s a safer prospect and it wouldn’t be a surprise if he does become a star player one day. Keep in mind that when McCutchen first arrived, people weren’t projecting that he would become one of the best in the game, although that wasn’t out of the realm of possibility. Generally, that’s something that is earned, and not projected.
When comparing Meadows and McCutchen, it’s not about comparing Meadows to what McCutchen has been so far. It’s about comparing Meadows in his age 22-30 seasons to McCutchen in his age 30-38 seasons. I don’t know if Meadows will be better than McCutchen was, but I think the start of his career could easily be as good as the declining years of McCutchen’s career. Not to mention, it would be a lot cheaper.
The argument for McCutchen to retire a Pirate revolves around a feel-good story that ignores a lot of realities of MLB. But once you factor in those realities, you see how it makes no sense with the way the game of baseball is today. Extending McCutchen means you are paying more for his declining years, which puts a crunch on the rest of the payroll when you consider that teams in this market size can usually only spend a little over $100 M at most.
Extending McCutchen also means you’re passing up on a younger player in Austin Meadows who could be just as good, or maybe better, at a fraction of the price. Even if you replace Meadows with Starling Marte or Gregory Polanco in this scenario, you’re still replacing a younger player who can perform the same at least, and at a cheaper price.
It’s a nice dream to imagine McCutchen retiring as a member of the Pirates, and winning it all here. But it just seems impossible with the way MLB is set up. If it did happen, I think the Pirates would end up like the Brewers and the Reds one day, in the middle of a rebuild that is made worse due to an aging star with a contract that is impossible to trade. That’s a really high price to pay for loyalty, and all of the other feel-good things that would come with McCutchen playing his entire career as a member of the Pirates.
**Andrew McCutchen Discusses Trade Rumors, 2016 Season, and Wanting to Retire a Pirate. The story from Saturday with McCutchen’s comments on the trade talk and wanting to retire a Pirate.
**Gerrit Cole Will Start His Offseason Throwing Program on Monday. Good sign for Cole, although we really won’t know how he’s bouncing back until Spring Training, at the least.
**John Jaso Discusses Playing Third Base and the Outfield in 2017. I’m wondering if Jaso’s final two months was legit, just like the final two months for Sean Rodriguez in 2015, which carried over to 2016.
**Winter Leagues: Eric Wood Reaches Base Four Times Saturday Night. Now that the Eric Wood Rule 5 concern is over, I wonder where he will end up in 2017. I’d have to think he’ll start off in Triple-A, since the Pirates rarely keep guys in Double-A for more than two seasons, especially after they make progress like Wood made this past year.
+ postsTim is the owner, producer, editor, and lead writer of PiratesProspects.com. He has been running Pirates Prospects since 2009, becoming the first new media reporter and outlet covering the Pirates at the MLB level in 2011 and 2012. His work can also be found in Baseball America, where he has been a contributor since 2014 and the Pirates' correspondent since 2019.
Tim … I agree with your reality. But I’m hoping NH is in a position where he doesn’t have to guess about prospects like Meadows. They should be modeling their promotions like the 70’s Pirates did – bring up the Bells, Hanson, Meadows, and Newmans as bench guys and let them hit their way into the lineup.
I agree with this sentiment and hope this encourages them not to spend on a bench bat. Best case scenario is Meadows gets blocked for all of 17′ because Hanson, Frazier, etc are performing. If he warrants a call up then maybe there is a four man rotation for the outfield and you can move someone in the offseason. Use all resources available for pitching in 2016!
I think in general i agree, but you are missing out on the fact that meadows or polanco can be traded and bring back a ton of prospects, while meadows could take over, etc………..it doesn’t have to be cutch or meadows….
Your side point was something I loved: Let’s do away with 20 year lifespans for stadiums. If a stadium is as great as PNC Park is, let’s keep it for as long as possible. Wrigley is still standing for goodness sake.
Great article Tim!
Excellent article Tim. I wonder if the Pirates with all their statistical analysis are doing anything on aging curves of athletes. Some of the best athletes reach maturity at an early age. If you are 16 with the physical maturity of a 19 year old you have and advantage against your age group. When you reach 30, and you now have the physical maturity of a 34-36 year old, it is a disadvantage. As a late bloomer I have looked around at some of my classmates that were studs in High School that now are much more advanced in physical age than some of us late bloomers. (I am sure there is a Tabata joke in here somewhere).
I think that they are. Some of the players are wearing monitors that track heart rate, respiration, steps taken and possibly more. Can they be tracking foot speed? Does this information help them assess that wear and tear? Do they have the ability to determine loss in foot speed, bat speed and more using videos from before the current technology was available. There is a lot that we are not aware of that I am sure that they or any other team will not share. The Pirates seem to be ahead of he curve in these things so their information may be advanced.
I understand the business part, but I think Cutch is in some ways in a category by himself because he is the face not only of the franchise but of the transition from a losing franchise to a winning one, or at least one that expects to win. And he’s done it with integrity. That needs to count for something. Assuming Cutch would give a hometown discount to stay in the Burgh, why can’t he and Meadows, in a few years, be in the same outfield? Most fans would rather see Marte or Polanco go than they would Cutch. And the Bucs could get a lot in return for either of those two guys.
Right NOW he’s the face of that transition, but if he stuck around for 8 more years he could very well be the face of our transition right back into the bottom of the standings every year.
Just out of curiosity, what is the average annual payroll for all small market teams in baseball?
Check back for tonight’s article.
Oh my goodness the comment section is going to get crazy! I’m giving myself the 10 second rule before responding to anyone.
I kind of feel bad that I’m going to be out of town tomorrow and will miss the fireworks in the comments. But in another way, I don’t feel bad at all about that.
Cutch won’t play his whole career in Pittsburgh. It just ain’t gonna happen. But his legacy remains — World Series or not, he’s the guy who brought this club back out of the wilderness.
Can we, as fans, please stop worrying about how much of other people’s money those people feel like spending on their investment. Returning negative value on an investment is stupid, the owners deserve to make money, and so do the players. We, as fans can either support the team or not, I choose to support them.
As for Cutch and his contract. If he were to sign a market value deal with the Pirates, this would be the reality. His contract would be for $25-30 million per season. Now, let’s say that the owners approved this deal and increased the budget to $150 million, Cutch’s deal would still be 17-20% of the entire budget. Which is fine for this season, but what about future seasons? At $150 million, the team is very likely running at a deficit, heck at $125 million they would be running at a deficit. MLB would not allow that to go on for very long, just ask all the large market teams trying to get below the luxury
tax threshold.
Eventually, you would get to a point where you trade Aramis Ramirez for nothing, just so that you could stop incurring debt. Next thing you know it is 20+ years of losing.
I would love to see Cutch in a Pirates Jersey for his entire career, but it just isn’t going to happen. No team can put that large of a percentage of payroll into one player and be able to compete for more than a season or two.
As far as Cutch taking another team friendly deal, there no good reason for him to. He has already done that once, and look where that got him
The FO just said that the Pirates are NOT about turning an annual profit. They are about winning. That doesn’t mean that they should be irresponsible in their spending, but they have to do some spending to win. The profit for the owners is not in turning an annual profit. It’s in the increased value of the team should they choose to sell.
The difficulty with that thought is that salaries and other costs escalate with time. If the capital base doesn’t grow at the same rate the whole financial structure becomes unstable. Think of keeping adding story upon story to a building with no change to the foundation. And without raising new money through selling new partnership units (diluting the original owners) the only way to expand the capital base is to retain profits.
Check out the Forbes article on MLB team values. Good stuff there on how teams change the foundation.
Can you be more specific on the Forbes reference?
Sorry, for not getting this to you sooner…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2016/03/23/baseballs-most-valuable-teams/#32152be01ddd
I agree with everything you said except the last part. Even Cutch is happy with how is “team friendly” deal turned out. Sure, looking back, it appears team friendly, but remember it also provided him with financial security, too. Both player and management incurred some risk. It was a fair deal.
Cutch also claimed it allowed him to play with more confidence since he didn’t have to worry about playing well to get a bigger raise during arbitration years.
Very solid post – thank you
Sad but probably true.
If they are interested in a team-friendly extension like Longoria’s, then perhaps the best option would be moving Marte for a SP of similar quality, yoc, and cost. Marte is so affordable and such a great defender that that would be painful. But we’re also not going to win a division until we strengthen our rotation and Marte could bring back the strongest return of any of our outfielders.
He’d bring back the strongest return because he’s the best outfielder, and arguably their best player. Not a good idea to trade your best player on a team friendly deal.
But my caveat was a player of similar quality, years of control, and cost. So what we’d be doing is moving that talent from a position of depth to a position of need.
I love Marte and wouldn’t want to see him traded. But…
1. I worry that he’ll continue to miss significant numbers of games due to his aggressiveness (only once has he played in more than 135 games);
2. We need to do something to strengthen the top of our rotation.
Unless you land an Archer or Quintana I would NOT trade Marte. Unfortunately, I don’t believe we could obtain either for Starling alone.
A pitcher the quality of Archer or Quintana is exactly the type of return I’d expect. They’re actually projected to be more valuable than Marte next season, so you’re probably right that additional players would need to be involved.
What people forget is just 6 years ago- 3 ownership groups (current rangers owner, Lemieux, and Cuban) all offered to buy the pirates… not because the team sucked… but because they were on the rise, with a plan. They still have a plan and do execute as well or better than any other franchise. The city has a massive asset now and a perennial winner. There is young talent coming up every year. They have proven they will invest when it’s the difference between winning and losing, and they are doing it in the right way so as not to lose money— and risk being taken over and moved to another city.
I wouldn’t be surprised if pens and pirates go off and form their own network or take a significant stake in root. It’s actually awesome to watch a business flourish.
I agree with almost everything you said, Tim, except:
but Meadows is safer than most,
Until Austin can play a full season without pulling something, to me, he is a suspect prospect. More than one top prospect has had their careers stalled with nagging injuries.
He already did that, in 2015.
He’s had three full seasons in pro ball. He missed half of the 2014 season with a hamstring injury.
He was healthy all of 2015, including in the AFL after the season.
He missed time twice in 2016. Once after getting hit in the eye with a ball. The other was a hamstring issue where he missed a month and the Pirates said they brought him back slow. It wasn’t a major thing, and I wonder how much time he would have missed if he was in the majors at the time. He was playing with it in Indianapolis before going on the DL.
I wouldn’t say Meadows is a bigger injury risk than most prospects. Every prospect has concerns of some sort, including injury issues. My comment was more about his skill level and those skills translating to the majors. I don’t have major concerns yet that his injury history is going to be a long-term issue.
Also had the oblique injury at the end of 2016, which kept him out of the AFL.
There was that. I was mostly focused on the hamstring issues though. Those can be a concern if they’re reoccurring, but I’m not sure we’re at that stage right now.
Barrett Barnes would be an example of a guy who has hamstring concerns. Missed two months in 2013, then was shut down later in the year for the same issue. Missed half the season in 2014. Missed a few weeks in 2015 due to a precaution.
Don’t you dare, Tim. 😉
Loved me some Barrett Barnes.
Unless you can offer some empirical data as to how you conclude “I wouldn’t say Meadows is a bigger injury risk than most prospects” it sounds like you are merely equivocating. Hamstring injuries have a very high rate of recurrence.
“Researchers have determined that the most consistent non‐modifiable factors for hamstring strains are age and the history of a prior hamstring injury.”
Obviously Meadows checks both these boxes and won’t be getting any younger going forward.
Regardless how “slow” they brought him along it isn’t encouraging he missed significant time in 2016 after missing the half the season to a hamstring injury in 2014.
Real curious as to how you conclude he’s no bigger injury risk than the average prospect? Because he was able to play a full season in 2015 at 20 years old?
I’ve been spending every day lately looking at the complete injury history of every prospect in the system while working on the Prospect Guide. I don’t have hard data to show, but every prospect has dealt with some kind of injury. So the only thing I can offer is my perception as someone who studies this system more than anyone else, and who is currently researching every prospect in the system for the 2017 book.
Meadows didn’t stand out as a guy who was a major injury risk, although he would be on the edge. If he gets another major hamstring injury, I’ll be concerned at that point.
I think you are looking through the wrong lens…
I prefer to focus on players who play…
A good example is Eli Manning – he has started every game for the Giants since he was drafted – we Steeler fans KNOW that Ben is the better QB – but he has missed 1-2 games a year for a variety of reasons…
The durability factor gets lost. Great talent that plays 100 games a year is not as valuable as very good talent that plays 150 IMHO
I think Tim is close to the mark on Meadows. His playing time would/should have been different if he was needed in the majors and not blocked. They had no incentive to rush him back or let him play through a minor injury. It behoved the Pirates to have an excuse to delay service time. Now they have reasoning for why he needs to be in AAA until super two deadline in 2017.
All I can tell you is the hamstring is a very problematic injury. As I said, it is noted for recurrence and Meadows HAS ALREADY had a recurrence. There is peer reviewed data to support this. If you simply want anecdotal data, I suggest going to a 2010 or 2011 database of guys who stayed in MLB with hamstring injuries. Google them to see how often their names popped up over the years for FUTURE hamstring injuries which either put them back on the DL or kept them out of the lineup for multiple games.
No offense, but comparing Meadows to other prospects limited to the Pirates sytsem doesn’t sound very comprehensive or informative to me. A good starting point just within the system would be to at least look at guys over the years who have had significant hamstring injuries. But it’s really not necessary. The data is already out there showing it’s a very problematic injury especially as far as recurrence.
EDIT- I did not realize the hamstrings were different legs. So my mistake.
I still am quite concerned that he has had these injuries and unfortunately suspect the hamstring will be a recurring issue down the road.
Yes. That is preposterous to say he is safer than most. The hamstring is a major red flag. Those injuries can derail careers. How much time has he missed due to injuries already as an extremely young man?
The main problem with extending McCutchen is that you would be paying for his past production not his current or projected production. Paying $20M for his age 30-35 seasons is nuts. It might work if they front loaded the contact realizing that he would be a part time player the final 2 seasons of the deal.
How has the Pujols contract worked out for the Angels? If the Cardinals can let Pujols go, then the Pirates can let McCutchen go. Jeter stayed with the Yankees at shortstop his entire career, but I would argue that it didn’t end well for him or the team.
McCuthen can always come back and play his final season here. Regardless, his number 22 can still be retired for what he has accomplished. It is a difficult situation because not only is he a great player, but he seems to be an even better person.
How’s Cutch’s d at first? Thats pretty much how Stargell stayed a Pirate, right?
except cutch is 5’10- lets not overlook that fact.
Do you want that offense at 1st if 2016 is the new level he can perform at? Stargell had some of his biggest offensive years at first.
One down year — or more to the point, three bad months — doesn’t mean Cutch can’t return to something closer to his ’11-’15 offensive performance.
And his bat might benefit from giving his legs more of a rest in the field.
4 bad months……2 average months
Average relative to whom? Certainly not the rest of baseball.
yeah- that was my fault. i realized i needed to be more specific. Relative to an average month in his career up to that point.
I would agree if not for the strikeouts.
Tim,
I think most rational fans understand the financial limitations the Bucs ownership has to deal with. However, the argument that we should not tell others how to run their business falls a little stale with me because the public has paid for their most expensive asset….PNC park. I have heard the arguement that it would be a competitive disadvantage for them to open their books, but to me that is the only way they are ever going to beat the label of “cheap” to most fans. The thought is that Nutting is swiming in profits from the PBC, and the fact is very few in the public know whether this is accurate with any kind of hard facts. What are your thoughts on the Pirates opening their accounting books?
Didn’t they open the books up in 09 or 10? Showed profit and how it was allocated.
Pirate ticket buyers pay for it. There is a 10% ticket tax to pay for the bond. That is money that would otherwise go to the team. We’re you ever on Federal St before PNC was built? The city has gained much in terms of reduced crime, more taxable revenues, new businesses employing hundreds if not thousands in the redeveloped area. Steelers obtained the same financial support as well.
While that maybe true, the deal to get PNC done was quite complicated. I am not here to argue the merits of public money used for redevelopment. The fact remains that the deal does not get done with out public money.
And if the deal doesn’t get done is there even a business called Pittsburgh Pirates?
Probably Not
Absolutely.
(N0T)
This is the same fear-mongering that gets weak-minded pols to bite every damn time. Like there’s this bevy of better markets out there eagerly waiting to profitably support professional sporting organizations, and league’s eager to allow core franchises to relocate.
It. Just. Won’t. Happen.
The Pirates weren’t going anywhere.
Yet you seem to use that as a point to criticize the team. Look around the country. This is done in most instances. Your comment, ” the argument that we should not tell others how to run their business falls a little stale with me because the public has paid for their most expensive asset….PNC park.” is calling for the merits of disclosing their books. I doubt that they see any merit, have obtained no more Public Financing than the Steelers or dozens of other Pro Franchises, many of which dont have to deal with a 10% revenue reduction in the form of the Entertainment Tax.
Dont know what Tim thinks but my thought is in what scenario has it ever been a good idea either as a private, individual citizen or as a business entity to openly disclose your complete finances?
It is definitely a rare case in professional sports, but it has been done. Public companies all do it. If Frank Coonelly is so “offended” by profit over winning accusations it really is a strait forward answer. I’m not suggesting they even need to publish the minute detail and breakdowns. Show top line revenue bottom line net and how that net is being distributed (either as didivdends or owners equity).
Privately owned companies dont do that. Your expectations are unrealistic. It is evident by Milwaukee, Cincy, KC, Tampa Bay and Oakland all having to keep payroll under 100 Million. They try to exceed it then have to demolish the teams.
That right there is the sad part about baseball: Small market teams enjoy success and then have to tear down and start over in short order – not because they want to – but because of the unfair finances of the game. I am sure KC would have preferred to keep most of that team together. MLB needs to develop better revenue sharing formula.
Yeah because Socialism has proven to work so well in every facet of business, government, and sports.
Disagree with your position STRONGLY!
Scott, It works well in football, hockey and basketball (how ’bout those Titans, Raiders, and Bucs. I’d also venture a guess to say the Pens could not keep that team intact without revenue sharing and a cap). I am looking at it from a fan’s perspective. The more team’s that compete the better for the overall sport as more fannies are in the seats, more team bling is purchased, and more eyeballs watch TV. Hence, the overall product benefits as more fans are engaged. I DO NOT advocate socialism in real life instances, such as business and government. You also seem a bit flippant with throwing the word socialism around. It’s called a cap, plain and simple like other sports.
Scoot, socialism has never worked anywhere in any economy it has been tried, that is true. That is because it replaces the distributed decision making of society’s entrepreneurs and customers with centrally controlled plans made by “elite” experts. But revenue sharing for the sake of competitive balance in a sports league isn’t socialism. You have pointed out many times that success in sports is due to better GM’s, Coaches and players. Why not make the competitive results entirely about that, not about differences in market place sizes and the amount of local cash that6 can be raised?
I agree with your assertion that it is an unrealistic expectation, but not unprecedented. The evidence of “look at other teams in similar markets” is entirely anecdotal, and provides about as much basis as Forbes valuation does. I am a Buco fan that believes the management is doing the right things and is constantly fighting an up hill battle do to the economic environment of MLB, and definitely do not want to be confused with the “Nuttings Cheap” Crowd. However, no one outside of the organization can say what ownership is taking home without being completely speculative.
*due not do
I absolutely hate this article, but only because it is very accurate. Was hopeful Cutch would be the next Stargell or Clemente. And the whole Nutting is too cheap and he keeps all the money is so tiring to read. Tim, you need to hire three more writers and travel more, run your business at a deficit, to ensure that we have the best possible chance of championship Pirates coverage.
Cue the “I hate billionaires and am entitled to see their finances” comments.
I don’t for an instant say it will happen. I don’t for an instant suggest it should happen. But if Cutch truly wanted to retire a Pirate he could instruct his agent to signal management he would be willing to sign a team friendly deal to do so.
That’s the only way his dream will come true, because there’s 0.0% chance management will go down the path the Reds and Brewers find themselves on due to their bad choices.
The Pirates made excellent choices regarding the contracts of ‘Cutch, Marte, Kang, Polanco, and Cervelli. They screwed up on Harrison and they will not go too far down the road on a market-value contract extension for ‘Cutch,
IMO, they should not offer an extension for longer than 5 or 6 years which I think will take him through age 36/37. BTW, did Neil Walker get the QO of $17 mil this year? ‘Cutch will make $14 mil. We used to think $20 mil was big time, and now the QO is approaching that so you have to pay or get out.
And while you are asking ‘Cutch to tone down the asking price, just consider that these are the Pirates who knowingly allowed players to reach incentives at the end of 2016, who still have $18 mil owed to Harrison, and who still have about $14 mil owed to Freese and Jaso – two utility guys.
And disagree on Cervelli – they are paying him a lot and he has an injury history that is pretty scary.
So far in 2015 and 2016 his Value has been the equivalent of $43.5 mil and we have paid him $4.5 mil. His 3/$31 does not click in until 2017, so no, we are not paying him a lot.
Those guys who return about 10 times in Value to what they are being paid – give me as many of them as are available.
The Hamate injury is very common in baseball (missed 5 weeks), and he also got hit in the foot on a pitch deflected off of a batter. Nothing serious, no reason for concern.
Let’s start a petition to bring the DH to the NL….. That’s how dreams come true
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DH!!!!!!
You’re spitting into the wind on this one. Believe me, I’ve broached this idea on more than one occasion on this site and was universally rebuked for it.
And don’t forget, if there were a DH, we no longer would be able to criticize Hurdle for leaving a pitcher in longer than he should for better PH opportunities. And what about offseasons?? Our FO wouldn’t invest as much resources (money or scouting/analytics) in bolstering bench spots, instead they’d be forced to find quality pitching to combat the new hitter-friendly league. Imagine how terrible that would be….So Scott, of course we should resent or fight against any push for a DH in the NL
As well you should be!
Ban the DH, eternally.
Can we blame them? Honestly, what would we have done without the clutch hitting from Charlie Morton’s pirate days, or from my personal favorite hitting pitcher Wandy???
Hmmm . . . did anyone ask when he plans to retire? If the Pirates win the World Series next year, his dream could come true . . .
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/estimated-tv-revenues-for-all-30-mlb-teams/
I think I’ve heard the Forbes work criticized for being a wild guess.
http://www.forbes.com/teams/pittsburgh-pirates/
I’m also curious about what sort of documentation the city has on how much the pirates lease is. It would be interesting if city residents could require the ownership group to open its books to the public.
If we believe Nutting is “cheap”, then so are another dozen or so “small market” owners who spend roughly the same percentage of revenue on player payroll, give or take 2%.
Let’s remember that the Pirates have one of the worst TV deals, a smaller seating capacity, crappy weather in April/May that limits attendance, the lowest ticket price in the NLC (and either 3rd or 4th lowest in MLB, and receives no parking revenue.
Couple that with the known fact that the minority owners don’t want Nutting investing more of his own money as that would increase his equity vs theirs, and you have a formula that pretty much ensures the Bucs will continually be in the bottom third in spending.
Personally, I think the numbers work out where they could probably squeeze an additional $5-$10 million out of revenue, but no more than that w/o taking a loss. This is simply based on running the Forbes numbers with other pubilshed info and looking at comparative percentages for all MLB teams. But that too is flawed as we don’t know all the expense categories.
they cant bitch about seating capacity as they built it. the idea was more luxury boxes remember?
I agree with most of your statement, except for the statement about it being “one of the worst TV deals.” Coonley himself said it is in the upper half of baseball.
Well shit, it must be true.
Lots of good points. The 10 year TV deal with Root has 2 or possibly 3 years to run. The Pirates are getting about $20 mil/yr.
The Cardinals finalized their deal with Fox Midwest in Jul 2015, more than 2.5 years before it takes effect in 2018. From the $33 mil/yr they are getting now, it will increase to over $50 mil in 2018 and then escalate to $86 mil in 2032. They also got a 30% Equity Stake in Fox Midwest. Cincy who had been getting $30 mil/yr just finalized an extension of their TV contract and got a “nice” increase and a 10% share of Equity.
There are 3 major players in the TV Broadcast Field and Fox seems to be the most active. If Root wanted any chance to extend the contract after 2018, maybe an addendum sweetening the present deal by adding $8 mil for the 2017 season and $10 mil for the 2018 season would be in order.
Kudos to Mr. Coonely! He couldn’t have done a better job syncing the Root contract with the bursting of cable bubble if he tried.
False the deal w Root is up after this year
I think it is a 10 year contract signed in 2009, but I would be thrilled to be incorrect. The Cardinals are already starting to spend their increase in TV Revenue that will start in 2018, the Reds are getting their increase beginning in 2017, and the Cubs have big time Revenue.
One thing I saw was that Cleveland’s spending is in line with ours if the $17m more in their payroll is being covered making $15m more from TV. Other teams make them appear cheap. It’s hard to say if ownership on any of these teams are suppressing their operating income by paying themselves a huge salary or just a general idea that numerous possible distortions potentially exist.
To what purpose?
Nutting ET al own the team – they are free to manage it as they choose…
All we as fans can do is buy tickets and merch or not..
The idea that ownership can be forced to spend more for any reason is unamerican
It isn’t unreasonable to ask the ownership to open its books. The lease should be made public. They are leasing the stadium that the taxpayers paid $212 million for. Should the taxpayers be paid back the funding with interest? Nutting was.
The idea of truly knowing the financial situation doesn’t make me believe I’m entitled to tell owners what they should be doing – I just want to know. If I have any conclusions it’s that available information doesn’t prove much. But honestly though St. Louis’s gate revenue kind of shocked me.
I like/appreciate your work, but..(there’s always a “but” clause, isn’t there?).
What facts cause you to believe that the PBC (Bob Nutting) can’t afford a payroll greater than @$105 Million, however its applied to their players under contract and system expenses?
The team’s gross or net revenue never appears anywhere; we can’t see the Nutting family tax statement, we don’t know if he limits his MLB spending to what the Bucs bring in during the past year or not? Forbes Magazine claims he’s a Billionaire.
I am not questioning your position, just asking on what you base your suppositions?
Plus, I guess I am questioning this whole “small market” label which lets the PBC get away with smaller capital investments.
This was a great article and reply. To follow up on it Ibhave read multiple time Nutting is anywhere between the 6-8 richest owner in baseball! He refuses to spend enough to go all in rent a player for a half of year ect. He runs it like a business, & it’s pathetic!!!
I would say this about any trade w Cutch, it puts a lot of extra pressure on Meadows and whom ever we in return for Cutch. Bc they are replacing a legend in PGH, 5 time all star, MVP and the reason fans wear pirate not steeler jerseys to Pirate games.
There is no reason if the Pirates offered Cutch a fair deal 4 yrs 80 mil. That both sides wouldn’t take it. Cutch isn’t about the money, but he doesn’t want screwed either. They could do a longer deal for security reasons and have more up front money also.
The other main point is Cutch has to be willing to move from CF. RF makes the most sense to me I could also see him moving to 1st, then Bell could go to his more natural position of RF.
I would then take Meadows and let work from AA to triple A. If he is so great other teams will want him and we could get a big return or the rental player we need to get us over the top.
Don’t trade Cutch he has earned the right to retire a Pirate!!!
Nutting’s worth doesnt really have much to do with how much money he can spend on the Pirates. While he is the majority stock holder, there are minority owners. If he were to invest his own money into the Pirates, the Minority owners would have to match, or see their shares be diminished, and no minority owner is going to be ok with that.
In fact, a few years ago and Nutting did put some of his own money into the team, they minority owners required him to make it a loan, and to get paid back, so as to not see their shares diminish. So while it is easy to say he should put his own money into the team, it’s not that easy
I am no mathematician how ever I am fairly smart. So let’s say for these purposes Nutting owns 60% of the team. And right now after all the shared revenue, TV money, tickets and parking ect the team has pay out 30 mil for salaries. So nutting puts up 60% of 30 mil= 18 mil. End of year (now) team makes 10 mil in profit Nutting gets 6 mil. Just easy math not exact numbers.
Nutting can have a owners: share holders meeting and simply say I’m the majority owner and our MLB salary is going to increase this next year by 40 mil. Here is my 24 mil of that money every one else pay up! To me it is that simple, yes he has to ask / tell the other part owners or shareholders. But he calls the shots
Yeah that’s a great way to win friends and influence people… and to be a leader. Let’s unilaterally dilute my partners so that we can ALL lose money.
Again you clearly aren’t a fan, 2.5 mil fans showed up to park when they won 98 games, a little over 2 mil the year before that. They were the most watched team in baseball for 2 years. If they put a better product on the field, and won games the fans would show up and spend money.
Most watched team in baseball? They were 15th in attendance in both 14 and 15. Where do you get “Most watch team in baseball” from? Or did you read another article that said this
Google it jagoff!!! They had the highest TV rating and most viewers 14&15. And why you are google look up the Root deal that’s up at the end of this year. That’s were talks about profit among all the teams. I know what I read don’t question my integrity.
Just googled it, and didn’t take me long to find an article that proves you are making stuff up. 4th highest rating in 14 and 15, but overall Household Viewers drops them out of the top 10. And unlike you, I will go ahead and link my article for you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2015/07/17/prime-time-tv-ratings-for-all-29-u-s-mlb-teams-shows-baseball-ruling-summer-programming/2/#2c8c7e824c04
Clearly you have never run a business. The point of owning a business is to have it be cash flow positive, it pays you not you pay it.
I have a small business, clearly fans like yourself need to realize the Pirates aren’t a business. They are professional sports team. Nutting can run 7 springs and Hidden Valley like a business. Put money into the team, on players not new equipment or training facilities
Size doesn’t matter in business with regards to the need for profitability. Every business, or any organization actually, needs to be consistently profitable or it will go out of existence by diminishing it’s capital base. That is true for your business. It is also true for the Pirates. This idea that the Pirates aren’t a real business, but something else called a professional sports team that doesn’t have to be profitable is ludicrous. Heck, even a government needs revenues to exceed expenses or eventually they run out of the capacity to borrow and they go bankrupt (see Detroit). Charities are the same way. If donations don’t exceed expenses they close their doors. You want an owner who treats the Pirates like they are an expensive toy, an unnecessary expense that they own because they want the status, or crave the feeling of importance it gives them, and they have other businesses that throw off enough cash flow that they can afford it, so they spend money recklessly (like say, the Washington Redskins owner). That way you can bath in the limelight off their profligacy. Owners like that eventually run out of money, as do governments, as do charities. But don’t let reality intrude upon your fantasy. Party on, dude!
Now what if we *don’t* talk at the extremes? You know, like real life.
You don’t think business owners, for instance, spend beyond their means in a given year by investing in assets to capitalize on a market that could make them more profitable?
Of course they do.
The extreme take that Nutting should personally fund yearly payrolls into perpetually growing debt is silly, but pretending that Nutting must pull in *yearly* profits in order to maintain a viable business like you seem to claim is equally so.
What the leaked documents taught us is that rebuilding is *massively* profitable, to the tune of up to $30m in a year for a team that didn’t draw more than a million and a half gate receipts. There’s plenty of meat on the bone for owners in a cyclical league. Nutting chose profitability at the *top* of the win cycle, when he already knew how much can be made at the bottom.
That’s his right, but I’m not telling any man he’s wrong or out of line for not lavishing him in praise for it.
You’re living in a dream world if you think Owners aren’t in it for both profits and the thrill of victory.
NOBODY buys a team to throw their money away so a baseball team can win. It’s an investment.
Gen bought the team for what 270-300 mil, he could easily cash out for 800-900 mil. And let an ownership group that wants to win a spend money own it and run it.
And as an investment, he’s been *wildly* successful. He could run deficits for a decade and still cash out in the black.
But that’s not what Nutting demands. He demands yearly profitability – not just over a given duration, but *every* year – while also watching his investment grow substantially.
If he runs deficits for a decade the team won’t be worth nearly as much. Come on NMR, you’re smarter than that.
This is my point exactly.
Do we as fans owe it to ownership to make as much as possible, or to simply make some amount of profit?
If they’re budgeting to ensure yearly profits and then, for instance, putting them “back into the team” by paying down debt as they’ve already done thereby increasing the value of their *personal* shares, is that not being disingenuous?
I’m not naive enough to think there aren’t ways around literally just lining their pockets with $100 bills.
As a fan you don’t owe the Bucs anything but treating the stadium they lease respectfully when you go to a game, do no harm. If they want their business to continue they have to figure out a way to provide you more pleasure than the ticket price costs and at the same time have their revenues exceed their expenses. Kudos to them if they can do that. And if thee experience is still a “good deal” for you, who cares how much money they make?
You gloss over that last part like it’s true.
You remind me of the player played by John Matuszak in North Dallas Forty when he said, “Every time I say it’s a game, they say it’s a business, and every time I say it’s a business, they say it’s a game.”
I can assure you the Owner considers the PBC a business, and businesses exist for people to make money.
So you won’t answer the question. Got it. Great talk.
The question about paying down debt being disengenuous? You don’t think other Owners don’t do the same?
It’s common practice for business owners with a debt to service to use profits to pay it down. Why should the Pirates be any different?
“Do we as fans owe it to ownership to make as much as possible, or to simply make some amount of profit?”
Honest question. Back when Nutting “loaned” the team money, why when he was paid back was it with interest? If it was for the better of the team shouldn’t he have taken it back with no interest? Or is he not allowed? I kinda see that as worrying about his pocket and not the good of the team. Maybe I don’t know exactly how it all works but I’m curious.
But what are they doing with those profits? Does he demand profit so it can be placed back into the organization, not necessarily on the field, so they can become better on many different fronts? Can’t say he demands a profit specifically to pocket it.
Where’s it going, Eric?
They building *another* Dominican facility?
I know I’m just throwing things in the air as possibilities but the truth is that nobody “knows” what the profit is or where it’s going.
Gotcha buddy, thanks.
Well they just put a team in Bristol a few years ago. What was the expense of that? Coaching, scouts, analysts, etc. I can’t say i know any of that just guessing.
Sounds like a good way to end up in debt to me.
I would rather pay $60 for box seats and see a better team then $35 a seat and watch them trade Cutch.
Maybe you would but probably not the other 30000 fans who just want to watch a good baseball game.
They would, and they didn’t sell out for 20 years when they sucked. True loyal fans will go no matter what or cost. Fair weather fans are just that who cares about them.
Most owners are owners Bc they want to win.. at some point Nutting and crew have to stop running a business and try to win. Look at the Royals same market, salary everything the same except for 2 years they went for it, and it worked!
And now look at the royals. Looking to shed salary. They went for it and now it’s done. Time to start again. I’d rather have a team compete consistently than go for it a year or two and the rebuild.
Y r u content just making the wild card. No one cares who makes the playoffs they care who wins.
Sorry I somehow managed to sign in under 2 different names today. I look at it as if you can make the playoffs you’ve got a chance. If you try “keeping up with the Joneses” you’re going to dig yourself a hole that may take a long time to get out of. Spending money or trading the farm away for a very small window is very risky and very rarely works out. If you go all in then flop, then what do you have?
They just blew a golden opportunity
That’s fair but on the very rare occasion you have a great to you need to go for it. Like when you have a 98 win team and add Vogelsong and Neise. I’m not saying you need to sell farm but maybe adding 10 or 20 mil in payroll for one year when u have a great team is reasonable.
Couldn’t not disagree more, 2 WS trips 1 title. And now they are going to rebuild yes. But it will probably be a quick 1. Maybe 1 or down years then they will be back around.
The Royals are one of the few success stories. The Brewers and Reds are the norm.
“He runs it like a business”
=
That’s because as you see above, it is a business with stockholders and regulations that have to be followed.
I guess my question would be this…What baseball owner isn’t running their team like a business?
Are all these teams that are spending a ton of money doing it at the expense of their owners? Or are they in markets that allow them to do this while still allowing the owner to turn a profit?
Majority of baseball owners like in all sports, they own other companies and make millions upon millions from those. They spend money on the team
Red Sox, Dodgers, Angles, Nats, Cubs, Royals and Indians.
Where did you get the information that the owners of these teams are losing money to run their teams?
Read an article that not only do the Pirates make money they make highest profit % of any team in baseaball.
Also throw Det in that mix also. All those teams are lucky to break even, Dodgers and Nats probably made $ bc of how far they made it in the post season.
TV contract means a lot more than a few postseason games.
Do you have a link to that article. I call BS.
They are 22/30 in market size. The brewers and reds are just below and in similar sized markets.
I’m probably going to write about this more tomorrow. That said, I never said $105 M was their limit. I just pointed to a few teams in similar markets who saw limits just over $100 M.
As for the small market label, that is given to them by MLB in the CBA. The league recognizes them as a small market, and gives them small advantages in the amateur talent department for that reason (competitive balance pick in the draft, higher international bonus pool). This theory that small market is some made up narrative to excuse the Pirates and let them get away with things is ignoring the fact that they’re actually small market. And when you accept that fact, you start to think that maybe they aren’t just pocketing tens of millions of dollars, but maybe they are restricted.