Why the Pirates Should NOT trade Andrew McCutchen

[McCutchenIsTheTruth]

http://buriedtreasurepirates.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-pirates-shouldnt-trade-andrew.html

Discuss! Flame me!

[Possum]

Considering your screen name here I can understand your post.  I don't think he should be traded yet either unless NH is overwhelmed by an offer.

But your contention that Cutch is a "superstar" is a bit much.  He is a very good player but not yet at the "superstar" status.  I do believe that he can that status in the next couple years though.

How nice it would be if he would improve on 2011 in 2012 by playing the entire 2012 season like he did prior to the AS Break in 2011.

[McCutchenIsTheTruth]

"How nice it would be if he would improve on 2011 in 2012 by playing the entire 2012 season like he did prior to the AS Break in 2011."

Yes, I agree that maybe he needs to do that to be considered a true 'superstar', but at the same time even with a 'poor' second half he was the 20th best player in baseball according to fWAR.  Point being, he's really really **** good, and I'd say too good for almost any package of prospects to be worth him.

[Bucco Velo]

And the fact that he's putting up that type of production despite still being as young as certain players who are still referred to as "prospects" here and elsewhere make him the obvious centerpiece of any current rebuilding effort.

[CTBucco]

And the fact that he's putting up that type of production despite still being as young as certain players who are still referred to as "prospects" here and elsewhere make him the obvious centerpiece of any current rebuilding effort.

Well, that really depends on the timeline.  If the rebuild extends beyond his years of control - including those that his arb price will be within whatever Bucco Brass decides are their mean - then you have to move him for either a return that will be present when the rebuild is producing results or some point later.

That said, it would be disheartening to see him go.

[Max Power]

We could trade him to the Cubs for a Player to be released later.  Nah, that was Littlebrain's MO.

[ECBucs]

And the fact that he's putting up that type of production despite still being as young as certain players who are still referred to as "prospects" here and elsewhere make him the obvious centerpiece of any current rebuilding effort.

Well, that really depends on the timeline.  If the rebuild extends beyond his years of control - including those that his arb price will be within whatever Bucco Brass decides are their mean - then you have to move him for either a return that will be present when the rebuild is producing results or some point later.

That said, it would be disheartening to see him go.

If NH is not able to put a contender together during the time the team controls him he should just resign before he gets fired.

That is just not acceptable scenario (although it maybe for the owners).  Heck, why not trade Taillon now too?

[McCutchenIsTheTruth]

And the fact that he's putting up that type of production despite still being as young as certain players who are still referred to as "prospects" here and elsewhere make him the obvious centerpiece of any current rebuilding effort.

Well, that really depends on the timeline.  If the rebuild extends beyond his years of control - including those that his arb price will be within whatever Bucco Brass decides are their mean - then you have to move him for either a return that will be present when the rebuild is producing results or some point later.

That said, it would be disheartening to see him go.

If NH is not able to put a contender together during the time the team controls him he should just resign before he gets fired.

That is just not acceptable scenario (although it maybe for the owners).  Heck, why not trade Taillon now too?

Heck, why not trade Taillon now too?

Tongue in cheek comment but the point stands.

[McCutchenIsTheTruth]

Didn't want to start a whole new thread.

I wrote about how insane Jeff Karstens's June and July were (so many J's!).

http://buriedtreasurepirates.blogspot.com/2012/02/jeff-karstenss-crazy-june-and-july.html

[wvbucco]

Who did he pitch against during those lucky starts?

[McCutchenIsTheTruth]

Who did he pitch against during those lucky starts?

Philly
Arizona
@Houston
@Cleveland
Boston
@Toronto
Houston
@Houston
Cincinnati
@Atlanta
@Philly

[bradlej31]

Sorry to redirect the thread back to Cutch.

Has anyone notice that all the extensions signed this offseason (Lincecum, Kershaw, Andrus, etc)  NO ONE has given up any Free Agent years?

I think this might be a trend moving forward and will be what happens with Cutch.   Overpaying won't even be an option.

[ECBucs]

this doesn't list everybody but says some buy out free agent years (but your point is valid it basically agrees that cost certainy is only gain):

20 offseason extensions so far this winter, as MLBTR's Extension Tracker shows. Nine of those extensions -- almost half of them -- didn't extend the teams' control over the players with options or additional guaranteed years. Here's a closer look (click on team names for MLBTR's post on each extension):
 
Deals Covering Two Remaining Seasons Of Arbitration Eligibility
 •Tim Lincecum, Giants
 •Nelson Cruz, Rangers
 •Michael Morse, Nationals
 •Nick Masset, Reds
 •Tony Gwynn Jr., Dodgers
 
Deals Covering First Two Seasons Of Arbitration Eligibility
 •Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers
 •Jose Arredondo, Reds
 
Deals Covering Three Arbitration Seasons
 •Pablo Sandoval, Giants
 •Elvis Andrus, Rangers - more on Andrus' deal here
 
Teams generally covet club options, and some teams, such as the Rays, have made a habit of obtaining multiple options on most or all extensions. Other clubs, such as the Red Sox, have insisted that extensions buy out at least one season of free agent eligibility.
 
Four teams -- the Giants, Dodgers, Reds and Rangers -- are responsible for eight of the nine offseason extensions that don't extend team control over the player. Those clubs accepted the risk that the players will suffer injuries or perform poorly in exchange for the possibility that they'll meet or exceed expectations on the field and turn out to be bargains.
 
Deals that don't buy out free agent years and don't include club options can turn out well for the teams, of course. They cap costs and avoid the rarely-pleasant arbitration process. For elite players like Lincecum and Kershaw, the savings could be substantial in 2013. However, the upside is generally limited for teams that commit to multiyear deals without extending club control.

[McCutchenIsTheTruth]

this doesn't list everybody but says some buy out free agent years (but your point is valid it basically agrees that cost certainy is only gain):

20 offseason extensions so far this winter, as MLBTR's Extension Tracker shows. Nine of those extensions -- almost half of them -- didn't extend the teams' control over the players with options or additional guaranteed years. Here's a closer look (click on team names for MLBTR's post on each extension):
 
Deals Covering Two Remaining Seasons Of Arbitration Eligibility
 •Tim Lincecum, Giants
 •Nelson Cruz, Rangers
 •Michael Morse, Nationals
 •Nick Masset, Reds
 •Tony Gwynn Jr., Dodgers
 
Deals Covering First Two Seasons Of Arbitration Eligibility
 •Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers
 •Jose Arredondo, Reds
 
Deals Covering Three Arbitration Seasons
 •Pablo Sandoval, Giants
 •Elvis Andrus, Rangers - more on Andrus' deal here
 
Teams generally covet club options, and some teams, such as the Rays, have made a habit of obtaining multiple options on most or all extensions. Other clubs, such as the Red Sox, have insisted that extensions buy out at least one season of free agent eligibility.
 
Four teams -- the Giants, Dodgers, Reds and Rangers -- are responsible for eight of the nine offseason extensions that don't extend team control over the player. Those clubs accepted the risk that the players will suffer injuries or perform poorly in exchange for the possibility that they'll meet or exceed expectations on the field and turn out to be bargains.
 
Deals that don't buy out free agent years and don't include club options can turn out well for the teams, of course. They cap costs and avoid the rarely-pleasant arbitration process. For elite players like Lincecum and Kershaw, the savings could be substantial in 2013. However, the upside is generally limited for teams that commit to multiyear deals without extending club control.

Interesting info. Good research.  Well, if Cutch just won't give up a free agent year, even just one, there is no reason to pay him anything.  Just go year to year in arbitration.  They could shoot for a Justin Upton type extension though.

[Pirates2014Champ]

If McCutchen is steadfast on not extending his FA years than there's no reason to cover his arb years.  That process will be done for him.

The Pirates have really two choices.

1. Extend Cutch, after this season, to buy out not one but TWO of his FA years and wait for Bell, Marte, Cole, Taillon, Sanchez. McFEARson, etc. to make their mark at PNC.

2. Trade Cutch as early as this year's trade deadline (pending on how Marte and Grossman do) and get a king's ransom in return (from Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Yankees, Padres, whoever).

Option 1 seems like the best one to go but realistically very unlikely given the state of Selig's business model.