Edwin Jackson's Cost Isn't A Good Idea For The Pirates

[Kipper]

When the rumors of the Pittsburgh Pirates showing interest in Edwin Jackson popped up, I was ecstatic. Edwin Jackson is a good pitcher with a lot of upside and potential. Those are the types of players that you like to see the Pittsburgh Pirates go after. Usually when the words "upside" and "potential" are used to describe players, it means that the player comes at a relatively decent cost.

Not Edwin Jackson.

The interest in Edwin Jackson disappeared in 3 ways. First it was the asking price of either 5 years at over $50 million or $15 million per season.

A baseball official familiar with the Yankees’ thinking called Hal Steinbrenner’s Wednesday night meeting with agent Scott Boras “a courtesy,” but the Yankees’ aversion to Jackson relates only to the price, not the player. Boras was believed to be asking for a five-year deal at about $15 million per

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...s-hector-noesi

Jackson’s original asking price was reportedly five years at over $50 million.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/...edwin-jackson/

Secondly it was John Perrotto recently claiming that the Pirates needed to sign Edwin Jackson. I generally never agree with John Perrotto's opinion so when he writes about it giving the implications that his belief is strong, then it quickly makes me assume that the opposite is the best choice.

http://www.timesonline.com/sports/lo...r-comment-area

The third reason was that the Philadelphia Phillies just signed Cole Hamels to a 1 year $15 million per contract.

http://phillysportscentral.com/phill...bitration.html

Cole Hamels is what people would hope Edwin Jackson's "potential" and "upside" will be some day, however, Edwin Jackson is not Cole Hamels yet, he might never be Cole Hamels. There's been hundreds, perhaps thousands of players that have carried the "potential" and "upside" tags that have never seen it come true, thus he certainly shouldn't be paid like Cole Hamels, not by the Pittsburgh Pirates. Small market, low revenue stream teams like the Pirates can't afford to pay "yet-to-be-realized" potential what it actually costs teams a "proven and realized" Ace/#2 pitcher. If the Pirates were ever going to splurge in Free Agency for starting pitching , it better be on someone like Cole Hamels rather than Edwin Jackson if the price is the same or similar.

4e7170171a3ba.image.jpgI understand that I break people's hearts and I'm sure this article will do both that and anger some people, mainly those that see anyone that costs a lot of money as "worth it". The reality is that the number on one's price tag doesn't always make that player great or worth that cost. It doesn't mean that you can afford that player and it certainly doesn't mean that there is anything close to resembling the return value for that cost. When I write about, talk about or in general discuss anything revolving around payrolls and the cost of players, I do it from the standpoint of how I realistically approach purchases in my daily life. Purchasing is purchasing, no matter what level you are doing it at. Sometimes it is based on need, sometimes it is based on future investment, higher return investments, or pure joy. Some of those have different values and values change from person to person, income to income or in the case of sports, revenue stream to revenue stream. It's always been my belief that if you are going to get into a serious discussion regarding spending in sports (spending money is usually only discussed with regards to Baseball since it lacks an equal economic platform - salary cap) then you have to do it from the honest view point of how you actually function in your own daily life.

Nothing annoys me more than when people expect another person to spend their money differently than they spend their own and then ***** when that other person ends up spending their money just like they do. It makes no sense, but there's enough people that will search under every single rock looking for an excuse to justify that type of irrational thinking.

When it comes to players like Edwin Jackson, there's really nobody that discusses the Pittsburgh Pirates as a true Pirates fan that would justify a comparable purchase in their own life to the Pirates signing Edwin Jackson. There's a difference between smart investments where you have a higher probability of at the least breaking even and investments that have a lower probability of breaking even. Edwin Jackson falls into the lower probability due to both his high cost and his "potential" not yet translating into the actual cost that falls with the asking price. Taking this one step further, if it were going to cost the New York Yankees around $15 million per season, what do you think it would cost the Pittsburgh Pirates? I've always felt that if you wanted to realistically figure what the cost of a player would be for the Pittsburgh Pirates, you take what the cost would be for a team like the New York Yankees and start off by adding about 10%. That $15 million per year now turns into $16.5 million per year and that isn't money that you are paying to a true dominant Ace, that is money that you are paying for #3 results that have the potential of some day improving to being Ace like results.

So what's wrong with paying for potential? Nothing is wrong with paying for potential except when that potential is going to cost about 25% of your max payroll. No one player should ever cost and can ever cost that amount of payroll, not unless the return on that investment is a certain increase in revenue in the years to come that can make that cost up and shrink that percentage into the teens. The Pittsburgh Pirates would likely never see the return on that investment. The Pirates can't make investments that could potentially bury them. One's that take up a quarter of your payroll are investments that have a high probability of burying teams and yes teams can get buried in depth, just ask the Pittsburgh Penguins, twice. Ask the New York Mets, Los Angeles Dodgers etc... If the revenue streams aren't there to fund the payrolls now or in the future then your payroll is too high or you have costs pertaining to your payroll that take up too much space.

Even if the Pittsburgh Pirates could afford Edwin Jackson (which they can't), he's simply not worth anywhere near the asking price that Scott Boras is looking for. 8 digits is very steep for a pitcher that hasn't produced #1/2 numbers yet. It's certainly not a rational cost for any team to pay especially one like the Pittsburgh Pirates but it's a price tag that would certainly not fall for what the Pittsburgh Pirates would and could offer.

Here are Cole Hamels vs. Edwin Jackson's stats...

Cole Hamels - 28 years old



Edwin Jackson - 28 years old



Cole Hamels over the last 2 years has been vastly superior to Edwin Jackson ins just about every category. It's not even close and neither should their salaries be.

If Scott Boras wants to get Edwin Jackson's cost down to under $10 million, then the Pirates should seriously talk. That's where Jackson's value currently lies.

[Shaker100]

At some point the Pirates need to get involved with a higher end free agent. If only to prove they're serious about winning and doing whatever it takes to get it done. The questions are, is this the time and is Jackson that player?

Is this the time? IMHO, no. The team should inch closer to .500 and make more strides as an organization before committing long term debt to any free agent player. A major free agent move right now could smack of desperation and an abandonment of the prime directive which is to get better from within.

Is Jackson that player? Even if I answered yes to the first question this is the time to pursue a high priced FA, there is no evidence Jackson is the right guy to commit to. By making a big splash in the FA market you want to shore up an organizational weakness they foresee no internal answers to . Pitching appears to be the long term strength of the organization. It's true you never have enough pitching and Jackson would shore up a hole in the rotation in the short term. But he has never been the top guy of a rotation. He's thrived more or less as a #3 guy. If he was indispensable to a rotation, Jackson would not be traded every trade deadline or offseason. Jackson would be an immediate upgrade to the Pirates but there are better ways to spend 65-75 million long term. It wouldn't take long for his contract to seriously slow down the organization. It might prevent them from coming to terms with 'Cutch, Walker or even Pedro long term.

Overall, the Pirates should come to terms with their own players by purchasing FA years, develop our high profile pitching prospects then determine what holes should be filled via FA. Gambling big bucks now on a FA could set back the entire process .

[Kipper]

You got what I was trying to say, Shaker... which is good... wasn't sure if people would read this as me saying the Pirates shouldn't ever go after the larger contract Free Agents. The point was simply that if and when we do, it should be on players that have already proven that worth, not on players that are "projected" to be that worth and are expecting to be paid like it.

[indybucfan]

When Jackson first hit free agency, he was the guy I wanted for this staff. Once the rumors of his price came out, ehhh, not so much anymore. In no baseball world, is Edwin Jackson a 15-17 million dollar pitcher. If that's the floor on a guy like Jackson, this franchise is doomed.

[Kipper]

When Jackson first hit free agency, he was the guy I wanted for this staff. Once the rumors of his price came out, ehhh, not so much anymore. In no baseball world, is Edwin Jackson a 15-17 million dollar pitcher. If that's the floor on a guy like Jackson, this franchise is doomed.

The rest of the baseball world has pretty told Jackson and Boras that the $15 million per tag was too much since nobody has bitten. What he ends up signing for, I really don't know. It's possible it could be $10+ million but I still personally dont believe he's worth that... yet. far too much money at least for a small market team like the Pirates to pay for "potential". Under $10 million, sure I believe the Pirates should get involved because it's a figure that they could absorb the loss of far easier than $10+ The Pirates can't spend $10+ million on anything but proven players who also have room for greater potential

[El Sid]

Well, anything I would want to add would just be plagerizing Shaker.

[airleg1]

Ditto....Its a shame when people have rational thoughts that are put to paper....It kinda ruins the blog

[CityofChampions]

At some point the Pirates need to get involved with a higher end free agent. If only to prove they're serious about winning and doing whatever it takes to get it done. The questions are, is this the time and is Jackson that player?

Is this the time? IMHO, no. The team should inch closer to .500 and make more strides as an organization before committing long term debt to any free agent player. A major free agent move right now could smack of desperation and an abandonment of the prime directive which is to get better from within.

Is Jackson that player? Even if I answered yes to the first question this is the time to pursue a high priced FA, there is no evidence Jackson is the right guy to commit to. By making a big splash in the FA market you want to shore up an organizational weakness they foresee no internal answers to . Pitching appears to be the long term strength of the organization. It's true you never have enough pitching and Jackson would shore up a hole in the rotation in the short term. But he has never been the top guy of a rotation. He's thrived more or less as a #3 guy. If he was indispensable to a rotation, Jackson would not be traded every trade deadline or offseason. Jackson would be an immediate upgrade to the Pirates but there are better ways to spend 65-75 million long term. It wouldn't take long for his contract to seriously slow down the organization. It might prevent them from coming to terms with 'Cutch, Walker or even Pedro long term.

Overall, the Pirates should come to terms with their own players by purchasing FA years, develop our high profile pitching prospects then determine what holes should be filled via FA. Gambling big bucks now on a FA could set back the entire process .

Maybe one of the best posts ever!

[Shaker100]

The market on Jackson has now changed considerably. No team is offering up a multi year deal in the range Jackson is looking for. The word is he's now open to a one year deal in the 8-10 million range. Now an offer like that from a contending team would hold more weight than the same deal from the Pirates. But would we be willing to offer 3 years/27-30 million or 2 years in the 17-18 million range? A deal like that wouldn't be as potentially crippling as a 5/65 type deal that Boras was originally seeking. Something to think about. I still stand by my earlier post but if the right deal is there then there's no reason to hold back.

Boras has also dealt successfully, with some painful moments with NH a couple times in the last few years.

[vandelay industries]

1. As I've always said, FA is a 2-way street.

2. It appears that Nutting is willing/trying to spend.

2 tweets from Ken Rosenthal:

Sources: Pirates made 3-yr offer to Edwin Jackson. Also made him 1-yr offer in $10MM range.

Do not know exact amount of #Pirates' 3-year offer to E. Jackson, but told it was substantial, in range of $10M a year.

[jleisele58]

Im sure BS will write about how foolish it was to try and throw money at edwin jackson now.

[Kipper]

1. As I've always said, FA is a 2-way street.

2. It appears that Nutting is willing/trying to spend.

2 tweets from Ken Rosenthal:

Surprised we ponied up that money.... not surprised that Jackson didn't take it

[Steelreign]

for the Pirates to offer him a 3 year/$30 million deal, it sends a positive message to the fans that ownership is making a calculated effort to get outside talent. they didn't get him, but in this instance it is the offer that counts.

[exNCite]

for the Pirates to offer him a 3 year/$30 million deal, it sends a positive message to the fans that ownership is making a calculated effort to get outside talent. they didn't get him, but in this instance it is the offer that counts.

No, its not because the lemmings will say that BN knew it wasn't enough and only did so to make it appear he was trying.

[Steelreign]

No, its not because the lemmings will say that BN knew it wasn't enough and only did so to make it appear he was trying.

You're right ex, perhaps I Shoulda said it sends a positive message to all RATIONAL Pirates fans. The Lemmings should all migrate to the Cubs bandwagon because as BFD once so eloquently stated "the Cubs might suck, but at least they spend money"