Q. Why are the Bucs so intent on trading Craig Wilson? The whole league is interested in trading for him, and that should be a sign for the Bucs not to trade him.

Jason Scott of Brentwood

KOVACEVIC: If the Pirates were, indeed, intent on trading Wilson, he would be gone already. As it is, indications are they are holding out for a right-handed starter that meets the criteria they have set.

There is a difference there. They were intent on trading Jason Kendall because they wanted to be rid of his contract. There is no sign they are intent on trading Wilson simply to trade him.

This process started back in late November, by the way, when the Pirates initially made known to other teams that Wilson was available. There was some interest, though not heavy, mostly because teams were leery of Wilson having injured the same hand twice last season. By January, the Pirates were put off enough by the offers being received that, while never taking Wilson off the figurative available list, they did not pursue matters nearly as aggressively. The thinking was that Wilson's value would increase if he showed he was healthy in the spring and, if no suitors came then, he would not exactly hurt them coming off the bench.

If you ask me, Wilson will be gone by the deadline -- he can be a free agent after this season, and the team has no interest in keeping him -- but not much before it. The only way I see that timetable being accelerated is if the rotation immediately falls flat, and the Pirates' hand is forced. Or if someone steps forward immediately with a deal of value.

Who might that be? Although the Pirates and Braves have discussed John Thomson, indications I have received since getting back down here is that it will take more than just Thomson to get Wilson, if, indeed, Thomson ends up being the primary target. I would keep an eye on Seattle, too, which has a constant scouting presence at the Pirates' exhibitions of late.

I do see your apparent point, Jason, that Wilson has value. As my writings in this space have shown, I share that view. The Pirates, it is very clear, do not see him as a starter or they would not have taken the steps they did this offseason to push him out of the lineup. That could be because of their perceptions of his defense or his strikeouts or his RBI totals or ... who knows? All that is certain is that they are not going to discuss any deficiencies they feel he has so long as they are touting his value toward a trade.

---

Q. I honestly believe the Pirates are one big-time arm and one big-time power hitter away from truly contending. What are your thoughts on mortaging the future and going for broke this year? We have assets in the minors that may not pan out anyway, and I know that this diehard fan and others would truly appreciate it.

Jeff Haber of South Side, Pittsburgh

KOVACEVIC: No, no, 120 times no. No way, Jeff.

To repeat: No.

Your concept would accomplish nothing more for the Pirates save, perhaps, a chance at 82 victories. Here is why:

With the inequitable way Major League Baseball is structured economically, teams in the lower third of payrolls have to shoot for a window of opportunity by developing as much internal talent as possible to hold down costs. From there, as you suggest, the team can go out and fill the missing pieces with what is left of the payroll. But not before then.

This team is intriguing as it shapes up, but not more than that, in my view. Is Chris Duffy ready to be a championship piece right now? Jose Castillo? Ryan Doumit? Most of the rotation? Historical and anecdotal evidence would suggest they are a couple of years away from having a realistic shot at realizing such potential. Now, those players do belong to the Pirates for a while, which is terrific for the team because, then, it can plan accordingly for 2008 or 2009. But to do it now? Makes no sense.

Want to look at a team ready to make a move like the one you describe? Check out Cleveland. Look at the pieces they have locked up, the experience those players have had and, most important, the success. If I were running the Indians, I would be going for broke fairly soon.

---

Q. Hey, Dejan, a little help here: I recall late last season the Pirates were concerned about Zach Duke throwing too many pitches. Right now, they are putting three guys in the rotation who have not pitched a whole season of major-league ball. Isn't there a similar concern this year about Ian Snell and Paul Maholm being able to go a full season?

John Carroll of Vernon, N.J.

KOVACEVIC: Yes, there is. It is not something the Pirates are trumpeting for the simple reason that there is no advantage in planting a negative seed in a kid's mind in March, but it is a concern.

A look at the career highs for innings for all three: Duke pitched 192 2/3 innings last season, including 84 2/3 in the majors. Snell pitched 163 innings two years ago, 154 last season. Maholm pitched 158 2/3 innings last season, 41 1/3 in the majors.

In the case of Duke, it would not appear the hard inning count is the concern. The Pirates' general rule is they like to see a young pitcher's count increase by no more than 15-20 each year. But, even there, Duke faces a larger challenge in spending a full season in the majors, and that wear and tear must be weighed.

Snell has had two seasons of decent innings, but his partial use as a reliever last season in the majors set him back from building up.

Maholm raises a greater concern, obviously.

---

Q. The way Jim Tracy has handled the pitchers this spring has been superlative. He has been decisive, authoritative and logical. Having Oliver Perez pitch the opener after he spent part of the spring at the World Baseball Classic was a bold, unexpected move, but completely reasonable. That being said, who do you see as most likely to get yanked when Kip Wells and Sean Burnett are healthy?

Brett Cassidy of Knoxville, Tenn.

KOVACEVIC: That stuff tends to play itself out, Brett. You have to go all the way back to 1997 to find the last season in which the Pirates' rotation made it through a full season unscathed. Guys get hurt. Guys pitch their way out. Openings happen.

If it is a prediction you seek, I would point to Maholm, partly for the reasons stated above, partly because the uncertainty about him remains great. This bears constant repeating, but this is someone with six major-league starts. These transitions tend not to be seamless.

Oh, and a side note about Wells: Do not be surprised if he is back sooner than the team's projected return time in early July.

What he had was not a conventional pitcher's injury in that the arm itself -- muscles, tissues and the like -- were never distressed. He had the simplest form of artery replacement, and his only issue from this point onward is building his arm strength back up after the requisite rest time. Yes, that buildup takes time, but Wells will not be starting from zero. Remember, he was throwing at close to full capacity this spring just before the ailment was discovered. (And throwing quite well.)

---

Q. Dejan: Just got back from Bradenton. Saw the Bucs in seven spring games and feel they are much improved. Sean Casey is great! Had box seats by first base and saw him close up. The 'Burgh fans will love him. Burnitz made solid contact every at bat. He will hit 25-30 homers at PNC. Joe Randa will definitely improve the third base play defensively and will add homers plus key hits.

Just one question: What does Jim Tracy see in Hernandez? Sure he can play seven positions, but there are a few young infielders at least as good as him if not better. Why keep a younger player off the roster for a 36-year-old has-been?

Rudy Filek Sr. of Morgantown, W.Va.

KOVACEVIC: Well, before I answer that, Rudy, let me offer to buy one and all a round of iced mochas at the Downtown establishment of your choice if your prediction for Burnitz's home run total at PNC is correct. I think he is better than a .174 hitter there -- his career average -- but that sounds way high.

Also, I agree with you about Casey but disagree that Randa will improve the defense at third, if only because his predecessor at the position was Freddy Sanchez, who is at least his equal, maybe superior.

What does Tracy see in Hernandez? Based on interviews, Tracy loves his versatility in the field as well as the pop he can show with his bat to all fields. Beyond that, though, I find it all to be as unclear as you seem to, especially in regards to the plate discipline Tracy has been touting all spring. Hernandez shows no sign of it. And this is not just about the strikeouts. It is about going well outside the zone with men on base, a huge Tracy bugaboo when some players do it.

It is highly likely that Tracy's view of Hernandez is skewed by his fine showing in 2004 with Los Angeles, when he batted .289 with 13 home runs in 211 at-bats. Hernandez was a key cog for those Dodgers coming off the bench. Never mind that Hernandez did not fare as well with Cleveland last year, batting .231 with six home runs in 234 at-bats. And never mind that Hernandez was miles below that performance level in his half-season with Pittsburgh.

I asked Tracy if he felt Hernandez was closer to the player in Los Angeles than the rest, and he affirmed that. He also strongly suggested that how carefully Hernandez is used -- certain pitching matchups, stuff like that -- had an effect on his good numbers with the Dodgers.

---

Q. Hi, Dejan. I have been following the Buccos closely all offseason, and I like what I have seen so far. It seems like the new staff has chased away that black cloud that has been over the team for as long as I can remember.

What I am wondering: If they can finally achieve a winning season, will they be able to attract some big-name outside help in the future? Will the payroll increase again next year by another $15 million? I hope so. I have waited my whole life for the Bucs to win a ring to match up to the Pens and the new champs in town. It's time Kevin McClatchy gets serious about this team instead of lining his pockets and hoping for .500. The city needs it.

Kevin Strafalace of Troy Hill, Pittsburgh

KOVACEVIC: First off, Kevin, the Pirates' payroll increase is more in the range of $12 million. The team spent a cumulative $35 million on payroll last season and will increase that to a projected $47 million for opening day.

There were figures released over the winter by the MLB Players Association that said the Pirates' final payroll tally for 2005 was $32 million. That figure actually represented nothing more than a salary tally of the players on the team's roster on the final day of August. As a result, it did not take into consideration, for example, the $4 million and change that was paid to Matt Lawton before he was dealt.

Anyway, no, there is no reason to expect a similar increase next season, based on ample precedent. One just does not see 30 percent increases on a regular basis anywhere in the game.

There is a variable, though: MLB's collective bargaining agreement expires after this season, and a change in the economic structure could allow the Pirates to increase payroll dramatically. Or, maybe just as important, it could force the Pirates to do so.

Union chief Donald Fehr has, for years, rejected the idea of a salary floor based on the semi-philosophical ground that accepting a floor means accepting a cap. However, he has made public noise of late about his distaste for teams he feels are not spending all of their revenue-sharing money on making their teams more competitive, as is required by the current agreement. The one and only way Fehr could enforce that rule would be to require all teams to spend a minimum of, say, $60 million on major-league payroll. And, as one agent told me recently, any owner who does not feel he can meet that standard can feel free to find another type of business to run.

It should be noted here that Fehr cited no teams specifically in his remarks, which were made early this month in Tampa. (He addressed the New York media at the Yankees' Legends Field, a courtesy he did not extend to the Pittsburgh media when he met with the Pirates in Bradenton later in the month. Not to be bitter or anything.)

---

Q. Dejan, With the conclusion of the World Baseball Classic, my thoughts turn to bringing back Olympic baseball. How much of a chance do you think there is that MLB owners would be willing to copy the NHL and stop the season for the Olympics? I would think the IOC couldn't resist bringing baseball back under these conditions.

Olympic hockey is much more fun with NHL players than it was before they participated. The every-game-is-crucial atmosphere of the Olympics, coupled with the best players in the world, makes those games as much fun as any Stanley Cup series.

Joe Deffner of Forest, Va.

KOVACEVIC: I love Olympic hockey since the NHL became involved, Joe, and I never have made any secret of that. The true beauty of it, I think, is that so many nations are competitive and take such pride in it. Witness the Finns and Swedes making the final, and not one eyebrow being raised by it.

That might be why I enjoyed the Classic as much I did, too. The games played in San Juan carried an almost-soccer-level joy to them in the stands. (And they were stands, not seats). The players -- apart from some of those on the U.S. roster -- looked like they took every step to make sure they were in peak form for the tournament. (Ask Salomon Torres why he was throwing his peak fastball way back in minicamp.) And, as was the case with hockey, Cuba and Japan rose up to show that baseball truly is an international game. (Especially Cuba, I think, because of the much tougher path it took to gain the final.)

But baseball back in the Olympics? Very unlikely, I think, for three reasons:

1. The owners are not going to shut down their season even for a week, much less two. They will not want to give up the money at that late point in the season. They will be even more leery of injury than with the Classic. And, unlike the NHL, MLB is not in need of the attention that comes with such a tournament.

2. The IOC really does not want baseball. That is something I saw and heard in abundance when covering the most recent Summer Olympics in Athens. All concerned felt the tournament was awful -- which it was, pitting a bunch of Class AA players against each other -- and were embarrassed by it. Moreover, and maybe more important, there is an IOC perception that baseball is strictly an American sport. This, of course, led to the IOC decision to dump baseball after Beijing, as well as the remarkably unfair call to throw out softball, too. (The women's tournament, though thoroughly dominated by the U.S., did, indeed, pit the best against the best.)

3. By all accounts, the Classic did better than expected for a debut in terms of attendance and ratings, and this without the U.S. barely making a dent. That allows MLB to ride this rather than the Olympics as its primary international vehicle, all while keeping control of the proceedings.

---

In closing ...

I spent the past two weeks back home and working on some stuff that will run in our Sunday paper as part of our five-day Baseball 2006 preview that begins Thursday. I am eager to hear your feedback on it, and I will reserve this space to publish some samplings in the next Q&A.

As always, please remember: Full name and current place of residence are required. Gratuitous mentions of Graham Koonce are not.

---

Until next week, by which point your Pittsburgh Baseball Club could be 2-0 ...