0322373E063F24372233560 wrote: With the dust settling a little, here's a Fangraphs analysis of the trade (surprised to see their 55FV for Musgrove):
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the ... e-players/
That is a really interesting read. Thanks for posting it.
We are not rebuilding.
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
We are not rebuilding.
:'( :'(74554049714853405544210 wrote: With the dust settling a little, here's a Fangraphs analysis of the trade (surprised to see their 55FV for Musgrove):
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the ... e-players/
I will take the opposite side. There's a bunch a nonsense in that article. Always good reading. Lots of questionable assumptions and fence sitting
It comical how precise some of these pundits believe their valuations to be. It's a weather forecast.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the ... e-players/
I will take the opposite side. There's a bunch a nonsense in that article. Always good reading. Lots of questionable assumptions and fence sitting
It comical how precise some of these pundits believe their valuations to be. It's a weather forecast.
We are not rebuilding.
65785C5E50350 wrote: With the dust settling a little, here's a Fangraphs analysis of the trade (surprised to see their 55FV for Musgrove):
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the ... e-players/
That is a really interesting read. Thanks for posting it.
I agree, thanks for posting.
One question for the Pirates is whether they are ever going to decide if they will follow the Cardinals route and make a deal for someone like Osuna.
Another is whether making deals like this can ever move the line enough to help the team become a contender or do they just help the team get a bunch of potential average to above average players.
One criticism of the article that I read on another board (hope I am phrasing this right) is that it is basically saying a team like the Pirates needs to take what it can get, the high ceiling players will always end up elsewhere.
Getting 15 1 WAR seasons from players acquired is not nearly as helpful as getting 3 or 4 WAR seasons for a couple years.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the ... e-players/
That is a really interesting read. Thanks for posting it.
I agree, thanks for posting.
One question for the Pirates is whether they are ever going to decide if they will follow the Cardinals route and make a deal for someone like Osuna.
Another is whether making deals like this can ever move the line enough to help the team become a contender or do they just help the team get a bunch of potential average to above average players.
One criticism of the article that I read on another board (hope I am phrasing this right) is that it is basically saying a team like the Pirates needs to take what it can get, the high ceiling players will always end up elsewhere.
Getting 15 1 WAR seasons from players acquired is not nearly as helpful as getting 3 or 4 WAR seasons for a couple years.
We are not rebuilding.
5776636A526B70637667020 wrote: With the dust settling a little, here's a Fangraphs analysis of the trade (surprised to see their 55FV for Musgrove):
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the ... e-players/
Good article. I think it's sound reasoning. The author puts into words what I kind of was feeling instinctively. The problem still goes back to 2015 offseason. But, you can't change the past. These two moves had to be done.
I get a kick out of the comments section, particularly the one that said the Pirates will have about $70 million to spend on FAs next year. "Pirates" and "spending on FAs" should not be used in the same sentence, unless separated by the word "not."
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the ... e-players/
Good article. I think it's sound reasoning. The author puts into words what I kind of was feeling instinctively. The problem still goes back to 2015 offseason. But, you can't change the past. These two moves had to be done.
I get a kick out of the comments section, particularly the one that said the Pirates will have about $70 million to spend on FAs next year. "Pirates" and "spending on FAs" should not be used in the same sentence, unless separated by the word "not."