Signing Cutch, or just riding out his contract, is foolish. He's been on an epic slide, and no one ever foresaw that. I can't think of another player at his level that just lost it at such a relatively young age. Amazingly, we're getting a reprieve. He's got his stroke back for the moment. If someone wants his hot bat now, we need to take them up on any serious offer, because he will never again be the player he once was. Even if you have confidence in his swing, consider his knees.
If you can get a great haul for a RELIEF PITCHER, who we have seen time and again can be plucked off the discard pile to great effect (remember all the 'fungible' discussions?), you do it. We've also seen, time and again, how quickly a relief pitcher can go south. This is exactly the sort of situation a team such as the Pirates needs to take advantage of. Sell high. You do not build around a relief pitcher.
I'm not saying you dump either of them for just any return, but you have to consider any reasonable return, particularly for Cutch.
Impact Rookies
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Impact Rookies
I don't think it is foolish if the team can win and make the playoffs. There are free agents every year because of this.
I am not saying to build around a relief pitcher, but Rivero can be good for years. His stock my never drop. Keep him for a while. He can still be a bargain down the road too.
I am not saying to build around a relief pitcher, but Rivero can be good for years. His stock my never drop. Keep him for a while. He can still be a bargain down the road too.
-
Bobster21
Impact Rookies
4348404C4948531610675E464F4848094448270 wrote: If your long term part is at top market value, you will trade him? You will never win that way. You will never have that star player producing because you will be moving him for another player.
For example, if you trade McCutchen and get a younger outfielder in return, you won't get McCutchen production form that player for years to come. Inserting Meadows now wouldn't be the same production. You will be taking a talent hit big time. Then in three years when that player or Meadows is good/great, you will trade that player? When does it stop?
I would rather add to the home grown talent and go for it. We saw what rebuilding can do as the team made the playoffs three years in a row. If you think those players are done and can't repeat, fine. But if you think they still have juice left, they need to bring in others to help.
Personally, I think there is juice left. I don't want to rebuild as I think the core is pretty good. They just need some more pieces.
I agree. A GM has to assemble a roster capable of winning a championship. Success in MLB is measured in championships; not in who makes good trades. It's fine to say we got good value in a trade. But if the trade wasn't part of a plan to compile a championship caliber roster, what good is it?
For example, if you trade McCutchen and get a younger outfielder in return, you won't get McCutchen production form that player for years to come. Inserting Meadows now wouldn't be the same production. You will be taking a talent hit big time. Then in three years when that player or Meadows is good/great, you will trade that player? When does it stop?
I would rather add to the home grown talent and go for it. We saw what rebuilding can do as the team made the playoffs three years in a row. If you think those players are done and can't repeat, fine. But if you think they still have juice left, they need to bring in others to help.
Personally, I think there is juice left. I don't want to rebuild as I think the core is pretty good. They just need some more pieces.
I agree. A GM has to assemble a roster capable of winning a championship. Success in MLB is measured in championships; not in who makes good trades. It's fine to say we got good value in a trade. But if the trade wasn't part of a plan to compile a championship caliber roster, what good is it?
Impact Rookies
587578696E7F68282B1A0 wrote: If your long term part is at top market value, you will trade him? You will never win that way. You will never have that star player producing because you will be moving him for another player.
For example, if you trade McCutchen and get a younger outfielder in return, you won't get McCutchen production form that player for years to come. Inserting Meadows now wouldn't be the same production. You will be taking a talent hit big time. Then in three years when that player or Meadows is good/great, you will trade that player? When does it stop?
I would rather add to the home grown talent and go for it. We saw what rebuilding can do as the team made the playoffs three years in a row. If you think those players are done and can't repeat, fine. But if you think they still have juice left, they need to bring in others to help.
Personally, I think there is juice left. I don't want to rebuild as I think the core is pretty good. They just need some more pieces.
I agree. A GM has to assemble a roster capable of winning a championship. Success in MLB is measured in championships; not in who makes good trades. It's fine to say we got good value in a trade. But if the trade wasn't part of a plan to compile a championship caliber roster, what good is it?
yeah, these posts are right on the money. Sometimes you need to hang onto players because they are helping you win. It could get very discouraging to players to think as soon as I have a good year I'm traded. That would make players worry more about their own stats and take away incentive to win.
For example, if you trade McCutchen and get a younger outfielder in return, you won't get McCutchen production form that player for years to come. Inserting Meadows now wouldn't be the same production. You will be taking a talent hit big time. Then in three years when that player or Meadows is good/great, you will trade that player? When does it stop?
I would rather add to the home grown talent and go for it. We saw what rebuilding can do as the team made the playoffs three years in a row. If you think those players are done and can't repeat, fine. But if you think they still have juice left, they need to bring in others to help.
Personally, I think there is juice left. I don't want to rebuild as I think the core is pretty good. They just need some more pieces.
I agree. A GM has to assemble a roster capable of winning a championship. Success in MLB is measured in championships; not in who makes good trades. It's fine to say we got good value in a trade. But if the trade wasn't part of a plan to compile a championship caliber roster, what good is it?
yeah, these posts are right on the money. Sometimes you need to hang onto players because they are helping you win. It could get very discouraging to players to think as soon as I have a good year I'm traded. That would make players worry more about their own stats and take away incentive to win.
Impact Rookies
5777647978160 wrote: If your long term part is at top market value, you will trade him? You will never win that way. You will never have that star player producing because you will be moving him for another player.
For example, if you trade McCutchen and get a younger outfielder in return, you won't get McCutchen production form that player for years to come. Inserting Meadows now wouldn't be the same production. You will be taking a talent hit big time. Then in three years when that player or Meadows is good/great, you will trade that player? When does it stop?
I would rather add to the home grown talent and go for it. We saw what rebuilding can do as the team made the playoffs three years in a row. If you think those players are done and can't repeat, fine. But if you think they still have juice left, they need to bring in others to help.
Personally, I think there is juice left. I don't want to rebuild as I think the core is pretty good. They just need some more pieces.
I can guarantee you we're not going to get Cutch like production out of Cutch in 2019. The question is what do we have in 2019? A draft pick that realistically won't make the majors until 2023 or several players that will be helpful in 2018 or 2019, perhaps even replacing Cutch? I'd prefer the latter. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I'd be willing to wager that Cutch has hit .250 or less in 6 of the last 9 months. He was hitting .200 36 days ago. If I can get a top 100 prospect position player, a top 100 prospect pitcher and a lottery ticket for him, I'll cash that in now. We are seven game under .500. We were around 7games under .500 when Cutch got hot.
My idea would to be a hybrid of Giles and Bay as well as what we've done with our current outfield.. Bay replaced Giles and also got us Perer. The Giles trade replaced Giles and got us a starter.
Same with Hammer for Melancon and now Melancon for Rivero.
(To segway myself, I would trade Rivero if an amazing offer came in. I'd rather have six years (18 total years) of a ss, an of, and a sp than five years of a lights out closer. I think Rivero might be the most valuable trade piece in baseball at this moment. I'd exploite that).
I would then attempt to sign them under market value (like Marte and Polanco) early in the cycle and start shopping them with two years left on the deal (like Cutch).
Instead of rebuilding, I would constantly be tweaking. I'm not trying to trade anyone early in the process (Bell and Taillon are going nowhere), but trying to replace them late in the contract when their bargain salary (signed five years ago) along with the talent can bring back multiple assets.
I'd also look to deal players who aren't in favor of extensions (Cole?) when they get expensive to optimize return.
To sum up, I'm a Pirates fan first. I want them to win, and set themselves to win in the future.
I doubt I've ever enjoyed a baseball player more than Cutch. I hope to meet him one day and thank him for all the memories and joy I received from watching him play.....but I'd deal him tomorrow if it made us better in 18 and beyond.
Sorry for the long post. All my customers are doing inventory heading into the fourth, so I've got a little free time.
You're not allowed to speculate on this stuff without specific names.
I want names.
Go back about three posts. I said I didn't know Cutch's market but absolutely gave names for Cole and Rivero.
I'm sure someone thinks you are witty.
For example, if you trade McCutchen and get a younger outfielder in return, you won't get McCutchen production form that player for years to come. Inserting Meadows now wouldn't be the same production. You will be taking a talent hit big time. Then in three years when that player or Meadows is good/great, you will trade that player? When does it stop?
I would rather add to the home grown talent and go for it. We saw what rebuilding can do as the team made the playoffs three years in a row. If you think those players are done and can't repeat, fine. But if you think they still have juice left, they need to bring in others to help.
Personally, I think there is juice left. I don't want to rebuild as I think the core is pretty good. They just need some more pieces.
I can guarantee you we're not going to get Cutch like production out of Cutch in 2019. The question is what do we have in 2019? A draft pick that realistically won't make the majors until 2023 or several players that will be helpful in 2018 or 2019, perhaps even replacing Cutch? I'd prefer the latter. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I'd be willing to wager that Cutch has hit .250 or less in 6 of the last 9 months. He was hitting .200 36 days ago. If I can get a top 100 prospect position player, a top 100 prospect pitcher and a lottery ticket for him, I'll cash that in now. We are seven game under .500. We were around 7games under .500 when Cutch got hot.
My idea would to be a hybrid of Giles and Bay as well as what we've done with our current outfield.. Bay replaced Giles and also got us Perer. The Giles trade replaced Giles and got us a starter.
Same with Hammer for Melancon and now Melancon for Rivero.
(To segway myself, I would trade Rivero if an amazing offer came in. I'd rather have six years (18 total years) of a ss, an of, and a sp than five years of a lights out closer. I think Rivero might be the most valuable trade piece in baseball at this moment. I'd exploite that).
I would then attempt to sign them under market value (like Marte and Polanco) early in the cycle and start shopping them with two years left on the deal (like Cutch).
Instead of rebuilding, I would constantly be tweaking. I'm not trying to trade anyone early in the process (Bell and Taillon are going nowhere), but trying to replace them late in the contract when their bargain salary (signed five years ago) along with the talent can bring back multiple assets.
I'd also look to deal players who aren't in favor of extensions (Cole?) when they get expensive to optimize return.
To sum up, I'm a Pirates fan first. I want them to win, and set themselves to win in the future.
I doubt I've ever enjoyed a baseball player more than Cutch. I hope to meet him one day and thank him for all the memories and joy I received from watching him play.....but I'd deal him tomorrow if it made us better in 18 and beyond.
Sorry for the long post. All my customers are doing inventory heading into the fourth, so I've got a little free time.
You're not allowed to speculate on this stuff without specific names.
I want names.
Go back about three posts. I said I didn't know Cutch's market but absolutely gave names for Cole and Rivero.
I'm sure someone thinks you are witty.
Impact Rookies
313A323E3B3A216462152C343D3A3A7B363A550 wrote: Tintin,
You would hav traded McCutchen after 2012. He wouldn't have been around for the playoff run.
You would have traded Harrison after 2015. Cole would have been gone then too.
When were you trading Walker, Alvarez, Liriano, Burnett, and Martin? They peaked so the Pirates could make their run. In your situation, you would have dealt them.
Again, when does it stop? Why trade Rivero now instead of using him for at least the next four years? He might never have this type of season again, but he could still be a top relief pitcher for years to come.
No I would have looked to deal Mccutchen last offseason, but would have hesitated due to his poor performance in 2017. I would absolutely be looking to deal him right now.
If Josh can keep his performance going thru 2018, I'd start
Looking to deal him...with two years on his deal.
I'm not trying to trade anyone at peak with five years left on a deal. I'm looking to deal when they have 18 month left to be a pirate. The exception is Rivero as I feel like he could bring back a kings ransom and I feel a closer is a luxury. If I could pull a good defensive ss, a starting pitcher and a hard throw lottery ticket, I'd absolutely deal him.
You would hav traded McCutchen after 2012. He wouldn't have been around for the playoff run.
You would have traded Harrison after 2015. Cole would have been gone then too.
When were you trading Walker, Alvarez, Liriano, Burnett, and Martin? They peaked so the Pirates could make their run. In your situation, you would have dealt them.
Again, when does it stop? Why trade Rivero now instead of using him for at least the next four years? He might never have this type of season again, but he could still be a top relief pitcher for years to come.
No I would have looked to deal Mccutchen last offseason, but would have hesitated due to his poor performance in 2017. I would absolutely be looking to deal him right now.
If Josh can keep his performance going thru 2018, I'd start
Looking to deal him...with two years on his deal.
I'm not trying to trade anyone at peak with five years left on a deal. I'm looking to deal when they have 18 month left to be a pirate. The exception is Rivero as I feel like he could bring back a kings ransom and I feel a closer is a luxury. If I could pull a good defensive ss, a starting pitcher and a hard throw lottery ticket, I'd absolutely deal him.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Impact Rookies
So, you are dealing when they have two years left on their deal? My point is there is a time you have to play it out. Players are signed long term to win during their time. They aren't signed to be dealt.
Impact Rookies
7279717D7879622721566F777E7979387579160 wrote: So, you are dealing when they have two years left on their deal? My point is there is a time you have to play it out. Players are signed long term to win during their time. They aren't signed to be dealt.
That's hidebound, binary thinking. If the team isn't going to win in the short term, then you deal for players that will be here when the team can win. You can't build entirely from drafting, and ownership can't/won't drop a bundle on the free agent market, so trades are necessary.
Your thinking would have players stay here when the team is not going to make the playoffs, then walk off with nothing to show for it. We should take that 18 months of value that isn't much help currently and parlay that into years of value in the future, when it will hopefully contribute to a team not stinking up the league.
Do you honestly think this team is a team that can make it to the playoffs on their own merit? Do you believe they can possibly get past the first round of playoffs even if every team in the division hands it to them? There are years to go all-in. 2015 was one. I don't think 2017 is. You may disagree.
That's hidebound, binary thinking. If the team isn't going to win in the short term, then you deal for players that will be here when the team can win. You can't build entirely from drafting, and ownership can't/won't drop a bundle on the free agent market, so trades are necessary.
Your thinking would have players stay here when the team is not going to make the playoffs, then walk off with nothing to show for it. We should take that 18 months of value that isn't much help currently and parlay that into years of value in the future, when it will hopefully contribute to a team not stinking up the league.
Do you honestly think this team is a team that can make it to the playoffs on their own merit? Do you believe they can possibly get past the first round of playoffs even if every team in the division hands it to them? There are years to go all-in. 2015 was one. I don't think 2017 is. You may disagree.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Impact Rookies
I am just saying there is a time to extend players and play it out. In Tintin's scenario, McCutchen would have never been extended. The same with Marte, Harrison.
I do think this team can make the playoffs. I really did at the beginning of the season when Mart and Kang were Pirates. Those two were a big blow. No doubt in my mind if they were both on the team, the Pirates would be in first place.
I also think once a team makes the playoffs, they can advance. Many Wild Card teams have advanced and made the World Series.
My point is that you can't always just trade players at their peak value all the time. The Pirates wouldn't have made the playoffs in 2014 because Martin and Walker would have been dealt at the deadline. McCutchen too.
I do think this team can make the playoffs. I really did at the beginning of the season when Mart and Kang were Pirates. Those two were a big blow. No doubt in my mind if they were both on the team, the Pirates would be in first place.
I also think once a team makes the playoffs, they can advance. Many Wild Card teams have advanced and made the World Series.
My point is that you can't always just trade players at their peak value all the time. The Pirates wouldn't have made the playoffs in 2014 because Martin and Walker would have been dealt at the deadline. McCutchen too.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Impact Rookies
It's not "one or the other" it's "yes and". It's gotta be.
Good young talent has to be extended when ever possible for a mutually beneficial contract. Then most (if not all, maybe there is an occasional exception) of these players are flipped to a bigger mkt team at about the 2 year mark. So the Pirates get a few of the very-prime years.
The flip keeps the pipeline full. It is essential IF you want the Pirates to stay competitive. But you can only flip IF you have good young talent ready to step into the same role as the flipped player.
Second - i have to say, our player development must be excellent and I question whether it is. Specifically, Neal and his team MUST know whether a Polanco or Hanson or Newman or Glasnow, etc etc are truly good enough to take over their spot when the time is right. They have to know how to trade the maturing contracts to provide the next guy to step up and they gave to know how to trade prospects at the right time.
Good young talent has to be extended when ever possible for a mutually beneficial contract. Then most (if not all, maybe there is an occasional exception) of these players are flipped to a bigger mkt team at about the 2 year mark. So the Pirates get a few of the very-prime years.
The flip keeps the pipeline full. It is essential IF you want the Pirates to stay competitive. But you can only flip IF you have good young talent ready to step into the same role as the flipped player.
Second - i have to say, our player development must be excellent and I question whether it is. Specifically, Neal and his team MUST know whether a Polanco or Hanson or Newman or Glasnow, etc etc are truly good enough to take over their spot when the time is right. They have to know how to trade the maturing contracts to provide the next guy to step up and they gave to know how to trade prospects at the right time.