1808093E2828244B0 wrote: I don't think there's a 3Bman worth targeting that will be on the market. It's a spot I'd like to add to on the roster though. It could also be improved by adding a solid 2Bman so Harrison could move over more to rest Freese.
Depending on injuries, a 4th OFer could add to the team.
Kendrick or Nava from Phils as 4th OFer - though I'm not sure either adds a lot over Frazier/Jaso.
I would add to the bullpen. Brad Brach from the O's would be a great addition to the late inning guys in the pen. Controlled through '18 as well, so he'd cost more but would be around to help next year with Nicasio and Watson leaving.
Neshek from the Phils has been discussed. He'll be in high demand. Kela from Texas could be a Rivero-like get, but Texas will want prospects. Maybe Blake Parker from the Angels? His success is new this year. If scouting found a change that could explain the success, he'd be worth going after. Ditto for Kirby Yates of SD.
I would love to get Brach too, however, Baltimore could be trading Britton, so ...
I don't have faith in this FO making a good impact deal if we are still in this thing. I think we need a fourth starter. Sorry, Kuhl isn't a four. He has close to a 5 ERA. Teams will go out and fill needs for the stretch run with solid gets. Then, there is us trying to get the next reclamation project and hope he works out.
You didn't like the moves Huntington has made at the deadline in the past?
I prefer to bring in impact players that help ... not have to hope reclamation projects work out. If you are going to go for it and not trade Cutch, then you better go for it and not subject bringing in reclamation projects - otherwise, you lost a great chance to get a very good return on Cutch and will regret not moving him. It's counter productive.
Who are you referring to? Most of Huntington's trades were very big impacts.
Trade Deadline Thread
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Trade Deadline Thread
3F343C3035342F6A6C1B223A3334347538345B0 wrote: I don't think there's a 3Bman worth targeting that will be on the market. It's a spot I'd like to add to on the roster though. It could also be improved by adding a solid 2Bman so Harrison could move over more to rest Freese.
Depending on injuries, a 4th OFer could add to the team.
Kendrick or Nava from Phils as 4th OFer - though I'm not sure either adds a lot over Frazier/Jaso.
I would add to the bullpen. Brad Brach from the O's would be a great addition to the late inning guys in the pen. Controlled through '18 as well, so he'd cost more but would be around to help next year with Nicasio and Watson leaving.
Neshek from the Phils has been discussed. He'll be in high demand. Kela from Texas could be a Rivero-like get, but Texas will want prospects. Maybe Blake Parker from the Angels? His success is new this year. If scouting found a change that could explain the success, he'd be worth going after. Ditto for Kirby Yates of SD.
I would love to get Brach too, however, Baltimore could be trading Britton, so ...
I don't have faith in this FO making a good impact deal if we are still in this thing. I think we need a fourth starter. Sorry, Kuhl isn't a four. He has close to a 5 ERA. Teams will go out and fill needs for the stretch run with solid gets. Then, there is us trying to get the next reclamation project and hope he works out.
You didn't like the moves Huntington has made at the deadline in the past?
I prefer to bring in impact players that help ... not have to hope reclamation projects work out. If you are going to go for it and not trade Cutch, then you better go for it and not subject bringing in reclamation projects - otherwise, you lost a great chance to get a very good return on Cutch and will regret not moving him. It's counter productive.
Who are you referring to? Most of Huntington's trades were very big impacts.
It's not hard. Someone with a good tract record that we don't have to hope like hell works out. Stop defending the cheapness of this organization. The Cubs get Quintana, we get the next Kyle Lohse. That is what we end up getting.
Depending on injuries, a 4th OFer could add to the team.
Kendrick or Nava from Phils as 4th OFer - though I'm not sure either adds a lot over Frazier/Jaso.
I would add to the bullpen. Brad Brach from the O's would be a great addition to the late inning guys in the pen. Controlled through '18 as well, so he'd cost more but would be around to help next year with Nicasio and Watson leaving.
Neshek from the Phils has been discussed. He'll be in high demand. Kela from Texas could be a Rivero-like get, but Texas will want prospects. Maybe Blake Parker from the Angels? His success is new this year. If scouting found a change that could explain the success, he'd be worth going after. Ditto for Kirby Yates of SD.
I would love to get Brach too, however, Baltimore could be trading Britton, so ...
I don't have faith in this FO making a good impact deal if we are still in this thing. I think we need a fourth starter. Sorry, Kuhl isn't a four. He has close to a 5 ERA. Teams will go out and fill needs for the stretch run with solid gets. Then, there is us trying to get the next reclamation project and hope he works out.
You didn't like the moves Huntington has made at the deadline in the past?
I prefer to bring in impact players that help ... not have to hope reclamation projects work out. If you are going to go for it and not trade Cutch, then you better go for it and not subject bringing in reclamation projects - otherwise, you lost a great chance to get a very good return on Cutch and will regret not moving him. It's counter productive.
Who are you referring to? Most of Huntington's trades were very big impacts.
It's not hard. Someone with a good tract record that we don't have to hope like hell works out. Stop defending the cheapness of this organization. The Cubs get Quintana, we get the next Kyle Lohse. That is what we end up getting.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Trade Deadline Thread
Huntington has added every year at the deadline. You are acting like he hasn't a done a good job. I thought the Pirates have adds more payroll at the deadline than most too.
Again, what players were added were not big impacts?
Again, what players were added were not big impacts?
Trade Deadline Thread
4B6A7F764E776C7F6A7B1E0 wrote:
Strongly disagree. We may not compete with LA, NY, or Chicago, but we certainly have the financial where with all to support an average ML Payroll which is roughly 150M now. Our revenue is middle of the pack yet our payroll is in the bottom 5. In addition you fail to recognize the huge increase in value of the franchise. Nutting has netted a 1 Billion increase in value since he became majority owner. That's right 1 BILLION with a B. He gains 80 million a year on franchise value alone. He could borrow on his equity and put 80 million towards payroll and see that be replaced the following year. We can certainly afford 2 or 3 market value contracts. He just won't do it!!
That's the issue. Nutting apologists try to discredit calls to increase payroll by mischaracterizing that as a call to compete with the biggest spenders in MLB. No one is asking for that! All anyone wants is a modest middle of the road payroll instead of the customary bottom 5 or 6 ranking regardless of revenue.
I'm not sure I've read a post by a person here that I'd call a Nutting apologist. I don't think any of us like how tight-fisted he runs the club we love. I don't think any of us buy into the hypocritical press statements we hear from the Nutting camp either. I think everyone here would love to see him sell the Pirates to someone who would loosen the purse strings and let us really compete.
I do think there are posters who see Nutting as the reality and perhaps apologize for NH's moves based on what we see as that reality. That's where this thread has headed -- Tintin (mostly) making a trade argument that resulted in financial flexibility, which he defines broadly (as do I). And others saying that said flexibility only directly resulted in certain actions by our GM -- how any of us know what financial flexibility actually meant to NH, I haven't a clue.
And then in the end it melts completely down to the Nutting is cheap argument. I've never read one poster justifying Nutting and apologizing for his cheapness. The amount of Nutting angst seemed to differ with posters. There are NH apologists -- and I think he does a really good job, as Tintin put it, "with one hand tied behind his back" -- but there are absolutely zero Nutting apologists on this board by my count.
Disagree strongly. Like any unpopular position, they hide their apologism behind a veil of "baseball decisions".
It doesn't matter what any of us think anyway really, but when fans tell other fans to just be happy with the perpetually low payroll and bottom trawling for talent, they're apologizing for Nutting, not NH.
Strongly disagree. We may not compete with LA, NY, or Chicago, but we certainly have the financial where with all to support an average ML Payroll which is roughly 150M now. Our revenue is middle of the pack yet our payroll is in the bottom 5. In addition you fail to recognize the huge increase in value of the franchise. Nutting has netted a 1 Billion increase in value since he became majority owner. That's right 1 BILLION with a B. He gains 80 million a year on franchise value alone. He could borrow on his equity and put 80 million towards payroll and see that be replaced the following year. We can certainly afford 2 or 3 market value contracts. He just won't do it!!
That's the issue. Nutting apologists try to discredit calls to increase payroll by mischaracterizing that as a call to compete with the biggest spenders in MLB. No one is asking for that! All anyone wants is a modest middle of the road payroll instead of the customary bottom 5 or 6 ranking regardless of revenue.
I'm not sure I've read a post by a person here that I'd call a Nutting apologist. I don't think any of us like how tight-fisted he runs the club we love. I don't think any of us buy into the hypocritical press statements we hear from the Nutting camp either. I think everyone here would love to see him sell the Pirates to someone who would loosen the purse strings and let us really compete.
I do think there are posters who see Nutting as the reality and perhaps apologize for NH's moves based on what we see as that reality. That's where this thread has headed -- Tintin (mostly) making a trade argument that resulted in financial flexibility, which he defines broadly (as do I). And others saying that said flexibility only directly resulted in certain actions by our GM -- how any of us know what financial flexibility actually meant to NH, I haven't a clue.
And then in the end it melts completely down to the Nutting is cheap argument. I've never read one poster justifying Nutting and apologizing for his cheapness. The amount of Nutting angst seemed to differ with posters. There are NH apologists -- and I think he does a really good job, as Tintin put it, "with one hand tied behind his back" -- but there are absolutely zero Nutting apologists on this board by my count.
Disagree strongly. Like any unpopular position, they hide their apologism behind a veil of "baseball decisions".
It doesn't matter what any of us think anyway really, but when fans tell other fans to just be happy with the perpetually low payroll and bottom trawling for talent, they're apologizing for Nutting, not NH.
Trade Deadline Thread
023F38223F38560 wrote:
Strongly disagree. We may not compete with LA, NY, or Chicago, but we certainly have the financial where with all to support an average ML Payroll which is roughly 150M now. Our revenue is middle of the pack yet our payroll is in the bottom 5. In addition you fail to recognize the huge increase in value of the franchise. Nutting has netted a 1 Billion increase in value since he became majority owner. That's right 1 BILLION with a B. He gains 80 million a year on franchise value alone. He could borrow on his equity and put 80 million towards payroll and see that be replaced the following year. We can certainly afford 2 or 3 market value contracts. He just won't do it!!
That's the issue. Nutting apologists try to discredit calls to increase payroll by mischaracterizing that as a call to compete with the biggest spenders in MLB. No one is asking for that! All anyone wants is a modest middle of the road payroll instead of the customary bottom 5 or 6 ranking regardless of revenue.
I'm not sure I've read a post by a person here that I'd call a Nutting apologist. I don't think any of us like how tight-fisted he runs the club we love. I don't think any of us buy into the hypocritical press statements we hear from the Nutting camp either. I think everyone here would love to see him sell the Pirates to someone who would loosen the purse strings and let us really compete.
I do think there are posters who see Nutting as the reality and perhaps apologize for NH's moves based on what we see as that reality. That's where this thread has headed -- Tintin (mostly) making a trade argument that resulted in financial flexibility, which he defines broadly (as do I). And others saying that said flexibility only directly resulted in certain actions by our GM -- how any of us know what financial flexibility actually meant to NH, I haven't a clue.
And then in the end it melts completely down to the Nutting is cheap argument. I've never read one poster justifying Nutting and apologizing for his cheapness. The amount of Nutting angst seemed to differ with posters. There are NH apologists -- and I think he does a really good job, as Tintin put it, "with one hand tied behind his back" -- but there are absolutely zero Nutting apologists on this board by my count.
And that's my point. Most of the people who don't like the Liriano trade don't like it from a baseball philosophy standpoint. I like it because it got rid of a cancer and saved 20 million dollars, which allowed us to get better players under contract. So we lost a bunch of prospect who likely won't pan out.
As for Nutting, I wish he would spend more money, but guess what? He's not going to. He's simply isn't going to.
What better players? David Freese and Nova for half a season? Freese was already here. Nova was a half season rental.
Why are you buying the crap that's being sold to you that it's impossible for this org to have a 115 million payroll instead of opening the season at 93?
They're selling you garbage.
Strongly disagree. We may not compete with LA, NY, or Chicago, but we certainly have the financial where with all to support an average ML Payroll which is roughly 150M now. Our revenue is middle of the pack yet our payroll is in the bottom 5. In addition you fail to recognize the huge increase in value of the franchise. Nutting has netted a 1 Billion increase in value since he became majority owner. That's right 1 BILLION with a B. He gains 80 million a year on franchise value alone. He could borrow on his equity and put 80 million towards payroll and see that be replaced the following year. We can certainly afford 2 or 3 market value contracts. He just won't do it!!
That's the issue. Nutting apologists try to discredit calls to increase payroll by mischaracterizing that as a call to compete with the biggest spenders in MLB. No one is asking for that! All anyone wants is a modest middle of the road payroll instead of the customary bottom 5 or 6 ranking regardless of revenue.
I'm not sure I've read a post by a person here that I'd call a Nutting apologist. I don't think any of us like how tight-fisted he runs the club we love. I don't think any of us buy into the hypocritical press statements we hear from the Nutting camp either. I think everyone here would love to see him sell the Pirates to someone who would loosen the purse strings and let us really compete.
I do think there are posters who see Nutting as the reality and perhaps apologize for NH's moves based on what we see as that reality. That's where this thread has headed -- Tintin (mostly) making a trade argument that resulted in financial flexibility, which he defines broadly (as do I). And others saying that said flexibility only directly resulted in certain actions by our GM -- how any of us know what financial flexibility actually meant to NH, I haven't a clue.
And then in the end it melts completely down to the Nutting is cheap argument. I've never read one poster justifying Nutting and apologizing for his cheapness. The amount of Nutting angst seemed to differ with posters. There are NH apologists -- and I think he does a really good job, as Tintin put it, "with one hand tied behind his back" -- but there are absolutely zero Nutting apologists on this board by my count.
And that's my point. Most of the people who don't like the Liriano trade don't like it from a baseball philosophy standpoint. I like it because it got rid of a cancer and saved 20 million dollars, which allowed us to get better players under contract. So we lost a bunch of prospect who likely won't pan out.
As for Nutting, I wish he would spend more money, but guess what? He's not going to. He's simply isn't going to.
What better players? David Freese and Nova for half a season? Freese was already here. Nova was a half season rental.
Why are you buying the crap that's being sold to you that it's impossible for this org to have a 115 million payroll instead of opening the season at 93?
They're selling you garbage.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Trade Deadline Thread
575E564749330 wrote:
Strongly disagree. We may not compete with LA, NY, or Chicago, but we certainly have the financial where with all to support an average ML Payroll which is roughly 150M now. Our revenue is middle of the pack yet our payroll is in the bottom 5. In addition you fail to recognize the huge increase in value of the franchise. Nutting has netted a 1 Billion increase in value since he became majority owner. That's right 1 BILLION with a B. He gains 80 million a year on franchise value alone. He could borrow on his equity and put 80 million towards payroll and see that be replaced the following year. We can certainly afford 2 or 3 market value contracts. He just won't do it!!
That's the issue. Nutting apologists try to discredit calls to increase payroll by mischaracterizing that as a call to compete with the biggest spenders in MLB. No one is asking for that! All anyone wants is a modest middle of the road payroll instead of the customary bottom 5 or 6 ranking regardless of revenue.
I'm not sure I've read a post by a person here that I'd call a Nutting apologist. I don't think any of us like how tight-fisted he runs the club we love. I don't think any of us buy into the hypocritical press statements we hear from the Nutting camp either. I think everyone here would love to see him sell the Pirates to someone who would loosen the purse strings and let us really compete.
I do think there are posters who see Nutting as the reality and perhaps apologize for NH's moves based on what we see as that reality. That's where this thread has headed -- Tintin (mostly) making a trade argument that resulted in financial flexibility, which he defines broadly (as do I). And others saying that said flexibility only directly resulted in certain actions by our GM -- how any of us know what financial flexibility actually meant to NH, I haven't a clue.
And then in the end it melts completely down to the Nutting is cheap argument. I've never read one poster justifying Nutting and apologizing for his cheapness. The amount of Nutting angst seemed to differ with posters. There are NH apologists -- and I think he does a really good job, as Tintin put it, "with one hand tied behind his back" -- but there are absolutely zero Nutting apologists on this board by my count.
Disagree strongly. Like any unpopular position, they hide their apologism behind a veil of "baseball decisions".
It doesn't matter what any of us think anyway really, but when fans tell other fans to just be happy with the perpetually low payroll and bottom trawling for talent, they're apologizing for Nutting, not NH.
Yep. There are definitely apologists on here. Kind of confused that anyone would think otherwise.
The Larinio trade is an example. Trading prospects for a salary dump is terrible baseball and I doubt MLB will sit on its hands if it happens again. Baseball is a game of perecentages. Signing players is a game of percentages. One "bad" contract and the Pirates suddenly are unable to do ANYYHING financially unless it's unloaded at any cost? Sorry, if Nutting can't pick up X% of a traded contract then get the heck out of the game, because that's how the rest of MLB manages their percentage of bad contracts.
Then to justify the "trade", the prospects are assigned zero value. Toronto apparently thinks there is some value. Matter of fact every prospect list said they had value.
DEFENDING (which is very different than shrugging shoulders and saying "what can I do?") the owner for refusing to manage a "bad" contract like the rest of baseball, assigning zero value to the prospects, calling Larinio a "cancer" - that's not apologist?
I don't care if someone is an apologist, not at all. Just name it. Defend the owner and at the same time accuse someone else of being a cancer or having zero value - that's an Apologists it seems to me.
Strongly disagree. We may not compete with LA, NY, or Chicago, but we certainly have the financial where with all to support an average ML Payroll which is roughly 150M now. Our revenue is middle of the pack yet our payroll is in the bottom 5. In addition you fail to recognize the huge increase in value of the franchise. Nutting has netted a 1 Billion increase in value since he became majority owner. That's right 1 BILLION with a B. He gains 80 million a year on franchise value alone. He could borrow on his equity and put 80 million towards payroll and see that be replaced the following year. We can certainly afford 2 or 3 market value contracts. He just won't do it!!
That's the issue. Nutting apologists try to discredit calls to increase payroll by mischaracterizing that as a call to compete with the biggest spenders in MLB. No one is asking for that! All anyone wants is a modest middle of the road payroll instead of the customary bottom 5 or 6 ranking regardless of revenue.
I'm not sure I've read a post by a person here that I'd call a Nutting apologist. I don't think any of us like how tight-fisted he runs the club we love. I don't think any of us buy into the hypocritical press statements we hear from the Nutting camp either. I think everyone here would love to see him sell the Pirates to someone who would loosen the purse strings and let us really compete.
I do think there are posters who see Nutting as the reality and perhaps apologize for NH's moves based on what we see as that reality. That's where this thread has headed -- Tintin (mostly) making a trade argument that resulted in financial flexibility, which he defines broadly (as do I). And others saying that said flexibility only directly resulted in certain actions by our GM -- how any of us know what financial flexibility actually meant to NH, I haven't a clue.
And then in the end it melts completely down to the Nutting is cheap argument. I've never read one poster justifying Nutting and apologizing for his cheapness. The amount of Nutting angst seemed to differ with posters. There are NH apologists -- and I think he does a really good job, as Tintin put it, "with one hand tied behind his back" -- but there are absolutely zero Nutting apologists on this board by my count.
Disagree strongly. Like any unpopular position, they hide their apologism behind a veil of "baseball decisions".
It doesn't matter what any of us think anyway really, but when fans tell other fans to just be happy with the perpetually low payroll and bottom trawling for talent, they're apologizing for Nutting, not NH.
Yep. There are definitely apologists on here. Kind of confused that anyone would think otherwise.
The Larinio trade is an example. Trading prospects for a salary dump is terrible baseball and I doubt MLB will sit on its hands if it happens again. Baseball is a game of perecentages. Signing players is a game of percentages. One "bad" contract and the Pirates suddenly are unable to do ANYYHING financially unless it's unloaded at any cost? Sorry, if Nutting can't pick up X% of a traded contract then get the heck out of the game, because that's how the rest of MLB manages their percentage of bad contracts.
Then to justify the "trade", the prospects are assigned zero value. Toronto apparently thinks there is some value. Matter of fact every prospect list said they had value.
DEFENDING (which is very different than shrugging shoulders and saying "what can I do?") the owner for refusing to manage a "bad" contract like the rest of baseball, assigning zero value to the prospects, calling Larinio a "cancer" - that's not apologist?
I don't care if someone is an apologist, not at all. Just name it. Defend the owner and at the same time accuse someone else of being a cancer or having zero value - that's an Apologists it seems to me.
Trade Deadline Thread
262F273638420 wrote:
Strongly disagree. We may not compete with LA, NY, or Chicago, but we certainly have the financial where with all to support an average ML Payroll which is roughly 150M now. Our revenue is middle of the pack yet our payroll is in the bottom 5. In addition you fail to recognize the huge increase in value of the franchise. Nutting has netted a 1 Billion increase in value since he became majority owner. That's right 1 BILLION with a B. He gains 80 million a year on franchise value alone. He could borrow on his equity and put 80 million towards payroll and see that be replaced the following year. We can certainly afford 2 or 3 market value contracts. He just won't do it!!
That's the issue. Nutting apologists try to discredit calls to increase payroll by mischaracterizing that as a call to compete with the biggest spenders in MLB. No one is asking for that! All anyone wants is a modest middle of the road payroll instead of the customary bottom 5 or 6 ranking regardless of revenue.
I'm not sure I've read a post by a person here that I'd call a Nutting apologist. I don't think any of us like how tight-fisted he runs the club we love. I don't think any of us buy into the hypocritical press statements we hear from the Nutting camp either. I think everyone here would love to see him sell the Pirates to someone who would loosen the purse strings and let us really compete.
I do think there are posters who see Nutting as the reality and perhaps apologize for NH's moves based on what we see as that reality. That's where this thread has headed -- Tintin (mostly) making a trade argument that resulted in financial flexibility, which he defines broadly (as do I). And others saying that said flexibility only directly resulted in certain actions by our GM -- how any of us know what financial flexibility actually meant to NH, I haven't a clue.
And then in the end it melts completely down to the Nutting is cheap argument. I've never read one poster justifying Nutting and apologizing for his cheapness. The amount of Nutting angst seemed to differ with posters. There are NH apologists -- and I think he does a really good job, as Tintin put it, "with one hand tied behind his back" -- but there are absolutely zero Nutting apologists on this board by my count.
And that's my point. Most of the people who don't like the Liriano trade don't like it from a baseball philosophy standpoint. I like it because it got rid of a cancer and saved 20 million dollars, which allowed us to get better players under contract. So we lost a bunch of prospect who likely won't pan out.
As for Nutting, I wish he would spend more money, but guess what? He's not going to. He's simply isn't going to.
What better players? David Freese and Nova for half a season? Freese was already here. Nova was a half season rental.
Why are you buying the crap that's being sold to you that it's impossible for this org to have a 115 million payroll instead of opening the season at 93?
They're selling you garbage.
You'd rather have Liriano and a 113 million payroll than Nova and a 93 million dollar payroll?
Strongly disagree. We may not compete with LA, NY, or Chicago, but we certainly have the financial where with all to support an average ML Payroll which is roughly 150M now. Our revenue is middle of the pack yet our payroll is in the bottom 5. In addition you fail to recognize the huge increase in value of the franchise. Nutting has netted a 1 Billion increase in value since he became majority owner. That's right 1 BILLION with a B. He gains 80 million a year on franchise value alone. He could borrow on his equity and put 80 million towards payroll and see that be replaced the following year. We can certainly afford 2 or 3 market value contracts. He just won't do it!!
That's the issue. Nutting apologists try to discredit calls to increase payroll by mischaracterizing that as a call to compete with the biggest spenders in MLB. No one is asking for that! All anyone wants is a modest middle of the road payroll instead of the customary bottom 5 or 6 ranking regardless of revenue.
I'm not sure I've read a post by a person here that I'd call a Nutting apologist. I don't think any of us like how tight-fisted he runs the club we love. I don't think any of us buy into the hypocritical press statements we hear from the Nutting camp either. I think everyone here would love to see him sell the Pirates to someone who would loosen the purse strings and let us really compete.
I do think there are posters who see Nutting as the reality and perhaps apologize for NH's moves based on what we see as that reality. That's where this thread has headed -- Tintin (mostly) making a trade argument that resulted in financial flexibility, which he defines broadly (as do I). And others saying that said flexibility only directly resulted in certain actions by our GM -- how any of us know what financial flexibility actually meant to NH, I haven't a clue.
And then in the end it melts completely down to the Nutting is cheap argument. I've never read one poster justifying Nutting and apologizing for his cheapness. The amount of Nutting angst seemed to differ with posters. There are NH apologists -- and I think he does a really good job, as Tintin put it, "with one hand tied behind his back" -- but there are absolutely zero Nutting apologists on this board by my count.
And that's my point. Most of the people who don't like the Liriano trade don't like it from a baseball philosophy standpoint. I like it because it got rid of a cancer and saved 20 million dollars, which allowed us to get better players under contract. So we lost a bunch of prospect who likely won't pan out.
As for Nutting, I wish he would spend more money, but guess what? He's not going to. He's simply isn't going to.
What better players? David Freese and Nova for half a season? Freese was already here. Nova was a half season rental.
Why are you buying the crap that's being sold to you that it's impossible for this org to have a 115 million payroll instead of opening the season at 93?
They're selling you garbage.
You'd rather have Liriano and a 113 million payroll than Nova and a 93 million dollar payroll?
-
UtahPirate
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 10:36 pm
Trade Deadline Thread
303721292730777B02252F232B2E6C212D2F420 wrote:
DEFENDING (which is very different than shrugging shoulders and saying "what can I do?") the owner for refusing to manage a "bad" contract like the rest of baseball, assigning zero value to the prospects, calling Larinio a "cancer" - that's not apologist?
Who managed that bad contract. Seriously, the owner? It fell on NH to manage it because of a bad owner -- and he is the General Manager after all. So, in your book, NH just quits doing anything as the GM until Nutting opens his purse up? That's the only acceptable way to deal with a bad contract. And if I, or anyone else, thinks NH had to act instead of wait for Nutting to change, then I'm apologizing for the owner?
NH deals with ridiculous restraints that a bad owner has given him and I don't like how he does it -- this is what he should have done!
NH does a pretty good job at the restraints he's been given despite a bad owner -- and I OK with it in this case and this is why!
Those are the two arguments.
I bristle at the idea that anyone thinks NH taking action to work within the restraints of bad ownership is a justification for that bad ownership.
DEFENDING (which is very different than shrugging shoulders and saying "what can I do?") the owner for refusing to manage a "bad" contract like the rest of baseball, assigning zero value to the prospects, calling Larinio a "cancer" - that's not apologist?
Who managed that bad contract. Seriously, the owner? It fell on NH to manage it because of a bad owner -- and he is the General Manager after all. So, in your book, NH just quits doing anything as the GM until Nutting opens his purse up? That's the only acceptable way to deal with a bad contract. And if I, or anyone else, thinks NH had to act instead of wait for Nutting to change, then I'm apologizing for the owner?
NH deals with ridiculous restraints that a bad owner has given him and I don't like how he does it -- this is what he should have done!
NH does a pretty good job at the restraints he's been given despite a bad owner -- and I OK with it in this case and this is why!
Those are the two arguments.
I bristle at the idea that anyone thinks NH taking action to work within the restraints of bad ownership is a justification for that bad ownership.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Trade Deadline Thread
4160757C447D66756071140 wrote:
DEFENDING (which is very different than shrugging shoulders and saying "what can I do?") the owner for refusing to manage a "bad" contract like the rest of baseball, assigning zero value to the prospects, calling Larinio a "cancer" - that's not apologist?
Who managed that bad contract. Seriously, the owner? It fell on NH to manage it because of a bad owner -- and he is the General Manager after all. So, in your book, NH just quits doing anything as the GM until Nutting opens his purse up? That's the only acceptable way to deal with a bad contract. And if I, or anyone else, thinks NH had to act instead of wait for Nutting to change, then I'm apologizing for the owner?
NH deals with ridiculous restraints that a bad owner has given him and I don't like how he does it -- this is what he should have done!
NH does a pretty good job at the restraints he's been given despite a bad owner -- and I OK with it in this case and this is why!
Those are the two arguments.
I bristle at the idea that anyone thinks NH taking action to work within the restraints of bad ownership is a justification for that bad ownership.
No. I'm not saying that. To the contrary, I think Neal is a good GM with some concerns about drafts. But I think he's a ++ GM given his reality.
I'm saying that some posters justify a small payroll because some teams with bigger payrolls don't win the WS (just as an example), or some have assigned zero value to prospects to justify moving them in a salary dump when we rarely move prospects to help the team (just as another example). I can give other examples (moving Frankie allows us to allocate $$ to Nova, but there is nothing said about the $$$ saved on Jung Ho and Marte not being allocated back to the team...)
None of this is on Neal. I think you can love the Pirates, think Neal does overall very good job, and believe the owner is not running the team in the same manner as the rest of MLB, and the fact "Team X" didn't win the WS with a payroll that's larger than the Pirates DOES NOT vindicate Mr Nutting's small payroll.
Think of how many times it's been said: "so you want to spend money just to have a bigger payroll!?" Of course not, but it's a regular "argument" offered up and I'd say that's being an apologist for Mr Nutting. That is totally different than what you're saying.
DEFENDING (which is very different than shrugging shoulders and saying "what can I do?") the owner for refusing to manage a "bad" contract like the rest of baseball, assigning zero value to the prospects, calling Larinio a "cancer" - that's not apologist?
Who managed that bad contract. Seriously, the owner? It fell on NH to manage it because of a bad owner -- and he is the General Manager after all. So, in your book, NH just quits doing anything as the GM until Nutting opens his purse up? That's the only acceptable way to deal with a bad contract. And if I, or anyone else, thinks NH had to act instead of wait for Nutting to change, then I'm apologizing for the owner?
NH deals with ridiculous restraints that a bad owner has given him and I don't like how he does it -- this is what he should have done!
NH does a pretty good job at the restraints he's been given despite a bad owner -- and I OK with it in this case and this is why!
Those are the two arguments.
I bristle at the idea that anyone thinks NH taking action to work within the restraints of bad ownership is a justification for that bad ownership.
No. I'm not saying that. To the contrary, I think Neal is a good GM with some concerns about drafts. But I think he's a ++ GM given his reality.
I'm saying that some posters justify a small payroll because some teams with bigger payrolls don't win the WS (just as an example), or some have assigned zero value to prospects to justify moving them in a salary dump when we rarely move prospects to help the team (just as another example). I can give other examples (moving Frankie allows us to allocate $$ to Nova, but there is nothing said about the $$$ saved on Jung Ho and Marte not being allocated back to the team...)
None of this is on Neal. I think you can love the Pirates, think Neal does overall very good job, and believe the owner is not running the team in the same manner as the rest of MLB, and the fact "Team X" didn't win the WS with a payroll that's larger than the Pirates DOES NOT vindicate Mr Nutting's small payroll.
Think of how many times it's been said: "so you want to spend money just to have a bigger payroll!?" Of course not, but it's a regular "argument" offered up and I'd say that's being an apologist for Mr Nutting. That is totally different than what you're saying.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Trade Deadline Thread
1924233924234D0 wrote:
Strongly disagree. We may not compete with LA, NY, or Chicago, but we certainly have the financial where with all to support an average ML Payroll which is roughly 150M now. Our revenue is middle of the pack yet our payroll is in the bottom 5. In addition you fail to recognize the huge increase in value of the franchise. Nutting has netted a 1 Billion increase in value since he became majority owner. That's right 1 BILLION with a B. He gains 80 million a year on franchise value alone. He could borrow on his equity and put 80 million towards payroll and see that be replaced the following year. We can certainly afford 2 or 3 market value contracts. He just won't do it!!
That's the issue. Nutting apologists try to discredit calls to increase payroll by mischaracterizing that as a call to compete with the biggest spenders in MLB. No one is asking for that! All anyone wants is a modest middle of the road payroll instead of the customary bottom 5 or 6 ranking regardless of revenue.
I'm not sure I've read a post by a person here that I'd call a Nutting apologist. I don't think any of us like how tight-fisted he runs the club we love. I don't think any of us buy into the hypocritical press statements we hear from the Nutting camp either. I think everyone here would love to see him sell the Pirates to someone who would loosen the purse strings and let us really compete.
I do think there are posters who see Nutting as the reality and perhaps apologize for NH's moves based on what we see as that reality. That's where this thread has headed -- Tintin (mostly) making a trade argument that resulted in financial flexibility, which he defines broadly (as do I). And others saying that said flexibility only directly resulted in certain actions by our GM -- how any of us know what financial flexibility actually meant to NH, I haven't a clue.
And then in the end it melts completely down to the Nutting is cheap argument. I've never read one poster justifying Nutting and apologizing for his cheapness. The amount of Nutting angst seemed to differ with posters. There are NH apologists -- and I think he does a really good job, as Tintin put it, "with one hand tied behind his back" -- but there are absolutely zero Nutting apologists on this board by my count.
And that's my point. Most of the people who don't like the Liriano trade don't like it from a baseball philosophy standpoint. I like it because it got rid of a cancer and saved 20 million dollars, which allowed us to get better players under contract. So we lost a bunch of prospect who likely won't pan out.
As for Nutting, I wish he would spend more money, but guess what? He's not going to. He's simply isn't going to.
What better players? David Freese and Nova for half a season? Freese was already here. Nova was a half season rental.
Why are you buying the crap that's being sold to you that it's impossible for this org to have a 115 million payroll instead of opening the season at 93?
They're selling you garbage.
You'd rather have Liriano and a 113 million payroll than Nova and a 93 million dollar payroll?
So you'd rather Neal have a $93M payroll to work with than a $113M payroll? Why not tell Neal to work with a $75M payroll?
Strongly disagree. We may not compete with LA, NY, or Chicago, but we certainly have the financial where with all to support an average ML Payroll which is roughly 150M now. Our revenue is middle of the pack yet our payroll is in the bottom 5. In addition you fail to recognize the huge increase in value of the franchise. Nutting has netted a 1 Billion increase in value since he became majority owner. That's right 1 BILLION with a B. He gains 80 million a year on franchise value alone. He could borrow on his equity and put 80 million towards payroll and see that be replaced the following year. We can certainly afford 2 or 3 market value contracts. He just won't do it!!
That's the issue. Nutting apologists try to discredit calls to increase payroll by mischaracterizing that as a call to compete with the biggest spenders in MLB. No one is asking for that! All anyone wants is a modest middle of the road payroll instead of the customary bottom 5 or 6 ranking regardless of revenue.
I'm not sure I've read a post by a person here that I'd call a Nutting apologist. I don't think any of us like how tight-fisted he runs the club we love. I don't think any of us buy into the hypocritical press statements we hear from the Nutting camp either. I think everyone here would love to see him sell the Pirates to someone who would loosen the purse strings and let us really compete.
I do think there are posters who see Nutting as the reality and perhaps apologize for NH's moves based on what we see as that reality. That's where this thread has headed -- Tintin (mostly) making a trade argument that resulted in financial flexibility, which he defines broadly (as do I). And others saying that said flexibility only directly resulted in certain actions by our GM -- how any of us know what financial flexibility actually meant to NH, I haven't a clue.
And then in the end it melts completely down to the Nutting is cheap argument. I've never read one poster justifying Nutting and apologizing for his cheapness. The amount of Nutting angst seemed to differ with posters. There are NH apologists -- and I think he does a really good job, as Tintin put it, "with one hand tied behind his back" -- but there are absolutely zero Nutting apologists on this board by my count.
And that's my point. Most of the people who don't like the Liriano trade don't like it from a baseball philosophy standpoint. I like it because it got rid of a cancer and saved 20 million dollars, which allowed us to get better players under contract. So we lost a bunch of prospect who likely won't pan out.
As for Nutting, I wish he would spend more money, but guess what? He's not going to. He's simply isn't going to.
What better players? David Freese and Nova for half a season? Freese was already here. Nova was a half season rental.
Why are you buying the crap that's being sold to you that it's impossible for this org to have a 115 million payroll instead of opening the season at 93?
They're selling you garbage.
You'd rather have Liriano and a 113 million payroll than Nova and a 93 million dollar payroll?
So you'd rather Neal have a $93M payroll to work with than a $113M payroll? Why not tell Neal to work with a $75M payroll?