59525A565352490C0A7D445C555252135E523D0 wrote: Do people really want to run Liriano out there? That is in best interest of the team?
He was a bad player too. It sucks some prospects went too, but losing Liriano and his 5.75 ERA is a good thing. Why is that not being noticed?
I'm glad they got rid of Niese. He was awful. Liriano was also awful. I would have had no objection to a sensible deal to get rid of him. But the deal that was made was ridiculous. You can't just say it was a fair deal because it got rid of a bad player. It also got rid of 2 very good prospects. Hutchison is not a special pitcher. His ceiling should be no better than a #4 and maybe just a #5. The prospects were included so that the Blue Jays would pay Liriano's salary. That was far too much to give up. That's what makes it a bad deal. Not the fact that Liriano is gone.
Salary flexability
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Salary flexability
I'm sure you're right Dog that the Pirates view the money saved on Morton's contract to have been used on Polanco and Cervelli (and maybe some others I'm not thinking of). The frustrating thing is that keeping Polanco and Cervelli is something any MLB team should do just to maintain their competitive level. It amounts to the fixed cost of doing business in the world of major league baseball. Financial 'flexibility' should be about addressing those things that are not fixed costs. It should be about taking your franchise to a higher competitive level.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Salary flexability
5672666E6B070 wrote: I'm sure you're right Dog that the Pirates view the money saved on Morton's contract to have been used on Polanco and Cervelli (and maybe some others I'm not thinking of). The frustrating thing is that keeping Polanco and Cervelli is something any MLB team should do just to maintain their competitive level. It amounts to the fixed cost of doing business in the world of major league baseball. Financial 'flexibility' should be about addressing those things that are not fixed costs. It should be about taking your franchise to a higher competitive level.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
It is also a fixed cost that they didn't have to spend. So, they are investing that saved money into the future.
I'm glad they got rid of Niese. He was awful. Liriano was also awful. I would have had no objection to a sensible deal to get rid of him. But the deal that was made was ridiculous. You can't just say it was a fair deal because it got rid of a bad player. It also got rid of 2 very good prospects. Hutchison is not a special pitcher. His ceiling should be no better than a #4 and maybe just a #5. The prospects were included so that the Blue Jays would pay Liriano's salary. That was far too much to give up. That's what makes it a bad deal. Not the fact that Liriano is gone.
But that is all irrelevant now. We don't know how those guys would pan out (I hated losing McGuire). They may never make it or they may be super stars. But right now, the team is still pretty much the same. They got rid of a bad pitcher and people keep crying about it. It has been three days. Of course, we haven't seen the next investment yet. If they sign Cole (and Mercer) in the off season (they should and he would be stupid not to sign too) and if those guys don't pan out no one will remember this deal and how it went down.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
It is also a fixed cost that they didn't have to spend. So, they are investing that saved money into the future.
I'm glad they got rid of Niese. He was awful. Liriano was also awful. I would have had no objection to a sensible deal to get rid of him. But the deal that was made was ridiculous. You can't just say it was a fair deal because it got rid of a bad player. It also got rid of 2 very good prospects. Hutchison is not a special pitcher. His ceiling should be no better than a #4 and maybe just a #5. The prospects were included so that the Blue Jays would pay Liriano's salary. That was far too much to give up. That's what makes it a bad deal. Not the fact that Liriano is gone.
But that is all irrelevant now. We don't know how those guys would pan out (I hated losing McGuire). They may never make it or they may be super stars. But right now, the team is still pretty much the same. They got rid of a bad pitcher and people keep crying about it. It has been three days. Of course, we haven't seen the next investment yet. If they sign Cole (and Mercer) in the off season (they should and he would be stupid not to sign too) and if those guys don't pan out no one will remember this deal and how it went down.
-
Bobster21
Salary flexability
29222A262322397C7A0D342C252222632E224D0 wrote:
But that is all irrelevant now. We don't know how those guys would pan out (I hated losing McGuire). They may never make it or they may be super stars. But right now, the team is still pretty much the same. They got rid of a bad pitcher and people keep crying about it. It has been three days. Of course, we haven't seen the next investment yet. If they sign Cole (and Mercer) in the off season (they should and he would be stupid not to sign too) and if those guys don't pan out no one will remember this deal and how it went down.
Dog, somehow, you're not seeing the elephant in the room. The giving away of 2 top prospects merely to rid yourself of a bad pitcher IS what is relevant. THAT'S what people are complaining about. You use your best prospects to improve the talent on the team. Either by adding them to the roster or trading them for other talent. You don't use top prospects to subtract players. I've never before seen a team so desperate to not pay a salary that they give away 2 of their top 10 prospects merely so that another team will take a player they don't want and pay his salary. It's embarrassing.
But that is all irrelevant now. We don't know how those guys would pan out (I hated losing McGuire). They may never make it or they may be super stars. But right now, the team is still pretty much the same. They got rid of a bad pitcher and people keep crying about it. It has been three days. Of course, we haven't seen the next investment yet. If they sign Cole (and Mercer) in the off season (they should and he would be stupid not to sign too) and if those guys don't pan out no one will remember this deal and how it went down.
Dog, somehow, you're not seeing the elephant in the room. The giving away of 2 top prospects merely to rid yourself of a bad pitcher IS what is relevant. THAT'S what people are complaining about. You use your best prospects to improve the talent on the team. Either by adding them to the roster or trading them for other talent. You don't use top prospects to subtract players. I've never before seen a team so desperate to not pay a salary that they give away 2 of their top 10 prospects merely so that another team will take a player they don't want and pay his salary. It's embarrassing.
-
JollyRoger
- Posts: 1469
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:31 pm
Salary flexability
587578696E7F68282B1A0 wrote:
But that is all irrelevant now. We don't know how those guys would pan out (I hated losing McGuire). They may never make it or they may be super stars. But right now, the team is still pretty much the same. They got rid of a bad pitcher and people keep crying about it. It has been three days. Of course, we haven't seen the next investment yet. If they sign Cole (and Mercer) in the off season (they should and he would be stupid not to sign too) and if those guys don't pan out no one will remember this deal and how it went down.
Dog, somehow, you're not seeing the elephant in the room. The giving away of 2 top prospects merely to rid yourself of a bad pitcher IS what is relevant. THAT'S what people are complaining about. You use your best prospects to improve the talent on the team. Either by adding them to the roster or trading them for other talent. You don't use top prospects to subtract players. I've never before seen a team so desperate to not pay a salary that they give away 2 of their top 10 prospects merely so that another team will take a player they don't want and pay his salary. It's embarrassing.
A big elephant it is! You are right Bobster. I have never see a team give away top prospects to purge a contract. Plus Liriano in his time with the Bucs has only been bad for the past 4 months. His salary based on current ML comparisons is is actually under market value at $13M
But that is all irrelevant now. We don't know how those guys would pan out (I hated losing McGuire). They may never make it or they may be super stars. But right now, the team is still pretty much the same. They got rid of a bad pitcher and people keep crying about it. It has been three days. Of course, we haven't seen the next investment yet. If they sign Cole (and Mercer) in the off season (they should and he would be stupid not to sign too) and if those guys don't pan out no one will remember this deal and how it went down.
Dog, somehow, you're not seeing the elephant in the room. The giving away of 2 top prospects merely to rid yourself of a bad pitcher IS what is relevant. THAT'S what people are complaining about. You use your best prospects to improve the talent on the team. Either by adding them to the roster or trading them for other talent. You don't use top prospects to subtract players. I've never before seen a team so desperate to not pay a salary that they give away 2 of their top 10 prospects merely so that another team will take a player they don't want and pay his salary. It's embarrassing.
A big elephant it is! You are right Bobster. I have never see a team give away top prospects to purge a contract. Plus Liriano in his time with the Bucs has only been bad for the past 4 months. His salary based on current ML comparisons is is actually under market value at $13M
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Salary flexability
I don't see it that way. I see them trading a bad player with a high salary and two guys that were blocked for years to come. The two guys that were blocked might not have been as high on the Pirates list as they are on your list. We really don't know.
It was a strange move. I am not saying I agree with it (McGuire for sure), but I can see the whole picture. I don't just see "second highest plaid player traded = salary dump, same ol' Pirates". The rotation in 2016 is now better with Liriano gone. He was not worth his $13 million this year. He can be just as bad next year too and not be worth $13 million again. Like I said, we just don't know yet.
People just like to blame the front office just to blame the front office. This team was turned around to make the playoffs three years in a row. But they are still doing something bad. When do they get the benefit of the doubt?
It was a strange move. I am not saying I agree with it (McGuire for sure), but I can see the whole picture. I don't just see "second highest plaid player traded = salary dump, same ol' Pirates". The rotation in 2016 is now better with Liriano gone. He was not worth his $13 million this year. He can be just as bad next year too and not be worth $13 million again. Like I said, we just don't know yet.
People just like to blame the front office just to blame the front office. This team was turned around to make the playoffs three years in a row. But they are still doing something bad. When do they get the benefit of the doubt?
Salary flexability
5A7E6A62670B0 wrote: I'm sure you're right Dog that the Pirates view the money saved on Morton's contract to have been used on Polanco and Cervelli (and maybe some others I'm not thinking of). The frustrating thing is that keeping Polanco and Cervelli is something any MLB team should do just to maintain their competitive level. It amounts to the fixed cost of doing business in the world of major league baseball. Financial 'flexibility' should be about addressing those things that are not fixed costs. It should be about taking your franchise to a higher competitive level.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
Exactly. They never will. Once you figure this out, it gets easier.
But, what they will do and have proven they will do, is compete while not having to do. A complete rebuild after finishing fifth every freakin' season.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
Exactly. They never will. Once you figure this out, it gets easier.
But, what they will do and have proven they will do, is compete while not having to do. A complete rebuild after finishing fifth every freakin' season.
Salary flexability
2F242C2025243F7A7C0B322A2324246528244B0 wrote: I'm sure you're right Dog that the Pirates view the money saved on Morton's contract to have been used on Polanco and Cervelli (and maybe some others I'm not thinking of). The frustrating thing is that keeping Polanco and Cervelli is something any MLB team should do just to maintain their competitive level. It amounts to the fixed cost of doing business in the world of major league baseball. Financial 'flexibility' should be about addressing those things that are not fixed costs. It should be about taking your franchise to a higher competitive level.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
It is also a fixed cost that they didn't have to spend. So, they are investing that saved money into the future.
The problem with this line of thinking is that if you don't spend on fixed costs in business you go out of business. I would argue that the object of the business of baseball is to win a championship, and keeping your starting right fielder and catcher who provide part of a core of players talented enough to compete for a championship should not be in any way viewed as optional. In another type of business it would be tantamount to not paying the electric bill.
To say they are investing in the 'future' at this point is ignoring the facts that they just gave away 4 prospects, and the message that the 98 win team they fielded last year clearly provided; which is that the future is now!
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
It is also a fixed cost that they didn't have to spend. So, they are investing that saved money into the future.
The problem with this line of thinking is that if you don't spend on fixed costs in business you go out of business. I would argue that the object of the business of baseball is to win a championship, and keeping your starting right fielder and catcher who provide part of a core of players talented enough to compete for a championship should not be in any way viewed as optional. In another type of business it would be tantamount to not paying the electric bill.
To say they are investing in the 'future' at this point is ignoring the facts that they just gave away 4 prospects, and the message that the 98 win team they fielded last year clearly provided; which is that the future is now!
Salary flexability
003D3A203D3A540 wrote: I'm sure you're right Dog that the Pirates view the money saved on Morton's contract to have been used on Polanco and Cervelli (and maybe some others I'm not thinking of). The frustrating thing is that keeping Polanco and Cervelli is something any MLB team should do just to maintain their competitive level. It amounts to the fixed cost of doing business in the world of major league baseball. Financial 'flexibility' should be about addressing those things that are not fixed costs. It should be about taking your franchise to a higher competitive level.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
Exactly. They never will. Once you figure this out, it gets easier.
But, what they will do and have proven they will do, is compete while not having to do. A complete rebuild after finishing fifth every freakin' season.
Unfortunately my hope for the Pirates will continue to be that they win a championship, not that they just continue to be 'somewhat competitive' in perpetuity.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
Exactly. They never will. Once you figure this out, it gets easier.
But, what they will do and have proven they will do, is compete while not having to do. A complete rebuild after finishing fifth every freakin' season.
Unfortunately my hope for the Pirates will continue to be that they win a championship, not that they just continue to be 'somewhat competitive' in perpetuity.
Salary flexability
0C283C34315D0 wrote: I'm sure you're right Dog that the Pirates view the money saved on Morton's contract to have been used on Polanco and Cervelli (and maybe some others I'm not thinking of). The frustrating thing is that keeping Polanco and Cervelli is something any MLB team should do just to maintain their competitive level. It amounts to the fixed cost of doing business in the world of major league baseball. Financial 'flexibility' should be about addressing those things that are not fixed costs. It should be about taking your franchise to a higher competitive level.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
It is also a fixed cost that they didn't have to spend. So, they are investing that saved money into the future.
The problem with this line of thinking is that if you don't spend on fixed costs in business you go out of business. I would argue that the object of the business of baseball is to win a championship, and keeping your starting right fielder and catcher who provide part of a core of players talented enough to compete for a championship should not be in any way viewed as optional. In another type of business it would be tantamount to not paying the electric bill.
To say they are investing in the 'future' at this point is ignoring the facts that they just gave away 4 prospects, and the message that the 98 win team they fielded last year clearly provided; which is that the future is now!
what the Pirates have done is basically say we have 100 million maximum to spend. We are going to shuffle that 100 million around in a different way for next year. If we are lucky it will result in an improved team. That is what they did with Niese and Walker deal.
I have a hard time figuring out how they are going to improve to championship level next year operating under this type of payroll. It only works if you get several pre-arbitration players playing way above average.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
It is also a fixed cost that they didn't have to spend. So, they are investing that saved money into the future.
The problem with this line of thinking is that if you don't spend on fixed costs in business you go out of business. I would argue that the object of the business of baseball is to win a championship, and keeping your starting right fielder and catcher who provide part of a core of players talented enough to compete for a championship should not be in any way viewed as optional. In another type of business it would be tantamount to not paying the electric bill.
To say they are investing in the 'future' at this point is ignoring the facts that they just gave away 4 prospects, and the message that the 98 win team they fielded last year clearly provided; which is that the future is now!
what the Pirates have done is basically say we have 100 million maximum to spend. We are going to shuffle that 100 million around in a different way for next year. If we are lucky it will result in an improved team. That is what they did with Niese and Walker deal.
I have a hard time figuring out how they are going to improve to championship level next year operating under this type of payroll. It only works if you get several pre-arbitration players playing way above average.