6B6360574164434C220 wrote: My first reaction on this deal is that BC wants to get high end talent and doesn't think he can put together a contending team for at least 3 or 4 years.
Maybe he thinks that because of a review of the talent in the system, or maybe it is a combination of what the talent is in the system and the constraints he has in bringing additional talent into the system quickly.
It looks to me like he is not going to count on more than a few of the players that were contributors last year to be contributors when he thinks the team can contend (Keller, Reynolds and Newman).
Musgrove, Archer, Williams, Taillon, Bell, Frazier will all be gone if they are consistently good ballplayers. They will play themselves out of the Bucs price range. If Reynolds keeps it up he may be gone by then too unless the Bucs payroll changes. Reynolds may still be arbitration eligible but lets say he is Mookie Betts light. I will believe the Bucs will pay someone $20 million a year when it happens.
If BC is successful, the Bucs could have a great young team by 2024 and then it will be his job to keep it great.
One way to do that is for the team to be a lot more successful in signing young international players. In order to replenish the team, international players and the draft are going to have to produce a lot more players than they have in the past and more players with high ceilings.
As the past few years have shown, projections often fall short so you need to have a lot of people in the pipeline to replace those who fade away either due to injury or just topping out on their talent.
As an older fan, I was hoping BC would come in and think he could produce a winner by 2022 but it looks like his evaluation of the team's talent at this point has made him look further down the road.
I think the plan is pretty much set to punt the next three or four years. A year from now, our offseason will look a lot like this, except it will be Bell that is dealt. We signed Robbie Erlin to our pen today.
This is the right approach. It's not fun, but it's what needs to happen. It should have happened after 2016. They arguably started after 2015 with the Walker and Morton trades. They just didn't go far enough. Excuse my bluntness, but halfassing it is what gets you 75 wins. It's far better to win 55 games than 75. 95 is best, but far better to be horrid than mediocre. Mediocre breeds mediocre. At least horrid gives you hope that you can become the Astros. Cheating aside, that team was built from tanking, trades, and signing the right IFAs. There weren't very many stud FA signings that won them a title. It was drafting Correa and Springer, and finding Keuchel in the 7th round. It was signing guys like Altuve and Gurriel, and then trading for Cole at the bottom of his value, knowing that he was underperforming.
Point is though...tanking works. The years you're going through it are no fun, and frankly, I'll probably get a lot more reading and golf done this summer than years past. But if it yields a team that can win 95+ games, it's worth it.
Trading Marte for average "ML ready" guys is a DL strategy, and and NH one. The right approach is to trade for high ceiling guys, far from the majors, and irrespective of position. If we someohow become the first team in MLB history to have too many good players, we can trade them away.
I don't know anything about the guys they got from Arizona, but that's beside the point. Presumably, the people scouting them do know something about them, and if their track record in Boston and Toronto is any indicator, we'll be ok. Maybe not on this one trade, but overall, they'll get more right than they get wrong.
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
D-backs closing in on Marte trade (report)
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
D-backs closing in on Marte trade (report)
7D5B5A4D5B4B380 wrote:
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
IIRC, NH flatly stated their strategy was to put together a team capable of winning 80-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve. I think he felt that was the best strategy for a team whose owner would not spend to keep or acquire talent. BC is starting fresh but he will eventually face the dilemma of seeing his top players leave for financial reasons and not be able to replace them with anything more than AAAA players or dumpster dives. Even Houston, which built a strong team essentially from within, still had to eventually write the checks. They began to turn things around with 86 wins in 2015 and 84 wins in 2016 while their payroll was similar to the Pirates. But the next 3 years they won 101 (and won the WS), 103 (and lost the ALCS) and 107 (and lost the WS) games while their payroll grew to 17th in MLB (about average) in 2017, 9th (24 million above the average) in 2018 and 8th (30 million above the average) in 2019. And they are currently heading into 2020 with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB. So even a team that deftly assembles a strong core from within eventually has to pay those players to keep them and fill remaining needs with more expensive players as Houston did with Brantley, Reddick, Cole and Verlander. The Royals were another team that had a small payroll during their rebuild but when they eventually won the WS in 2015 their payroll was essentially the MLB average.
So the problem facing BC is bigger than just finding the right prospects to create a competitive team from within. That's where it starts but if Nutting simply refuses to even approach an average payroll to keep his top players or acquire other top players to fill needs, BC will be watching his top players that he developed move on to other teams and leaving holes filled by dumpster diving until he too is fired for not finding a way to win without ever spending money.
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
IIRC, NH flatly stated their strategy was to put together a team capable of winning 80-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve. I think he felt that was the best strategy for a team whose owner would not spend to keep or acquire talent. BC is starting fresh but he will eventually face the dilemma of seeing his top players leave for financial reasons and not be able to replace them with anything more than AAAA players or dumpster dives. Even Houston, which built a strong team essentially from within, still had to eventually write the checks. They began to turn things around with 86 wins in 2015 and 84 wins in 2016 while their payroll was similar to the Pirates. But the next 3 years they won 101 (and won the WS), 103 (and lost the ALCS) and 107 (and lost the WS) games while their payroll grew to 17th in MLB (about average) in 2017, 9th (24 million above the average) in 2018 and 8th (30 million above the average) in 2019. And they are currently heading into 2020 with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB. So even a team that deftly assembles a strong core from within eventually has to pay those players to keep them and fill remaining needs with more expensive players as Houston did with Brantley, Reddick, Cole and Verlander. The Royals were another team that had a small payroll during their rebuild but when they eventually won the WS in 2015 their payroll was essentially the MLB average.
So the problem facing BC is bigger than just finding the right prospects to create a competitive team from within. That's where it starts but if Nutting simply refuses to even approach an average payroll to keep his top players or acquire other top players to fill needs, BC will be watching his top players that he developed move on to other teams and leaving holes filled by dumpster diving until he too is fired for not finding a way to win without ever spending money.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
D-backs closing in on Marte trade (report)
0B0300372104232C420 wrote: My first reaction on this deal is that BC wants to get high end talent and doesn't think he can put together a contending team for at least 3 or 4 years.
Maybe he thinks that because of a review of the talent in the system, or maybe it is a combination of what the talent is in the system and the constraints he has in bringing additional talent into the system quickly.
It looks to me like he is not going to count on more than a few of the players that were contributors last year to be contributors when he thinks the team can contend (Keller, Reynolds and Newman).
Musgrove, Archer, Williams, Taillon, Bell, Frazier will all be gone if they are consistently good ballplayers. They will play themselves out of the Bucs price range. If Reynolds keeps it up he may be gone by then too unless the Bucs payroll changes. Reynolds may still be arbitration eligible but lets say he is Mookie Betts light. I will believe the Bucs will pay someone $20 million a year when it happens.
If BC is successful, the Bucs could have a great young team by 2024 and then it will be his job to keep it great.
One way to do that is for the team to be a lot more successful in signing young international players. In order to replenish the team, international players and the draft are going to have to produce a lot more players than they have in the past and more players with high ceilings.
As the past few years have shown, projections often fall short so you need to have a lot of people in the pipeline to replace those who fade away either due to injury or just topping out on their talent.
As an older fan, I was hoping BC would come in and think he could produce a winner by 2022 but it looks like his evaluation of the team's talent at this point has made him look further down the road.
I think the plan is pretty much set to punt the next three or four years. A year from now, our offseason will look a lot like this, except it will be Bell that is dealt. We signed Robbie Erlin to our pen today.
This is the right approach. It's not fun, but it's what needs to happen. It should have happened after 2016. They arguably started after 2015 with the Walker and Morton trades. They just didn't go far enough. Excuse my bluntness, but halfassing it is what gets you 75 wins. It's far better to win 55 games than 75. 95 is best, but far better to be horrid than mediocre. Mediocre breeds mediocre. At least horrid gives you hope that you can become the Astros. Cheating aside, that team was built from tanking, trades, and signing the right IFAs. There weren't very many stud FA signings that won them a title. It was drafting Correa and Springer, and finding Keuchel in the 7th round. It was signing guys like Altuve and Gurriel, and then trading for Cole at the bottom of his value, knowing that he was underperforming.
Point is though...tanking works. The years you're going through it are no fun, and frankly, I'll probably get a lot more reading and golf done this summer than years past. But if it yields a team that can win 95+ games, it's worth it.
[highlight]Trading Marte for average "ML ready" guys is a DL strategy, and and NH one.[/highlight] The right approach is to trade for high ceiling guys, far from the majors, and irrespective of position. If we someohow become the first team in MLB history to have too many good players, we can trade them away.
I don't know anything about the guys they got from Arizona, but that's beside the point. Presumably, the people scouting them do know something about them, and if their track record in Boston and Toronto is any indicator, we'll be ok. Maybe not on this one trade, but overall, they'll get more right than they get wrong.
I agree with your post, except for the part highlighted. The problem isn't the strategy of trading for major league-ready players, the problem was the two GMs who were making the trades. Neither were very good at identifying talent.
Maybe he thinks that because of a review of the talent in the system, or maybe it is a combination of what the talent is in the system and the constraints he has in bringing additional talent into the system quickly.
It looks to me like he is not going to count on more than a few of the players that were contributors last year to be contributors when he thinks the team can contend (Keller, Reynolds and Newman).
Musgrove, Archer, Williams, Taillon, Bell, Frazier will all be gone if they are consistently good ballplayers. They will play themselves out of the Bucs price range. If Reynolds keeps it up he may be gone by then too unless the Bucs payroll changes. Reynolds may still be arbitration eligible but lets say he is Mookie Betts light. I will believe the Bucs will pay someone $20 million a year when it happens.
If BC is successful, the Bucs could have a great young team by 2024 and then it will be his job to keep it great.
One way to do that is for the team to be a lot more successful in signing young international players. In order to replenish the team, international players and the draft are going to have to produce a lot more players than they have in the past and more players with high ceilings.
As the past few years have shown, projections often fall short so you need to have a lot of people in the pipeline to replace those who fade away either due to injury or just topping out on their talent.
As an older fan, I was hoping BC would come in and think he could produce a winner by 2022 but it looks like his evaluation of the team's talent at this point has made him look further down the road.
I think the plan is pretty much set to punt the next three or four years. A year from now, our offseason will look a lot like this, except it will be Bell that is dealt. We signed Robbie Erlin to our pen today.
This is the right approach. It's not fun, but it's what needs to happen. It should have happened after 2016. They arguably started after 2015 with the Walker and Morton trades. They just didn't go far enough. Excuse my bluntness, but halfassing it is what gets you 75 wins. It's far better to win 55 games than 75. 95 is best, but far better to be horrid than mediocre. Mediocre breeds mediocre. At least horrid gives you hope that you can become the Astros. Cheating aside, that team was built from tanking, trades, and signing the right IFAs. There weren't very many stud FA signings that won them a title. It was drafting Correa and Springer, and finding Keuchel in the 7th round. It was signing guys like Altuve and Gurriel, and then trading for Cole at the bottom of his value, knowing that he was underperforming.
Point is though...tanking works. The years you're going through it are no fun, and frankly, I'll probably get a lot more reading and golf done this summer than years past. But if it yields a team that can win 95+ games, it's worth it.
[highlight]Trading Marte for average "ML ready" guys is a DL strategy, and and NH one.[/highlight] The right approach is to trade for high ceiling guys, far from the majors, and irrespective of position. If we someohow become the first team in MLB history to have too many good players, we can trade them away.
I don't know anything about the guys they got from Arizona, but that's beside the point. Presumably, the people scouting them do know something about them, and if their track record in Boston and Toronto is any indicator, we'll be ok. Maybe not on this one trade, but overall, they'll get more right than they get wrong.
I agree with your post, except for the part highlighted. The problem isn't the strategy of trading for major league-ready players, the problem was the two GMs who were making the trades. Neither were very good at identifying talent.
D-backs closing in on Marte trade (report)
002D20313627307073420 wrote:
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
IIRC, NH flatly stated their strategy was to put together a team capable of winning 80-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve. I think he felt that was the best strategy for a team whose owner would not spend to keep or acquire talent. BC is starting fresh but he will eventually face the dilemma of seeing his top players leave for financial reasons and not be able to replace them with anything more than AAAA players or dumpster dives. Even Houston, which built a strong team essentially from within, still had to eventually write the checks. They began to turn things around with 86 wins in 2015 and 84 wins in 2016 while their payroll was similar to the Pirates. But the next 3 years they won 101 (and won the WS), 103 (and lost the ALCS) and 107 (and lost the WS) games while their payroll grew to 17th in MLB (about average) in 2017, 9th (24 million above the average) in 2018 and 8th (30 million above the average) in 2019. And they are currently heading into 2020 with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB. So even a team that deftly assembles a strong core from within eventually has to pay those players to keep them and fill remaining needs with more expensive players as Houston did with Brantley, Reddick, Cole and Verlander. The Royals were another team that had a small payroll during their rebuild but when they eventually won the WS in 2015 their payroll was essentially the MLB average.
So the problem facing BC is bigger than just finding the right prospects to create a competitive team from within. That's where it starts but if Nutting simply refuses to even approach an average payroll to keep his top players or acquire other top players to fill needs, BC will be watching his top players that he developed move on to other teams and leaving holes filled by dumpster diving until he too is fired for not finding a way to win without ever spending money.
And the Bucs will have to pay more in the future to even put together an 80 win team. Players in arbitration are getting over $20 million a year.
If the Pirates had a Mookie Betts, George Springer, J. T. Reamulto, how long would they keep them?
It would be great for the Pirates to have players that talented but unless payroll changes those players are going to be gone by their second year in arbitration.
Those are also going to be players that are harder to replace.
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
IIRC, NH flatly stated their strategy was to put together a team capable of winning 80-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve. I think he felt that was the best strategy for a team whose owner would not spend to keep or acquire talent. BC is starting fresh but he will eventually face the dilemma of seeing his top players leave for financial reasons and not be able to replace them with anything more than AAAA players or dumpster dives. Even Houston, which built a strong team essentially from within, still had to eventually write the checks. They began to turn things around with 86 wins in 2015 and 84 wins in 2016 while their payroll was similar to the Pirates. But the next 3 years they won 101 (and won the WS), 103 (and lost the ALCS) and 107 (and lost the WS) games while their payroll grew to 17th in MLB (about average) in 2017, 9th (24 million above the average) in 2018 and 8th (30 million above the average) in 2019. And they are currently heading into 2020 with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB. So even a team that deftly assembles a strong core from within eventually has to pay those players to keep them and fill remaining needs with more expensive players as Houston did with Brantley, Reddick, Cole and Verlander. The Royals were another team that had a small payroll during their rebuild but when they eventually won the WS in 2015 their payroll was essentially the MLB average.
So the problem facing BC is bigger than just finding the right prospects to create a competitive team from within. That's where it starts but if Nutting simply refuses to even approach an average payroll to keep his top players or acquire other top players to fill needs, BC will be watching his top players that he developed move on to other teams and leaving holes filled by dumpster diving until he too is fired for not finding a way to win without ever spending money.
And the Bucs will have to pay more in the future to even put together an 80 win team. Players in arbitration are getting over $20 million a year.
If the Pirates had a Mookie Betts, George Springer, J. T. Reamulto, how long would they keep them?
It would be great for the Pirates to have players that talented but unless payroll changes those players are going to be gone by their second year in arbitration.
Those are also going to be players that are harder to replace.
D-backs closing in on Marte trade (report)
032524332535460 wrote:
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
IIRC, NH flatly stated their strategy was to put together a team capable of winning 80-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve. I think he felt that was the best strategy for a team whose owner would not spend to keep or acquire talent. BC is starting fresh but he will eventually face the dilemma of seeing his top players leave for financial reasons and not be able to replace them with anything more than AAAA players or dumpster dives. Even Houston, which built a strong team essentially from within, still had to eventually write the checks. They began to turn things around with 86 wins in 2015 and 84 wins in 2016 while their payroll was similar to the Pirates. But the next 3 years they won 101 (and won the WS), 103 (and lost the ALCS) and 107 (and lost the WS) games while their payroll grew to 17th in MLB (about average) in 2017, 9th (24 million above the average) in 2018 and 8th (30 million above the average) in 2019. And they are currently heading into 2020 with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB. So even a team that deftly assembles a strong core from within eventually has to pay those players to keep them and fill remaining needs with more expensive players as Houston did with Brantley, Reddick, Cole and Verlander. The Royals were another team that had a small payroll during their rebuild but when they eventually won the WS in 2015 their payroll was essentially the MLB average.
So the problem facing BC is bigger than just finding the right prospects to create a competitive team from within. That's where it starts but if Nutting simply refuses to even approach an average payroll to keep his top players or acquire other top players to fill needs, BC will be watching his top players that he developed move on to other teams and leaving holes filled by dumpster diving until he too is fired for not finding a way to win without ever spending money.
And the Bucs will have to pay more in the future to even put together an 80 win team. Players in arbitration are getting over $20 million a year.
If the Pirates had a Mookie Betts, George Springer, J. T. Reamulto, how long would they keep them?
It would be great for the Pirates to have players that talented but unless payroll changes those players are going to be gone by their second year in arbitration.
Those are also going to be players that are harder to replace.
They also have to consider that in the next CBA, it's very likely that they'll do away with the Super-2 status. Most teams will try to "steal" a seventh year before FA hits. If they do that and guys become FAs sooner, that means the Pirates will trade them sooner. Bottom line...ultimately, if the Pirates want to be competitive, Bottom Line Bob has to be willing to sustain a competitive payroll.
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
IIRC, NH flatly stated their strategy was to put together a team capable of winning 80-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve. I think he felt that was the best strategy for a team whose owner would not spend to keep or acquire talent. BC is starting fresh but he will eventually face the dilemma of seeing his top players leave for financial reasons and not be able to replace them with anything more than AAAA players or dumpster dives. Even Houston, which built a strong team essentially from within, still had to eventually write the checks. They began to turn things around with 86 wins in 2015 and 84 wins in 2016 while their payroll was similar to the Pirates. But the next 3 years they won 101 (and won the WS), 103 (and lost the ALCS) and 107 (and lost the WS) games while their payroll grew to 17th in MLB (about average) in 2017, 9th (24 million above the average) in 2018 and 8th (30 million above the average) in 2019. And they are currently heading into 2020 with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB. So even a team that deftly assembles a strong core from within eventually has to pay those players to keep them and fill remaining needs with more expensive players as Houston did with Brantley, Reddick, Cole and Verlander. The Royals were another team that had a small payroll during their rebuild but when they eventually won the WS in 2015 their payroll was essentially the MLB average.
So the problem facing BC is bigger than just finding the right prospects to create a competitive team from within. That's where it starts but if Nutting simply refuses to even approach an average payroll to keep his top players or acquire other top players to fill needs, BC will be watching his top players that he developed move on to other teams and leaving holes filled by dumpster diving until he too is fired for not finding a way to win without ever spending money.
And the Bucs will have to pay more in the future to even put together an 80 win team. Players in arbitration are getting over $20 million a year.
If the Pirates had a Mookie Betts, George Springer, J. T. Reamulto, how long would they keep them?
It would be great for the Pirates to have players that talented but unless payroll changes those players are going to be gone by their second year in arbitration.
Those are also going to be players that are harder to replace.
They also have to consider that in the next CBA, it's very likely that they'll do away with the Super-2 status. Most teams will try to "steal" a seventh year before FA hits. If they do that and guys become FAs sooner, that means the Pirates will trade them sooner. Bottom line...ultimately, if the Pirates want to be competitive, Bottom Line Bob has to be willing to sustain a competitive payroll.
D-backs closing in on Marte trade (report)
7F77744355705758360 wrote:
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
IIRC, NH flatly stated their strategy was to put together a team capable of winning 80-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve. I think he felt that was the best strategy for a team whose owner would not spend to keep or acquire talent. BC is starting fresh but he will eventually face the dilemma of seeing his top players leave for financial reasons and not be able to replace them with anything more than AAAA players or dumpster dives. Even Houston, which built a strong team essentially from within, still had to eventually write the checks. They began to turn things around with 86 wins in 2015 and 84 wins in 2016 while their payroll was similar to the Pirates. But the next 3 years they won 101 (and won the WS), 103 (and lost the ALCS) and 107 (and lost the WS) games while their payroll grew to 17th in MLB (about average) in 2017, 9th (24 million above the average) in 2018 and 8th (30 million above the average) in 2019. And they are currently heading into 2020 with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB. So even a team that deftly assembles a strong core from within eventually has to pay those players to keep them and fill remaining needs with more expensive players as Houston did with Brantley, Reddick, Cole and Verlander. The Royals were another team that had a small payroll during their rebuild but when they eventually won the WS in 2015 their payroll was essentially the MLB average.
So the problem facing BC is bigger than just finding the right prospects to create a competitive team from within. That's where it starts but if Nutting simply refuses to even approach an average payroll to keep his top players or acquire other top players to fill needs, BC will be watching his top players that he developed move on to other teams and leaving holes filled by dumpster diving until he too is fired for not finding a way to win without ever spending money.
And the Bucs will have to pay more in the future to even put together an 80 win team. Players in arbitration are getting over $20 million a year.
If the Pirates had a Mookie Betts, George Springer, J. T. Reamulto, how long would they keep them?
It would be great for the Pirates to have players that talented but unless payroll changes those players are going to be gone by their second year in arbitration.
Those are also going to be players that are harder to replace.
They also have to consider that in the next CBA, it's very likely that they'll do away with the Super-2 status. Most teams will try to "steal" a seventh year before FA hits. If they do that and guys become FAs sooner, that means the Pirates will trade them sooner. Bottom line...ultimately, if the Pirates want to be competitive, Bottom Line Bob has to be willing to sustain a competitive payroll.
yes, I'm concerned that next collective bargaining agreement will make it harder for the Bucs to be a winner than it is now unless Nutting increases amount spent on payroll (at least some of the time) to $115 or $120 million in today's market.
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
IIRC, NH flatly stated their strategy was to put together a team capable of winning 80-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve. I think he felt that was the best strategy for a team whose owner would not spend to keep or acquire talent. BC is starting fresh but he will eventually face the dilemma of seeing his top players leave for financial reasons and not be able to replace them with anything more than AAAA players or dumpster dives. Even Houston, which built a strong team essentially from within, still had to eventually write the checks. They began to turn things around with 86 wins in 2015 and 84 wins in 2016 while their payroll was similar to the Pirates. But the next 3 years they won 101 (and won the WS), 103 (and lost the ALCS) and 107 (and lost the WS) games while their payroll grew to 17th in MLB (about average) in 2017, 9th (24 million above the average) in 2018 and 8th (30 million above the average) in 2019. And they are currently heading into 2020 with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB. So even a team that deftly assembles a strong core from within eventually has to pay those players to keep them and fill remaining needs with more expensive players as Houston did with Brantley, Reddick, Cole and Verlander. The Royals were another team that had a small payroll during their rebuild but when they eventually won the WS in 2015 their payroll was essentially the MLB average.
So the problem facing BC is bigger than just finding the right prospects to create a competitive team from within. That's where it starts but if Nutting simply refuses to even approach an average payroll to keep his top players or acquire other top players to fill needs, BC will be watching his top players that he developed move on to other teams and leaving holes filled by dumpster diving until he too is fired for not finding a way to win without ever spending money.
And the Bucs will have to pay more in the future to even put together an 80 win team. Players in arbitration are getting over $20 million a year.
If the Pirates had a Mookie Betts, George Springer, J. T. Reamulto, how long would they keep them?
It would be great for the Pirates to have players that talented but unless payroll changes those players are going to be gone by their second year in arbitration.
Those are also going to be players that are harder to replace.
They also have to consider that in the next CBA, it's very likely that they'll do away with the Super-2 status. Most teams will try to "steal" a seventh year before FA hits. If they do that and guys become FAs sooner, that means the Pirates will trade them sooner. Bottom line...ultimately, if the Pirates want to be competitive, Bottom Line Bob has to be willing to sustain a competitive payroll.
yes, I'm concerned that next collective bargaining agreement will make it harder for the Bucs to be a winner than it is now unless Nutting increases amount spent on payroll (at least some of the time) to $115 or $120 million in today's market.
D-backs closing in on Marte trade (report)
3A6C7A6E617B6B606D7A486F65696164266B080 wrote:
I agree with your post, except for the part highlighted. The problem isn't the strategy of trading for major league-ready players, the problem was the two GMs who were making the trades. Neither were very good at identifying talent.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I was a big NH fan. Not so much DL. But I don't think we can fairly lay the blame entirely on them. Very few teams are willing to trade MLB ready talent. If you're getting an MLB ready player back these days, they're usually going to underwhelm. Unless, of course, we're talking elite level players going back. Cutch wasn't elite when we traded him. He had been, but wasn't at the time. Cole wasn't either. He is now, but when we traded him, he was an underperformer who had whiplash from watching so many balls fly into the seats.
What BC does will tell a lot. This isn't some greenhorn GM. He's done it before. At two different places. Successfuly. If he loses here, we know it's not incompetence, unless he suddenly forgot how to spot talent on the flight from Toronto to Pittsburgh.
I agree with your post, except for the part highlighted. The problem isn't the strategy of trading for major league-ready players, the problem was the two GMs who were making the trades. Neither were very good at identifying talent.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I was a big NH fan. Not so much DL. But I don't think we can fairly lay the blame entirely on them. Very few teams are willing to trade MLB ready talent. If you're getting an MLB ready player back these days, they're usually going to underwhelm. Unless, of course, we're talking elite level players going back. Cutch wasn't elite when we traded him. He had been, but wasn't at the time. Cole wasn't either. He is now, but when we traded him, he was an underperformer who had whiplash from watching so many balls fly into the seats.
What BC does will tell a lot. This isn't some greenhorn GM. He's done it before. At two different places. Successfuly. If he loses here, we know it's not incompetence, unless he suddenly forgot how to spot talent on the flight from Toronto to Pittsburgh.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
D-backs closing in on Marte trade (report)
032524332535460 wrote:
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
IIRC, NH flatly stated their strategy was to put together a team capable of winning 80-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve. I think he felt that was the best strategy for a team whose owner would not spend to keep or acquire talent. BC is starting fresh but he will eventually face the dilemma of seeing his top players leave for financial reasons and not be able to replace them with anything more than AAAA players or dumpster dives. Even Houston, which built a strong team essentially from within, still had to eventually write the checks. They began to turn things around with 86 wins in 2015 and 84 wins in 2016 while their payroll was similar to the Pirates. But the next 3 years they won 101 (and won the WS), 103 (and lost the ALCS) and 107 (and lost the WS) games while their payroll grew to 17th in MLB (about average) in 2017, 9th (24 million above the average) in 2018 and 8th (30 million above the average) in 2019. And they are currently heading into 2020 with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB. So even a team that deftly assembles a strong core from within eventually has to pay those players to keep them and fill remaining needs with more expensive players as Houston did with Brantley, Reddick, Cole and Verlander. The Royals were another team that had a small payroll during their rebuild but when they eventually won the WS in 2015 their payroll was essentially the MLB average.
So the problem facing BC is bigger than just finding the right prospects to create a competitive team from within. That's where it starts but if Nutting simply refuses to even approach an average payroll to keep his top players or acquire other top players to fill needs, BC will be watching his top players that he developed move on to other teams and leaving holes filled by dumpster diving until he too is fired for not finding a way to win without ever spending money.
And the Bucs will have to pay more in the future to even put together an 80 win team. Players in arbitration are getting over $20 million a year.
If the Pirates had a Mookie Betts, George Springer, J. T. Reamulto, how long would they keep them?
It would be great for the Pirates to have players that talented but unless payroll changes those players are going to be gone by their second year in arbitration.
Those are also going to be players that are harder to replace.
They also have to consider that in the next CBA, it's very likely that they'll do away with the Super-2 status. Most teams will try to "steal" a seventh year before FA hits. If they do that and guys become FAs sooner, that means the Pirates will trade them sooner. Bottom line...ultimately, if the Pirates want to be competitive, Bottom Line Bob has to be willing to sustain a competitive payroll.
yes, I'm concerned that next collective bargaining agreement will make it harder for the Bucs to be a winner than it is now unless Nutting increases amount spent on payroll (at least some of the time) to $115 or $120 million in today's market.
I don't believe Nutting sees an incentive to compete. He can continue operating his club as he has been, accepting a tidy, but smaller profit, in exchange for never having to take a risk. Winning a title isn't the priority.
Yeah, I think going for high ceiling guys is the right approach, it just pisses me off that NH was able to go with the strategy of lets put together a team that can win 80 and every few years everything will go well and we'll win 90. that is a terrible approach.
It has extended the time between a good 2015 team to the next good team by several years.
IIRC, NH flatly stated their strategy was to put together a team capable of winning 80-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve. I think he felt that was the best strategy for a team whose owner would not spend to keep or acquire talent. BC is starting fresh but he will eventually face the dilemma of seeing his top players leave for financial reasons and not be able to replace them with anything more than AAAA players or dumpster dives. Even Houston, which built a strong team essentially from within, still had to eventually write the checks. They began to turn things around with 86 wins in 2015 and 84 wins in 2016 while their payroll was similar to the Pirates. But the next 3 years they won 101 (and won the WS), 103 (and lost the ALCS) and 107 (and lost the WS) games while their payroll grew to 17th in MLB (about average) in 2017, 9th (24 million above the average) in 2018 and 8th (30 million above the average) in 2019. And they are currently heading into 2020 with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB. So even a team that deftly assembles a strong core from within eventually has to pay those players to keep them and fill remaining needs with more expensive players as Houston did with Brantley, Reddick, Cole and Verlander. The Royals were another team that had a small payroll during their rebuild but when they eventually won the WS in 2015 their payroll was essentially the MLB average.
So the problem facing BC is bigger than just finding the right prospects to create a competitive team from within. That's where it starts but if Nutting simply refuses to even approach an average payroll to keep his top players or acquire other top players to fill needs, BC will be watching his top players that he developed move on to other teams and leaving holes filled by dumpster diving until he too is fired for not finding a way to win without ever spending money.
And the Bucs will have to pay more in the future to even put together an 80 win team. Players in arbitration are getting over $20 million a year.
If the Pirates had a Mookie Betts, George Springer, J. T. Reamulto, how long would they keep them?
It would be great for the Pirates to have players that talented but unless payroll changes those players are going to be gone by their second year in arbitration.
Those are also going to be players that are harder to replace.
They also have to consider that in the next CBA, it's very likely that they'll do away with the Super-2 status. Most teams will try to "steal" a seventh year before FA hits. If they do that and guys become FAs sooner, that means the Pirates will trade them sooner. Bottom line...ultimately, if the Pirates want to be competitive, Bottom Line Bob has to be willing to sustain a competitive payroll.
yes, I'm concerned that next collective bargaining agreement will make it harder for the Bucs to be a winner than it is now unless Nutting increases amount spent on payroll (at least some of the time) to $115 or $120 million in today's market.
I don't believe Nutting sees an incentive to compete. He can continue operating his club as he has been, accepting a tidy, but smaller profit, in exchange for never having to take a risk. Winning a title isn't the priority.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
D-backs closing in on Marte trade (report)
797172455376515E300 wrote:
I agree with your post, except for the part highlighted. The problem isn't the strategy of trading for major league-ready players, the problem was the two GMs who were making the trades. Neither were very good at identifying talent.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I was a big NH fan. Not so much DL. But I don't think we can fairly lay the blame entirely on them. Very few teams are willing to trade MLB ready talent. If you're getting an MLB ready player back these days, they're usually going to underwhelm. Unless, of course, we're talking elite level players going back. Cutch wasn't elite when we traded him. He had been, but wasn't at the time. Cole wasn't either. He is now, but when we traded him, he was an underperformer who had whiplash from watching so many balls fly into the seats.
What BC does will tell a lot. This isn't some greenhorn GM. He's done it before. At two different places. Successfuly. If he loses here, we know it's not incompetence, unless he suddenly forgot how to spot talent on the flight from Toronto to Pittsburgh.
I do think it's possible to get back MLB-ready talent. There are teams around baseball with multiple players at the same position who are good enough to play in the big leagues. Some are expendable for the right return.
For me, the luster came off of NH after what he allowed to happen to the team beginning in the 2015 offseason. The past four years were shameful. In addition, during his first 9 years as GM, he drafted only one regular player who contributed to the team: Jordy Mercer. I liked Mercer but, frankly, he was in the bottom fifth of all shortstops in baseball. NH's drafts were pretty abysmal.
I have much more faith that BC can do better because, as you stated, he's done it before.
I agree with your post, except for the part highlighted. The problem isn't the strategy of trading for major league-ready players, the problem was the two GMs who were making the trades. Neither were very good at identifying talent.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I was a big NH fan. Not so much DL. But I don't think we can fairly lay the blame entirely on them. Very few teams are willing to trade MLB ready talent. If you're getting an MLB ready player back these days, they're usually going to underwhelm. Unless, of course, we're talking elite level players going back. Cutch wasn't elite when we traded him. He had been, but wasn't at the time. Cole wasn't either. He is now, but when we traded him, he was an underperformer who had whiplash from watching so many balls fly into the seats.
What BC does will tell a lot. This isn't some greenhorn GM. He's done it before. At two different places. Successfuly. If he loses here, we know it's not incompetence, unless he suddenly forgot how to spot talent on the flight from Toronto to Pittsburgh.
I do think it's possible to get back MLB-ready talent. There are teams around baseball with multiple players at the same position who are good enough to play in the big leagues. Some are expendable for the right return.
For me, the luster came off of NH after what he allowed to happen to the team beginning in the 2015 offseason. The past four years were shameful. In addition, during his first 9 years as GM, he drafted only one regular player who contributed to the team: Jordy Mercer. I liked Mercer but, frankly, he was in the bottom fifth of all shortstops in baseball. NH's drafts were pretty abysmal.
I have much more faith that BC can do better because, as you stated, he's done it before.
D-backs closing in on Marte trade (report)
090102352306212E400 wrote: My first reaction on this deal is that BC wants to get high end talent and doesn't think he can put together a contending team for at least 3 or 4 years.
Maybe he thinks that because of a review of the talent in the system, or maybe it is a combination of what the talent is in the system and the constraints he has in bringing additional talent into the system quickly.
It looks to me like he is not going to count on more than a few of the players that were contributors last year to be contributors when he thinks the team can contend (Keller, Reynolds and Newman).
Musgrove, Archer, Williams, Taillon, Bell, Frazier will all be gone if they are consistently good ballplayers. They will play themselves out of the Bucs price range. If Reynolds keeps it up he may be gone by then too unless the Bucs payroll changes. Reynolds may still be arbitration eligible but lets say he is Mookie Betts light. I will believe the Bucs will pay someone $20 million a year when it happens.
If BC is successful, the Bucs could have a great young team by 2024 and then it will be his job to keep it great.
One way to do that is for the team to be a lot more successful in signing young international players. In order to replenish the team, international players and the draft are going to have to produce a lot more players than they have in the past and more players with high ceilings.
As the past few years have shown, projections often fall short so you need to have a lot of people in the pipeline to replace those who fade away either due to injury or just topping out on their talent.
As an older fan, I was hoping BC would come in and think he could produce a winner by 2022 but it looks like his evaluation of the team's talent at this point has made him look further down the road.
I think the plan is pretty much set to punt the next three or four years. A year from now, our offseason will look a lot like this, except it will be Bell that is dealt. We signed Robbie Erlin to our pen today.
This is the right approach. It's not fun, but it's what needs to happen. It should have happened after 2016. They arguably started after 2015 with the Walker and Morton trades. They just didn't go far enough. Excuse my bluntness, but halfassing it is what gets you 75 wins. It's far better to win 55 games than 75. 95 is best, but far better to be horrid than mediocre. Mediocre breeds mediocre. At least horrid gives you hope that you can become the Astros. Cheating aside, that team was built from tanking, trades, and signing the right IFAs. There weren't very many stud FA signings that won them a title. It was drafting Correa and Springer, and finding Keuchel in the 7th round. It was signing guys like Altuve and Gurriel, and then trading for Cole at the bottom of his value, knowing that he was underperforming.
Point is though...tanking works. The years you're going through it are no fun, and frankly, I'll probably get a lot more reading and golf done this summer than years past. But if it yields a team that can win 95+ games, it's worth it.
Trading Marte for average "ML ready" guys is a DL strategy, and and NH one. The right approach is to trade for high ceiling guys, far from the majors, and irrespective of position. If we someohow become the first team in MLB history to have too many good players, we can trade them away.
I don't know anything about the guys they got from Arizona, but that's beside the point. Presumably, the people scouting them do know something about them, and if their track record in Boston and Toronto is any indicator, we'll be ok. Maybe not on this one trade, but overall, they'll get more right than they get wrong.
It unfortunately is the right approach. I agree. It pisses me off that when this team won 96 games with record attendance, Bob didn't want to take the next step. We were right there. He made a lot of money. Then essentially the first part of the tear down happened - we all know who left and what came back. It pisses me off when Nutting, who I think is ranked amongst the top 10-15 wealthiest MLB owners goes to this extent; continues to cry poor with the "small market" excuse when Minnesota, Cincy, Milwaukee, Cleveland have had successes. They are similar. TB and Oakland do very well with its limited resources because they certainly know how to spot talent and develop. Tanking works only if you get the right person(s) in the tank and they develop. We tanked before. Here are our first round picks (overall selection) 2006-2013. Brad Lincoln (4), Daniel Moskos (4), Pedro Alvarez (2), Tony Sanchez (4), Taillon (2), Cole (1), Appel (8), and Meadows (9). It got us what exactly? I guess I have to have faith in Cherrington's eye for talent/development plan. Do things change in 2026 or so if we get to the point we are competitive again that our owner will go out and get help or are we in a revolving door that we are back here again?
We have to hope the next Harper or ARod is there in 2021 and 2022 for immediate help because it doesn't look like we are going to acquire anything that brings help soon, or is MLB ready or almost ready.
Maybe he thinks that because of a review of the talent in the system, or maybe it is a combination of what the talent is in the system and the constraints he has in bringing additional talent into the system quickly.
It looks to me like he is not going to count on more than a few of the players that were contributors last year to be contributors when he thinks the team can contend (Keller, Reynolds and Newman).
Musgrove, Archer, Williams, Taillon, Bell, Frazier will all be gone if they are consistently good ballplayers. They will play themselves out of the Bucs price range. If Reynolds keeps it up he may be gone by then too unless the Bucs payroll changes. Reynolds may still be arbitration eligible but lets say he is Mookie Betts light. I will believe the Bucs will pay someone $20 million a year when it happens.
If BC is successful, the Bucs could have a great young team by 2024 and then it will be his job to keep it great.
One way to do that is for the team to be a lot more successful in signing young international players. In order to replenish the team, international players and the draft are going to have to produce a lot more players than they have in the past and more players with high ceilings.
As the past few years have shown, projections often fall short so you need to have a lot of people in the pipeline to replace those who fade away either due to injury or just topping out on their talent.
As an older fan, I was hoping BC would come in and think he could produce a winner by 2022 but it looks like his evaluation of the team's talent at this point has made him look further down the road.
I think the plan is pretty much set to punt the next three or four years. A year from now, our offseason will look a lot like this, except it will be Bell that is dealt. We signed Robbie Erlin to our pen today.
This is the right approach. It's not fun, but it's what needs to happen. It should have happened after 2016. They arguably started after 2015 with the Walker and Morton trades. They just didn't go far enough. Excuse my bluntness, but halfassing it is what gets you 75 wins. It's far better to win 55 games than 75. 95 is best, but far better to be horrid than mediocre. Mediocre breeds mediocre. At least horrid gives you hope that you can become the Astros. Cheating aside, that team was built from tanking, trades, and signing the right IFAs. There weren't very many stud FA signings that won them a title. It was drafting Correa and Springer, and finding Keuchel in the 7th round. It was signing guys like Altuve and Gurriel, and then trading for Cole at the bottom of his value, knowing that he was underperforming.
Point is though...tanking works. The years you're going through it are no fun, and frankly, I'll probably get a lot more reading and golf done this summer than years past. But if it yields a team that can win 95+ games, it's worth it.
Trading Marte for average "ML ready" guys is a DL strategy, and and NH one. The right approach is to trade for high ceiling guys, far from the majors, and irrespective of position. If we someohow become the first team in MLB history to have too many good players, we can trade them away.
I don't know anything about the guys they got from Arizona, but that's beside the point. Presumably, the people scouting them do know something about them, and if their track record in Boston and Toronto is any indicator, we'll be ok. Maybe not on this one trade, but overall, they'll get more right than they get wrong.
It unfortunately is the right approach. I agree. It pisses me off that when this team won 96 games with record attendance, Bob didn't want to take the next step. We were right there. He made a lot of money. Then essentially the first part of the tear down happened - we all know who left and what came back. It pisses me off when Nutting, who I think is ranked amongst the top 10-15 wealthiest MLB owners goes to this extent; continues to cry poor with the "small market" excuse when Minnesota, Cincy, Milwaukee, Cleveland have had successes. They are similar. TB and Oakland do very well with its limited resources because they certainly know how to spot talent and develop. Tanking works only if you get the right person(s) in the tank and they develop. We tanked before. Here are our first round picks (overall selection) 2006-2013. Brad Lincoln (4), Daniel Moskos (4), Pedro Alvarez (2), Tony Sanchez (4), Taillon (2), Cole (1), Appel (8), and Meadows (9). It got us what exactly? I guess I have to have faith in Cherrington's eye for talent/development plan. Do things change in 2026 or so if we get to the point we are competitive again that our owner will go out and get help or are we in a revolving door that we are back here again?
We have to hope the next Harper or ARod is there in 2021 and 2022 for immediate help because it doesn't look like we are going to acquire anything that brings help soon, or is MLB ready or almost ready.