6A4D44444D5E5D4D6A5D4B280 wrote: That works out well for us because this team doesn't need any more starting pitching.
Baz was your typical PTBNL throw-in.
Seriously, since when is a No. 1 pick who throws 100 mph a PTBNL ???
I thought all PTBNLers were non-prospects, afterthoughts.
Not No. 1 starters who throw 100 !!
I've always considered the Aramis Ramirez trade as the benchmark for worst Pirates trade of the modern era.
But this one is somehow even worse. Much worse.
I agree that this one was worse. The Ramirez "trade' was strictly a financial deal. The Pirates had run afoul of MLB rules on revenue vs payroll and were forced to unload salary ASAP. They had worked a deal sending Kris Benson to Atlanta but at the last minute he hurt his arm. By subtracting the salaries of Ramirez and Lofton and adding only the salaries of Jose Hernandez, a LMG in the immortal Bobby Hill and a minor leaguer they promptly released, they got their finances in order. It was a dismal trade from a baseball standpoint but it was not made for baseball reasons.
The Archer trade was strictly a baseball deal. Huntington somehow thought the addition of a fading Archer was worth Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. It was irrational and irresponsible from a baseball stsandpoint.
The Pirates were exempt from that rule. Which is actually worse if it was money driven. McClatchy's inept handling of the finances is how we ended up with Nutting.
The Archer trade, also was not a move the GM wanted to make, and also money driven. Frank Coonley forced the trade because the Pirates needed marketable players to sell tickets.
If you are certain Coonley forced the Archer trade that makes alot of sense to me. To me I always felt that Frank Coonley had too much authority in the baseball operations side of the ball club. He should have stayed involved in the business side of the club and let the baseball ops. guys take care of the operations side of the club.
Shane Baz
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
BellevueBuc
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:41 pm
Shane Baz
173A37262130276764550 wrote: That works out well for us because this team doesn't need any more starting pitching.
Baz was your typical PTBNL throw-in.
Seriously, since when is a No. 1 pick who throws 100 mph a PTBNL ???
I thought all PTBNLers were non-prospects, afterthoughts.
Not No. 1 starters who throw 100 !!
I've always considered the Aramis Ramirez trade as the benchmark for worst Pirates trade of the modern era.
But this one is somehow even worse. Much worse.
I agree that this one was worse. The Ramirez "trade' was strictly a financial deal. The Pirates had run afoul of MLB rules on revenue vs payroll and were forced to unload salary ASAP. They had worked a deal sending Kris Benson to Atlanta but at the last minute he hurt his arm. By subtracting the salaries of Ramirez and Lofton and adding only the salaries of Jose Hernandez, a LMG in the immortal Bobby Hill and a minor leaguer they promptly released, they got their finances in order. It was a dismal trade from a baseball standpoint but it was not made for baseball reasons.
The Archer trade was strictly a baseball deal. Huntington somehow thought the addition of a fading Archer was worth Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. It was irrational and irresponsible from a baseball stsandpoint.
The Pirates were exempt from that rule. Which is actually worse if it was money driven. McClatchy's inept handling of the finances is how we ended up with Nutting.
The Archer trade, also was not a move the GM wanted to make, and also money driven. Frank Coonley forced the trade because the Pirates needed marketable players to sell tickets.
I got that story from Nellie Briles who was working for the Pirates at the time. So I don't believe they were exempt from that rule.
Well, they were exempt since they recently built a new stadium. Trading a player would not change their debt to equity ratio anyways, and the commissioner is not going to randomly enforce the rule in the middle of the season. That is not even what the CBA stipulates as a possible action. Either Briles made it up for you or someone made it up and told him. MLB rules had nothing to do with the trade.
Plans for the city funding PNC Park were finalized in 1998. It opened in 2001. None of that changed the fact that the Pirates were close to financial insolvency by July 2003. That is why the trade was made.
https://www.timesonline.com/article/201 ... /307249964
https://www.reuters.com/article/bbo-pir ... RN20150724
https://www.pennlive.com/patriotnewsspo ... ent_t.html
MLB did not force a trade due to their debt service, i never said it wasn't made because of financial reasons. I actually said the real reason was much worse. It was. The Pirates were cash poor, which was not surprising given that MLB let a guy like McClatchy lead a group to buy the team.
The Pirates debt to equity issues is how Nutting became owner. Had zero to do with any trades. so if Briles told you that he was mistaken. When the stadium was financed does not really matter, since the exemption was for 10 years.
I'm glad you at least agree that the trade was strictly financial. Briles did not use the term "equity." But he worked for the Pirates and said there are rules to ensure teams meet their payroll. That is what he said prompted the trade. Obviously, that trade revealed the team was desperate to cut payroll ASAP. You can believe or disbelieve as you choose.
That's not what the rule is about, it is in the CBA, which is available online. Does not really matter what Briles said to you, it is wrong. Unless you are trying to say MLB's CBA is wrong? The rule has nothing to do with meeting payroll, and has nothing to do with cutting expenses immediately. There have been dozens of teams in violation at times. I realize this my has been around for a while, but doesnt make it accurate.
So I'm wrong. Someone working for the team was wrong. The 3 articles I found are wrong. The only one who knows what really happened is you. But you agree it was for financial reasons because the team was "cash poor." Maybe the issue wasn't "debt to equity." You were the one who brought up that term. What Briles said was that there are rules related to meeting payroll obligations. I would find it difficult to believe that is not so. We all seem to agree the team was cash poor and the trade was made for that reason. I'm going to leave it at that.
There is what you are claiming, and then there is the actual rule. They are not the same. I am not sure what else to tell you.
The rule you are claiming does not exist. The Pirates fixed their debt issues by converting Nutting's debt to equity.
Baz was your typical PTBNL throw-in.
Seriously, since when is a No. 1 pick who throws 100 mph a PTBNL ???
I thought all PTBNLers were non-prospects, afterthoughts.
Not No. 1 starters who throw 100 !!
I've always considered the Aramis Ramirez trade as the benchmark for worst Pirates trade of the modern era.
But this one is somehow even worse. Much worse.
I agree that this one was worse. The Ramirez "trade' was strictly a financial deal. The Pirates had run afoul of MLB rules on revenue vs payroll and were forced to unload salary ASAP. They had worked a deal sending Kris Benson to Atlanta but at the last minute he hurt his arm. By subtracting the salaries of Ramirez and Lofton and adding only the salaries of Jose Hernandez, a LMG in the immortal Bobby Hill and a minor leaguer they promptly released, they got their finances in order. It was a dismal trade from a baseball standpoint but it was not made for baseball reasons.
The Archer trade was strictly a baseball deal. Huntington somehow thought the addition of a fading Archer was worth Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. It was irrational and irresponsible from a baseball stsandpoint.
The Pirates were exempt from that rule. Which is actually worse if it was money driven. McClatchy's inept handling of the finances is how we ended up with Nutting.
The Archer trade, also was not a move the GM wanted to make, and also money driven. Frank Coonley forced the trade because the Pirates needed marketable players to sell tickets.
I got that story from Nellie Briles who was working for the Pirates at the time. So I don't believe they were exempt from that rule.
Well, they were exempt since they recently built a new stadium. Trading a player would not change their debt to equity ratio anyways, and the commissioner is not going to randomly enforce the rule in the middle of the season. That is not even what the CBA stipulates as a possible action. Either Briles made it up for you or someone made it up and told him. MLB rules had nothing to do with the trade.
Plans for the city funding PNC Park were finalized in 1998. It opened in 2001. None of that changed the fact that the Pirates were close to financial insolvency by July 2003. That is why the trade was made.
https://www.timesonline.com/article/201 ... /307249964
https://www.reuters.com/article/bbo-pir ... RN20150724
https://www.pennlive.com/patriotnewsspo ... ent_t.html
MLB did not force a trade due to their debt service, i never said it wasn't made because of financial reasons. I actually said the real reason was much worse. It was. The Pirates were cash poor, which was not surprising given that MLB let a guy like McClatchy lead a group to buy the team.
The Pirates debt to equity issues is how Nutting became owner. Had zero to do with any trades. so if Briles told you that he was mistaken. When the stadium was financed does not really matter, since the exemption was for 10 years.
I'm glad you at least agree that the trade was strictly financial. Briles did not use the term "equity." But he worked for the Pirates and said there are rules to ensure teams meet their payroll. That is what he said prompted the trade. Obviously, that trade revealed the team was desperate to cut payroll ASAP. You can believe or disbelieve as you choose.
That's not what the rule is about, it is in the CBA, which is available online. Does not really matter what Briles said to you, it is wrong. Unless you are trying to say MLB's CBA is wrong? The rule has nothing to do with meeting payroll, and has nothing to do with cutting expenses immediately. There have been dozens of teams in violation at times. I realize this my has been around for a while, but doesnt make it accurate.
So I'm wrong. Someone working for the team was wrong. The 3 articles I found are wrong. The only one who knows what really happened is you. But you agree it was for financial reasons because the team was "cash poor." Maybe the issue wasn't "debt to equity." You were the one who brought up that term. What Briles said was that there are rules related to meeting payroll obligations. I would find it difficult to believe that is not so. We all seem to agree the team was cash poor and the trade was made for that reason. I'm going to leave it at that.
There is what you are claiming, and then there is the actual rule. They are not the same. I am not sure what else to tell you.
The rule you are claiming does not exist. The Pirates fixed their debt issues by converting Nutting's debt to equity.
Shane Baz
3D31306B626B636E69766C5B0 wrote: That works out well for us because this team doesn't need any more starting pitching.
Baz was your typical PTBNL throw-in.
Seriously, since when is a No. 1 pick who throws 100 mph a PTBNL ???
I thought all PTBNLers were non-prospects, afterthoughts.
Not No. 1 starters who throw 100 !!
I've always considered the Aramis Ramirez trade as the benchmark for worst Pirates trade of the modern era.
But this one is somehow even worse. Much worse.
I agree that this one was worse. The Ramirez "trade' was strictly a financial deal. The Pirates had run afoul of MLB rules on revenue vs payroll and were forced to unload salary ASAP. They had worked a deal sending Kris Benson to Atlanta but at the last minute he hurt his arm. By subtracting the salaries of Ramirez and Lofton and adding only the salaries of Jose Hernandez, a LMG in the immortal Bobby Hill and a minor leaguer they promptly released, they got their finances in order. It was a dismal trade from a baseball standpoint but it was not made for baseball reasons.
The Archer trade was strictly a baseball deal. Huntington somehow thought the addition of a fading Archer was worth Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. It was irrational and irresponsible from a baseball stsandpoint.
The Pirates were exempt from that rule. Which is actually worse if it was money driven. McClatchy's inept handling of the finances is how we ended up with Nutting.
The Archer trade, also was not a move the GM wanted to make, and also money driven. Frank Coonley forced the trade because the Pirates needed marketable players to sell tickets.
If you are certain Coonley forced the Archer trade that makes alot of sense to me. To me I always felt that Frank Coonley had too much authority in the baseball operations side of the ball club. He should have stayed involved in the business side of the club and let the baseball ops. guys take care of the operations side of the club.
I always, always, felt that Coonelly was the biggest problem (aside from Nutting's tight-fisted ways). He should have been fired after his first terrible TV deal, and the issue with the local bars.
That was soon followed by his DUI/DWI. I always believed he was sent here by MLB (with Nuttings blessing) to learn baseball Front Office/Executive duties with the plan of taking over for Selig. (Jokingly, he went on a bender after Selig announced he was staying on, and Frank looked around and said to himself - "And I get stuck in f%&^(%# Pittsburgh with these bozos?")
Please remember that Coonelly was the driver behind the draft pick slotting idea when he was in the MLB offices. There was pushback from the big spenders, so he helped develop the Josh Bell deal, which pissed them off, and was immediately followed by the slotting guidelines. Conspiracy theory? Yeah, maybe, but it stinks anyway that it was his baby, and he used the Bucs to get it through.
I think he overrode Neal in alot of transactions. I also do not think Hurdle was a big fan of Neal either, but was aligned with Frank. Who else would have told him he was staying, then the next week he was fired? Had to be Frank who told him he was staying, and that was the final straw for Nutting with Coonelly.
Just my 2 cents
Baz was your typical PTBNL throw-in.
Seriously, since when is a No. 1 pick who throws 100 mph a PTBNL ???
I thought all PTBNLers were non-prospects, afterthoughts.
Not No. 1 starters who throw 100 !!
I've always considered the Aramis Ramirez trade as the benchmark for worst Pirates trade of the modern era.
But this one is somehow even worse. Much worse.
I agree that this one was worse. The Ramirez "trade' was strictly a financial deal. The Pirates had run afoul of MLB rules on revenue vs payroll and were forced to unload salary ASAP. They had worked a deal sending Kris Benson to Atlanta but at the last minute he hurt his arm. By subtracting the salaries of Ramirez and Lofton and adding only the salaries of Jose Hernandez, a LMG in the immortal Bobby Hill and a minor leaguer they promptly released, they got their finances in order. It was a dismal trade from a baseball standpoint but it was not made for baseball reasons.
The Archer trade was strictly a baseball deal. Huntington somehow thought the addition of a fading Archer was worth Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. It was irrational and irresponsible from a baseball stsandpoint.
The Pirates were exempt from that rule. Which is actually worse if it was money driven. McClatchy's inept handling of the finances is how we ended up with Nutting.
The Archer trade, also was not a move the GM wanted to make, and also money driven. Frank Coonley forced the trade because the Pirates needed marketable players to sell tickets.
If you are certain Coonley forced the Archer trade that makes alot of sense to me. To me I always felt that Frank Coonley had too much authority in the baseball operations side of the ball club. He should have stayed involved in the business side of the club and let the baseball ops. guys take care of the operations side of the club.
I always, always, felt that Coonelly was the biggest problem (aside from Nutting's tight-fisted ways). He should have been fired after his first terrible TV deal, and the issue with the local bars.
That was soon followed by his DUI/DWI. I always believed he was sent here by MLB (with Nuttings blessing) to learn baseball Front Office/Executive duties with the plan of taking over for Selig. (Jokingly, he went on a bender after Selig announced he was staying on, and Frank looked around and said to himself - "And I get stuck in f%&^(%# Pittsburgh with these bozos?")
Please remember that Coonelly was the driver behind the draft pick slotting idea when he was in the MLB offices. There was pushback from the big spenders, so he helped develop the Josh Bell deal, which pissed them off, and was immediately followed by the slotting guidelines. Conspiracy theory? Yeah, maybe, but it stinks anyway that it was his baby, and he used the Bucs to get it through.
I think he overrode Neal in alot of transactions. I also do not think Hurdle was a big fan of Neal either, but was aligned with Frank. Who else would have told him he was staying, then the next week he was fired? Had to be Frank who told him he was staying, and that was the final straw for Nutting with Coonelly.
Just my 2 cents
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Shane Baz
I agree with much of what you write here, Javy. On Day 1 (on our mutual previous board) I wrote that Coonelly was a Commissioners Office Plant- not to get him out of the way in NYC or to give him team leadership experience, but to somehow right the Pirates ship and prove that smaller-revenue teams could still out-manuver larger-revenue teams.
I didn't care much for the the job he was doing with the Pirates. I thought that having an anti-labor attorney with the Pirates would never be to the Pirates advantage in recruiting top talent.
While the "local bar" and "DUI" issues weren't very good looks on his part, I don[t think that either deserved being let go.
What I'll say now, looking back on his time with the Pirates, someone would have to remind me of a single move or decision Coonelly made over those years that worked to the Pirates' advantage.
So far, with this Travis Williams, I wonder what on earth the guy does or why he's even there. Both were/are nothing more than human BOB Nutting shields, AFAIAC.
I didn't care much for the the job he was doing with the Pirates. I thought that having an anti-labor attorney with the Pirates would never be to the Pirates advantage in recruiting top talent.
While the "local bar" and "DUI" issues weren't very good looks on his part, I don[t think that either deserved being let go.
What I'll say now, looking back on his time with the Pirates, someone would have to remind me of a single move or decision Coonelly made over those years that worked to the Pirates' advantage.
So far, with this Travis Williams, I wonder what on earth the guy does or why he's even there. Both were/are nothing more than human BOB Nutting shields, AFAIAC.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Shane Baz
The rest of this discussion is really interesting. I’ve always heard that debt/equity forced the trade. I’d like to know more about Kevin McC - I always considered him a white knight by saving the team (I was following closely the “talks” of moving the team to N Va (even named the Generals). But I have thought that Kevin was simply too thin in capital and that allowed Ogden to maneuver for control. I’m pretty sure The Nutting’s have less invested for a controlling interest than anyone in MLB (not counting legacies obviously).
Finally, if Frank forced the Archer trade, i will reevaluate my feelings about Neil. I always thought he did a lot with little support. Then I thought he sold the Pirates future for some far fetched hope for immediate success -to save his rear end. If that’s not the case, I’m back to thinking he did pretty well with very little.
Finally, if Frank forced the Archer trade, i will reevaluate my feelings about Neil. I always thought he did a lot with little support. Then I thought he sold the Pirates future for some far fetched hope for immediate success -to save his rear end. If that’s not the case, I’m back to thinking he did pretty well with very little.
-
GnatsEyelash
Shane Baz
There is a lot of truth running through this thread.
When Aramis Ramirez was traded, I was told by someone close enough to know that I would not be thrilled with the PTBNL. I don't think they thought they were getting anything close to value. As for why the Cubs, I was told that they had a deal in place for Kenny Lofton and simply expanded it. The front office felt they had no time to do much of anything, other than to unload salary. Nellie Briles may not have been technically correct in his explanation, they had a deadline...self imposed or not...to get it done.
I do agree with the Frank Coonelly influence, especially on the Shane Baz part of the deal. He had been under fire for not adding earlier when the team was really competitive, and when it unexpectedly moved into contention, they had to do something of note. If they didn't make the deal? I think there would have been a season ticket decline that would have led to the same result. Frank, Neal and Clint would have been out at the end of that season.
It wasn't a baseball trade. It was based on the perceived inability of the ticket sales department to overcome inaction. Chris Archer still had some name value...more than his baseball value...but enough that the ticket folks could say, "Look, we're trying."
When Aramis Ramirez was traded, I was told by someone close enough to know that I would not be thrilled with the PTBNL. I don't think they thought they were getting anything close to value. As for why the Cubs, I was told that they had a deal in place for Kenny Lofton and simply expanded it. The front office felt they had no time to do much of anything, other than to unload salary. Nellie Briles may not have been technically correct in his explanation, they had a deadline...self imposed or not...to get it done.
I do agree with the Frank Coonelly influence, especially on the Shane Baz part of the deal. He had been under fire for not adding earlier when the team was really competitive, and when it unexpectedly moved into contention, they had to do something of note. If they didn't make the deal? I think there would have been a season ticket decline that would have led to the same result. Frank, Neal and Clint would have been out at the end of that season.
It wasn't a baseball trade. It was based on the perceived inability of the ticket sales department to overcome inaction. Chris Archer still had some name value...more than his baseball value...but enough that the ticket folks could say, "Look, we're trying."
Shane Baz
133A352027112D313835273C540 wrote: There is a lot of truth running through this thread.
When Aramis Ramirez was traded, I was told by someone close enough to know that I would not be thrilled with the PTBNL. I don't think they thought they were getting anything close to value. As for why the Cubs, I was told that they had a deal in place for Kenny Lofton and simply expanded it. The front office felt they had no time to do much of anything, other than to unload salary. Nellie Briles may not have been technically correct in his explanation, they had a deadline...self imposed or not...to get it done.
I do agree with the Frank Coonelly influence, especially on the Shane Baz part of the deal. He had been under fire for not adding earlier when the team was really competitive, and when it unexpectedly moved into contention, they had to do something of note. If they didn't make the deal? I think there would have been a season ticket decline that would have led to the same result. Frank, Neal and Clint would have been out at the end of that season.
It wasn't a baseball trade. It was based on the perceived inability of the ticket sales department to overcome inaction. Chris Archer still had some name value...more than his baseball value...but enough that the ticket folks could say, "Look, we're trying."
If FC really did these things what does it say about NH?
When Aramis Ramirez was traded, I was told by someone close enough to know that I would not be thrilled with the PTBNL. I don't think they thought they were getting anything close to value. As for why the Cubs, I was told that they had a deal in place for Kenny Lofton and simply expanded it. The front office felt they had no time to do much of anything, other than to unload salary. Nellie Briles may not have been technically correct in his explanation, they had a deadline...self imposed or not...to get it done.
I do agree with the Frank Coonelly influence, especially on the Shane Baz part of the deal. He had been under fire for not adding earlier when the team was really competitive, and when it unexpectedly moved into contention, they had to do something of note. If they didn't make the deal? I think there would have been a season ticket decline that would have led to the same result. Frank, Neal and Clint would have been out at the end of that season.
It wasn't a baseball trade. It was based on the perceived inability of the ticket sales department to overcome inaction. Chris Archer still had some name value...more than his baseball value...but enough that the ticket folks could say, "Look, we're trying."
If FC really did these things what does it say about NH?
-
GnatsEyelash
Shane Baz
Neal had already included prospects with Liriano to move that salary off the books. I think it says he bought into having to do unusual things in a smaller market. Did he fight? I'm not going to pretend to know that answer. He was smart enough to take Baz in the first round, and he showed more patience with players he acquired. I don't think he offered Baz. I think Tampa Bay asked for the moon, perhaps sensing the Pirates desperation to get something done.
Shane Baz
Keith Law updated his propects ranking. Baz is number four.
Baz was part of the Chris Archer trade that brought Austin Meadows and Tyler Glasnow to Tampa, and might turn out to be the best player in the deal, as he’s been up to 99 mph as a starter with a plus changeup and hard slider. He started in Double A and walked just 2 guys in 7 starts before a promotion to Triple A, where he’s been only slightly less dominant, still striking out 36 percent of batters at the higher level with just a few more walks. He has No. 1 starter upside as long as he stays healthy, which so far hasn’t been a concern.
Baz was part of the Chris Archer trade that brought Austin Meadows and Tyler Glasnow to Tampa, and might turn out to be the best player in the deal, as he’s been up to 99 mph as a starter with a plus changeup and hard slider. He started in Double A and walked just 2 guys in 7 starts before a promotion to Triple A, where he’s been only slightly less dominant, still striking out 36 percent of batters at the higher level with just a few more walks. He has No. 1 starter upside as long as he stays healthy, which so far hasn’t been a concern.