Another hilarious thing to do:
Go back 4 years and read the threads, posts and comments (and the posters) about the state of the franchise and whether they would be able to have a winning season in the near future.
We all have skeletons, and things we are/were wrong about. I know I do. I'm glad he has seemingly changed his thinking, but let's not pretend the Pirates are the only team with a self-imposed budget. The issue is the ceiling of their self-imposed budget. Not that they have one.
TPOP on payroll - self imposed payroll cap!?!
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
JollyRoger
- Posts: 1469
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:31 pm
TPOP on payroll - self imposed payroll cap!?!
65607764324340010 wrote: Another hilarious thing to do:
Go back 4 years and read the threads, posts and comments (and the posters) about the state of the franchise and whether they would be able to have a winning season in the near future.
We all have skeletons, and things we are/were wrong about. I know I do. I'm glad he has seemingly changed his thinking, but let's not pretend the Pirates are the only team with a self-imposed budget. The issue is the ceiling of their self-imposed budget. Not that they have one.
You hit the nail on the head.
Every team, every business, has a budget. They also all have a 5 year plan which includes projected revenue. The issue that gives Bucs fans heartburn is the self imposed ceiling of that budget.
The Pirates are in the middle of the pack in terms of revenue. They also have benefitted from a huge increase in the value of the franchise. Yet their ML payroll continues to dwell in the bottom 5.
There is no logical rationale that explains why the Pirates cannot support an average ML payroll; which is about 30-40 million more than they are supporting now. The issue is that Nutting simply refuses to spend that much thus handcuffing NH to a significant degree
Go back 4 years and read the threads, posts and comments (and the posters) about the state of the franchise and whether they would be able to have a winning season in the near future.
We all have skeletons, and things we are/were wrong about. I know I do. I'm glad he has seemingly changed his thinking, but let's not pretend the Pirates are the only team with a self-imposed budget. The issue is the ceiling of their self-imposed budget. Not that they have one.
You hit the nail on the head.
Every team, every business, has a budget. They also all have a 5 year plan which includes projected revenue. The issue that gives Bucs fans heartburn is the self imposed ceiling of that budget.
The Pirates are in the middle of the pack in terms of revenue. They also have benefitted from a huge increase in the value of the franchise. Yet their ML payroll continues to dwell in the bottom 5.
There is no logical rationale that explains why the Pirates cannot support an average ML payroll; which is about 30-40 million more than they are supporting now. The issue is that Nutting simply refuses to spend that much thus handcuffing NH to a significant degree
TPOP on payroll - self imposed payroll cap!?!
Not really. The issue is that they are setting the margin at 25-35 million in the black every year and dont seem to care that running close to even would be the difference between winning something meaningful and bumping the franchise value up considerably. or not. But it makes sense if Nutting never had any intention of selling and realizing that equity.
Our margins vs our revenue are amongst the highest in the league. Our payroll to revenue ratio is amongst the lowest.
Will we even stretch to run even when a championship is at stake? So far, the answer is clearly no despite the PR out of the org for athe better part of a decade
Our margins vs our revenue are amongst the highest in the league. Our payroll to revenue ratio is amongst the lowest.
Will we even stretch to run even when a championship is at stake? So far, the answer is clearly no despite the PR out of the org for athe better part of a decade
-
PirateGold
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:20 pm
TPOP on payroll - self imposed payroll cap!?!
76736477215053120 wrote: Another
We all have skeletons, and things we are/were wrong about.
No doubt we all have things we've been wrong about. But, I differentiate about being wrong regarding a prediction of player performance compared to being wrong about the actual state of the franchise.
For example, I thought the Volquez signing would be terrible. I was wrong. I thought Pedro would be a middle of the order beast. I was wrong. But the Pirates having a self imposed budget? That's obvious as many in this thread have stated. Denying the self imposed budget and then starting a thread demanding proof independent of past behavior is a different level of being off the mark. That's being so blinded by your fondness for the FO (or, as Aaron noted, having your head in the sand) that you don't see the obvious.
We all have skeletons, and things we are/were wrong about.
No doubt we all have things we've been wrong about. But, I differentiate about being wrong regarding a prediction of player performance compared to being wrong about the actual state of the franchise.
For example, I thought the Volquez signing would be terrible. I was wrong. I thought Pedro would be a middle of the order beast. I was wrong. But the Pirates having a self imposed budget? That's obvious as many in this thread have stated. Denying the self imposed budget and then starting a thread demanding proof independent of past behavior is a different level of being off the mark. That's being so blinded by your fondness for the FO (or, as Aaron noted, having your head in the sand) that you don't see the obvious.
-
Steve19981
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:57 pm
TPOP on payroll - self imposed payroll cap!?!
714853405544664E4D45210 wrote: Thought this was a solid article at TPOP on the Pirates payroll.
http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/whe ... d-pledges/
I thought it was solid and well thought out. Then at the very end, it got unintentionally very funny for me. Quoting the article:
"So it sure seems like it’s Quintana or bust, in terms of additional players to be added prior to Spring Training, because of the Pirates’ self-imposed payroll limitations. "
It's funny because it wasn't all that long ago that, in reaction to my referencing the Pirates internal payroll cap in a different thread, we were admonished in a brand new thread that we needed proof in order to post about the Pirates 'self imposed' payroll restrictions:
http://web.archive.org/web/201212190958 ... ic=11845.0
Thanks to the wayback machine for the archive.
Per the old OBN thread, someone should tell Kevin that, if he is going to claim that the Pirates have a self imposed payroll max, he has to have articles:
1) with quotes from someone in the Pirates management
2) that verifies that there is a cap
3) sets the cap level
Maybe it took 4 years, but it seems that at least part of the fan base has acknowledged that there is, in fact, a self-imposed payroll limit.
With all due respect, you know Kevin and I are different people with different opinions, right?
The "self imposed salary cap" isn't something I've spent a long time thinking about because I hear it a lot less often than I used to. Do the Pirates have a budget? Yes they do. Do they have a range that they'd like to spend in? Sure. Do I believe it is a hard, fast number and that they wouldn't be willing to deviate from it if something within reason came along? No and in that sense my opinion hasn't changed much there. I have and still do think there is more flexibility there than the average fan does and certainly more than Kevin does as well.
http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/whe ... d-pledges/
I thought it was solid and well thought out. Then at the very end, it got unintentionally very funny for me. Quoting the article:
"So it sure seems like it’s Quintana or bust, in terms of additional players to be added prior to Spring Training, because of the Pirates’ self-imposed payroll limitations. "
It's funny because it wasn't all that long ago that, in reaction to my referencing the Pirates internal payroll cap in a different thread, we were admonished in a brand new thread that we needed proof in order to post about the Pirates 'self imposed' payroll restrictions:
http://web.archive.org/web/201212190958 ... ic=11845.0
Thanks to the wayback machine for the archive.
Per the old OBN thread, someone should tell Kevin that, if he is going to claim that the Pirates have a self imposed payroll max, he has to have articles:
1) with quotes from someone in the Pirates management
2) that verifies that there is a cap
3) sets the cap level
Maybe it took 4 years, but it seems that at least part of the fan base has acknowledged that there is, in fact, a self-imposed payroll limit.
With all due respect, you know Kevin and I are different people with different opinions, right?
The "self imposed salary cap" isn't something I've spent a long time thinking about because I hear it a lot less often than I used to. Do the Pirates have a budget? Yes they do. Do they have a range that they'd like to spend in? Sure. Do I believe it is a hard, fast number and that they wouldn't be willing to deviate from it if something within reason came along? No and in that sense my opinion hasn't changed much there. I have and still do think there is more flexibility there than the average fan does and certainly more than Kevin does as well.
TPOP on payroll - self imposed payroll cap!?!
What do you base that off of? Still going off the old "we will spend when the time is right" statements from years ago or is there some example of stretching budget that is otherwise invisible?
I've seen almost no example of it relative to competition. When we made QOs to liriano and Martin, I thought we were finally seeing the plan in action, but we quickly went back into cheap mode shortly after
I've seen almost no example of it relative to competition. When we made QOs to liriano and Martin, I thought we were finally seeing the plan in action, but we quickly went back into cheap mode shortly after
-
Steve19981
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:57 pm
TPOP on payroll - self imposed payroll cap!?!
4B424A5B552F0 wrote: What do you base that off of? Still going off the old "we will spend when the time is right" statements from years ago or is there some example of stretching budget that is otherwise invisible?
I've seen almost no example of it relative to competition. When we made QOs to liriano and Martin, I thought we were finally seeing the plan in action, but we quickly went back into cheap mode shortly after
I don't have a ton of time here to go in depth, but the example that jumps out at me is Frease. Heading into Spring Training, I think most thought the Pirates were done. A good baseball move comes along and they found the money to make it happen. I don't know the internal conversations. For all, I know they were were planning to be in the $120-130 range, but again, I think most thought they were done and got a pleasant surprise when he signed. Thankfully he did as he carried the team for stretches.
I also think the trade deadlines make me think they are willing go beyond to add payroll for good baseball moves. Granted, they haven't made a huge splash, but they were in on David Price in '14 and weren't scared off by both the short and long term financial impact. In '15, they didn't make a big move again, but a lot of deals where all they conserved prospects by taking on payroll.
I'm sure I could find other examples, but I think these three suffice.
I've seen almost no example of it relative to competition. When we made QOs to liriano and Martin, I thought we were finally seeing the plan in action, but we quickly went back into cheap mode shortly after
I don't have a ton of time here to go in depth, but the example that jumps out at me is Frease. Heading into Spring Training, I think most thought the Pirates were done. A good baseball move comes along and they found the money to make it happen. I don't know the internal conversations. For all, I know they were were planning to be in the $120-130 range, but again, I think most thought they were done and got a pleasant surprise when he signed. Thankfully he did as he carried the team for stretches.
I also think the trade deadlines make me think they are willing go beyond to add payroll for good baseball moves. Granted, they haven't made a huge splash, but they were in on David Price in '14 and weren't scared off by both the short and long term financial impact. In '15, they didn't make a big move again, but a lot of deals where all they conserved prospects by taking on payroll.
I'm sure I could find other examples, but I think these three suffice.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
TPOP on payroll - self imposed payroll cap!?!
Don't we need to know that ceiling number to know for sure? They could have went over their ceiling, but how would we know? We don't know their budget.
The Pirates did bring on more salary at the trading deadlines from 2013-2015 (I thought only Toronto added more at the deadline in 2015?).
This flashback post was in December 2012. I do know the Pirates went on to three playoff appearances after that time. Their budget did work. A lot of proof in that.
The Pirates did bring on more salary at the trading deadlines from 2013-2015 (I thought only Toronto added more at the deadline in 2015?).
This flashback post was in December 2012. I do know the Pirates went on to three playoff appearances after that time. Their budget did work. A lot of proof in that.
-
Bobster21
TPOP on payroll - self imposed payroll cap!?!
0027362536626A6A6B62530 wrote: What do you base that off of? Still going off the old "we will spend when the time is right" statements from years ago or is there some example of stretching budget that is otherwise invisible?
I've seen almost no example of it relative to competition. When we made QOs to liriano and Martin, I thought we were finally seeing the plan in action, but we quickly went back into cheap mode shortly after
I don't have a ton of time here to go in depth, but the example that jumps out at me is Frease. Heading into Spring Training, I think most thought the Pirates were done. A good baseball move comes along and they found the money to make it happen. I don't know the internal conversations. For all, I know they were were planning to be in the $120-130 range, but again, I think most thought they were done and got a pleasant surprise when he signed. Thankfully he did as he carried the team for stretches.
I also think the trade deadlines make me think they are willing go beyond to add payroll for good baseball moves. Granted, they haven't made a huge splash, but they were in on David Price in '14 and weren't scared off by both the short and long term financial impact. In '15, they didn't make a big move again, but a lot of deals where all they conserved prospects by taking on payroll.
I'm sure I could find other examples, but I think these three suffice.
The payroll actually went slightly down from 2015 to 2016. What they paid Freese was about half of what they had paid Alvarez the year before. So they added Freese and still saved money. It was a good move but not an example of a willingness to increase payroll.
I've seen almost no example of it relative to competition. When we made QOs to liriano and Martin, I thought we were finally seeing the plan in action, but we quickly went back into cheap mode shortly after
I don't have a ton of time here to go in depth, but the example that jumps out at me is Frease. Heading into Spring Training, I think most thought the Pirates were done. A good baseball move comes along and they found the money to make it happen. I don't know the internal conversations. For all, I know they were were planning to be in the $120-130 range, but again, I think most thought they were done and got a pleasant surprise when he signed. Thankfully he did as he carried the team for stretches.
I also think the trade deadlines make me think they are willing go beyond to add payroll for good baseball moves. Granted, they haven't made a huge splash, but they were in on David Price in '14 and weren't scared off by both the short and long term financial impact. In '15, they didn't make a big move again, but a lot of deals where all they conserved prospects by taking on payroll.
I'm sure I could find other examples, but I think these three suffice.
The payroll actually went slightly down from 2015 to 2016. What they paid Freese was about half of what they had paid Alvarez the year before. So they added Freese and still saved money. It was a good move but not an example of a willingness to increase payroll.
-
Bobster21
TPOP on payroll - self imposed payroll cap!?!
767D75797C7D662325526B737A7D7D3C717D120 wrote:
The Pirates did bring on more salary at the trading deadlines from 2013-2015 (I thought only Toronto added more at the deadline in 2015?).
Keep in mind that the Pirates pay only about 1 month of the salaries of players they pick up in those late August deals. It's not a windfall.
The Pirates did bring on more salary at the trading deadlines from 2013-2015 (I thought only Toronto added more at the deadline in 2015?).
Keep in mind that the Pirates pay only about 1 month of the salaries of players they pick up in those late August deals. It's not a windfall.