795E57575E4D4E5E794E583B0 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.
Shane Baz
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
BellevueBuc
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:41 pm
Shane Baz
290C0F0F1A310C040611630 wrote: Just to rub salt in our wound; here is the latest Shane Baz stats:
AA/AAA
2.09 ERA
0.79 WHIP
51 innings pitched
8 BB
77 K’s
His fastball has hit 100 MPH
Look at his control!!!!
With the recent draft haul, if we still had Baz, the Farm System would probably be rated #1. Heard reports that the system may be #2 or #3 after the draft, pending signings
Pretty likely the Pirates are number one, at least by Fangraphs, next year. Tampa will have some significant players graduate and Toronto has one graduating. Pirates best player that could graduate still this year is Oliva and maybe Kranick. Tampa and Toronto also will delete some players in trades, Pirates could add one or two 45+ types.
Negative is the Pirates have a bunch of real good prospects, but no game changers (based on the FV of prospects). Hopefully someone breaks out.
AA/AAA
2.09 ERA
0.79 WHIP
51 innings pitched
8 BB
77 K’s
His fastball has hit 100 MPH
Look at his control!!!!
With the recent draft haul, if we still had Baz, the Farm System would probably be rated #1. Heard reports that the system may be #2 or #3 after the draft, pending signings
Pretty likely the Pirates are number one, at least by Fangraphs, next year. Tampa will have some significant players graduate and Toronto has one graduating. Pirates best player that could graduate still this year is Oliva and maybe Kranick. Tampa and Toronto also will delete some players in trades, Pirates could add one or two 45+ types.
Negative is the Pirates have a bunch of real good prospects, but no game changers (based on the FV of prospects). Hopefully someone breaks out.
-
BellevueBuc
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:41 pm
Shane Baz
456865747362753536070 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.
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.
-
Bobster21
Shane Baz
04232A2A23303323043325460 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
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
-
BellevueBuc
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:41 pm
Shane Baz
765B56474051460605340 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.
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.
-
Bobster21
Shane Baz
5E797070796A69795E697F1C0 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.
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.
Shane Baz
153835242332256566570 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.
the big thing that always gets me with that deal I just can't believe if DL had created some sort of auction that Aram was available that he couldn't have gotten a better deal.
I think player evaluation was part of it. DL and company did expect Bobby Hill to be a good player.
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.
the big thing that always gets me with that deal I just can't believe if DL had created some sort of auction that Aram was available that he couldn't have gotten a better deal.
I think player evaluation was part of it. DL and company did expect Bobby Hill to be a good player.
-
Bobster21
Shane Baz
260001160010630 wrote:
the big thing that always gets me with that deal I just can't believe if DL had created some sort of auction that Aram was available that he couldn't have gotten a better deal.
I think player evaluation was part of it. DL and company did expect Bobby Hill to be a good player.
That's my thinking as well. I realize they were up against the clock with the TDL about a week away. But Ramirez and Lofton were both having very good seasons. Hernandez was a pending FA and nothing more than a place holder to fill in at 3B. But it seems Littlefield could have worked the phones to get better prospects than Hill and Bruback. In fact, Bruback was lost on waivers about a week later and Hill had a bad back.
the big thing that always gets me with that deal I just can't believe if DL had created some sort of auction that Aram was available that he couldn't have gotten a better deal.
I think player evaluation was part of it. DL and company did expect Bobby Hill to be a good player.
That's my thinking as well. I realize they were up against the clock with the TDL about a week away. But Ramirez and Lofton were both having very good seasons. Hernandez was a pending FA and nothing more than a place holder to fill in at 3B. But it seems Littlefield could have worked the phones to get better prospects than Hill and Bruback. In fact, Bruback was lost on waivers about a week later and Hill had a bad back.
-
BellevueBuc
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:41 pm
Shane Baz
0A272A3B3C2D3A7A79480 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.
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.
-
Bobster21
Shane Baz
1A3D34343D2E2D3D1A2D3B580 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.
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.