OnlyBucs

51567374726F73721C0 wrote: Which brings us back to our owner.  This organization is where it is, because of him.  Is there a single person on this board who thinks we'll keep Bell?  Are we going to trade him because we have talent pushing him off the roster, or is it because we will have to pay market price for his production as he becomes a free agent?  And this is FAR from elite production.  We're going to trade him and we won't get back equal or better production, simply because that production equates to a certain cost, one we will not pay.  This organization is not one which can ever win in the future, it is built to win right now.  We will not develop our talent into productive ballplayers, because we will not pay productive ballplayers.  Production will always get traded for prospects and we will keep, acquire and trade for the level of production that costs far less. 


that's my conclusion too. the Marte deal only works if one of the players returned turns out to be better than Marte. Unless that player is substantially better than Marte the Bucs need the second player to be a contributor too. That rarely happens in the veteran's for prospects deal but it does happen often enough to make these deals worthwhile. The Bucs need to hit on a few of them while also hitting on a couple high ceiling players in the draft and in international market. If they can't hit on all three with players that make the big leagues at the same time the team can't win.

4E7B6C6C675E6C6C67606C090 wrote: Which brings us back to our owner.  This organization is where it is, because of him.  [highlight]Is there a single person on this board who thinks we'll keep Bell?  [/highlight]Are we going to trade him because we have talent pushing him off the roster, or is it because we will have to pay market price for his production as he becomes a free agent?  And this is FAR from elite production.  We're going to trade him and we won't get back equal or better production, simply because that production equates to a certain cost, one we will not pay.  This organization is not one which can ever win in the future, it is built to win right now.  We will not develop our talent into productive ballplayers, because we will not pay productive ballplayers.  Production will always get traded for prospects and we will keep, acquire and trade for the level of production that costs far less. 


Who do you place Bell in the same category as- Andrew McCutchen, Gerrit Cole, or Starling Marte? To me, he's closer to Marte than the other two, and good as Marte was with us, he was no difference maker.



I can't name a single player on the roster whom I would lose any sleep over if they're traded.  Unless Bell improves, I'm not sure that I'd be very concerned on what we'd get in return. 



It's not Bell's bad.  It's that he's not good enough to worry about.

7B7C595E58455958360 wrote: Which brings us back to our owner.  This organization is where it is, because of him.  Is there a single person on this board who thinks we'll keep Bell?  Are we going to trade him because we have talent pushing him off the roster, or is it because we will have to pay market price for his production as he becomes a free agent?  And this is FAR from elite production.  We're going to trade him and we won't get back equal or better production, simply because that production equates to a certain cost, one we will not pay.  This organization is not one which can ever win in the future, it is built to win right now.  We will not develop our talent into productive ballplayers, because we will not pay productive ballplayers.  Production will always get traded for prospects and we will keep, acquire and trade for the level of production that costs far less. 
Well said. It's ironic they are always in rebuilding mode for the future while simultaneously being in the mode of moving their better players before they can build a competitive team around them. So they always have a rolling short window. The organization is so bad that I doubt their free agents would sign with them even if money wasn't the issue. What productive player wants to tie himself to this organization throughout his prime years? But of course that's a moot point because money is always the issue.

183538292E3F28686B5A0 wrote: Ideally, sure. Just get out the check book. You can rail against Nutting til you're green blue in the face and it won't change the fact that they don't operate as you want them to. I think, realistically, most of us realize they won't operate that way (i.e., they are not going to just go out and sign established, productive players--they can't even trade for them because they have little to trade and they won't accept good players with high salaries in a trade) so if improvement is to be made it has to be via developing young players. 



Having a policy of refusing to spend on good players is one thing. But they do not have a policy of refusing to draft, trade for and develop good young players. That is an option--the only viable option--available to them within their own self-imposed financial constraints. And yet they are woefully awful at it. This is an area they can improve on. We don't see it from the roster which is distressing. That's on Huntington. Like it or not, Cherington is not going to pull out Nutting's checkbook and immediately improve the roster by either free agents of expensive players in trades. So he better do a much better job than Huntington at developing their own talent because right now it's way too sparse.


Cherington hasn't even had a draft nor an International signing period, so I'm not going to vilify him just yet.  In addition, he has no decent veterans to deal away in exchange for young talent from other organizations.  And as you pointed out, and what we all are well aware of, he is constrained like few other GMs by a boss who doesn't prioritize winning, so more money isn't going to be coming his way.  Throw in the game being closed down for five months and I'm just not sure what he could've done to rebuild the organization through the acquisition of young amateurs, which is the only realistic way going forward.


Yes, it remains to be seen how Cherington will do in this area. Way too soon to form any judgments. For all NH's talk of building the system, he was terrible at it, culminating in the mess BC inherited. Even best case scenario is that BC will need several drafts and a few years to develop the young players. Years were lost as NH failed to acquire and/or develop internal talent. Hopefully, the next few years will be an investment in the team's future success and not just another bunch of wasted years until another GM comes in to try his hand at it. 




Yep.  We all know this organization will never be in the high end free agent market.  Teams will always be constructed through the draft, international signings, and trades for minor league talent.  It's actually the right way to do it.  It's just that Huntington was especially bad at it.  We don't know yet if BC will be better at it here because he hasn't had an opportunity to acquire the talent. 



I don't know what fans expected under these circumstances.  Cherington isn't playing fantasy baseball.

This is all part of Nutting's plan. Fire your GM and Manager and replace them with someone new. Then kick the can down the road for a year saying the new guy has to see what he has. Then after about a year change the alibi to "we don't want to make any acquisitions that would block the LMG's that we have." In year 3, the alibi changes to "we don't want to make any acquisitions because that would upset our team chemistry". In year 4, the alibi becomes "well this player or that player will not make us a contender so we will save our financial flexibility until next year." In year 5, we fire the GM and Manager and rinse and repeat.



All I expect from the GM is to make incremental changes to improve the team on a step by step basis. So far, Cherington has been a miserable failure as all he has done is sit there and twittle his thumbs, while other small market GM's are busy improving their squads. I don't want excuses and alibis, I want to see action.

5E454849404C432D0 wrote: This is all part of Nutting's plan.  Fire your GM and Manager and replace them with someone new.  Then kick the can down the road for a year saying the new guy has to see what he has.  Then after about a year change the alibi to "we don't want to make any acquisitions that would block the LMG's that we have."  In year 3, the alibi changes to "we don't want to make any acquisitions because that would upset our team chemistry".  In year 4, the alibi becomes "well this player or that player will not make us a contender so we will save our financial flexibility until next year."  In year 5, we fire the GM and Manager and rinse and repeat.



All I expect from the GM is to make incremental changes to improve the team on a step by step basis.  So far, Cherington has been a miserable failure as all he has done is sit there and twittle his thumbs, while other small market GM's are busy improving their squads.  I don't want excuses and alibis, I want to see action.


So, if all of that is "Nutting's plan", as you said, how can you lay any blame on his GM, his employee?

0C0B2E292F322E2F410 wrote: Which brings us back to our owner.  This organization is where it is, because of him.  Is there a single person on this board who thinks we'll keep Bell?Are we going to trade him because we have talent pushing him off the roster, or is it because we will have to pay market price for his production as he becomes a free agent? And this is FAR from elite production. We're going to trade him and we won't get back equal or better production, simply because that production equates to a certain cost, one we will not pay. This organization is not one which can ever win in the future, it is built to win right now. We will not develop our talent into productive ballplayers, because we will not pay productive ballplayers. Production will always get traded for prospects and we will keep, acquire and trade for the level of production that costs far less.


And the really frustrating part is that, had the Archer trade not been made, I think we would be having the same discussion with Glassnow and Meadows (provided they managed to figure them out) as they reached the last couple years of arb.



You can't build a winner with that kind of timeline.

090E2B2C2A372B2A440 wrote: Which brings us back to our owner.  This organization is where it is, because of him.  Is there a single person on this board who thinks we'll keep Bell?  Are we going to trade him because we have talent pushing him off the roster, or is it because we will have to pay market price for his production as he becomes a free agent?  And this is FAR from elite production.  We're going to trade him and we won't get back equal or better production, simply because that production equates to a certain cost, one we will not pay.  This organization is not one which can ever win in the future, it is built to win right now.  We will not develop our talent into productive ballplayers, because we will not pay productive ballplayers.  Production will always get traded for prospects and we will keep, acquire and trade for the level of production that costs far less. 


Immediately Boras was all pumping the Pirates new outlook once BC was named GM. That was a fake pump. No chance in hell is Bell resigned. This is why I was so insistent on the Pirates trading him in the off season. He is an inconsistent player. Very good rookie year; followed by subpar second season. Last year he was on pace for an MVP type run only to fold like a cheap suit the second half. Someone overpays for that. The time was to move on from him already.

57707B58150 wrote: Which brings us back to our owner.  This organization is where it is, because of him.  Is there a single person on this board who thinks we'll keep Bell?Are we going to trade him because we have talent pushing him off the roster, or is it because we will have to pay market price for his production as he becomes a free agent?  And this is FAR from elite production.  We're going to trade him and we won't get back equal or better production, simply because that production equates to a certain cost, one we will not pay.  This organization is not one which can ever win in the future, it is built to win right now.  We will not develop our talent into productive ballplayers, because we will not pay productive ballplayers.  Production will always get traded for prospects and we will keep, acquire and trade for the level of production that costs far less.


And the really frustrating part is that, had the Archer trade not been made, I think we would be having the same discussion with Glassnow and Meadows (provided they managed to figure them out) as they reached the last couple years of arb.



You can't build a winner with that kind of timeline.


I really don't think Glasnow would have figured it out here. He needed a change of scenery. In all reality, Archer's return should have been Glasnow straight up. Archer was three years on the decline at the time of the deal. TB needed to move his salary. Give them a prospect, or at the stage a suspect in return. Meadows displayed he was a MLB player in Pittsburgh.

"People who are good at making excuses are seldom good at anything else."



- Benjamin Franklin



If Cherington was told that he was forbidden from forming a roster in any other way than the amateur draft, then I would question whether he should have interviewed for the position. No one on earth can compete exclusively via the draft. Come on.



No wonder we lose.