20373A3E3E3A303860530 wrote: Come on, no way they spend $125m. I think we have enough history to base this on. They'll do the minimum and hope for a flash in pan. Should or could they do it, yes, but they wont.
What would you spend an additional ~$50MM on?
Archer/Kela phase 1
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Archer/Kela phase 1
6D5F53534775565F5257585F3E0 wrote: Come on, no way they spend $125m. I think we have enough history to base this on. They'll do the minimum and hope for a flash in pan. Should or could they do it, yes, but they wont.
What would you spend an additional ~$50MM on?
As long as we are dreaming. I could easily spend 50MM on upgrades. Sign Machado and let him play SS. Go get Moustakas or Donaldson to play 3rd. Get the best available LH starter, and a LH reliever.
What would you spend an additional ~$50MM on?
As long as we are dreaming. I could easily spend 50MM on upgrades. Sign Machado and let him play SS. Go get Moustakas or Donaldson to play 3rd. Get the best available LH starter, and a LH reliever.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Archer/Kela phase 1
Not sure if Machado would be interested in coming here no matter what the money
Archer/Kela phase 1
If they were going to spend big, and I don't think they will, then I'd spend on a LHSP. My big spend would be Corbin. I'd also spend on Happ, but for a shorter term. I probably would not be willing to spend as much for Keuchel as he will cost. Get one, and you can then trade Nova. You'll recover some of the cost of the signee (since you'll have to eat some of his contract to move him).
I'd also sign a LHRP, but I wouldn't spend big for one. The FAs are all vets with up and down histories aside from Andrew Miller who just had his first not good year. If I was going to spend on one, he'd probably be the guy, and I'd hope his down year made him (more) affordable.
Pollock is probably the one big splash position player that I'd go for that's not completely unrealistic (Harper, Machado). It would mean an OFer would be getting moved when Polanco returns.
With Kang around, I don't know that Donaldson or Moose improves 3B enough to warrant the investment required. But either of them helps with marketing the team for sure. I could make the argument for Moose. Then maybe you could move Moran and/or Kang. In the end, it depends on whether we can get most of the Kang of '15 & '16 back since he was better than Moose of '18.
I'd also sign a LHRP, but I wouldn't spend big for one. The FAs are all vets with up and down histories aside from Andrew Miller who just had his first not good year. If I was going to spend on one, he'd probably be the guy, and I'd hope his down year made him (more) affordable.
Pollock is probably the one big splash position player that I'd go for that's not completely unrealistic (Harper, Machado). It would mean an OFer would be getting moved when Polanco returns.
With Kang around, I don't know that Donaldson or Moose improves 3B enough to warrant the investment required. But either of them helps with marketing the team for sure. I could make the argument for Moose. Then maybe you could move Moran and/or Kang. In the end, it depends on whether we can get most of the Kang of '15 & '16 back since he was better than Moose of '18.
Archer/Kela phase 1
5B4C5A6D7B7B77180 wrote: If they were going to spend big, and I don't think they will, then I'd spend on a LHSP. My big spend would be Corbin. I'd also spend on Happ, but for a shorter term. I probably would not be willing to spend as much for Keuchel as he will cost. Get one, and you can then trade Nova. You'll recover some of the cost of the signee (since you'll have to eat some of his contract to move him).
I'd also sign a LHRP, but I wouldn't spend big for one. The FAs are all vets with up and down histories aside from Andrew Miller who just had his first not good year. If I was going to spend on one, he'd probably be the guy, and I'd hope his down year made him (more) affordable.
Pollock is probably the one big splash position player that I'd go for that's not completely unrealistic (Harper, Machado). It would mean an OFer would be getting moved when Polanco returns.
With Kang around, I don't know that Donaldson or Moose improves 3B enough to warrant the investment required. But either of them helps with marketing the team for sure. I could make the argument for Moose. Then maybe you could move Moran and/or Kang. In the end, it depends on whether we can get most of the Kang of '15 & '16 back since he was better than Moose of '18.
With Kang around? What exactly do you expect from a guy that essentially hasn't played MLB in two years and only got a hit in the last series of the year against a pitcher many of us could (I'm being sarcastic, but the Reds pitching is terrible). I wouldn't expect anything from Kang at all.
I like AJ Pollock a lot and that wouldn't be a bad option.
Pittsburgh isn't going heavy in free agency and push that payroll up to 110 or 120 million. Not a chance. As someone said, we have history to speak of here.
Someone brought up Gio as an arm we should target. That is a big time pass. People get frustrated with Nova. Gio is more frustrating.
I keep seeing people bring up Matt Adams. He has zero interest in ever playing for the Pirates. This is the pretty strong sense among people who live in Phillipsburg, PA, which is around the corner from me.
I'd also sign a LHRP, but I wouldn't spend big for one. The FAs are all vets with up and down histories aside from Andrew Miller who just had his first not good year. If I was going to spend on one, he'd probably be the guy, and I'd hope his down year made him (more) affordable.
Pollock is probably the one big splash position player that I'd go for that's not completely unrealistic (Harper, Machado). It would mean an OFer would be getting moved when Polanco returns.
With Kang around, I don't know that Donaldson or Moose improves 3B enough to warrant the investment required. But either of them helps with marketing the team for sure. I could make the argument for Moose. Then maybe you could move Moran and/or Kang. In the end, it depends on whether we can get most of the Kang of '15 & '16 back since he was better than Moose of '18.
With Kang around? What exactly do you expect from a guy that essentially hasn't played MLB in two years and only got a hit in the last series of the year against a pitcher many of us could (I'm being sarcastic, but the Reds pitching is terrible). I wouldn't expect anything from Kang at all.
I like AJ Pollock a lot and that wouldn't be a bad option.
Pittsburgh isn't going heavy in free agency and push that payroll up to 110 or 120 million. Not a chance. As someone said, we have history to speak of here.
Someone brought up Gio as an arm we should target. That is a big time pass. People get frustrated with Nova. Gio is more frustrating.
I keep seeing people bring up Matt Adams. He has zero interest in ever playing for the Pirates. This is the pretty strong sense among people who live in Phillipsburg, PA, which is around the corner from me.
-
pghpaulatl
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:22 am
Archer/Kela phase 1
We have "history" to speak to why they will not increase payroll much if at all?
This is the First Time in many years they are negotiating a TV contract, with that they also need "something" to boost attendance.
I know I'm in the minority here, but what can that be other than spending money to create excitement?
This is the First Time in many years they are negotiating a TV contract, with that they also need "something" to boost attendance.
I know I'm in the minority here, but what can that be other than spending money to create excitement?
Archer/Kela phase 1
4A5D524A5B4F565B4E563A0 wrote: We have "history" to speak to why they will not increase payroll much if at all?
This is the First Time in many years they are negotiating a TV contract, with that they also need "something" to boost attendance.
I know I'm in the minority here, but what can that be other than spending money to create excitement?
It's not so much to boost attendance...it's to boost ratings. Splitting hairs maybe, but it's a key point. Money in baseball is tied up in TV contracts. I've said this before, but at the end of the day, MLB doesn't really care about how many butts are in seats. Heck, a couple of years ago, the Rays and Orioles LITERALLY played a game in front of zero fans. But, they care very much about how many eyes watch on TV. I'm hopeful that Nutting can see the benefit of investing in some marquee players. The return on that investment in a potential TV contract could be quite lucrative. Now, I don't seriously think the Pirates will be in on Machado, Harper, or Corbin. But, I am actually hoping for a bigger than normal splash (by Pirates standards) this year. Maybe not necessarily via the FA route, but perhaps via trade and taking on a bigger salaried player.
This is the First Time in many years they are negotiating a TV contract, with that they also need "something" to boost attendance.
I know I'm in the minority here, but what can that be other than spending money to create excitement?
It's not so much to boost attendance...it's to boost ratings. Splitting hairs maybe, but it's a key point. Money in baseball is tied up in TV contracts. I've said this before, but at the end of the day, MLB doesn't really care about how many butts are in seats. Heck, a couple of years ago, the Rays and Orioles LITERALLY played a game in front of zero fans. But, they care very much about how many eyes watch on TV. I'm hopeful that Nutting can see the benefit of investing in some marquee players. The return on that investment in a potential TV contract could be quite lucrative. Now, I don't seriously think the Pirates will be in on Machado, Harper, or Corbin. But, I am actually hoping for a bigger than normal splash (by Pirates standards) this year. Maybe not necessarily via the FA route, but perhaps via trade and taking on a bigger salaried player.
Archer/Kela phase 1
4F47447365406768060 wrote: We have "history" to speak to why they will not increase payroll much if at all?
This is the First Time in many years they are negotiating a TV contract, with that they also need "something" to boost attendance.
I know I'm in the minority here, but what can that be other than spending money to create excitement?
It's not so much to boost attendance...it's to boost ratings. Splitting hairs maybe, but it's a key point. Money in baseball is tied up in TV contracts. I've said this before, but at the end of the day, MLB doesn't really care about how many butts are in seats. Heck, a couple of years ago, the Rays and Orioles LITERALLY played a game in front of zero fans. But, they care very much about how many eyes watch on TV. I'm hopeful that Nutting can see the benefit of investing in some marquee players. The return on that investment in a potential TV contract could be quite lucrative. Now, I don't seriously think the Pirates will be in on Machado, Harper, or Corbin. But, I am actually hoping for a bigger than normal splash (by Pirates standards) this year. Maybe not necessarily via the FA route, but perhaps via trade and taking on a bigger salaried player.
I hope for some sort of splash move too but I could see Neal saying in spring training that he made the big move when he dealt for Archer. Hope I am wrong.
With luck the salaries that Machado, Harper and Kershaw and a couple others get take up most of the big boys free agent money.
This is the First Time in many years they are negotiating a TV contract, with that they also need "something" to boost attendance.
I know I'm in the minority here, but what can that be other than spending money to create excitement?
It's not so much to boost attendance...it's to boost ratings. Splitting hairs maybe, but it's a key point. Money in baseball is tied up in TV contracts. I've said this before, but at the end of the day, MLB doesn't really care about how many butts are in seats. Heck, a couple of years ago, the Rays and Orioles LITERALLY played a game in front of zero fans. But, they care very much about how many eyes watch on TV. I'm hopeful that Nutting can see the benefit of investing in some marquee players. The return on that investment in a potential TV contract could be quite lucrative. Now, I don't seriously think the Pirates will be in on Machado, Harper, or Corbin. But, I am actually hoping for a bigger than normal splash (by Pirates standards) this year. Maybe not necessarily via the FA route, but perhaps via trade and taking on a bigger salaried player.
I hope for some sort of splash move too but I could see Neal saying in spring training that he made the big move when he dealt for Archer. Hope I am wrong.
With luck the salaries that Machado, Harper and Kershaw and a couple others get take up most of the big boys free agent money.
-
Bobster21
Archer/Kela phase 1
755352455343300 wrote: We have "history" to speak to why they will not increase payroll much if at all?
This is the First Time in many years they are negotiating a TV contract, with that they also need "something" to boost attendance.
I know I'm in the minority here, but what can that be other than spending money to create excitement?
It's not so much to boost attendance...it's to boost ratings. Splitting hairs maybe, but it's a key point. Money in baseball is tied up in TV contracts. I've said this before, but at the end of the day, MLB doesn't really care about how many butts are in seats. Heck, a couple of years ago, the Rays and Orioles LITERALLY played a game in front of zero fans. But, they care very much about how many eyes watch on TV. I'm hopeful that Nutting can see the benefit of investing in some marquee players. The return on that investment in a potential TV contract could be quite lucrative. Now, I don't seriously think the Pirates will be in on Machado, Harper, or Corbin. But, I am actually hoping for a bigger than normal splash (by Pirates standards) this year. Maybe not necessarily via the FA route, but perhaps via trade and taking on a bigger salaried player.
I hope for some sort of splash move too but I could see Neal saying in spring training that he made the big move when he dealt for Archer. Hope I am wrong.
With luck the salaries that Machado, Harper and Kershaw and a couple others get take up most of the big boys free agent money.
It's all about profit with Nutting. Maybe someone has data on it but I haven't heard that they lost money or even stopped profiting since their last post season appearance in 2015. Attendance went way down but so did payroll. Nutting is too shrewd a businessman to not plan for reduced revenue to accompany the deliberate change of direction after 2015. And that was when they were locked into a poor TV deal (by most accounts other than Coonelly). The new TV deal becomes the key factor at this point. And what goes into those negotiations? I doubt AT&T Sports gets any assurances that Nutting will upgrade the talent to some degree. That would seem difficult if not impossible to enforce. So does the new TV deal provide only modest increases in revenue? It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. But I don't see the new deal being any kind of windfall or Nutting making any impact moves to sweeten the deal.
This is the First Time in many years they are negotiating a TV contract, with that they also need "something" to boost attendance.
I know I'm in the minority here, but what can that be other than spending money to create excitement?
It's not so much to boost attendance...it's to boost ratings. Splitting hairs maybe, but it's a key point. Money in baseball is tied up in TV contracts. I've said this before, but at the end of the day, MLB doesn't really care about how many butts are in seats. Heck, a couple of years ago, the Rays and Orioles LITERALLY played a game in front of zero fans. But, they care very much about how many eyes watch on TV. I'm hopeful that Nutting can see the benefit of investing in some marquee players. The return on that investment in a potential TV contract could be quite lucrative. Now, I don't seriously think the Pirates will be in on Machado, Harper, or Corbin. But, I am actually hoping for a bigger than normal splash (by Pirates standards) this year. Maybe not necessarily via the FA route, but perhaps via trade and taking on a bigger salaried player.
I hope for some sort of splash move too but I could see Neal saying in spring training that he made the big move when he dealt for Archer. Hope I am wrong.
With luck the salaries that Machado, Harper and Kershaw and a couple others get take up most of the big boys free agent money.
It's all about profit with Nutting. Maybe someone has data on it but I haven't heard that they lost money or even stopped profiting since their last post season appearance in 2015. Attendance went way down but so did payroll. Nutting is too shrewd a businessman to not plan for reduced revenue to accompany the deliberate change of direction after 2015. And that was when they were locked into a poor TV deal (by most accounts other than Coonelly). The new TV deal becomes the key factor at this point. And what goes into those negotiations? I doubt AT&T Sports gets any assurances that Nutting will upgrade the talent to some degree. That would seem difficult if not impossible to enforce. So does the new TV deal provide only modest increases in revenue? It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. But I don't see the new deal being any kind of windfall or Nutting making any impact moves to sweeten the deal.
Archer/Kela phase 1
634E43525544531310210 wrote: We have "history" to speak to why they will not increase payroll much if at all?
This is the First Time in many years they are negotiating a TV contract, with that they also need "something" to boost attendance.
I know I'm in the minority here, but what can that be other than spending money to create excitement?
It's not so much to boost attendance...it's to boost ratings. Splitting hairs maybe, but it's a key point. Money in baseball is tied up in TV contracts. I've said this before, but at the end of the day, MLB doesn't really care about how many butts are in seats. Heck, a couple of years ago, the Rays and Orioles LITERALLY played a game in front of zero fans. But, they care very much about how many eyes watch on TV. I'm hopeful that Nutting can see the benefit of investing in some marquee players. The return on that investment in a potential TV contract could be quite lucrative. Now, I don't seriously think the Pirates will be in on Machado, Harper, or Corbin. But, I am actually hoping for a bigger than normal splash (by Pirates standards) this year. Maybe not necessarily via the FA route, but perhaps via trade and taking on a bigger salaried player.
I hope for some sort of splash move too but I could see Neal saying in spring training that he made the big move when he dealt for Archer. Hope I am wrong.
With luck the salaries that Machado, Harper and Kershaw and a couple others get take up most of the big boys free agent money.
It's all about profit with Nutting. Maybe someone has data on it but I haven't heard that they lost money or even stopped profiting since their last post season appearance in 2015. Attendance went way down but so did payroll. Nutting is too shrewd a businessman to not plan for reduced revenue to accompany the deliberate change of direction after 2015. And that was when they were locked into a poor TV deal (by most accounts other than Coonelly). The new TV deal becomes the key factor at this point. And what goes into those negotiations? I doubt AT&T Sports gets any assurances that Nutting will upgrade the talent to some degree. That would seem difficult if not impossible to enforce. So does the new TV deal provide only modest increases in revenue? It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. But I don't see the new deal being any kind of windfall or Nutting making any impact moves to sweeten the deal.
Is there competition among broadcasters to get rights to Pirate games?
This is the First Time in many years they are negotiating a TV contract, with that they also need "something" to boost attendance.
I know I'm in the minority here, but what can that be other than spending money to create excitement?
It's not so much to boost attendance...it's to boost ratings. Splitting hairs maybe, but it's a key point. Money in baseball is tied up in TV contracts. I've said this before, but at the end of the day, MLB doesn't really care about how many butts are in seats. Heck, a couple of years ago, the Rays and Orioles LITERALLY played a game in front of zero fans. But, they care very much about how many eyes watch on TV. I'm hopeful that Nutting can see the benefit of investing in some marquee players. The return on that investment in a potential TV contract could be quite lucrative. Now, I don't seriously think the Pirates will be in on Machado, Harper, or Corbin. But, I am actually hoping for a bigger than normal splash (by Pirates standards) this year. Maybe not necessarily via the FA route, but perhaps via trade and taking on a bigger salaried player.
I hope for some sort of splash move too but I could see Neal saying in spring training that he made the big move when he dealt for Archer. Hope I am wrong.
With luck the salaries that Machado, Harper and Kershaw and a couple others get take up most of the big boys free agent money.
It's all about profit with Nutting. Maybe someone has data on it but I haven't heard that they lost money or even stopped profiting since their last post season appearance in 2015. Attendance went way down but so did payroll. Nutting is too shrewd a businessman to not plan for reduced revenue to accompany the deliberate change of direction after 2015. And that was when they were locked into a poor TV deal (by most accounts other than Coonelly). The new TV deal becomes the key factor at this point. And what goes into those negotiations? I doubt AT&T Sports gets any assurances that Nutting will upgrade the talent to some degree. That would seem difficult if not impossible to enforce. So does the new TV deal provide only modest increases in revenue? It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. But I don't see the new deal being any kind of windfall or Nutting making any impact moves to sweeten the deal.
Is there competition among broadcasters to get rights to Pirate games?