6C414C5D5A4B5C1C1F2E0 wrote:
We just saw how much good signing Bell to an extension did. We gave a bat away for nothing, and it's not like we had a fearsome lineup to begin with.
774255555E6755555E5955300 wrote: We want the team to win in 2021. It surprises me that others feel perfectly fine with punting seasons away.
142136363D0436363D3A36530 wrote:
What I've written in the past still holds true today. I would expect a man with Ben's reputation to improve the team at one position, minimum, per year externally. That's either by trade or FA acquisition. That would allow for internal development, too. Do that for a couple of years, and we should see the benefits.
1F2A3D3D360F3D3D36313D580 wrote:
In the definition that I've used here and on past boards, we've defined Salary Dumps as a move made that results in significant current payroll reduction- especially when the return does little or nothing to improve the current roster- except when the savings results in another move that will improve the roster.
So you want to win in 2021.
But you are perfectly fine punting seasons away while the worst team in MLB improves at one position per year externally.
And of course these external acquisitions will remain Pirates for as long as it takes to complete this transformation. None will be leaving as FAs until the process is completed. Because improving the worst team in MLB one position per year will only take a couple years. That's because the farm system is so rich that there are already prospects ready to turn the team into a WS contender in a couple years (you're punting until then because winning in 2021 is no longer the goal it was a few paragraphs ago) via starting pitching, BP, catching, infield and outfield to supplement those external acquisitions made one per year for only a couple years.
And you don't want to increase the prospect pool by trading what they currently have for additional prospects to contribute in a few years by which time they have accumulated a few external acquisitions. Because that's just giving players away for nothing and if it doesn't immediately improve the team then it was merely a salary dump.
Got it! Crystal clear.
Bob,
I wouldn't consider improving the team like that to be "punting." Punting is what they did this past season, and- so far, anyway- what they appear to be doing for the upcoming season, and that's doing next to nothing if not nothing at all re the 2021 club.
As for players acquired and how long they remain? Nobody knows how long ANY players stay- not even the suspects. We don't know how many we would want to remain, either.
We're keeping guys today because they're cheap, not because they're effective. In Polanco's case, I don't know why we just don't offer to eat some of his salary and deal him. Oh. I DO know.
But, if I have the option between a known veteran and a roll of the dice suspect, chances are, I'd go with the veteran. Not in every case, but as a general rule. Now, Ben is probably like every other GM out there, thinking that HIS suspects will be better than the other guys' suspects. So,...
I am opposed to our "revolving door" which replaces one guy with guys who aren't going to help the team this year.
When the team improves enough to the point where I think we can do it, then that's a different situation. In this Bell situation, I would have been more in favor of getting one guy who was more impressive and major league ready than two, with one of them needing time to bake before he's ready to come out. A guy with a double digit ERA? I'll pass. If that was the best I could do, I might have held onto Bell, and take my chances of getting better offers if he did well.
And, as I've written more than once- if some of the money that was saved by Bell's salary dumped is used toward an acquisiton that should improve the 2021 club, I'm certainly in favor if that.
I don't mind people shooting holes in ideas or opinions, but it's clear to me that what we've been doing hasn't been working very well.