7770666E6077303C456268646C692B666A68050 wrote: They need a starting pitcher. They said they are in talks with a bunch of them. Why don't people believe they won't sign someone? They have signed or traded for one every year going back to 2012.
Liriano is not the answer. People defend Liriano because he was dumped. He was awful last year. He needed the change to a different league. Liriano was a huge reason why the 2016 team lost.
I think the plan is pretty simple. We have seen it before. They will sign/trade for a starter. Then come Super 2 they will bring up a ready Glasnow. The weakest starter will be replaced or an injury will open up a spot. Then they will look at the trade deadline to see who they can get to help even more.
This plan has worked three out of the last four seasons. But for some reason, people are dwelling on the one season it didn't work? And people are upset that the biggest failure when it didn't work is no longer a Pirate.
Because we want a good starter, one that will make impact - not some lousy reclamation project that is on the cheap. I think most now are skeptical that we can get a good meaningful arm. The plan sucked last year. I will be surprised if its good this year.
That's my question. This plan has worked three out of four years, but you (and others) will be surprised if it works again? Why?
I want a top starter too. By I also give Huntington the benefit of the doubt he will bring in someone good. If the plan keeps failing, then it would be a problem. But we aren't there yet. Three out of four is a great ratio.
So what's the plan, that worked 3 out of 4 years, and is still in process this year?
Read my post above. I stated the plan.
Now answer my question.
What about the lineup?
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
What about the lineup?
Dog it all depends on what your idea of the plan working is? If you are content with making the WC game and getting beat, then ok it is working. I would have much rather built upon a team that had 98 wins by adding a proven starting pitcher. I think they will sign someone but not anyone we will be thrilled with. They will dumpster dive and hope that they once again hit on a reclamation project.
What about the lineup?
I think they are serious about a budget of around $100MM. They will finagle around that number and in the end will have a pitcher, will have the budget level mandated, and in reality will have a pretty good team. Will it be ideal and perfect? No. Even the Cubs are looking for ways to get better -- in baseball, no matter what you do, it's not enough. But the team will be pretty good this year and likely pretty good for at least a few years to come. And that's the plan, and I agree with Dog - it's working.
-
OrlandoMerced
What about the lineup?
By what measure is the plan not working?
They've averaged 89.5 wins over the last 4 years, and they've done that without having to hand out one burdensome contract.
They have a competitive group of position players and a strong farm system that can be used to add ML talent through either trade of promotion.
They've averaged 89.5 wins over the last 4 years, and they've done that without having to hand out one burdensome contract.
They have a competitive group of position players and a strong farm system that can be used to add ML talent through either trade of promotion.
What about the lineup?
The Pirates have averaged 80.8 wins per season over the last 7 seasons. That of course is the definition of mediocrity. I would point out that 7 years is a larger sample size than 4 years and a more accurate reflection of the success of the franchise. If you counter with the argument that they've been more successful recently I would argue that most recently they won 78 games which is very close to their 7 year average.
The success of "The Plan" can be argued either way. What can't be argued is that after a 98 win season that "The Plan" not only failed to improve the team but was at least partly responsible for a 20 game regression.
The success of "The Plan" can be argued either way. What can't be argued is that after a 98 win season that "The Plan" not only failed to improve the team but was at least partly responsible for a 20 game regression.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
What about the lineup?
Three out of four years in the playoffs, but people think that isn't a good plan? Only one team wins it all. You have to get into the Playoffs to even have a shot at that. The Pirates have been doing that.
Let me ask my question again: Why are people against a plan that has worked three out of four years (because of what happened that one year they didn't make the Playoffs)?
Let me ask my question again: Why are people against a plan that has worked three out of four years (because of what happened that one year they didn't make the Playoffs)?
What about the lineup?
767D75797C7D662325526B737A7D7D3C717D120 wrote: Three out of four years in the playoffs, but people think that isn't a good plan? Only one team wins it all. You have to get into the Playoffs to even have a shot at that. The Pirates have been doing that.
Let me ask my question again: Why are people against a plan that has worked three out of four years (because of what happened that one year they didn't make the Playoffs)?
They've only made the playoffs 3 out of the last 7 years.
Let me ask my question again: Why are people against a plan that has worked three out of four years (because of what happened that one year they didn't make the Playoffs)?
They've only made the playoffs 3 out of the last 7 years.
-
OrlandoMerced
What about the lineup?
Yeah, and the Cubs have only the made the playoffs twice in what like 8-10 years?
I'm not sure how pulling the John Russell era into the sample size helps this discussion.
I'm not sure how pulling the John Russell era into the sample size helps this discussion.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
What about the lineup?
774A5459565C57755D4A5B5D5C380 wrote: Yeah, and the Cubs have only the made the playoffs twice in what like 8-10 years?
I'm not sure how pulling the John Russell era into the sample size helps this discussion.
And we know, as true fans, how bad the system was when Huntington took over.
Just curious, how many times have other teams made the playoffs in those same seven years?
I'm not sure how pulling the John Russell era into the sample size helps this discussion.
And we know, as true fans, how bad the system was when Huntington took over.
Just curious, how many times have other teams made the playoffs in those same seven years?
What about the lineup?
5A6779747B717A587067767071150 wrote: Yeah, and the Cubs have only the made the playoffs twice in what like 8-10 years?
I'm not sure how pulling the John Russell era into the sample size helps this discussion.
Sure it's a stretch, but I'm not sure how one can put more weight into three winning seasons given the most recent failure of the Pirates FO to take the success of a 98 win team and quickly make it a sub-.500 team. Most recently "The Plan" has been a failure.
A "what have you done lately?" view is equally valid as the "3 out of 4" argument. If you wish to believe that last year was an aberration that's fine. I happen to be more inclined to believe that their luck ran out on a low investment/high return strategy.
I'm not sure how pulling the John Russell era into the sample size helps this discussion.
Sure it's a stretch, but I'm not sure how one can put more weight into three winning seasons given the most recent failure of the Pirates FO to take the success of a 98 win team and quickly make it a sub-.500 team. Most recently "The Plan" has been a failure.
A "what have you done lately?" view is equally valid as the "3 out of 4" argument. If you wish to believe that last year was an aberration that's fine. I happen to be more inclined to believe that their luck ran out on a low investment/high return strategy.