OnlyBucs

557F744473656569060 wrote: I've gotten lost trying to follow the car analogies and will confine my remarks to baseball.



I think this was a terrible trade. The Pirates could hardly have sold lower on Josh Bell. While I appreciate the "we're not going to compete while Bell is here" line of thinking, and agree that he should have been traded, I am dissatisfied with the return.



Wil Crowe is the "close to the majors mediocrity" we have traded for unsuccessfully in the past. Whereas the DBacks trade seemed to bring back some highly rated talent, I don't think Yean was enough.



Of course I don't know what other offers were on the table. But I do know that the organization is bereft of talent at catcher and we seem to have a phobia about acquiring lefty pitchers.



We do have depth at 1B and should get MLB-quality output from the position next season. But I viewed Bell as our best trade chip, and, to be redundant, think we settled for a firesale return.
______

Hear Hear

6A404B7B4C5A5A56390 wrote: I've gotten lost trying to follow the car analogies and will confine my remarks to baseball.



I think this was a terrible trade. The Pirates could hardly have sold lower on Josh Bell. While I appreciate the "we're not going to compete while Bell is here" line of thinking and agree that he should have been traded, I am dissatisfied with the return.



Wil Crowe is the "close to the majors' mediocrity" we have traded for unsuccessfully in the past. Whereas the DBacks trade seemed to bring back some highly-rated talent, I don't think Yean was enough.



Of course, I don't know what other offers were on the table. But I do know that the organization is bereft of talent at catcher and we seem to have a phobia about acquiring lefty pitchers.



We do have depth at 1B and should get MLB-quality output from the position next season. But I viewed Bell as our best trade chip, and, to be redundant, think we settled for a firesale return.


Hi buddy, we go back to the McClatchy years together and I have always respected your opinions and ability golf and pay off on bets or take your winnings and spend it on your 4 some in the 19th hole. Oh, those were the days when we almost got Jimbo a baseball bat with a driver head on it so he could do more than dub the ball off the tee.

The trade came to great surprise to me as well and I have wondered what other offers BC had on the table.

Concerning your question about getting back a catching prospect, I wonder as well why BC did not go after one even if he is a few yrs away. As for lefty pitchers, what is with BC. Is he just stocking up on young untested players or players like Crowe who seem to require a different system than the Nats to help him refine what he does have in his arsenal to be a back of the rotation guy.

Is BC just stockpiling young prospects no matter the position hoping that he can move some of them at a later date for a prospect whose position is one of need and might be available later?

This move and what might be coming up later in the off-season have me scratching my head.

Please tell your bride that Mrs. Possum and I said Happy Holidays.

6A4B436A41492E0 wrote: I've gotten lost trying to follow the car analogies and will confine my remarks to baseball.



I think this was a terrible trade. The Pirates could hardly have sold lower on Josh Bell. While I appreciate the "we're not going to compete while Bell is here" line of thinking and agree that he should have been traded, I am dissatisfied with the return.



Wil Crowe is the "close to the majors' mediocrity" we have traded for unsuccessfully in the past. Whereas the DBacks trade seemed to bring back some highly-rated talent, I don't think Yean was enough.



Of course, I don't know what other offers were on the table. But I do know that the organization is bereft of talent at catcher and we seem to have a phobia about acquiring lefty pitchers.



We do have depth at 1B and should get MLB-quality output from the position next season. But I viewed Bell as our best trade chip, and, to be redundant, think we settled for a firesale return.


Hi buddy, we go back to the McClatchy years together and I have always respected your opinions and ability golf and pay off on bets or take your winnings and spend it on your 4 some in the 19th hole.  Oh, those were the days when we almost got Jimbo a baseball bat with a driver head on it so he could do more than dub the ball off the tee.

The trade came to great surprise to me as well and I have wondered what other offers BC had on the table. 

Concerning your question about getting back a catching prospect, I wonder as well why BC did not go after one even if he is a few yrs away.  As for lefty pitchers, what is with BC.  Is he just stocking up on young untested players or players like Crowe who seem to require a different system than the Nats to help him refine what he does have in his arsenal to be a back of the rotation guy. 

Is BC just stockpiling young prospects no matter the position hoping that he can move some of them at a later date for a prospect whose position is one of need and might be available later? 

This move and what might be coming up later in the off-season have me scratching my head.

Please tell your bride that Mrs. Possum and I said Happy Holidays.






Possum, totally agree with your thoughts here. Is it the goal of Nutting/Cherrington to essentially unleash an expansion team roster for the next few years? You are putting alot of faith in development, a facet that this organization has mainly failed miserably at. It does not look like a mediocre free agent is going to be signed and Musgrove and Frazier are more than likely gone for more either prospects four years away, or MLB mediocre. I want to like Cherrington. I really do, but I'm perplexed at his plan thus far. Not saying we didn't need arms, but ...



On second thought, put Brault in for Polanco in the OF. We have a better defensive player there with a better batting average. Problem solved! Now, onto others.

754057575C6557575C5B57320 wrote: Other may disagree with my definition, but to me a salary dump move is one in which the primary purpose is to reduce payroll.  I don't think that is the case here.  I think they really are trying to add talent.  But, moving Bell for one lower-level higher-upside guy and one higher-level lower-upside guy instead of getting two lower-level higher-upside guys means that we can expect at least one of our major league pitchers to be gone before spring training, likely for one or two more lower-level guys with higher potential.  With Bell moved, I think we can expect anyone with 2 or less years left that has any trade value at all to be moved.  So yes, they are in fact punting the 2021 season.  By doing so they can grab another high draft pick.   This method is not that different that what Tampa does - they just seem to be better at it, and they tend to have more guys with good value at the major level that we do.






You and I have differences in definition.



In mine, the motive isn't relevant.  Don't care what the motives are.  There isn't a GM in the world who would admit that they made a move to cut costs.  They're always "baseball moves" so as not to upset the ticket-buying public.  By that, I mean, very few times.



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.


I can't really argue with that perspective of it either, especially with regards to GM-speak. I still remember when Littlefield said we'd be happy with what we got in return for Ramirez - as if anyone would buy the notion that it was a move for anything but moving salary.

At most, we might hear something like the classic, "...and, it gives us more financial flexibilty... (that we will never use for this season.)" I think "FinancialFlexibility" was Frank Coonelly's middle name.

So now, what is the real time clock Nutting/Cherrington figure on being competitive enough to add some decent pieces instead of Dyson types? Say we deal off Musgrove and Frazier at the beginning of the season. I can see Moran, Kuhl, Brault types moving next even though all three of those don't make money at all that matters. They can't trade Stallings can they, since he might have the best value on our roster if Musgrove and Frazier are gone.



I can't fathom this organization competing in 2023 at all based on the level of talent we are brining in. We might get our dominant starter in the upcoming draft and he could be up in maybe two years. I'm not seeing anything until 2025 and that is if everything goes right. Our stud prospects, absent Hayes, are in lower levels and have two or three years before being up.



I'm already planning to have the first overall pick in 2022 draft too.

7F6F6E594F4F432C0 wrote: So now, what is the real time clock Nutting/Cherrington figure on being competitive enough to add some decent pieces instead of Dyson types?  Say we deal off Musgrove and Frazier at the beginning of the season.  I can see Moran, Kuhl, Brault types moving next even though all three of those don't make money at all that matters.  They can't trade Stallings can they, since he might have the best value on our roster if Musgrove and Frazier are gone.



I can't fathom this organization competing in 2023 at all based on the level of talent we are brining in.  We might get our dominant starter in the upcoming draft and he could be up in maybe two years.  I'm not seeing anything until 2025 and that is if everything goes right.  Our stud prospects, absent Hayes, are in lower levels and have two or three years before being up.



I'm already planning to have the[highlight] first overall pick in 2022 draft[/highlight] too.


so is Ben Cherington. COVID has probably been a godsend for him (not the disease but the implications for sports). The Bucs get a pass on being awful in 2020 and 2021.

1000013620202C430 wrote: So now, what is the real time clock Nutting/Cherrington figure on being competitive enough to add some decent pieces instead of Dyson types?  Say we deal off Musgrove and Frazier at the beginning of the season.  I can see Moran, Kuhl, Brault types moving next even though all three of those don't make money at all that matters.  They can't trade Stallings can they, since he might have the best value on our roster if Musgrove and Frazier are gone.



I can't fathom this organization competing in 2023 at all based on the level of talent we are brining in.  We might get our dominant starter in the upcoming draft and he could be up in maybe two years.  I'm not seeing anything until 2025 and that is if everything goes right.  Our stud prospects, absent Hayes, are in lower levels and have two or three years before being up.



I'm already planning to have the first overall pick in 2022 draft too.
__________

There we have it. We are now at 2025 before we will compete. Will anyone out there in cyberspace raise him to 2030?

First, we have to agree on what it means "to compete."

" Compete" means different things to different people.



Is it...



Being competitive in games?



For the NL Central Division title?



For a Wild Card berth, knowing that, like other things, may change?



For the NLCS?



To win the NL pennant?



To win the World Series?



I'm ruling the last one out, regardless of year, so long as BOB owns the team.



As seasons go by, and salaries rise, the others will become less likely.  BOB doesn't pay.

073225252E1725252E2925400 wrote: First, we have to agree on what it means "to compete."

" Compete" means different things to different people.



Is it...



Being competitive in games?



For the NL Central Division title?



For a Wild Card berth, knowing that, like other things, may change?



For the NLCS?



To win the NL pennant?



To win the World Series?



I'm ruling the last one out, regardless of year, so long as BOB owns the team.



As seasons go by, and salaries rise, the others will become less likely.  BOB doesn't pay.
To me, being competitive means being a legit contender for post season play with a perceived chance to win. We don't determine who was competitive after the fact. "Competitive" refers to a competition. The winner is only one of those who competed. I would like to see the Pirates in the conversation. I would like to see them in a September where they had a legit chance to win the division or get a WC spot instead of discussing how high their draft position will be. Obviously the ultimate goal is to win a championship. And you can't do that unless you have a legit chance to get into the post season and win once you get there. It's disappointing to be a competitive team but always fall short. For many decades that was the curse of the Red Sox and the Cubs. But it's even worse to not even be among those with a realistic chance, such as the Pirates.