Trade Deadline Thread
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:27 am
3F382E26283F78740D2A202C2421632E22204D0 wrote:
DEFENDING (which is very different than shrugging shoulders and saying "what can I do?") the owner for refusing to manage a "bad" contract like the rest of baseball, assigning zero value to the prospects, calling Larinio a "cancer" - that's not apologist?
Who managed that bad contract. Seriously, the owner? It fell on NH to manage it because of a bad owner -- and he is the General Manager after all. So, in your book, NH just quits doing anything as the GM until Nutting opens his purse up? That's the only acceptable way to deal with a bad contract. And if I, or anyone else, thinks NH had to act instead of wait for Nutting to change, then I'm apologizing for the owner?
NH deals with ridiculous restraints that a bad owner has given him and I don't like how he does it -- this is what he should have done!
NH does a pretty good job at the restraints he's been given despite a bad owner -- and I OK with it in this case and this is why!
Those are the two arguments.
I bristle at the idea that anyone thinks NH taking action to work within the restraints of bad ownership is a justification for that bad ownership.
No. I'm not saying that. To the contrary, I think Neal is a good GM with some concerns about drafts. But I think he's a ++ GM given his reality.
I'm saying that some posters justify a small payroll because some teams with bigger payrolls don't win the WS (just as an example), or some have assigned zero value to prospects to justify moving them in a salary dump when we rarely move prospects to help the team (just as another example). I can give other examples (moving Frankie allows us to allocate $$ to Nova, but there is nothing said about the $$$ saved on Jung Ho and Marte not being allocated back to the team...)
None of this is on Neal. I think you can love the Pirates, think Neal does overall very good job, and believe the owner is not running the team in the same manner as the rest of MLB, and the fact "Team X" didn't win the WS with a payroll that's larger than the Pirates DOES NOT vindicate Mr Nutting's small payroll.
Think of how many times it's been said: "so you want to spend money just to have a bigger payroll!?" Of course not, but it's a regular "argument" offered up and I'd say that's being an apologist for Mr Nutting. That is totally different than what you're saying.
VaPirate, that's it exactly. Those who counter the claim that the Pirates should spend more than their usual minimum by saying they can't be expected to spend like the Yankees or Dodgers are completely dismissing that all anyone wants is to spend a respectable, middle of the road amount. That's a way of rationalizing (apologizing for) Nutting's cheapness. Then there's the argument that they have outspent other teams at the trade deadline. Wow. So They let other teams pay 5/6th of a player's salary and then let him go as a FA after the season. Not exactly proof of big spending. So now we're supposed to be elated that they saved 17 million (sorry, Tintin, you keep saying 20 but it's still 17) by sacrificing prospects one team thought was worth a lot of money instead of a player. I could understand it better if it was a high payroll out of control rather than one of MLB's lowest. It's hard to imagine any other team adding two even mid-range prospects into a trade with a starting pitcher in exchange for a failed pitcher and money relief. Especially after we've been told that suspect deals in the past have given the team financial flexibility. There's no flexibility when you have to go to extreme lengths to save money a lot of other teams wouldn't even blink at.
DEFENDING (which is very different than shrugging shoulders and saying "what can I do?") the owner for refusing to manage a "bad" contract like the rest of baseball, assigning zero value to the prospects, calling Larinio a "cancer" - that's not apologist?
Who managed that bad contract. Seriously, the owner? It fell on NH to manage it because of a bad owner -- and he is the General Manager after all. So, in your book, NH just quits doing anything as the GM until Nutting opens his purse up? That's the only acceptable way to deal with a bad contract. And if I, or anyone else, thinks NH had to act instead of wait for Nutting to change, then I'm apologizing for the owner?
NH deals with ridiculous restraints that a bad owner has given him and I don't like how he does it -- this is what he should have done!
NH does a pretty good job at the restraints he's been given despite a bad owner -- and I OK with it in this case and this is why!
Those are the two arguments.
I bristle at the idea that anyone thinks NH taking action to work within the restraints of bad ownership is a justification for that bad ownership.
No. I'm not saying that. To the contrary, I think Neal is a good GM with some concerns about drafts. But I think he's a ++ GM given his reality.
I'm saying that some posters justify a small payroll because some teams with bigger payrolls don't win the WS (just as an example), or some have assigned zero value to prospects to justify moving them in a salary dump when we rarely move prospects to help the team (just as another example). I can give other examples (moving Frankie allows us to allocate $$ to Nova, but there is nothing said about the $$$ saved on Jung Ho and Marte not being allocated back to the team...)
None of this is on Neal. I think you can love the Pirates, think Neal does overall very good job, and believe the owner is not running the team in the same manner as the rest of MLB, and the fact "Team X" didn't win the WS with a payroll that's larger than the Pirates DOES NOT vindicate Mr Nutting's small payroll.
Think of how many times it's been said: "so you want to spend money just to have a bigger payroll!?" Of course not, but it's a regular "argument" offered up and I'd say that's being an apologist for Mr Nutting. That is totally different than what you're saying.
VaPirate, that's it exactly. Those who counter the claim that the Pirates should spend more than their usual minimum by saying they can't be expected to spend like the Yankees or Dodgers are completely dismissing that all anyone wants is to spend a respectable, middle of the road amount. That's a way of rationalizing (apologizing for) Nutting's cheapness. Then there's the argument that they have outspent other teams at the trade deadline. Wow. So They let other teams pay 5/6th of a player's salary and then let him go as a FA after the season. Not exactly proof of big spending. So now we're supposed to be elated that they saved 17 million (sorry, Tintin, you keep saying 20 but it's still 17) by sacrificing prospects one team thought was worth a lot of money instead of a player. I could understand it better if it was a high payroll out of control rather than one of MLB's lowest. It's hard to imagine any other team adding two even mid-range prospects into a trade with a starting pitcher in exchange for a failed pitcher and money relief. Especially after we've been told that suspect deals in the past have given the team financial flexibility. There's no flexibility when you have to go to extreme lengths to save money a lot of other teams wouldn't even blink at.
