OnlyBucs

685D4A4A41784A4A41464A2F0 wrote: "People who are good at making excuses are seldom good at anything else."

                                 

                                                            - Benjamin Franklin



If Cherington was told that he was forbidden from forming a roster in any other way than the amateur draft, then I would question whether he should have interviewed for the position.  No one on  earth can compete exclusively via the draft.  Come on. 



No wonder we lose.
And yet we know that's the case other than whatever dumpster dives and reclamation projects he can hit on. I can't imagine that interview conversation between him and Nutting (or Williams). And it's not as if Nutting's ways are a secret throughout MLB. There's no way BC leaves that interview believing he will be able to spend money for players. So do they feed him a bunch of BS and he's too dumb to realize it's the opposite of how they operate? Or does he think he can give them a good team without spending? Because, "Oh no, Ben, we're going to change our ways as soon as you come aboard" was probably not part of the conversation.

173A37262130276764550 wrote: "People who are good at making excuses are seldom good at anything else."

                                 

                                                            - Benjamin Franklin



If Cherington was told that he was forbidden from forming a roster in any other way than the amateur draft, then I would question whether he should have interviewed for the position.  No one on  earth can compete exclusively via the draft.  Come on. 



No wonder we lose.
And yet we know that's the case other than whatever dumpster dives and reclamation projects he can hit on. I can't imagine that interview conversation between him and Nutting (or Williams). And it's not as if Nutting's ways are a secret throughout MLB. There's no way BC leaves that interview believing he will be able to spend money for players. So do they feed him a bunch of BS and he's too dumb to realize it's the opposite of how they operate? Or does he think he can give them a good team without spending? Because, "Oh no, Ben, we're going to change our ways as soon as you come aboard" was probably not part of the conversation.




For BC, I can believe he thinks that if he can get lucky and get a good team together for one season he can get a good job with one of the big boys. I wonder if NH was seriously considered by other teams, maybe in 2014 or 2015. Instead of being with another team he has a nice paid vacation (I'm jealous).

0E3B2C2C271E2C2C27202C490 wrote: Which brings us back to our owner.  This organization is where it is, because of him.  [highlight]Is there a single person on this board who thinks we'll keep Bell?  [/highlight]Are we going to trade him because we have talent pushing him off the roster, or is it because we will have to pay market price for his production as he becomes a free agent?  And this is FAR from elite production.  We're going to trade him and we won't get back equal or better production, simply because that production equates to a certain cost, one we will not pay.  This organization is not one which can ever win in the future, it is built to win right now.  We will not develop our talent into productive ballplayers, because we will not pay productive ballplayers.  Production will always get traded for prospects and we will keep, acquire and trade for the level of production that costs far less. 


Who do you place Bell in the same category as- Andrew McCutchen, Gerrit Cole, or Starling Marte?  To me, he's closer to Marte than the other two, and good as Marte was with us, he was no difference maker. 



I can't name a single player on the roster whom I would lose any sleep over if they're traded.  Unless Bell improves, I'm not sure that I'd be very concerned on what we'd get in return. 



It's not Bell's bad.  It's that he's not good enough to worry about.





What bothers me is that while he's not good enough to worry about losing, the market value for his production is above what we are willing to pay. So if we won't pay for Bell's production, just how mediocre does a player need to be to, be affordable enough for this franchise to build around?

1D1A3F383E233F3E500 wrote: Which brings us back to our owner.  This organization is where it is, because of him.  [highlight]Is there a single person on this board who thinks we'll keep Bell?  [/highlight]Are we going to trade him because we have talent pushing him off the roster, or is it because we will have to pay market price for his production as he becomes a free agent?  And this is FAR from elite production.  We're going to trade him and we won't get back equal or better production, simply because that production equates to a certain cost, one we will not pay.  This organization is not one which can ever win in the future, it is built to win right now.  We will not develop our talent into productive ballplayers, because we will not pay productive ballplayers.  Production will always get traded for prospects and we will keep, acquire and trade for the level of production that costs far less. 


Who do you place Bell in the same category as- Andrew McCutchen, Gerrit Cole, or Starling Marte?  To me, he's closer to Marte than the other two, and good as Marte was with us, he was no difference maker. 



I can't name a single player on the roster whom I would lose any sleep over if they're traded.  Unless Bell improves, I'm not sure that I'd be very concerned on what we'd get in return. 



It's not Bell's bad.  It's that he's not good enough to worry about.





What bothers me is that while he's not good enough to worry about losing, the market value for his production is above what we are willing to pay.  So if we won't pay for Bell's production, just how mediocre does a player need to be to, be affordable enough for this franchise to build around?






Which helps makes my point. The Pirates under Bob Nutting have no intention of paying market value for their own good players or for above average free agents. The teams throughout the organization will be built almost exclusively with draft choices, international signings, and young talent acquired in trades. Anyone who thinks otherwise, or that BC is going to do something different, is either naive or delusional.



BC knew when he interviewed for the GM position what he was up against with the owner, and yet he still took the job. I'm sure it was for personal reasons, just like any of us when accepting a job.

624F42535445521211200 wrote: "People who are good at making excuses are seldom good at anything else."

                                 

                                                            - Benjamin Franklin



If Cherington was told that he was forbidden from forming a roster in any other way than the amateur draft, then I would question whether he should have interviewed for the position.  No one on  earth can compete exclusively via the draft.  Come on. 



No wonder we lose.
And yet we know that's the case other than whatever dumpster dives and reclamation projects he can hit on. I can't imagine that interview conversation between him and Nutting (or Williams). And it's not as if Nutting's ways are a secret throughout MLB. There's no way BC leaves that interview believing he will be able to spend money for players. So do they feed him a bunch of BS and he's too dumb to realize it's the opposite of how they operate? Or does he think he can give them a good team without spending? Because, "Oh no, Ben, we're going to change our ways as soon as you come aboard" was probably not part of the conversation.




I'm OK with the dumpster dives and the reclamation projects (as long as they work!) But, Cherington didn't even do THAT (this past off-season.)



I know that we keep covering the same ground on this point, but I'll never be convinced that he couldn't find ONE SINGLE way to improve his club during the off-season. Surely, he had to see at least one weakness and one opportunity to improve upon it.



All that did is make me think that not much has changed other than the name that's on the office door.



I'm surprised that we haven't heard that we still have the best management team in baseball!

I have a little different take on free agents than most. I believe they're free agents because they asking more than they are worth to the team they're leaving. There's lots of these opportunist every year so lots of teams aren't willing to pay them what they think they're worth. Seems to me any player that becomes a free agent has overpriced themselves. If it was as easy as just outbidding the other teams then you could just out bid all other teams and be able to make a profit from being the best team in baseball. Obviously that's not the way it works. You have to be a good evaluator of talent and personalities. That's what I expect of any GM evaluating talent and personalities. He can't just be good at one he has to be good at everything. Teams like the Phillies paid big bucks for Harper, and they have a whole roster of free agents, and I can't see them winning with these guys who think they're worth more than they're original team was willing to give them. San Diego is another team that has done that and they're going nowhere. LA on the other hand resisted paying for those players and have a ton of home grown talent mixed with some trades, a very good manager and they are hands down the best team in baseball.

0D5B4D59564C5C575A4D7F58525E5653115C3F0 wrote: Which brings us back to our owner.  This organization is where it is, because of him.  [highlight]Is there a single person on this board who thinks we'll keep Bell?  [/highlight]Are we going to trade him because we have talent pushing him off the roster, or is it because we will have to pay market price for his production as he becomes a free agent?  And this is FAR from elite production.  We're going to trade him and we won't get back equal or better production, simply because that production equates to a certain cost, one we will not pay.  This organization is not one which can ever win in the future, it is built to win right now.  We will not develop our talent into productive ballplayers, because we will not pay productive ballplayers.  Production will always get traded for prospects and we will keep, acquire and trade for the level of production that costs far less. 


Who do you place Bell in the same category as- Andrew McCutchen, Gerrit Cole, or Starling Marte?  To me, he's closer to Marte than the other two, and good as Marte was with us, he was no difference maker. 



I can't name a single player on the roster whom I would lose any sleep over if they're traded.  Unless Bell improves, I'm not sure that I'd be very concerned on what we'd get in return. 



It's not Bell's bad.  It's that he's not good enough to worry about.





What bothers me is that while he's not good enough to worry about losing, the market value for his production is above what we are willing to pay.  So if we won't pay for Bell's production, just how mediocre does a player need to be to, be affordable enough for this franchise to build around?






Which helps makes my point.  The Pirates under Bob Nutting have no intention of paying market value for their own good players or for above average free agents.  The teams throughout the organization will be built almost exclusively with draft choices, international signings, and young talent acquired in trades.  Anyone who thinks otherwise, or that BC is going to do something different, is either naive or delusional.



BC knew when he interviewed for the GM position what he was up against with the owner, and yet he still took the job.  I'm sure it was for personal reasons, just like any of us when accepting a job.




Possibly.  But, not likely.  I dnk his financial situation, but I'll assume that he could have passed and waited for one of the real teams to call.  Then again, unless a real team's executive dies or retires- or the team gets sold- they rarely have openings.  Openings get created when the last guy sucked.  Like our last two, for examples.



I see the Pirates job as "no lose."



The whole world knows why we stink.  Our owner is a tightwad even by tightwad standards.  If he wasn't Jewish, he'd still have his First Communion money. 



The entire baseball world knows that Huntington traded away the two guys worth not trading away. The next halfway decent guy we have will be our first.



So, if the team, by some miracle, does anything at all, he'll look....less bad.



I'm hesitant to say it, but the guy can't possibly be any worse than the two guys before him....except, so far.....he's doing a pretty good imitation.

392123242433222538392F4A0 wrote: I have a little different take on free agents than most.  I believe they're free agents because they asking more than they are worth to the team they're leaving.  There's lots of these opportunist every year so lots of teams aren't willing to pay them what they think they're worth.  Seems to me any player that becomes a free agent has overpriced themselves.  If it was as easy as just outbidding the other teams then you could just out bid all other teams and be able to make a profit from being the best team in baseball.  Obviously that's not the way it works.  You have to be a good evaluator of talent and personalities.  That's what I expect of any GM evaluating talent and personalities.  He can't just be good at one he has to be good at everything.  Teams like the Phillies paid big bucks for Harper, and they have a whole roster of free agents, and I can't see them winning with these guys who think they're worth more than they're original team was willing to give them.  San Diego is another team that has done that and they're going nowhere.  LA on the other hand resisted paying for those players and have a ton of home grown talent mixed with some trades, a very good manager and they are hands  down the best team in baseball.


Agree on the Phillies. Totally disagree with your take on the Padres. San Diego did it right. They had the #1 farm system and went out and spent for a franchise free agent in Machado to anchor their team. They traded for Pham, brought up their own budding superstar Tatis. They have a ton of young pitching talent and one of the highest rated pitchers in Gore. They will never be able to spend like the Dodgers, but they have set themselves up to compete for the playoffs for many years.

10080A0D0D1A0B0C111006630 wrote: I have a little different take on free agents than most.  I believe they're free agents because they asking more than they are worth to the team they're leaving.  There's lots of these opportunist every year so lots of teams aren't willing to pay them what they think they're worth.  Seems to me any player that becomes a free agent has overpriced themselves.  If it was as easy as just outbidding the other teams then you could just out bid all other teams and be able to make a profit from being the best team in baseball.  Obviously that's not the way it works.  You have to be a good evaluator of talent and personalities.  That's what I expect of any GM evaluating talent and personalities.  He can't just be good at one he has to be good at everything.  Teams like the Phillies paid big bucks for Harper, and they have a whole roster of free agents, and I can't see them winning with these guys who think they're worth more than they're original team was willing to give them.  San Diego is another team that has done that and they're going nowhere.  LA on the other hand resisted paying for those players and have a ton of home grown talent mixed with some trades, a very good manager and they are hands  down the best team in baseball.


LA has resisted paying those players??????

I seem to recall that they handed out $365M to Mookie Betts including a $65M signing bonus. Think about that for a minute.

Betts signing bonus alone was 15-20M more than the entire Pirates payroll! An absolute numbing (Nutting) fact

Yeah, but Mookie has mouths to feed.