OnlyBucs

2B2320170124030C620 wrote: Just my two cents, but Taillon, Williams, Archer, Musgrove should be a solid 1-4. From my fifth starter, I just want a guy who will take the ball every fifth day, eat innings, save the bullpen, and hopefully keep you in the game most of the time. Nova was great at that role. But, I also think a younger, cheaper option can fill that role. It might be Kingham. It might be Keller. It might be someone else. Regardless, $11 million or whatever it was was too much to pay a #5 starter. There are better places to put that money, IMHO.



I’d say the same about Cervelli. I like Cervelli. But, in my mind, Diaz is the better option. Independent of salaries, I want to see Diaz behind the plate 100 times next year. Francisco is overpaid to be a backup. Trade him, go with a guy like Stalllings or Lavarnway for fifty games or so, no big deal. Use the money saved from trading Nova and Cervelli to bring in a new shortstop, or a better option in the rotation than Nova.



So, the long and the short of it, I like this move without even knowing who the return is.


It should be, but only if Williams performance is sustainable. Don't know if it is.



The move is predicated on another move being made with the savings. If that doesn't happen, this is a fail.

7363625543434F200 wrote: Just my two cents, but Taillon, Williams, Archer, Musgrove should be a solid 1-4. From my fifth starter, I just want a guy who will take the ball every fifth day, eat innings, save the bullpen, and hopefully keep you in the game most of the time. Nova was great at that role. But, I also think a younger, cheaper option can fill that role. It might be Kingham. It might be Keller. It might be someone else. Regardless, $11 million or whatever it was was too much to pay a #5 starter. There are better places to put that money, IMHO.



I’d say the same about Cervelli. I like Cervelli. But, in my mind, Diaz is the better option. Independent of salaries, I want to see Diaz behind the plate 100 times next year. Francisco is overpaid to be a backup. Trade him, go with a guy like Stalllings or Lavarnway for fifty games or so, no big deal. Use the money saved from trading Nova and Cervelli to bring in a new shortstop, or a better option in the rotation than Nova.



So, the long and the short of it, I like this move without even knowing who the return is.


It should be, but only if Williams performance is sustainable.  Don't know if it is.



The move is predicated on another move being made with the savings.  If that doesn't happen, this is a fail.


Yes. I assumed the same thing with the Charlie Morton deal a few years ago and the other shoe just never dropped.

1B0B0A3D2B2B27480 wrote: Nova is an enigma.  However, I felt at the four slot, the rotation would be fine.  I'm sure we aren't getting much in return as far as a prospect, but to clear salary.  This is a good move only if they REINVEST this saved money on nothing that helps, not a reclamation project.
Yes. This is it exactly. Nova wasn't great but it never surprised me when he went out and threw a gem.

Joel Sherman

‏



@Joelsherman1

11m11 minutes ago



Hear Jordan Lyle is close to signing with the #Pirates, who just traded Nova.

7A6A6B5C4A4A46290 wrote: Just my two cents, but Taillon, Williams, Archer, Musgrove should be a solid 1-4. From my fifth starter, I just want a guy who will take the ball every fifth day, eat innings, save the bullpen, and hopefully keep you in the game most of the time. Nova was great at that role. But, I also think a younger, cheaper option can fill that role. It might be Kingham. It might be Keller. It might be someone else. Regardless, $11 million or whatever it was was too much to pay a #5 starter. There are better places to put that money, IMHO.



I’d say the same about Cervelli. I like Cervelli. But, in my mind, Diaz is the better option. Independent of salaries, I want to see Diaz behind the plate 100 times next year. Francisco is overpaid to be a backup. Trade him, go with a guy like Stalllings or Lavarnway for fifty games or so, no big deal. Use the money saved from trading Nova and Cervelli to bring in a new shortstop, or a better option in the rotation than Nova.



So, the long and the short of it, I like this move without even knowing who the return is.


It should be, but only if Williams performance is sustainable.  Don't know if it is.



The move is predicated on another move being made with the savings.  If that doesn't happen, this is a fail.
I think it makes no sense to trade a solid #4 or #5 starter and then try to find a suitable replacement (i.e., a LHP). If that was the strategy, it could go very bad if they fail to sign or trade for that adequate replacement. Therefore, the logical plan would be to acquire the replacement and then trade Nova. But since that's not happened, I believe it was essentially a salary dump. I believe they accurately see Nova as a mediocre 4th or 5th starter making 9.2 million who could be replaced without too much drop off by a much cheaper pitcher for a fraction of the cost. Doesn't mean they won't look for a replacement but they have to know (unless another deal is already in the works) that it could very well come down to Brault, Kingham or Keller. Brault would be better than those guys but not so much better that it's worth 9.2 million for his services. I'm ok with the move. But I don't believe this is merely the first of 2 moves to find an adequate replacement unless the 2nd deal is all but done and waiting to be announced. And I doubt that's the case.

7F525F4E49584F0F0C3D0 wrote: Just my two cents, but Taillon, Williams, Archer, Musgrove should be a solid 1-4. From my fifth starter, I just want a guy who will take the ball every fifth day, eat innings, save the bullpen, and hopefully keep you in the game most of the time. Nova was great at that role. But, I also think a younger, cheaper option can fill that role. It might be Kingham. It might be Keller. It might be someone else. Regardless, $11 million or whatever it was was too much to pay a #5 starter. There are better places to put that money, IMHO.



I’d say the same about Cervelli. I like Cervelli. But, in my mind, Diaz is the better option. Independent of salaries, I want to see Diaz behind the plate 100 times next year. Francisco is overpaid to be a backup. Trade him, go with a guy like Stalllings or Lavarnway for fifty games or so, no big deal. Use the money saved from trading Nova and Cervelli to bring in a new shortstop, or a better option in the rotation than Nova.



So, the long and the short of it, I like this move without even knowing who the return is.


It should be, but only if Williams performance is sustainable.  Don't know if it is.



The move is predicated on another move being made with the savings.  If that doesn't happen, this is a fail.
I think it makes no sense to trade a solid #4 or #5 starter and then try to find a suitable replacement (i.e., a LHP). If that was the strategy, it could go very bad if they fail to sign or trade for that adequate replacement. Therefore, the logical plan would be to acquire the replacement and then trade Nova. But since that's not happened, I believe it was essentially a salary dump. I believe they accurately see Nova as a mediocre 4th or 5th starter making 9.2 million who could be replaced without too much drop off by a much cheaper pitcher for a fraction of the cost. Doesn't mean they won't look for a replacement but they have to know (unless another deal is already in the works) that it could very well come down to Brault, Kingham or Keller. Brault would be better than those guys but not so much better that it's worth 9.2 million for his services. I'm ok with the move. But I don't believe this is merely the first of 2 moves to find an adequate replacement unless the 2nd deal is all but done and waiting to be announced. And I doubt that's the case.   






But, that is not how Pittsburgh operates ... sign someone north of nine million and then trade another asset of similar value. They risk the chance of not being able to move said asset they want. They open space and work from there.



I'm a full believer this was a salary dump. It looks like it, especially if Jordan Lyles is in our rotation as the replacement. That is a typical move. I said the only way this Nova deal turns out good is if they reinvest the money and get something better with term. Maybe Gio (he is maddening to me because he is another enigma ... looks like Cy Young one month ... looks like a pitcher from Lithuania the next).



I'm scared to see Keller to be honest. The press clippings aren't of the magnitude of Glasnow, but the success is there. Brault, I don't want to see pitch another game here. I don't think he is a good five.

Brilliant!



I think the next move is prob to trade a pitching coaching to the Marlins for another Trevor Williams type.

775B53545F784F59493A0 wrote: The return ---



A 19 year old RH pitcher, Yordi Rosario and $500,000 of bonus pool money.



Again, there better be another move to add talent, because trading Nova for the above return did nothing on its face to help the current club.


1. Do we ever use our full allotment of this bonus pool money?

2. Rosario wasn't among the top 30 prospects in CWS' organization.

This is CLASSIC PIRATES:



1. We don't have enough starting pitching depth to begin with.

2. So we trade a LEGITIMATE, PROVEN No. 4/5 caliber starter

3. We get nothing in return

4. But we save $9 million

5. We say we'll use those resources to invest and make the major league club better.

6. We don't use those resources to make the MLB club better at all.



PIRATES BASEBALL !!!



Yes, I'm getting cranky and irritated and fed up and it's only December!

best of Holmes, Kingham, Brubaker, Eppler to bridge us to post all star call up of Keller?



or another acquistion coming?