OnlyBucs

220F02131405125251600 wrote:

The Pirates did bring on more salary at the trading deadlines from 2013-2015 (I thought only Toronto added more at the deadline in 2015?). 
Keep in mind that the Pirates pay only about 1 month of the salaries of players they pick up in those late August deals. It's not a windfall.


I do, but are they still going over this ceiling?



Like I said, we don't know their budget (or ceiling) to assume they never go over it.

575C54585D5C470204734A525B5C5C1D505C330 wrote:

The Pirates did bring on more salary at the trading deadlines from 2013-2015 (I thought only Toronto added more at the deadline in 2015?). 
Keep in mind that the Pirates pay only about 1 month of the salaries of players they pick up in those late August deals. It's not a windfall.


I do, but are they still going over this ceiling? 



Like I said, we don't know their budget (or ceiling) to assume they never go over it.


It doesn't matter what their self imposed ceiling is or whether they go under or "stretch" and go slightly over. They should be able to support an average ML Payroll and they are always significantly below that.

02253427346068686960510 wrote: but they were in on David Price in '14 and weren't scared off by both the short and long term financial impact.


Oh Sweet Moses. Is this post real? Is this real life?

3116071407535B5B5A53620 wrote: What do you base that off of?  Still going off the old "we will spend when the time is right" statements from years ago or is there some example of stretching budget that is otherwise invisible?



I've seen almost no example of it relative to competition.  When we made QOs to liriano and Martin, I thought we were finally seeing the plan in action, but we quickly went back into cheap mode shortly after


I don't have a ton of time here to go in depth, but the example that jumps out at me is Frease. Heading into Spring Training, I think most thought the Pirates were done. A good baseball move comes along and they found the money to make it happen. I don't know the internal conversations. For all, I know they were were planning to be in the $120-130 range, but again, I think most thought they were done and got a pleasant surprise when he signed. Thankfully he did as he carried the team for stretches.



I also think the trade deadlines make me think they are willing go beyond to add payroll for good baseball moves. Granted, they haven't made a huge splash, but they were in on David Price in '14 and weren't scared off by both the short and long term financial impact. In '15, they didn't make a big move again, but a lot of deals where all they conserved prospects by taking on payroll.



I'm sure I could find other examples, but I think these three suffice.




In my opinion, not only do those 3 not suffice, they don't even exist as examples. Signing an undervalued bench player for 3 million dollars? (Freese) Almost signing price (didn't happen) and absorbing salary in lieu of trading prospects (also didn't happen)



To each his own, I guess

606961707E040 wrote: What do you base that off of?  Still going off the old "we will spend when the time is right" statements from years ago or is there some example of stretching budget that is otherwise invisible?



I've seen almost no example of it relative to competition.  When we made QOs to liriano and Martin, I thought we were finally seeing the plan in action, but we quickly went back into cheap mode shortly after


I don't have a ton of time here to go in depth, but the example that jumps out at me is Frease. Heading into Spring Training, I think most thought the Pirates were done. A good baseball move comes along and they found the money to make it happen. I don't know the internal conversations. For all, I know they were were planning to be in the $120-130 range, but again, I think most thought they were done and got a pleasant surprise when he signed. Thankfully he did as he carried the team for stretches.



I also think the trade deadlines make me think they are willing go beyond to add payroll for good baseball moves. Granted, they haven't made a huge splash, but they were in on David Price in '14 and weren't scared off by both the short and long term financial impact. In '15, they didn't make a big move again, but a lot of deals where all they conserved prospects by taking on payroll.



I'm sure I could find other examples, but I think these three suffice.




In my opinion, not only do those 3 not suffice, they don't even exist as examples.   Signing an undervalued bench player for 3 million dollars?  (Freese) Almost signing price (didn't happen) and absorbing salary in lieu of trading prospects (also didn't happen)



To each his own, I guess






The Freese example isn't just wrong, it's embarrassingly inaccurate to the point of dishonest.



Remember when Charlie Morton was traded in a clear salary dump and every FO fanboy applauded the huge upcominig acquisition of a quality SP? Obviously it never happen but what did happen? The Pirates signed Jaso, Freese and Vogelsong. Essentially swapping Morton's 8 million for Jaso (4), Freese (3) and Vogelsong (2). If that additional 1 million proves something to someone, I'm not sure we live in the same world.

43647566752129292821100 wrote:

With all due respect, you know Kevin and I are different people with different opinions, right?


Of course I know that you are different people. In my original post I stated 'someone should tell Kevin...'. That 'someone' I was referencing is you. Kevin discussed the self imposed restrictions without following the guidelines you established.



0A2D3C2F3C6860606168590 wrote:

I'm sure I could find other examples, but I think these three suffice.


Agree with dmetz. With all due respect, these don't suffice. Kevin didn't adhere to your restrictions in his post. Now, you didn't adhere to your original restrictions either, as quoted in the archived thread:

"If you are tempted to respond with "Well look at the Pirates past behaviors" or "NH is incompetent," take it somewhere else."



Similar in how you wouldn't let posters on this board use a lack of spending (past behavior) as proof of a cap, you can't use the Pirates past behavior (signing Freese or being mentioned as a possible trade partner) to prove your point. We need links to articles



1) with quotes from someone in the Pirates management



2) that verifies that there is flexibility in the cap



3) sets the level of how flexible the cap is



If you are tempted to respond with "Well look at the Pirates past behaviors" (as you have already tried) or "We will spend when the time is right" stories that dmetz referenced earlier, then move along.

I find the lack of response by Steve interesting. Not just because he was proven wrong as there's no shame being wrong on a baseball message board. But between his ridiculous thread four years ago compounded by his illogical defense in this thread, I'd think his lack of objectivity would be abundantly clear. Yet not sure it is and people will continue to take his opinions seriously.



As it's already been stated, to each his own I guess.

0C2C3F22234D0 wrote: I find the lack of response by Steve interesting.  Not just because he was proven wrong as there's no shame being wrong on a baseball message board.  But between his ridiculous thread four years ago compounded by his illogical defense in this thread, I'd think his lack of objectivity would be abundantly clear. Yet not sure it is and people will continue to take his opinions seriously.



As it's already been stated, to each his own I guess.


I take everybody's comments seriously. We are almost always posting opinions (sometimes there are hard facts that go with these). I don't take every comment as the gospel truth (even my own).

0B2D2C3B2D3D4E0 wrote: I find the lack of response by Steve interesting.  Not just because he was proven wrong as there's no shame being wrong on a baseball message board.  But between his ridiculous thread four years ago compounded by his illogical defense in this thread, I'd think his lack of objectivity would be abundantly clear. Yet not sure it is and people will continue to take his opinions seriously.



As it's already been stated, to each his own I guess.


I take everybody's comments seriously.  We are almost always posting opinions (sometimes there are hard facts that go with these).  I don't take every comment as the gospel truth (even my own).




Wait, you mean you don't take the time to dig up quotes from four years ago to try to rub someone's face in something?