270100170111620 wrote: I'm sure you're right Dog that the Pirates view the money saved on Morton's contract to have been used on Polanco and Cervelli (and maybe some others I'm not thinking of). The frustrating thing is that keeping Polanco and Cervelli is something any MLB team should do just to maintain their competitive level. It amounts to the fixed cost of doing business in the world of major league baseball. Financial 'flexibility' should be about addressing those things that are not fixed costs. It should be about taking your franchise to a higher competitive level.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
It is also a fixed cost that they didn't have to spend. So, they are investing that saved money into the future.
The problem with this line of thinking is that if you don't spend on fixed costs in business you go out of business. I would argue that the object of the business of baseball is to win a championship, and keeping your starting right fielder and catcher who provide part of a core of players talented enough to compete for a championship should not be in any way viewed as optional. In another type of business it would be tantamount to not paying the electric bill.
To say they are investing in the 'future' at this point is ignoring the facts that they just gave away 4 prospects, and the message that the 98 win team they fielded last year clearly provided; which is that the future is now!
what the Pirates have done is basically say we have 100 million maximum to spend. We are going to shuffle that 100 million around in a different way for next year. If we are lucky it will result in an improved team. That is what they did with Niese and Walker deal.
I have a hard time figuring out how they are going to improve to championship level next year operating under this type of payroll. It only works if you get several pre-arbitration players playing way above average.
I'm with you EC. Winning a championship with this level of spending is going to require getting incredibly lucky.
Salary flexability
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Salary flexability
My point is that they don't have to raise their fixed cost at all if they didn't care or if they weren't trying to win.
Someone says they are cheap, they don't spend money. Then someone points out all the extensions that were given. The comeback is that they have to do that or every team does.
That's the argument I don't understand. They don't have to extend anyone. They can just trade away players when they get too high or not sign them at all. We saw them do this for years with the previous front office. The current front office is not doing that. They are winning, making the playoffs with their fixed cost.
You can save on the electricity bill with those fancy light bulbs and timers too. That doesn't mean you are being cheap. I think it is pretty good way of saving money.
Someone says they are cheap, they don't spend money. Then someone points out all the extensions that were given. The comeback is that they have to do that or every team does.
That's the argument I don't understand. They don't have to extend anyone. They can just trade away players when they get too high or not sign them at all. We saw them do this for years with the previous front office. The current front office is not doing that. They are winning, making the playoffs with their fixed cost.
You can save on the electricity bill with those fancy light bulbs and timers too. That doesn't mean you are being cheap. I think it is pretty good way of saving money.
-
ChitownBucco
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:10 pm
Salary flexability
anyone know how much cash the bucs got for Mel Rojas jr?
he is doing pretty good with the braves AAA team after a horrid start at Indy
hope to see him up by sept 1 at least
http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?si ... g/2016/ALL
he is doing pretty good with the braves AAA team after a horrid start at Indy
hope to see him up by sept 1 at least
http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?si ... g/2016/ALL
Salary flexability
2229212D2829327771063F272E2929682529460 wrote: My point is that they don't have to raise their fixed cost at all if they didn't care or if they weren't trying to win.
Someone says they are cheap, they don't spend money. Then someone points out all the extensions that were given. The comeback is that they have to do that or every team does.
That's the argument I don't understand. They don't have to extend anyone. They can just trade away players when they get too high or not sign them at all. We saw them do this for years with the previous front office. The current front office is not doing that. They are winning, making the playoffs with their fixed cost.
You can save on the electricity bill with those fancy light bulbs and timers too. That doesn't mean you are being cheap. I think it is pretty good way of saving money.
Dog there's a difference between doing the minimum necessary and going all in for winning. The Pirates clearly appear to be doing the former. If you don't address fixed costs (keeping up appearances) in MLB then your fan base starts to disappear and ticket sales start to drop and the revenue stream that the Pirates organization has prioritized starts to dry up. They're content to tread water at the level they've reached where costs are controlled, they're fairly competitive and the revenue stream keeps flowing steadily. That isn't financial 'flexibility' it's a rut. Not what I'm hoping for from my favorite baseball team.
Someone says they are cheap, they don't spend money. Then someone points out all the extensions that were given. The comeback is that they have to do that or every team does.
That's the argument I don't understand. They don't have to extend anyone. They can just trade away players when they get too high or not sign them at all. We saw them do this for years with the previous front office. The current front office is not doing that. They are winning, making the playoffs with their fixed cost.
You can save on the electricity bill with those fancy light bulbs and timers too. That doesn't mean you are being cheap. I think it is pretty good way of saving money.
Dog there's a difference between doing the minimum necessary and going all in for winning. The Pirates clearly appear to be doing the former. If you don't address fixed costs (keeping up appearances) in MLB then your fan base starts to disappear and ticket sales start to drop and the revenue stream that the Pirates organization has prioritized starts to dry up. They're content to tread water at the level they've reached where costs are controlled, they're fairly competitive and the revenue stream keeps flowing steadily. That isn't financial 'flexibility' it's a rut. Not what I'm hoping for from my favorite baseball team.
Salary flexability
5A7E6A62670B0 wrote: I'm sure you're right Dog that the Pirates view the money saved on Morton's contract to have been used on Polanco and Cervelli (and maybe some others I'm not thinking of). The frustrating thing is that keeping Polanco and Cervelli is something any MLB team should do just to maintain their competitive level. It amounts to the fixed cost of doing business in the world of major league baseball. Financial 'flexibility' should be about addressing those things that are not fixed costs. It should be about taking your franchise to a higher competitive level.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
Exactly. They never will. Once you figure this out, it gets easier.
But, what they will do and have proven they will do, is compete while not having to do. A complete rebuild after finishing fifth every freakin' season.
Unfortunately my hope for the Pirates will continue to be that they win a championship, not that they just continue to be 'somewhat competitive' in perpetuity.
First off, I apologize if my comments over the last week have come off snarky or condescending. Sometimes the writing comes off without inflection or hand gestures or whatever.
If The OB board was at a bar having a beer, our conversations would mild arguments with no hurt feelings... Or this is how I see it.
As for the Bucs being "somewhat competitive" in purpetuity, I'm cool with this because you can win it all like this. Baseball is really the only sport where the best two teams don't usually win.
You get to the playoffs and hope you get hot. See 2014, 2013, 2011. The Central had the best two teams in baseball last season and didn't sniff the NLCS.
Being competitive means you are always in the hunt.
If feel if we tear it down again, it will be exponentially harder to ever win over 90 games again. Keeping a steady flow of prospects coming will always keep us in it.
If all the Pirates are willing to do is address fixed costs as a franchise then we're not ever going to see a day when they'll add the 'big piece' they need to make that push to a World Series Championship.
Exactly. They never will. Once you figure this out, it gets easier.
But, what they will do and have proven they will do, is compete while not having to do. A complete rebuild after finishing fifth every freakin' season.
Unfortunately my hope for the Pirates will continue to be that they win a championship, not that they just continue to be 'somewhat competitive' in perpetuity.
First off, I apologize if my comments over the last week have come off snarky or condescending. Sometimes the writing comes off without inflection or hand gestures or whatever.
If The OB board was at a bar having a beer, our conversations would mild arguments with no hurt feelings... Or this is how I see it.
As for the Bucs being "somewhat competitive" in purpetuity, I'm cool with this because you can win it all like this. Baseball is really the only sport where the best two teams don't usually win.
You get to the playoffs and hope you get hot. See 2014, 2013, 2011. The Central had the best two teams in baseball last season and didn't sniff the NLCS.
Being competitive means you are always in the hunt.
If feel if we tear it down again, it will be exponentially harder to ever win over 90 games again. Keeping a steady flow of prospects coming will always keep us in it.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Salary flexability
Not going to fight the "all in" "doesn't do what is necessary" fight in this thread because there isn't much point IMO, it's just bickering back and forth. Feel free yourselves though.
But, on the matter of where the payroll is going to go, I'll be interested in seeing what happens. You can assume that the budget next season (for good or bad) is ~100M give or take say 10%, while it seems to me that most of the roster is nailed down. The obvious place to begin is starting pitching, but I don't see anything in that starting pitching FA list I'm very interested in. I suppose there could be a surprise second base signing or something but I wouldn't count on that.
So what, then? Another INT lottery ticket? Trade? Long term contract talks with someone already on the roster? Again I don't see many on the roster that we would want long term that aren't already locked up except Cole, and LOL on that.
My thought is probably a trade for a SP. I don't know enough about another teams' situations to even make a guess as to who, but that seems right to me. I know some will say that Nutting will pocket the money and not do anything! but please for the love of god just get out of here with that. Something always happens even if we don't like it.
But, on the matter of where the payroll is going to go, I'll be interested in seeing what happens. You can assume that the budget next season (for good or bad) is ~100M give or take say 10%, while it seems to me that most of the roster is nailed down. The obvious place to begin is starting pitching, but I don't see anything in that starting pitching FA list I'm very interested in. I suppose there could be a surprise second base signing or something but I wouldn't count on that.
So what, then? Another INT lottery ticket? Trade? Long term contract talks with someone already on the roster? Again I don't see many on the roster that we would want long term that aren't already locked up except Cole, and LOL on that.
My thought is probably a trade for a SP. I don't know enough about another teams' situations to even make a guess as to who, but that seems right to me. I know some will say that Nutting will pocket the money and not do anything! but please for the love of god just get out of here with that. Something always happens even if we don't like it.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Salary flexability
If they moved Frankie to make the team better why did they backfill with equally bad (actually very definitely worse) Locke/Vogelsong?
It can only be a baseball move if you've improved the team. Frankie has had big time success and any given start maybe he returns to excellence (the same reason you run Cutch out to CF every game). Locke and Vogelsong offer no value, no upside. If they're trying to make the team better why weren't they dumped as well?
Because they cost almost nothing in baseball terms.
In other words: one guy with a "big contract" is unloaded in a historically unheard of move and his spot is filled with someone with even less upside but is very cheap: a salary dump. And you don't see that?
Finally - a salary dump doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad move. Why pay more to be equally bad? That's bad business. So dumping the salary is ok by me. What's not ok is to literally give away valuable prospects to dump the salary (a new economic model, let's call it "Pirate Ball"). And what is also DEFINITELY not ok is to simply dump salary, ignoring an obvious need to fill that hole with quality instead filling with a worse player, yet claiming to be all in on making the playoffs this year. That's BS. Fraud. A lie.
Why not use those prospects as part of a Matt Moore deal? I'd be more than happy if next year's rotation was Cole, Tallion, Moore, Kuhl and Frankie. At least it looks like you're trying....
It can only be a baseball move if you've improved the team. Frankie has had big time success and any given start maybe he returns to excellence (the same reason you run Cutch out to CF every game). Locke and Vogelsong offer no value, no upside. If they're trying to make the team better why weren't they dumped as well?
Because they cost almost nothing in baseball terms.
In other words: one guy with a "big contract" is unloaded in a historically unheard of move and his spot is filled with someone with even less upside but is very cheap: a salary dump. And you don't see that?
Finally - a salary dump doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad move. Why pay more to be equally bad? That's bad business. So dumping the salary is ok by me. What's not ok is to literally give away valuable prospects to dump the salary (a new economic model, let's call it "Pirate Ball"). And what is also DEFINITELY not ok is to simply dump salary, ignoring an obvious need to fill that hole with quality instead filling with a worse player, yet claiming to be all in on making the playoffs this year. That's BS. Fraud. A lie.
Why not use those prospects as part of a Matt Moore deal? I'd be more than happy if next year's rotation was Cole, Tallion, Moore, Kuhl and Frankie. At least it looks like you're trying....
-
Bobster21
Salary flexability
I don't expect them to obtain a SP next year other than for depth. They have Cole and Taillon and then Hutchison, Glasnow, Kuhl and Brault to fight for 3 spots. These are all legit candidates to start and the lack of service time for most of them will create an inexpensive rotation.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Salary flexability
4C7E72726654777E7376797E1F0 wrote: Not going to fight the "all in" "doesn't do what is necessary" fight in this thread because there isn't much point IMO, it's just bickering back and forth. Feel free yourselves though.
But, on the matter of where the payroll is going to go, I'll be interested in seeing what happens. You can assume that the budget next season (for good or bad) is ~100M give or take say 10%, while it seems to me that most of the roster is nailed down. The obvious place to begin is starting pitching, but I don't see anything in that starting pitching FA list I'm very interested in. I suppose there could be a surprise second base signing or something but I wouldn't count on that.
So what, then? Another INT lottery ticket? Trade? Long term contract talks with someone already on the roster? Again I don't see many on the roster that we would want long term that aren't already locked up except Cole, and LOL on that.
My thought is probably a trade for a SP. I don't know enough about another teams' situations to even make a guess as to who, but that seems right to me. I know some will say that Nutting will pocket the money and not do anything! but please for the love of god just get out of here with that. Something always happens even if we don't like it.
I don't understand your premise: either you spend money to make the team better or you don't. It's a valid question. Maybe Nutting's not cheap, maybe the Pirate's finances for some reason simply don't allow this FO to play the game at even the "small market" level - well that's relevant.
If the Pirates have almost built a WS team but can't add one decent pitcher (they didn't last season, let's hope they do this off season) then we're playing some sort of AAAA ball. That's as material a question as it can get.
Finally, all most of us really wanted was to at least use the money they claim to have. $110 million verses $97 actually allocated...Now millions more dropped from final payroll...
If this team was hopeless out of contention I would not be complaining.
PS - if the FA market is poor why didn't the Pirates trade for A guy like Matt Moore?? (Hint, could it be that they didn't want Moore's rather modest Contract for the next three years?)
Postscript - Jeff Locke gave up a four run lead last night, the bullpen gave up another dozen or so runs and instead of catching the Mets and pulling ever so close to the WC, the Rockies catch the Pirates (assuming they went on to win, haven't checked scores).
But, on the matter of where the payroll is going to go, I'll be interested in seeing what happens. You can assume that the budget next season (for good or bad) is ~100M give or take say 10%, while it seems to me that most of the roster is nailed down. The obvious place to begin is starting pitching, but I don't see anything in that starting pitching FA list I'm very interested in. I suppose there could be a surprise second base signing or something but I wouldn't count on that.
So what, then? Another INT lottery ticket? Trade? Long term contract talks with someone already on the roster? Again I don't see many on the roster that we would want long term that aren't already locked up except Cole, and LOL on that.
My thought is probably a trade for a SP. I don't know enough about another teams' situations to even make a guess as to who, but that seems right to me. I know some will say that Nutting will pocket the money and not do anything! but please for the love of god just get out of here with that. Something always happens even if we don't like it.
I don't understand your premise: either you spend money to make the team better or you don't. It's a valid question. Maybe Nutting's not cheap, maybe the Pirate's finances for some reason simply don't allow this FO to play the game at even the "small market" level - well that's relevant.
If the Pirates have almost built a WS team but can't add one decent pitcher (they didn't last season, let's hope they do this off season) then we're playing some sort of AAAA ball. That's as material a question as it can get.
Finally, all most of us really wanted was to at least use the money they claim to have. $110 million verses $97 actually allocated...Now millions more dropped from final payroll...
If this team was hopeless out of contention I would not be complaining.
PS - if the FA market is poor why didn't the Pirates trade for A guy like Matt Moore?? (Hint, could it be that they didn't want Moore's rather modest Contract for the next three years?)
Postscript - Jeff Locke gave up a four run lead last night, the bullpen gave up another dozen or so runs and instead of catching the Mets and pulling ever so close to the WC, the Rockies catch the Pirates (assuming they went on to win, haven't checked scores).
-
SteadyFreddy
Salary flexability
587C686065090 wrote: My point is that they don't have to raise their fixed cost at all if they didn't care or if they weren't trying to win.
Someone says they are cheap, they don't spend money. Then someone points out all the extensions that were given. The comeback is that they have to do that or every team does.
That's the argument I don't understand. They don't have to extend anyone. They can just trade away players when they get too high or not sign them at all. We saw them do this for years with the previous front office. The current front office is not doing that. They are winning, making the playoffs with their fixed cost.
You can save on the electricity bill with those fancy light bulbs and timers too. That doesn't mean you are being cheap. I think it is pretty good way of saving money.
Dog there's a difference between doing the minimum necessary and going all in for winning. The Pirates clearly appear to be doing the former. If you don't address fixed costs (keeping up appearances) in MLB then your fan base starts to disappear and ticket sales start to drop and the revenue stream that the Pirates organization has prioritized starts to dry up. They're content to tread water at the level they've reached where costs are controlled, they're fairly competitive and the revenue stream keeps flowing steadily. That isn't financial 'flexibility' it's a rut. Not what I'm hoping for from my favorite baseball team.
I agree totally. You can give 3 million to guys like Locke, 2 million to a guy like Vogelsong, and 4 million to a guy like Jaso and "pretend" that you are adding payroll like the Pirates claim to do, when in the end you are just as you pointed out treading water and not really taking any steps forward. If the market says that these guys I just pointed out are worth this much then fine. Just remember it all adds up and you aren't going to get much in return. The Pirates have almost 10 million dollars tied up in Locke, Vogelsong, and Jaso and what have they gotten out of it basically nothing.
Someone says they are cheap, they don't spend money. Then someone points out all the extensions that were given. The comeback is that they have to do that or every team does.
That's the argument I don't understand. They don't have to extend anyone. They can just trade away players when they get too high or not sign them at all. We saw them do this for years with the previous front office. The current front office is not doing that. They are winning, making the playoffs with their fixed cost.
You can save on the electricity bill with those fancy light bulbs and timers too. That doesn't mean you are being cheap. I think it is pretty good way of saving money.
Dog there's a difference between doing the minimum necessary and going all in for winning. The Pirates clearly appear to be doing the former. If you don't address fixed costs (keeping up appearances) in MLB then your fan base starts to disappear and ticket sales start to drop and the revenue stream that the Pirates organization has prioritized starts to dry up. They're content to tread water at the level they've reached where costs are controlled, they're fairly competitive and the revenue stream keeps flowing steadily. That isn't financial 'flexibility' it's a rut. Not what I'm hoping for from my favorite baseball team.
I agree totally. You can give 3 million to guys like Locke, 2 million to a guy like Vogelsong, and 4 million to a guy like Jaso and "pretend" that you are adding payroll like the Pirates claim to do, when in the end you are just as you pointed out treading water and not really taking any steps forward. If the market says that these guys I just pointed out are worth this much then fine. Just remember it all adds up and you aren't going to get much in return. The Pirates have almost 10 million dollars tied up in Locke, Vogelsong, and Jaso and what have they gotten out of it basically nothing.