One aspect of the trade with the Jays: This type of trade, used by small market teams, could destroy baseball's competitiveness:
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Last Minute Trade Buzz
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Last Minute Trade Buzz
7374626A6473343841666C60686D2F626E6C010 wrote: One aspect of the trade with the Jays: This type of trade, used by small market teams, could destroy baseball's competitiveness:
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
I don't know about all that; but I don't get/believe that someone would take Charlie Morton for nothing except the money he's owed, but not do the same thing for Francisco.
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
I don't know about all that; but I don't get/believe that someone would take Charlie Morton for nothing except the money he's owed, but not do the same thing for Francisco.
-
SteadyFreddy
Last Minute Trade Buzz
0022312C2F2A2D22013620202C430 wrote: Despite everything else going on, this team will not have a legit chance at the playoffs unless:
1. Cutch returns to normal (meaning, he gets good again)
2. Cole starts dominating
3. Kang gets on a roll
4. Taillon starts winning most every 5th day
Everything else going on with current pitchers, our new mediocre pitchers Nova & Hutchison, prospects, injuries, bullpen plans, etc... None of that will matter if the above 4 items don't become reality. I agree with this and the odds are the Bucs are lucky if 2 of those 4 things happen and that simply wont be enough at the end of the season.
1. Cutch returns to normal (meaning, he gets good again)
2. Cole starts dominating
3. Kang gets on a roll
4. Taillon starts winning most every 5th day
Everything else going on with current pitchers, our new mediocre pitchers Nova & Hutchison, prospects, injuries, bullpen plans, etc... None of that will matter if the above 4 items don't become reality. I agree with this and the odds are the Bucs are lucky if 2 of those 4 things happen and that simply wont be enough at the end of the season.
Last Minute Trade Buzz
3235232B2532757900272D21292C6E232F2D400 wrote: One aspect of the trade with the Jays: This type of trade, used by small market teams, could destroy baseball's competitiveness:
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Bowie Kuhn stepped in and stopped the A's from selling Rudi, Bando? and Fingers (not sure about all players but Rudi). Even though Finley said he was going to use the money on the team. Rationale for preventing it was the integrity of the game.
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Bowie Kuhn stepped in and stopped the A's from selling Rudi, Bando? and Fingers (not sure about all players but Rudi). Even though Finley said he was going to use the money on the team. Rationale for preventing it was the integrity of the game.
Last Minute Trade Buzz
694F4E594F5F2C0 wrote: One aspect of the trade with the Jays: This type of trade, used by small market teams, could destroy baseball's competitiveness:
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Bowie Kuhn stepped in and stopped the A's from selling Rudi, Bando? and Fingers (not sure about all players but Rudi). Even though Finley said he was going to use the money on the team. Rationale for preventing it was the integrity of the game.
I was thinking along the same lines. The Pirates Liriano deal does have an underlying not in the "Best Interests Of Baseball" kind of aroma to it. However,Charlie Finley who was owner of the A's at the time "The Best Interests Of Baseball" clause was invoked against his team, was generally disliked by other owners for his nonconformist ways and Kuhn's intervention may have been in part motivated by the enmity that existed between the majority of other owners and Finley. I don't think that type of added incentive to act against a Nutting ownership is there.
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Bowie Kuhn stepped in and stopped the A's from selling Rudi, Bando? and Fingers (not sure about all players but Rudi). Even though Finley said he was going to use the money on the team. Rationale for preventing it was the integrity of the game.
I was thinking along the same lines. The Pirates Liriano deal does have an underlying not in the "Best Interests Of Baseball" kind of aroma to it. However,Charlie Finley who was owner of the A's at the time "The Best Interests Of Baseball" clause was invoked against his team, was generally disliked by other owners for his nonconformist ways and Kuhn's intervention may have been in part motivated by the enmity that existed between the majority of other owners and Finley. I don't think that type of added incentive to act against a Nutting ownership is there.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Last Minute Trade Buzz
7753474F4A260 wrote: One aspect of the trade with the Jays: This type of trade, used by small market teams, could destroy baseball's competitiveness:
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Bowie Kuhn stepped in and stopped the A's from selling Rudi, Bando? and Fingers (not sure about all players but Rudi). Even though Finley said he was going to use the money on the team. Rationale for preventing it was the integrity of the game.
I was thinking along the same lines. The Pirates Liriano deal does have an underlying not in the "Best Interests Of Baseball" kind of aroma to it. However,Charlie Finley who was owner of the A's at the time "The Best Interests Of Baseball" clause was invoked against his team, was generally disliked by other owners for his nonconformist ways and Kuhn's intervention may have been in part motivated by the enmity that existed between the majority of other owners and Finley. I don't think that type of added incentive to act against a Nutting ownership is there.
I guess what I'm saying is - one way to measure the trade is by considering its implications if small mkt teams started using it with some frequency. I don't think anyone would think that's ok for baseball. Let's hope the Pirates don't use it again.
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Bowie Kuhn stepped in and stopped the A's from selling Rudi, Bando? and Fingers (not sure about all players but Rudi). Even though Finley said he was going to use the money on the team. Rationale for preventing it was the integrity of the game.
I was thinking along the same lines. The Pirates Liriano deal does have an underlying not in the "Best Interests Of Baseball" kind of aroma to it. However,Charlie Finley who was owner of the A's at the time "The Best Interests Of Baseball" clause was invoked against his team, was generally disliked by other owners for his nonconformist ways and Kuhn's intervention may have been in part motivated by the enmity that existed between the majority of other owners and Finley. I don't think that type of added incentive to act against a Nutting ownership is there.
I guess what I'm saying is - one way to measure the trade is by considering its implications if small mkt teams started using it with some frequency. I don't think anyone would think that's ok for baseball. Let's hope the Pirates don't use it again.
Last Minute Trade Buzz
7374626A6473343841666C60686D2F626E6C010 wrote: One aspect of the trade with the Jays: This type of trade, used by small market teams, could destroy baseball's competitiveness:
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Bowie Kuhn stepped in and stopped the A's from selling Rudi, Bando? and Fingers (not sure about all players but Rudi). Even though Finley said he was going to use the money on the team. Rationale for preventing it was the integrity of the game.
I was thinking along the same lines. The Pirates Liriano deal does have an underlying not in the "Best Interests Of Baseball" kind of aroma to it. However,Charlie Finley who was owner of the A's at the time "The Best Interests Of Baseball" clause was invoked against his team, was generally disliked by other owners for his nonconformist ways and Kuhn's intervention may have been in part motivated by the enmity that existed between the majority of other owners and Finley. I don't think that type of added incentive to act against a Nutting ownership is there.
I guess what I'm saying is - one way to measure the trade is by considering its implications if small mkt teams started using it with some frequency. I don't think anyone would think that's ok for baseball. Let's hope the Pirates don't use it again.
I agree, just think if would have been Meadows to save 25 million.
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Bowie Kuhn stepped in and stopped the A's from selling Rudi, Bando? and Fingers (not sure about all players but Rudi). Even though Finley said he was going to use the money on the team. Rationale for preventing it was the integrity of the game.
I was thinking along the same lines. The Pirates Liriano deal does have an underlying not in the "Best Interests Of Baseball" kind of aroma to it. However,Charlie Finley who was owner of the A's at the time "The Best Interests Of Baseball" clause was invoked against his team, was generally disliked by other owners for his nonconformist ways and Kuhn's intervention may have been in part motivated by the enmity that existed between the majority of other owners and Finley. I don't think that type of added incentive to act against a Nutting ownership is there.
I guess what I'm saying is - one way to measure the trade is by considering its implications if small mkt teams started using it with some frequency. I don't think anyone would think that's ok for baseball. Let's hope the Pirates don't use it again.
I agree, just think if would have been Meadows to save 25 million.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Last Minute Trade Buzz
745253445242310 wrote: One aspect of the trade with the Jays: This type of trade, used by small market teams, could destroy baseball's competitiveness:
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Bowie Kuhn stepped in and stopped the A's from selling Rudi, Bando? and Fingers (not sure about all players but Rudi). Even though Finley said he was going to use the money on the team. Rationale for preventing it was the integrity of the game.
I was thinking along the same lines. The Pirates Liriano deal does have an underlying not in the "Best Interests Of Baseball" kind of aroma to it. However,Charlie Finley who was owner of the A's at the time "The Best Interests Of Baseball" clause was invoked against his team, was generally disliked by other owners for his nonconformist ways and Kuhn's intervention may have been in part motivated by the enmity that existed between the majority of other owners and Finley. I don't think that type of added incentive to act against a Nutting ownership is there.
I guess what I'm saying is - one way to measure the trade is by considering its implications if small mkt teams started using it with some frequency. I don't think anyone would think that's ok for baseball. Let's hope the Pirates don't use it again.
I agree, just think if would have been Meadows to save 25 million.
I still STILL don't get it though, even if that's the reason. I mean someone took Charlie Morton after all. Surely someone would have been able to take a chance on Papa Francisco.
Large market team to small market team: "you're out of the race this year. Next year is iffy. Why carry a guy like Liarino? We'll take on the $17m you still own him for your #5 and #6 prospects."
Small Market team to Large Market team: "you got a deal!"
Think this is crazy? I don't think it is in any way. The Pirates opened a door that could greatly harm the small market teams if MLB permits this type of "deal". A very troubling use of team assets to say the least.
Bowie Kuhn stepped in and stopped the A's from selling Rudi, Bando? and Fingers (not sure about all players but Rudi). Even though Finley said he was going to use the money on the team. Rationale for preventing it was the integrity of the game.
I was thinking along the same lines. The Pirates Liriano deal does have an underlying not in the "Best Interests Of Baseball" kind of aroma to it. However,Charlie Finley who was owner of the A's at the time "The Best Interests Of Baseball" clause was invoked against his team, was generally disliked by other owners for his nonconformist ways and Kuhn's intervention may have been in part motivated by the enmity that existed between the majority of other owners and Finley. I don't think that type of added incentive to act against a Nutting ownership is there.
I guess what I'm saying is - one way to measure the trade is by considering its implications if small mkt teams started using it with some frequency. I don't think anyone would think that's ok for baseball. Let's hope the Pirates don't use it again.
I agree, just think if would have been Meadows to save 25 million.
I still STILL don't get it though, even if that's the reason. I mean someone took Charlie Morton after all. Surely someone would have been able to take a chance on Papa Francisco.
Last Minute Trade Buzz
NH explains Liriano deal:
The Pirates have taken plenty of flak since sending left-hander Francisco Liriano and a pair of prospects – outfielder Harold Ramirez and catcher Reese McGuire – to the Blue Jays on Monday for right-hander Drew Hutchison. General manager Neal Huntington explained the Bucs’ thinking Saturday, telling Travis Sawchik of the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review, .” “Our primary motivation was to acquire Drew Hutchison. … Instead, it came out that we moved two prospects to move Liriano’s contract. Now I can’t tell you that wasn’t a part of the motivation, but the primary motivation was to acquire a quality pitcherThe 25-year-old Hutchison has spent the vast majority of the season in the minors and owns a below-average 4.92 ERA in 406 1/3 major league innings, but he has recorded a solid 15.1 K-BB percentage and is controllable through 2018. The Pirates were particularly mindful of the latter factor upon acquiring him. “Mediocre pitching is getting paid a lot of money. As we look forward, whether it’s the trade market or free agent market, the challenge of acquiring quality, controllable, productive starting pitching … is hard to do,” said Huntington. As for Liriano, Huntington expects him to do well “where hitters are unfamiliar with him, in a new environment, with new scouting reports,” but the GM believes the opposition in the National League became too accustomed to the 32-year-old.
The Pirates have taken plenty of flak since sending left-hander Francisco Liriano and a pair of prospects – outfielder Harold Ramirez and catcher Reese McGuire – to the Blue Jays on Monday for right-hander Drew Hutchison. General manager Neal Huntington explained the Bucs’ thinking Saturday, telling Travis Sawchik of the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review, .” “Our primary motivation was to acquire Drew Hutchison. … Instead, it came out that we moved two prospects to move Liriano’s contract. Now I can’t tell you that wasn’t a part of the motivation, but the primary motivation was to acquire a quality pitcherThe 25-year-old Hutchison has spent the vast majority of the season in the minors and owns a below-average 4.92 ERA in 406 1/3 major league innings, but he has recorded a solid 15.1 K-BB percentage and is controllable through 2018. The Pirates were particularly mindful of the latter factor upon acquiring him. “Mediocre pitching is getting paid a lot of money. As we look forward, whether it’s the trade market or free agent market, the challenge of acquiring quality, controllable, productive starting pitching … is hard to do,” said Huntington. As for Liriano, Huntington expects him to do well “where hitters are unfamiliar with him, in a new environment, with new scouting reports,” but the GM believes the opposition in the National League became too accustomed to the 32-year-old.
-
ArnoldRothstein
Last Minute Trade Buzz
654342554353200 wrote: but he has recorded a solid 15.1 K-BB percentage
Does anyone know what this means? He seems to pretty regularly have 3 strikeouts per walk, and to strike out about 20% of batters he faces.
Edit: I'm wondering if it means strikeout percentage minus walk percentage. Doesn't exactly fit the numbers.
Does anyone know what this means? He seems to pretty regularly have 3 strikeouts per walk, and to strike out about 20% of batters he faces.
Edit: I'm wondering if it means strikeout percentage minus walk percentage. Doesn't exactly fit the numbers.