OnlyBucs

My vote for SOG goes to Polanco. Maybe we should hold up on the get rid of Polanco movement.



The current count is:



Polanco - 3



Get your votes in before the start of the next game.

4F545958515D523C0 wrote: My vote for SOG goes to Polanco.  Maybe we should hold up on the get rid of Polanco movement.



The current count is:



Polanco - 3



Get your votes in before the start of the next game.


The movement will never stop as long as he's here. He's not good enough to win with because of his inconsistencies.



Why is spending Nutting's money more important to you than winning?

742234202F35252E233406212B272F2A6825460 wrote: My vote for SOG goes to Polanco.  Maybe we should hold up on the get rid of Polanco movement.



The current count is:



Polanco - 3



Get your votes in before the start of the next game.


The movement will never stop as long as he's here.  He's not good enough to win with because of his inconsistencies. 



Why is spending Nutting's money more important to you than winning?


______

My only interest is in winning. I think Polanco can help us do that just like he did today. Why are you so interested in saving Nutting money? It is not your money.

2C373A3B323E315F0 wrote: My vote for SOG goes to Polanco.  Maybe we should hold up on the get rid of Polanco movement.



The current count is:



Polanco - 3



Get your votes in before the start of the next game.


The movement will never stop as long as he's here.  He's not good enough to win with because of his inconsistencies. 



Why is spending Nutting's money more important to you than winning?


______

My only interest is in winning.  I think Polanco can help us do that just like he did today.  Why are you so interested in saving Nutting money?  It is not your money.


I see you're struggling with reading comprehension again. I said earlier that I care not at all about how much Nutting spends. I only care about building a roster that can win. I believe Polanco isn't capable of helping the team win consistently, as he's already proven, especially over the past five years. I want to unload his ability, not his contract.

Worth noting, the team is at 7 and 17.



I would argue that no one is helping the team win consistently.  @@@@



Therefore, Polanco is about as good as any, by that standard.



Then, no player who would be received for him will "help the team win consistently."  They wouldn't even BE here for at least two more years; if they make it to the majors wearing a Pirates uniform even one time.



And, then.....chances are- just a future version of Polanco.



I would bet on that before I would bet on him being the next Clemente, the next Stargell, or the next....whomever.



No wonder we lose.

0D382F2F241D2F2F24232F4A0 wrote: Worth noting, the team is at 7 and 17.



I would argue that no one is helping the team win consistently.  @@@@



Therefore, Polanco is about as good as any, by that standard.



Then, no player who would be received for him will "help the team win consistently."  They wouldn't even BE here for at least two more years; if they make it to the majors wearing a Pirates uniform even one time.



And, then.....chances are- just a future version of Polanco.



I would bet on that before I would bet on him being the next Clemente, the next Stargell, or the next....whomever.



No wonder we lose.
________

Exactly. I would love to have someone better than Polanco to play RF, but I am not interested in another LMG while we play for a future that never arrives in Pittsburgh. That is not a prescription for us to win consistently.

4C575A5B525E513F0 wrote: Worth noting, the team is at 7 and 17.



I would argue that no one is helping the team win consistently.  @@@@



Therefore, Polanco is about as good as any, by that standard.



Then, no player who would be received for him will "help the team win consistently."  They wouldn't even BE here for at least two more years; if they make it to the majors wearing a Pirates uniform even one time.



And, then.....chances are- just a future version of Polanco.



I would bet on that before I would bet on him being the next Clemente, the next Stargell, or the next....whomever.



No wonder we lose.
________

Exactly.  I would love to have someone better than Polanco to play RF, but I am not interested in another LMG while we play for a future that never arrives in Pittsburgh.  That is not a prescription for us to win consistently.




If the Pirates roster was made-up of 25 LMGs, and they won the World Series next year, would you be okay with that? 

Shelty for sticking with Polanco.

2A7C6A7E716B7B707D6A587F75797174367B180 wrote: Worth noting, the team is at 7 and 17.



I would argue that no one is helping the team win consistently.  @@@@



Therefore, Polanco is about as good as any, by that standard.



Then, no player who would be received for him will "help the team win consistently."  They wouldn't even BE here for at least two more years; if they make it to the majors wearing a Pirates uniform even one time.



And, then.....chances are- just a future version of Polanco.



I would bet on that before I would bet on him being the next Clemente, the next Stargell, or the next....whomever.



No wonder we lose.
________

Exactly.  I would love to have someone better than Polanco to play RF, but I am not interested in another LMG while we play for a future that never arrives in Pittsburgh.  That is not a prescription for us to win consistently.




If the Pirates roster was made-up of 25 LMGs, and they won the World Series next year, would you be okay with that? 


______

I would be OK with that. Now, if the roster was made up of 25 LMG's would you be OK with them saying it will take time to build a championship team and babble on about the future?

"We need time to see what those 25 LMGs have" babble.



The average age of the rosters of the past 17 WS winners is something along the lines of 29.5 years old. I used to track it, but got tired of guys arguing against that fact.



Which is why the Pirates have guys who will never win a World Series, so long as Nutting owns the team. LMGs are LMGs, and they just don't cut it.