SOG/GOG
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
SOG/GOG
2F343938313D325C0 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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
SOG/GOG
762036222D37272C2136042329252D286A27440 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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
_____
So, if they had 25 LMG's you would be OK with it so long as Cherington had a good line of bull about growing the team?
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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
_____
So, if they had 25 LMG's you would be OK with it so long as Cherington had a good line of bull about growing the team?
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
SOG/GOG
78636E6F666A650B0 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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
_____
So, if they had 25 LMG's you would be OK with it so long as Cherington had a good line of bull.
Are you having a senior moment? Let's start again. As my post said, if more than a handful of the LMGs were obviously good players, I'd be okay with watching the team grow. If we could all see that those players were good, there wouldn't be any bull from Cherington. Again, as we all know, it would be up to Nutting to do what a real owner would do: help his GM complete the roster with what's needed. But we all know what would happen.
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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
_____
So, if they had 25 LMG's you would be OK with it so long as Cherington had a good line of bull.
Are you having a senior moment? Let's start again. As my post said, if more than a handful of the LMGs were obviously good players, I'd be okay with watching the team grow. If we could all see that those players were good, there wouldn't be any bull from Cherington. Again, as we all know, it would be up to Nutting to do what a real owner would do: help his GM complete the roster with what's needed. But we all know what would happen.
SOG/GOG
2E786E7A756F7F74796E5C7B717D7570327F1C0 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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
_____
So, if they had 25 LMG's you would be OK with it so long as Cherington had a good line of bull.
Are you having a senior moment? Let's start again. As my post said, if more than a handful of the LMGs were obviously good players, I'd be okay with watching the team grow. If we could all see that those players were good, there wouldn't be any bull from Cherington. Again, as we all know, it would be up to Nutting to do what a real owner would do: help his GM complete the roster with what's needed. But we all know what would happen.
______
We will have to agree to disagree. I would not be OK with it if we had 25 LMG's even if a handful were good players. There is absolutely no excuse for a major league baseball team being unwilling to pay some of their players the market rate. We can watch the team grow with a team salary equal to what Milwaukee and Cincinnati are willing to pay.
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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
_____
So, if they had 25 LMG's you would be OK with it so long as Cherington had a good line of bull.
Are you having a senior moment? Let's start again. As my post said, if more than a handful of the LMGs were obviously good players, I'd be okay with watching the team grow. If we could all see that those players were good, there wouldn't be any bull from Cherington. Again, as we all know, it would be up to Nutting to do what a real owner would do: help his GM complete the roster with what's needed. But we all know what would happen.
______
We will have to agree to disagree. I would not be OK with it if we had 25 LMG's even if a handful were good players. There is absolutely no excuse for a major league baseball team being unwilling to pay some of their players the market rate. We can watch the team grow with a team salary equal to what Milwaukee and Cincinnati are willing to pay.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
SOG/GOG
If we had a handful of talented young players, the bull would never end.
What would not be bull is this. Three would be dealt in one year. The other two would be dealt the following year.
What would not be bull is this. Three would be dealt in one year. The other two would be dealt the following year.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
SOG/GOG
6B707D7C757976180 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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
_____
So, if they had 25 LMG's you would be OK with it so long as Cherington had a good line of bull.
Are you having a senior moment? Let's start again. As my post said, if more than a handful of the LMGs were obviously good players, I'd be okay with watching the team grow. If we could all see that those players were good, there wouldn't be any bull from Cherington. Again, as we all know, it would be up to Nutting to do what a real owner would do: help his GM complete the roster with what's needed. But we all know what would happen.
______
We will have to agree to disagree. I would not be OK with it if we had 25 LMG's even if a handful were good players. There is absolutely no excuse for a major league baseball team being unwilling to pay some of their players the market rate. We can watch the team grow with a team salary equal to what Milwaukee and Cincinnati are willing to pay.
I agree with your premise. It's totally unreasonable to expect 25 inexperienced players to win a championship. And it's nearly criminal to have an owner unwilling to acquire and pay for proven, experienced players when the time is right. But we all know we have an owner like that. So it's going to be up to Cherington to build a roster with young players and hope he's way better than Huntington in acquiring and developing those players. I admit hope isn't a plan. However, if we're forced to put our faith in BC doing his job or Nutting doing his, I have to give Cherington the chance.
See you in the morning.
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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
_____
So, if they had 25 LMG's you would be OK with it so long as Cherington had a good line of bull.
Are you having a senior moment? Let's start again. As my post said, if more than a handful of the LMGs were obviously good players, I'd be okay with watching the team grow. If we could all see that those players were good, there wouldn't be any bull from Cherington. Again, as we all know, it would be up to Nutting to do what a real owner would do: help his GM complete the roster with what's needed. But we all know what would happen.
______
We will have to agree to disagree. I would not be OK with it if we had 25 LMG's even if a handful were good players. There is absolutely no excuse for a major league baseball team being unwilling to pay some of their players the market rate. We can watch the team grow with a team salary equal to what Milwaukee and Cincinnati are willing to pay.
I agree with your premise. It's totally unreasonable to expect 25 inexperienced players to win a championship. And it's nearly criminal to have an owner unwilling to acquire and pay for proven, experienced players when the time is right. But we all know we have an owner like that. So it's going to be up to Cherington to build a roster with young players and hope he's way better than Huntington in acquiring and developing those players. I admit hope isn't a plan. However, if we're forced to put our faith in BC doing his job or Nutting doing his, I have to give Cherington the chance.
See you in the morning.
SOG/GOG
065046525D47575C5146745359555D581A57340 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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
_____
So, if they had 25 LMG's you would be OK with it so long as Cherington had a good line of bull.
Are you having a senior moment? Let's start again. As my post said, if more than a handful of the LMGs were obviously good players, I'd be okay with watching the team grow. If we could all see that those players were good, there wouldn't be any bull from Cherington. Again, as we all know, it would be up to Nutting to do what a real owner would do: help his GM complete the roster with what's needed. But we all know what would happen.
______
We will have to agree to disagree. I would not be OK with it if we had 25 LMG's even if a handful were good players. There is absolutely no excuse for a major league baseball team being unwilling to pay some of their players the market rate. We can watch the team grow with a team salary equal to what Milwaukee and Cincinnati are willing to pay.
I agree with your premise. It's totally unreasonable to expect 25 inexperienced players to win a championship. And it's nearly criminal to have an owner unwilling to acquire and pay for proven, experienced players when the time is right. But we all know we have an owner like that. So it's going to be up to Cherington to build a roster with young players and hope he's way better than Huntington in acquiring and developing those players. I admit hope isn't a plan. However, if we're forced to put our faith in BC doing his job or Nutting doing his, I have to give Cherington the chance.
See you in the morning.
_________
You were doing so good until you put that word "but" in there.
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?
It would depend. If among the 25 players more than a handful were obviously talented, I'd be willing to watch that team grow. But we all know that signing some number of free agents and making trades to complete that team would be necessary. That's where I don't trust the owner to do what it would take to get the job done. So it's not the GM who I perceive to be the main concern in this scenario, it's the owner. It's always going to be the owner.
_____
So, if they had 25 LMG's you would be OK with it so long as Cherington had a good line of bull.
Are you having a senior moment? Let's start again. As my post said, if more than a handful of the LMGs were obviously good players, I'd be okay with watching the team grow. If we could all see that those players were good, there wouldn't be any bull from Cherington. Again, as we all know, it would be up to Nutting to do what a real owner would do: help his GM complete the roster with what's needed. But we all know what would happen.
______
We will have to agree to disagree. I would not be OK with it if we had 25 LMG's even if a handful were good players. There is absolutely no excuse for a major league baseball team being unwilling to pay some of their players the market rate. We can watch the team grow with a team salary equal to what Milwaukee and Cincinnati are willing to pay.
I agree with your premise. It's totally unreasonable to expect 25 inexperienced players to win a championship. And it's nearly criminal to have an owner unwilling to acquire and pay for proven, experienced players when the time is right. But we all know we have an owner like that. So it's going to be up to Cherington to build a roster with young players and hope he's way better than Huntington in acquiring and developing those players. I admit hope isn't a plan. However, if we're forced to put our faith in BC doing his job or Nutting doing his, I have to give Cherington the chance.
See you in the morning.
_________
You were doing so good until you put that word "but" in there.
-
WildwoodDave
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:19 am
SOG/GOG
5C7D755C777F180 wrote: Shelty for sticking with Polanco. :D
Shelty sticking with polanco because Nutting told him too
Shelty sticking with polanco because Nutting told him too