OnlyBucs

Happ was a long shot gamble that paid off. Niese was a long shot gamble that didn't. Believing you can keep winning by betting on long shots is a strategy pretty much doomed to inconsistency. This year is a great example of this. Huntington rolled the dice on Freese, Joyce and Rodriguez. Big winner! Who thought at the time they would constitute arguably the best bench in MLB? He missed badly on starting pitching. That's baseball.

64795D5F51340 wrote: I don't disagree with most of what has been written above, but I think the next logical step in the conversation is one that never gets answered.  If the FO didn't do enough to help the rotation in the offseason (and we all think they did not), what WERE they supposed to do?  Who were they supposed to get?  See that's the problem.  Burnett and Happ posted such good numbers last year, the Pirates were never going to find a replacement for that spot in the rotation.  Never mind Liriano pitching poorly, and the Niese/Locke debacle, there was never a realistic option out there to replicate Burnett/Happ.  There were no FA's they could realistically target and it would have taken a trade of someone like Marte for Carrasco (Cle) to make a move toward that end.


What?



This last offseason was the most starting-pitching rich one in years. There were plenty of pitchers they could have gone after.

5D616C4466667A6C090 wrote: I don't disagree with most of what has been written above, but I think the next logical step in the conversation is one that never gets answered.  If the FO didn't do enough to help the rotation in the offseason (and we all think they did not), what WERE they supposed to do?  Who were they supposed to get?  See that's the problem.  Burnett and Happ posted such good numbers last year, the Pirates were never going to find a replacement for that spot in the rotation.  Never mind Liriano pitching poorly, and the Niese/Locke debacle, there was never a realistic option out there to replicate Burnett/Happ.  There were no FA's they could realistically target and it would have taken a trade of someone like Marte for Carrasco (Cle) to make a move toward that end.


What?



This last offseason was the most starting-pitching rich one in years.  There were plenty of pitchers they could have gone after.


You're right, lots of pitching was available and a fair number of top of the rotation types. If the Pirates were willing or able to spend like the Kansas City Royals they might have signed someone like David Price or Zack Greinke. The self-imposed salary cap that the Pirates have would seem to be the limiting factor which seriously alters the reality of who they 'could have gone after', and explains why they consistently bet on reclamation longshots.

0539341C3E3E2234510 wrote: I don't disagree with most of what has been written above, but I think the next logical step in the conversation is one that never gets answered.  If the FO didn't do enough to help the rotation in the offseason (and we all think they did not), what WERE they supposed to do?  Who were they supposed to get?  See that's the problem.  Burnett and Happ posted such good numbers last year, the Pirates were never going to find a replacement for that spot in the rotation.  Never mind Liriano pitching poorly, and the Niese/Locke debacle, there was never a realistic option out there to replicate Burnett/Happ.  There were no FA's they could realistically target and it would have taken a trade of someone like Marte for Carrasco (Cle) to make a move toward that end.


What?



This last offseason was the most starting-pitching rich one in years.  There were plenty of pitchers they could have gone after.


Yes. Of course there were. WHO? Who was actually available, in the Pirates price range, and would have given similar production. Give actual names, not ambiguity.

130E2A2826430 wrote: I don't disagree with most of what has been written above, but I think the next logical step in the conversation is one that never gets answered.  If the FO didn't do enough to help the rotation in the offseason (and we all think they did not), what WERE they supposed to do?  Who were they supposed to get?  See that's the problem.  Burnett and Happ posted such good numbers last year, the Pirates were never going to find a replacement for that spot in the rotation.  Never mind Liriano pitching poorly, and the Niese/Locke debacle, there was never a realistic option out there to replicate Burnett/Happ.  There were no FA's they could realistically target and it would have taken a trade of someone like Marte for Carrasco (Cle) to make a move toward that end.
There was a FA on the market who would have been the equal of Happ. It was Happ. But they didn't want to pay him. Happ is currently having an outstanding season for Toronto. Some will argue that they couldn't expect Happ to perform so well again. Yet, they also expect pitchers to outperform their past once Searage works with them. Was Niese expected to outperform his past just as Happ had done but Happ was supposed to have been a fluke? Doesn't make sense. Happ's contract with Toronto is not outrageous for MLB. But the Pirates opted to assemble a rotation this year of 2 proven quality pitchers (Cole and Liriano), a historically mediocre (Niese) at #3, a #4 (Locke) who failed as a #5, and either Vogelsong or Nicasio until a rookie could debut at mid season. The FO moves are understandable for a team that can't or won't pay market value for pitching. But the net result was that they knew they had a problematic rotation entering the season. NH even spoke about how the plan was to have a strong bullpen that could eat up a lot of innings. That's kinda like an NFL coach saying we know our offense won't be much but we have a great punter!

406D60717667703033020 wrote: I don't disagree with most of what has been written above, but I think the next logical step in the conversation is one that never gets answered.  If the FO didn't do enough to help the rotation in the offseason (and we all think they did not), what WERE they supposed to do?  Who were they supposed to get?  See that's the problem.  Burnett and Happ posted such good numbers last year, the Pirates were never going to find a replacement for that spot in the rotation.  Never mind Liriano pitching poorly, and the Niese/Locke debacle, there was never a realistic option out there to replicate Burnett/Happ.  There were no FA's they could realistically target and it would have taken a trade of someone like Marte for Carrasco (Cle) to make a move toward that end.
There was a FA on the market who would have been the equal of Happ. It was Happ. But they didn't want to pay him. Happ is currently having an outstanding season for Toronto. Some will argue that they couldn't expect Happ to perform so well again. Yet, they also expect pitchers to outperform their past once Searage works with them. Was Niese expected to outperform his past just as Happ had done but Happ was supposed to have been a fluke? Doesn't make sense. Happ's contract with Toronto is not outrageous for MLB. But the Pirates opted to assemble a rotation this year of 2 proven quality pitchers (Cole and Liriano), a historically mediocre (Niese) at #3, a #4 (Locke) who failed as a #5, and either Vogelsong or Nicasio until a rookie could debut at mid season. The FO moves are understandable for a team that can't or won't pay market value for pitching. But the net result was that they knew they had a problematic rotation entering the season. NH even spoke about how the plan was to have a strong bullpen that could eat up a lot of innings. That's kinda like an NFL coach saying we know our offense won't be much but we have a great punter!




Thank you.



Happ is a pretty good example. His ERA is in the low 3s. His walk and strikeout ratios are about where they have been most of his career. His FIP is a little high (about 4.00) indicating his ERA is a little low. That is, of course, all in hindsight.



You make a good point. There was reason to expect that Happ would/could pitch like this. Probably not at the level he pitched at the end of last year, but this shouldn't be too shocking. He did sign for an amount that the Pirates could have fit into their budget.

1D303D2C2B3A2D6D6E5F0 wrote: I don't disagree with most of what has been written above, but I think the next logical step in the conversation is one that never gets answered.  If the FO didn't do enough to help the rotation in the offseason (and we all think they did not), what WERE they supposed to do?  Who were they supposed to get?  See that's the problem.  Burnett and Happ posted such good numbers last year, the Pirates were never going to find a replacement for that spot in the rotation.  Never mind Liriano pitching poorly, and the Niese/Locke debacle, there was never a realistic option out there to replicate Burnett/Happ.  There were no FA's they could realistically target and it would have taken a trade of someone like Marte for Carrasco (Cle) to make a move toward that end.
There was a FA on the market who would have been the equal of Happ. It was Happ. But they didn't want to pay him. Happ is currently having an outstanding season for Toronto. Some will argue that they couldn't expect Happ to perform so well again. Yet, they also expect pitchers to outperform their past once Searage works with them. Was Niese expected to outperform his past just as Happ had done but Happ was supposed to have been a fluke? Doesn't make sense. Happ's contract with Toronto is not outrageous for MLB. But the Pirates opted to assemble a rotation this year of 2 proven quality pitchers (Cole and Liriano), a historically mediocre (Niese) at #3, a #4 (Locke) who failed as a #5, and either Vogelsong or Nicasio until a rookie could debut at mid season. The FO moves are understandable for a team that can't or won't pay market value for pitching. But the net result was that they knew they had a problematic rotation entering the season. NH even spoke about how the plan was to have a strong bullpen that could eat up a lot of innings. That's kinda like an NFL coach saying we know our offense won't be much but we have a great punter!




I don't take a position on the amount of the budget. It's not my money. My response is dedicated to how Huntington handles the budget he's given. Happ's contract, in my opinion, was rich compared to his past performance. He nearly got Liriano money. I believe it was way too rich for the Pirates. It's not surprising that Toronto made that deal as they aren't really the bellwether for reasonable spending. I remember most people thinking he'd sign for quite a bit less than he got, and I don't remember very many people upset that the Pirates didn't match Toronto's offer. If you were one that was, I guess you were right. Maybe you should change your name to Bobsterdamus

0A2F3C29353E353431395D0 wrote: I don't disagree with most of what has been written above, but I think the next logical step in the conversation is one that never gets answered.  If the FO didn't do enough to help the rotation in the offseason (and we all think they did not), what WERE they supposed to do?  Who were they supposed to get?  See that's the problem.  Burnett and Happ posted such good numbers last year, the Pirates were never going to find a replacement for that spot in the rotation.  Never mind Liriano pitching poorly, and the Niese/Locke debacle, there was never a realistic option out there to replicate Burnett/Happ.  There were no FA's they could realistically target and it would have taken a trade of someone like Marte for Carrasco (Cle) to make a move toward that end.
There was a FA on the market who would have been the equal of Happ. It was Happ. But they didn't want to pay him. Happ is currently having an outstanding season for Toronto. Some will argue that they couldn't expect Happ to perform so well again. Yet, they also expect pitchers to outperform their past once Searage works with them. Was Niese expected to outperform his past just as Happ had done but Happ was supposed to have been a fluke? Doesn't make sense. Happ's contract with Toronto is not outrageous for MLB. But the Pirates opted to assemble a rotation this year of 2 proven quality pitchers (Cole and Liriano), a historically mediocre (Niese) at #3, a #4 (Locke) who failed as a #5, and either Vogelsong or Nicasio until a rookie could debut at mid season. The FO moves are understandable for a team that can't or won't pay market value for pitching. But the net result was that they knew they had a problematic rotation entering the season. NH even spoke about how the plan was to have a strong bullpen that could eat up a lot of innings. That's kinda like an NFL coach saying we know our offense won't be much but we have a great punter!




I don't take a position on the amount of the budget.  It's not my money.  My response is dedicated to how Huntington handles the budget he's given.  Happ's contract, in my opinion, was rich compared to his past performance.  He nearly got Liriano money.  I believe it was way too rich for the Pirates.  It's not surprising that Toronto made that deal as they aren't really the bellwether for reasonable spending. I remember most people thinking he'd sign for quite a bit less than he got, and I don't remember very many people upset that the Pirates didn't match Toronto's offer.  If you were one that was, I guess you were right.  Maybe you should change your name to Bobsterdamus




Unfortunately, salaries for starting pitchers have climbed (didn't Jordan Zimmerman get a $110 million deal for 5 years?) Liriano is not making very much compared to many starters with that much experience. Edison Volquez has a 10 million option for next year and Royals will most likely pick that up (or trade him to someone who will).



The Bucs are going to have to develop a lot more pitchers or pay more for pitching than they have done historically. It is going to be difficult to have a rotation of 5 starters and not shell out 30 million or 40 million. Cole is probably going to make over 10 million in arbitration or signing before he becomes a free agent. I think the Bucs are going to have to be able to figure out how to pay 24 or 25 million for 2 starters otherwise the team is relying on retreads or inexperienced pitchers to come through.

684D5E4B575C5756535B3F0 wrote: Maybe you should change your name to Bobsterdamus
I have enough trouble just spelling Bob.

6D4B4A5D4B5B280 wrote: [quote author=0A2F3C29353E353431395D0

Unfortunately, salaries for starting pitchers have climbed (didn't Jordan Zimmerman get a $110 million deal for 5 years?)   Liriano is not making very much compared to many starters with that much experience.  Edison Volquez has a 10 million option for next year and Royals will most likely pick that up (or trade him to someone who will). 



The Bucs are going to have to develop a lot more pitchers or pay more for pitching than they have done historically.  It is going to be difficult to have a rotation of 5 starters and not shell out 30 million or 40 million.  Cole is probably going to make over 10 million in arbitration or signing before he becomes a free agent.  I think the Bucs are going to have to be able to figure out how to pay 24 or 25 million for 2 starters otherwise the team is relying on retreads or inexperienced pitchers to come through.


Volquez is on the trading block KC would love to unload him I was glad the pirates didn't resign him. I liked Happ and was hoping we could resign him. I would have paid extra for him. Pitchers are high risk and I can't believe these teams are paying what they pay for a average pitcher. Baseball needs a reset on these salaries they are outrageous and they've priced the average fan unable to go see a team play.