6B6C7A727C6B2C20597E74787075377A7674190 wrote: To both PMike and Sammy - fair enough. We really can't judge their plan until next April. I'll be hoping like crazy on the offseason because this team can be elite. In the end my problem is two:
I can't wrap my head around the idea that prospects are now fair game to simply dump salary. That's bad news especially for a team that pretty much lives and dies with good use of prospects. (I.e., no real FA by the Pirates; are we going to use more prospects if Cutch is bad next season?)
And #2, I can't believe they didn't try to make reasonable moves for THIS season. there is no way I quit on this year given the very real opportunity. Which leads back to the 1st point of dumping salary at literally unheard of costs: the only way I can reconcile the moves made for THIS team is to realize they gave up on this year in order to save money (the root of all the "nutting is cheap" talk is that saving money is more important than winning; you might not like to admit it, but that sure looks like exactly what happened).
One last point - the Pirates did not dump there worse pitcher; Frankie has upside that Locke can only dream about. They moved Locke back into the rotation....they did not try to make the team better they simply moved payroll. (And ice mentioned above that I don't have a problem with dumping....unless it's "hidden" behind a lot of BS).
Huntington is a smart, analytical guy who has discovered the new market inefficiency: Trading valued but blocked prospects with your bad contracts. We don't know what he'll do with the new flexibility. We don't know if he'll even have time to think about it. He may need to review the new Moneyball movie script and discuss lead actors!
Salary flexability
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Salary flexability
61465753564B74405756564B320 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.
And they have four million tied up in Joyce and Freese. What have they gotten out of that? Every team has crappy guys signed for too much.
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.
And they have four million tied up in Joyce and Freese. What have they gotten out of that? Every team has crappy guys signed for too much.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Salary flexability
4F72756F72751B0 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.
And they have four million tied up in Joyce and Freese. What have they gotten out of that? Every team has crappy guys signed for too much.
The Cardinals are giving $5 1/2 MM to Trevor Rosenthal.
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.
And they have four million tied up in Joyce and Freese. What have they gotten out of that? Every team has crappy guys signed for too much.
The Cardinals are giving $5 1/2 MM to Trevor Rosenthal.
-
SteadyFreddy
Salary flexability
634E43525544531310210 wrote: When the Pirates were losing for 20 straight years, key players rarely signed extensions (unless it a ridiculous deal like Kendall's) and free agents ignored them. Since the Pirates became legit contenders, key players have agreed to extensions. Say what you will about Liriano, but he re-signed as a FA last year when he could have gone elsewhere. So after the surrender of prospects to fuel a salary dump, the Pirates better use their money wisely to remain legit contenders next year. Because they have sent a message not only to frustrated fans but also to players that they will gladly sacrifice talent for savings. If players get frustrated with the efforts of the FO to take the necessary steps to go to the next level, we'll go back to seeing FAs ignore the Pirates and good young players counting the years until they can leave. That's absolutely right. The Pirates did themselves no favors really in the free agent market or anywhere else for that matter based on what they did with Liriano the other day.
Salary flexability
They should be judged right now. The deal was a salary dump. Many OBNers will twist themselves into pretzels trying to make that seem inaccurate, so it goes here.
You could hardly have a better exams of a dump than sending two top prospects and liriano for a scrub pitcher.
The saddest part about this is Frankie is exactly the type of reclamation project we should be looking for, and not the vogelbums of the world.
If the Pirates would have acquired Frankie, McGuire, and Rameriz for a glorified Jeff Locke I would be reading post after post about how awesome NH is and how great Nutting is. Not some weird (wait and see)
just give it up and move on.
You could hardly have a better exams of a dump than sending two top prospects and liriano for a scrub pitcher.
The saddest part about this is Frankie is exactly the type of reclamation project we should be looking for, and not the vogelbums of the world.
If the Pirates would have acquired Frankie, McGuire, and Rameriz for a glorified Jeff Locke I would be reading post after post about how awesome NH is and how great Nutting is. Not some weird (wait and see)
just give it up and move on.
Salary flexability
232A22333D470 wrote: They should be judged right now. The deal was a salary dump. Many OBNers will twist themselves into pretzels trying to make that seem inaccurate, so it goes here.
You could hardly have a better exams of a dump than sending two top prospects and liriano for a scrub pitcher.
The saddest part about this is Frankie is exactly the type of reclamation project we should be looking for, and not the vogelbums of the world.
If the Pirates would have acquired Frankie, McGuire, and Rameriz for a glorified Jeff Locke I would be reading post after post about how awesome NH is and how great Nutting is. Not some weird (wait and see)
just give it up and move on.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I, too, think that this was the sort of creative move the Pirates should have made (pay $20 million for a bounce back candidate and two top prospects).
However, your first sentence (that I bolded) is myopic and oversimplified. It is silly to suggest that this transaction should only be evaluated now. There is circumstances down the road where this could be looked at as being a smart more. We'll see.
You could hardly have a better exams of a dump than sending two top prospects and liriano for a scrub pitcher.
The saddest part about this is Frankie is exactly the type of reclamation project we should be looking for, and not the vogelbums of the world.
If the Pirates would have acquired Frankie, McGuire, and Rameriz for a glorified Jeff Locke I would be reading post after post about how awesome NH is and how great Nutting is. Not some weird (wait and see)
just give it up and move on.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I, too, think that this was the sort of creative move the Pirates should have made (pay $20 million for a bounce back candidate and two top prospects).
However, your first sentence (that I bolded) is myopic and oversimplified. It is silly to suggest that this transaction should only be evaluated now. There is circumstances down the road where this could be looked at as being a smart more. We'll see.
-
SteadyFreddy
Salary flexability
505951404E340 wrote: They should be judged right now. The deal was a salary dump. Many OBNers will twist themselves into pretzels trying to make that seem inaccurate, so it goes here.
You could hardly have a better exams of a dump than sending two top prospects and liriano for a scrub pitcher.
The saddest part about this is Frankie is exactly the type of reclamation project we should be looking for, and not the vogelbums of the world.
If the Pirates would have acquired Frankie, McGuire, and Rameriz for a glorified Jeff Locke I would be reading post after post about how awesome NH is and how great Nutting is. Not some weird (wait and see)
just give it up and move on. Drew Hutchinson is awesome though. He is so good that the Pirates sent him right to AAA when they need pitching help and didn't even think twice about putting this guy in the rotation. Yet somehow Jeff Locke is still good enough to stay in the rotation and then whine and make excuses after the game the other night. The Pirates also stated they wanted Hutchinson down in AAA as well so they wont lose another year of control on him. That's all this team seems to worry about is years of control, and not losing a freakin guy in 2023 instead of 2024 when who knows what your team will look like. How about trying to win now, and improve your team now. You haven't won a pennant in 37 years stop worrying about 6 years from now.
You could hardly have a better exams of a dump than sending two top prospects and liriano for a scrub pitcher.
The saddest part about this is Frankie is exactly the type of reclamation project we should be looking for, and not the vogelbums of the world.
If the Pirates would have acquired Frankie, McGuire, and Rameriz for a glorified Jeff Locke I would be reading post after post about how awesome NH is and how great Nutting is. Not some weird (wait and see)
just give it up and move on. Drew Hutchinson is awesome though. He is so good that the Pirates sent him right to AAA when they need pitching help and didn't even think twice about putting this guy in the rotation. Yet somehow Jeff Locke is still good enough to stay in the rotation and then whine and make excuses after the game the other night. The Pirates also stated they wanted Hutchinson down in AAA as well so they wont lose another year of control on him. That's all this team seems to worry about is years of control, and not losing a freakin guy in 2023 instead of 2024 when who knows what your team will look like. How about trying to win now, and improve your team now. You haven't won a pennant in 37 years stop worrying about 6 years from now.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Salary flexability
Freddy, you know why Hutchison is in the minors. Why do you always forget about money and the importance of years of control? Every team does this, not just the Pirates. Come on...you are better than this!
-
SteadyFreddy
Salary flexability
3F343C3035342F6A6C1B223A3334347538345B0 wrote: Freddy, you know why Hutchison is in the minors. Why do you always forget about money and the importance of years of control? Every team does this, not just the Pirates. Come on...you are better than this! I understand it totally. So you think there is no way possible that Hutchinson who has actually had some big league success in the last year or so could be any worse then a guy like Locke?? They would rather pitch Jeff Locke up here who sucks instead of maybe giving Hutchinson a shot right now when you desperately need quality arms in this rotation. This is why I have a problem with this. Because right now when the Pirates are still 3 games out of a playoff spot and they desperately need pitching help and a guy like Hutchinson could potentially help them now, and they are more worried about keeping him in the Minors so that they don't lose him in 2023.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Salary flexability
30170602071A25110607071A630 wrote: Freddy, you know why Hutchison is in the minors. Why do you always forget about money and the importance of years of control? Every team does this, not just the Pirates. Come on...you are better than this! I understand it totally. So you think there is no way possible that Hutchinson who has actually had some big league success in the last year or so could be any worse then a guy like Locke?? They would rather pitch Jeff Locke up here who sucks instead of maybe giving Hutchinson a shot right now when you desperately need quality arms in this rotation. This is why I have a problem with this. Because right now when the Pirates are still 3 games out of a playoff spot and they desperately need pitching help and a guy like Hutchinson could potentially help them now, and they are more worried about keeping him in the Minors so that they don't lose him in 2023.
I don't think he would be worse than Locke. I don't want Locke on the team.
But I (and the Pirates) do not want to use Hutchison for 4 starts and lose 30-35 starts from him down the road. It makes sense. It is smart business.
I don't think he would be worse than Locke. I don't want Locke on the team.
But I (and the Pirates) do not want to use Hutchison for 4 starts and lose 30-35 starts from him down the road. It makes sense. It is smart business.