OnlyBucs

7555465B5A340 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.



My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t.  With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.


Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that.  And not all of this is past performance.  AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season.  The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".



The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals.  Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.   




Perhaps I should clarify.  I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).



But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS.  We’re really talking  about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.



For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.




What has Andrew McCutchen done the last two years to deserve a six million dollar raise for his play? I want you to seriously think about that. Would you give that type of raise for a guy that has had 2.5 good months out of the last two years?

0111102731313D520 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.



My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t.  With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.


Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that.  And not all of this is past performance.  AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season.  The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".



The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals.  Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.   




Perhaps I should clarify.  I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).



But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS.  We’re really talking  about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.



For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.




What has Andrew McCutchen done the last two years to deserve a six million dollar raise for his play?  I want you to seriously think about that.  Would you give that type of raise for a guy that has had 2.5 good months out of the last two years?


Nice thought but that is like the old pre-FA years where guys would have a good yr and get a raise then have a bad yr at the higher salary and are forced to take a pay cut. In this baseball world pay cuts are in the small minority. There is always someone out there who will over pay (for past performance) for a player of Cutch's form caliber. Bobster might be able to fill us in better about some the 1960 Bucs who took pay cuts for that season based upon their 1959 performance. If I recall from reading along in Bobster's book, Buco Gold Bob Skinner was one such guy. Help me out here Bobster after that shameless Admin plug ;D

1101003721212D420 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.



My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t.  With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.


Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that.  And not all of this is past performance.  AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season.  The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".



The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals.  Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.   




Perhaps I should clarify.  I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).



But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS.  We’re really talking  about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.



For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.




What has Andrew McCutchen done the last two years to deserve a six million dollar raise for his play?  I want you to seriously think about that.  Would you give that type of raise for a guy that has had 2.5 good months out of the last two years?


When I said extension, I was referring to the original extension McCutchen signed.



Specifically, had it not been so team friendly and had him earning 20 million a year rather than 13-14, it would be something the Pirates should be able to accommodate without issue.

5C4C4D7A6C6C600F0 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.



My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t.  With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.


Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that.  And not all of this is past performance.  AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season.  The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".



The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals.  Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.   




Perhaps I should clarify.  I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).



But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS.  We’re really talking  about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.



For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.




What has Andrew McCutchen done the last two years to deserve a six million dollar raise for his play?  I want you to seriously think about that.  Would you give that type of raise for a guy that has had 2.5 good months out of the last two years?




look at Justin Upton. His stats the past couple of years are better than Cutch but I don't think significantly better. And then to gamble that he is going to continue at this rate or better seems very risky to me.

63424A634840270 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.



My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t.  With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.


Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that.  And not all of this is past performance.  AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season.  The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".



The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals.  Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.   




Perhaps I should clarify.  I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).



But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS.  We’re really talking  about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.



For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.




What has Andrew McCutchen done the last two years to deserve a six million dollar raise for his play?  I want you to seriously think about that.  Would you give that type of raise for a guy that has had 2.5 good months out of the last two years?


Nice thought but that is like the old pre-FA years where guys would have a good yr and get a raise then have a bad yr at the higher salary and are forced to take a pay cut.  In this baseball world pay cuts are in the small minority.  There is always someone out there who will over pay (for past performance) for a player of Cutch's form caliber.  Bobster might be able to fill us in better about some the 1960 Bucs who took pay cuts for that season based upon their 1959 performance.  If I recall from reading along in Bobster's book, Buco Gold Bob Skinner was one such guy.  Help me out here Bobster after that shameless Admin plug  ;D


Possum, as far as I know, Skinner, Groat, Virdon, Friend and Maz all had to take decreases in 1960 after a decline in 1959. MLB was certainly a different world back then.

6F4E466F444C2B0 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.



My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t.  With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.


Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that.  And not all of this is past performance.  AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season.  The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".



The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals.  Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.   




Perhaps I should clarify.  I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).



But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS.  We’re really talking  about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.



For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.




What has Andrew McCutchen done the last two years to deserve a six million dollar raise for his play?  I want you to seriously think about that.  Would you give that type of raise for a guy that has had 2.5 good months out of the last two years?


Nice thought but that is like the old pre-FA years where guys would have a good yr and get a raise then have a bad yr at the higher salary and are forced to take a pay cut.  In this baseball world pay cuts are in the small minority.  There is always someone out there who will over pay (for past performance) for a player of Cutch's form caliber.  Bobster might be able to fill us in better about some the 1960 Bucs who took pay cuts for that season based upon their 1959 performance.  If I recall from reading along in Bobster's book, Buco Gold Bob Skinner was one such guy.  Help me out here Bobster after that shameless Admin plug  ;D




I get what you are saying, but this is a very big gamble.  To me this isn't moving the franchise forward at all.  A guy that has showed me something in 2.5 months of the last two years isn't that good of a risk to me.  A lot of people are saying the Pirates need to keep the face of the franchise.  The face of the franchise isn't a reason to keep a player on the decline.  But, then again, its not like this organization would reinvest the money saved by dumping him, so ... I fully see the status quo again for 2018.

5949487F6969650A0 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.



My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t.  With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.


Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that.  And not all of this is past performance.  AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season.  The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".



The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals.  Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.   




Perhaps I should clarify.  I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).



But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS.  We’re really talking  about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.



For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.




What has Andrew McCutchen done the last two years to deserve a six million dollar raise for his play?  I want you to seriously think about that.  Would you give that type of raise for a guy that has had 2.5 good months out of the last two years?


Nice thought but that is like the old pre-FA years where guys would have a good yr and get a raise then have a bad yr at the higher salary and are forced to take a pay cut.  In this baseball world pay cuts are in the small minority.  There is always someone out there who will over pay (for past performance) for a player of Cutch's form caliber.  Bobster might be able to fill us in better about some the 1960 Bucs who took pay cuts for that season based upon their 1959 performance.  If I recall from reading along in Bobster's book, Buco Gold Bob Skinner was one such guy.  Help me out here Bobster after that shameless Admin plug  ;D




I get what you are saying, but this is a very big gamble.  To me this isn't moving the franchise forward at all.  A guy that has showed me something in 2.5 months of the last two years isn't that good of a risk to me.  A lot of people are saying the Pirates need to keep the face of the franchise.  The face of the franchise isn't a reason to keep a player on the decline.  But, then again, its not like this organization would reinvest the money saved by dumping him, so ... I fully see the status quo again for 2018.


I agree with this. Don't keep a guy just because he is the "face of your franchise." I care infinitely more about the name on the front of the jersey than the one on the back.



In other news, I've done as much this offseason to improve the Pirates as Neal Huntington has, which is to say, nothing.

6F67645345604748260 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.



My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t.  With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.


Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that.  And not all of this is past performance.  AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season.  The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".



The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals.  Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.   




Perhaps I should clarify.  I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).



But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS.  We’re really talking  about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.



For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.




What has Andrew McCutchen done the last two years to deserve a six million dollar raise for his play?  I want you to seriously think about that.  Would you give that type of raise for a guy that has had 2.5 good months out of the last two years?


Nice thought but that is like the old pre-FA years where guys would have a good yr and get a raise then have a bad yr at the higher salary and are forced to take a pay cut.  In this baseball world pay cuts are in the small minority.  There is always someone out there who will over pay (for past performance) for a player of Cutch's form caliber.  Bobster might be able to fill us in better about some the 1960 Bucs who took pay cuts for that season based upon their 1959 performance.  If I recall from reading along in Bobster's book, Buco Gold Bob Skinner was one such guy.  Help me out here Bobster after that shameless Admin plug  ;D




I get what you are saying, but this is a very big gamble.  To me this isn't moving the franchise forward at all.  A guy that has showed me something in 2.5 months of the last two years isn't that good of a risk to me.  A lot of people are saying the Pirates need to keep the face of the franchise.  The face of the franchise isn't a reason to keep a player on the decline.  But, then again, its not like this organization would reinvest the money saved by dumping him, so ... I fully see the status quo again for 2018.


I agree with this. Don't keep a guy just because he is the "face of your franchise." I care infinitely more about the name on the front of the jersey than the one on the back.



In other news, I've done as much this offseason to improve the Pirates as Neal Huntington has, which is to say, nothing.


Consistency wins championships. Except when you constantly do nothing.