5F4F4E796F6F630C0 wrote: But, I came to this thread for Adam Frazier stuff ....
Sorry SC
Discussion about salary dumping of higher paid stiffs must take precedent over the salary dumping of more useful, lower paid players.
Do people really think Nutting will eat Polanco's contract and dump him? Nope. He doesn't have much trade value if any either. Maybe we can throw Hayes in a deal and get some stiff for the rotation, but save 11 million.
Maybe even get a utility infielder to replace Riddle, who we salary dumped already
Adam Frazier
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
BellevueBuc
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:41 pm
Adam Frazier
1C4A5C48475D4D464B5C6E49434F4742004D2E0 wrote: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/gregory-pol ... fferently/
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Currently, that player does not exist. Having Polanco on the roster does not prevent them from finding that player. Releasing Polanco just because your opinion on him would be silly. The Pirates are smarter than that. You dont pay a player $11M to go away and let some other team benefit.
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Currently, that player does not exist. Having Polanco on the roster does not prevent them from finding that player. Releasing Polanco just because your opinion on him would be silly. The Pirates are smarter than that. You dont pay a player $11M to go away and let some other team benefit.
-
BellevueBuc
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:41 pm
Adam Frazier
1707063127272B440 wrote: But, I came to this thread for Adam Frazier stuff ....
Sorry SC
Discussion about salary dumping of higher paid stiffs must take precedent over the salary dumping of more useful, lower paid players.
Do people really think Nutting will eat Polanco's contract and dump him? Nope. He doesn't have much trade value if any either. Maybe we can throw Hayes in a deal and get some stiff for the rotation, but save 11 million.
Apparently.
Sorry SC
Discussion about salary dumping of higher paid stiffs must take precedent over the salary dumping of more useful, lower paid players.
Do people really think Nutting will eat Polanco's contract and dump him? Nope. He doesn't have much trade value if any either. Maybe we can throw Hayes in a deal and get some stiff for the rotation, but save 11 million.
Apparently.
-
BellevueBuc
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:41 pm
Adam Frazier
6F5A4D4D467F4D4D46414D280 wrote: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/gregory-pol ... fferently/
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Choose one-
A) The guy who's better than Polanco
or
B) The guy who will be here four or five years.
The Pirates will choose B. Won't think about A.
Or C, since both do not exist right now.
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Choose one-
A) The guy who's better than Polanco
or
B) The guy who will be here four or five years.
The Pirates will choose B. Won't think about A.
Or C, since both do not exist right now.
-
Bobster21
Adam Frazier
Despite my lack of enthusiasm for Polanco's limited abilities, there is no way they release him while Nutting pays him 11.6 million for 2021. OTOH, he can't have much trade value as an average to below average player who must be paid 11.6 million plus 12.5 million for 2022 or 3 million just to get rid of him at that time.
The only way I see to move him in 2021 is to pay about half his salary, which should at least interest some team enough to give up a couple marginal prospects for him. Saving about half of his salary and still getting something for him might interest Nutting.
The only way I see to move him in 2021 is to pay about half his salary, which should at least interest some team enough to give up a couple marginal prospects for him. Saving about half of his salary and still getting something for him might interest Nutting.
-
BellevueBuc
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:41 pm
Adam Frazier
694449585F4E59191A2B0 wrote: Despite my lack of enthusiasm for Polanco's limited abilities, there is no way they release him while Nutting pays him 11.6 million for 2021. OTOH, he can't have much trade value as an average to below average player who must be paid 11.6 million plus 12.5 million for 2022 or 3 million just to get rid of him at that time.
The only way I see to move him in 2021 is to pay about half his salary, which should at least interest some team enough to give up a couple marginal prospects for him. Saving about half of his salary and still getting something for him might interest Nutting.
The only way they move him is in a Liriano like trade, which would be extremely stupid, just like that trade was. Polanco has zero value to teams in the offseason, even at half his salary. They are stuck with him until Spring training at least.
The only way I see to move him in 2021 is to pay about half his salary, which should at least interest some team enough to give up a couple marginal prospects for him. Saving about half of his salary and still getting something for him might interest Nutting.
The only way they move him is in a Liriano like trade, which would be extremely stupid, just like that trade was. Polanco has zero value to teams in the offseason, even at half his salary. They are stuck with him until Spring training at least.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Adam Frazier
02252C2C25363525023523400 wrote: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/gregory-pol ... fferently/
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Currently, that player does not exist. Having Polanco on the roster does not prevent them from finding that player. Releasing Polanco just because your opinion on him would be silly. The Pirates are smarter than that. You dont pay a player $11M to go away and let some other team benefit.
Of course that player exists. There are probably plenty of them. It's just a matter of Cherington and his staff being able to find that guy.
Having Polanco on the roster makes it more difficult to sit him on the bench because the temptation will persist to play him, which is a waste of time. Out of sight, out of mind.
It doesn't matter what Polanco is getting paid. He's due the money whether he plays or not, whether he's released or not. Why would the Pirates continue to play him for the next year when he's below average in nearly every way when he could be replaced by a guy who could be better and be playing for the next five?
Polanco wouldn't be the first player, or the first Pirate, who was "paid to go away".
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Currently, that player does not exist. Having Polanco on the roster does not prevent them from finding that player. Releasing Polanco just because your opinion on him would be silly. The Pirates are smarter than that. You dont pay a player $11M to go away and let some other team benefit.
Of course that player exists. There are probably plenty of them. It's just a matter of Cherington and his staff being able to find that guy.
Having Polanco on the roster makes it more difficult to sit him on the bench because the temptation will persist to play him, which is a waste of time. Out of sight, out of mind.
It doesn't matter what Polanco is getting paid. He's due the money whether he plays or not, whether he's released or not. Why would the Pirates continue to play him for the next year when he's below average in nearly every way when he could be replaced by a guy who could be better and be playing for the next five?
Polanco wouldn't be the first player, or the first Pirate, who was "paid to go away".
Adam Frazier
306670646B71616A677042656F636B6E2C61020 wrote: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/gregory-pol ... fferently/
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Currently, that player does not exist. Having Polanco on the roster does not prevent them from finding that player. Releasing Polanco just because your opinion on him would be silly. The Pirates are smarter than that. You dont pay a player $11M to go away and let some other team benefit.
Of course that player exists. There are probably plenty of them. It's just a matter of Cherington and his staff being able to find that guy.
Having Polanco on the roster makes it more difficult to sit him on the bench because the temptation will persist to play him, which is a waste of time. Out of sight, out of mind.
It doesn't matter what Polanco is getting paid. He's due the money whether he plays or not, whether he's released or not. Why would the Pirates continue to play him for the next year when he's below average in nearly every way when he could be replaced by a guy who could be better and be playing for the next five?
Polanco wouldn't be the first player, or the first Pirate, who was "paid to go away".
Big difference paying Archer 500K to go away than the price tag on Polanco at this stage.
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Currently, that player does not exist. Having Polanco on the roster does not prevent them from finding that player. Releasing Polanco just because your opinion on him would be silly. The Pirates are smarter than that. You dont pay a player $11M to go away and let some other team benefit.
Of course that player exists. There are probably plenty of them. It's just a matter of Cherington and his staff being able to find that guy.
Having Polanco on the roster makes it more difficult to sit him on the bench because the temptation will persist to play him, which is a waste of time. Out of sight, out of mind.
It doesn't matter what Polanco is getting paid. He's due the money whether he plays or not, whether he's released or not. Why would the Pirates continue to play him for the next year when he's below average in nearly every way when he could be replaced by a guy who could be better and be playing for the next five?
Polanco wouldn't be the first player, or the first Pirate, who was "paid to go away".
Big difference paying Archer 500K to go away than the price tag on Polanco at this stage.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Adam Frazier
0212132432323E510 wrote: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/gregory-pol ... fferently/
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Currently, that player does not exist. Having Polanco on the roster does not prevent them from finding that player. Releasing Polanco just because your opinion on him would be silly. The Pirates are smarter than that. You dont pay a player $11M to go away and let some other team benefit.
Of course that player exists. There are probably plenty of them. It's just a matter of Cherington and his staff being able to find that guy.
Having Polanco on the roster makes it more difficult to sit him on the bench because the temptation will persist to play him, which is a waste of time. Out of sight, out of mind.
It doesn't matter what Polanco is getting paid. He's due the money whether he plays or not, whether he's released or not. Why would the Pirates continue to play him for the next year when he's below average in nearly every way when he could be replaced by a guy who could be better and be playing for the next five?
Polanco wouldn't be the first player, or the first Pirate, who was "paid to go away".
Big difference paying Archer 500K to go away than the price tag on Polanco at this stage.
I acknowledge that. But the point remains that the Pirates have to pay him regardless. So the RF position will cost either Polanco's $11 million salary, or his $11 million salary plus the salary of whoever replaces him. The only question to answer is whether that marginal money is worth paying to have a better player at that position. For me, the answer is obvious.
This is not to say that I believe the Pirates will release him. I don't think they will, I just believe they should. I believe he makes the line-up worse. I want the team to win as many games as possible and I believe that's more likely with another player in RF.
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Currently, that player does not exist. Having Polanco on the roster does not prevent them from finding that player. Releasing Polanco just because your opinion on him would be silly. The Pirates are smarter than that. You dont pay a player $11M to go away and let some other team benefit.
Of course that player exists. There are probably plenty of them. It's just a matter of Cherington and his staff being able to find that guy.
Having Polanco on the roster makes it more difficult to sit him on the bench because the temptation will persist to play him, which is a waste of time. Out of sight, out of mind.
It doesn't matter what Polanco is getting paid. He's due the money whether he plays or not, whether he's released or not. Why would the Pirates continue to play him for the next year when he's below average in nearly every way when he could be replaced by a guy who could be better and be playing for the next five?
Polanco wouldn't be the first player, or the first Pirate, who was "paid to go away".
Big difference paying Archer 500K to go away than the price tag on Polanco at this stage.
I acknowledge that. But the point remains that the Pirates have to pay him regardless. So the RF position will cost either Polanco's $11 million salary, or his $11 million salary plus the salary of whoever replaces him. The only question to answer is whether that marginal money is worth paying to have a better player at that position. For me, the answer is obvious.
This is not to say that I believe the Pirates will release him. I don't think they will, I just believe they should. I believe he makes the line-up worse. I want the team to win as many games as possible and I believe that's more likely with another player in RF.
-
Bobster21
Adam Frazier
297F697D726878737E695B7C767A727735781B0 wrote: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/gregory-pol ... fferently/
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Currently, that player does not exist. Having Polanco on the roster does not prevent them from finding that player. Releasing Polanco just because your opinion on him would be silly. The Pirates are smarter than that. You dont pay a player $11M to go away and let some other team benefit.
Of course that player exists. There are probably plenty of them. It's just a matter of Cherington and his staff being able to find that guy.
Having Polanco on the roster makes it more difficult to sit him on the bench because the temptation will persist to play him, which is a waste of time. Out of sight, out of mind.
It doesn't matter what Polanco is getting paid. He's due the money whether he plays or not, whether he's released or not. Why would the Pirates continue to play him for the next year when he's below average in nearly every way when he could be replaced by a guy who could be better and be playing for the next five?
Polanco wouldn't be the first player, or the first Pirate, who was "paid to go away".
Big difference paying Archer 500K to go away than the price tag on Polanco at this stage.
I acknowledge that. But the point remains that the Pirates have to pay him regardless. So the RF position will cost either Polanco's $11 million salary, or his $11 million salary plus the salary of whoever replaces him. The only question to answer is whether that marginal money is worth paying to have a better player at that position. For me, the answer is obvious.
This is not to say that I believe the Pirates will release him. I don't think they will, I just believe they should. I believe he makes the line-up worse. I want the team to win as many games as possible and I believe that's more likely with another player in RF.
Doc, I hear ya. But we know they won't release him and eat the contract even if it made them a better team. And there's no harm in opening the season with him and seeing if he can get hot and become tradeable even if they have to eat some but not all of his salary.
A more acute example of your point is the Orioles with Chris Davis. After a strong 2015 (.262, 47 HRs, 117 RBIs) he signed a 7-year deal for 23 million per year and no buyout clause. Since then he has hit .221, .215, .168, .179 and .115 with HRs dwindling from 38 to 26 to 16 to 12 to 0. He gets his 23 million per year thru 2022 regardless while providing nothing that couldn't be improved upon by a LMG. So by adding the minimum salary of over $560,000 to the payroll they could pay a better player to replace Davis and pay Davis not to play. Davis' money is guaranteed regardless so all it costs is the additional minimum salary to get better production.
Of course Polanco is not as bad as Davis or paid nearly as much. But it shows how reluctant teams are to release a high paid player even if they could replace him for minimum salary and get better results.
Polanco was missing meatballs down the middle. He had very obvious swing issues and did not look comfortable. Trading or releasing him because he costs too much would be unwise. [highlight]He is exactly the player the Pirates should be trading FOR, not trading away.[/highlight]
So you want the Pirates to continue winning less than a third of their games?
They are going to lose most of their games next year no matter who the RF is.
Exactly. So why continue down that path of losing with a guy who won't reach the potential projected and won't be here after this next season? Better to find someone else as soon as possible who can become better than Polanco and will be here for 4-5 years.
Currently, that player does not exist. Having Polanco on the roster does not prevent them from finding that player. Releasing Polanco just because your opinion on him would be silly. The Pirates are smarter than that. You dont pay a player $11M to go away and let some other team benefit.
Of course that player exists. There are probably plenty of them. It's just a matter of Cherington and his staff being able to find that guy.
Having Polanco on the roster makes it more difficult to sit him on the bench because the temptation will persist to play him, which is a waste of time. Out of sight, out of mind.
It doesn't matter what Polanco is getting paid. He's due the money whether he plays or not, whether he's released or not. Why would the Pirates continue to play him for the next year when he's below average in nearly every way when he could be replaced by a guy who could be better and be playing for the next five?
Polanco wouldn't be the first player, or the first Pirate, who was "paid to go away".
Big difference paying Archer 500K to go away than the price tag on Polanco at this stage.
I acknowledge that. But the point remains that the Pirates have to pay him regardless. So the RF position will cost either Polanco's $11 million salary, or his $11 million salary plus the salary of whoever replaces him. The only question to answer is whether that marginal money is worth paying to have a better player at that position. For me, the answer is obvious.
This is not to say that I believe the Pirates will release him. I don't think they will, I just believe they should. I believe he makes the line-up worse. I want the team to win as many games as possible and I believe that's more likely with another player in RF.
Doc, I hear ya. But we know they won't release him and eat the contract even if it made them a better team. And there's no harm in opening the season with him and seeing if he can get hot and become tradeable even if they have to eat some but not all of his salary.
A more acute example of your point is the Orioles with Chris Davis. After a strong 2015 (.262, 47 HRs, 117 RBIs) he signed a 7-year deal for 23 million per year and no buyout clause. Since then he has hit .221, .215, .168, .179 and .115 with HRs dwindling from 38 to 26 to 16 to 12 to 0. He gets his 23 million per year thru 2022 regardless while providing nothing that couldn't be improved upon by a LMG. So by adding the minimum salary of over $560,000 to the payroll they could pay a better player to replace Davis and pay Davis not to play. Davis' money is guaranteed regardless so all it costs is the additional minimum salary to get better production.
Of course Polanco is not as bad as Davis or paid nearly as much. But it shows how reluctant teams are to release a high paid player even if they could replace him for minimum salary and get better results.