Adam Frazier
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:36 am
0A272A3B3C2D3A7A79480 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.
Completely agree. The Pirates won't release him and will hope beyond hope that he plays well when the season begins, then hope another team needs an outfielder, then hope that team's fooled enough to think he's the answer. I'll get out my rosary beads tonight and start a Novena.
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.
Completely agree. The Pirates won't release him and will hope beyond hope that he plays well when the season begins, then hope another team needs an outfielder, then hope that team's fooled enough to think he's the answer. I'll get out my rosary beads tonight and start a Novena.