4B7E6969625B69696265690C0 wrote: We want the team to win in 2021. It surprises me that others feel perfectly fine with punting seasons away.
I don't buy into this slow motion nonsense.
My impression is that this is where our major differences are.
15 yard penalty for excessive BS: Using the "I want to win in 2021 card" as an excuse.
You and shed will both dodge the question, but given the roster handed to BC in 2020, tell me, how exactly was he going to make this team a "winner" in really amounts to his first full season on the job? Don't hand me the "that's his job" line. If BC had a blank check for a 300 million dollar pay roll, he could not make this team a winner in 2020 or 2021. And by "winner" you are saying "WS contender" because you are quite on the record, along with Shed, that winner doesn't mean, "83-79".
Go.
Josh Bell to Nats
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Josh Bell to Nats
754057575C6557575C5B57320 wrote: Possum, seeing as how you enjoy writing on my behalf and Shed's, then distort us, feel free to hack away.
After years of following the Pirates under BOB's ownership, I'm left with the impression than Ben will improve the team only as much as he (BOB) will allow. That's something less than a world championship, and I've offered my explanation on that.
What I've written in the past still holds true today. I would expect a man with Ben's reputation to improve the team at one position, minimum, per year externally. That's either by trade or FA acquisition. That would allow for internal development, too. Do that for a couple of years, and we should see the benefits. On a .317 club, it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect it, but I wouldn't doubt that BOB gave instructions to build internally only or via trades. Only Ben knows.
OMG! You and the Johnny Cash way of building a team! Are you serious? "One Piece at a Time" and it didn't cost BOB a dime!
LMAO! Are you serious? Okay, this year we get Trevor Bauer. Next year we get whoever. Than the next year's number one free agent. 30 million a year per position. Wait....what happens when a guy gets too old and becomes Pujols? Or flames out like Zito? Or ends up constantly injured like Jacoby Elsbury?
Newsflash Green Cadillac, there's already a team in MLB that's a perfect representation of the way of building a team the way you suggest. Called the Angels.
Know how they're going about business now? Same way we are, only difference between us and them is Mike Trout.
After years of following the Pirates under BOB's ownership, I'm left with the impression than Ben will improve the team only as much as he (BOB) will allow. That's something less than a world championship, and I've offered my explanation on that.
What I've written in the past still holds true today. I would expect a man with Ben's reputation to improve the team at one position, minimum, per year externally. That's either by trade or FA acquisition. That would allow for internal development, too. Do that for a couple of years, and we should see the benefits. On a .317 club, it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect it, but I wouldn't doubt that BOB gave instructions to build internally only or via trades. Only Ben knows.
OMG! You and the Johnny Cash way of building a team! Are you serious? "One Piece at a Time" and it didn't cost BOB a dime!
LMAO! Are you serious? Okay, this year we get Trevor Bauer. Next year we get whoever. Than the next year's number one free agent. 30 million a year per position. Wait....what happens when a guy gets too old and becomes Pujols? Or flames out like Zito? Or ends up constantly injured like Jacoby Elsbury?
Newsflash Green Cadillac, there's already a team in MLB that's a perfect representation of the way of building a team the way you suggest. Called the Angels.
Know how they're going about business now? Same way we are, only difference between us and them is Mike Trout.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Josh Bell to Nats
537572676E6275636B000 wrote: We want the team to win in 2021. It surprises me that others feel perfectly fine with punting seasons away.
I don't buy into this slow motion nonsense.
My impression is that this is where our major differences are.
15 yard penalty for excessive BS: Using the "I want to win in 2021 card" as an excuse.
You and shed will both dodge the question, but given the roster handed to BC in 2020, tell me, how exactly was he going to make this team a "winner" in really amounts to his first full season on the job? Don't hand me the "that's his job" line. If BC had a blank check for a 300 million dollar pay roll, he could not make this team a winner in 2020 or 2021. And by "winner" you are saying "WS contender" because you are quite on the record, along with Shed, that winner doesn't mean, "83-79".
Go.
That, my friend is commonly known aa....The We Can't Win the World Series, So Let's Roll Over and Play Dead Apology.
Follow along. Replace the worst position player on the team. Let's say- Polanco- with someone capable. Do the same with another position. Let's say- our worst pitcher.
You might not have a division champion. You might not have a .500 club.
But, you won't have a .317 club, either.
If you tell me that this cannot be done, then the thing to do is get out of this business and become a minor league affiliate, which is the direction we're headed, anyway.
I don't buy into this slow motion nonsense.
My impression is that this is where our major differences are.
15 yard penalty for excessive BS: Using the "I want to win in 2021 card" as an excuse.
You and shed will both dodge the question, but given the roster handed to BC in 2020, tell me, how exactly was he going to make this team a "winner" in really amounts to his first full season on the job? Don't hand me the "that's his job" line. If BC had a blank check for a 300 million dollar pay roll, he could not make this team a winner in 2020 or 2021. And by "winner" you are saying "WS contender" because you are quite on the record, along with Shed, that winner doesn't mean, "83-79".
Go.
That, my friend is commonly known aa....The We Can't Win the World Series, So Let's Roll Over and Play Dead Apology.
Follow along. Replace the worst position player on the team. Let's say- Polanco- with someone capable. Do the same with another position. Let's say- our worst pitcher.
You might not have a division champion. You might not have a .500 club.
But, you won't have a .317 club, either.
If you tell me that this cannot be done, then the thing to do is get out of this business and become a minor league affiliate, which is the direction we're headed, anyway.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Josh Bell to Nats
664047525B5740565E350 wrote: Possum, seeing as how you enjoy writing on my behalf and Shed's, then distort us, feel free to hack away.
After years of following the Pirates under BOB's ownership, I'm left with the impression than Ben will improve the team only as much as he (BOB) will allow. That's something less than a world championship, and I've offered my explanation on that.
What I've written in the past still holds true today. I would expect a man with Ben's reputation to improve the team at one position, minimum, per year externally. That's either by trade or FA acquisition. That would allow for internal development, too. Do that for a couple of years, and we should see the benefits. On a .317 club, it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect it, but I wouldn't doubt that BOB gave instructions to build internally only or via trades. Only Ben knows.
OMG! You and the Johnny Cash way of building a team! Are you serious? "One Piece at a Time" and it didn't cost BOB a dime!
LMAO! Are you serious? Okay, this year we get Trevor Bauer. Next year we get whoever. Than the next year's number one free agent. 30 million a year per position. Wait....what happens when a guy gets too old and becomes Pujols? Or flames out like Zito? Or ends up constantly injured like Jacoby Elsbury?
Newsflash Green Cadillac, there's already a team in MLB that's a perfect representation of the way of building a team the way you suggest. Called the Angels.
Know how they're going about business now? Same way we are, only difference between us and them is Mike Trout.
Like you wouldn't pay to go see the Angels. Like Yinzers wouldn't.
No. Let's stay home until we have a .200 club.
After years of following the Pirates under BOB's ownership, I'm left with the impression than Ben will improve the team only as much as he (BOB) will allow. That's something less than a world championship, and I've offered my explanation on that.
What I've written in the past still holds true today. I would expect a man with Ben's reputation to improve the team at one position, minimum, per year externally. That's either by trade or FA acquisition. That would allow for internal development, too. Do that for a couple of years, and we should see the benefits. On a .317 club, it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect it, but I wouldn't doubt that BOB gave instructions to build internally only or via trades. Only Ben knows.
OMG! You and the Johnny Cash way of building a team! Are you serious? "One Piece at a Time" and it didn't cost BOB a dime!
LMAO! Are you serious? Okay, this year we get Trevor Bauer. Next year we get whoever. Than the next year's number one free agent. 30 million a year per position. Wait....what happens when a guy gets too old and becomes Pujols? Or flames out like Zito? Or ends up constantly injured like Jacoby Elsbury?
Newsflash Green Cadillac, there's already a team in MLB that's a perfect representation of the way of building a team the way you suggest. Called the Angels.
Know how they're going about business now? Same way we are, only difference between us and them is Mike Trout.
Like you wouldn't pay to go see the Angels. Like Yinzers wouldn't.
No. Let's stay home until we have a .200 club.
-
DemDog
Josh Bell to Nats
293721342328400 wrote: You’ve all forgotten one part of the car analogy: if you own a broken down Chevy and you want to WIN the Indy 500, you don’t even try to fix the Chevy as it can’t win the race. Sell it for scrap metal and parts all while building an Indy car. You may never get the best Indy car in the race but you might catch lightning in a bottle and win. But you won’t win with the Chevy even if you add a front air foil, turbo charger, and new transmission. That Chevy is ill-fit to compete.
I want to see an Indy car in Pitt someday. I’m not interested in souping up a ‘57 Chevy so it can win a few dirt track races when winning the Indy 500 is the goal.
I’ll now brace myself for the inevitable “punt-kick can-apologist” onslaught from the usuals.
That is a good one. I have been to the Indy 500 twice, to several NASCAR races but many, many more dirt track races in my lifetime and I prefer the dirt track racing much more than the other two series. The reason why is I just love to have dirt in my beer!
I also agree with your analogy.
I want to see an Indy car in Pitt someday. I’m not interested in souping up a ‘57 Chevy so it can win a few dirt track races when winning the Indy 500 is the goal.
I’ll now brace myself for the inevitable “punt-kick can-apologist” onslaught from the usuals.
That is a good one. I have been to the Indy 500 twice, to several NASCAR races but many, many more dirt track races in my lifetime and I prefer the dirt track racing much more than the other two series. The reason why is I just love to have dirt in my beer!
I also agree with your analogy. -
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Josh Bell to Nats
Nothing says what it's like to be a current Pirates fan like....dirt in beer. 
)) beer's great. Hey, BOB put dirt in it. 
((((
The WS is like the Indy 500.
30 cars enter.
You can automatically cross off #s 16 through 30, ranked by overall team budget (car, driver, pit crew, etc.)
One of the other 15 will win it.
The Pirates car has no chance at all. It's around 25-27 in budget year after year.
We'll finish 8th once in a blue moon. If a miracle happens- second. We won't drink the milk.
..
)) beer's great. Hey, BOB put dirt in it. ((((The WS is like the Indy 500.
30 cars enter.
You can automatically cross off #s 16 through 30, ranked by overall team budget (car, driver, pit crew, etc.)
One of the other 15 will win it.
The Pirates car has no chance at all. It's around 25-27 in budget year after year.
We'll finish 8th once in a blue moon. If a miracle happens- second. We won't drink the milk.
..
Josh Bell to Nats
764354545F6654545F5854310 wrote: We want the team to win in 2021. It surprises me that others feel perfectly fine with punting seasons away.
I don't buy into this slow motion nonsense.
My impression is that this is where our major differences are.
15 yard penalty for excessive BS: Using the "I want to win in 2021 card" as an excuse.
You and shed will both dodge the question, but given the roster handed to BC in 2020, tell me, how exactly was he going to make this team a "winner" in really amounts to his first full season on the job? Don't hand me the "that's his job" line. If BC had a blank check for a 300 million dollar pay roll, he could not make this team a winner in 2020 or 2021. And by "winner" you are saying "WS contender" because you are quite on the record, along with Shed, that winner doesn't mean, "83-79".
Go.
That, my friend is commonly known aa....The We Can't Win the World Series, So Let's Roll Over and Play Dead Apology.
Follow along. Replace the worst position player on the team. Let's say- Polanco- with someone capable. Do the same with another position. Let's say- our worst pitcher.
You might not have a division champion. You might not have a .500 club.
But, you won't have a .317 club, either.
If you tell me that this cannot be done, then the thing to do is get out of this business and become a minor league affiliate, which is the direction we're headed, anyway.
Showing your shape shifting again Greenie. You and Shed are all about World Series or bust...except when you aren't.
Now it's about the actual losing record. So there's some difference between a team that loses 93 games as opposed to 99 games.
But wait, there's more. When someone once talked about the team improving for over 100 losses to the low 90's, you guys laughed them out of the park.
When the team cracked .500 in 2018 improving by 7 games, nothing but jibes thrown by you guys.
Seriously, which way do you want it? Now it's okay if they lose, just as long as they improve one position?
Who are the apologists around here?
I don't buy into this slow motion nonsense.
My impression is that this is where our major differences are.
15 yard penalty for excessive BS: Using the "I want to win in 2021 card" as an excuse.
You and shed will both dodge the question, but given the roster handed to BC in 2020, tell me, how exactly was he going to make this team a "winner" in really amounts to his first full season on the job? Don't hand me the "that's his job" line. If BC had a blank check for a 300 million dollar pay roll, he could not make this team a winner in 2020 or 2021. And by "winner" you are saying "WS contender" because you are quite on the record, along with Shed, that winner doesn't mean, "83-79".
Go.
That, my friend is commonly known aa....The We Can't Win the World Series, So Let's Roll Over and Play Dead Apology.
Follow along. Replace the worst position player on the team. Let's say- Polanco- with someone capable. Do the same with another position. Let's say- our worst pitcher.
You might not have a division champion. You might not have a .500 club.
But, you won't have a .317 club, either.
If you tell me that this cannot be done, then the thing to do is get out of this business and become a minor league affiliate, which is the direction we're headed, anyway.
Showing your shape shifting again Greenie. You and Shed are all about World Series or bust...except when you aren't.
Now it's about the actual losing record. So there's some difference between a team that loses 93 games as opposed to 99 games.
But wait, there's more. When someone once talked about the team improving for over 100 losses to the low 90's, you guys laughed them out of the park.
When the team cracked .500 in 2018 improving by 7 games, nothing but jibes thrown by you guys.
Seriously, which way do you want it? Now it's okay if they lose, just as long as they improve one position?
Who are the apologists around here?
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Josh Bell to Nats
Surg, Surg, Surg,
We're arguing past each other. Your way has worked so well.
We're arguing past each other. Your way has worked so well.
-
Bobster21
Josh Bell to Nats
1B2E3939320B39393235395C0 wrote:
We just saw how much good signing Bell to an extension did. We gave a bat away for nothing, and it's not like we had a fearsome lineup to begin with.
774255555E6755555E5955300 wrote: We want the team to win in 2021. It surprises me that others feel perfectly fine with punting seasons away.
142136363D0436363D3A36530 wrote:
What I've written in the past still holds true today. I would expect a man with Ben's reputation to improve the team at one position, minimum, per year externally. That's either by trade or FA acquisition. That would allow for internal development, too. Do that for a couple of years, and we should see the benefits.
1F2A3D3D360F3D3D36313D580 wrote:
In the definition that I've used here and on past boards, we've defined Salary Dumps as a move made that results in significant current payroll reduction- especially when the return does little or nothing to improve the current roster- except when the savings results in another move that will improve the roster.
So you want to win in 2021.
But you are perfectly fine punting seasons away while the worst team in MLB improves at one position per year externally.
And of course these external acquisitions will remain Pirates for as long as it takes to complete this transformation. None will be leaving as FAs until the process is completed. Because improving the worst team in MLB one position per year will only take a couple years. That's because the farm system is so rich that there are already prospects ready to turn the team into a WS contender in a couple years (you're punting until then because winning in 2021 is no longer the goal it was a few paragraphs ago) via starting pitching, BP, catching, infield and outfield to supplement those external acquisitions made one per year for only a couple years.
And you don't want to increase the prospect pool by trading what they currently have for additional prospects to contribute in a few years by which time they have accumulated a few external acquisitions. Because that's just giving players away for nothing and if it doesn't immediately improve the team then it was merely a salary dump.
Got it! Crystal clear.
We just saw how much good signing Bell to an extension did. We gave a bat away for nothing, and it's not like we had a fearsome lineup to begin with.
774255555E6755555E5955300 wrote: We want the team to win in 2021. It surprises me that others feel perfectly fine with punting seasons away.
142136363D0436363D3A36530 wrote:
What I've written in the past still holds true today. I would expect a man with Ben's reputation to improve the team at one position, minimum, per year externally. That's either by trade or FA acquisition. That would allow for internal development, too. Do that for a couple of years, and we should see the benefits.
1F2A3D3D360F3D3D36313D580 wrote:
In the definition that I've used here and on past boards, we've defined Salary Dumps as a move made that results in significant current payroll reduction- especially when the return does little or nothing to improve the current roster- except when the savings results in another move that will improve the roster.
So you want to win in 2021.
But you are perfectly fine punting seasons away while the worst team in MLB improves at one position per year externally.
And of course these external acquisitions will remain Pirates for as long as it takes to complete this transformation. None will be leaving as FAs until the process is completed. Because improving the worst team in MLB one position per year will only take a couple years. That's because the farm system is so rich that there are already prospects ready to turn the team into a WS contender in a couple years (you're punting until then because winning in 2021 is no longer the goal it was a few paragraphs ago) via starting pitching, BP, catching, infield and outfield to supplement those external acquisitions made one per year for only a couple years.
And you don't want to increase the prospect pool by trading what they currently have for additional prospects to contribute in a few years by which time they have accumulated a few external acquisitions. Because that's just giving players away for nothing and if it doesn't immediately improve the team then it was merely a salary dump.
Got it! Crystal clear.
-
Bobster21
Josh Bell to Nats
0F082D2A2C312D2C420 wrote: We want the team to win in 2021. It surprises me that others feel perfectly fine with punting seasons away.
I don't buy into this slow motion nonsense.
My impression is that this is where our major differences are.
Is that what you call having a realistic understanding of the situation? We've all expressed our unhappiness at one time or another with how Nutting operates. We're certainly not perfectly fine with it. We understand that they won't spend for impact FAs. We're not perfectly fine with it but that's the situation. We understand that they aren't going to spend to acquire impact players in trades and don't have the talent to trade to acquire such players even if they were willing to increase payroll to accommodate them. We're not perfectly fine with it but that's the situation. We understand that the ONLY way the Pirates will become competitive is to improve the talent level thru the draft or trading for prospects with the idea that-unlike the previous regime-those players will develop into productive major leaguers. "Punting seasons away" implies that there was another realistic option. Other than a magic wand, what is that other option that we are perfectly fine ignoring?
The problem is that all those acquired and drafted prospects need to develop into a quality team at the same time, before they reach free agency. What your post says is that the Pirates are unwilling to pay market rate for performance. Once this organization has to pay a player what he is worth, he's traded. Bell wasn't fantastic, but let's be honest, he wasn't traded because the hungry young prospect coming up needs playing time, and Bell became superfluous. We traded a starting position player for prospects. This organization is not built for the future, it is built for right now, because any successful player will be gone next year, or the year after.
I understand that the organization needs to become more talented, and this trade might have brought in more talent than it sent out, but should we be more excited if Taillon performs well so that he can anchor our rotation for the next 6 years, or so we can trade him for more/better prospects? And which option is based in reality and which reflects unrealistic expectations?
I don't disagree with you. Except for your comment that they are "built for right now." But I know what you mean inasmuch as they are built to have a small window to compete because they don't keep their players very long for financial reasons. I don't envy the GM who has to try to put together a competitive team before he is forced by severe financial constraints imposed by the owner to dismantle the team to avoid paying higher salaries.
Things fell right for NH for 3 seasons. The team fell short in the post season but was poised for a great run in 2016 after winning 98 games in 2015. But suddenly the priority shifted from winning to saving money and they settled for players like Jaso, Niese and Vogelsong to weaken, rather than strengthen the team. That's the challenge now for BC. At best, there will be a very small window to compete and a lot of things have to fall into place at the same time.
It remains to be seen if BC can do it. But the Marlins have shown it can be done. Always with one of MLB's lowest payrolls, they built up a terrible team into a WS winner in 1997. Then dismantled the team for financial reasons the very next year and lost 108 games in 1998. Then rebuilt and won another WS in 2003. Three years later they were back under .500. I can't believe BC took this job without knowing the severe obstacles Nutting would place in front of him. I hope he can succeed as the Marlins did even if very briefly, as that would appear to be the best case scenario.
I don't buy into this slow motion nonsense.
My impression is that this is where our major differences are.
Is that what you call having a realistic understanding of the situation? We've all expressed our unhappiness at one time or another with how Nutting operates. We're certainly not perfectly fine with it. We understand that they won't spend for impact FAs. We're not perfectly fine with it but that's the situation. We understand that they aren't going to spend to acquire impact players in trades and don't have the talent to trade to acquire such players even if they were willing to increase payroll to accommodate them. We're not perfectly fine with it but that's the situation. We understand that the ONLY way the Pirates will become competitive is to improve the talent level thru the draft or trading for prospects with the idea that-unlike the previous regime-those players will develop into productive major leaguers. "Punting seasons away" implies that there was another realistic option. Other than a magic wand, what is that other option that we are perfectly fine ignoring?
The problem is that all those acquired and drafted prospects need to develop into a quality team at the same time, before they reach free agency. What your post says is that the Pirates are unwilling to pay market rate for performance. Once this organization has to pay a player what he is worth, he's traded. Bell wasn't fantastic, but let's be honest, he wasn't traded because the hungry young prospect coming up needs playing time, and Bell became superfluous. We traded a starting position player for prospects. This organization is not built for the future, it is built for right now, because any successful player will be gone next year, or the year after.
I understand that the organization needs to become more talented, and this trade might have brought in more talent than it sent out, but should we be more excited if Taillon performs well so that he can anchor our rotation for the next 6 years, or so we can trade him for more/better prospects? And which option is based in reality and which reflects unrealistic expectations?
I don't disagree with you. Except for your comment that they are "built for right now." But I know what you mean inasmuch as they are built to have a small window to compete because they don't keep their players very long for financial reasons. I don't envy the GM who has to try to put together a competitive team before he is forced by severe financial constraints imposed by the owner to dismantle the team to avoid paying higher salaries.
Things fell right for NH for 3 seasons. The team fell short in the post season but was poised for a great run in 2016 after winning 98 games in 2015. But suddenly the priority shifted from winning to saving money and they settled for players like Jaso, Niese and Vogelsong to weaken, rather than strengthen the team. That's the challenge now for BC. At best, there will be a very small window to compete and a lot of things have to fall into place at the same time.
It remains to be seen if BC can do it. But the Marlins have shown it can be done. Always with one of MLB's lowest payrolls, they built up a terrible team into a WS winner in 1997. Then dismantled the team for financial reasons the very next year and lost 108 games in 1998. Then rebuilt and won another WS in 2003. Three years later they were back under .500. I can't believe BC took this job without knowing the severe obstacles Nutting would place in front of him. I hope he can succeed as the Marlins did even if very briefly, as that would appear to be the best case scenario.