OnlyBucs

Most on this site were very upset at the time the Bucs dealt Cutch to the Giants. I always hoped he would be a Pirate for life. I just read where Alex Gordon of the Royals has a tear in his left hip. Right after the Royals won the Series their fans were hoping the team would offer Gordon a lucrative contract in order that he would continue to play for them. The Royals eventually signed him to a 4 year contract at over 70 million dollars. Gordon has struggled since he signed the contract and now he is injured. The contract such as this when the player declines or gets injured is a strain on a small market like the Royals or Bucs. Maybe the Pirates thinking of letting a thirty something player leave through free agency is the right idea.

I'd argue that from a return value standpoint the Pirates kept Cutch a year too long. I'm not sure there's any set rule that would logically apply to all free agents based on age, although for a rigidly frugal franchise such as the Pirates there is considerable motivation to constantly replace more expensive free agent veterans with younger, cheaper players.

785C484045290 wrote: I'd argue that from a return value standpoint the Pirates kept Cutch a year too long. I'm not sure there's any set rule that would logically apply to all free agents based on age, although for a rigidly frugal franchise such as the Pirates there is considerable motivation to constantly replace more expensive free agent veterans with younger, cheaper players.


Agree, they failed to deal him when they should have and that was last year. They had a taker too.

0E1E1F283E3E325D0 wrote: I'd argue that from a return value standpoint the Pirates kept Cutch a year too long. I'm not sure there's any set rule that would logically apply to all free agents based on age, although for a rigidly frugal franchise such as the Pirates there is considerable motivation to constantly replace more expensive free agent veterans with younger, cheaper players.


Agree, they failed to deal him when they should have and that was last year.  They had a taker too.


I agree with this. From a sentimental standpoint, there's no replacing Andrew McCutchen. From a production standpoint, the sad reality is that Cutch is really just a guy anymore. He's still an above average hitter, to be sure. But, I don't think he will age well, personally. I think you might see a steep decline from him in his age 32-33 seasons. I hope not, because he will always hold a special place in my baseball heart. But, his best days are behind him.

McCutchen isn't even an above average hitter. He's average as a hitter and below average as a fielder.

1032253A363903382039243F3E27570 wrote: McCutchen isn't even an above average hitter. He's average as a hitter and below average as a fielder.
::)

When I drafted the initial post it was not as much the decision the Bucs made with Cutch, but more so the decision by the Bucs and maybe a few other teams to resign their older free agent players. Teams have signed many of their potential free agent players with success, but there have been many players who have signed with their current team who have declined in production causing a financial burden on the organization. I think teams are now becoming very cautious as to extending their marquee type players. So maybe the decisions the Pirates have made regarding signing their potential free agent players is the correct one.

For a small market team it's the only approach that makes any sense. For the Pirates, if they win some games their draft position deteriorates. A way to replenish is trade a better performing athlete close to a time where he would be lost anyway. As to signing longer term, a team cannot tie up large parts of its budget on one player, particularly one getting older. The risks are just too great and they can't afford to absorb the costs of a mistake.



On the whole, the stats aren't good for players over thirty. Any given player might be an exception but you never know when you have that exception and when you are paying Alex Rodriquez a ton to stay away from the team. So I would say yes, the Pirates approach is the correct way to deal with contracts. Unless a good player is still young and willing to take an undervalued contract (McCutchen did this but he's the exception), when a player hits about year five you should be looking to maximize value by dealing him.

3F3332696069616C6B746E590 wrote: When I drafted the initial post it was not as much the decision the Bucs made with Cutch, but more so the decision by the Bucs and maybe a few other teams to resign their older free agent players. Teams have signed many of their potential free agent players with success, but there have been many  players who have signed  with their current team who have declined in production causing a financial burden on the organization. I think teams are now becoming very cautious as to extending their marquee type players. So maybe the decisions the Pirates have made regarding signing their potential free agent players is the correct one.




It seems to be Huntington's approach. He is offering contracts for players in their prime or hitting their prime. Only a few times has he signed an aging veteran and those might not pan out. For example, Liriano was only good for one of the three years he signed, Tabata was a dud. Now, Nova and Cervelli are on the hook as possible bad contracts, but they aren't payroll killers either.



He offered Polanco an extension before he hit the majors. Got McCutchen's MVP seasons on his extension. Marte is signed in his prime age years.



I do think he had to be in talks with the likes of Cole and McCutchen. Meaning, there was an attempt to keep them at his price. Not sure if that is true, but had to happen, right? Especially, with Cole. Martin and Byrd were offered contacts, but they still left.



Overall, Huntington has been very good in signing players and not over paying. With the bad contracts, he was able to move them too (Liriano, Tabata, Hudson, etc.).

I absolutely think they are doing this the right way.



Players are not baseball cards and they generally break down.

I’d rather take on bad contracts (AJ) or add salary late (Byrd or Haap) than give big money for players coming out of their primes.



This time last year, people were discussing a 60 million over three extension for Cutch. Can you imagine owing him 74 million through 2021, when he is 32, 33 and 34?



I wouldn’t offer a FA pitcher more than 3 years and I’d have a hard time buying a starters arbitration years out. When Taillon is a free agent, after the 2022 season, he will have been a professional pitcher for 13 years. He’ll only be 31, but has already had TJ surgery.



The fact if the matter is that we will always have finiancial constraints. I’d rather spend our $$$ to lock down players by buying out their arbitration years (Marte, Polanco, Vazquez), rather than bidding on players. I’m also a fan of grabbing players that have fallen through the cracks for short term deals (Lance Lynn for 12 million would have been good).



Basically, I’m sure I’m in the minority, but short of the blantant cheapness, 2018 is the way I want to see our off seasons go.



Trade dead salary for viable major leaguers and lottery tickets.

Use savings to fill need (we didn’t do this).

Trade premium player with pending free agency coming up for several pieces to fill in needs and upside prospects

Catch another team trying to shed salary to acquire established Mlb players.

Trade from strengths to fill holes.

Try to catch undervalued free agents for short term deals.