0C3E32322614373E3336393E5F0 wrote: The mistake wasn't think that Glasnow would be good at some point. People throughout the industry thought that. The mistake was assuming it would be the case (and sooner than later), and not filling rotation needs at the beginning of last season--just signing placeholders for his inevitable ascension in a month or two time.
Agreed. They should have signed someone and put them in the pen with the idea that they could take Glasnow's rotation spot if he flopped. That just seems like common sense to me.
Trevor Williams? He had 25 starts with a 3.96 ERA.
I was thinking more about last year (2016). It didn't help them that Niese flopped. Sign one more starter, not a star but not Vogelsong. I like redundancy, and if they all did well that's a nice problem to have.
Did you think Voglesong was better than Morton coming in? He did have a better 2015 than Morton. It was like a status quo move to me. The Pirates decided to go with Nicasio than Vogelsong. Not sure why they did that. Niese didn't come close to replacing Burnett.
Technically, they did bring in three pitchers for two spots with one going to the pen. They just all weren't very good. Bad moves based on the talent brought in, not because they were cutting payroll in my opinion.
Two years later ...
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
Two years later ...
545F575B5E5F440107704951585F5F1E535F300 wrote: The mistake wasn't think that Glasnow would be good at some point. People throughout the industry thought that. The mistake was assuming it would be the case (and sooner than later), and not filling rotation needs at the beginning of last season--just signing placeholders for his inevitable ascension in a month or two time.
Agreed. They should have signed someone and put them in the pen with the idea that they could take Glasnow's rotation spot if he flopped. That just seems like common sense to me.
Trevor Williams? He had 25 starts with a 3.96 ERA.
I was thinking more about last year (2016). It didn't help them that Niese flopped. Sign one more starter, not a star but not Vogelsong. I like redundancy, and if they all did well that's a nice problem to have.
Did you think Voglesong was better than Morton coming in? He did have a better 2015 than Morton. It was like a status quo move to me. The Pirates decided to go with Nicasio than Vogelsong. Not sure why they did that. Niese didn't come close to replacing Burnett.
Technically, they did bring in three pitchers for two spots with one going to the pen. They just all weren't very good. Bad moves based on the talent brought in, not because they were cutting payroll in my opinion.
NH even said when Vogelsong was acquired that they expected him to be in the rotation. At 38 and coming off a bad year, he was signed for 2 million, which is peanuts for a starting pitcher. But you honestly believe the money had nothing to do with it?! They just thought Vogelsong was the guy to help get them to the next level. The fact that he cost very little (because he was 38, not very good and not highly sought after) had nothing to do with it. At some point in their meetings they said, "Ryan Vogelsong is the guy to get us over the hump. Look out Cardinals! Look out Cubs!" Just like the money had noting to do with signing Jaso. They just had a meeting and said that after Pedro was let go because he couldn't play defense at 1B, that the guy they needed to help get them to the next level was a catcher with virtually no 1B experience who they would sub out for defense every game and who would lack the power you look for from a corner infield spot. The fact that he came cheap was an added bonus that had nothing to do with their decision that he would improve the team. If this is true then NH is a blithering idiot who should be fired yesterday. Just moves that didn't work out talent-wise? Nobody on planet earth thought there was a chance they would work out. Except I guess NH because money had nothing to do with it. The reduction in an already low payroll was completely inconsistent with the way Nutting has financed the team. There's no way we could think this was because of money. It's far more reasonable to believe NH thought putting a singles-hitting catcher at 1B and a washed up 38 year old pitcher in the rotation was going to propel a 98-win team that lost the WC game to further greatness. Sure. Right. ::)
Agreed. They should have signed someone and put them in the pen with the idea that they could take Glasnow's rotation spot if he flopped. That just seems like common sense to me.
Trevor Williams? He had 25 starts with a 3.96 ERA.
I was thinking more about last year (2016). It didn't help them that Niese flopped. Sign one more starter, not a star but not Vogelsong. I like redundancy, and if they all did well that's a nice problem to have.
Did you think Voglesong was better than Morton coming in? He did have a better 2015 than Morton. It was like a status quo move to me. The Pirates decided to go with Nicasio than Vogelsong. Not sure why they did that. Niese didn't come close to replacing Burnett.
Technically, they did bring in three pitchers for two spots with one going to the pen. They just all weren't very good. Bad moves based on the talent brought in, not because they were cutting payroll in my opinion.
NH even said when Vogelsong was acquired that they expected him to be in the rotation. At 38 and coming off a bad year, he was signed for 2 million, which is peanuts for a starting pitcher. But you honestly believe the money had nothing to do with it?! They just thought Vogelsong was the guy to help get them to the next level. The fact that he cost very little (because he was 38, not very good and not highly sought after) had nothing to do with it. At some point in their meetings they said, "Ryan Vogelsong is the guy to get us over the hump. Look out Cardinals! Look out Cubs!" Just like the money had noting to do with signing Jaso. They just had a meeting and said that after Pedro was let go because he couldn't play defense at 1B, that the guy they needed to help get them to the next level was a catcher with virtually no 1B experience who they would sub out for defense every game and who would lack the power you look for from a corner infield spot. The fact that he came cheap was an added bonus that had nothing to do with their decision that he would improve the team. If this is true then NH is a blithering idiot who should be fired yesterday. Just moves that didn't work out talent-wise? Nobody on planet earth thought there was a chance they would work out. Except I guess NH because money had nothing to do with it. The reduction in an already low payroll was completely inconsistent with the way Nutting has financed the team. There's no way we could think this was because of money. It's far more reasonable to believe NH thought putting a singles-hitting catcher at 1B and a washed up 38 year old pitcher in the rotation was going to propel a 98-win team that lost the WC game to further greatness. Sure. Right. ::)
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Two years later ...
More than the money, though, I think they were planning on him being a starter for about a month or so because Glasnow was coming.
-
Bobster21
Two years later ...
13212D2D390B28212C292621400 wrote: More than the money, though, I think they were planning on him being a starter for about a month or so because Glasnow was coming.
That's a good point. Of course Glasnow was an unknown and Locke was still in the rotation. So if they had obtained a better pitcher than Vogelsong, the worst that would have happened was too many good starters, which would enable them to make a trade from strength. More likely, if they acquired someone better than Vogelsong, he could have remained and replaced Locke if Glasnow had pitched as they hoped he would. Or he would have been insurance against Glasnow failing.
That's a good point. Of course Glasnow was an unknown and Locke was still in the rotation. So if they had obtained a better pitcher than Vogelsong, the worst that would have happened was too many good starters, which would enable them to make a trade from strength. More likely, if they acquired someone better than Vogelsong, he could have remained and replaced Locke if Glasnow had pitched as they hoped he would. Or he would have been insurance against Glasnow failing.
Two years later ...
454E464A4F4E551016615840494E4E0F424E210 wrote: I agree that Glasnow is not performing at the MLB level, but I never expected him to be a #3 in 2016 or 2017. Nor did I think he was the key to the rotations. I don't expect many 22 or 23 year olds to produce at that high of a level. Glasnow was a 5th round pick. The book is not over with him. Hopefully, some expert can figure him out and help him.
you may not have but the Pirates acted like they were counting on him or else they were just stupid in signing Vogelsong.
Adding Vogelsong and Niese instead of better (and probably more expensive pitchers) ended up derailing the 2016 season and did nothing to help in 2017 either.
If the Pirates didn't think Taillon and Glasnow were going to be able to provide big boosts to the pitching staff they were clearly hoping that would happen. Otherwise they just punted on a couple seasons.
you may not have but the Pirates acted like they were counting on him or else they were just stupid in signing Vogelsong.
Adding Vogelsong and Niese instead of better (and probably more expensive pitchers) ended up derailing the 2016 season and did nothing to help in 2017 either.
If the Pirates didn't think Taillon and Glasnow were going to be able to provide big boosts to the pitching staff they were clearly hoping that would happen. Otherwise they just punted on a couple seasons.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Two years later ...
63515D5D497B58515C595651300 wrote: More than the money, though, I think they were planning on him being a starter for about a month or so because Glasnow was coming.
No, you mean Taillon, right? That's what I thought too.
Vogelsong and Morton were the same player to me. They expected the same results. But since Vogelsong was bad, his salary is then the reason for his signing. That's the spin for every move that doesn't work.
No, you mean Taillon, right? That's what I thought too.
Vogelsong and Morton were the same player to me. They expected the same results. But since Vogelsong was bad, his salary is then the reason for his signing. That's the spin for every move that doesn't work.
Two years later ...
My post is not intended as a Pollyannaish defense of NH in 2016, but, I believe many of his moves reflected his thought that he was adding pieces to a team on which nearly every cylinder was firing in 2015. Unfortunately, many of the 'stars' who the team thought it could count on in 2015 didn't produce all that well.
McCutchen's OPS feel by over 100 points in 2016 compared to 2015, and his defense fell at least as far.
Cole looked like a real # 1 and a work horse in 2015. In 2016, he was all to hittable and he was injured.
Kang looked like he could become a beast at the plate before his injury in the 2015 season. He was a non-factor for much of 2016, although he did have a late season power surge.
Cervelli had a career year at the plate in 2015 and played more games than ever before. In 2016, his hitting dropped off and he was more injury prone.
Polanco was expected to develop. Unfortunately, he only exhibited a big bat for about 5 weeks.
I thought that the Pirates should have moved Walker to first for a season rather than to bring in Jaso, although I also thought that the Niese/Walker deal had a chance to work out okay for the Bucs. Vogelsong is what he was, a $2 mil gamble that would help be the bridge to one or more of the young hurlers being ready to go in mid-season.
Regardless, my main point is that if the team's stars from 2015 had performed in 2016 like they did in 2015, that the team may have been able to better absorb the loss of players like Burnett and Walker and performed at a higher level. The team that NH put on the field in 2016 did not look like the 98 win team from the year before, but the drop-off shouldn't have been as steep as it turned out to be.
McCutchen's OPS feel by over 100 points in 2016 compared to 2015, and his defense fell at least as far.
Cole looked like a real # 1 and a work horse in 2015. In 2016, he was all to hittable and he was injured.
Kang looked like he could become a beast at the plate before his injury in the 2015 season. He was a non-factor for much of 2016, although he did have a late season power surge.
Cervelli had a career year at the plate in 2015 and played more games than ever before. In 2016, his hitting dropped off and he was more injury prone.
Polanco was expected to develop. Unfortunately, he only exhibited a big bat for about 5 weeks.
I thought that the Pirates should have moved Walker to first for a season rather than to bring in Jaso, although I also thought that the Niese/Walker deal had a chance to work out okay for the Bucs. Vogelsong is what he was, a $2 mil gamble that would help be the bridge to one or more of the young hurlers being ready to go in mid-season.
Regardless, my main point is that if the team's stars from 2015 had performed in 2016 like they did in 2015, that the team may have been able to better absorb the loss of players like Burnett and Walker and performed at a higher level. The team that NH put on the field in 2016 did not look like the 98 win team from the year before, but the drop-off shouldn't have been as steep as it turned out to be.
-
Bobster21
Two years later ...
3E353D3134352E6B6D1A233B3235357439355A0 wrote: More than the money, though, I think they were planning on him being a starter for about a month or so because Glasnow was coming.
No, you mean Taillon, right? That's what I thought too.
Vogelsong and Morton were the same player to me. They expected the same results. But since Vogelsong was bad, his salary is then the reason for his signing. That's the spin for every move that doesn't work.
No Dog. The "spin" is what you do when you blindly deny that money has anything to do with the failures of one of the cheapest teams in MLB.
You claim they expected the same results from Vogelsong that they got from Morton. Why on earth would they obtain a pitcher in hopes he could be a repeat of their worst pitcher? Why would they even have such an expectation from a 38 year pitcher replacing a 31 year old? Why wouldn't they want an improvement over their worst starting pitcher, which Morton was in 2015? You're sure it wasn't because they only had to pay Vogelsong 2 million. So why did they jettison their worst pitcher and try to replace him with a 38 year old who-at best-could duplicate the production of the pitcher they just got rid of because of his poor pitching and at worst-being 38-was unlikely to even be as good as Morton? It wasn't because of Vogelsong's low salary. So what was it? Is NH simply incapable of rational thought?
No, you mean Taillon, right? That's what I thought too.
Vogelsong and Morton were the same player to me. They expected the same results. But since Vogelsong was bad, his salary is then the reason for his signing. That's the spin for every move that doesn't work.
No Dog. The "spin" is what you do when you blindly deny that money has anything to do with the failures of one of the cheapest teams in MLB.
You claim they expected the same results from Vogelsong that they got from Morton. Why on earth would they obtain a pitcher in hopes he could be a repeat of their worst pitcher? Why would they even have such an expectation from a 38 year pitcher replacing a 31 year old? Why wouldn't they want an improvement over their worst starting pitcher, which Morton was in 2015? You're sure it wasn't because they only had to pay Vogelsong 2 million. So why did they jettison their worst pitcher and try to replace him with a 38 year old who-at best-could duplicate the production of the pitcher they just got rid of because of his poor pitching and at worst-being 38-was unlikely to even be as good as Morton? It wasn't because of Vogelsong's low salary. So what was it? Is NH simply incapable of rational thought?
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Two years later ...
1C313C2D2A3B2C6C6F5E0 wrote: More than the money, though, I think they were planning on him being a starter for about a month or so because Glasnow was coming.
No, you mean Taillon, right? That's what I thought too.
Vogelsong and Morton were the same player to me. They expected the same results. But since Vogelsong was bad, his salary is then the reason for his signing. That's the spin for every move that doesn't work.
No Dog. The "spin" is what you do when you blindly deny that money has anything to do with the failures of one of the cheapest teams in MLB.
You claim they expected the same results from Vogelsong that they got from Morton. Why on earth would they obtain a pitcher in hopes he could be a repeat of their worst pitcher? Why would they even have such an expectation from a 38 year pitcher replacing a 31 year old? Why wouldn't they want an improvement over their worst starting pitcher, which Morton was in 2015? You're sure it wasn't because they only had to pay Vogelsong 2 million. So why did they jettison their worst pitcher and try to replace him with a 38 year old who-at best-could duplicate the production of the pitcher they just got rid of because of his poor pitching and at worst-being 38-was unlikely to even be as good as Morton? It wasn't because of Vogelsong's low salary. So what was it? Is NH simply incapable of rational thought?
Jameson Taillon.
No, you mean Taillon, right? That's what I thought too.
Vogelsong and Morton were the same player to me. They expected the same results. But since Vogelsong was bad, his salary is then the reason for his signing. That's the spin for every move that doesn't work.
No Dog. The "spin" is what you do when you blindly deny that money has anything to do with the failures of one of the cheapest teams in MLB.
You claim they expected the same results from Vogelsong that they got from Morton. Why on earth would they obtain a pitcher in hopes he could be a repeat of their worst pitcher? Why would they even have such an expectation from a 38 year pitcher replacing a 31 year old? Why wouldn't they want an improvement over their worst starting pitcher, which Morton was in 2015? You're sure it wasn't because they only had to pay Vogelsong 2 million. So why did they jettison their worst pitcher and try to replace him with a 38 year old who-at best-could duplicate the production of the pitcher they just got rid of because of his poor pitching and at worst-being 38-was unlikely to even be as good as Morton? It wasn't because of Vogelsong's low salary. So what was it? Is NH simply incapable of rational thought?
Jameson Taillon.
Two years later ...
I must be insane. Take care everyone. Good luck with the mental gymnastics. It doesn't entertain me anymore.
Until next year. Maybe sooner if we have a big offseason
Until next year. Maybe sooner if we have a big offseason