July 31 trade deadline

SCBucco · Post by **SCBucco** » Mon May 15, 2017 1:06 am

1833322F342C35192E3838345B0 wrote: My thoughts on a "rebuild"

a) the bucs wouldn't need a full rebuild...

-- a full rebuild is a for a team that stinks AND has old high priced players with few years of club control and a crappy farm system-- see 2011 Cubs. They had to sell off and essentially wait for draft picks and low level position player prospects to mature over 2-4 seasons and buy arms.

--Bucs have plenty of young controllable talent at the MLB level, some of which appears to be panning out, some may or may not.

--Bucs have plenty of farm prospects from low to high levels to give them a #7 organizational ranking for 2017

Teams like the Yanks and Sox improved dramatically in one trading deadline, without having to go "full rebuild"

Yanks went from #17 BA ranked farm to #2

White Sox went from #23 ranked farm to # 5

b) even a full rebuild doesn't need to be 5 years.

Cubs went to playoffs in their 4th rebuild season and won WS in 5th

I think the Bucs would be more along the lines of an Indians team that had some pieces and won 90 games, then had to have a few years of around .500 before getting pieces in place again.

Cole brings you prospects close to being ready, if not ... not prospects at lower levels.

I really think people need to readjust their thoughts on having these young talented players of control. As you said, some will pan out and some won't. So, you are relying on these names in low levels? Some of them will pan out and others won't and we won't know this for a few more years.

Trading Cole brings you talent. Trading Cutch now, doesn't bring you much.

What is called a rebuild? Is trading Cole considered a rebuild? Most of the names that have been brought up don't bring much value back.

ChitownBucco · Post by **ChitownBucco** » Mon May 15, 2017 1:41 am

no in my mind trading Cole would be a smart repositioning

my thoughts were directed at the idea that they pirates a) needed a full rebuild and wouldn't be able to compete for a time period near 5 years.

trading a Cole allows us to get the kind of return the Yanks or Sox got last year that I mentioned, and they would be MLB ready in 2018 or 2019 at latest.

having young player controlled talent. (even if it is not stars/studs) allows you to field cheap players at a fraction of the cost as getting free agent replacements.

think Mercer over the past few years.

no matter what unless a miracle happens and the Pirates suddenly start to spend WAY more money.

or they need a huge amount of successes of their prospects emerging to MVP and All Star Cutch, Cole, Marte status at the same time.

the way it is now with the small market ownership. the only reason the Pirates were able to compete the past few years was some extreme cheap free agents/trade vets coming in off the scrap heap and WAY over achieving to go along with some solid home grown contributors in Cutch, Cole, Marte, Harrison

Liriano

Burnett (2nd time)

Volquez

Blanton

Gomez

Wandy

Happ

I think people forget how much of an impact alot of those surprise vets had on the pirate playoff teams. The rooks haven't been enough to fill their shoes thus far.

rucker59@gmail.com · Post by **rucker59@gmail.com** » Mon May 15, 2017 4:05 am

0D2A21024F0 wrote: I wonder how the Pirates are taking into account Cole's potential arbitration contract. Dallas Kuechel and Chris Tillman avoided arbitration with nine and ten million dollar contracts coming into 2017. Given Cole's performance so far, that would seem to be the floor for him. How high will his value go? Ten, twelve, fourteen million? Are the Pirates preparing to pay that much or are they already thinking about "financial flexibility"?

Exactly. That's why I said above $30M for three years is not enough to even get Boras to pick up the phone. And you're right - the Pirates don't want to pay Cole's arb numbers going forward.

rucker59@gmail.com · Post by **rucker59@gmail.com** » Mon May 15, 2017 4:09 am

575C54585D5C470204734A525B5C5C1D505C330 wrote: Depends on what you mean by 'this type of contract.' 2018 would have been Harper's third trip through arbitration. This deal was reached because Washington was concerned arbitrators might award 28 plus million if Harper is MVP again. This does *not* cover a free agent year. Harper is rumored to be looking for 400MM over ten years. So Boras does make deals that a pretty rich and don't hurt his client getting even more the next year.

Boras accepted a deal that could be less for the guarantee now. That is my point about Cole. There should have been extension talks after last year. Cole, like Harper, will still get to be a free agent and get his large deal.

You were talking about a very different contract than the Nats worked out with Harper. You're wanting a 3 year deal that buys out a year of free agency at a team frendly rate with a small mkt (less chance for endorsement deals) losing team. Your "deal" has nothing to do with the Nats' deal.

Boras doesn't do your type of deal.

dogknot17@yahoo.co · Post by **dogknot17@yahoo.co** » Wed May 17, 2017 2:43 pm

Stephen Strasburg signed an extension. His agent is Scott Boras.

Ecbucs · Post by **Ecbucs** » Wed May 17, 2017 2:56 pm

38333B373233286D6B1C253D343333723F335C0 wrote: Stephen Strasburg signed an extension. His agent is Scott Boras.

I bet Cole would sign the same deal Strassburg did:

In other words, Strasburg got the best of both worlds. He got long-term security in case his career does go south. But he also has the opportunity to not only become a free agent and sign a bigger deal, but he can choose when to do it, something players rarely get to do.

In the end, much is being made out of this so-called "$175 million contract," when in reality it is either a 3-year, $75 million or a 4-year, $100 million contract. More importantly, Strasburg will be a free agent when he is either 31 or 32 years old and still in the prime of his career.

Meanwhile, this contract only creates three options for the Nationals: They will either lose a good pitcher in 4-5 years, they will have to pony up an even bigger contract to keep him, or they are going to be on the hook for the last 3-4 years of the deal at $75-100 million for a pitcher who is not worth it.

None of those options sound ideal, and that's why people call Scott Boras a super agent.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stephen- ... ras-2016-5

dogknot17@yahoo.co · Post by **dogknot17@yahoo.co** » Wed May 17, 2017 3:02 pm

It is a crazy deal for sure. If he doesn't opt out of it, he could make $45 million at age 34, his final year.

Players getting the option to opt out of deals is a new thing. I am not sure why teams would do that? If the player is playing well, he will leave. If he is playing bad, he will stay and be overpaid.

Cole would be stupid to pass up a third of that offer. Again, I am not sure if he ever had talks of an extension. It has nothing to do with his agent, is my point. Boras has clients who sign extensions. Strasburg is another example.

SammyKhalifa · Post by **SammyKhalifa** » Thu May 18, 2017 2:03 pm

I haven't seen him mentioned yet, and I get why, but I think that David Freese would be an attractive option for a lot of clubs.

mouse · Post by **mouse** » Thu May 18, 2017 4:44 pm

Here's a top 15 list where the Pirates landed three players. Unfortunately.

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/gallery/th ... ors-051817

notes34 · Post by **notes34** » Thu May 18, 2017 4:45 pm

42707C7C685A79707D787770110 wrote: I haven't seen him mentioned yet, and I get why, but I think that David Freese would be an attractive option for a lot of clubs.
With the Kang announcement today I don't think Freese is going anywhere.