Closing the book on Liriano - complete Embarrassment

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

6661777F7166212D547379757D783A777B79140 wrote: I am not saying that at all???  I am just saying that it turned out to be a bad contract.  Liriano didn't perform for most of his contract (so far). 



Timing matters big time.  At first it was a great contract.  I loved it.  I know many here loved it.  In the end, it turned out to be a bad one.



I am looking at the whole picture.  Without Liriano in 2015, the Pirates don't make the playoffs.  That still doesn't mean he was worth all of the $39 million.  If he was paid that deal in 2013-15, it would have been a great contract.  His 2016 and 2017 seasons were/are awful.   



If Nova turns into Liriano, I will say that was a bad contract too. 



I don't understand your question about "what difference does it make".  Why do you want bad contracts? 



Are their contracts that you have liked in the past that didn't turn out?  There has to be some.   




Why doesn't the Liriano contract embolden someone like yourself to want us to do MORE signings like Liriano?   We got unreal production from him first year for 11.66 million of Bob's money.     Then shed his salary.   Bob ended up paying out far less money than Frankie's productivity warranted based on market rates for 2015 and half of 2016. 



So it's a win for the team and, more importantly for some of our fans, a win financially for Bob!



NH should just do that again and again and again right?  But no, you're saying turned out to be a bad contract/bad move?








I can't figure this out either. I think he's saying a contract is considered bad if a player ever underperformed (regardless of any "over performance" the Pirates may have benefitted from) AND once it goes bad any "cost" if dumping the contract is acceptable.



So Nova is already trending towards a "bad contract" (according to the above formula). If Nova gets shipped out with two prospects and the Pirates get $4M AAAA player, that apparently is okay? Apparently our prospects are only to be used to move bad contracts.




It has nothing to do with shipping out prospects or dumping the contract. Overall, it turned out to be a bad contract. Out of three years, he only performed one of those years. Do you really disagree with that?



Ha ha...someone like myself.  What does that even mean? Now you two are for Nutting and Huntington because I said this turned out to be a bad signing?  I didn't say anything about dumping a contract. Yes, a contract can turn very bad when a player underperforms. How many thought that about McCutchen last year?



I liked the Liriano deal at first. It looked real good during the 2015 season. Then it went south. Big time.  Liriano did not live up to his contract. Boggles my mind when others think he did. He wouldn't have been traded if he pitched liked he did from 2013-2015.

[dmetz]

Its super simple. 



Would you want to resign him again to the same contract, if everything went exactly the same way as it did?



There's only two variables to the question:

1)you sign him for 3-39 and everything happens exactly as it did

2) he's not a pirate.