OnlyBucs

292E38303E296E621B3C363A3237753834365B0 wrote: Two different situations: 



Bad pitcher at $4.5 million or a bad pitcher at $17.5 million.



Do you think the Blue Jays would have got the same return last year?  There is no way.  None.  Huntington has been very good at making trades, the Blue Jays were the only team that was willing to try Liriano at that salary.


Oh, I see.  Well how about this old baseball  trick - the Pirates eat part of the contract.



So, I rather the Pirates allocated the wasted  $4.5M plus another $4.5M (not that it would take nearly that amount)and keep two prospects and ACQUIRE a top pick 10 prospect and an OFer (think the Pirates could use a warm body that can catch a ball in the OF?) from the Jays or the Astros or anyone else.



I dont see the "Pirate Plan" adopted by any other team this year.


VA, I'm a little lost on your math. As Dog said, a year ago the issue was not 4.5 mil but rather 17 mil. I agree with Dog to the extent that a team trading for a pitcher owed 4.5 mil will give up more than if they are taking him while he's owed 17 mil. But while dealing Liriano was addition by subtraction, I do object to the tactic of bribing the other team with prospects so that they will pay the entire remaining amount (17 mil). Absent the money issue, Hutchison for either McGuire or Ramirez would have been a fair trade. But the Jays were getting a veteran who had the possibility of bouncing back and, in fact, he pitched well for them last year plus two prospects. NH even said that moving Liriano's contract was part of the reason for the trade. Apparently, it was a pretty big part. Nobody trades a veteran pitcher-even a struggling one-and 2 prospects just to obtain another struggling pitcher. And regardless of the status of McGuire and Ramirez now (and Ramirez hit .311 for July), if the Jays thought enough of them to eat Liriano's contract to get them, they should have been worth some kind of player return from the Jays or some other team if the Bucs had been willing to eat past of the contract instead of throwing them in so they wouldn't have to. IMHO-while that trade ridded them of a bad pitcher and his contract, it was not a good way of doing business.



BTW-The Ramirez trade, which was necessary because they had to shed salary due to debt ratios, happened only after a proposed deal of Kris Benson to Atlanta fell thru because of a Benson injury. Very unfortunate. However, I've never understood how Dave Littlefield couldn't have worked the phones to get a better offer for Ramirez and Lofton (who was also having a very good year). Hard to believe no other team wanted them or was willing to give up more than the dregs offered by the Cubs.

555D5E697F5A7D721C0 wrote:



Nova I'll give you, but they already HAD Freese and Cervelli.  This is why this is so frustrating, to me at least.  We're told that dumping Liriano gave "financial flexibility" to sign a guy like Freese.  Well, Freese was already on the team.  So, essentially, what they're saying is...they could have EITHER a back-up third baseman, OR a fringe starting pitcher who once was quite good.  But, NOT BOTH.  This is the key.  Sorry, but your organization is in a sad state of affairs when you can't afford both of those contracts.  Now, whether or not a team SHOULD pay both of those contracts, well, that's a different debate for a different day.  But, that's not what was sold to the fans.  What was sold to the fans was that the Pirates couldn't have resigned David Freese if they hadn't dumped Liriano's contract.



The average fan rightly believes that "spending when the time is right," and "adding correct pieces at the correct time," or whatever other flavor of garbage this FO is spewing out on any given day means, you know, actually ADDING to the team, not resigning guys who were already here in the first place, and not extending guys like Marte and Polanco.  The CBA which the owners agreed to (and last I checked this includes Nutting) agrees to pay players more money based on service time.  0-3, the team sets your salary, 4-6 you're in arbitration.  After that, you're an FA.  Nutting agreed to this.  Saying the team increased payroll because Marte's salary increased is splitting hairs.  29 other teams write that up as the cost of doing business.  But your PBC?  Nope.  That's company speak for, "See!  We upped payroll!  We're not cheap!"


Nova and Freese both signed after Liriano was traded. They were both free agents after the trade of Liriano. Nova tested the market, Freese did not as he signed an extension in August.



Why don't you think it is important to extend players? Extending Cervelli, Marte, Polanco, and McCutchen were big moves and of course increases the payroll. Why would you or an average fan think differently? If they went to free agency and then were signed, you wouldn't consider them additions?

507D70616677602023120 wrote: Two different situations: 



Bad pitcher at $4.5 million or a bad pitcher at $17.5 million.



Do you think the Blue Jays would have got the same return last year?  There is no way.  None.  Huntington has been very good at making trades, the Blue Jays were the only team that was willing to try Liriano at that salary.


Oh, I see.  Well how about this old baseball  trick - the Pirates eat part of the contract.



So, I rather the Pirates allocated the wasted  $4.5M plus another $4.5M (not that it would take nearly that amount)and keep two prospects and ACQUIRE a top pick 10 prospect and an OFer (think the Pirates could use a warm body that can catch a ball in the OF?) from the Jays or the Astros or anyone else.



I dont see the "Pirate Plan" adopted by any other team this year.


VA, I'm a little lost on your math. As Dog said, a year ago the issue was not 4.5 mil but rather 17 mil. I agree with Dog to the extent that a team trading for a pitcher owed 4.5 mil will give up more than if they are taking him while he's owed 17 mil. But while dealing Liriano was addition by subtraction, I do object to the tactic of bribing the other team with prospects so that they will pay the entire remaining amount (17 mil). Absent the money issue, Hutchison for either McGuire or Ramirez would have been a fair trade. But the Jays were getting a veteran who had the possibility of bouncing back and, in fact, he pitched well for them last year plus two prospects. NH even said that moving Liriano's contract was part of the reason for the trade. Apparently, it was a pretty big part. Nobody trades a veteran pitcher-even a struggling one-and 2 prospects just to obtain another struggling pitcher. And regardless of the status of McGuire and Ramirez now (and Ramirez hit .311 for July), if the Jays thought enough of them to eat Liriano's contract to get them, they should have been worth some kind of player return from the Jays or some other team if the Bucs had been willing to eat past of the contract instead of throwing them in so they wouldn't have to. IMHO-while that trade ridded them of a bad pitcher and his contract, it was not a good way of doing business.



BTW-The Ramirez trade, which was necessary because they had to shed salary due to debt ratios, happened only after a proposed deal of Kris Benson to Atlanta fell thru because of a Benson injury. Very unfortunate. However, I've never understood how Dave Littlefield couldn't have worked the phones to get a better offer for Ramirez and Lofton (who was also having a very good year). Hard to believe no other team wanted them or was willing to give up more than the dregs offered by the Cubs. 


After Dave was fired by the Pirates I seem to recall the Cubs hired him. Dave was a lousy GM but maybe he wasn't so stupid after all. The Ramirez trade was a bad deal for the Pirates but perhaps not such a bad one for Mr. Littlefield.

2A21292520213A7F790E372F262121602D214E0 wrote: Two different situations: 



Bad pitcher at $4.5 million or a bad pitcher at $17.5 million.



Do you think the Blue Jays would have got the same return last year?  There is no way.  None.  Huntington has been very good at making trades, the Blue Jays were the only team that was willing to try Liriano at that salary.


Oh, I see.  Well how about this old baseball  trick - the Pirates eat part of the contract.



So, I rather the Pirates allocated the wasted  $4.5M plus another $4.5M (not that it would take nearly that amount)and keep two prospects and ACQUIRE a top pick 10 prospect and an OFer (think the Pirates could use a warm body that can catch a ball in the OF?) from the Jays or the Astros or anyone else.



I dont see the "Pirate Plan" adopted by any other team this year.




They didn't have to eat the salary if they gave up two non-prospects too.  And they did receive a pitcher in return.  Now, the Blue Jays have to release those guys, not the Pirates.



I also don't think that is how the trade went down.  If the Blue Jays wanted both prospects for Hutchison, they had to take Liriano too.



Sorry, I didn't mind this trade at all.  Liriano was done, way over paid.  I don't think they would have added Nova, Freese, and Cervelli if Liriano was still around.  I would rather have those three 9and Hutchison) than Liriano, McGuire, and Ramirez.




The bottom line is that NH blew it by signing Liriano to that contract just like Tabata and Charlie Morton.

48434B474243581D1B6C554D444343024F432C0 wrote:

Nova and Freese both signed after Liriano was traded.  They were both free agents after the trade of Liriano.  Nova tested the market, Freese did not as he signed an extension in August. 



Why don't you think it is important to extend players?  Extending Cervelli, Marte, Polanco, and McCutchen were big moves and of course increases the payroll.  Why would you or an average fan think differently?  If they went to free agency and then were signed, you wouldn't consider them additions?   




Like I said, Nova I'll give you, as they traded Liriano away, and then traded FOR Nova.  But, Freese didn't SIGN after Liriano was dealt.  He RE-signed, and there is a key distinction between the two.  If Freese hadn't been on the team at the same time Liriano was, then I'd say yeah, he was an addition.  But, the fact of the matter is that Freese was already on the team.  So, in essence, the message that NH communicated (even referencing "financial flexibility" when resigning Freese) was that the Pirates could afford EITHER Liriano, OR Freese, but not both, when the fact of the matter was that both were on the same team at the same time.  So, Freese's salary increased, and it meant that they could no longer afford both.  And that's sad, as neither had an exorbitant salary by the current MLB standards.



I never said it's not important to extend players.  On the contrary, I think that it is important, and a smart move by any team, but especially a small market team.  However, let's take a look at a guy like Gerrit Cole.  Cole probably won't have his arb years bought out.  Are we to believe that if he is awarded, say $13 million in arbitration in two years that he won't be affordable and we either need to trade him, or DFA him?  If so, then I see no point in continuing to follow this team.  Cole's salary increase is a necessary cost of doing business.  Yeah, it means salary necessarily goes up, but only as a bottom line total.  It's completely inconsequential to whether or not objective improvements are made to the product on the field.  Cole is on the team this year.  He'll be on the team next year.  Presumably, he'll be on the team the year after that.



When the FO says "salary will increase when the time is right," the average fan thinks that means the FO will invest to putting a superior, meaning better, product on the field, not the necessary salary increase that comes along with simply following the CBA that Bob Nutting signed off on.



It's a natural consequence of the CBA that salary will increase as your players get more experience.  If "players acruing more experience"="Pirates can't sing an impact free agent" then saying "salary increased relative to last year" is a distinction without a difference.

022425322434470 wrote: Two different situations: 



Bad pitcher at $4.5 million or a bad pitcher at $17.5 million.



Do you think the Blue Jays would have got the same return last year?  There is no way.  None.  Huntington has been very good at making trades, the Blue Jays were the only team that was willing to try Liriano at that salary.


Oh, I see.  Well how about this old baseball  trick - the Pirates eat part of the contract.



So, I rather the Pirates allocated the wasted  $4.5M plus another $4.5M (not that it would take nearly that amount)and keep two prospects and ACQUIRE a top pick 10 prospect and an OFer (think the Pirates could use a warm body that can catch a ball in the OF?) from the Jays or the Astros or anyone else.



I dont see the "Pirate Plan" adopted by any other team this year.




They didn't have to eat the salary if they gave up two non-prospects too.  And they did receive a pitcher in return.  Now, the Blue Jays have to release those guys, not the Pirates.



I also don't think that is how the trade went down.  If the Blue Jays wanted both prospects for Hutchison, they had to take Liriano too.



Sorry, I didn't mind this trade at all.  Liriano was done, way over paid.  I don't think they would have added Nova, Freese, and Cervelli if Liriano was still around.  I would rather have those three 9and Hutchison) than Liriano, McGuire, and Ramirez.




The bottom line is that NH blew it by signing Liriano to that contract just like Tabata and Charlie Morton.


I wouldn't say that. Most of us liked that signing. Liriano was an outstanding pitcher for the two years prior to signing that extension. He was outstanding in the first year of his extension. He only tanked last year.

It did turn out to be a bad signing. But many people loved it. Here and all over the Pittsburgh fanbase. Many thought it would never happen either.

5750464E4057101C654248444C490B464A48250 wrote: Ramirez trade was way worse.  The Pirates traded away a border line Hall of Famer for players who never panned out.  Liriano is not in the same category as Ramirez. 



There is still time for Hutchison to make the majors again and give the Pirates some innings.  So, the book is not closed...yet.  Who knows?



Until R. McGuire and/or H. Ramirez make it, this was not a bad trade by the Pirates.  I would do it again to get rid of a bad player with a bad attitude with a $13 million price tag.  Fans are ranking R. McGuire and H. Ramirez high, not the Pirates.



Every pitcher in the Pirates rotation now has been better than Liriano's 5.88 ERA.


This is not an attack on you personally, I truly enjoy all prospectives including yours, but after the trade yesterday this is simply insane.  I don't think Nutting himself would any longer try to defend that pile of Horse manure.



And ARam HAD to be dumped. Of course he was a far better talent.  But debt ratios forced the Pirates hand. Greed forced the Liriano trade.  But In any case, ARam is not meant to deflect from the Liriano BS.  The Pirates could have moved Liriano and ACQUIRED talent.  Come on!


Would Ramirez have to be dumped if Nutting had just handed $20M or so over to McClatchy? How is that any different than him burning $20M now?

I believe at that point in time Nutting was in process of squeezing out his partners, so putting money in at that point was contrary to his interest. I can't say for now.

080003342207202F410 wrote:

Nova and Freese both signed after Liriano was traded.  They were both free agents after the trade of Liriano.  Nova tested the market, Freese did not as he signed an extension in August. 



Why don't you think it is important to extend players?  Extending Cervelli, Marte, Polanco, and McCutchen were big moves and of course increases the payroll.  Why would you or an average fan think differently?  If they went to free agency and then were signed, you wouldn't consider them additions?   




Like I said, Nova I'll give you, as they traded Liriano away, and then traded FOR Nova.  But, Freese didn't SIGN after Liriano was dealt.  He RE-signed, and there is a key distinction between the two.  If Freese hadn't been on the team at the same time Liriano was, then I'd say yeah, he was an addition.  But, the fact of the matter is that Freese was already on the team.  So, in essence, the message that NH communicated (even referencing "financial flexibility" when resigning Freese) was that the Pirates could afford EITHER Liriano, OR Freese, but not both, when the fact of the matter was that both were on the same team at the same time.  So, Freese's salary increased, and it meant that they could no longer afford both.  And that's sad, as neither had an exorbitant salary by the current MLB standards.



I never said it's not important to extend players.  On the contrary, I think that it is important, and a smart move by any team, but especially a small market team.  However, let's take a look at a guy like Gerrit Cole.  Cole probably won't have his arb years bought out.  Are we to believe that if he is awarded, say $13 million in arbitration in two years that he won't be affordable and we either need to trade him, or DFA him?  If so, then I see no point in continuing to follow this team.  Cole's salary increase is a necessary cost of doing business.  Yeah, it means salary necessarily goes up, but only as a bottom line total.  It's completely inconsequential to whether or not objective improvements are made to the product on the field.  Cole is on the team this year.  He'll be on the team next year.  Presumably, he'll be on the team the year after that.



When the FO says "salary will increase when the time is right," the average fan thinks that means the FO will invest to putting a superior, meaning better, product on the field, not the necessary salary increase that comes along with simply following the CBA that Bob Nutting signed off on.



It's a natural consequence of the CBA that salary will increase as your players get more experience.  If "players acruing more experience"="Pirates can't sing an impact free agent" then saying "salary increased relative to last year" is a distinction without a difference.
I recall when the BMTIB took over and were asked about the low payroll they said it was because many players were young and not at the point where they would get larger salaries. And, of course, payroll would go up when the time was right. (And my dog ate my homework and the check is in the mail) Of course the time was never right and even when the players evolve into higher salaried players, the team just gets rid of them or someone else to prevent any significant payroll increase.