OnlyBucs

0E2E3D20214F0 wrote: And yet he signed Cervelli to a three year $30M+ deal???


Cervelli wanted a lot more originally with his demands. Maybe this is why Huntington signed him to a lot less?




Were there articles that detailed some of the negotiations or told a bit more of the story? I don't remember reading about that.



Can you post a link to an article or two? Thanks in advance.
This article says he wanted 3 yrs/39 million.

http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/9872 ... tes-season



He signed for 3 yrs/31 million.




Thanks. I do vaguely remember reading that.



By the sound of Dog's post, I thought he meant he read something more than some unnamed source, who may have heard that Cervelli wanted more than what he ended up signing for.



Just for the record, I was in favor of the Cervelli contract extension. Considering how NH hadn't produced a major league catcher and it was obvious that Tony Sanchez was a failure, the Cervelli deal seemed like a good idea.



Turns out, I was wrong. As was NH.




Actually, neither you nor Huntington was wrong. The signing was a no-brainer. Cervelli had put up significantly more value than salary earned the previous two years and we had no replacement. Furthermore, Cervelli, despite an injury-filled 2017, has produced value equivalent to his salary. He's put up just under 1 WAR this season. Specifically, Fangraphs has pegged his value to date this season at $7.2M. That is almost exactly what he has been paid so far this season.



Pirates fans have difficulty separating MLB economics from Pirates economics. Due to Nutting's refusal to spend, the Pirates can only be competitive if they get the production they expect from their superstars and have several other players outplay their contracts. When a player merely plays to his contract and the Pirates aren't winning, the fanbase gets down on that player as though he's overpaid and, therefore, a bad signing. This same scenario occurred with Harrison last year.

37120114080308090C04600 wrote: And yet he signed Cervelli to a three year $30M+ deal???


Cervelli wanted a lot more originally with his demands. Maybe this is why Huntington signed him to a lot less?




Were there articles that detailed some of the negotiations or told a bit more of the story? I don't remember reading about that.



Can you post a link to an article or two? Thanks in advance.
This article says he wanted 3 yrs/39 million.

http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/9872 ... tes-season



He signed for 3 yrs/31 million.




Thanks. I do vaguely remember reading that.



By the sound of Dog's post, I thought he meant he read something more than some unnamed source, who may have heard that Cervelli wanted more than what he ended up signing for.



Just for the record, I was in favor of the Cervelli contract extension. Considering how NH hadn't produced a major league catcher and it was obvious that Tony Sanchez was a failure, the Cervelli deal seemed like a good idea.



Turns out, I was wrong. As was NH.




Actually, neither you nor Huntington was wrong.  The signing was a no-brainer.  Cervelli had put up significantly more value than salary earned the previous two years and we had no replacement. Furthermore, Cervelli, despite an injury-filled 2017, has produced value equivalent to his salary. He's put up just under 1 WAR this season.  Specifically, Fangraphs has pegged his value to date this season at $7.2M.  That is almost exactly what he has been paid so far this season.



Pirates fans have difficulty separating MLB economics from Pirates economics.  Due to Nutting's refusal to spend, the Pirates can only be competitive if they get the production they expect from their superstars and have several other players outplay their contracts.  When a player merely plays to his contract and the Pirates aren't winning, the fanbase gets down on that player as though he's overpaid and, therefore, a bad signing.  This same scenario occurred with Harrison last year.


I wonder if Tampa and Marlin fans judge players the same way we do?

486D7E6B777C7776737B1F0 wrote: And yet he signed Cervelli to a three year $30M+ deal???


Cervelli wanted a lot more originally with his demands. Maybe this is why Huntington signed him to a lot less?




Were there articles that detailed some of the negotiations or told a bit more of the story? I don't remember reading about that.



Can you post a link to an article or two? Thanks in advance.
This article says he wanted 3 yrs/39 million.

http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/9872 ... tes-season



He signed for 3 yrs/31 million.




Thanks. I do vaguely remember reading that.



By the sound of Dog's post, I thought he meant he read something more than some unnamed source, who may have heard that Cervelli wanted more than what he ended up signing for.



Just for the record, I was in favor of the Cervelli contract extension. Considering how NH hadn't produced a major league catcher and it was obvious that Tony Sanchez was a failure, the Cervelli deal seemed like a good idea.



Turns out, I was wrong. As was NH.




Actually, neither you nor Huntington was wrong.  The signing was a no-brainer.  Cervelli had put up significantly more value than salary earned the previous two years and we had no replacement. Furthermore, Cervelli, despite an injury-filled 2017, has produced value equivalent to his salary. He's put up just under 1 WAR this season.  Specifically, Fangraphs has pegged his value to date this season at $7.2M.  That is almost exactly what he has been paid so far this season.



Pirates fans have difficulty separating MLB economics from Pirates economics.  Due to Nutting's refusal to spend, the Pirates can only be competitive if they get the production they expect from their superstars and have several other players outplay their contracts.  When a player merely plays to his contract and the Pirates aren't winning, the fanbase gets down on that player as though he's overpaid and, therefore, a bad signing.  This same scenario occurred with Harrison last year.


I think your assessment is reasonable, but I still disagree.



Despite the approximate dollar value of what 1 WAR is worth, we can't get the type of production we're getting from Cervelli for the $10 mil he'll get paid.



While you're correct, that this is because of the, "Nutting Factor," it doesn't make it any less true. We can't look at what Cervelli's contract and production might mean, in terms of value, to another team. In this organization, with Bob Nutting as owner, getting that type of production for $10 mil, will hurt.

5D7D6E73721C0 wrote: And yet he signed Cervelli to a three year $30M+ deal???


Cervelli wanted a lot more originally with his demands. Maybe this is why Huntington signed him to a lot less?




Were there articles that detailed some of the negotiations or told a bit more of the story? I don't remember reading about that.



Can you post a link to an article or two? Thanks in advance.
This article says he wanted 3 yrs/39 million.

http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/9872 ... tes-season



He signed for 3 yrs/31 million.




Thanks. I do vaguely remember reading that.



By the sound of Dog's post, I thought he meant he read something more than some unnamed source, who may have heard that Cervelli wanted more than what he ended up signing for.



Just for the record, I was in favor of the Cervelli contract extension. Considering how NH hadn't produced a major league catcher and it was obvious that Tony Sanchez was a failure, the Cervelli deal seemed like a good idea.



Turns out, I was wrong. As was NH.




Actually, neither you nor Huntington was wrong.  The signing was a no-brainer.  Cervelli had put up significantly more value than salary earned the previous two years and we had no replacement. Furthermore, Cervelli, despite an injury-filled 2017, has produced value equivalent to his salary. He's put up just under 1 WAR this season.  Specifically, Fangraphs has pegged his value to date this season at $7.2M.  That is almost exactly what he has been paid so far this season.



Pirates fans have difficulty separating MLB economics from Pirates economics.  Due to Nutting's refusal to spend, the Pirates can only be competitive if they get the production they expect from their superstars and have several other players outplay their contracts.  When a player merely plays to his contract and the Pirates aren't winning, the fanbase gets down on that player as though he's overpaid and, therefore, a bad signing.  This same scenario occurred with Harrison last year.


I think your assessment is reasonable, but I still disagree.



Despite the approximate dollar value of what 1 WAR is worth, we can't get the type of production we're getting from Cervelli for the $10 mil he'll get paid.



While you're correct, that this is because of the, "Nutting Factor," it doesn't make it any less true. We can't look at what Cervelli's contract and production might mean, in terms of value, to another team. In this organization, with Bob Nutting as owner, getting that type of production for $10 mil, will hurt.




I think it's important to blame the Nutting Factor on the person for whom it's named: Bob Nutting.



Cervelli certainly isn't responsible for it. He's an employee trying to make as much money as he can. Fans can complain if he's not earning his salary but we seem to agree that he is earning his salary under MLB standards.



Huntington really isn't responsible for it either. This seems to be the point of our disagreement but to hold him responsible for the Nutting Factor is to say he's done poorly unless he clearly wins practically every contract negotiation when, in reality, there isn't supposed to be a clear winner in a contract negotiation. In a proper labor market, people should get their value on both sides. That's what's happening this year with Cervelli.



I acknowledged that Pirates economics doesn't allow for competitiveness if everyone simply gets what they earn. But, when that is what occurs, it isn't the player's fault and isn't the GM's fault. It's the owner's fault. He's the one that isn't keeping up with the system.

0E2B382D313A3130353D590 wrote: And yet he signed Cervelli to a three year $30M+ deal???


Cervelli wanted a lot more originally with his demands. Maybe this is why Huntington signed him to a lot less?




Were there articles that detailed some of the negotiations or told a bit more of the story? I don't remember reading about that.



Can you post a link to an article or two? Thanks in advance.
This article says he wanted 3 yrs/39 million.

http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/9872 ... tes-season



He signed for 3 yrs/31 million.




Thanks. I do vaguely remember reading that.



By the sound of Dog's post, I thought he meant he read something more than some unnamed source, who may have heard that Cervelli wanted more than what he ended up signing for.



Just for the record, I was in favor of the Cervelli contract extension. Considering how NH hadn't produced a major league catcher and it was obvious that Tony Sanchez was a failure, the Cervelli deal seemed like a good idea.



Turns out, I was wrong. As was NH.




Actually, neither you nor Huntington was wrong.  The signing was a no-brainer.  Cervelli had put up significantly more value than salary earned the previous two years and we had no replacement. Furthermore, Cervelli, despite an injury-filled 2017, has produced value equivalent to his salary. He's put up just under 1 WAR this season.  Specifically, Fangraphs has pegged his value to date this season at $7.2M.  That is almost exactly what he has been paid so far this season.



Pirates fans have difficulty separating MLB economics from Pirates economics.  Due to Nutting's refusal to spend, the Pirates can only be competitive if they get the production they expect from their superstars and have several other players outplay their contracts.  When a player merely plays to his contract and the Pirates aren't winning, the fanbase gets down on that player as though he's overpaid and, therefore, a bad signing.  This same scenario occurred with Harrison last year.


I think your assessment is reasonable, but I still disagree.



Despite the approximate dollar value of what 1 WAR is worth, we can't get the type of production we're getting from Cervelli for the $10 mil he'll get paid.



While you're correct, that this is because of the, "Nutting Factor," it doesn't make it any less true. We can't look at what Cervelli's contract and production might mean, in terms of value, to another team. In this organization, with Bob Nutting as owner, getting that type of production for $10 mil, will hurt.




I think it's important to blame the Nutting Factor on the person for whom it's named: Bob Nutting.



Cervelli certainly isn't responsible for it. He's an employee trying to make as much money as he can.  Fans can complain if he's not earning his salary but we seem to agree that he is earning his salary under MLB standards.



Huntington really isn't responsible for it either. This seems to be the point of our disagreement but to hold him responsible for the Nutting Factor is to say he's done poorly unless he clearly wins practically every contract negotiation when, in reality, there isn't supposed to be a clear winner in a contract negotiation.  In a proper labor market, people should get their value on both sides. That's what's happening this year with Cervelli.



I acknowledged that Pirates economics doesn't allow for competitiveness if everyone simply gets what they earn.  But, when that is what occurs, it isn't the player's fault and isn't the GM's fault.  It's the owner's fault. He's the one that isn't keeping up with the system.


I don't ever blame players for getting paid the most money they can. Cervelli didn't do anything wrong. He's an athlete, worked his way out of Venezuela and it took him a lot of years to get that payday.



As far as where I place the blame, I blame it on management in general. Sure, Nutting doesn't care in the slightest whether his team wins or loses, as long as he gets his welfare check from Rob Manfred.



But Huntington is just as much to blame. Bob Nutting wasn't the one making draft selections for all the years that prior to the trade of Cervelli. Nutting wasn't the one that chose Tony Sanchez with the 4th overall pick in the 2009 draft. Nutting didn't trade Jose Bautista for uber catching "prospect" Robinzon Diaz. Nutting didn't decide, despite Cervelli's injury history, that it would be a good idea to give him a $30 million contract.



So, if you choose to put all the blame on Bob Nutting, that's certainly your choice. But I lay the blame where it belongs. On organizational failure. Our owner doesn't care that his GM isn't good enough at drafting, development and player acquisitions.

0B2B3825244A0 wrote: And yet he signed Cervelli to a three year $30M+ deal???


Cervelli wanted a lot more originally with his demands. Maybe this is why Huntington signed him to a lot less?




Were there articles that detailed some of the negotiations or told a bit more of the story? I don't remember reading about that.



Can you post a link to an article or two? Thanks in advance.
This article says he wanted 3 yrs/39 million.

http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/9872 ... tes-season



He signed for 3 yrs/31 million.




Thanks. I do vaguely remember reading that.



By the sound of Dog's post, I thought he meant he read something more than some unnamed source, who may have heard that Cervelli wanted more than what he ended up signing for.



Just for the record, I was in favor of the Cervelli contract extension. Considering how NH hadn't produced a major league catcher and it was obvious that Tony Sanchez was a failure, the Cervelli deal seemed like a good idea.



Turns out, I was wrong. As was NH.




Actually, neither you nor Huntington was wrong.  The signing was a no-brainer.  Cervelli had put up significantly more value than salary earned the previous two years and we had no replacement. Furthermore, Cervelli, despite an injury-filled 2017, has produced value equivalent to his salary. He's put up just under 1 WAR this season.  Specifically, Fangraphs has pegged his value to date this season at $7.2M.  That is almost exactly what he has been paid so far this season.



Pirates fans have difficulty separating MLB economics from Pirates economics.  Due to Nutting's refusal to spend, the Pirates can only be competitive if they get the production they expect from their superstars and have several other players outplay their contracts.  When a player merely plays to his contract and the Pirates aren't winning, the fanbase gets down on that player as though he's overpaid and, therefore, a bad signing.  This same scenario occurred with Harrison last year.


I think your assessment is reasonable, but I still disagree.



Despite the approximate dollar value of what 1 WAR is worth, we can't get the type of production we're getting from Cervelli for the $10 mil he'll get paid.



While you're correct, that this is because of the, "Nutting Factor," it doesn't make it any less true. We can't look at what Cervelli's contract and production might mean, in terms of value, to another team. In this organization, with Bob Nutting as owner, getting that type of production for $10 mil, will hurt.




I think it's important to blame the Nutting Factor on the person for whom it's named: Bob Nutting.



Cervelli certainly isn't responsible for it. He's an employee trying to make as much money as he can.  Fans can complain if he's not earning his salary but we seem to agree that he is earning his salary under MLB standards.



Huntington really isn't responsible for it either. This seems to be the point of our disagreement but to hold him responsible for the Nutting Factor is to say he's done poorly unless he clearly wins practically every contract negotiation when, in reality, there isn't supposed to be a clear winner in a contract negotiation.  In a proper labor market, people should get their value on both sides. That's what's happening this year with Cervelli.



I acknowledged that Pirates economics doesn't allow for competitiveness if everyone simply gets what they earn.  But, when that is what occurs, it isn't the player's fault and isn't the GM's fault.  It's the owner's fault. He's the one that isn't keeping up with the system.


I don't ever blame players for getting paid the most money they can. Cervelli didn't do anything wrong. He's an athlete, worked his way out of Venezuela and it took him a lot of years to get that payday.



As far as where I place the blame, I blame it on management in general. Sure, Nutting doesn't care in the slightest whether his team wins or loses, as long as he gets his welfare check from Rob Manfred.



But Huntington is just as much to blame. Bob Nutting wasn't the one making draft selections for all the years that prior to the trade of Cervelli. Nutting wasn't the one that chose Tony Sanchez with the 4th overall pick in the 2009 draft. Nutting didn't trade Jose Bautista for uber catching "prospect" Robinzon Diaz. Nutting didn't decide, despite Cervelli's injury history, that it would be a good idea to give him a $30 million contract.



So, if you choose to put all the blame on Bob Nutting, that's certainly your choice. But I lay the blame where it belongs. On organizational failure. Our owner doesn't care that his GM isn't good enough at drafting, development and player acquisitions.


The failure of the Sanchez pick and the inevitable trade of Bautista for a fringe major leaguer, catcher or not, is irrelevant to the discussion of the quality of the Cervelli contract.



I don't find your critique of Huntington persuasive as I think the catcher position would probably be the last place I'd look to make the claim he's not doing his job. Between the Martin acquisition and Cervelli acquisition, he's obtained significantly more value than salary paid in the last five years.