OnlyBucs

725F52434455420201300 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.






also the Pirates definition of high salary is lower than about any other team.

4D4546716742656A040 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.


to use the wayback machine, Jason Kendall's contract was considered to be an albatross, yet it was a fair deal when signed.

Liriano was a great signing.  The contract wasn't that bad, and signing guys like Frankie, after stepping up with a QO is EXACTLY what this org has to do in order to win.



It has to play to win instead of playing to be "competitive" as cheaply as possible,. Whatever competitive happens to mean today. 2015 off season was that. Seems a lifetime ago now



Good signing, Neal Huntington

545D55444A300 wrote: Liriano was a great signing.  The contract wasn't that bad, and signing guys like Frankie, after stepping up with a QO is EXACTLY what this org has to do in order to win.



It has to play to win instead of playing to be "competitive" as cheaply as possible,. Whatever competitive happens to mean today. 2015 off season was that.   Seems a lifetime ago now



Good signing, Neal Huntington


It certainly didn't work out. That is why it was bad. Liriano failed two out of the three years of his deal (I guess, he can turn around this season).



I think we all liked the signing when it happened. Not many thought it would happen. At least the Pirates got one good year out of it. Toronto got half a season.

5E555D5154554E0B0D7A435B5255551459553A0 wrote: Liriano was a great signing.  The contract wasn't that bad, and signing guys like Frankie, after stepping up with a QO is EXACTLY what this org has to do in order to win.



It has to play to win instead of playing to be "competitive" as cheaply as possible,. Whatever competitive happens to mean today. 2015 off season was that.   Seems a lifetime ago now



Good signing, Neal Huntington


It certainly didn't work out.  That is why it was bad.  Liriano failed two out of the three years of his deal (I guess, he can turn around this season).



I think we all liked the signing when it happened.  Not many thought it would happen.  At least the Pirates got one good year out of it.  Toronto got half a season.   




It worked out for me.  He was one of the best in baseball, 2015.  He was paid 11.6 and produced like a 20+ mil starter. We won 98 games.



Signed for 3/39 and EARNED over 20 of that first season.    Don't offer him 3 years, he doesn't sign and we don't get that 2015. It's so simple, but always forgotten



.   He pitched poorly for 4 months and we dumped the remainder of his salary.  Looks like the two guys we traded to do that are busts.



Great signing.  Resounding success.  Then again I'm a fan of the baseball team not a fan of the guys wearing suits running it.

What happens if Nova turns out to be a "bad signing?"



What difference does it make if any of us like a signing at the time?



What difference does if make if a contract starts out very good and later turns bad?



All of this is a distraction. Every team signs long term deals. Even the Pirates have a couple. For every team some of those contracts will be winners and some losers. I would think 30 teams are expecting to absorb the costs of a bad contract. Are you (Dog) saying that the Pirates don't operate in that way? That any contract that goes "bad" must be shed though any means?



So what is acceptable if Nova goes bad?

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.

39323A363332296C6A1D243C353232733E325D0 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?

29202839374D0 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.

6F646C6065647F3A3C4B726A6364642568640B0 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.


ARAm deal was much worse. Made me purge overtime the FO tried to sell Bobby Hill as someone we would love.



However, Hutchinson isn't good. Let's get that straight. He won't make a good impact here if he ever gets a chance.