OnlyBucs

162B3538373D36143C2B3A3C3D590 wrote: I am not joking.  The Royals wasted a lot of money.  I would rather spend smart money than just spend money in general.  People will rip on the Pirates but then praise the Royals on their spending.  It just doesn't make sense. 
KC had won the WS the previous year and was in the WS 2 years in a row. In the process, they had increased payroll from a Pirate-esque minuscule to middle of the pack. Their spending last year was consistent with an org that was serious about maintaining their status as a serious WS contender. You can now look back in hindsight and say they got less per $ than the Pirates. But at least KC tried. The Pirates-who haven't won a WS since 1979-didn't.


The Royals won a WS, in the process they pretty much gutted their farm system.  I think that is definitely a price any team would pay for the title.  If you want to point to something the Royals did that the Pirates should do, it's leverage the farm system. The Pirates should do that at the deadline the next time they are legit competitive.  I'm not going to cry over spilled milk for them not doing it in 2015, but I do think that they should dig in this year if they're in it.



It's pretty comical to point at the Royals current payroll as some indicator of smart management.  They are on a straight path to irrelevance.




The point is not whether the Pirates should match KC, the point is the Royals were willing to invest $16M into Hammel when I think every single person on here would agree that such a contract would been a very good move by the Pirates and certainly, surely, within their financial means. Such a contract would not have caused any long term or short term problems such as the Phillies and a few are already assigning to the Royals (we shall see). But a 2 year $16M contract would NOT have in any way caused the Pirates to slip into irrelevance.



The Royals over spending (questionable at best BTW). The Pirates under spending. I guess there are different paths to irrelevance.



Again, the Royals crossing the $130M mark in signing Hammel is relevant because the Pirates could very definitely use a pitcher and signing him would mean the Pirates cross the $100M mark. The Pirates unwillingness to spend even reasonable money to better the team matters.

What's the marginal return on a Hammels contract? The Royals were in a rough spot after the Ventura tragedy. This was their rotation?



1 Danny Duffy

2 Ian Kennedy

3 Jason Vargas

4 Nate Karns

5 Matt Strahm



I think there has to be something up with Hammel anyway with the pronounced lack of interest in his services. I guess I just don't see the point in arguing these marginal transactions. Signing Hammel would have little to no impact on the overall success or failure of this team. Adding a low ceiling veteran arm to the back half of the rotation is not going to elevate McCutchen or Cole. If those two regain form, the roster is competitive, then they can plug the smaller holes in the roster in-season by either promoting from AAA or trades. These relatively meaningless transactions that push the payroll over arbitrary fan targets are nothing more than talking points.

Point taken but in this instance I'll stand by my thought that we need rotation help--"marginal" will be an upgrade.

Will Ventura's salary be covered by insurance or will the team still be paying it?

6E5C50504476555C51545B5C3D0 wrote: Point taken but in this instance I'll stand by my thought that we need rotation help--"marginal" will be an upgrade. 


I think the issue with this specific transaction is that it's debatable he's even a marginal upgrade over either Glasnow, Brault or Hutchison. The Cubs chose a combo of Mike Montgomery and Brett Anderson over paying him $12M.

7449575A555F54765E49585E5F3B0 wrote: Point taken but in this instance I'll stand by my thought that we need rotation help--"marginal" will be an upgrade. 


I think the issue with this specific transaction is that it's debatable he's even a marginal upgrade over either Glasnow, Brault or Hutchison.  The Cubs chose a combo of Mike Montgomery and Brett Anderson over paying him $12M.
He is more than a marginal upgrade over Brault and Hutchinson. His last few seasons have been pretty good. Granted it seems some teams where scared of a potential shoulder issue. Here are his stats.http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... um=linker-

4D706E636C666D4F6770616766020 wrote: What's the marginal return on a Hammels contract?  The Royals were in a rough spot after the Ventura tragedy.  This was their rotation?



       1 Danny Duffy

2 Ian Kennedy

3 Jason Vargas

4 Nate Karns

5 Matt Strahm



I think there has to be something up with Hammel anyway with the pronounced lack of interest in his services.  I guess I just don't see the point in arguing these marginal transactions.  Signing Hammel would have little to no impact on the overall success or failure of this team.  Adding a low ceiling veteran arm to the back half of the rotation is not going to elevate McCutchen or Cole.  If those two regain form, the roster is competitive, then they can plug the smaller holes in the roster in-season by either promoting from AAA or trades.  These relatively meaningless transactions that push the payroll over arbitrary fan targets are nothing more than talking points.


I don't think its inconsequential. If he's healthy he would make the rotation stronger. He was a work horse last year until they shut him down.



Maybe there is real concern about the elbow. If so, the Pirates are wise to stay away. But there seems to always be something.



Thinking about injuries waiting to happen: we don't know what Cole is going to be like. If he goes down (or is ineffective) we're toast. Maybe Hammel is too risky to sign. At the same time, it's too risky to rely on Cole. JMHO.

363D35393C3D266365122B333A3D3D7C313D520 wrote: The Royals spent $40 million more last year on their payroll than the Pirates. 



They only finished 2.5 games better and missed the playoffs too.




Why is only last year relevant?





373C34383D3C276264132A323B3C3C7D303C530 wrote: The Pirates have been close. I know people don't care, but it is pretty hard to make the playoffs three years in a row.


Oh wait.....apparently the previous years are relevant. But only to the Pirates.

Because the Royals' payroll boost was negatively correlated with their on-field performance.

714C525F505A51735B4C5D5B5A3E0 wrote: Because the Royals' payroll boost was negatively correlated with their on-field performance.


Because of it. It was correlated because they signed some players to contracts that matured while they won them a world series