OnlyBucs

313830212F550 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


It was $112M, with a very homegrown 25 man roster. Then last year they chose to keep Gordon and sign Kennedy, how much do you want to bet that they regret both of those long term contract?



http://www.royalsreview.com/2015/2/19/8 ... 12-million

626B63727C060 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


This is a new economic for baseball and I hope it works but I don't buy it: there is no correlation between spending and success, and specifically winning a WS.



It would be wonderful if this is the case as the playing field would be level, but I don't think anyone is going to stand behind this. In other words, does anyone doubt there is a very strong correlation between payroll and success?



If there is a correlation the implications of the Pirates getting outspent by other "small markets" are huge.

6463757D7364232F56717B777F7A3875797B160 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


This is a new economic for baseball and I hope it works but I don't buy it: there is no correlation between spending and success, and specifically winning a WS. 



It would be wonderful if this is the case as the playing field would be level, but I don't think anyone is going to stand behind this.  In other words, does anyone doubt there is a very strong correlation between payroll and success?



If there is a correlation the implications of the Pirates getting outspent by other "small markets" are huge.


There is a difference between a matured roster and a rebuilding one. So the Astros stunk when they were tanking for draft picks and building up the farm system, same goes for the Cubs. Then teams like that have the capacity to add boat loads of payroll to their young core of cost controlled players. The Pirates were built a little differently, but I don't think anyone agrees with the Pirates 2016 off-season approach. There were a lot of players available in that FA class and the Pirates were way too conservative. But that was only relevant with that FA class, this year, the FA class stunk so there was no reason to add.

023F212C23292200283F2E28294D0 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


It was $112M, with a very homegrown 25 man roster.  Then last year they chose to keep Gordon and sign Kennedy, how much do you want to bet that they regret both of those long term contract?



http://www.royalsreview.com/2015/2/19/8 ... 12-million






2013:  James Shields, Jeremie Guthrie, Ervin Santana (who walked in 14' after a qualifying offer refused)  86 wins.  25-man opening day Payroll COTs = $81.9m :  Pirates $66.8mil



2014: Jason Vargas acquired 8 million.  Alex Gordon now making 10m, Shields making 13.5, Guthrie 8m.  Hosmer 3.6 through arb.   Total Payroll:  $92.1m  Pirates $71.9m  result.  WS loss. 



So they're running 20 million heavier in 13', 14' while they're building their WS team.   about 30% more on 25 man payroll.   The multi year contracts of the players they're acquiring are kicking in in addition to arb kicking in for Hosmer and company



If by Homegrown you mean a lot of key guys acquired through trade and free agency signed to multi-year deals to fill the holes their farm system couldn't? I agree.



EDIT:  Now I don't have any problem at all with what the Pirates did in 2014-2015 with respect to payroll and signings.   We were heavy with younger guys.  Heavier than KC was.    We all know that when the time came to fill holes and bump payroll, we folded like a cheap suit last year.      KC didn't when the time came for them 13', 14', 15'.   They signed players with future obligations that matured WHILE those players won them a world series after only winning them a pennant the year prior.



A pennant. That thing we haven't won in 37 years now is it?   

6C6B7D757B6C2B275E79737F7772307D71731E0 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


This is a new economic for baseball and I hope it works but I don't buy it: there is no correlation between spending and success, and specifically winning a WS. 



It would be wonderful if this is the case as the playing field would be level, but I don't think anyone is going to stand behind this.  In other words, does anyone doubt there is a very strong correlation between payroll and success?



If there is a correlation the implications of the Pirates getting outspent by other "small markets" are huge.


It has worked for some. The Giants, Cardinals, and the Cubs (finally) have won recently and they are usually top payroll teams.



But it hasn't worked for some others who spend a lot on payroll (last WS won): Dodgers (1988), Yankees (2009), Red Sox (2013), Tigers (1984), Angels (2002), Rangers (Never), Blue Jays (1993), Orioles (1983), Mets (1986).

073A2429262C27052D3A2B2D2C480 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


This is a new economic for baseball and I hope it works but I don't buy it: there is no correlation between spending and success, and specifically winning a WS. 



It would be wonderful if this is the case as the playing field would be level, but I don't think anyone is going to stand behind this.  In other words, does anyone doubt there is a very strong correlation between payroll and success?



If there is a correlation the implications of the Pirates getting outspent by other "small markets" are huge.


There is a difference between a matured roster and a rebuilding one.  So the Astros stunk when they were tanking for draft picks and building up the farm system, same goes for the Cubs.  Then teams like that have the capacity to add boat loads of payroll to their young core of cost controlled players.  The Pirates were built a little differently, but I don't think anyone agrees with the Pirates 2016 off-season approach.  There were a lot of players available in that FA class and the Pirates were way too conservative.  But that was only relevant with that FA class, this year, the FA class stunk so there was no reason to add.




I'll accept your premise that '16 was a good year for FA and this year not so good. I'll also agree with you that the FO missed in 2016. Maybe the difference in our opinion is this: I see 2016 as the Pirates normal business practice; 2017 would be the same if there was a good FA mkt. You see (not trying to put words in your mouth) 2016 as more of an outlier, given the same condition you would expect the Pirates to respond differently.



The problem is there is simply nothing to suggest that the FO would take a mulligan on 2016 if they could. Everything points to this being their business model.



I'm not asking for a payroll of $140M (but can you imagine the past couple years with an addition $25M; very good chance we have a WS trophy). I'm pointing out that another notoriously cheap owner is proving (that's key; proof is in KC) that a small mkt team can indeed sign one extra pitcher to make the team more competitive. It just depends on priorities.



The Royals expose the Pirates.

727B73626C160 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


It was $112M, with a very homegrown 25 man roster.  Then last year they chose to keep Gordon and sign Kennedy, how much do you want to bet that they regret both of those long term contract?



http://www.royalsreview.com/2015/2/19/8 ... 12-million






2013:  James Shields, Jeremie Guthrie, Ervin Santana (who walked in 14' after a qualifying offer refused)  86 wins.  25-man opening day Payroll COTs = $81.9m :  Pirates $66.8mil



2014: Jason Vargas acquired 8 million.  Alex Gordon now making 10m, Shields making 13.5, Guthrie 8m.  Hosmer 3.6 through arb.   Total Payroll:  $92.1m  Pirates $71.9m  result.  WS loss. 



So they're running 20 million heavier in 13', 14' while they're building their WS team.   about 30% more on 25 man payroll.   The multi year contracts of the players they're acquiring are kicking in in addition to arb kicking in for Hosmer and company



If by Homegrown you mean a lot of key guys acquired through trade and free agency signed to multi-year deals to fill the holes their farm system couldn't? I agree.



EDIT:  Now I don't have any problem at all with what the Pirates did in 2014-2015 with respect to payroll and signings.   We were heavy with younger guys.  Heavier than KC was.    We all know that when the time came to fill holes and bump payroll, we folded like a cheap suit last year.      KC didn't when the time came for them 13', 14', 15'.   They signed players with future obligations that matured WHILE those players won them a world series after only winning them a pennant the year prior.   



A pennant.  That thing we haven't won in 37 years now is it?   




The Pirates also had significantly higher attendance those years.

101701090710575B22050F030B0E4C010D0F620 wrote:



I'll accept your premise that '16 was a good year for FA and this year not so good.  I'll also agree with you that the FO missed in 2016.  Maybe the difference in our opinion is this: I see 2016 as the Pirates normal business practice; 2017 would be the same if there was a good FA mkt.  You see (not trying to put words in your mouth) 2016 as more of an outlier, given the same condition you would expect the Pirates to respond differently. 



The problem is there is simply nothing to suggest that the FO would take a  mulligan on 2016 if they could.  Everything points to this being their business model.



I'm not asking for a payroll of $140M (but can you imagine the past couple years with an addition $25M; very good chance we have a WS trophy). I'm pointing out that another notoriously cheap owner is proving (that's key; proof is in KC) that a small mkt team can indeed sign one extra pitcher to make the team more competitive.  It just depends on priorities.



The Royals expose the Pirates.


I think we're just getting into perception and hypothetical.  They have shown a willingness to address holes with FA's. Granted this means re-signing Liriano for $40M as opposed to Lester for $125M.  I don't think it takes any depth of understanding to see that tendering Locke and trading for Niese instead of paying Happ after 2015 was a mistake.  If you think the mistake was that they didn't sign Price or Cueto, then we're just discussing the issue on different planes.  I've accepted that the Pirates aren't going to have $20M per year players. 

Don't forget the Pirates have all the position players locked up for years too. There isn't much room to add players which would add to the Payroll. The brought in Kang, Cervelli, and Jaso to fill holes. Only Jaso turned out to be a bad signing.



They did bring in Pitching and spent money over the years (Liriano, Burnett). But the low contracts of the others still kept payroll down. They should have tried harder in 2016. They missed the boat on some of their projections.

6C514F424D474C6E4651404647230 wrote:



I'll accept your premise that '16 was a good year for FA and this year not so good.  I'll also agree with you that the FO missed in 2016.  Maybe the difference in our opinion is this: I see 2016 as the Pirates normal business practice; 2017 would be the same if there was a good FA mkt.  You see (not trying to put words in your mouth) 2016 as more of an outlier, given the same condition you would expect the Pirates to respond differently. 



The problem is there is simply nothing to suggest that the FO would take a  mulligan on 2016 if they could.  Everything points to this being their business model.



I'm not asking for a payroll of $140M (but can you imagine the past couple years with an addition $25M; very good chance we have a WS trophy). I'm pointing out that another notoriously cheap owner is proving (that's key; proof is in KC) that a small mkt team can indeed sign one extra pitcher to make the team more competitive.  It just depends on priorities.



The Royals expose the Pirates.


I think we're just getting into perception and hypothetical.  They have shown a willingness to address holes with FA's. Granted this means re-signing Liriano for $40M as opposed to Lester for $125M.  I don't think it takes any depth of understanding to see that tendering Locke and trading for Niese instead of paying Happ after 2015 was a mistake.  If you think the mistake was that they didn't sign Price or Cueto, then we're just discussing the issue on different planes.  I've accepted that the Pirates aren't going to have $20M per year players. 




No, I'm not even asking for a $20M player, although by all appearances we're discovering they could carry one.



I'm saying they have a hard number and that number is unrealisticly low if they're serious about winning a WS, and the number is low not because the Pirates can't afford more but because they have other priorities. KC proves they could sign Hammel or who ever. But they don't. That's all I'm saying.



Why does this matter? For the very reason this board exist. We all want the same thing, for the Pirates to win a WS. We all can spot holes that exist (all teams have em). But there is almost no reason to discuss fixes that come from outside. We don't trade prospects and we don't sign FAs (generally, obviously they sign a bare minimum and thankfully Nova was signed).



I'm having to lower my expectation. Maybe some of you have already done that. But there is no "we'll spend when team is ready".