OnlyBucs

6269616D6869723731467F676E6969286569060 wrote: I am not grasping at anything. You are just so infatuated with team payroll. Drafting, getting that young core is why these teams are winning and growing to get better. It's like if the Pirates would have signed Kang, Burnett, Liriano and any other free agent for double what they got you would be happier.



I'm more worried about their talent evaluation than their spending. They need that special draftee to be an MVP candidate. That's what they are missing in my opinion.
The Astros drafted and developed well. But that wasn't enough. When they felt they could be on the cusp of a great year, they wisely supplemented their core by adding McCann, Reddick and Beltran. And now they're WS champs. And it didn't even require them to become one of the big spenders in MLB. It's exactly the kind of move that the Pirates don't make because of that darned payroll I'm so infatuated with. Any analysis of the team cannot dismiss that significant aspect of team development. Draft well, develop well, and supplement that core with players to put you over the top. You seem to think the Pirates could follow the Astros' formula while neglecting one key aspect of it. Because since the Pirates won't do it (i.e., spend a little), it must not be necessary. So look where the Astros are. And look where the Pirates are. Maybe, just maybe, pinching pennies isn't the way to win a championship.

The Pirates won three less games than the Astros this year. Maybe a little more spending puts them in over 100 wins, but we don't know that. The Pirates didn't need to bring in a Reddick, Beltran. They ran into two starting pitchers who had some of the best individual seasons ever. I don't know, we don't know if more money would have made a difference.



Would the Astros have beat Bumgarner or Arrieta those years? We don't know. I am not taking anything away from the Astros. I love how they built their team. I feel the Pirates did the same thing, but ran into two buzz saws in the wild card game.



The Dodgers, who spent more than any team, lost again. It just isn't about payroll. I expect the Dodgers to go down in payroll and still be just as good next year. I know money helps. I just feel the Pirates spent wisely but fell short. Only one team can win it all every year. Does that mean everyone else made bad decisions? I don't look at it that way.



It just sounds like if the Pirates invested more, but had the same results, people would be happier.

I think Bobster nailed it in his comment above. The concern isn't so much with the team NH built. It is that when they needed to add one arm or one bat, they looked at the payroll and blinked. The Astros went to $125MM while the Pirates backed away. In essence, when the choice came to budget versus victory, they chose budget. That is not NH, of course, but is the line the owner had drawn. And since this topic is entitled "Reality," we have to recognize that this year, budget will also control.

I don't think the comparison is that straightforward. Huston is a mid-sized MLB market and Pittsburgh a small MLB market. That means Huston can generally field a higher payroll team than Pittsburgh without taking a loss. When you consider how low their payroll was for a number of years, it's possible they have a big pile of extra cash to spend.

While nearly all teams have some budget constraints, with the Pirates, too often the budget is the beginning and end of every conversation.



For example, the Pirates didn't sign John Jaso to be their first baseman because he was the best talent available, they signed him because they had a limit on how much they could spend on the position and thought that they may uncover an undervalued talent who could get on base frequently enough to be an asset. Unfortunately, he didn't over-perform.



I doubt anyone in Pirate management really thought that Ryan Vogelsong would be a decent (I avoided the word good) starting pitcher, but they only had a few mil to spend, needed someone who wouldn't require a multi-year deal, and had to hope that he could provide at least average performance as a #5 starter until they could transition to Tallion, Glasnow or others. While Ryan Vogelsong is a class act, by the time he made it to the Bucs (the second time) he was no longer a serviceable major league pitcher.



I like a lot of what NH has accomplished during his tenure with the Pirates. Making the play-offs three consecutive years after 20 consecutive years of losing (and losing a lot) was and always will be a real accomplishment. That said, the current team and organization seems rudderless to me. And, I can't help but believe that the current haze of despair that engulfs this franchise would be greatly diminished if Nutting openly committed to providing NH more financial resources (money) with which to work.

6F6A6D6B6369706D6477717C050 wrote: I don't think the comparison is that straightforward.  Huston is a mid-sized MLB market and Pittsburgh a small MLB market.  That means Huston can generally field a higher payroll team than Pittsburgh without taking a loss.  When you consider how low their payroll was for a number of years, it's possible they have a big pile of extra cash to spend.


Yeah, Houston is the fourth biggest city in the US.  Using their success against the Pirates seems hollow. A better comparison is probably to see what happens with the Indians in the next few years. 

Depends partly on their local TV contract, but as big as city as it is, there's the potential for them to make a LOT of money there.

2F242C2025243F7A7C0B322A2324246528244B0 wrote: The Pirates won three less games than the Astros this year.  Maybe a little more spending puts them in over 100 wins, but we don't know that.  The Pirates didn't need to bring in a Reddick, Beltran.  They ran into two starting pitchers who had some of the best individual seasons ever.  I don't know, we don't know if more money would have made a difference.



Would the Astros have beat Bumgarner or Arrieta those years?  We don't know.  I am not taking anything away from the Astros.  I love how they built their team.  I feel the Pirates did the same thing, but ran into two buzz saws in the wild card game. 



The Dodgers, who spent more than any team, lost again.  It just isn't about payroll.  I expect the Dodgers to go down in payroll and still be just as good next year.  I know money helps.  I just feel the Pirates spent wisely but fell short.  Only one team can win it all every year.  Does that mean everyone else made bad decisions?  I don't look at it that way. 



It just sounds like if the Pirates invested more, but had the same results, people would be happier.


That is correct. Since the team has proven through it's actions that saving money one year does not get allocated to the next year's payroll, I would definitely be more satisfied with a losing season with a higher payroll.



Trying to win and failing is perferable to making a half-@ssed effort to win and failing. That's because I'm a fan of the baseball team. Which is the role I play. I'm not cheering on pirates ownership, I'm cheering on the players.



If they would demonstrate a willingness to balloon payroll to "go for it" then it would be easier to stomach not trying for a year or two and then going for it.

5F6D61617547646D60656A6D0C0 wrote: I don't think the comparison is that straightforward.  Huston is a mid-sized MLB market and Pittsburgh a small MLB market.  That means Huston can generally field a higher payroll team than Pittsburgh without taking a loss.  When you consider how low their payroll was for a number of years, it's possible they have a big pile of extra cash to spend.


Yeah, Houston is the fourth biggest city in the US.  Using their success against the Pirates seems hollow.  A better comparison is probably to see what happens with the Indians in the next few years. 




St Louis is a very similar city to Pittsburgh, yet the Cardinals seem to find a way to outspend us every year.

764448485C6E4D44494C4344250 wrote: I don't think the comparison is that straightforward.  Huston is a mid-sized MLB market and Pittsburgh a small MLB market.  That means Huston can generally field a higher payroll team than Pittsburgh without taking a loss.  When you consider how low their payroll was for a number of years, it's possible they have a big pile of extra cash to spend.


Yeah, Houston is the fourth biggest city in the US.  Using their success against the Pirates seems hollow.  A better comparison is probably to see what happens with the Indians in the next few years. 


Cleveland's total payroll this year was ranked 17th and Houston's was 18th. It's fair to say Houston has a bigger market and most likely could take on more payroll. But that wasn't the case this year. They were slightly below the MLB average. They were slightly below Cleveland. Pirate fans are realistic enough to never expect them to be one of the higher MLB payrolls. But they have never even had a slightly below average payroll. There will likely come a time when we say the Pirates' can't be expected to take on as much payroll as the bigger market Astros. But this isn't the time. Maybe in a few years the Astros will have one of the highest payrolls. But does anyone really believe the Pirates will someday be where Cleveland and Houston currently are? They seem to draw the line at adding any players that will get them out of their comfort zone in the bottom 5 of MLB every year.



And the point isn't about spending just to spend. The point is that both Cleveland and Houston were willing to add key players to their cores that took their teams to a higher level. Those additions only changed low payrolls into about average payrolls. If the Pirates can't or won't even do that, then it seems hopeless.