2014 Pirates

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

I'd rather have D'arnaud since he can play ss, and their bats both seem equally bad. Harrison is better than both easily.

 

[steelparrot]

Chase d’Arnaud Outrighted to Indianapolis | Pirates Prospects

well we didnt lose him anyway

 

[sychmd]

going into 2014, seems like every position is better than it was going into last year.
the only exception is the LH part of the 1B platoon. and maybe an older martin?
comparing the rotation 2012 stats for the 2013 opening day to 2013 stats for the 2014 opening day, all 5 are better.

2013:
martin
sanchez/jones
walker
barmes
alvarez
marte
cutch
snider
bench: tabata, mckenry, mcdonald, inge, jones
SP: aj, wandy, mcdonald, locke, sanchez
BP: grilli, melancon, watson, wilson, gomez, mazzaro, morris

2014:
martin
sanchez/lambo
walker
mercer
alvarez
marte
cutch
tabata
bench: snider, lambo, stewart, harrison, barmes
SP: liriano, cole, morton, wandy, locke/volquez
BP: grilli, melancon, watson, wilson, pimentel, mazzaro, gomez

we got some miraculous years from a couple, but those are good players.
we got lucky with the pitching depth at AAA, but that will be the case again this year, but with a stronger mlb team to start the season.

the bonus to get us to the playoffs was byrd pickup.
we have polanco coming earlier and shouldn't be as anemic with tabata and snider being a bit more seasoned with not as much pressure.

then we have taillon.

assuming polanco and taillon perform, and no real lasting injuries, the deadline issues will be:
1. a RH bat to spell walker or alvarez
2. a catcher who can hit and play D if martin keeps tailing off at the plate (this could be t sanchez)
3. power hitting 1B if lambo doesn't make a good transition and non of the other LH 1B options work.
4. upgrading barmes for a good D utility with some special offensive talent (OBP, speed, etc)

excited about the arms and not sure how to package some of them to get that young 1B or catching stud.

 

[thedddd]

Even though injury killed his momentum in his career David Cooper was DFA'ed he would be a better flier for the Pirates than Travis Ishikawa or even take Morels spot.

 

[element1286]

Even though injury killed his momentum in his career David Cooper was DFA'ed he would be a better flier for the Pirates than Travis Ishikawa or even take Morels spot.

Seems interesting, never had heard of him before.

 

[Darkstone42]

Have we talked at all about Chris McGuiness? He's looked really good so far this spring, and while his minor league numbers are not terribly impressive, his walk rate looks good (and has been climbing in recent years), and I'm pretty intrigued by him as a 1B/bench option now, at least as a guy who can get on base pretty regularly.

Also, Pedro has looked pretty good so far this spring. He usually looks terrible in spring training, so that's a nice sign.

 

[thedddd]

Offseason In Review: Pittsburgh Pirates: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com

I love the last paragraph, obvious opinion but very true and this could lead to the whole idea to spend money just to spend is not a good one.

 

[Illinest]

I think you're referring to the argument that goes :not spending money that could've been spent is detrimental" - which is completely different from "spending money for the sake of spending money."

 

[element1286]

Have we talked at all about Chris McGuiness? He's looked really good so far this spring, and while his minor league numbers are not terribly impressive, his walk rate looks good (and has been climbing in recent years), and I'm pretty intrigued by him as a 1B/bench option now, at least as a guy who can get on base pretty regularly.

Also, Pedro has looked pretty good so far this spring. He usually looks terrible in spring training, so that's a nice sign.

This kind of refers to all Spring Training, but heard an interview with NH, and he basically said that they don't take Spring Stats into account at all, but they do take Spring situations into account.

In practice he said it means (I'm paraphrasing) they analyze guys on the fringes using situations like how many ML pitchers did they face/get a hit off of, how many hits off fastballs/breaking balls, how many hits in hitters counts vs pitchers counts, did they take a changeup to the opposite field in a pitchers count, do they lay off the backfoot slider.

He mentioned while in Cleveland they had a guy make the team, who hit .370 in ST, but when they went back and analyzed hit ST AB's they realized he didn't get a hit off a guy who had been in the ML the past year, he didn't get a hit off anything but a fastball in a hitters count, and he didn't have any hits to the opposite field.

I think it put a lot into perspective about what ST is all about for evaluation purposes. I'm glad he explained it.

 

[thedddd]

I think you're referring to the argument that goes :not spending money that could've been spent is detrimental" - which is completely different from "spending money for the sake of spending money."

True but they can go hand in hand. Think about if they spent money on FA's this year to fill a void that truly wouldn't make the team better, like a Morales or Volquez (sorry they did that one) then it is spending for the sake of spending. And if they wouldn't have wasted the 5 million on Volquez then it truly would not have been detrimental to the team. In reality would have been better to keep the money.

 

[Illinest]

Nobody wants to spend money poorly.

1. Figure out your budget. The budget should have some flex to it from year to year and it should be within a few million of what you're making (minus other expenses of course) If you don't spend all of the money that you have available to spend then you're needlessly restricting your own resources. The spending power differential between the pirates and the yankees is big enough as it is.

2. Identify needs. Not just for this year, but for a few years in the future. It didn't make much sense for the Pirates to acquire a OF player for example but with Burnett, Liriano and Rodriguez gone or soon to be gone it made quite a bit of sense to supplement the rotation. Now, with Locke experiencing "tightness", Volquez struggling and Taillon supposedly guaranteed a few months in Indy before his call-up we're looking a bit thin at SP all of a sudden.

3. Match free agents to needs. If we don't (for example) have a 3B regular or prospect in the system (just an example - not a statement about 3B depth) then you might be able to justify a long-term contract offer to a FA 3B. Some guys will forever be outside our range. Cano - we can't compete for a guy like that. I know that. But if there's 25 million dollars in the budget, we only need to fill one hole at 2b and Cano (for whatever strange reason) wanted to sign a 1 year contract then we absolutely should be willing to compete for his services. I don't approve of Neil's arbitrary 15% figure as it is just another example of an unnecessary handicap.

This all assumes that the GM is also capable of anticipating the contract values. Any GM who says something along the lines of "we're surprised at these dollar values..." is either a liar or he's incompetent. Even casual fans are able to make reasonable guesses about contract figures.


And if you follow all of this, then you still need to be able to sign free agents who can help your team and guys who won't shit all over themselves.
Neil's philosophy seems to rely on other factors. In his head it seems that it's okay to overpay a guy like Volquez. Perhaps Volquez is a 2 million dollar pitcher in the eyes of most GMs, and Neil throws 5 million at him because it's easy to justify a 3 million dollar overpayment. But then Burnett maybe gets a 12 million dollar offer from us, but takes 17 or 18 instead. I'm guessing that Neil is fixated on the difference between 3 and 6. Better to overpay by 3 than overpay by 6, right?
But if Volquez sucks so much that he can't even perform for us then you've lost so much more than 3 million dollars. You've also lost value in the form of opportunity cost. You didn't really fill the hole, in other words. Ultimately the team's success depends on putting a competitive roster on the field, and the semantics of "payroll percentage" and "internal value" are just a way of excusing yourself from spending money.

 

[thecrow124]

Nobody wants to spend money poorly.

1. Figure out your budget. The budget should have some flex to it from year to year and it should be within a few million of what you're making (minus other expenses of course) If you don't spend all of the money that you have available to spend then you're needlessly restricting your own resources. The spending power differential between the pirates and the yankees is big enough as it is.

2. Identify needs. Not just for this year, but for a few years in the future. It didn't make much sense for the Pirates to acquire a OF player for example but with Burnett, Liriano and Rodriguez gone or soon to be gone it made quite a bit of sense to supplement the rotation. Now, with Locke experiencing "tightness", Volquez struggling and Taillon supposedly guaranteed a few months in Indy before his call-up we're looking a bit thin at SP all of a sudden.

3. Match free agents to needs. If we don't (for example) have a 3B regular or prospect in the system (just an example - not a statement about 3B depth) then you might be able to justify a long-term contract offer to a FA 3B. Some guys will forever be outside our range. Cano - we can't compete for a guy like that. I know that. But if there's 25 million dollars in the budget, we only need to fill one hole at 2b and Cano (for whatever strange reason) wanted to sign a 1 year contract then we absolutely should be willing to compete for his services. I don't approve of Neil's arbitrary 15% figure as it is just another example of an unnecessary handicap.

This all assumes that the GM is also capable of anticipating the contract values. Any GM who says something along the lines of "we're surprised at these dollar values..." is either a liar or he's incompetent. Even casual fans are able to make reasonable guesses about contract figures.


And if you follow all of this, then you still need to be able to sign free agents who can help your team and guys who won't shit all over themselves.
Neil's philosophy seems to rely on other factors. In his head it seems that it's okay to overpay a guy like Volquez. Perhaps Volquez is a 2 million dollar pitcher in the eyes of most GMs, and Neil throws 5 million at him because it's easy to justify a 3 million dollar overpayment. But then Burnett maybe gets a 12 million dollar offer from us, but takes 17 or 18 instead. I'm guessing that Neil is fixated on the difference between 3 and 6. Better to overpay by 3 than overpay by 6, right?
But if Volquez sucks so much that he can't even perform for us then you've lost so much more than 3 million dollars. You've also lost value in the form of opportunity cost. You didn't really fill the hole, in other words. Ultimately the team's success depends on putting a competitive roster on the field, and the semantics of "payroll percentage" and "internal value" are just a way of excusing yourself from spending money.

Are you equating spending money to winning baseball games? I personally think that spending money on free agents is ok in certain instances. I am completely ok with the money paid to Volquez, he gets $5 million, which is less than the cost of one win on the open market. If Separate can fix him then he could be a 2-3 win player, if not he is a 1 win player, either way it is a bargain. I put zero value in his spring numbers, he is working with a new delivery, release point, and foot landing. With that amount of change, he is probably throwing 70% fastballs, and he is getting hit around, IMO not an issue. I think he will be just fine in the starting rotation. I also don't feel that he should be throwing to Tony Sanchez, he should be working with Martin or Snider, he needs to be comfortable with one of them going into the season.

As for the dwindling pitching depth, it is what it is, we used 13 starters last year and it worked out just fine. I am pretty sure that our AAA rotation will consist of 5 pitchers that could start the season in the rotation of more than half of the major league teams.

Back to spending money in free agency for a minute, there was not one player outside of Cano and Burnett that were clear upgrades to this team. I do wish we could have gotten in on Fister or Fielder, but this moves both reek of single phone call deals, especially the Fister deal. Before you ask, yes I would take Fielder and his contract too, he may be very fat, but he is an athletic fat, and I believe the Pirates have one of the better conditioning programs in baseball. Back to the original point, there was no one really worth spending money on in free agency, we made a pretty decent offer to Burnett, but even going up to the QO would have enticed him out of the deal he got with Philly.

 

[Illinest]

Are you equating spending money to winning baseball games? implying that I shouldn't correlate wins and dollars... I personally think that spending money on free agents is ok in certain instances. I am completely ok with the money paid to Volquez, he gets $5 million, which is less than the cost of one win on the open market. ironically you then try to defend the Volquez signing by correlating wins with dollars... If Separate can fix him then he could be a 2-3 win player, So in the best case, he'll be worth at least 1 win less than the guy he's supposedly there to replace. Great. if not he is a 1 win player, either way it is a bargain. Unless there's a 1 WAR pitcher already on the roster, in which case it's a waste of money. And look - there's six other starting pitchers who are already on the roster and projected to be 1 WAR or better pitchers and that's not even counting Taillon or Kingham. I put zero value in his spring numbers, he is working with a new delivery, release point, and foot landing. With that amount of change, he is probably throwing 70% fastballs, and he is getting hit around, IMO not an issue. I think he will be just fine in the starting rotation. I also don't feel that he should be throwing to Tony Sanchez, he should be working with Martin or Snider, he needs to be comfortable with one of them going into the season.

As for the dwindling pitching depth, it is what it is, we used 13 starters last year and it worked out just fine. I am pretty sure that our AAA rotation will consist of 5 pitchers that could start the season in the rotation of more than half of the major league teams. Once again undermining your own arguments (or as I like to call it, your cheerleading) Why spend 5 million dollars on a 1 WAR pitcher when we already have 5 AAA pitchers who can do the job?

Back to spending money in free agency for a minute, there was not one player outside of Cano and Burnett that were clear upgrades to this team. Not one player? Even you can't believe that. I do wish we could have gotten in on Fister or Fielder, but this moves both reek of single phone call deals, especially the Fister deal. Before you ask, yes I would take Fielder and his contract too, he may be very fat, but he is an athletic fat, Athletic fat... and I believe the Pirates have one of the better conditioning programs in baseball. Back to the original point, there was no one really worth spending money on in free agency, (aside from all the ones who fit into our budget and can play baseball better than the guys on our roster of course) we made a pretty decent (insultingly low offer) offer to Burnett, but even going up to the QO (still insultingly low) would have enticed him out of the deal he got with Philly. (-signed, a guy who really knows AJ Burnett)

This was the easiest way really.

I'll go ahead and fill in the blanks for the rest of the forum about the information that you've either misinterpreted or misconstrued regarding win values.
Recent article about the cost of a win, slight contradiction compared to Dave Cameron's values:
How Much Does a Win Really Cost? - Beyond the Box Score
The original article about win values:
Win Values Explained: Part Six | FanGraphs Baseball

The newer article puts the cost of a win at about 7 million dollars. The older article is from 2009 and it had the cost of a win at about 4.5 million dollars. You can safely assume that inflation has affected Cameron's values and come up with anywhere between 5 and 7 million dollars per win. I'll split the difference and say 6.
But Cameron points out that this should not be a linear scale. The supply of 1 win players is much greater than the supply of 7 win players. It SHOULDN'T be linear. From the Cameron article:
"Teams just don’t pay exponentially more for higher win value players than they do for average and below players. You could argue that they should (and I would probably agree), but they don’t. The dollar per win scale is linear. "

It would be crazy to pay 6 million dollars per replacement level player. A "replacement-level" roster would generally be expected to win in the neighborhood of 45 games in a 162 game season. A 25-man roster filled with 1 WAR players would cost 150 million dollars according to WAR values, yet it would only be expected to win about 70 games.

Which brings us to Burnett. The difference in WAR between Fangraphs and Baseball Reference is significant due to differences in the way each site calculates their figure. Rather than argue about which site is the best at calculating WAR I'll just average the scores.
Burnett in 2012 - 2.6 WAR. Using the 6 million dollars per win figure from before, his 2012 season was worth 15.6 million dollars
Burnett in 2013 - 2.85 WAR - worth 17.1 million dollars.
Burnett projected in 2014 - 2.53 (4 separate projections on Fangraphs)

Finally - let's check the roster to see if there are any pitchers who are projected to provide more WAR than Burnett in 2014.
Liriano - 2.275
Cole - 2.225
Wandy, Locke, Morton, etc... - smaller WARs than Cole and Liriano.

 

[thecrow124]

This was the easiest way really.

I'll go ahead and fill in the blanks for the rest of the forum about the information that you've either misinterpreted or misconstrued regarding win values.
Recent article about the cost of a win, slight contradiction compared to Dave Cameron's values:
How Much Does a Win Really Cost? - Beyond the Box Score
The original article about win values:
Win Values Explained: Part Six | FanGraphs Baseball

The newer article puts the cost of a win at about 7 million dollars. The older article is from 2009 and it had the cost of a win at about 4.5 million dollars. You can safely assume that inflation has affected Cameron's values and come up with anywhere between 5 and 7 million dollars per win. I'll split the difference and say 6.
But Cameron points out that this should not be a linear scale. The supply of 1 win players is much greater than the supply of 7 win players. It SHOULDN'T be linear. From the Cameron article:
"Teams just don’t pay exponentially more for higher win value players than they do for average and below players. You could argue that they should (and I would probably agree), but they don’t. The dollar per win scale is linear. "

It would be crazy to pay 6 million dollars per replacement level player. A "replacement-level" roster would generally be expected to win in the neighborhood of 45 games in a 162 game season. A 25-man roster filled with 1 WAR players would cost 150 million dollars according to WAR values, yet it would only be expected to win about 70 games.

Which brings us to Burnett. The difference in WAR between Fangraphs and Baseball Reference is significant due to differences in the way each site calculates their figure. Rather than argue about which site is the best at calculating WAR I'll just average the scores.
Burnett in 2012 - 2.6 WAR. Using the 6 million dollars per win figure from before, his 2012 season was worth 15.6 million dollars
Burnett in 2013 - 2.85 WAR - worth 17.1 million dollars.
Burnett projected in 2014 - 2.53 (4 separate projections on Fangraphs)

Finally - let's check the roster to see if there are any pitchers who are projected to provide more WAR than Burnett in 2014.
Liriano - 2.275
Cole - 2.225
Wandy, Locke, Morton, etc... - smaller WARs than Cole and Liriano.

Illinest you completely misinterpret what I was saying and you have to know that you did. The Yankees spent nearly $200 million last year and won 85 games. The Pirates spent $70 million and won 94 games. The relationship I was trying to make is that paying free agents exorbitant amounts of money does not guarantee a playoff baseball team. That is all I was trying to say with my opening comment. Going on to Volquez was not an attempt to quantify spending money, but only to say that I was fine with him on a 1 year $5 million dollar deal because he has the ability to be a 3 WAR pitcher, but has performed lately as a 1 WAR pitcher.

Furthermore, your assumption that Volquez was signed to replace Burnett is not accurate. A full season of Cole and Liriano and to a lesser extent Morton are the replacements for Burnett, Volquez is a replacement for Jonathan Sanchez. Just because he was a free agent pitcher that we signed when our own free agent pitcher left does not in any way make him a replacement for that pitcher. Of course next year when Liriano leaves we will be having this same discussion about whatever pitcher we sign, even though the full seasons of Taillon and Kingham will be the replacement for Liriano.

As for the reasoning of signing a 1 WAR pitcher when we have so many minor league pitchers that are capable of providing that value, there are numerous reasons, but for starters, last year we used 13 starters at the major league level before June. That means we used a pitcher that started the season in AA, just so that we would not have to bring Cole up before his Super 2 date(which I understand is still a best guess scenario). You can never have enough starting pitching. Already this season, Jeff Locke is hurt, so that is one depth/#5 option that will not be around to start the season, he may be pitching, but he will not be stretched out enough to start games at the major league level.

Yes, I do believe that there was not one player outside of Burnett and Cano that were clear upgrades, can you name one? Maybe I am missing something, possibly Ervin Santana, but I want no part of Ubaldo "half season" Jimenez, or any of the steroid guys because there is no guarantee of what you are getting. Don't misinterpret that as I don't think we should spend in free agency, three years ago I was hoping against hope that we would sign Adrian Beltre for whatever the cost, and I was lambasted on the ESPN board because we had Pedro in the system, I would still rather have Beltre. Two years ago I was on the Fielder bandwagon, and I still am. By the way, by "athletic fat" I was referring to the fact that he is huge, but is still very mobile and is not a base clogger. For reference, Garret Jones was a very unathletic skinny.

There is really no point in belaboring the Burnett point further, he signed with Philly on an insane deal, really $23.5 million guaranteed for 1 year, not a wise move by Ruben, but that is just my opinion. Heck on that deal, I don't even think he will be tradable at the deadline when Philly is 15 games out.

As for your calculations, there is not one team in baseball, not one, that has a 25 man roster full of free agent signings, every team has at least 1 player on a league minimum contract. Proper construction of a team would have a mix of team controlled players and free agents….see the St. Louis Cardinals. The construction itself would need to be based on the budget that ownership allows the GM to spend. So for a team like the Cardinals, they can afford to sign a few free agents(3+ WAR players) to larger deals and fill out the rest of their roster with 1-3 WAR players brought up through their system. The Pirates however, cannot afford to construct their roster that way, they need to fill their roster with 1-3 WAR players through free agency and their major talent pool(3+ WAR players) coming from their system.

I realize that you will still disagree with everything I wrote here, just because it seems that that is what you do. However, I don't think either of us is opposed to spending money on free agents, possibly not even on how the money is spent, but where we differ is on the value we place on the player the money is spent on, and outré interpretation of what the purpose of that player is.

 

[Illinest]

Just 1? Okay - Shin Soo Choo.
Another? Napoli.
Another? Beltran.
I've got a few others in mind (and that's just 1B and RF candidates, I'm not even thinking about other positions) but I'm guessing that you can come up with an objection to any of them if you wanted to.

That's the real problem that I have when I talk to you. If I criticize the team then you're immediately looking for reasons to defend Neil. It leads you into contradictions, and then you're forced to make posts like this last one where you try to convince me (and yourself) that you're not really contradicting yourself.
You're more concerned about being contrary than about making sensible arguments and you cite the Cardinals of all teams as an example of the sort of spending that we can't afford - as if St. Louis has some inherent advantage that we'll never be able to match. Our tv and merchandise market traditionally punches way above our weight-class when we put a competitive team on the field. Look at the Penguins this year. TV ratings of nearly 7 when the second best team is around 5. And our population size is not significantly different from St. Louis either. St. Louis is not an example of a city that we can't spend like. It's an example of a city that we should be able to spend like.

 

[thecrow124]

Just 1? Okay - Shin Soo Choo.
Another? Napoli.
Another? Beltran.
I've got a few others in mind (and that's just 1B and RF candidates, I'm not even thinking about other positions) but I'm guessing that you can come up with an objection to any of them if you wanted to.

That's the real problem that I have when I talk to you. If I criticize the team then you're immediately looking for reasons to defend Neil. It leads you into contradictions, and then you're forced to make posts like this last one where you try to convince me (and yourself) that you're not really contradicting yourself.
You're more concerned about being contrary than about making sensible arguments and you cite the Cardinals of all teams as an example of the sort of spending that we can't afford - as if St. Louis has some inherent advantage that we'll never be able to match. Our tv and merchandise market traditionally punches way above our weight-class when we put a competitive team on the field. Look at the Penguins this year. TV ratings of nearly 7 when the second best team is around 5. And our population size is not significantly different from St. Louis either. St. Louis is not an example of a city that we can't spend like. It's an example of a city that we should be able to spend like.

I forgot about Choo..and Ellsbery also for that matter. There really is no argument to be made against Napoli other than he was never going to leave Boston. Beltran is debatable with Polanco so close, especially on a 3 year deal, but you are correct that any of the three would have improved the offense.

I really have no problem with you when we discuss things on here. I do not feel, however, that I defend Neil other than to point out that he is given a budget and has to work within that budget to put the best team possible on the field. I have been very critical of him throughout the years, and was overly critical of him for not extending the QO to Burnett, I thought it was idiotic not to do so. However, none of what we discuss here should be seen as anything more than what it is, we have no idea what goes on in the negotiations with any player. Even the people that report on the dealings with players don't really know. So all I can do is take Neil at his word, if he says he made a similar offer to James Loney that Loney ended up accepting with Tampa, who am I to say that the offer was any worse, better or equal to the Tampa offer? In the end, Loney is in Tampa, which is where he wanted to sign. It just seems to me that you feel that Neil should just go out and overspend on free agents just to get them to come to Pittsburgh. The facts are that he can not afford, nor is he allowed to do that.

I used St. Louis as an example, specifically because of the relative size of the cities. The reason they can spend more money is because they have a positive working capital. They have sold over 3 million tickets for 10 consecutive seasons. Pittsburgh on the other hand, sold 2,256,862 last year which is the second highest total ever in PNC Park. If you use an estimate of $30 dollars for the value of one ticket punch at the gate, then that is $22.5 million more that the Cardinals made just on ticket sales last season, which again was our second best season ever. Over the course of the last 10 years that is a minimum of $225,000,000 more that they could spend than we can spend. That total also does not factor in the extra revenue that St. Louis could bring in from their playoff appearances. Depending on what value you put on this playoff appearances, it could push the annual difference between the two teams to $30 million, which is slightly less than difference that the teams are spending on their opening day rosters. So, by the size of the city, yes Pittsburgh is a large enough city to be able to support a $100 million payroll, but without losing money, there is still a long way to go in the attendance department before the team is there. That is not to say that they could not afford an $80 million budget, because if Burnett had signed for $12 million they would be over that.

So now I ask you, since there is no control over things that happened in the past, do you think the Pirates should try to sign Ervin Santana or Kendrys Morales? I bring them up because they are in essence the only 2 players left on the market that hold any value to help us this year.

I also find it humorous that you lambaste me for using the Cardinals as the basis point for my argument, then you use the Penguins.

 

[Darkstone42]

I forgot about Choo..and Ellsbery also for that matter. There really is no argument to be made against Napoli other than he was never going to leave Boston. Beltran is debatable with Polanco so close, especially on a 3 year deal, but you are correct that any of the three would have improved the offense.

I really have no problem with you when we discuss things on here. I do not feel, however, that I defend Neil other than to point out that he is given a budget and has to work within that budget to put the best team possible on the field. I have been very critical of him throughout the years, and was overly critical of him for not extending the QO to Burnett, I thought it was idiotic not to do so. However, none of what we discuss here should be seen as anything more than what it is, we have no idea what goes on in the negotiations with any player. Even the people that report on the dealings with players don't really know. So all I can do is take Neil at his word, if he says he made a similar offer to James Loney that Loney ended up accepting with Tampa, who am I to say that the offer was any worse, better or equal to the Tampa offer? In the end, Loney is in Tampa, which is where he wanted to sign. It just seems to me that you feel that Neil should just go out and overspend on free agents just to get them to come to Pittsburgh. The facts are that he can not afford, nor is he allowed to do that.

I used St. Louis as an example, specifically because of the relative size of the cities. The reason they can spend more money is because they have a positive working capital. They have sold over 3 million tickets for 10 consecutive seasons. Pittsburgh on the other hand, sold 2,256,862 last year which is the second highest total ever in PNC Park. If you use an estimate of $30 dollars for the value of one ticket punch at the gate, then that is $22.5 million more that the Cardinals made just on ticket sales last season, which again was our second best season ever. Over the course of the last 10 years that is a minimum of $225,000,000 more that they could spend than we can spend. That total also does not factor in the extra revenue that St. Louis could bring in from their playoff appearances. Depending on what value you put on this playoff appearances, it could push the annual difference between the two teams to $30 million, which is slightly less than difference that the teams are spending on their opening day rosters. So, by the size of the city, yes Pittsburgh is a large enough city to be able to support a $100 million payroll, but without losing money, there is still a long way to go in the attendance department before the team is there. That is not to say that they could not afford an $80 million budget, because if Burnett had signed for $12 million they would be over that.

So now I ask you, since there is no control over things that happened in the past, do you think the Pirates should try to sign Ervin Santana or Kendrys Morales? I bring them up because they are in essence the only 2 players left on the market that hold any value to help us this year.

I also find it humorous that you lambaste me for using the Cardinals as the basis point for my argument, then you use the Penguins.

The bold is the only portion I wish to address. I think most of the best, feasible options for upgrades for the Pirates at this point are on the trade market. A guy like Carp or Davis or even Smoak I think we could get for better value and/or get more production out of than Morales.

 

[Illinest]

The Pirates don't have the attendance or the income BECAUSE they don't spend money. Attendance is poor because the product is poor and the product is poor because they aren't willing to commit money toward improving it.

You don't create a shit product and then blame the customers for not buying it.

Now - especially now considering the timeframe on the soon to expire tv broadcast contract - is the time when you ought to be willing to take a loss. Invest in the product. Compete hard for a title. Build interest and good will. Then when you negotiate your new TV deal in 2018 you can enjoy a real competitive advantage for once instead of crying poor all the time. We don't have to be a "small-market" team. No more than the Pens or the Steelers are small market teams. The Pirates are the only one of the three that can't seem to scrape a few dollars together, and you can't blame that on the fans.

 

[thecrow124]

The Pirates don't have the attendance or the income BECAUSE they don't spend money. Attendance is poor because the product is poor and the product is poor because they aren't willing to commit money toward improving it.

You don't create a shit product and then blame the customers for not buying it.

Now - especially now considering the timeframe on the soon to expire tv broadcast contract - is the time when you ought to be willing to take a loss. Invest in the product. Compete hard for a title. Build interest and good will. Then when you negotiate your new TV deal in 2018 you can enjoy a real competitive advantage for once instead of crying poor all the time. We don't have to be a "small-market" team. No more than the Pens or the Steelers are small market teams. The Pirates are the only one of the three that can't seem to scrape a few dollars together, and you can't blame that on the fans.

The Pens and Steelers operate in sports that have salary caps, not a fair comparison.

 

[Illinest]

Baseball has a cap too. It's a soft cap but the big spenders have shown a great deal of reluctance about exceeding the luxury tax threshold. What baseball needs now is a floor.