OT: Raise the Jolly Roger: Offseason at the Crossroads

Status
Not open for further replies.

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678


Pretty good value there. One thing that could be disappointing is if we could assemble a deeper and better set of platoons with a couple one-off deals like this -- Cabrera, Iglesias, Lowrie, and so forth. This is why the Machado acquisition would make so much sense; we'd like to have some playing time for guys like Frazier, Moran, Kang, and it does make sense to see what they can bring. We could pretty much overhaul the entire infield and try to get better production, or we could get it all in one place.
 

Winger for Hire

Praise Beebo
Dec 9, 2013
13,058
1,692
Quarantine Zone 5
I haven't seen it officially anywhere, just had a friend mention it in a text thread... but apparently Ron Cook turned in a HoF ballot with only Rivera checked. What a disgrace.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
He's probably the most arrogant and dumb member of the Pittsburgh sports media, which is an accomplishment, although Paul Zeise seems to give him a run for his money. Is Bob Smizik still alive?
 

pistolpete11

Registered User
Apr 27, 2013
11,592
10,401
I haven't seen it officially anywhere, just had a friend mention it in a text thread... but apparently Ron Cook turned in a HoF ballot with only Rivera checked. What a disgrace.
What would the reason be for not voting for Halladay? Longevity? Whether I agree with him or not, I can at least see the reason he wouldn't vote for the steroid guys and Edgar Martinez being a DH. I don't see much of a reason to not vote for Halladay, though.

Is there somebody else I'm missing?
 

turd

Registered User
Feb 1, 2013
2,943
1,387
I haven't seen it officially anywhere, just had a friend mention it in a text thread... but apparently Ron Cook turned in a HoF ballot with only Rivera checked. What a disgrace.
I listened to the segment today on The Fan when him and Starkey talked about it. Let me preface this by saying that I honestly have no idea who’s even eligible for it. But I don’t understand what the problem is with how he voted? Maybe he thought that, given all the criteria the HOF sets forward, that Rivera is the only one who meets it? That’s basically what he said today. I don’t have a problem with that. Some people think Bonds/Clemens/Rose/Etc deserve to be in and others disagree. What’s the issue?
 

Winger for Hire

Praise Beebo
Dec 9, 2013
13,058
1,692
Quarantine Zone 5
I get the Edgar DH argument... don't agree but get it... but isn't a reliever in the same boat?

How can you vote for a guy who pitches about 78 innings a season, appears in 67 games, and never bats, but not vote for a guy who gets a full season of plate appearances but fields maybe once or twice a year?

The reliever is the DH of defense, simplistically. Relievers are pitchers who can't cut it starting.

Some people think Bonds/Clemens/Rose/Etc deserve to be in and others disagree. What’s the issue?

The issue is the ballot structure and voting rules.

Players "fall off the ballot" after either 10 yrs of failing to meet the 75% threshold or a single year of under, I think, 5% and with the weird stance of some writers refusing to vote for Bonds, Clemens, Edgar, and others, the ballot has become very crowded. Which brings into effect the rule that the most you can vote for one your ballot is 10 players, even if you feel there are more deserving.

The crowded ballot in the past 3 years or so has pushed off very viable candidates like Kevin Brown, Jim Edmonds, and Johan Santana because a lot of writers have to keep voting for Bonds, et al. So very deserving guys are failing to be able to get serious consideration because there are historically great players going on their 7th year on the ballot.

And the steroids thing is a load of shite because there's guys like Ivan Rodriguez with ties to steroids getting elected and other hitters from the era getting voted in.
 
Last edited:

pistolpete11

Registered User
Apr 27, 2013
11,592
10,401
I get the Edgar DH argument... don't agree but get it... but isn't a reliever in the same boat?

How can you vote for a guy who pitches about 78 innings a season, appears in 67 games, and never bats, but not vote for a guy who gets a full season of plate appearances but fields maybe once or twice a year?

The reliever is the DH of defense, simplistically. Relievers are pitchers who can't cut it starting.
Rivera is the best reliever ever, but Edgar isn't the best hitter ever? I don't know. Just guessing.
 

Winger for Hire

Praise Beebo
Dec 9, 2013
13,058
1,692
Quarantine Zone 5
Rivera is the best reliever ever, but Edgar isn't the best hitter ever? I don't know. Just guessing.

Why should we segment pitchers and judge hitters as a whole player?

Rivera was indeed one of the best, if not the best, reliever ever, but not even close to one of the best pitchers.

Edgar was one of the best, if not the best, DH of all time, but not even close to being one of the best position players.
 

pistolpete11

Registered User
Apr 27, 2013
11,592
10,401
I listened to the segment today on The Fan when him and Starkey talked about it. Let me preface this by saying that I honestly have no idea who’s even eligible for it. But I don’t understand what the problem is with how he voted? Maybe he thought that, given all the criteria the HOF sets forward, that Rivera is the only one who meets it? That’s basically what he said today. I don’t have a problem with that. Some people think Bonds/Clemens/Rose/Etc deserve to be in and others disagree. What’s the issue?
Based on some "HoF monitor' thing on Baseball-Reference, the top guys are:

Bonds
Clemens
Manny Ramirez
Rivera
Sosa
Helton
Schilling
Sheffield
Tejada
Walker
Edgar Martinez
Pettitte
Halladay
Jeff Kent
Mussina


I agree, it's not that outrageous he only voted for Rivera. I believe I've heard Cook talk about it in years past and he brings up the character clause. That's a Baseball HoF requirement. Some guys ignore it, but Cook takes it more seriously. He doesn't in football because it's not a requirement. In his mind, he's following the guidelines told to him by the respective HoF's. I might not necessarily agree, but it's a defensible position IMO.

It also depends where you fall on the Hall of Fame vs. Hall of Very Good. I've always been of the mindset that there should be an 'inner circle' of the truly elite guys (500HR, 3,000 hits, 300 W's type of guys) and then the rest.

Why should we segment pitchers and judge hitters as a whole player?

Rivera was indeed one of the best, if not the best, reliever ever, but not even close to one of the best pitchers.

Edgar was one of the best, if not the best, DH of all time, but not even close to being one of the best position players.
It's a fair point. I don't really agree with him, just trying to think of what the reason could be.
 

Winger for Hire

Praise Beebo
Dec 9, 2013
13,058
1,692
Quarantine Zone 5
I could understand Cook saying he's a "Small Hall of Fame" voter, but that goes out the window when you see he voted for Craig Biggio, who I believe is a Hall of Famer but doesn't really cut it if you're voting for a Small Hall.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
He is the non-verified anonymous account who does seem to have some sources placed close to the Pirates. At this point I am actually more on the side of us being in the mix, as truly ludicrous as it sounds. I have no idea of the odds or anything, and think that a totally reasonable read of the situation is that Gomez/Machado's family are putting out unverifiable rumors to drive up the price, but on the assumption that Machado's market has stalled at 25M AAV, I could see us try to enter in with the short-term offer.

Where I really can't see much plausibility is the idea of a mega-contract that carries a high AAV, or even a high AAV that then tapers off slightly and includes an out clause. If we're actually willing to do the one, we should be willing to do the other, but it's too far away from the MO, whereas the circumstantial evidence + a maxed out contract making the payroll 102M or so at the most lead me to believe there's been some real discussion/offer.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
Here's Perrotto:



He goes on to cite a source directly telling him this, but given his track record, this is great news. He filed a story on the Dodgers and Marte, but quickly backpedaled from it. He does go on to say that the only way it would work would be a short-term deal like 3/90M.

I think the latter point is probably right as I said above, but I don't actually see how it's terribly different from a longer deal which frontloads the same amount of money and has an opt-out clause. At the very worst, you end up needing to trade him when he's 29 or 30 and still has a pretty high AAV but not disastrously so. It's not like the new CBA would make his contract a burden, and the smart bet is that he would choose to opt out for a better payday.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: td_ice

TimmyD

Registered User
Nov 11, 2013
4,819
2,864
Greensburg, PA
I feel like the longer he goes unsigned the more inclined I am to believe the Pirates are making a push at least. That’s based on nothing but gut feeling and probably false hope
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
I feel like the longer he goes unsigned the more inclined I am to believe the Pirates are making a push at least. That’s based on nothing but gut feeling and probably false hope

I agree, including gut feeling/false hope. The most interesting aspect in all of this to me concerns the potential weighing of a guaranteed short-term deal for 3/90M or so vs the mediocre long-term offer from the White Sox. It could be the case that teams are too hesitant to commit to a player for so long at a premium, and so in that case, would you take the money or would you take the security?

If that speculation is true, I think that's where the Pirates would need to try and press their offer further. You have to view the later years of the contract as a strategic gamble. In the absolute worst case scenario, Machado's defense declines to just solid/above average at 3B, and he maintains good power numbers with less speed. I'm not sure his hit tool is elite, but I just can't see any scenario where he really becomes an albatross. In the worst of all situations, you might have to pay down a bit of the contract and find an AL suitor who needs power at both 3B and DH, which hurts any trade. But even that's a stretch, because he'd be 30 or so when this potential trade was taking shape.

I think if that's all true, you have to step up and give the security as a fallback, and hope it ends up as a three year deal with an out clause. Maybe you negotiate it so that it's an 8 year contract and has a mutual or club option for that final eighth year or something, so that you'd plan to have him for the three years of the window, and then either look to trade or opt out, and worst case, you have a pretty big contract of 4 years that you need to start shopping.

Because otherwise, if he's going to entertain a 3/90M offer from us or something, it's hard to imagine several other teams, most especially the Phillies, not matching it. The Phillies could work it so that they could get Harper long-term and Machado short-term. I don't think short-term is going to be enough for the Pirates - they would have to do the absolute shocker and give the long-term with high AAV, and either plan for a CBA opt-out, or take the leap of faith and figure out what to do in 2021 or 2022 with the remaining years.
 

turd

Registered User
Feb 1, 2013
2,943
1,387
What the hell would be the point of signing Machado if they ain’t going to do anything else to make the team better? Just so the FO could say “See, now you can’t say we never do anything,” meanwhile they really haven’t done anything.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
What? They are a fringe WC team even if they do nothing, and not even bring in slightly over replacement level players like Galvis or others. If you insert a superstar 6+ WAR player into the lineup, they are firmly in the NL WC hunt and likely in the hunt for the division.

The point of signing Machado is pretty simple: it checks off all the boxes of need at the weakest position. The reasons it won't happen are plentiful, chief among them the fact that he'd basically be paid double the salary of anyone the team has ever had, and Huntington's conservatism. But if they somehow signed him to whatever kind of deal, even if it had an opt-out next offseason, it would be some pretty galaxy brain shit to say it boils down to throwing the fans a meaningless bone. Jesus Christ...
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,140
3,678
NL Notes: Realmuto, Dodgers, Braves, Markakis, Cardinals, Gray

This is at least somewhat worth monitoring, although there's a massive and obvious difference between Cervelli and Realmuto. The question would be if the Dodgers would be inclined to take Cervelli as a stopgap without giving up much for him. In that case, I'd put even more credence in the Machado push, because the payroll would be dipping so absurdly low that it's hard to see things turning out well at all in terms of fan relations. Whereas with where it is now, after a depth signing or two, it will be feasible for them to go into the season with talk of flexibility to add at the deadline and so forth, especially if a young player is extended too.

That said, there seems to be little reason for the Dodgers to do this. Cervelli's reputation is very good, and his CS numbers are solid last year, but between some of the other peripherals and the injury worry, I don't think the Dodgers would be that interested. If they hadn't gotten Martin, I'd be way more inclined to speculate on the possibility, because if you subtract Cervelli's salary, we could pay Machado 35M and still have a payroll of 90M.

I hope we see the market start to move pretty quick. The frustrating thing is that in all likelihood our target is somebody like Galvis, and that market is going to stay stuck until Machado is swooped up anyways. The way this offseason is going, it seems totally plausible that neither Harper nor Machado could have contracts a month from now.
 

Winger for Hire

Praise Beebo
Dec 9, 2013
13,058
1,692
Quarantine Zone 5
My whole commute this take was rolling around in my head. Let's just do some quick and dirty napkin math-

Even with a giant black hole at SS, most people see the 2019 Pirates as anywhere from a 76 - 86 win team. Newman are Gonzo are projected to return, combined 0.2 WAR, so they are basically your replacement players. Manny regularly returns anywhere from 3 to 7 WAR (depending on his positions, his WAR rises when he gets innings at the weakest position of SS), so let's split the middle and call him a 5 WAR player. Tack that value on to the Pirates' projections and they suddenly look like a healthy 81-91 win team.

And that's just looking at numbers and projections. Let's look at the team makeup. Machado gives them a clean and clear 3/4 hitter. That allows other players to fall into a more natural lineup role; Marte can slide into the 2 hole and use his speed and not worry about his power, Bell doesn't have to worry about tapping into his power ceiling because 18 - 20 homers with good OBP behind Machado works, Kang and Moran's platoon looks slightly better and Kang doesn't have to hit the ground running, Polanco gets some extra time to rehab and becomes very interesting cleanup hitter behind Marte, Machado, Dickerson can slide into a more comfortable role as the 6/7 hitter cleaning up the scraps from the meat. Putting these players into more fitting roles for their talents and easing some of the pressure off of them will help them produce at a higher level and the team will benefit.

Would it be nice to add Machado plus someone else? You betcha, but you can't look at the Pirates currently then look at Machado and say, "Well, he's not going to make a difference".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WheresRamziAbid
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->