Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:02 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Karstens still available? Shocking. Utterly shocking. Perhaps NH and Gayo are spreading lies about his age or health and scaring other teams away. Or . . . perhaps . . . he just isn't a much sought out commodity.


Alternatively, Karstens' agent knows that he'll be more valuable in February or early March when teams have injuries or become desperate for starting pitching. But hey, you can take the "reflexively pro-Huntington" position if you like...

Pot, meet kettle.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 1884
Location: Naples, FL
Why don't all free agent pitchers take that approach if it makes them more valuable?

_________________
AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:15 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 4988
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
J_C_Steel wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Karstens still available? Shocking. Utterly shocking. Perhaps NH and Gayo are spreading lies about his age or health and scaring other teams away. Or . . . perhaps . . . he just isn't a much sought out commodity.


Alternatively, Karstens' agent knows that he'll be more valuable in February or early March when teams have injuries or become desperate for starting pitching. But hey, you can take the "reflexively pro-Huntington" position if you like...


It's not a "pro-Huntington" position. It is simultaneously a market analysis and commentary on the "sky is falling" attitude demonstrated by some when Karstens was non-tendered.

If Karstens was truly a valuable, sought after commodity, teams wouldn't be waiting to add him to their roster only after injuries occurred in the Spring. If that is indeed the mindset and approach adopted by other GMs, then they obviously value the players on their roster ahead of Karstens.

I really don't give a damn about whether Jeff Karstens was non-tendered. I see the positives in doing so and see the negatives in doing so. It involved a judgment call. Similar to not concluding that Huntington was an idiot for letting Karstens go, I would not be proclaiming Huntington to be a genius for tendering an offer and going to arbitration. 6 of one; 1/2 dozen of the other. In the big scheme of what is right and what is wrong with the current roster and management structure, the Karstens situation is a non-issue in my eyes.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4441
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Karstens still available? Shocking. Utterly shocking. Perhaps NH and Gayo are spreading lies about his age or health and scaring other teams away. Or . . . perhaps . . . he just isn't a much sought out commodity.


Alternatively, Karstens' agent knows that he'll be more valuable in February or early March when teams have injuries or become desperate for starting pitching. But hey, you can take the "reflexively pro-Huntington" position if you like...

Pot, meet kettle.


I'm not reflexively anti-Huntington. I posted in this very thread that I liked the Liriano signing (though I added the caveat that I would have preferred a one-year deal).

Viewing his overall five-year body of work, I think Huntington should be fired. That doesn't mean all of his moves are bad.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4441
Location: Washington, DC
No. 9 wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Karstens still available? Shocking. Utterly shocking. Perhaps NH and Gayo are spreading lies about his age or health and scaring other teams away. Or . . . perhaps . . . he just isn't a much sought out commodity.


Alternatively, Karstens' agent knows that he'll be more valuable in February or early March when teams have injuries or become desperate for starting pitching. But hey, you can take the "reflexively pro-Huntington" position if you like...


It's not a "pro-Huntington" position. It is simultaneously a market analysis and commentary on the "sky is falling" attitude demonstrated by some when Karstens was non-tendered.

If Karstens was truly a valuable, sought after commodity, teams wouldn't be waiting to add him to their roster only after injuries occurred in the Spring. If that is indeed the mindset and approach adopted by other GMs, then they obviously value the players on their roster ahead of Karstens.

I really don't give a damn about whether Jeff Karstens was non-tendered. I see the positives in doing so and see the negatives in doing so. It involved a judgment call. Similar to not concluding that Huntington was an idiot for letting Karstens go, I would not be proclaiming Huntington to be a genius for tendering an offer and going to arbitration. 6 of one; 1/2 dozen of the other. In the big scheme of what is right and what is wrong with the current roster and management structure, the Karstens situation is a non-issue in my eyes.


I never said the "sky was falling" when the Pirates non-tendered Karstens. All I said was that I thought it was a dumb move. That was my opinion then, and that's still my opinion now.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
I'm not reflexively anti-Huntington. I posted in this very thread that I liked the Liriano signing (though I added the caveat that I would have preferred a one-year deal).

Viewing his overall five-year body of work, I think Huntington should be fired. That doesn't mean all of his moves are bad.

Oh, I see. Grudgingly acknowledging that the Liriano signing was a positive while making sure to qualify your position that Huntington could have done better is an indication that you are not reflexively anti-Huntington. Riiiiiight.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4441
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
I'm not reflexively anti-Huntington. I posted in this very thread that I liked the Liriano signing (though I added the caveat that I would have preferred a one-year deal).

Viewing his overall five-year body of work, I think Huntington should be fired. That doesn't mean all of his moves are bad.

Oh, I see. Grudgingly acknowledging that the Liriano signing was a positive while making sure to qualify your position that Huntington could have done better is an indication that you are not reflexively anti-Huntington. Riiiiiight.


I gave unqualified praise for the A.J. Burnett acquisition, and I wholly supported the Wandy Rodriguez (even as many criticized it). I am certainly not reflexively anti-Huntington.

I came to have a negative opinion on Huntington's overall five-year body of work based on reason and logic, not reflexive criticism.

Meanwhile, you describe Walt Jocketty as "in the dark ages of baseball" while he leads the Reds to the playoffs two of the last three years and has them positioned as the NL Central favorite in 2013.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
I'm not reflexively anti-Huntington. I posted in this very thread that I liked the Liriano signing (though I added the caveat that I would have preferred a one-year deal).

Viewing his overall five-year body of work, I think Huntington should be fired. That doesn't mean all of his moves are bad.

Oh, I see. Grudgingly acknowledging that the Liriano signing was a positive while making sure to qualify your position that Huntington could have done better is an indication that you are not reflexively anti-Huntington. Riiiiiight.


I gave unqualified praise for the A.J. Burnett acquisition, and I wholly supported the Wandy Rodriguez (even as many criticized it). I am certainly not reflexively anti-Huntington.

I came to have a negative opinion on Huntington's overall five-year body of work based on reason and logic, not reflexive criticism.

Meanwhile, you describe Walt Jocketty as "in the dark ages of baseball" while he leads the Reds to the playoffs two of the last three years and has them positioned as the NL Central favorite in 2013.

Being defiantly old-school does not preclude winning, as Jocketty has proven. I just don't think it's a wise way to run an organization long term.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4441
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
Being defiantly old-school does not preclude winning, as Jocketty has proven. I just don't think it's a wise way to run an organization long term.


His long-term success with the Cardinals, including an incredible run from 2000-2006, says otherwise.

We'll see if the Reds peter out or continue to contend and qualify for the playoffs.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:21 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 4988
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
J_C_Steel wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
It's not a "pro-Huntington" position. It is simultaneously a market analysis and commentary on the "sky is falling" attitude demonstrated by some when Karstens was non-tendered.

If Karstens was truly a valuable, sought after commodity, teams wouldn't be waiting to add him to their roster only after injuries occurred in the Spring. If that is indeed the mindset and approach adopted by other GMs, then they obviously value the players on their roster ahead of Karstens.

I really don't give a damn about whether Jeff Karstens was non-tendered. I see the positives in doing so and see the negatives in doing so. It involved a judgment call. Similar to not concluding that Huntington was an idiot for letting Karstens go, I would not be proclaiming Huntington to be a genius for tendering an offer and going to arbitration. 6 of one; 1/2 dozen of the other. In the big scheme of what is right and what is wrong with the current roster and management structure, the Karstens situation is a non-issue in my eyes.


I never said the "sky was falling" when the Pirates non-tendered Karstens. All I said was that I thought it was a dumb move. That was my opinion then, and that's still my opinion now.


I never levied any such accusation towards you. You were the one who jumped on my post and accused me of being "reflexively pro-Huntington."

There are any number of teams who could add a quality 4th or 5th slot starting pitcher. Thus far, I have yet to read one article identifying that any team is clamoring to replace one of their existing 4th or 5th starters with Jeff Karstens. And if Karstens was widely viewed by other scouts and GMs as a valuable commodity, why would any team wait to sign him at risk of some other team jumping in and signing him? That doesn't make any sense to me.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
Being defiantly old-school does not preclude winning, as Jocketty has proven. I just don't think it's a wise way to run an organization long term.


His long-term success with the Cardinals, including an incredible run from 2000-2006, says otherwise.

We'll see if the Reds peter out or continue to contend and qualify for the playoffs.

Jocketty's long term success with the Cardinals happened in 2000-2006, i.e., the past. It's been over 6 years since Jocketty's hey day with the Cards and the information we have available has greatly increased since then. Jocketty's success with the Reds thus far has been decidedly short term, and it's been largely with players provided by Wayne Krivsky. We will see how long Jocketty can keep this going, particularly with his manager who has a proclivity for burning out young arms.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
I'm not reflexively anti-Huntington. I posted in this very thread that I liked the Liriano signing (though I added the caveat that I would have preferred a one-year deal).

Viewing his overall five-year body of work, I think Huntington should be fired. That doesn't mean all of his moves are bad.

Oh, I see. Grudgingly acknowledging that the Liriano signing was a positive while making sure to qualify your position that Huntington could have done better is an indication that you are not reflexively anti-Huntington. Riiiiiight.


I gave unqualified praise for the A.J. Burnett acquisition, and I wholly supported the Wandy Rodriguez (even as many criticized it). I am certainly not reflexively anti-Huntington.

Ahem:
viewtopic.php?p=99829#p99829
J_C_Steel wrote:
OK. I'll say it. I think this money would be better spent on an extension for McCutchen. That is all.

viewtopic.php?p=99835#p99835
J_C_Steel wrote:
I'm not sold on Burnett's motivation. I know Paul Maholm's motivation. Also, exercising the Maholm option would only put the Pirates on the hook for ONE YEAR and, by all accounts, would be for less total money than Burnett ($9.75 million versus $10-12 million).

I can't say I'm dead set against trading for Burnett. I'm not. I'm just very lukewarm to it.

viewtopic.php?p=99842#p99842
J_C_Steel wrote:
As for Burnett, he wouldn't necessarily be an awful acquisition, and he may help the club, but I don't think trading for the Yankees' worst starting pitcher screams "commitment to winning."

viewtopic.php?p=99850#p99850
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
And yet, I never saw you say anything to the effect of "The Pirates are better off spending Maholm's money on a long-term extension for McCutchen". Yet that's exactly what you said regarding Burnett. Why is that?


Because I advocated exercising a one-year option on Maholm that would have resulted in less of a monetary commitment than the Pirates are considering with respect to Burnett. Also, I've made my view of what I believe the PBC's priorities should be perfectly clear, such that I don't believe I have to mention my opinion as it relates to McCutchen with every post.

I chose to raise it here because I'm quite skeptical about the acquisition of Burnett, who would cost more money than Maholm and also one or two minor league players.

viewtopic.php?p=99850#p99850
J_C_Steel wrote:
Ah. Of course, A.J. Burnett is also a 35-year-old pitcher who has lost about 2 miles per hour off of his average fastball over the last few years (in 2008, the first season in which PitchFX cameras were installed in every ballpark in baseball, Burnett's fastball clocked in at an average of 94.3 mph; last year it was down to 92.7). Understanding that older players do not always regress in step-by-step fashion, it's distinctly possible that any surge in productivity that Burnett would see by virtue of moving to the Pirates and N.L. Central would be off-set (or more than off-set) by declining skills.

Oh, and PNC Park is not a panacea for right-handed starters. That short porch in right field won't necessarily help A.J. keep it in the park.

I've read the Fangraphs piece and I've read several other reports from scouts and individuals who saw Burnett pitch over the last couple of seasons. There does not seem to be a consensus that Burnett would really help the Pirates, Willton. He may; he may not.


You don't have a very good memory, do you?

Also, from the same thread:
J_C_Steel wrote:
And I'd be shocked -- SHOCKED -- if Burnett posted 200 innings and a 3.65 ERA in Pittsburgh in 2012. He's a 35-year-old right-handed pitcher with declining (albeit still pretty good) velocity and shaky control. I'll root for him, but those results would be shocking to me.

So, how does it feel to be shocked? By the way, your boy John Lannan is still available. :twisted:

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:35 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 4903
Speaking of Maholm, he's a FA after this year... might be a decent fit with this team.

---

Also, per Loshe, doesn't he cost the team that signs him a draft pick?

Does Marcum?

If Marcum does not, he would appear to be the better candidate to pursue (if any and other than Karstens).

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4441
Location: Washington, DC
That must've taken some time, Willton. Mid-season I admitted that I was wrong about Burnett and that it was a great acquisition. How 'bout you look up those quotes?

And I was on board with the Wandy trade from the start.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4441
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
By the way, your boy John Lannan is still available. :twisted:


If Liriano falls through, Lannan would be a solid back-up plan.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
That must've taken some time, Willton. Mid-season I admitted that I was wrong about Burnett and that it was a great acquisition. How 'bout you look up those quotes?

And I was on board with the Wandy trade from the start.

Never said that you weren't. I just contested your assertion that "I gave unqualified praise for the A.J. Burnett acquisition." And, as you can see from your own writing, your view of the Burnett acquisition was more qualified than it was praise. In fact, "qualified" is an understatement; you flatly did not like it.

Conveniently, all of those quotes came from one thread.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7106
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
By the way, your boy John Lannan is still available. :twisted:


If Liriano falls through, Lannan would be a solid back-up plan.



Lannan signed with Philly before Christmas.

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4441
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
Never said that you weren't. I just contested your assertion that "I gave unqualified praise for the A.J. Burnett acquisition." And, as you can see from your own writing, your view of the Burnett acquisition was more qualified than it was praise. In fact, "qualified" is an understatement; you flatly did not like it.


I did give unqualified praise for it -- mid-season. I was wrong in my initial assessment. I never said "I gave unqualified praise for the A.J. Burnett acquisition right when it happened."


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4441
Location: Washington, DC
nad69dan wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
By the way, your boy John Lannan is still available. :twisted:


If Liriano falls through, Lannan would be a solid back-up plan.


Lannan signed with Philly before Christmas.


Wow. Willton was wrong. That never happens.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:29 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:40 am
Posts: 69
Marcum would cost us our 14th over al draft pick, that is why no one has offered him a contract. If it fails through with fransico dont sign anyone use the money at the deadline or next off season.
We have 4 of the 5 roation spots locked up all ready without fransico let oliver,willson,micpherson and locke compete for the 5th spot.

NSMaster56 wrote:
Speaking of Maholm, he's a FA after this year... might be a decent fit with this team.

---

Also, per Loshe, doesn't he cost the team that signs him a draft pick?

Does Marcum?

If Marcum does not, he would appear to be the better candidate to pursue (if any and other than Karstens).


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], No. 9 and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits