Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:25 am

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 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: 5388
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
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4823
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
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4823
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: 7196
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
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4823
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
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4823
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
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:06 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:
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."

Ah, I see. You were willing to give unqualified praise for the Burnett trade when it was impossible to credibly do otherwise (i.e., after he had proven that he was on pace to do that which you had previously stated you would be shocked to see). I guess we should just forget about how much you panned the trade in February (i.e., an instance that could be characterized as being "reflexively anti-Huntington").

Given your contrary positions, perhaps you should be a bit more specific about the timeline when you say "I gave unqualified praise for the A.J. Burnett acquisition." Otherwise, I suggest you not throw stones at No. 9 for being "reflexively pro-Huntington".

_________________
"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 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4823
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
Ah, I see. You were willing to give unqualified praise for the Burnett trade when it was impossible to credibly do otherwise (i.e., after he had proven that he was on pace to do that which you had previously stated you would be shocked to see). I guess we should just forget about how much you panned the trade in February (i.e., an instance that could be characterized as being "reflexively anti-Huntington").

Given your contrary positions, perhaps you should be a bit more specific about the timeline when you say "I gave unqualified praise for the A.J. Burnett acquisition." Otherwise, I suggest you not throw stones at No. 9 for being "reflexively pro-Huntington".


If I was reflexively anti-Huntington, I wouldn't have supported the Wandy trade when it happened. It was mildly controversial, and several posters expressed criticism of the trade, yet I defended Huntington's move.

If I'm reflexively anti-Huntington, why did I do that?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:06 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:
Ah, I see. You were willing to give unqualified praise for the Burnett trade when it was impossible to credibly do otherwise (i.e., after he had proven that he was on pace to do that which you had previously stated you would be shocked to see). I guess we should just forget about how much you panned the trade in February (i.e., an instance that could be characterized as being "reflexively anti-Huntington").

Given your contrary positions, perhaps you should be a bit more specific about the timeline when you say "I gave unqualified praise for the A.J. Burnett acquisition." Otherwise, I suggest you not throw stones at No. 9 for being "reflexively pro-Huntington".


If I was reflexively anti-Huntington, I wouldn't have supported the Wandy trade when it happened. It was mildly controversial, and several posters expressed criticism of the trade, yet I defended Huntington's move.

If I'm reflexively anti-Huntington, why did I do that?

Look, alright, you're not absolutely reflexively anti-Huntington. But you rarely have a good thing to say about Huntington's moves, and when there is uncertainty regarding whether the outcome of one will be positive or negative, you regularly side with the negative. In fact, other than the Wandy trade, I'm not aware of you ever praising NH for a move he made until the outcome has become certain. Sure, you can claim that you're being objective, but when you develop a regular pattern of negative commentary, it's easy to characterize you as being "in the tank" against Huntington, much like many of us think you are "in the tank" with Kovacevic.

My only comment was to note that if you are going to paint No. 9 as being "reflexively pro-Huntington" (which I think is unwarranted), then perhaps you should check yourself on that front. No. 9 is no more reflexive in his comments regarding NH than you are.

_________________
"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 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4823
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
Look, alright, you're not absolutely reflexively anti-Huntington. But you rarely have a good thing to say about Huntington's moves, and when there is uncertainty regarding whether the outcome of one will be positive or negative, you regularly side with the negative. In fact, other than the Wandy trade, I'm not aware of you ever praising NH for a move he made until the outcome has become certain. Sure, you can claim that you're being objective, but when you develop a regular pattern of negative commentary, it's easy to characterize you as being "in the tank" against Huntington, much like many of us think you are "in the tank" with Kovacevic.

My only comment was to note that if you are going to paint No. 9 as being "reflexively pro-Huntington" (which I think is unwarranted), then perhaps you should check yourself on that front. No. 9 is no more reflexive in his comments regarding NH than you are.


I was also effusively praising NH for the Andrew McCutchen extension. Effusively. At the time it was entered into.

And fair enough on No. 9 -- I've seen him be critical of NH. So neither of us are "reflexive" in our views.

And I will admit that, given the full context of his work, I am unlikely to give NH and his team the benefit of the doubt on a move. Why? Because of the lack of results he's gotten over the first five years of his tenure and because of the bad moves he's made, particularly at the MLB level. But I will certainly recognize his good moves.

Now, without Liriano, who had some potential to do well at PNC Park and out of the AL, the Pirates' rotation is looking MIGHTY THIN. Unless NH can bring in a solid #3-type starting pitcher, I'm seeing 70 wins as a stretch for this group...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:38 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
This might have been NH's best signing yet! :lol:
This organization is so funny.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7196
Ryann wrote:
This might have been NH's best signing yet! :lol:
This organization is so funny.


And how is this Huntington's fault that Liriano got hurt?

_________________
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: Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6076
Location: Keystone State
Ryann wrote:
This might have been NH's best signing yet! :lol:
This organization is so funny.


Except that he never signed. That's why they give them physicals.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:58 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:42 pm
Posts: 864
Just got it on good authority that the Pirates will be resigning Karstens.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:11 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5388
rellimie wrote:
Just got it on good authority that the Pirates will be resigning Karstens.


That would be nice to see.

---

Per Liriano...

While these developments suck (it's a lazy word, but apt :) ), isn't it possible that this could be a 'good thing'?

Maybe this will drive down his price tag a little and the Bucs can still sign him for a little less now?

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pirates To Sign Francisco Liriano
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7196
NSMaster56 wrote:
Maybe this will drive down his price tag a little and the Bucs can still sign him for a little less now?


Has it come out yet as to what the injury actually is?

Maybe offer a one year deal for 2/3 the for this season with a performance option for the 2nd year at the value of what the 2nd year of his contract was supposed to be.

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

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


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: RTJR and 7 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