Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:56 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:47 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1081
My opinion is I don't care if Bob Nutting makes one cent off of being the Pirates owner. I am a fan with Zero interest in his interests. He bought the team for 92 million and Forbes estimates their value at $479 million. I don't give a shit what factors you want to toss in but he made tens upon tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars off of his purchasing of the Pirates. Pardon me on this site if I find the defenders of Bob Nuttings bank account laughable. He bought a crap product that was the absolute worst for 20 years and it is not like it was a shocker how pathetic team he purchased.

Right now Bob, and his appointed crew, have lots and lots of cash sitting around with quite a few holes and few answers for the holes. You may sell they don't have holes but they do. They have run things for 7 years of drafts plus the trades with multiple 'near ready' guys involved plus Latin American opportunities there before the cap. They still have the holes. You can compare them to everyone else come free agemt time. Throw around terms like market value. But name me another team that had a top 3 or 4 pick 6 or 7 years in a row, EACH ROUND, and after 7 years can't produce at least average players, then wants to cry poor or talk market value, and I got ZERO sympathy.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6210
Location: Keystone State
Lots of cash sitting around? And you know this how?

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10726
Dr. Phibes wrote:
Right now Bob, and his appointed crew, have lots and lots of cash sitting around with quite a few holes and few answers for the holes. You may sell they don't have holes but they do. They have run things for 7 years of drafts plus the trades with multiple 'near ready' guys involved plus Latin American opportunities there before the cap. They still have the holes. You can compare them to everyone else come free agemt time. Throw around terms like market value. But name me another team that had a top 3 or 4 pick 6 or 7 years in a row, EACH ROUND, and after 7 years can't produce at least average players, then wants to cry poor or talk market value, and I got ZERO sympathy.

I am at a loss, quite frankly, as to your criticism.

That the Pirates owners are not spending enough of their revenue on payroll? The Pirates' revenue last year was $178 million, which ranked 27th out of 30 MLB teams.

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/

The Pirates' 2013 end-of-year payroll was $79 million, which ranked 20th among MLB teams.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamond ... llies.html

Your central precept, i.e., that the Pirates' ownership is not spending enough on player salary relative to their revenues, is therefore completely refuted by the data.

Further, the Pirates' profit margin is small. The figures released in 2010 showed that the Pirates earned a profit of $5 million in 2009.

$5 million ... or about 1/2 the cost of a middling starting pitcher on the FA market.

Finally, the point has been made very well by others, and I need not repeat it here - specifically, that the Pirates are not able to compete for veteran players by outbidding other teams for their service. The Pirates have a different - and successful - approach: They use their money to trade for and sign young, high-value talent, both in the draft and the Latin American market.

That approach has brought the team Andrew McCutchen, Pedro Alvarez, Neil Walker, Gerrit Cole, Justin Wilson, Tony Watson, Jose Tabata, Mark Melancon, Jameson Taillon, Nick Kingham, Luis Heredia, Tyler Glasnow, Tony Sanchez, Gregory Polanco, Alen Hanson, Reese McGuire, Austin Meadows, Josh Bell, and on and on.

That approach has turned a 70 win team with zero - and I mean ZERO - blue-chip arms and almost no legitimate talent on the horizon into a playoff team with a top-3 minor league system, with several top-tier, blue-chip young players.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:29 am 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 328
Bucfan wrote:
Dr. Phibes wrote:
Right now Bob, and his appointed crew, have lots and lots of cash sitting around with quite a few holes and few answers for the holes. You may sell they don't have holes but they do. They have run things for 7 years of drafts plus the trades with multiple 'near ready' guys involved plus Latin American opportunities there before the cap. They still have the holes. You can compare them to everyone else come free agemt time. Throw around terms like market value. But name me another team that had a top 3 or 4 pick 6 or 7 years in a row, EACH ROUND, and after 7 years can't produce at least average players, then wants to cry poor or talk market value, and I got ZERO sympathy.

I am at a loss, quite frankly, as to your criticism.

That the Pirates owners are not spending enough of their revenue on payroll? The Pirates' revenue last year was $178 million, which ranked 27th out of 30 MLB teams.

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/

The Pirates' 2013 end-of-year payroll was $79 million, which ranked 20th among MLB teams.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamond ... llies.html

Your central precept, i.e., that the Pirates' ownership is not spending enough on player salary relative to their revenues, is therefore completely refuted by the data.

Further, the Pirates' profit margin is small. The figures released in 2010 showed that the Pirates earned a profit of $5 million in 2009.

$5 million ... or about 1/2 the cost of a middling starting pitcher on the FA market.

Finally, the point has been made very well by others, and I need not repeat it here - specifically, that the Pirates are not able to compete for veteran players by outbidding other teams for their service. The Pirates have a different - and successful - approach: They use their money to trade for and sign young, high-value talent, both in the draft and the Latin American market.

That approach has brought the team Andrew McCutchen, Pedro Alvarez, Neil Walker, Gerrit Cole, Justin Wilson, Tony Watson, Jose Tabata, Mark Melancon, Jameson Taillon, Nick Kingham, Luis Heredia, Tyler Glasnow, Tony Sanchez, Gregory Polanco, Alen Hanson, Reese McGuire, Austin Meadows, Josh Bell, and on and on.

That approach has turned a 70 win team with zero - and I mean ZERO - blue-chip arms and almost no legitimate talent on the horizon into a playoff team with a top-3 minor league system, with several top-tier, blue-chip young players.


According to Bloomberg.com the Pirates had revenues of $185 + $35 net gain from revenue sharing. That is $220 million
http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2 ... alues.html

Those numbers wouldn't yet include the new TV money or the post season windfall.

When Deadspin released the Pirates financials from 2007 and 2008 it was found their payroll was 34% of revenues. In those years the average MLB team had a major league payroll of 50% of revenues. Now league average is between 40%-45%. Those leaked financials showed the Pirates made a profit of $14.5 million in 2008 and $15 million in 2007. If the Bloomberg estimates are correct (and I believe they are close) the Pirates are still spending well below 40% of revenues on payroll. 40% of $220 million would be $88 million. The bottom line is there is plenty of data to back up the claims that the Pirates are not spending enough on payroll.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:33 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2499
Location: Tejas
Bucfan wrote:
StarlingArcher wrote:
We think it's there but we have no evidence that Polanco, TSanchez, and the AAA pitchers will pan out. They might. They might not. If they don't, we're in a pinch. Maybe we figure out that Taillon just isn't likely to be more than a 4. That's fine, we need a 4 starter.

I understand the point. Yes, Taillon may turn out to be a 175 IP, 4.10 ERA, 4.00 FIP, 150 K, 1.30 WHIP guy - which is what a good number 4 generally gives a team.

But what No. 4 do you know who deals at 97 mph with a hammer curve?


Burnett wasn't too far off of that in NYC, in terms of both numbers and stuff.

I'm not saying it's likely. I'm just saying that we can't assume we have several positions filled at this stage of the game because if we don't, we're in a worse situation than we are now since we'd have tied up too much payroll in other spots prematurely.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4238
Location: Zelienople, PA
mjdouble wrote:

When Deadspin released the Pirates financials from 2007 and 2008 it was found their payroll was 34% of revenues. In those years the average MLB team had a major league payroll of 50% of revenues. Now league average is between 40%-45%. Those leaked financials showed the Pirates made a profit of $14.5 million in 2008 and $15 million in 2007. If the Bloomberg estimates are correct (and I believe they are close) the Pirates are still spending well below 40% of revenues on payroll. 40% of $220 million would be $88 million. The bottom line is there is plenty of data to back up the claims that the Pirates are not spending enough on payroll.


Nice to see the Nutting is cheap crowd has changed their monikers.

Using data from 2007 and 2008 to compare to 2013 - yep that makes sense. Especially when you look at status of team at those respective times.

It may well be that the MLB roster got 35% of revenue in 2008, and thank god for it. I wanted to see those revenues spent in signing talent, not bringing in the next old and washed up player for a 90 loss team. Not to mention how diverting the monies away from the Dominican Academy and drafts would have affected this past year.

I mean, if those monies were diverted from paying over slot or sighing Dominican players, you could still have your 88 lost team in 2013 and going forward. But, I suspect you might be secretly happy about that because you could still say "cheap Nuttings".

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:11 am 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 328
ZelieMike wrote:
mjdouble wrote:

When Deadspin released the Pirates financials from 2007 and 2008 it was found their payroll was 34% of revenues. In those years the average MLB team had a major league payroll of 50% of revenues. Now league average is between 40%-45%. Those leaked financials showed the Pirates made a profit of $14.5 million in 2008 and $15 million in 2007. If the Bloomberg estimates are correct (and I believe they are close) the Pirates are still spending well below 40% of revenues on payroll. 40% of $220 million would be $88 million. The bottom line is there is plenty of data to back up the claims that the Pirates are not spending enough on payroll.


Nice to see the Nutting is cheap crowd has changed their monikers.

Using data from 2007 and 2008 to compare to 2013 - yep that makes sense. Especially when you look at status of team at those respective times.

It may well be that the MLB roster got 35% of revenue in 2008, and thank god for it. I wanted to see those revenues spent in signing talent, not bringing in the next old and washed up player for a 90 loss team. Not to mention how diverting the monies away from the Dominican Academy and drafts would have affected this past year.

I mean, if those monies were diverted from paying over slot or sighing Dominican players, you could still have your 88 lost team in 2013 and going forward. But, I suspect you might be secretly happy about that because you could still say "cheap Nuttings".

ZM

I'm giving you the figures from 2008 to show you that

A) they were taking a sizable profits in those years
B) they haven't significantly raised the percentage of revenue invested in payroll.

They were paying around 35% of revenues in 2008 and they are still doing that. It is true they spent a lot on overslot deals, especially in 2010 and 2011. However, the payroll also had a big drop after the 2009 season, going from $50 million to $35 million. That is all ancient history to me. What I care about is what is going on now. The Pirates get a pat on the back for increasing payroll but they really haven't done that. They are still committing the same percentages of revenue to payroll. 35% of $220 million is $77 million. If they are paying the same percentage of revenues as payroll as they were 5 years ago they are likely raking in similar profits. Nothing wrong with that. They are a private business. But that doesn't mean the fans have to agree with it. And it pains me to see fans act like sheep on this issue. Our team, the team we love and follow and have been doing so our whole lives, the guys that own our team do not commit to the organization the same way as our competitors do. If you are ok with that then good for you. I'm not. If you are ok with it, at the very least don't deny that it is happening.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4238
Location: Zelienople, PA
I don't know, and you don't know because it is all speculation on yours, Forbe's and Deadspin's part.

the only public release of profit, was as Bucfan showed... $5M. The rest is all speculative. That's fine if its your gig, but don't deny it is.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:56 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2499
Location: Tejas
Was Nutting really even the owner in 2007? Thought he took over in really early 2007, when the roster was more or less already set. Then Huntington took over for the 2008 season and they put most of the resources into the draft, Dominican facility, and Pirate City (and yes, they tanked too which I thought was the smart decision).

It's sort of apples and oranges and best. Cherry picking at worst. Now I'm out of fruit metaphors.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:58 am 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 328
ZelieMike wrote:
I don't know, and you don't know because it is all speculation on yours, Forbe's and Deadspin's part.

the only public release of profit, was as Bucfan showed... $5M. The rest is all speculative. That's fine if its your gig, but don't deny it is.

ZM

There is nothing speculative about the 30 pages of documents with official team letterhead that Deadspin leaked that showed every line item on the balance sheet. It was clear in black and white and is irrefutable.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:06 pm 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 328
StarlingArcher wrote:
Was Nutting really even the owner in 2007? Thought he took over in really early 2007, when the roster was more or less already set. Then Huntington took over for the 2008 season and they put most of the resources into the draft, Dominican facility, and Pirate City (and yes, they tanked too which I thought was the smart decision).

It's sort of apples and oranges and best. Cherry picking at worst. Now I'm out of fruit metaphors.

I don't blame Nutting for anything in 07 and 08. I'm using the data from those years to make the case that the revenue estimations that Bloomberg and other financial media organization have come up with for 2013 is probably pretty accurate. They are certainly in the ballpark.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6210
Location: Keystone State
What about the money they spent on players that wasn't on the major league roster? That doesn't count on the major league roster, but since Huntington took over, they have concentrated their money on those players rather than a MLB free agent.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:42 pm 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 328
bucco boy wrote:
What about the money they spent on players that wasn't on the major league roster? That doesn't count on the major league roster, but since Huntington took over, they have concentrated their money on those players rather than a MLB free agent.

Scouting and player development were also line items in the leaked reports. It is true they spent significantly more in 2010 and 2011 on player development. Of course that also coincided with a $15 million drop in the major league payroll. With the slotting system for the draft and the cap on international signings this can no longer be used as an excuse for holding the major league payroll low.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4238
Location: Zelienople, PA
So I am straight here. You are a proponent of spending for spendings sake? Never mind the talent and its availability, there is a slotted MLB roster value you assign to a revenue stream, and by god, you better hit that number to be considered a responsible owner?

BTW, thanks for the Deadspin stuff. I had never seen the paperwork before.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:47 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1081
ZelieMike wrote:
So I am straight here. You are a proponent of spending for spendings sake? Never mind the talent and its availability, there is a slotted MLB roster value you assign to a revenue stream, and by god, you better hit that number to be considered a responsible owner?

BTW, thanks for the Deadspin stuff. I had never seen the paperwork before.

ZM


It isn't spending for spendings sake when you have holes to fill which we do. It's up to NH to fill those holes with capable ballplayers that improve the team, not just plug the holes with whoever...give guys tryouts. The Rays, who are everyones barometer of how to run a small market team think Loney is worth 7 per year....is it ludacris to say we should of offered him 8 per year to leave Tampa? The market for pitchers like AJ says he is worth 14 million a year. Is it ludacris to pay him market value?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:49 pm 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 328
ZelieMike wrote:
So I am straight here. You are a proponent of spending for spendings sake? Never mind the talent and its availability, there is a slotted MLB roster value you assign to a revenue stream, and by god, you better hit that number to be considered a responsible owner?

BTW, thanks for the Deadspin stuff. I had never seen the paperwork before.

ZM

No, I'm a proponent of using the resources you have to better your team when it makes sense to do so. It is one thing to not commit dollars to major league players during a rebuilding cycle. But this team is coming off a playoff season and they are spending the same percentage of revenue on payroll that they were when the team was gutted 5 years ago (appropriately gutted, I must add). There is no excuse for this team to have a payroll of just 35% of revenues. Not any longer.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:59 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2499
Location: Tejas
Giving James Loney 8 per isn't really what's ludicrous. Giving James Loney 3 years is ludicrous. You don't give a fringe-average 30 year old 3 years unless you have absolutely zero options in the pipeline (which the Rays don't). If 1B winds up being a hole, the pirates will be able to offer more than 7-8M per year if necessary.

Giving AJ 14M isn't ludicrous, but don't call it filling or fixing a hole. It's putting a band-aid on a laceration and puts us back in an identical situation next offseason. We can't keep saying he needs to fix holes and fill needs then propose a short-term solution that just delays the inevitable.

I'd also say you can absolutely use development as an excuse for a low payroll when you have ~15 guys making league minimum, even when you combine players with partial years (Cole/Cumpton, Marte, Snider/Lambo, McKenry/TSanchez, Harrison, Mercer, Alvarez, Wilson, Watson, Morris, Melancon, Mazzaro, Gomez, Hughes/Pimentel). Add in team friendly deals to cutch and Tabata (which now escalate) and you're not looking at a ton of ability to spend. Especially since nobody is worth spending big on on a short term deal.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6210
Location: Keystone State
StarlingArcher wrote:
Giving James Loney 8 per isn't really what's ludicrous. Giving James Loney 3 years is ludicrous. You don't give a fringe-average 30 year old 3 years unless you have absolutely zero options in the pipeline (which the Rays don't). If 1B winds up being a hole, the pirates will be able to offer more than 7-8M per year if necessary.

Giving AJ 14M isn't ludicrous, but don't call it filling or fixing a hole. It's putting a band-aid on a laceration and puts us back in an identical situation next offseason. We can't keep saying he needs to fix holes and fill needs then propose a short-term solution that just delays the inevitable.

I'd also say you can absolutely use development as an excuse for a low payroll when you have ~15 guys making league minimum, even when you combine players with partial years (Cole/Cumpton, Marte, Snider/Lambo, McKenry/TSanchez, Harrison, Mercer, Alvarez, Wilson, Watson, Morris, Melancon, Mazzaro, Gomez, Hughes/Pimentel). Add in team friendly deals to cutch and Tabata (which now escalate) and you're not looking at a ton of ability to spend. Especially since nobody is worth spending big on on a short term deal.


This ^^

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:47 pm 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 328
StarlingArcher wrote:
Giving James Loney 8 per isn't really what's ludicrous. Giving James Loney 3 years is ludicrous. You don't give a fringe-average 30 year old 3 years unless you have absolutely zero options in the pipeline (which the Rays don't). If 1B winds up being a hole, the pirates will be able to offer more than 7-8M per year if necessary.

Giving AJ 14M isn't ludicrous, but don't call it filling or fixing a hole. It's putting a band-aid on a laceration and puts us back in an identical situation next offseason. We can't keep saying he needs to fix holes and fill needs then propose a short-term solution that just delays the inevitable.

I'd also say you can absolutely use development as an excuse for a low payroll when you have ~15 guys making league minimum, even when you combine players with partial years (Cole/Cumpton, Marte, Snider/Lambo, McKenry/TSanchez, Harrison, Mercer, Alvarez, Wilson, Watson, Morris, Melancon, Mazzaro, Gomez, Hughes/Pimentel). Add in team friendly deals to cutch and Tabata (which now escalate) and you're not looking at a ton of ability to spend. Especially since nobody is worth spending big on on a short term deal.


I don't follow that logic. Having all those pre-arb and 1st year arb eligible actually gives them ton more flexibility to spend money now. Put it this way. Let's say we all believe the assumption that the Pirates can easily support a $90 million payroll right now. They are a good 15-20 million below that number. Loney is a guy you like. You think he is the best 1B option for at least next season, probably for 2015 too. But you're worried about that 3rd year he is asking for. If you have the money available now and you like him why now front load a 3 year deal to take away the much of risking in having to eat a large piece of deadpay payroll later if his play declines? Give him $12 million this year, $8 million in year 2, and $4 million in year 3. Smart teams are doing this. St. Louis front loaded Peralta's deal.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Appears Burnett not coming back
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5823
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Dr. Phibes wrote:
The market for pitchers like AJ says he is worth 14 million a year.


I'd be curious to know which GMs have offered AJ Burnett $14M this offseason.

Two observations:
1. Starting pitching is a coveted asset in today's mostly steroid-free game.
2. There are many teams that are more "cash flush" than the Pirates.

Yet . . . AJ is still without a contract.

_________________
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
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 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