Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:47 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 11:09 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5814
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Rod Serling wrote:
Nice Try: The reference is to the record of last years' team WITH Bay and Nady, as opposed to the record of last years' team WITHOUT Bay and Nady.

They had a much better record with them, than without them.


Uuuugh . . . then what was the team's record last year in the first 38 games with Bay and Nady in the lineup . . . ?

_________________
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: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:32 pm
Posts: 3173
Location: Darlington, Pennsylvania
Every topic ends up coming to Bay and Nady.

_________________
I break more news than CIA posters break wind!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:10 am
Posts: 1330
No. 9 wrote:
Rod Serling wrote:
Nice Try: The reference is to the record of last years' team WITH Bay and Nady, as opposed to the record of last years' team WITHOUT Bay and Nady.

They had a much better record with them, than without them.


Uuuugh . . . then what was the team's record last year in the first 38 games with Bay and Nady in the lineup . . . ?


That's what I quoted: 18-20. He's suggesting that the trade was a bad trade because last years team was worse after Bay and Nady were traded. Makes perfect sense because, of course, when you trade veterans for prospects, the trade should be evaluated based on short term production rather than long term improvement. :roll:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Rod Serling wrote:
Nice Try: The reference is to the record of last years' team WITH Bay and Nady, as opposed to the record of last years' team WITHOUT Bay and Nady.

They had a much better record with them, than without them.

Who cares? They were still losing. The objective is to contend for a title, not suck less than the year before. If the team is not ready to contend for the playoffs, then the team needs to take steps that would reach that goal in the future. Holding on to Bay and Nady after 2008 would not have furthered that goal. The team needed more building blocks, and trading those two was the best way to acquire such building blocks. That's why they were traded, not because of some half-baked notion that the team was focused on shedding payroll.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 8:09 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:32 pm
Posts: 3173
Location: Darlington, Pennsylvania
Does anybody know what the teams combined records were that we played at this point last year compared to this year. I have an idea that has something to do with it. I know we played alot of bad teams this year, like the Nationals, Rockies, Padres, and we also got the Marlins when they first started their slide.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 11:59 am 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5814
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
burghermeister wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Rod Serling wrote:
Nice Try: The reference is to the record of last years' team WITH Bay and Nady, as opposed to the record of last years' team WITHOUT Bay and Nady.

They had a much better record with them, than without them.


Uuuugh . . . then what was the team's record last year in the first 38 games with Bay and Nady in the lineup . . . ?


That's what I quoted: 18-20. He's suggesting that the trade was a bad trade because last years team was worse after Bay and Nady were traded. Makes perfect sense because, of course, when you trade veterans for prospects, the trade should be evaluated based on short term production rather than long term improvement. :roll:


I know that is what you quoted. I was simply challenging Rod to refute what you put in your post knowing full well that he couldn't.

_________________
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: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 2:16 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:25 pm
Posts: 119
7/7/2008 - Indians trade C.C. Sabathia

7/29/2008 - Braves trade Mark Teixeira

7/31/2008 - Rangers trade Mark Teixeira

7/28/2006 - Brewers trade Carlos Lee

7/30/2006 - Philliles trade Bobby Abreu

7/31/1998 - Mariners trade Randy Johnson

Were those all salary dumps too? Or were they rebuilding teams trading valuable chips for several potential players in order to improve in the near future? So talk all you want about the return the Pirates got for Bay and Nady, but this type of philosophy is sound and has been part of baseball for quite some time.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 2:33 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Florida Marlins Business Model:

Acquire young talent => Contender => Salary dump for young talent => Back to beginning

Over the past 15 years, the Pirates problem hasn't been salary dumps, it's been acquiring young talent.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Argentum wrote:
Florida Marlins Business Model:

Acquire young talent => Contender => Salary dump for young talent => Back to beginning

Over the past 15 years, the Pirates problem hasn't been salary dumps, it's been acquiring young talent.


Yah "Rinse and Repeat" (check the back of your shampoo bottle) :D


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:32 pm
Posts: 3173
Location: Darlington, Pennsylvania
Argentum wrote:
Florida Marlins Business Model:

Acquire young talent => Contender => Salary dump for young talent => Back to beginning

Over the past 15 years, the Pirates problem hasn't been salary dumps, it's been acquiring young talent.


100% right. Its how we get in return. We got Bobby Hill for Aramis. C'mon.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 4:46 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5814
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Colin21 wrote:
Argentum wrote:
Florida Marlins Business Model:

Acquire young talent => Contender => Salary dump for young talent => Back to beginning

Over the past 15 years, the Pirates problem hasn't been salary dumps, it's been acquiring young talent.


100% right. Its how we get in return. We got Bobby Hill for Aramis. C'mon.


We can thank Kris Benson's injury for that trade. Bucs' ownership was under a directive from MLB executives regarding debt structure and either Benson or Ramirez's salaries had to go. Benson was all but traded until he suffered the injury. Ramirez was a salary dump but forced by MLB. The Cubs exploited the Bucs' poor bargaining position.

_________________
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: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:10 am
Posts: 1330
No. 9 wrote:
We can thank Kris Benson's injury for that trade. Bucs' ownership was under a directive from MLB executives regarding debt structure and either Benson or Ramirez's salaries had to go. Benson was all but traded until he suffered the injury. Ramirez was a salary dump but forced by MLB. The Cubs exploited the Bucs' poor bargaining position.

That may be so but it still, somehow, must have been Nutting's fault.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:32 pm
Posts: 3173
Location: Darlington, Pennsylvania
No. 9 wrote:
Colin21 wrote:
Argentum wrote:
Florida Marlins Business Model:

Acquire young talent => Contender => Salary dump for young talent => Back to beginning

Over the past 15 years, the Pirates problem hasn't been salary dumps, it's been acquiring young talent.


100% right. Its how we get in return. We got Bobby Hill for Aramis. C'mon.


We can thank Kris Benson's injury for that trade. Bucs' ownership was under a directive from MLB executives regarding debt structure and either Benson or Ramirez's salaries had to go. Benson was all but traded until he suffered the injury. Ramirez was a salary dump but forced by MLB. The Cubs exploited the Bucs' poor bargaining position.


I wouldn't have cared if we got $3 for Kris Benson.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:10 am
Posts: 1330
Colin21 wrote:
I wouldn't have cared if we got $3 for Kris Benson.

I think that's the point. Nobody would have given us $3 for Benson because in doing so they would have had to take on his $6M salary.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10718
burghermeister wrote:
Colin21 wrote:
I wouldn't have cared if we got $3 for Kris Benson.

I think that's the point. Nobody would have given us $3 for Benson because in doing so they would have had to take on his $6M salary.

Benson was put on the DL before the Ramirez trade. MLB rules prohibit a player on the DL from being traded. Therefore, the Pirates simply could not trade him.

Also, MLB agreement provides that players who are released continue to receive their salary. Dropping Benson from the team would have done no good.

Nonetheless, I just do not believe that the garbage received from the Cubs was the "best" the Pirates could get for Ramirez. A horrible, terrible, awful deal, made worse by those asshole Cubs fans and their "Thank You For Ramirez' signs.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:12 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Not to high jack this thread, but when DL unloaded Benson on the Mets, it was actually a pretty favorable deal for the Pirates. If I recall correctly. Didn't we get Wiggington, Bautista (the second time), and a few prospects for Anna?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:29 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Argentum wrote:
Not to high jack this thread, but when DL unloaded Benson on the Mets, it was actually a pretty favorable deal for the Pirates. If I recall correctly. Didn't we get Wiggington, Bautista (the second time), and a few prospects for Anna?


No, it was just Wiggy, Joey Bats, and one pitcher (Peterson? I forget).

As for the Aram trade, I do believe that it was MLB-directed that we had to trade him, and I do think that hurt DL's bargaining power. However, I think he still could have gotten a hell of a lot more for him, and even if all he could get was crap, he could have at least taken crap from someone like the Texas Rangers so Aram would rub our noses in it 16 times a year.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10718
Matt Peterson was the third guy. Pirates also included Jeff Keppinger, a guy I liked. He hit at every level and would be an excellent back-up middle infielder.

When Jack is hurt, or Freddy has a day off, it would be nice to put in a guy who gets on base at a .341 clip.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7275
BBF wrote:
Argentum wrote:
Not to high jack this thread, but when DL unloaded Benson on the Mets, it was actually a pretty favorable deal for the Pirates. If I recall correctly. Didn't we get Wiggington, Bautista (the second time), and a few prospects for Anna?


No, it was just Wiggy, Joey Bats, and one pitcher (Peterson? I forget).

As for the Aram trade, I do believe that it was MLB-directed that we had to trade him, and I do think that hurt DL's bargaining power. However, I think he still could have gotten a hell of a lot more for him, and even if all he could get was crap, he could have at least taken crap from someone like the Texas Rangers so Aram would rub our noses in it 16 times a year.


Of course Bautista should never have been traded for because he never should have been left unprotected...

_________________
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: Tracy blasted by Perrotto
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:32 pm
Posts: 3173
Location: Darlington, Pennsylvania
Bucfan wrote:
Matt Peterson was the third guy. Pirates also included Jeff Keppinger, a guy I liked. He hit at every level and would be an excellent back-up middle infielder.

When Jack is hurt, or Freddy has a day off, it would be nice to put in a guy who gets on base at a .341 clip.


I forgot Keppinger was in that deal.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], No. 9 and 3 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