So you're saying the Pirates might be paying more if they had better players? That's some groundbreaking stuff.
I mean, the payroll argument generally correlates across every sport in every corner of the planet. Even in leagues that have salary caps, cheap teams tend to lose. Six of the last ten WS winners were top ten spenders. The other four were top 20. The Pirates have spent, on average, in the bottom third of the league for the last thirty odd years and their success pretty much tracks. I don't really understand how anyone can deny that being at the bottom end just never works. Especially for a franchise that always retreats the minute its payroll approaches the middle-third.
Like the GM matters when you're trolling for DFA's and avoiding any player with a pulse in the FA market.
His agent had to publicly shame them. I think we already know.
Well, it has been reported by numerous national outlets that they are back talking.
Nowhere am I saying he's a good owner. I'm saying he's not in consideration for the worst sportsowners in pro sports.
Wasn't long after the last playoff season that I posted that the payroll had gotten too high and that the order will come down to do a purge. Got a lot of grief over it since they were sitting at like 18 or 19 in spending and there were all of these high hopes. Of course we know how that went.
I think there were some assurances that they'd go back to the table at some point but his trade request stands. The longer this goes on, the less likely he's going to sign.
Yep, the Pirates are practically all those teams, like looking into a mirror. Just like all those teams the Pirates definitely don't get rid of 90% those dudes you mentioned before their final arbitration year. I look at those teams and I think, "Man, those teams should really make a 43-year old Rich Hill their 2nd highest paid player."
Houston paid Springer $45million over 3 years (2018-2020) through his arbitration seasons before losing him in free agency.
Because he’s just a routine bad owner who doesn’t try too hard and likes to make money. The Pirates have been relatively scandal free throughout my lifetime. As myself and others have posted in this thread, truly terrible owners have bad teams and worse scandals.
Yes. Also not relevant. The owners we’ve been talking about here are the ones involved in the scandals. Not one or two bad apple players.
3 winning seasons in 30 years, I'm sorry ski but Nutting ranks right up there as an awful owner. He won't even get the payroll to $100 million, the team wins 98 games in 2015 and he slashes payroll and brings in cheap bums as replacements. He leaves players languishing in the minors to milk every ounce of service time he can even though some of these guys are ready right now for the major leagues.
I’m not saying he’s a good owner. He’s just not the worst owner in American sports. Not even worst 5.
So you're just going to ignore the homegrown guy that they are jerking around and haven't signed yet? Or the list of guys they jerked around over the last dozen or so years? And it really doesn't matter if the "core" of young talent they allegedly have now will pan out or not because they won't be in Pittsburgh because they'll get jerked around, too. Especially if they are good and have a meaningful season in a few years because we'll all sit back and watch as yet another trade deadline passes and nothing meaningful happens.
So if you’re Reynolds and the money is even between staying with the pirates or actually going to play for a contender which do you pick ? I’m not defending the Pirates because there’s a long track record that shows they don’t care about winning But that track record means now you might. have to overpay to keep players .
I think this is a good observation. If you love baseball and are a diehard fan of the team I suppose it doesn’t matter how dreadful the team is. Hope always springs eternal
He can't "pick" anything until the 2026 season.
New management team, so they should at least get a chance at a legitimate rebuild.
Yep. It is a fun night out as they say and I don’t begrudge those who see it as nothing more than that. Honestly, that’s all you could say for Pitt football and basketball for a long time. I have acquaintances who never understood why I was following Pitt’s teams, similar to how I look at current Pirates diehards. It’s how you are wired.
www.post-gazette.com
The last I heard listed as "multiple outlets" they were only offering 6-years, 76 million. That puts the offer around 12.6/year which he will likely pass through arbitration in 2 years if he puts up the same performance as last year.
That was their initial low ball offer, far below Reynold's number.
I hear ya but I’m cynical about the “new” management only because I doubt the old owner will allow them to have the financial freedom to build a legitimate competitive team Fool me once …..
Good point. I clearly don’t follow this stuff that Closely to know when he becomes an unrestricted Fa.
I could care less what you like. You came at me with how dumb it is to say that spending is the problem. Not sure where you're punching holes at because you can argue it ten ways to Sunday. You have to spend some money to win. Just how it is and the club has never spent money to win and it never will so long as this ownership is involved. Don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.
and he'd be crazy to do that, he'll miss out on maybe $2-3 million total over the next 2 seasons if he goes through arbitration and passes on the offer and be in place for a 6-8 year $20+ million/year deal at age 30 after that.
