FanIQ

  • join now
  • login
  • Login
You Might Like




Asked By: gau13

 Skip to Next Poll »
How many more seasons will the Pirates go until they have a winning season?
| Closed on 02/21/10 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | MLB | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
Team Breakout:
24 Fans 
4%a. 1
8%b. 2
25%c. 3
8%d. 4
54%e. More

  
24 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1212 days ago

 The beginning of ever season I am like, "The Pirates are going all the way this year." 
Do I know I am lying to myself?  Yes.  
Am I going to say it again this season?  Yes.
Two weeks into the season when the Pirates have won maybe one or two games will I still say it?  Yeah.
By the time the Pirates are 5-49 I will finally be like, "Wow, we still suck this year." 
I am going to be hopeful and say three more years but if that happens, it will be a miracle.................
3  
1

#2 | 1211 days ago
BDV4U (+)

They have the nucleus of an outstanding team, but until they can get the leadership and the payroll to build and maintain it, they will remain a glorified AAA franchise. It's sad to see the legacy of Honus Wagner, Pop Stargall and Roberto Clemente reduced to such poverty!
More  
1

#3 | 1209 days ago

 This year would take a lot of "if's" to work out (i.e. If Garrett Jones isn't a flash in the pan, If McCutchen doesn't hit the sophmore slump, If Clement can play decent D, If Clement can translate AAA bat to the bigs, If LaRoche continues to play stellar D, If LaRoche can build off his second half offensive performance, IF.... and on and on) but it's always possible.

Some good things are in place for the club to come into it's own, I think if Alvarez/Tabata/Lincoln all come up at some point this year and take their lumps and one of Maholm/Duke (hopefully Duke) gets traded while the other (hopefully Maholm) gets a long contract while the other SP (Ohlendorf/Morton and one of Hart/McCutchen) improve then NEXT year this team will be ready.
1  
1

#4 | 1208 days ago

 Wow, you just killed it there dude (In a good way) You have me believing again lol
3  
1

#5 | 1205 days ago

 gau13 wrote:
The beginning of ever season I am like, "The Pirates are going all the way this year." 
Do I know I am lying to myself?  Yes.  
Am I going to say it again this season?  Yes.
Two weeks into the season when the Pirates have won maybe one or two games will I still say it?  Yeah.
By the time the Pirates are 5-49 I will finally be like, "Wow, we still suck this year." 
I am going to be hopeful and say three more years but if that happens, it will be a miracle.................
Good for you.

Hopefully one day your loyalty will be rewarded.
More  

#6 | 1205 days ago

 gau13 wrote:
The beginning of ever season I am like, "The Pirates are going all the way this year." 
Do I know I am lying to myself?  Yes.  
Am I going to say it again this season?  Yes.
Two weeks into the season when the Pirates have won maybe one or two games will I still say it?  Yeah.
By the time the Pirates are 5-49 I will finally be like, "Wow, we still suck this year." 
I am going to be hopeful and say three more years but if that happens, it will be a miracle.................
That embarrassing futility is the reason I refuse to go to PNC Park this year, and will continue to keep my money in my own pocket until they prove they care.
More  
1

#7 | 1183 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

kramer wrote:
That embarrassing futility is the reason I refuse to go to PNC Park this year, and will continue to keep my money in my own pocket until they prove they care.
 Key words: "They care." Does Pittsburgh ownership care about anything more than pocketing their share of the luxury tax pot? Minnesota and Colorado have made multiple playoff appearances the past few years-- Tampa has been there too. Oakland was quite competitive in the early 2000's. So the small-market, no-hope argument is really wearing thin. It'd be more entertaining to blame The Curse of Barry Bonds. (Three straight division titles when he was last there, never a winning season since he left).
3  

#8 | 1183 days ago

 I would say more but that would make Pirates fans depressed.
4  

#9 | 1183 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
 Key words: "They care." Does Pittsburgh ownership care about anything more than pocketing their share of the luxury tax pot? Minnesota and Colorado have made multiple playoff appearances the past few years-- Tampa has been there too. Oakland was quite competitive in the early 2000's. So the small-market, no-hope argument is really wearing thin. It'd be more entertaining to blame The Curse of Barry Bonds. (Three straight division titles when he was last there, never a winning season since he left).
No, they don't care.  I found out the other night that my mom was at a dinner with my dad and my dad won 4 tickets to a Pirates game in the suite level.  Guess who already told her he'll go, but she can buy dinner because he refuses to spend one red cent. *raises hand*
More  
1

#10 | 1183 days ago

 when the current owner actually puts money into the major leauge roster and when every draft pick whose a pitcher dosen't get hurt and the hitters don't flame out when the rest of baseball gets tape on them. Jones stopped hiting when they stoped throwing him fastballs. same with steve pearce and all the recent other prospects. only mcutchen has proven the ability to adjust so far. thier pitching is so average and where is a strikeout pitcher?
4  

#11 | 1182 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
 Key words: "They care." Does Pittsburgh ownership care about anything more than pocketing their share of the luxury tax pot? Minnesota and Colorado have made multiple playoff appearances the past few years-- Tampa has been there too. Oakland was quite competitive in the early 2000's. So the small-market, no-hope argument is really wearing thin. It'd be more entertaining to blame The Curse of Barry Bonds. (Three straight division titles when he was last there, never a winning season since he left).
I don't see it.  I see the same 8 "rich" teams in contention year after year.  The same 8 low revenue teams fighting for the cellar year after year, with the occasional team or two catching lightning in a bottle and contending for one, maybe two years.  The Twins are the only team to buck that trend.  But they are helped by the fact that there is really only one fairly wealthy team in the entire AL Central.
More  

#12 | 1182 days ago

 The Twins spend money too, not as much as the big spenders, but they've been at or around $80mil a year.  It's not as simple as just spending money though, it matters MORE on where the money is going.

The Pirates BEST season in the past 17 came when their payroll was at it's lowest (I believe less than $9mil) and a couple near 100 loss seasons came when they paid 5 times as much.
1  

#13 | 1182 days ago
18packabs (+)

It will take a change of ownership to turn that ship around, no pun intended.
More  

#14 | 1182 days ago

 18packabs wrote:
It will take a change of ownership to turn that ship around, no pun intended.
Hasn't it changed owners at least once in the last 17 years already?
More  

#15 | 1182 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
Hasn't it changed owners at least once in the last 17 years already?
Kinda sorta not really.

From 1996 to about 2007 the team was under Kevin McClatchy's control, although he was the majority owner, there were others invested to the team.  Then Bob Nutting became majority owner but his family has been vested for years before (I think since 2000 or so, could be wrong).

I'm not too sure the ownership is as important as the GM (and his scouts).  Things CAN be done with limited payroll as long as the right moves are made.  I don't think the Pirates have had a competant GM since the 80's; Huntington is quickly coming to the time where his moves need to start producing for that to change.
1  

#16 | 1182 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
Kinda sorta not really.

From 1996 to about 2007 the team was under Kevin McClatchy's control, although he was the majority owner, there were others invested to the team.  Then Bob Nutting became majority owner but his family has been vested for years before (I think since 2000 or so, could be wrong).

I'm not too sure the ownership is as important as the GM (and his scouts).  Things CAN be done with limited payroll as long as the right moves are made.  I don't think the Pirates have had a competant GM since the 80's; Huntington is quickly coming to the time where his moves need to start producing for that to change.
No, you're right, the Nuttings have been part owners for a good while now.  McClatchy was slowly losing the reins to Bob Nutting for about the last 5 years he was with the team.  I've always been under the impression that for his last few years he was Nutting's puppet.
More  

#17 | 1182 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
The Twins spend money too, not as much as the big spenders, but they've been at or around $80mil a year.  It's not as simple as just spending money though, it matters MORE on where the money is going.

The Pirates BEST season in the past 17 came when their payroll was at it's lowest (I believe less than $9mil) and a couple near 100 loss seasons came when they paid 5 times as much.
The Twins spend money NOW. But in the 'contraction year' scare, Twins were spending less than the Pirates in 2000 and 2001. In the 90's, it was in the teen-million and suffered because of it. Twins haven't been in the 80mil range yet, more like 60mil (as seen below).

Year Team Salary MLB Rank
2008 $62,182,767 24/30
2007 $71,439,500 19/30
2006 $63,396,006 19/30
2005 $56,186,000 20/30
2004 $53,585,000 19/30
2003 $65,318,977 18/30
2002 $41,309,031 27/30
2001 $24,350,000 30/30
2000 $16,519,500 30/30
1999 $19,242,500 28/30

In 2009-10, it's even higher (right now estimated at $87.25M, even without a Mauer re-signing), but I think that is all a result to the team winning and growing expectations (rightly so). It was 2001, a 2nd place finish in the AL Central that (and Selig's "threat") made the team start spending on the talent that was grown within the system. It wasn't the money that resulted in the Twins winning, it was the nucleus of players that did it, and money that resulted in the Twins to keep winning.

Pirates are in that position to where the nucleus of players they have now need to start winning (like the 2000-2001 Twins nucleus) in order for the team to spend. I just think Pirates management have been too quick expecting the winning to happen and getting rid of 3-4 minor league guys with some promise for one major league ready guy that they haven't watched nearly as much. They keep missing on those deals and it makes them look far worse than what it could have been.

#18 | 1182 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

ML31 wrote:
I don't see it.  I see the same 8 "rich" teams in contention year after year.  The same 8 low revenue teams fighting for the cellar year after year, with the occasional team or two catching lightning in a bottle and contending for one, maybe two years.  The Twins are the only team to buck that trend.  But they are helped by the fact that there is really only one fairly wealthy team in the entire AL Central.
It's obviously easier to maintain success when you have more money to spend. That's simply logical. But teams with average payrolls (currently, say, in the $60-$80 million range) can succeed. They have to be managed wisely. The Cardinals have done very well with only a slightly above average payroll. If you can't or won't spend even half the average, then no, your chances of contention are slim to none. The real crux of the argument is the difference between "can't" and "won't"...Unfortunately history backs up your cynical view that the majority of owners will prioritize turning profits over the chance to build a contending roster. But it's a matter of choice. It's not that they COULDN'T build contending teams if they chose to. Some teams are "lightning in a bottle," such as Tampa in 2008. Others are building a valid succeed-with-fewer-resources model, Minnesota and Colorado first among them. You know that I don't care that you think the two recent postseason appearances by the Rox are illegitimate. The fact remains that they won 90 or more games in both of those seasons, and 90 wins is usually the threshold to be in playoff contention. The Giants could be in the same position, had they not had albatrosses of contracts with the two Barry's.
3  

#19 | 1182 days ago

 The reason the Twins win is they have a excellent farm system , Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Denard Span, etc etc . they draft them then teach them how to play the "Twins" way. The pirates on the other hand trade all their good players and get nothing in return. Barry Bonds,Bobby Bonilla, I could go on forever. The Twins have won 2 World Series and numerous divison tittles even though the so called experts write them off every year.
More  

#20 | 1182 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
It's obviously easier to maintain success when you have more money to spend. That's simply logical. But teams with average payrolls (currently, say, in the $60-$80 million range) can succeed. They have to be managed wisely. The Cardinals have done very well with only a slightly above average payroll. If you can't or won't spend even half the average, then no, your chances of contention are slim to none. The real crux of the argument is the difference between "can't" and "won't"...Unfortunately history backs up your cynical view that the majority of owners will prioritize turning profits over the chance to build a contending roster. But it's a matter of choice. It's not that they COULDN'T build contending teams if they chose to. Some teams are "lightning in a bottle," such as Tampa in 2008. Others are building a valid succeed-with-fewer-resources model, Minnesota and Colorado first among them. You know that I don't care that you think the two recent postseason appearances by the Rox are illegitimate. The fact remains that they won 90 or more games in both of those seasons, and 90 wins is usually the threshold to be in playoff contention. The Giants could be in the same position, had they not had albatrosses of contracts with the two Barry's.
I give you that there are probably one or two owners who "don't".  But they are rare.  Almost every owner is willing to do what it takes to contend.  Within reason.  They don't want their teams bleeding money year after year just to compete.  And no owner SHOULD do that.  

I strongly believe, and there is evidence to back this up, that if owners FELT they had a FAIR chance to compete with the big spenders, they WOULD pour more money into their teams.  Not to the point where they will bleed money, but they would do more.  But the fact is, even if they did, their team would NOT compete.  They may be a bit better, but that's not enough to turn the team fortunes around.  So the question with most teams is the following...  Be a cellar dweller and make a lot of money.  OR...  Improve the team some but still not compete and break even.  Which do you think the owner would take?  

Teams like the Cards and Twins have managed to succeed more often than not for a couple of reasons.  First, they have been very shrewd with how they spend their money and with their drafts and scouting.  But next, they play in divisions that don't contain HUGE spending teams.  The Cubs and White Sox are the biggest spenders.  And the Cubs have only recently started that trend.  The Rox really can't be counted as a team with success as they really have only had two real chances at contending.  And one of those required a fluky 20 game winning streak.

The Bonds contract was nor really an albatross.  They were good a number of seasons with him being the highest paid player on the team.  3 division titles speak for themselves.  The Zito contract is a different matter altogether because unlike Bonds in the lineup, Zito on the mound hasn't helped them win and hasn't made other pitchers better.  The real albatross for the Giants is the fact that they are paying a mortgage on a ball park they paid for entirely themselves.
More  

#21 | 1175 days ago

 kramer wrote:
No, you're right, the Nuttings have been part owners for a good while now.  McClatchy was slowly losing the reins to Bob Nutting for about the last 5 years he was with the team.  I've always been under the impression that for his last few years he was Nutting's puppet.
I think so too, which is why you can't (I even have to keep myself in restraints) put the CLS (Consecutive Losing Streak) entirely on ownership TODAY.  This includes the frugal spending, stupid signings/non-signings, AND even the "not caring" to win despite profit.

The unfortunate part here is Nutting is NOT a baseball man, he doesn't know how it should be ran from the ground up, how someone that throws a straight high 90's heater is going to suck compared to someone in the 89-90 mph range but with solid movement, how much X player is worth, who to keep, who to trade, who to cut, etc. etc..  He trusted who he put in place to make those decisions for him and they (Littlefield) failed him.

It most certainly will take time (and from a fan's perspective, huge amounts of caution) and only time to fully understand what the FO's intent is.
1  

#22 | 1175 days ago

 Chief_aka_James wrote:
The Twins spend money NOW. But in the 'contraction year' scare, Twins were spending less than the Pirates in 2000 and 2001. In the 90's, it was in the teen-million and suffered because of it. Twins haven't been in the 80mil range yet, more like 60mil (as seen below).

Year Team Salary MLB Rank
2008 $62,182,767 24/30
2007 $71,439,500 19/30
2006 $63,396,006 19/30
2005 $56,186,000 20/30
2004 $53,585,000 19/30
2003 $65,318,977 18/30
2002 $41,309,031 27/30
2001 $24,350,000 30/30
2000 $16,519,500 30/30
1999 $19,242,500 28/30

In 2009-10, it's even higher (right now estimated at $87.25M, even without a Mauer re-signing), but I think that is all a result to the team winning and growing expectations (rightly so). It was 2001, a 2nd place finish in the AL Central that (and Selig's "threat") made the team start spending on the talent that was grown within the system. It wasn't the money that resulted in the Twins winning, it was the nucleus of players that did it, and money that resulted in the Twins to keep winning.

Pirates are in that position to where the nucleus of players they have now need to start winning (like the 2000-2001 Twins nucleus) in order for the team to spend. I just think Pirates management have been too quick expecting the winning to happen and getting rid of 3-4 minor league guys with some promise for one major league ready guy that they haven't watched nearly as much. They keep missing on those deals and it makes them look far worse than what it could have been.
Thanks for clarification.  I thought they spent more, but guess I was wrong.

The difference between the Pirates Org and Twins is, as you stated, the farm system.  The Pirates really haven't had anyone to "build around" like the Twins do.

Now they do, and it's just a wait & see game to see if they do what needs to be done.
1  

#23 | 1175 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
Thanks for clarification.  I thought they spent more, but guess I was wrong.

The difference between the Pirates Org and Twins is, as you stated, the farm system.  The Pirates really haven't had anyone to "build around" like the Twins do.

Now they do, and it's just a wait & see game to see if they do what needs to be done.
By do what needs to be done, I'm guessing you mean actually keep some of those players and build a team instead of trading them after they start making too much money.
More  

#24 | 1175 days ago

 kramer wrote:
By do what needs to be done, I'm guessing you mean actually keep some of those players and build a team instead of trading them after they start making too much money.

Definately.

As I said earlier in this thread, if one of Duke/Maholm is traded I won't look at it as a salary dump as long as the other gets locked up with a good contract.

And we've got a couple years before they have to tip their hand again with any other impact player.

1  


Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
•Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
•Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
•Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
•Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
Polls You Might Like

Seattle Mariners @ Cleveland Indians - 5/19/13
Asked by Dream_Machine | MLB, SEA, CLE | 8 questions asked Yesterday
56 predictions | Last by jdk1948 | 15 hours left
NL Pitchers Individual Over/Under - 5/20
Asked by Scott | MLB, STL | 14 questions asked Today
42 predictions | Last by jdk1948
AL Pitchers Individual Over/Under - 5/20
Asked by Scott | MLB, STL | 12 questions asked Today
36 predictions | Last by jdk1948
NL Pitchers Individual Over/Under - 5/19
Asked by Scott | MLB, STL | 16 questions asked 05/16/13
128 predictions | Last by jdk1948 | 15 hours left
AL Pitchers Individual Over/Under - 5/19
Asked by Scott | MLB, STL | 14 questions asked 05/16/13
112 predictions | Last by jdk1948 | 15 hours left