Pittsburgh Pirates: Replying To Defending Tony Sanchez - Pittsburgh Pirates

Jump to content


Replying to Defending Tony Sanchez

Enter a name

  • Your unique security code

Post

Options

Post Options


Post icon

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •   [ Use None ]

  or Cancel


Topic Summary

Grey 

Posted 28 June 2017 - 03:11 PM

So, about Tony Sanchez again? LMAO. I remember "Wilton" from the mlb.com pirates board, and he was on the front office's jock non stop. Total F.O. cock sucker. On his knees daily.

SyrBucco 

Posted 26 June 2009 - 03:29 PM

I agree with everyone here who thinks that it is quite likely that we overpaid for Tony Sanchez. But I am all done bitching about it. The Bucs signed a #1 draft choice who looks like a bit of a sleeper to me, and they prolly paid somewhere between 500K-900K more than they "should" have, or could have.

Is their any benefit to this relatively modest overpay? Yes. NH can be trusted to keep his word if he ever makes another pre-arranged deal with a guy (and that appears to have been true with Sanchez) to pay slot for a #1 pick. That's got to be worth something, and I hope that we have a similar experience, at a much higher numbered pick position, next year.

Why do these negotiations always have to be acrimonious and adversarial? Can there still be what we used to call "bargaining in good faith"?

Yielding the point, as NH himself has basically done, that Sanchez was an overdraft at #4, yet realizing he's the guy you want and he won't be around at #46, what the fuck is a GM supposed to do? You can't do what the Steelers have done and trade down. So you take some other less-than-optimal choice. By the way, this does not explain any of the other mysterious Day 1 choices: I'm with Longhorn there - couldn't figure them out based upon what I had read about the guys on "the list".

And why can't we all just get along? Namecalling doesn't help this board.
Cocksuckers.

The Lumber Company 

Posted 26 June 2009 - 03:20 PM

QUOTE (sloshyj @ Jun 26 2009, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, I guess everyone here is smarter than the Pittsburgh Sports Weekly? I think not...


I laughed, I'll admit it. But you might want to match-up the name of the mock newspaper with your description.

sloshyj

Posted 26 June 2009 - 03:18 PM

QUOTE (mzimmerman81 @ Jun 26 2009, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You read through this thread and question Penguins integrity?

Really?

No, not really.

sloshyj

Posted 26 June 2009 - 03:17 PM

So, I guess everyone here is smarter than the Pirates Sports Weekly? I think not...

mzimmerman81 

Posted 26 June 2009 - 03:13 PM

You read through this thread and question Penguins integrity?

Really?

sloshyj

Posted 26 June 2009 - 03:10 PM

QUOTE (Penguin @ Jun 26 2009, 03:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
3. 12th slot money is still almost 1 million less than what the Pirates offered.

This is too rich. First it was that Sanchez was signed for $1 million more than he was worth... now it's almost $1 million.

Next week it will be something else.

It calls into question your integrity, Penguin.

mvk112 

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:48 PM

QUOTE (Penguin @ Jun 26 2009, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
For the record, I never doubted there were rumors of Fatchez (again, just to piss off Pjoma) going 12. But that doesn't change the fact the Pirates still paid him almost a million over the 12th slot money.

And mvk, do you honestly believe had Fatchez not signed, he would have gone higher than 12 next year? And I don't mean like how you honestly believed Tyler Yates would be able to maintain his 2008 first half. I mean realistically.


All it takes is for one team that wants to make a quick signing at slot. Which is what he would have been at #12 this year. I never denied that.

jeffr92 

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:44 PM

QUOTE (mvk112 @ Jun 26 2009, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I didn't say they were, I said he was projected to go AS HIGH AS #12 to the Royals.

And exactly as I called it above.

A mock draft is a guess as to what that particular team will do, it is not a ranking of the draftees. Just because Jorge may have been taken at #12 doesn't mean he'd be getting the same amount of money that Aaron Crow will.

EDIT: I didn't address the second part. It's questioned because it doesn't make your opinion that he was "very likely" to be taken by the Royals any more valid.

mvk112 

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:43 PM

QUOTE (mzimmerman81 @ Jun 26 2009, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So at 12 he would still be getting roughly 1 million less that what he did get


No shit, you must be very smart or something.

Review the complete topic (launches new window)