Thread: Pirates signed Liriano

I keep seeing "oh, well if Liriano flounders he can just come out of the pen" ...Isn't 7M/yr a little much for a guy like him to be coming out of the pen? Obviously he is better in small doses, but his wildness won't just disappear. Comparatively, Mike Adams just signed for 2 yrs/12 M for the Phils. Adams isn't what he used to be but is clearly a step and a half above Liriano in bullpen value. I think the Pirates are expecting Liriano to start and continue to start for the money they are paying him.

$7 million for each of 2 years is a little much for Liriano, period.

But expanding on your point, I'm not sure he'd be that great as a reliever. A guy with that kind of control problem and inconsistency could be way more dangerous out of the pen than you think.

2yrs 7M isn't much, if he does well the Yankees will want him, if he does bad we can always take him back.

If we would have given Liriano 2/14 people would have been (rightfully) freaking out around here.

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

If we would have given Liriano 2/14 people would have been (rightfully) freaking out around here.

You're probably right, many would freak out. But I have to ask...freak out over what? That the Pohlads will pocket $14m less over the next two years?

What possible harm would have come from signing a pitcher who at least has the physical tools to be a top of the rotation guy? They can afford five Lirianos, without damaging anything.

Originally Posted by USAFChief

You're probably right, many would freak out. But I have to ask...freak out over what? That the Pohlads will pocket $14m less over the next two years?

What possible harm would have come from signing a pitcher who at least has the physical tools to be a top of the rotation guy? They can afford five Lirianos, without damaging anything.

Uh because it would be taking up 7 million of payroll next year? Payroll that could be used to land an ACE like Josh Johnson?

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

Uh because it would be taking up 7 million of payroll next year? Payroll that could be used to land an ACE like Josh Johnson?

You're probably kidding, so I'd like to know what your actual rationale is for being so opposed to this type of contract. Of course the Twins are not going to sign a top-tier starting pitcher as a free agent next year, when the market will continue to inflate as TV money pours in. If ever in the history of this franchise there was a time when it would make sense to splurge on a free agent starter it is now, with money to blow and a crippling lack of MLB pitching talent within the organization. Yet they still appear to have absolutely no interest in doing so.

Honestly, the team's best chance of getting a front line pitcher for 2014 (short of an unlikely best-case scenario with one of their prospects) is probably signing one of these high upside guys to a 2/15 type deal and hoping he puts it together, giving you a bargain for the following year (or a very valuable trading chip for next offseason). At worst, they've got $7M next year sunk into a bust, which is barely more than they've got committed to the lousy Correia.

I think they're making a huge mistake by showing no interest in that kind of deal.

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

Uh because it would be taking up 7 million of payroll next year? Payroll that could be used to land an ACE like Josh Johnson?

I almost believe you're serious.

liriano will carve up the national league, but even when he does, it doesn't mean we should've signed him. bringing him back would've led to more of the same, imo.

i have a feeling he goes for 15 wins for the pirates this year, 3.3 e.r.a., 200ks and 70 bbs and helps lead them to a surprise playoff run. and then he falls apart in year two and doesn't finish the season in their rotation.