Irony!
by Charlie on Sep 14, 2008 12:48 AM EDT
54 comments
There's little doubt depth was needed and, despite the disappointing play on the major-league level of the acquired players, it's too early to label these trades a mistakes.
I can't overstate how tired I am of hearing this conspiracy-theory stuff about the trades being a way of saving money. Given the way the last management team behaved, I can certainly understand where it comes from, but it's pretty simple, really:
1) This team stinks, with or without Jason Bay and Xavier Nady.
2) With the franchise having nowhere near the core it needed to contend, rebuilding was the only intelligent option.
3) "Rebuilding" involves playing young players who may have the opportunity to help the franchise the next time it's ready to contend, even if they struggle at first.
4) Young players are cheap.
Mystery solved! Rebuilding almost necessarily involves cutting parts of the big-league payroll. That's the way it works. Playing young guys--who make the league minimum in their first three years--is pretty much the only way for this franchise to get better. I'm sure Bob Nutting isn't crying his eyes out about money he doesn't have to pay as a result of the Bay and Nady trades, but what the Pirates' management has done is absolutely consistent with what should be its goals. (One could argue that the trades aren't likely to actually help achieve those goals because the players aren't good enough, or something, but that's a different argument.)
If you want to find out if the Pirates are being cheap, first you need to figure out exactly what they should be spending their money on. Should they be spending their money on a 36-year-old reliever like Salomon Torres? Not really, no. They should be spending their money on the acquisition and development of amateur talent. In that area, they've done a pretty good job in the past year. They spent lavishly in the draft (counting the Pedro Alvarez bonus, which seems fair, since the Pirates did agree to pay it and it will likely stand anyway) and they're building an expensive new facility in the Dominican. Once the figures for bonuses spent on Latin American amateurs are released we might find they didn't spend enough there. But that's the only important criticism about how the Pirates have spent this year of which I'm aware.
If the rebuilding effort fails, then the Pirates should be blamed for that. If they accumulate a good core of talent and then fail to spend to get the right pieces to complement that talent, then blame them for that. And certainly it's fair to blame Kevin McClatchy, Dave Littlefield and Ed Creech for the current state of the franchise. It might also be fair to blame the rest of the Pirates' ownership group for taking so long to squeeze McClatchy out of the picture. But it's unfair to blame the Pirates for being cheap now, when spending a bunch of money would be the wrong thing to do.
0 recs |
54 comments
Email
Print
Comments
It’s a pretty silly column overall, but at least you can play Where’s Waldo with the grammar errors.
by Charlie on Sep 14, 2008 12:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think we might take the academy expenditure a little for granted. It’s an exchange of an asset for an asset, it can be sold later, perhaps as part of the sale of the team.
Not to contest the specific example of Salomon Torres, but I’ve never seen a persuasive argument that a rebuilding team should have a cheap bullpen and bench. The reason why the frontline players are cheap is that they’re young, and the reason why they’re the frontline players at that point is that they’ll get better.
I’m not sure if the same sort of reasoning applies to the backups — no one thinks they’ll improve with the team and be real weapons for the manager a couple of years down the road. It seems like everyone just assumes that the money that could go to a professional bench a) could be better spent on other things; and, b) actually is spent on other things.
by Arnold Rothstein on Sep 14, 2008 3:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Several unrelated points
I doubt the academy will have any meaningful impact on the sales price of the franchise. It’ll probably work out like most home improvement expenditures, which may make a house a little easier to sell but don’t bring a 1-to-1 return in the price.
Whether bench players should be young or cheap should be a function of how much they’ll play. Somebody in the Chris Gomez role, which is basically a pinch hitter, probably should not be a young player. (Then again, I can see Jim Negrych being very good in that role and I don’t ever see him as a starter, so how else is he going to reach the majors?) But they’re going to need a 4th outfielder next year, and with every spot but McLouth unsettled, there’s a very real chance the 4th outfielder will end up starting if somebody else flops. I don’t want to see somebody like Michaels (even if it wasn’t somebody who, like Michaels, has crappy numbers, is in a 3-yr decline and appears very close to being washed up). I’d rather see somebody younger with some upside.
Smizik not surprisingly makes the mistake practically everybody commenting on the trades makes, of thinking only about the next year or so. NH was faced with a situation where the Pirates could have been far worse off 1-2 years from now than they are now. They had no pitching depth at all. None. NH was looking at years where half the starts would be taken by guys like Herrera and Van Benschoten if he didn’t do something now. He would’ve had no trade bait—he had to trade frontline players because there was no organizational depth anywhere. He wasn’t going to have anything else to trade for pitching, and quality pitching just isn’t available through free agency any more. Very few good players are these days, as teams get more and more efficient in either extending their good players or trading them to somebody who can. Bay and Nady were gone after next year. The pre-team trade showed it couldn’t win, so NH was looking at another year like this one and then a total collapse. For all the talk about how bad the McClatchy/Littlefield regime was, I think people for the most part are still severely underestimating just how bad the situation NH inherited was.
by WTM on Sep 14, 2008 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM: Where were you when...
The entire board fed me my lunch for suggesting Michaels and the rest of the experienced subs like Gomez and Minky had no business on our team. These guys serve a need on a division contender who is just a player away from winning but never on a team in full-fledged rebuilding from the ground up like the Pirates because everyone knows that their up-side is limited. Teams like us should be giving young players a chance to show what they can do such as Pearce, Cruz, Bixler, etc.
by Illinois Pirate Fan on Sep 14, 2008 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Musta missed that
I actually don’t mind Mientkiewicz, because it’s not easy to find a bench guy who gets on base, and I wouldn’t have minded Gomez if he could play up the middle, which he can’t any more. Rivas I never had any use for and I didn’t like the Michaels acquisition, although he did provide a bunch of key hits for a while (which seems to have obscured the fact that he’s had a crappy season). But they need to find younger answers for some of these bench spots, particularly the ones that are likely to produce a lot of PT, including 4th OF.
by WTM on Sep 14, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Smizik not only has trouble with spelling,
he also forgets question marks.
Smizik just doesn`t make any sense to me.
Ron Cook tries to argue some of the same points with Smizik on the most recent SportsNOW that Charlie brings up here, but to no avail.
I`m not a big fan of the Torres and Jose Bautista trades so far, but I am most definitely willing to give the major trades of Bay and Nady a reasonable amount of time to pan out.
Let`s see how the players the Pirates picked up have done at the end of next season, before getting too worked up one way or the other.
by patthatt on Sep 14, 2008 6:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So Trading for Matt Morris Now Makes Sense?
Smizik’s column makes no sense. By his logic the Morris trade was smart because it added payroll and showed the the Pirate were willing to pay $s? Right!
The direction the new management team has taken works for me. Let’s see how things go.
Oh, if we had not gotten Morris, we could have drafted that catcher (Weithers?) and paid him $16M to sign. Think Boros would have turned that down?
by zogger on Sep 14, 2008 9:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is the point that you can never get through to people like Smizik. Guys like Morris, Burnitz and Randa are what’s available to the Pirates. The supposition that you can simply spend your way to success in MLB has been disproven over and over again, but the point never sinks in with some people. At best, a team in the Pirates’ position can target a specific need after it’s built the bulk of a strong team, and sign a second tier player to fill it. That’s what the Brewers did with Suppan. But unless you’re in NY, LA or Chicago, you can’t build a team primarily with expensive veterans, and even for those teams it often doesn’t work.
It doesn’t make sense for the Pirates to be spending a lot of money now. It’ll just make things worse, as we already saw when DL tried to solve the team’s problems with money. The fact that the right course of action also happens to be cheap is ironic, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s the best way to turn the team around.
by WTM on Sep 14, 2008 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So here are the 2009 free agent starting pitchers under age 36
Kris Benson—33
A.J. Burnett—32
Matt Clement—33
Ryan Dempster—32
Josh Fogg—32
Freddy Garcia—33
Jon Garland—29
Mark Hendrickson—35
Livan Hernandez—34
Jason Jennings—30
Kyle Lohse—30
Braden Looper—34
Mark Mulder—31 – $11MM club option
Carl Pavano—33 – $13MM club option
Odalis Perez—32
Oliver Perez—27
Sidney Ponson—32
Mark Prior—27
C.C. Sabathia—28
Ben Sheets—30
Kip Wells—32
Randy Wolf—32
Aside from Sabathia, Sheets, and Ollie (with all his quirks) this list does not make my heart beat faster. (I’ve left out the 36 and older pitchers and those with club options.) Just think, for $20 million we could get Kip Wells, Josh Fogg, Kris Benson, and take a flyer on Carl Pavano. Can you say “playoffs” kids?
Viva Clemente!
by Roberto on Sep 14, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Smizik wanted short-term results that successfully addressed the Pirates' problems
There is likely no amount of money that would produce the result he demands. So, criticizing the Nutting partnership for moves which cut payroll deflects attention away from the real problem. It will take years of successful rebuilding to overcome the talent-depleted state of the franchise. There is no short-term solution.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 14, 2008 9:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmmmm
I can’t overstate how tired I am of hearing this conspiracy-theory stuff about the trades being a way of saving money.
The trades reduced team payroll in the short- and near short-term. Therefore the trades saved money for the Nutting partnership. These are simple facts. They do not issue from the ‘lying eyes’ of a ‘conspiracy-theorist.’
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 14, 2008 9:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Separating Facts from Non-Facts
Yes, it is a fact that the trades reduced the team’s payroll in the short term. What is not a fact is the suggestion that the purpose of the trades was to reduce payroll. That is an opinion that emanates from the aformentioned “conspiracy-theorists.”
Formerly known as Econolodge
by Willton on Sep 14, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you saying
the Nutting partnership and the Pirates front office were unaware that trading Bay, Nady and Marte for prospects would reduce the ML payroll? If they were aware of this possibility, then it’s difficult to argue that they did not intend to reduce payroll when they made these trades.
It’s highly likely, then, that the Pirates and the team’s owners meant — intended — to reduce the ML payroll when the team traded these players.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 14, 2008 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His comment was perfectly clear
You’re confusing “intent” and “purpose,” and twisting his meaning.
by WTM on Sep 14, 2008 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not confusing anything at all
And I’m more than capable of interpreting what he says. He unclearly said that it “is not a fact …that the purpose of the trades was to reduce payroll.” But that’s factually inaccurate unless Bob Nutting and Coonelly are grossly incompetent. They choose to reduce the ML payroll when they choose to trade Bay, Nady and Marte for prospects. If they were incompetent, then one could believe that payroll reduction was an unintended consequence of these trades. I’d say it’s a safe bet to assume they are not incompetent in this regard.
In short, the purpose of the trade must include payroll reduction unless one is willing to defend the claim that Nutting and Coonelly were incompetent when the Pirates made those trades.
Charlie seemed to agree with line of thinking when he stated:
Rebuilding almost necessarily involves cutting parts of the big-league payroll. That’s the way it works.
But he and his defenders are just unwilling to concede that the Pirates intended to reduce the ML payroll when they made this summer’s trades. Nor are they willing to refrain from using a weasel word like “conspiracy theory.”
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 14, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nobody's arguing that they can prove the trades weren't mainly about cutting payroll
but since the trades were exactly what you’d expect from an intelligent GM and there’s no proof they WERE mainly about cutting payroll, it’s dumb of the conspiracy-theorists to assume that’s the reason, especially to the degree they’re hitting home the point — and with little mention of the “intelligence” argument.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Sep 14, 2008 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong again
Are you saying the Nutting partnership and the Pirates front office were unaware that trading Bay, Nady and Marte for prospects would reduce the ML payroll? If they were aware of this possibility, then it’s difficult to argue that they did not intend to reduce payroll when they made these trades.
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that the Pirates knowingly reduced payroll by trading Bay et al. That is far different from saying that the underlying purpose of doing so was to lower payroll. It is much more plausible that the Pirates wanted to increase the number of good prospects in the system by trading Bay et al., which is considerably apparent given the actual prospects they got therefrom.
If the underlying purpose of the trades really was to lower payroll, then I’m surprised that the Pirates did so this late in the season. The Bucs could have easily done so prior to the beginning of the season, as there was at least one offer on the table for Bay, and it would have saved the Pirates a substantial share of Bay’s salary. Given that the Pirates did not trade Bay (or Nady or Marte) during the offseason, it is much more plausible that the Pirates were actually focused on a higher goal than mere payroll reduction.
Formerly known as Econolodge
by Willton on Sep 15, 2008 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't sweat it
I guarantee nobody else had the trouble understanding your post that Steve did. It was clear as could be.
by WTM on Sep 15, 2008 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s because he was confusing “awareness” with “intention.”
Formerly known as Econolodge
by Willton on Sep 15, 2008 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't confuse the two
My claim would be that prior awareness entails intention in this instance.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 15, 2008 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still right
I didn’t say that salary reduction was the principal/underlying/sole purpose for trading these players. I said that it was a purpose which the Nutting partnership and the Pirates choose.
I noticed you backed away from your false claim that it "is not a fact …that the purpose of the trades was to reduce payroll." That’s good.
I’ll spell out my position so that there is no confusion about what I’m arguing.
The Pirates traded Bay, Nady and Marte for prospects. That was their primary intent. They also were aware of and intended to reduce the ML payroll by making these trades. That money would not contribute in any way into building a championship contender unless they traded those players for prospects. That payroll reduction was also consistent with the organizations’ tendency to build teams cheaply. But the trades were for prospects. I have never claimed they were salary dumps. Not today. Not yesterday, Not the day before, etc. Apart from this point I only claimed that, as a whole, the Pirates still spend less than the league average for the players it acquires. Since the Pirates and the Nutting partnership have never claimed that they would spend whatever it takes to win and since it’s plain that they haven’t taken this route, Given the organizations’ past, the continuity of team ownership, etc., I have stated on numerous occasions that the Nutting partnership must prove that it is committed to winning by spending and spending consistently over a period of years.
That’s my argument. It’s not especially different from the statements made by some of my critics.
Now, what is my problem with Charlies’ argument and with those made by some of my critics? His association of individuals who claim that the Nutting partnership and the Pirates intentionally reduced payroll with conspiracy theorists who, in extreme cases, believe that the Masons rule the world, or the Vatican and the Jews are ganging up on the Christians, or that Mud People are corrupting the Republic, etc. To my mind he and others who make these claims are trading in stereotypes and obscuring the features of a complex situation.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 15, 2008 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your critics?
Believe it or not, not everything revolves around you. There’ve been plenty of people on the web peddling theories about the Pirates’ management that absolutely deserve to be called conspiracy theories. I don’t know whether you still look at OBN, but there’s a pompous nitwit there who’s been manufacturing incoherent fables about the Nuttings for some time, most recently a grand Pedro Alvarez conspiracy that doesn’t even rise to the level of rank speculation. There was a recent series of emails that went to a bunch of people, including Charlie, me and (I think) you that were equally foolish and unfounded. And there’s always the drivel coming from the bird dog drama queen in Florida, depending on whether he’s in Operation Shut Down mode on any particular day. It’s gotten so absurd that I’ve literally had conversations with people offline about whether there really is some sort of conspiracy to continually defame the Nuttings for some hidden purpose . . . and I don’t even like the Nuttings. I’ve never had a problem ripping the team’s management or ownership, but I prefer to wait until I have something to base it on. I have to assume that Charlie and Willton are among the people—and I can state from personal knowledge that there are quite a few—who are just getting tired of it.
by WTM on Sep 15, 2008 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But there IS a grand Pedro Alvarez conspiracy
I’m not sure of the details, but when I’ve had a chance to conjure them up into a coherent fable, I’m gonna post them.
by azibuck on Sep 15, 2008 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's to conjure?
Just cut and paste from all the other drivel. That’s what the conpsiracy peddlers all seem to be doing, assuming they’re not all the same person.
Just don’t use the name Jake. It’s taken.
by WTM on Sep 15, 2008 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow...
…not everything revolves around me.
I would have never guessed. Thanks for the enlightenment…. You were so kind….
Anyway, I’m well-aware of those fans making poor money based arguments. I’m not one of them and I don’t like being lumped in with them and the bashers because I take seriously team business practices and seek to be both accurate and careful in my characterizations of those practices. Yet I try to make a habit out of not teeing off on those whose opinion differs from mine. that’s why I wont make much of an effort to persuade anyone to give up what I consider wrong-headed ideas. One great exception: Those who willfully mischaracterize what I say for whatever purposes they have. I’m just not going to tolerate that any longer. I don’t bash the Nuttings. In fact, I have praised Bob Nutting on occasion. I don’t promote conspiracy theories. I have never promoted conspiracy theories, although you wrongly accused me of doing so last year. To me, it’s a matter of honor to avoid conspiracy theorizing. Yet I find myself included among those alleged to be conspiracy theorists because I consider the Pirates to be a for-profit firm, and treat it as such when evaluating what it does.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 15, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good to hear
If you’re not a conspiracy theorist, then there’s no reason to think references to conspiracy theorists refer to you unless specifically so stated.
by WTM on Sep 15, 2008 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There sure is when the reference is a blanket one
That’s the problem with using bullshit terms like “conspiracy theory.” They are too ambiguous. My suggestion is that you and others stop using it.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 15, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dream on
As long as it fits, I’ll use it. It’s the most appropriate term for the garbage I’m seeing in various places. If you want specific examples, more specific than what I mentioned above, I can provide them easily. I just don’t like to link to that crap because I don’t want to be responsible for spreading it around. Saw another example today, although it was re-posted without attribution. Some moron arguing, with no support whatsoever, that the Pirates will never be able to negotiate with top prospects again because of Coonelly, despite Dejan’s reporting that Huntington has done all the negotiating and still has a good relationship with Boras, and despite the fact that the Pirates signed several players at above-slot prices. If you don’t consider yourself allied to that sort of drivel, then don’t take offense when people dump on it.
by WTM on Sep 15, 2008 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't fit
You’re just making the situation worse using bullshit terms like ‘conspiracy theory.’
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 15, 2008 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a joke right?
Those who willfully mischaracterize what I say for whatever purposes they have. I’m just not going to tolerate that any longer.
From above in this thread:
Willton: “What is not a fact is the suggestion that the purpose of the trades was to reduce payroll. That is an opinion that emanates from the aformentioned "conspiracy-theorists."”
You replying to Willton: “Are you saying the Nutting partnership and the Pirates front office were unaware that trading Bay, Nady and Marte for prospects would reduce the ML payroll? If they were aware of this possibility, then it’s difficult to argue that they did not intend to reduce payroll when they made these trades. It’s highly likely, then, that the Pirates and the team’s owners meant — intended — to reduce the ML payroll when the team traded these players.”
Pot, meet tool.
by azibuck on Sep 15, 2008 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Learn to read and think fool
nm
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 15, 2008 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I picked up this habit from you
nm
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 15, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it makes sure you get the last word.
Oh . . . wait . . . I screwed it up! You’ll have to post again to have the last word!!
by WTM on Sep 15, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't that feel better?
. . . .
Oh, no! I did it again!! You’ll have to reply again. Quickly, or it means you lost!!
by WTM on Sep 15, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And yet you are hell bent on winning yourself!
nm
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 15, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Aaaauuggghhhh!!! I did it again!!!
by WTM on Sep 15, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read your posts and think fool every time
by azibuck on Sep 15, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your a fool
so I’d imagine thinking fool comes naturally to you.
I’ll need to charge therapists fees if I keep at this. So, be my guest.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 15, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh, that time I didn't think fool
I thought, semi-coherent rambling. “charge therapists (sic) fees”… “charge therapists (sic) fees”… “charge therapists (sic) fees”… No, no, don’t tell me, I want to figure that one out on my own. “charge therapists (sic) fees”…
by azibuck on Sep 15, 2008 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You got that far?
I got hung up on “Your”.
by matskralc on Sep 15, 2008 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Filler
This is typical Post-Gazette sports column bottom-feeding, although it’s usually Ron Cook who indulges in it. (Cook would have had more 3-word paragraphs, though.) Every once in a while, though, Smizik writes a column whose title suggests something evil has happened, and then spends the entire column citing evidence that is either (1) irrelevant to his point or (2) directly in opposition to it. Then, at the end, he indulges in an unfortunately typical Pittsburgher tic, which is to look at all of the assembled evidence against his case, ignore it and puke out some “folksy,” worldly, salt-of-the-earth aphorism like “When they say it isn’t about the money, it’s about the money.” You won’t fool us with your facts and logic!
I’m having some issues with these trades on their particular merits; I’m still worried we traded our most valuable pieces for a buch of rummies. But I’m fully in support of the plan that NH appears to be trying to execute. In Smizik’s recent columns, he doesn’t appear to have given that a moment’s thought, which is too bad, because aside from Shelly Anderson, he’s the only one at that paper who’s capable of doing it in a useful manner.
by KPatrick on Sep 14, 2008 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Smizik = shitstirrer.
It works, because we’re all talking about it.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. -- HST
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 14, 2008 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Might be worth it to take a shot on Prior. Should be cheap, no worse than what we have, and draw interest to the park because of his past.
by jlk9697 on Sep 14, 2008 12:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
not a bad gamble
I would hope the Pirates would take a bunch of these extremely cheap gambles.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Sep 14, 2008 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huntington Candor
Huntington told Greg Brown on the radio that the trading of Torres and Bautista were partly salary-related. He also said he traded Bautista in part because he was unhappy now and would be unhappier as a utilityman. On Torres he talked about how Salas still has a long-term chance and could help in 2009,2010, etc (although I don’t see that, it still could potentially happen).
by JimBibbySweat on Sep 14, 2008 10:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Huntington seems a straight shooter
Littlefield would have released a load of BS if asked about such a thing.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Sep 14, 2008 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
