Yes, Who Is To Say?

I don’t know how to feel about this from DK. I agree with you completely Charlie that this is ridiculous, and I really don’t know how he can say this without sarcasm. Yet I still don’t think he is doing that. This post (or whatever you call it) reeks of populism. It seems DK is appealing to the masses who don’t understand what actually needs to be done to turn around PBC. I’ve moved past getting upset or self-righteous about this attitude, but it still does make me shake my head and feel a bit down.

I wouldn’t call DK a populist, though the comment is definitely designed to quiet the barbarians. I think DK has a serious impartiality complex. He can’t bring himself to side in any direction, so we get crap like this. 2 weeks from now in a Q&A, someone will groan about the Pirates being cheap and he will nearly endorse NH and this rebuilding plan.

DK should write a column every once and a while. I want to know what he really thinks.

A little cranky, are we, Charlie?

Doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good callin’-out you did.

Pirate management in the last decade has been following the wrong blueprint. The current Pirate management appears to be following the correct blueprint, but what is the real evidence that they can execute that plan? As a reminder, well under two years ago, Frank Coonelly’s only baseball experience was financial/legal in nature, and Neal Huntington was being sent into the field to get a little practical scouting experience. It is not at all clear that this pair has the background needed to evaluate individual players, as opposed to following a general plan.

Initial results are not encouraging. Two of the players acquired in the Bay/Nady
 deals were damaged goods. Two of the pitchers acquired in those deals already have had their schedules changed due to pain. Among the players acquired in those deals, Tabata is probably the only one who is worth more today than 6 months ago. I think it’s fair to say that, of all the players drafted in June, only Jarek Cunningham had what might be called a “breakout” rookie season. Pedro Alvarez gives every sign of being a laid-back, friendly fellow, rather than a hitting machine.

I think that what Dejan gets is that having the right blueprint in your hand doesn’t necessarily mean that you can get the roof up.

Oh come on. Given the time Coonelly/Huntington have been in place, all you can really judge them on is the blueprint…that the blueprint has been impeccable obviously doesn’t guarantee eventual success, but it’s a damn good sign. It’s way, way too soon to start moaning that the Bay/Nady trades aren’t going to work out, and completely absurd to be expressing that kind of concern about the draft. Most of the high ceiling players drafted either haven’t even played yet, or have played minescule innings…Grossman had, what, 20 ABs? Quentin Miller? Etc. And, yes, clearly we should give up on Alvarez, based on the zero ABs he’s had as a professional…

As Charlie said, Dejan is a great reporter, etc.(I actually think he’s one of the best baseball reporters I’ve ever read, and I’m not that young) but that commentary sure seemed like it was pandering to an uneducated fan base.

Hope nobody minds my jumping in here, but I wanted to share a couple thoughts, and it seemed most appropriate to do it here on Charlie’s forum:

If one reads the full post from last night in context, one can see rather easily that is the furthest thing from pandering. Writing that there are many fans out there who just “don’t get” management’s plan can be a perilous way to go about pandering. But that is a lot of what I saw over the weekend, as also was illustrated in the post. Unfortunately, the only excerpt here was the one in which I expressed the alternating view. Go back and take another look.

As for the more significant issue, I have to admit I smiled when I was described as having an “impartiality complex.” Might be the nicest thing anyone ever has written about me, given that I am required as a beat reporter to maintain that stance first and foremost. Yes, if I write one side, you will hear the other, as Steve notes, unless it is something that is pretty clear. I am not a columnist, nor can I “write a column once in a while.” We have people at our paper to do that. The moment I start advocating that so-and-so should be traded or fired or have his contract extended or whatever, you as the reader have a much more difficult time taking the news that gets reported seriously. It is a fine line, one easily crossed, and I am sure that I do in some Q&As and the like. But I try not to.

Finally, I do genuinely appreciate the nice stuff about the reporting. That matters to me above all. The Q&A, blog and whatever allow a forum where I can raise topics for discussion, provide some background … then get out of the way. You take over from there.

Obviously, I also can do reporting such as some of the pieces Charlie describes that help you make up your mind either way, whether that was the pieces two years ago that illustrated how awful the Pirates were in Latin America to the Dominican pieces from November that showed the turnaround. But giving opinion on those is just not part of the job description.

Thank you for your response, Dejan. As I said, I am a great fan of your work. My brother and I often kvell about your articles. But I did read the full post: perhaps “pandering” is too strong a word (if so I apologize), but I definitely came away feeling that you weren’t really challenging the ignorance that you were hearing, and I think it’s important to not let ignorance slide in the interest of “impartiality.”
“Impartiality” is a misused term. The media often equates “impartiality” with just reporting without commentary that “Person A said this, and Person B said that,” leaving the impression that both sides of the argument have equal weight or validity, when in fact what Person A is saying is buoyed by facts and analysis, and Person B is just spouting nonsense or, in fact, intentionally distorting the situation. (I’m trying to resist nterjecting politics into this, but let me just say just look at the way the press covered the first 6 or so years of the Bush administration.)
Doesn’t “impartiality” at some point need to include “reality?”
That said, I think, again, that you mostly do a great job, Dejan. I just don’t think you’re really stepping up on this issue.

When anything is right before a reporter that clearly is wrong, it absolutely is supposed to be challenged. But refuting a fan base that wants to see players it likes — for whatever reason — hardly fits into that category.

The more analytical followers of the game do not place much of a premium, specifically, on players such as Wilson or Mientkiewicz, but the casual observer is likely to do so. They like the grit, the hustle, the getting in Randy Johnson’s face, whatever. And they are not wrong to do so. Nor are they disconnected from reality. In many cases, they go to the ballpark, and they see things they like with their own eyes, sample size and analysis be damned, and like what they see.

Nothing pandering about that. It is very real and, to my mind, should be respected.

Could I do more to illustrate that these are not premier players?

Yes, I probably am guilty of over-emphasizing intangibles against performance. (Although Mientkiewicz actually had good numbers for a bench player, by just about any standard except power.) More perspective would be fair.

But this idea that a vocal majority of fans are wrong and another faction is right, specifically as it relates to an issue as open to interpretation as this one, I do not share that at all. And I think it is part of the responsibility on this end to illustrate both.

Charlie,

Your primary point that I could refute that this management team is different than the predecessor is a fair one, at least as it relates to having a good plan and sticking by it. By emphasis there, though, was on execution.

The best plan in the world means nothing unless it is executed properly, which means making the right personnel moves, winning and, ultimately, spending money. The personnel moves have been about 50-50 so far at the major league level, by my estimation. There has been no winning. And there has been no real increase in spending at the major league level. (Though I understand the latter is part of the plan, it still has to be proven once that phase of the plan is ready.)

So, yes, I can understand where fans have a genuine skepticism that the execution would be different. I could have been clearer in discerning that, though.

Just keep holding the collective front office feet to the fire.

It’s not the end of the day YET, but to quote our blogmeister, “It certainly is true that, at the end of the day, results are what matter, and Coonelly and Huntington will be judged by the results that they get”.

……“Keep Watchin!”

“Execution.” Quite the pithy concept. Thoroughly steeped in pith….

Chalie, you are probably having the best offseason of any blogger, ever. MM, vis-a-vis DK, links to your work. I love the lengthy, thoughful, and thought-provoking posts. You’re really been working lately.

Cheers to you and DK, two of the best.

*Lamenting the previous exclusivity of this little club… (sniff), why, I posted on VORB before I knew what VORP was. You were an idiot back then, but you’re a lot smarter now. Thanks.

“It would take the greatest GM in the history of the game five years or so to make this a championship-caliber organization.”

WstCstBucco references the Pirates of the ’50s and their long journey to the World Series title in 1960.

Gunner just admitted himself to hospital complaining of chest pains.

and totally incredulous that anyone would think that it should take five years!

One thing to keep in mind is that Rickey didn’t have an amateur draft to work with.

MLB began the free agent draft in June 1965 with two objectives in mind:

1) To attempt to hold down the big bonuses caused by competitive bidding for the same player(s).

2) To create competitive balance (this was a lot less important to the owners than holding down salaries)

I believe that Rick Monday (the first pick in 1965) got $100,000 as a signing bonus. With the national cost of living (not baseball salary increases!) growing at roughly 4% per annum, that would mean the #1 pick in the draft in June 2009 would receive somewhere in the area of $800,000 - TOPS!

All salaries have obviously gotten way out of hand, including first round (and other) signing bonuses.

But some semblance of competitive balance has been obtained.