Smizik: Russell, Huntington Should be Fired if 2010 Team Doesn't Perform
by Charlie Wilmoth on Mar 29, 2010 3:47 AM EDT
Email
PrintBob Smizik writes that Neal Huntington and John Russell will deserve to be fired this year. His evidence? The Pirates' Spring Training performances.
With that in mind, we should know better than to pay much attention to what the Pirates are doing in Florida. But their performance -- the magnitude of their ineptitude -- screams for our attention...
It’s pretty easy now to see why the Pirates have failed to extend the contracts of Russell and general manager Neal Huntington. Both are in the final year of their contracts and baseball protocol usually calls for an extension to prevent lame-duck status for such key employees.
But if Russell and Huntington escaped lame-duck status they would not permit them to fill the vitally important scapegoat status. Both men could fill that role nicely, and on merit, if the team plays as badly as their personnel indicates it will.
Nothing like a July firing to appease some of the fans,
I don't wish that on anyone. But the way this team is shaping up, someone is going to have to take the fall and Huntington and/or Russell fit that description almost perfectly.
I don't even think the Pirates' regular season record has much to say about Neal Huntington's job performance at this point, let alone their Spring Training record. It's funny, everyone seems to know that a team's Spring Training record is basically meaningless, until it happens to confirm what they already think. The 2010 Pirates aren't going to be good, but we hardly need to look at Spring Training performances to know that, and the '10 Pirates have had no chance of being good since several years before Huntington arrived.
As for John Russell, I know many of you have issues with his tactical managing and the fact that he's a zombie, but those are the sorts of problems that nearly every fan has with his or her team's manager. Unlike Lloyd McClendon, Russell mostly makes wise decisions about distributing playing time (perhaps on orders from his bosses); unlike Jim Tracy, he doesn't blame his players for the team's failures or attempt to save his job by abusing a young pitcher. Pirates fans have known bad managers. Tracy unquestionably was one; McClendon arguably was one. I'm not a huge fan of Russell's, but it's not really clear to me that he's a bad manager. And he has next to nothing to do with the Pirates' record the last two years, when they would have finished well below .500 if their manager was Chuck Tanner or Casey Stengel or Jesus Christ. Russell is a cipher. He's not a great leader, but he doesn't deserve to be fired after two years--not that anyone but Bob Smizik is really talking about that.
As for Huntington, seriously--the idea that he shouldn't be retained isn't just premature, it's ridiculous. Certainly Huntington is not unassailable; certainly he has done things wrong; and certainly there can be valid reasons, even at this early date, to be pessimistic about his performance going forward. And certainly Huntington's fortunes will be tied to the performances of guys like Andy LaRoche, Pedro Alvarez, Lastings Milledge, and Charlie Morton, and especially to other Pirates minor leaguers, who by now were mostly acquired by Huntington. If those guys fail, that won't make Huntington look very good. That's fine. As an employee of the team, Huntington should be held accountable for his decisions.
But again, without a gigantic (and, based on the Pirates' core of talent, probably dubious) infusion of cash, the 2008 and 2009 Pirates would have finished below .500 whether their general manager was Branch Rickey or Billy Beane or Je... well, you get the idea. Pirates fans love to go on about "accountability," but I'm really not sure why Huntington should be held accountable for problems that existed well before he got here.
Again, here's what Huntington inherited: an awful major league team with a pitiful team defense that was a very poor fit for its pitch-to-contact rotation; a core of big leaguers who almost all were to become free agents after 2009; and, most importantly, a thoroughly embarrassing farm system that was broken from Class AAA all the way down to rookie ball. With all due respect, anyone expecting the 2010 Pirates to be decent just doesn't understand how the system works. Back in 2006 and 2007, I was waving my hands furiously to get anyone to pay attention to what might happen to the Pirates in the specific year of 2010, because if you looked at what Littlefield was doing then, it was obvious that a disaster was imminent. It would, obviously, be ridiculous to say that Huntington averted the disaster, but the 2010 Pirates now look like about a 70-win team, and if you'd asked me in 2007 how many wins the Bucs would have in 2010, I'd have said about 55.
The point here is that, whatever you might think about Huntington right now, it's way, way too early to judge him. And the surest mark of a dysfunctional franchise is to make quick judgments and change course rather than sticking with a well-conceived plan. In baseball, rebuilding efforts take years to carry out, and it'll take an especially long time in the Pirates' case, because Huntington inherited so little talent anywhere in the organization. Smart organizations do what they believe is right regardless of the fans and reactionaries in the press who goad them. That the Pirates would have problems in 2010 has been certain for half a decade now. Huntington has little to do with it.
107 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Bob Smizik must be proud of his work. For the rest of us, however, his columns are as fun and insightful as “passed gas” in a crowded area.
Rob Neyer had a more sane and reasonable standard (link). If the Pirates can’t touch 70 wins in either 2010 or 2011, then it’s appropriate to discuss accountability with respect to Neil Huntington and the front office. The same goes, IMO, for John Russell.
Before the end of the ’11 season is premature.
This article really shows how little some people know about baseball. Smizik seems to be writing just to get a rise out of the casual fans. That was a great sum up by you Charlie and your write Jesus Christ couldn’t have saved the Pirates from losing this year and probably next year. Now if the Pirates hit their projected win total for 2010 (I see 72 as the most common number), what is there not to like about a 10 win improvement? I see it as ridiculous to call that a failure. In my opinion Neil and Russell will get at least 2 more years to do their thing and rightfully so.
Are you telling me . . .
that Jesus Christ can’t hit a curveball?
ok lets not start a holy war now
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Its a Great Day to be a Mountaineer where ever you may be" Tony Caridi
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
by WVPiratesfan on Mar 29, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I came in to this exact thing.
Well done sir.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Mar 29, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe this one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQJ9osr-kjU
but probably not on the first swing.
by BlindSquirrel on Mar 29, 2010 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Smizik is doing exactly what buco4life is saying, and trying to get a reply out of casual fans by telling them what they want to hear. If we really want to be a successful franchise and succeed with the plan they’ve put in place, we need to give them at least 2 or 3 more seasons to give it time to work. If at that point all these players are failing, then we’ll obviously have to reconsider; but until then, we have to give NH the benefit of the doubt, seeing as he’s done a much better job than any of our GM’s in recent memory of making a legitimate plan for success and sticking to it.
I read
The spring training line and immediately howled at the moon due to its insanity. If there is one constant in the world it is that spring training stats and records mean less than nothing.
But beyond that oversight, which I expect from Smizik, It boggles my mind how people can be so upset about 2010 or imagine a scenario where it wasn’t going to be another struggle — and yet somehow are so angry at the current management group like it somehow could have been magically avoided. There’s no magic elixir that cures years and years of ineptitude and avoidance of doing the sensible and right thing, which was to start over and rebuild.
Now, no one is saying it doesn’t suck to a degree to go through the rebuilding phase because you have to look for certain results beyond the wins and losses, but the sheer fact that rebuilding is going on now and yet some are upset it’s not leading to big-time results already is perplexing to a degree.
Nearly everyone wanted a rebuild, and outside of a few people who think somehow the Pirates could have competed with the group that was here before, everyone got what they wanted. But now that it is happening some people have forgotten what they wanted in the first place.
Agreeing or disagreeing with certain moves made by Neal H. is understandable, but to disagree with the general philosophy seems pretty short-sighted.
As for the hate for Russell, I really don’t think much about it. I’m pretty sure fans hate any manager that doesn’t win much like any coach in any other sport. I don’t think it’s fair or justified much of the time (speaking generally about managers/coaches) but it’s not going anywhere either.
Russell no, Huntington yes
Couldn’t agree with the author more, the author of bucs dugout, not Bob Smizik. Everyone knows that John Russell is a stop gap kinda guy, i’ve been saying for about a year that as soon as Russell gets some available talent he will be gone, and can’t say i don’t approve. I’ve been saying ever since Littlefield had the opportunity to hire Ken Macha over Jim Tracy that we should have gone that route, given Macha’s proven record with young talent. The pirates need a manager that can invigorate young guys and help them reach their potential, not a manager like Tracy that simply manages established starters. Let’s hope Huntington keeps his job, at least for a couple more years, and that he hires wisely, please o please Neil, don’t hire your close friend (a la Tracy with Littlefield) over the guy needed for the franchise (Macha).
I'm curious about why you don't see Macha as a placeholder.
During his time in Oakland, he wasn’t trusted to do much more than stand at the top step of the dugout and look inspirational.
Not really seeing why Macha is such a better manager. I saw him as Beanes red headed step child in Oakland.
by eyeofhorus777 on Mar 29, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
That's the thing.
I’m not sure Tracy is an objectively bad manager. He was a bad manager FOR US. He turned out to be a bad employee for the Dodgers, and I don’t like him at all. Nevertheless, he is 491-425 when managing a team not called the Pirates. He will get lots of opporunities to keep managing while John Russell probably won’t.
I'm satisfied that he's an objectively bad person.
But I’m willing to concede that, in theory, there may be some team out there that could benefit from the attentions of a mendacious asshole.
Tracy is terrible even though he wins with loaded teams and loses with bad ones. He’s been bad with every team on what you can quantify (which is actual game managing, using bad vets, overworking young pitchers, bullpen management, etc.)
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 29, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Colorado was loaded?
checks bb-ref
Hmmm … OK, at or near the top in many offensive categories. Still, it’s Colorado.
smizik is stupid
just a few days a go he wrote that he doesnt think that huntington should be fired. he is the worst type of journalist, and i use that term very lightly, one who doesnt stick to what he has said.
now as for huntington it would truly be the mark of a bad baseball franchise to fire a GM before his plan can fully develope. if we fire him i will not watch baseball next season.
im gonna use a hockey reference here, in 05 after the lockout the pens coach was eddie olczyk, he was crosby’s first coach, then once we had the talent we kicked his ass out for therrin, and he lead us to the turn around and got us to the finals, then we upgraded again for bylsma. The pirates have their olczyk in russell, he wont lead us pretty much anywhere but someone has to do it, after this year i dont think we should keep him unless he gets us above .500, then we look for the guy to guide us to the turn around. russell has not shown me much but someone has to be the fall guy, plus does anyone really think he can coach this team to a championship?
Sure, why not?
“First, do no harm” is always a good place for a manager to start. And the last time we won a World Series, our manager was Chuck Tanner, who’s about as un-fiery as it gets.
As others have noted...
…Smizik is either dumb or trolling. And ultimately, it doesn’t really matter which, at least on anything more than a purely academic level.
72 Wins???
I am always optimistic but I don’t see that this year as I feel the Astros and Reds have gotten better this year so our division is stronger than last year. I don’t feel our starting pitching will keep us in this many games even though I do feel the bullpen is much better.
Sadly, I bit on one of his old articles...
…the one praising Jack Wilson. I mentioned that his offense was so inept, he won’t be much of a loss. Smizik accused me of piling on, which solicited an easy response from me to a blog poster and a pool of commentators whom only discredits current Pirates while not waiting to point out how former Pirates can walk on water.
If only the Bucs had kept Nady and Doug Mientkiewicz…
/
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 29, 2010 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Eye Chart is available.
Dodgers told him he won’t make the roster.
Smizik does have consistency. He’s consistently wrong.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 29, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
100-110 Loses
yup, that what your looking at.
That’s like the third most wrong thing with that sentence.
by wickethewok on Mar 29, 2010 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
The South Carolina Chapter Says:
Loses is a verb. Losses is a noun. It’s hard to have 100-110 verbs. 110 nouns on the other hand, much easier
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
And don't forget that
“that” should be “that’s.”
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Mar 29, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
At some point in the last couple of years, I decided to start recommending that people get their feet wet with “Brief Interviews” before jumping into IJ. People need to know what they’re getting into.
But yeah, I feel about that book the way the guy who wrote “Amazing Grace” felt about the Bible.
A friend gave IJ to me in college and I ignored it—it just looked horribly pretentious to me at the time. I picked it up a couple years later and got through it in, I think, three weeks. I couldn’t believe how good it was.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Mar 30, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
It is pretentious.
The trick is realizing that the pretentiousness doesn’t keep it from being awesome (and incredibly insightful) at the same time.
I’d say one of DFW’s recurring themes is the possibility of being honest/good/awesome despite the fact that we’re all, in a very basic sense, completely pretentious.
If anyone here hasn’t read the works of David Foster Wallace, and “Infinite Jest” in particular, I think Charlie, Vlad, and I would all heartily recommend them. For my part, I’d recommend warming up with some of the short stories, though.
Yeah, the thing is that pretension isn’t always bad. In fact, it’s often a sign of having thought really hard before saying something, which I think is generally good.
Wallace’s nonfiction is awesome too. His essays on David Lynch, John McCain and porn are amazing.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Mar 31, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
This isn't important
but it made me chuckle. Of whom did 2007 Charlie say “the other three are marginal players who most teams probably wouldn’t bother to protect”?
Javier Guzman (OK), Rajai Davis (hmm), and Nyjer Morgan (oh).
That’s a dozen career WAR in less than 6 combined seasons from Rajai and NyjMo. Let’s hope NH is paying attention when most of the other teams aren’t protecting such guys.
I do think it’s true that at the time, Davis and Morgan were marginal players who most teams would not have bothered to protect. The way Davis bounced around post-Pirates kind of illustrates the point. But yeah, anytime you write 2000 words predicting things, something you wrote is going to look pretty silly a year later.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Mar 29, 2010 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions
No doubt
That’s why I said it wasn’t important; it was just funny to read.
I actually thought Davis got short shrift with us, primarily because he was another in the endless line of Adrian Brown, Tike Redman, Chris Duffy, etc. By the time he was called up, it was like they weren’t even trying to pretend that he had a shot. But he showed flashes of talent, and he’s been better than replacement every season (except his initial cup of coffee, when he was helpless at the plate). I don’t think anyone could ever have predicted a 3.4 WAR season from him, but I don’t think that competence was out of the question.
I also thought it was interesting that McLouth didn’t get even a passing mention (I know it wasn’t intended as a comprehensive piece). He was a bit of a surprise, but I thought a lot of people thought he was being undersold at the time.
"Smizik: Steelers would be wise to keep Graham", July 26, 2001
“If training camp goes as the Steelers hope, they’ll enter the season with Kordell Stewart as their starting quarterback, Tee Martin as his backup and Tommy Maddox as the No. 3.
For this to come about, Martin, who has never played a down in the NFL, will have to show in the exhibition season he’s capable of backing up Stewart. This will allow the Steelers to release Kent Graham, who is scheduled to make $1.4 million, and enable the team to save about $900,000 on the salary cap.
This is known as being penny wise and dollar foolish.
This also is known as a recipe for disaster." -Link
[The Steelers finished 13-3 in 2001, with Stewart as the starter and Maddox as the primary backup. Graham threw a total of 19 more passes in his NFL career.]
"Smizik: Rushing Wilson into majors not a mistake", March 23, 2001
Is Jack Wilson the next Jose Guillen?
Not likely.
Based on what he has shown in spring training, Wilson has more of the look of Jason Kendall, a player the Pirates also skipped past Class AAA who has gone on to well-known success.
By most indicators, the Pirates are making the right move with Wilson who has excellent defensive skills, outstanding instincts for the game and, as did Kendall, the mental makeup to handle an accelerated progression.
[…]
McClendon makes no secret of his admiration for Wilson. To anyone who has watched the Pirates the past two seasons, McClendon’s description of Wilson’s style is a supreme compliment.
“I call him a more athletic Mike Benjamin.”
[…]
The major concern with Wilson is that he will be so badly overmatched by major-league pitching that his offense will drag down the team — and possibly drag down his defense. After going 1 for 4 yesterday, Wilson is batting .279 (12 for 42) in spring training.
“People worry about his bat,” McClendon said, "but if you look at his career, he’s hit .270 to .290 almost everywhere he’s been.
Actually, in 1998, Wilson led the Appalachian League in batting with a .373 average. The next season, he batted .343 at Peoria and .296 at Class A Potomac. He hit .277 at Potomac last year before being promoted to Class AA Arkansas, where he batted 294. After being traded to the Pirates, he hit .252 at Altoona. -Link
[Jack Wilson opened the 2001 season as the Pirates’ starting shortstop. He hit .155/.210/.241 through May 4, at which point he was demoted to AAA Nashville to work on his hitting. For the year as a whole, he hit .223/.255/.295 in 425 PA, good for an OPS+ of 40.]
"Smizik: Lack of youth hurts Steelers", December 26, 2000
The argument easily could be made that instead of being a team on the rise, the Steelers have peaked and, in fact, because of their dearth of Pro Bowl talent might even slide backward next season.
Sure, there are young players who will get better. Offensive tackle Marvel Smith is one, linebacker Joey Porter another and guard Alan Faneca a third. Improvement also might come from the wide-receiver position, which is manned mostly by young players, including two former first-round draft choices. Quarterback Kordell Stewart could take a step forward. Of course, from what we know of Stewart, who plays the most important position on the team, he could take a step backward, too.
But other key players are getting older. They might not only have peaked, they might be starting to slide. In that group would be Bettis, the team’s Most Valuable Player, Kirkland, cornerback Dewayne Washington, defensive end Kevin Henry and nose tackle Kimo von Oelhoffen. -Link
[As noted in the 7/26/01 piece linked above, the Steelers improved from 9-7 in 2000 to 13-3 in 2001. The almost-done Bettis would make the Pro Bowl in 2001, and rush for another 3,800 yards before retiring. The equally almost-done Kimo would make another 95 career starts, and remain an integral part of the Steelers lineup through 2005.]
I actually don’t think that’s an unreasonable piece at all – he’s basically right about every player he mentions except for Bettis and Kimo. It just so happens that having a HoF RB in a Pro Bowl season will help your team quite a bit.
The biggest thing he missed was he breakout of Hines Ward, which is visible in retrospect but was not widely assumed at the time (as evidenced by the hype surrounding Plex and Troy Edwards).
I’m not saying it covers him in glory; I"m just saying it’s pretty far from damning.
He wasn't just wrong about Bettis and Kimo.
He speculated that the team might drop to .500 or below, when in fact they posted the best record in the AFC. He speculated that Kordell might take a step back, when in fact Kordell delivered one of the best seasons of his checkered career, and made the Pro Bowl. He speculated that Washington was done, when in fact Washington remained a NFL starter through 2004. He indicated that the team would need to pursue significant help through free agency, when in fact they only signed one notable free agent (Jeff Hartings). He was wrong about nearly everything, and the few significant things about which he was right (i.e. that Faneca, Porter, Marvel Smith, and the “young receivers” would improve) directly contradicted the point of his piece.
I'm not giving you Kordell
“Quarterback Kordell Stewart could take a step forward. Of course, from what we know of Stewart, who plays the most important position on the team, he could take a step backward, too.”
I’d say that, as of December 2000, that’s pretty much exactly right. Kordell took one step forward – 2001 – and then never started a significant number of games again.
Meanwhile, SI picked them to finish .500 (which would be a “slide backwards” from 9-7), Dr. Z ranked them 18 out of 31 teams. Poking around, I’ve found a couple more 8-8 predictions, and I haven’t found any that predicted a 10-win season, let alone 13. IOW, dinging Smizik for this one is like dinging the Bay trade for how it turned out – based on what was known at the time, Smizik’s column was certainly within the norm of expectations.
None of which is to say the guy’s not a tool; but with Smizik, you shouldn’t need marginal examples to prove he’s an idiot.
It may have been within "the norm of expectations"...
…but if so, it was a case where that conventional wisdom was badly out-of-step with the actual situation on the ground.
I would have given him a pass if he’d just been wrong about the team’s chances. But he was also wrong about the performance of more than a half-dozen individual players as well, in several cases by considerable amounts. And he was wrong about the overall strategic vision the team needed to pursue. He was almost as wrong as it was possible for him to be, given the subject he chose, and the only thing that saved him from 100% wrongness was an offhand hedge that completely contradicted the point of the article in the first place. Which is an entirely different kind of wrong.
"Smizik: Alex Ramirez's exit sign of Pirates' shift", November 9, 2000
So what were the Pirates doing trading one of the players their owner had labeled as a reason to be excited about the future? Was this another boneheaded move on the part of the team in the mold of, say, the Jon Lieber-for-Brant Brown deal? Would McClatchy live to regret his praise of Ramirez as much as he lived to regret his suggestion the Pirates might win 90 games last season?
To the contrary, the move had no boneheadedness about it. Instead, it spoke to a new way of doing business around the Pirates.
The message was clear: The owner wasn’t making personnel decisions and the general manager was listening to his manager. The latter hadn’t happened since Jim Leyland was the team’s manager.
The abrupt departure of Ramirez almost certainly came at the urging of Manager Lloyd McClendon, and it almost certainly had to do with McClendon’s wish to excise from the team players who did not fit his description of a Pittsburgh Pirate.
Possibly, McClendon and Ramirez had some minor problem last season when McClendon was batting coach. Possibly, it was nothing more than McClendon not liking the way Ramirez went about his business. -Link
[Overlooking, for a moment, the question of why it would be a good thing for management and ownership to be on different pages about the organization’s plan, or why a GM should be lauded for cutting a valued asset because of a manager’s gut feeling about the way the player “went about his business”… Ramirez went on to become enormously successful in Japan. He was a two-time MVP, a batting champion and a home run champion, and even the first right-handed batter in NPB history to collect 200 hits in a season (his total of 204 is still the Central League single-season record).]
"Smizik: Signing Reese coup for Pirates", January 30, 2002
There was a time when Pokey Reese was the best fielding second baseman this side of Roberto Alomar, a time when not even the prospect of acquiring Ken Griffey, Jr. could lure him away from the Cincinnati Reds and a time when he was a solid building block for a championship team.
And now we hear he’s very likely to become a Pirate? Is this someone’s idea of a joke? Is it April 1?
Quality free agents don’t sign with the Pirates. They sign with the New York Yankees, New York Mets, Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers. The Pirates sign free agents like Derek Bell, Terry Mulholland and Pete Schourek.
So what’s the catch?
[…]
The Pirates believe Reese, who will be 29 in June, can regain his offensive touch, which made him a solid top-of-the-lineup hitter to go along with brilliant fielding skills. Those skills earned him Gold Gloves in 1999 and 2000. He had little opportunity to win a third Gold Glove last season because he played 51 games at second base and 78 at shortstop in place of injured Barry Larkin.
The Pirates probably see Reese batting second behind projected center fielder Adrian Brown, a combination that would give them more speed than they’ve had in years at the top of the lineup. A downside is Reese is a free swinger who does not draw a lot of walks.
[…]
This signing isn’t one of those Cam Bonifay specials, where the Pirates were frantically bidding for the services of a player against, uh, themselves, which is how Bell squeezed them for $9 million over two seasons.
[Reese hit .254/.318/.333 in 595 PA from 2002-2003, good for a 71 OPS+. In 2002, he and Adrian Brown combined to steal 22 bases, and score 66 runs. After leaving the Pirates, Reese spent only one more season in the major leagues.]
"Smizik: Littlefield makes solid decisions", March 5, 2002
Over the past decade, we’ve heard lots of talk from the Pirates about a commitment to winning, but what we usually get is another broken-down season. From Kevin McClatchy to Cam Bonifay to Gene Lamont to Lloyd McClendon — who’s fond of demanding accountability — we’ve heard the talk. But we’ve never seen the walk.
Until now.
Without saying a word, General Manager Dave Littlefield, in his first spring training in charge of the Pirates, let it be known that the less-than-mediocre performances that have become the norm for this team no longer are acceptable and certainly will not be rewarded on the grand scale they were in the past. -Link
[Posted without comment.]
The worst thing about the P-G’s current general editorial/columnist stance is that they were Littlefield shills much more than any reasonable person when the last regime was in power.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 29, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
You falsely assume that when the old management made noise about being a few years away that we all blindly believed it. Like the piece Charlie linked to in his post shows, plenty of Pirates fans had zero faith in what the FO was doing at the time.
In short, labels don’t matter as much as the substance underlying them, and merely because someone labels something doesn’t mean it actually contains the substance we associate with the label.
Still
don’t get why NH hasn’t been signed through the year. Could there be any way he isn’t brought back? (He is the leader of the best mgt in all of sports) I’m a fan of his, so I hope he’s here a long time
Bob Smizik go away fanpage on FB, lol
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?members&gid=60010470404#!/group.php?gid=60010470404
haha
i never thought of that until now but you’re right, that dude is a dead ringer for NH.
trouble brewing
Some of the newly signed vets are already crumbling about not bringing the best players north. " this team needs a lot of help and they just sent our 3rd best hitter to AAA" sez a un-name pirate reliever. " Arbitration sharbitration , come on we need some bats in pittsburgh not indy " sez a long time broadcaster off the record. This could be just brewski talk ,but its sounds like their somewhat upset at the way the roster is un-folding.
Im happy
with the roster. there is no point of rushing alverez or tabata to the majors for an extra month of experience when it will end up costing us a full year of service. the pirates are not going far this year anyways so let them get the extra experience down at AAA before the majors. With Cutch, Jones, Iwa, and Doumit, I dont think our lineup is half bad.
Do you have a source or a link...
for the veteran sez quotes or is this just more of your same ole let’s bust on Huntington?
bar talk
no this is what I heard after a few to many beers.
by wishiewashie on Mar 29, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
"This could be just brewski talk"
It could also be you just making shit up to support your view.
Formerly known as Econolodge
I'm Sorry
I didn’t understand but a few words of that. Are you sure these brewskis aren’t the ones talking?
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
i like pat's approach
whygavs has a fairly strict “no bob smizik” policy.
Huntington inherited valuable outfield
and traded Bay for basically a bunch of nobodys, Mclouth for a back of rotation starter and 2 bums, and with Nady, he received very good return. The deal with the cubs was a joke.
Other teams trade their stars and receive top prospects, not the low to mid level crap NH asks for.
To give him a free pass for trading Bay and Mclouth for less than my 5 tear old son could have gotten, well that’s why the buc’s have their 17 year losing streak going strong.
Russell was on the brink of getting canned from Wilkes barre after a 55-81 record, the bucs look like little leaguers much of the time. Is it his fault? Personally I feel Huntington’s calling down making all the personale moves and Russell is his puppet. I can say his game day management and little league approach toward his players have no business in the majors.
when people know you are selling and the market isnt that good its tough to get a great return. Bay is not going to net a top 25 prospect in any type of trade when he was with the pirates so chill.
considering what we have gotten out of it, it might have been almost as good to keep him and get the compensation draft choices. Moss gone, Hansen probably gone, LaRoche a middling 3B, Morris (??).
If a multi-time all star isn’t going to get a top line prospect, then no one is going to be able to command that in a trade, yet it happens.
NH has already admitted there was a better package on the table than what we got. We’ll never know what it was unless he tells us, but he sure sounded like he had buyers remorse on that trade.
Not to mention
He also said that he might have been better off waiting to the offseason, with the reduced contract time remaining being offset by greater confidence in his health. The retort is “he could’ve been hurt”, but that’s true for every player (trade Pedro now!); Bay has shown that he is not, in fact, an elevated injury risk. The Pirates were hurt by the perception that he is/was.
Anyway.
I’m almost positive he meant he might have been better off waiting for the off-season given what he knows now.
Similarly, the better deal is based on his hindsight, not what he knew at the time.
That's exactly what he said.
If he’d known at the time of the deal that Moss wouldn’t hit and Hansen would develop a rare neurological condition, he would’ve gone a different direction?
Well, duh.
I was just trying to be nice the way I phrased it!
by CptnAwesome on Mar 30, 2010 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, Bay has shown the exact opposite.
Remember all those published reports about how Bay’s knees failed Boston’s physical this offseason and they cut his FA offer in response, pushing him to the Mets?
Bay’s knees are a time bomb, and the market (reasonably) demanded a discount to cover that risk.
alright alright
thats fine but the jack wilson trade i call a success. the freddy sanchez trade i will also call a success as of now. the nady deal a success. the past 2 drafts a success. the way he has adressed the bullpen a success. nyjer deal a success.
ill say the mcclouth deal is a split until the verdict is out on morton. and ok the bay deal wasnt great but eh better than nothing.
overall you have to admit that NH has made vast improvements to this team from the bottom up. Our minor league system was ranked like 18th this year compared to what 30th before he got here?
LaRoche was a middling 3B last year.
I.e. his first as a starter. We’ll control him for another four years, covering his age 26-29 seasons, during which time he’s likely to show further improvement.
Jason Bay was a two-time All-Star, yes. That doesn’t make him an elite commodity on the market – how many teams would have taken him over, say, Teixeira?
Andy LaRoche's rank in BA's list of the top 100 prospects in all of baseball
2005: 74
2006: 19
2007: 19
2008: 31
Is that you NH?
How come other teams get top prospects for rentals yet Bay w/ a year fairly cheap cant receive anything better than a pile of crap.
How do the other teams get top prospects for their players?
My guess is that they have competent mgmt that actually ask for them!!!
Talking about EXCUSES!!! Sellers market LMAO!!!
I take it you liked the A Ram trade too!!! Sellers market LMAO
Great minds think alike.
I owe you a Coke, Matt.
Faulty premise...
Other teams don’t get significantly higher returns on their rentals than the Pirates got for Bay. For example, the return for Bay was very comparable to, and in my opinion slightly better than, what the A’s got for Matt Holliday.
What did the Twins get for Johan Santana? Not all that much as it turned out.
What did Cleveland get for CC Sabathia? We really don’t know yet. LaPorta still hasn’t done anything in the majors.
For Carlos Beltran, the Royals got Mark Teahen, John Buck and Mike Wood.
Even in the first Mark Texiera trade, where the Rangers did get a bunch of top prospects, not all of them have panned out. Saltalamacchia, who was supposed to be the centerpiece of the deal, has been a bit of a flop.
So, to sum up: It’s not easy to get top prospects from other teams and even when you do, they don’t always work out.
And the Braves...
When they traded Teixeira to the Angels, all they got was Casey Kotchman and Steve Marek. Kotchman was later sent to the Red Sox to get Adam LaRoche. In the long run, they traded Mark Teixeira for Adam LaRoche. So yeah, the Braves didn’t do too well with that series of trades.
by IAPiratesFan on Mar 29, 2010 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
agree
A lot of people have an inflated view of what one year of a star player is worth. Coupled with a misinformed idea of what a star player looks like (Jason Bay? Really?) and a tendency to evaluate with the full benefit of hindsight, it makes for some pretty faulty analysis.
Not to mention what the Indians got for Cliff Lee. The Phillies refused to offer any of their top 4 prospects, as I recall.
The Pirates finally wised up and got a guy like Huntington right when the rest of the baseball world was finally figuring out how valuable elite prospects are.
Look back at the Giles trade.
Giles was a significantly more desirable commodity at the time when we moved him than Bay was at the time of his trade. Giles was healthier, and a better defender, and locked up on a below-market deal, and going to his hometown team that was presumably poised to market the shit out of him going into a new ballpark… and his offensive numbers totally crushed Bay’s. He was coming off a season with a 177 OPS+. A season with 38 HR and a .450 OBP. Bay can’t see those kind of numbers on a dark night with a telescope.
And even in that deal, the Padres’ very top prospects were off limits to us. We weren’t allowed to ask for Sean Burroughs (2002 SD #1, 2002 MLB #4) or Xavier Nady (2003 SD #1, 2003 MLB #44), so we ended up with Jason Bay (no ranking until 2004). We weren’t allowed to ask for Jake Peavy (2002 SD #3, 2002 MLB #28), so we ended up with Oliver Perez (2002 SD #10).
Teams just don’t trade top top prospects these days. Not for love or money.
Bay is a poor defensive outfielder, which hurts a lot of his value. And for what it’s worth, the Braves are strongly considering batting McLouth 8th and platooning him with the great Melky Cabrera.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 30, 2010 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
