Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Tiger Woods, Tony Romo Grouped Together At Pebble Beach

Fire John Russell

I wrote the follwing on June 13 in this FanPost.

People talk about talent evaluation as the defining measure of Neal Huntington and his organization.  I don't know what to think about this.  The organization has seemingly had three very good drafts.  I'm fine with Huntington's record in player transactions.  Mostly good in my view, some bad, but he wasn't trading much talent and he has gotten some assets through Rule 5 and the waiver wire for free.  But, I am very troubled by the performance at the major league level.  Not the skill level, which leaves a lot to be desired, but the decision making by the players and the lineup construction and in-game managing by the manager.

 

I am more optimistic about the talent in the Pirates organization than I have been in many years.  But, I am also now more concerned than ever with how they are currently and will in the future develop that talent.  The teaching that Neal Huntington continually cites as taking place is just not evident at the major league level and the long and short-term planning that is the core of any successful organization seems haphazard at best and non-existant at worst.

 

These are important days.  Put me down as concerned.

I have seen nothing in the two plus months since to make me feel any better about what is going on at the major league level. It is time to fire John Russell and his staff.

I don't write that lightly. I fully recognize that we are talking about men and their careers. I recognize that John Russell and his staff are working hard. I recognize that the Pirates lack talent at the major league level. I recognize that the Pirates have continued to trade players during the entire three years of his tenure and there has been a revolving door in the clubhouse. I also know John Russell is a good person. For all these reasons I have not once called for him to be fired. In fact I have never publicly written that a coach or manager should be fired. These are hard decisions and being a fan and on the outside, I don't feel that I am equipped with all the information needed to make a sound decision. But in this case, I feel I have seen enough.

I just finished listening to Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin's press conference. Last night the Steelers lost a preseason game to the Denver Broncos. The noteworthy aspect of the game was that many of the young Steelers trying to earn a roster spot played poorly. There were physical errors, mental errors and, at times, a lack of composure and discipline. Before the game, in a sideline interview in front of the television cameras, Mike Tomlin uttered his favorite phrase. He spoke of individuals playing up to The Standard. Every player who has the privilege of putting on the Steelers uniform understands what The Standard is. The coaching staff has expectations. If you are going to play, then you play up to The Standard. If you don't perform to that level, someone else will play.

In his post-game press conference Tomlin spoke about the performance of various players. He didn't mince words. He did not parry shots with reporters or dance around issues. Those who played well and those who didn't were mentioned by name. He talked about taking advantage of teaching opportunities to raise the level of play of the young men that he coaches.

Football is different than baseball. The culture is different, the locker room environment is different, the nature of the season is different. But in both football and baseball coaches teach. There is much more teaching in football because of the myriad positions and the intricate game planning that goes on week-to-week, but both sports have fundamentals that are keys to success. In football it is blocking and tackling, securing the football, running good pass routes among other things. In baseball it is hitting and pitching, running the bases, fielding your position and the like. Both games have a big mental component.

The shocking thing about the Steelers' performance was seeing multiple players not perform up to The Standard. Coach Tomlin said that others will get opportunities as a result. As a fan, I know things will be better Thursday night when the team takes on Carolina in the final exhibition game. I know the problems will have been solved when the Steelers play their first meaningful game against Atlanta on Sept. 12.  Mike Tomlin will teach and he will evaluate and he will correct the mistakes. He has a track record. Last year, when starting running back Rashard Mendenhall had a lackadaisical week of practice, Tomlin benched him. There is a level of preparation and performance that is expected and if players don't meet that they don't play. Every man on the Pittsburgh Steelers understands this.

The Pittsburgh Pirates under John Russell do not have a standard. Their play throughout the course of this season has been substandard in every facet. They do not hit well, they do not pitch well, they do not run the bases well and they do not play defense well. First, and most importantly, this is on the players. They are major leaguers getting paid to play baseball. Many of the players are not very good. But, beyond the talent level, the Pirates make fundamental mistake after fundamental mistake.

Yesterday Ronny Cedeno came up in the third inning with men on first and third and the Pirates down 3-2. Pitcher Charlie Morton, he of the .000 batting average, was on deck. Cedeno, on his own, bunted. I'm sure in his mind, Cedeno thought he might bunt for a hit and if he didn't at least the runner on first would advance. Of course Cedeno failed to execute the bunt properly and was thrown out. Morton struck out and the Pirates failed to score. This was so incredibly boneheaded that it is almost laughable. Throw in the fact that Cedeno did something similar the night before and it's pathetic. Top it off with the fact that something like this seems to happen every game and it is time to fire the manager and his staff.

Over the course of 162 games every player will make mistakes and every manager will make bad decisions. But, we have gotten to the point where the Pirates players' approach to the game and John Russell's lineup construction and in-game managing decisions are unacceptable. The list examples of fundamental, fixable mistakes the Pirates have made this year goes into the hundreds and many seem to happen over and over. The fact that Ronny Cedeno does not know that he has to swing the bat in that situation, that Lastings Milledge makes the third out of an inning at third base before a runner crosses home plate, that Andy LaRoche doesn't know what to do when two players occupy the same base, that Ryan Doumit constantly tags players at chest level on plays at the plate, that many players can't execute a sacrifice bunt, that no pitcher on the staff effectively holds runners on base...the list is only just starting. These are things the coaching staff has to correct. It hasn't happened. There is no reason to believe it will happen.

In addition Russell's lineup construction seems haphazard at best. He has consistently failed to put his players in a position where they are most likely to succeed. He often ignores platoon splits and the allocation of playing time has been questionable. His unwillingness to honestly address his players' performance (see quotes about Aki Iwamura batting leadoff, Ryan Church being hot, Garrett Jones hitting well, any day's starting pitcher's performance) suggests that he isn't driving home the message that the level of performance is not acceptable.

John Russell has a record of 172-281 during his tenure with the Pirates. His .380 winning percentage is historically bad. But in the end, John Russell's record is not the main reason he should be fired. The teaching that should be taking place hasn't happened or is not being done the right way. A team with the Pirates' lack of talent needs to do all the little things right. Instead, the Pirates fundamentally are a terrible team. Russell's decision making further hampers them. The Pirates don't have The Standard. Time's up, I've seen enough. Fire John Russell and his staff and find someone who can get this right.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.

Comment 205 comments  |  4 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Agreed.

It seems there are no consequences for poor play and I wonder if that is because there are no options available to JR. Milledge on the basepaths is a great example. Has he been pegged twice this year going from 2nd to 3rd on a grounder to short? This weekend, he over ran first and could easily have been thrown out by the right fielder. The bunting that Cedeno does is puzzling. Tekulve said yesterday that either he is doing it on his own or the bench is telling him to do it and either way, it is horrible strategy. My guess is that the bench is not telling him to bunt, but the bench must also not be telling him too strongly to stop bunting in those situations since there have been at least 3 this season. When all of the broadcasters and postgame analysts are saying what a stupid play it is, you’d think the bench would know. Teke was surprised he wasn’t pulled from the game after it happened – I am anxious to see who plays SS in the next series.

by Teek82 on Aug 30, 2010 3:46 PM EDT reply actions  

Pirates need to look to guys like TEKE and other players they have had that have actually played the GAME at the highest level, on the biggest stage, to manage the team. Who knows more about the game then the people who have played 100’s of games, AND WON!

by rah0785 on Sep 2, 2010 3:25 AM EDT up reply actions  

…players they have had that have actually played the GAME at the highest level, on the biggest stage, to manage the team./blockquote>

you know who fits that description? John Russell

by theatrain on Sep 7, 2010 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

A good point, though.

Russell does have parts of ten seasons as a MLB player in his background.

by Vlad on Sep 7, 2010 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

including

catching Nolan ryan’s 6th (?) no hitter.

by theatrain on Sep 7, 2010 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

I absolutely agree.

I don’t have anything constructive to add beyond that, though.

by bluecheer on Aug 30, 2010 4:42 PM EDT reply actions  

One thing that really agravates me about JR

I can’t stand his post game press conferences. The countless times he always sugarcoats individual efforts from a terribly played game. When I’m listening to sound bytes on the radio you would think we just played a perfect game. Top major league managers would be livid with the effort this team is showing and always know when to call a spade a spade. This article is true in that he has no standard and totally non-existent accountability.

by edved on Aug 30, 2010 4:51 PM EDT reply actions  

Um ...

Jim Tracy had bad teams here and everyone gave him crap for “throwing his players under the bus.”

Just sayin’.

by bucdaddy on Aug 31, 2010 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

He lives in a little FANTASY WORLD harping on individuals when this is a TEAM SPORT. Most players say "I don’t care about my HOME RUN. We LOST THE GAME!! Why would a manager say anything different??? RUSS is the worst manager I have seen in my life, even worse then Lloyd McClendon!

by rah0785 on Sep 2, 2010 3:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

What?

The next time I hear Russell harp on an individual will be the first time. Most people, like edved above, are all over Russell because he “doesn’t” get all over the players when they are playing poor fundmentally. This is the first citicism I have heard of him being too tough. Interesting.

This goes back to my point on another post that it really doesn’t matter what Russell does (and I’m not defending him because I would not at all be upset if were fired tomorrow) the fans have had enough of the losing and he is the #1 target…fair or not.

by Slick1 on Sep 2, 2010 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

A very well constructed and thought out reason

we should light the torches and round up John Russell and the whole lot.

I’ll also add that here we have one of the most talented young center fielders in the game, and he somehow manages to rate as one of the worse center fielders defensively in MLB. And that’s not just “data noise”, that is really true that Cutch has been well below average running routes and catching the ball this year.

Why isn’t it getting better?

by MarkInDallas on Aug 30, 2010 4:55 PM EDT reply actions  

Can I bring my pitchfork?

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on Aug 30, 2010 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

Great point about Cutch

by houksyndrome on Aug 30, 2010 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Up and Coming Players are getting WORSE under Russell, not improving !

Agreed, fire him now to stop the regression.

As for flawed in game management, one could write volumes about very basic stuff.

Just from this last week, it was obvious Slim Mac was gassed as he barely made it out of the 6th Inning, was saved by a spectacular double play. JR should have been pinch hit for him in the bottom of the inning with a runner on base. Instead, JR sends him up to bat, strike out, then leaves him in laboring as 9 more batters reach or score in the 7th! The previous start he let DOH-mit play right field, leading to a few runs to chase Slim Mac. SO this is just a small example of how bad managing resulted in Slim Mac being a “steaky, so-so” pitcher so far, when good managing would have resulted in Slim Mac at 4-0 as the staff ace! Of course, leaving Wilfredo in the other night when he was clearly gassed (with Meek ready) until the game was lost is also unforgiveable lack of managing.

At first I thought JR didn’t come out to argue calls because maybe he was shrewd or something, but I came to realize he doesn’t argue calls because its just another part of the job he is not up for. Think about it – someone who was a crappy 3rd base coach with the Pirates gets bumped up to manager – and you were expecting…..?

by BucsFaninCA on Aug 30, 2010 5:03 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

I hear Eric Wedge is looking for a job.

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." ~Woody Allen

by Willton on Aug 30, 2010 5:08 PM EDT reply actions  

I agree that there are enough reasons to dislike John Russell, and as much as managers are interchangeable, there probably is a better option available.

But it seems that changing managers right now would just be interpreted as an admission of guilt from Huntington.

by schraderfan on Aug 30, 2010 5:11 PM EDT reply actions  

I feel like the Pirates need...

…to hire a Michel Therrien type manager now, while the kids are young, to yell and get them all in line. Then, once the team matures and is ready to take the next step, bring in someone else who isn’t a drill seargent.

by titanlord91 on Aug 30, 2010 5:15 PM EDT reply actions  

We could sick

Larry Bowa on them. Your point about Therrien is well taken. He drilled in a fundamental sense of defensive responsibility that was critical to winning the Stanley Cup.

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on Aug 30, 2010 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

its funny

I thought the Pens made the finals in spite of Therrien, not because of him. I think the Bucs need an enthusiastic, positive manager with a resume that the players can respect. I wish Chuck Tanner was 40 years younger.

by filteru2 on Aug 30, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Um ...

Tanner’s players respected him so much they ran an open drug market in his clubhouse.

Just sayin’.

(And is “hagiograohy” the word I’m looking for here?)

by bucdaddy on Aug 31, 2010 2:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Therrien’s work was put in for years before the cup runs happened. He coached those kids in the minors then came up to the big club and kept his drill sergeant (I mean the guy literally took the team to boot camp for two weeks of the preseason.) mentality. It was his focus on fundamentals that shaped the team. As far as I am concerned he deserves as much credit as Bylsma does for the cup. It was MTs groundwork that laid the foundation for DB to build on. I really wish we could get MT to coach again in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre he really was good with young players.

Put on your dancin' shoes.

by PensFan024 on Aug 31, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, The Pirates lack talent, but...

For all the legitimate claims that could be made in Russell’s defense that he hasn’t been given much to work with, the 2010 Pirates were still projected to win 70 games by PECOTA, 74 games by CHONE, and their Vegas Over/Under was 71. If they continue on their current .331 pace, they’ll end up with between 53 and 54 wins, significantly under all three already-modest projections. Even if they run off a decent winning streak, which seems less and less likely by the day, they’re still almost certainlyl gonna come in under 65 wins.

Basically, Russell has been handed a bad team, but they’re still badly underachieving in the W/L column, to say nothing of the above individual player regression examples.

Links – PECOTA, CHONE, Vegas

elvishasleft.com
bestweekever.tv

by Dan H on Aug 30, 2010 5:53 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

We can’t really blame Russell for Iwamura, Clement, Morton, etc. drastically under-performing their CHONE levels.

by Adam Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Certainly not on a straight-literal basis, but surely we have to judge a coaching staff to some degree on its ability to have a collection of talent live up to its potential, right?

The under-performance of Iwamura and Clement was obviously painful, but it didn’t cost the team 16 wins, and the team hasn’t played any better from a W/L standpoint since those two were taken out of the lineup months ago (they were .359 on June 15th, Aki’s last game). CHONE also didn’t likely expect Neil Walker to take over as a reliable starting 2B or for Jose Tabata to be a 2 WAR player, and they’re still nowhere near their projected pace.

Whether it’s a series of isolated misfortunes or something fundamentally wrong with the coaching staff, the Pirates are still badly underperforming this year.

elvishasleft.com
bestweekever.tv

by Dan H on Aug 30, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Whether it’s a series of isolated misfortunes or something fundamentally wrong with the coaching staff, the Pirates are still badly underperforming this year.

It’s more a combination of isolated misfortunes, and Huntington overestimating the talent of most of the major-league acquisitions. Iwamura was out of shape, but if he spent most of the offseason in Japan, then what is John Russell, Long, and Varsho supposed to do? Go in there and monitor his food intake?

Multiple organizations (Mariners, Dodgers, Braves, Mets, Nationals) couldn’t turn Clement, LaRoche, Morton, and Milledge into productive major leaguers. It’s not just the Pirates coaching staff who struggled to extract value here. Maybe the talent just wasn’t there.

by Adam Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

IIRC...

the Pirates admitted they didn’t even do a physical on Aki when they acquired him.

by Thunder on Aug 30, 2010 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m obviously not blaming Russell for Iwamura, or saying that Russell specifically didn’t do something that he should have to get value out of Clement – like many people on this thread, I believe that a manager has little if any tangible impact on a team’s W/L record, particularly a team with a 70-win projection. But still, when a team has supposed 70-74 win talent, and absolutely everything goes wrong across the board, it’s tough to argue that whatever small intangible effect the manager has had on that team has in any way been a positive one.

I will agree that the initial PECOTA projections are largely marginalized by the fact that most of the projected starters have flamed out (Andy went from 2.4 WAR in ‘09 to -1.4 WAR this year, and Morton from 0.7 WAR in 97 IP last year to -2.8 in 46 IP this year), but even if you argue that the team’s extra-suckiness (meaning 54 wins instead of 70-74) is mostly the result of unrelated incidents that don’t reflect poorly on the coaching staff, it’s still almost impossible to argue that Russell has had a positive effect on this club, particularly when the few things we can directly pin to the manager — meaning, the many specific incidents relayed in the post above — are unambiguously questionable.

Does anyone actually think that this current ballclub would be losing even more games with another manager? Either Russell has had a negative effect on the team, or he’s had little to no effect on the team — I can buy either argument, but neither is enough of a reason to re-sign him next year.

elvishasleft.com
bestweekever.tv

by Dan H on Aug 31, 2010 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Already under contract.....

for next year.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 31, 2010 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

He’s already re-signed for next year.

I think coaching has some effect. For example, Alvarez, Walker, and Jones have failed to make progress on defense. Some of that reflects on Carlos Garcia. There’s a very good case for him to be canned.

To fire Russell, I’d want to know what specifically he is in charge of regarding player development. You can’t lay the record on his shoulders b/c of in-game decisions. Some in-game moves may have shaved away 3-5 wins, but he isn’t responsible for most of this disaster, unless there’s more that I don’t know.

by Adam Reynolds on Aug 31, 2010 1:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry, by “re-signed” just meant “brought back.” Though if Russell is retained but not extended, his job status instantly becomes one of the biggest stories looming over next spring.

Also, if the pitching, hitting, and defense all across the board either fail to improve or outright regress, at what point does that kick back up to the manager? If we’re going to fire every positional coach in the regime, why not start fresh with a new manager?

elvishasleft.com
bestweekever.tv

by Dan H on Aug 31, 2010 3:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think Jones has made some progress on defense.

Aesthetically, at least, he doesn’t look nearly as ugly in RF as he did last year.

And if you’re going to blame anybody for Pedro being a crappy fielder, I think you have to blame his parents, for not giving him better genes. Or God, for creating him with the mobility of a sundial. You can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

"I'd want to know what specifically he is in charge of"

He’s the manager. Ultimately that makes him responsible for everything that happens at the major league level. He doesn’t have Varsho and Kerrigan to blame for his ineptitude anymore. His failings as a leader, and a manager are his to bear. The fact of the matter is, we can’t afford to let our young guys regress and fail because coaches don’t want to coach. And we certainly don’t want them to get the impression that loosing is acceptable as long as you have a crutch to lean on. I think the OP comparison with the Steelers is pretty accurate.

by no1hedberg on Aug 31, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, of course they didn't.

The deal needed to be finished within like 24 hours, to avoid having Iwamura’s option trigger while he was still Tampa’s property, and Iwamura was in Japan. What should they have done? Called some random general practitioner in Tokyo and told him to get on the train?

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

Correct me if I am wrong...

the concern for Tampa was Aki’s option kicking in. His option was exercised when the Pirates completed the trade. What would have happened if the trade didn’t meet the contract deadline?? Aki would have become a free agent. At which point…the Pirates could have signed him for whatever price they saw fit…and that Aki would have been willing to accept. Or he would have signed with someone else.

So the Pirates rushed through a trade without due diligence on a guy that had a significant knee injury…and ended up with a sunk cost of $4.85M. A physical would have been for the Pirates protection, or a clause should have been put in the deal about passing a physical.

The Rays got Chavez, which they turned into Soriano. And essentially didn’t give up anything they weren’t going to give up in 24 hours anyway.

Fine work, Neal. Do you now offer Aki arbitration…or non-tender him?

by Thunder on Aug 31, 2010 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Who says they didn't do due diligence?

Most trades don’t include full physical exams. You get a copy of the guy’s file, including copies of his most recent scans and x-rays. And I haven’t seen anybody suggest that we didn’t get that stuff in this deal.

Putting a clause into the deal making it contingent on Iwamura passing a physical at a later date would have been a non-starter. Tampa was up against a hard payroll ceiling, and wouldn’t have been willing to run any risk of him ending up on their roster at his option price, even the fairly low risk of him failing a physical.

I have to admit that I’m kind of confused by your post. You say a lot of things that are true, but seem to mean them in a derogatory way. Like Tampa getting Chavez for a guy they were committed to dropping one way or the other – the fact that they were committed to getting Iwamura’s money off the books is why they were only able to get a nonentity like Chavez back in return for him (and also the same reason that the Braves were willing to take Chavez for a player they were determined to drop for the same financial reasons, Soriano). Or the possibility of Iwamura deciding to sign somewhere else if we hadn’t traded for him – if we felt that Iwamura was a worthwhile addition, why would we balk at paying a minimal price like Chavez in order to lock him down with us, particularly given our team’s problematic history at attracting free agents even when we have top bid?

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

My point was...

Tampa had nothing to lose…they exercised the option or released Aki. All signs were that they would release him if they couldn’t trade him. They couldn’t afford to have him on their roster. A release didn’t cause them any further expenses. They got Chavez for basically minimum wage.

The Pirates didn’t HAVE to acquire Iwamura. Healthy, he MIGHT have been a worthwhile addition. However, he hasn’t been healthy since his injury. And unless there was a post season set of tests done prior to Aki going back to Japan, there wouldn’t have been recent medical information available. I seriously doubt that the Pirates scouted him very closely in the 21 starts he had at the end of the 2009 season with the Rays (.250/.310/.355 in those games). If the Pirates would have had the chance of signing him as a free agent, I would hope they would have done a physical. It seems like most other FA signings are dependent on one.

Let the buyer beware. And the buyer got burned.

by Thunder on Aug 31, 2010 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Aki

This has been discussed at length before so I’m adding little.

But it’s not like the Pirates had to make a move up against a hard deadline.

They could have expressed interest weeks before. They could have arranged for a physical during that time.

A small-market team like the Pirates certainly should make any deal involving a $5 million player contingent on a physical.

As an example, the Giants took forever to review Freddy’s records, and subject him to multiple physicals, before approving the deal.

This just wasn’t the front office’s brightest moment.

by Bernie6 on Aug 31, 2010 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

It wasn't

there best moment, but I’m with Vlad on this one. They don’t get Aki unless they trade for him, so they couldn’t let it go to free agency. Yes, it turned out spectacularly badly, but they had to trade to get the rights. He wasn’t signing with the Bucs as a free agent.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

Tampa didn't start shopping him aggressively...

…until shortly before the deal went down. Up until then, they’d been trying to keep up a brave face, in order to try and get interested clubs to come to them (and thus pay a higher price).

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad and DT

Maybe.

I can’t find a link that says TB waited until the deadline to aggressively deal him. But it may have happened that way.

As for Aki, I’m not sure he wouldn’t have ended up with the Bucs anyhow.

If he had become a free agent, he would have had to undergo a physical. That’s part of the process. And I suspect most, if not all teams, would have given him a low base with incentives based on the knee and his weight (just my speculation).

Also, he was competing against guys like Johnson for a job. If he were healthy, he was viewed as a nice player.

But there would not have been a bidding war for Aki, I don’t think.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

If a guy doesn't want to sign with you...

…it doesn’t take a war. It just takes one other offer.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

I’m not sure there was much interest at all in Aki.

I think the Twins, and most teams, viewed him as a plan B.

But you are right: It just takes one mystery team to jump in (as Boras tries to manipulate).

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

There would've been at least some interest.

Given that there were guys who looked like significantly worse 2B options who came up with guaranteed money and starting jobs from other clubs.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

Maybe, Vlad

It’s like Dana Eveland. The Pirates had to act because the Brewers for example were rumored “to be in on him.”

Well, no one from the Brewers ever said it. Moreover, they elected to let Eveland pass through waivers a few weeks later unclaimed.

Aki would have had a hard time as a free agent because of his knee and weight.

I think you are absolutely right that there would have been interesting.

I also think that interest would have waned when a team did a physical.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

The main, and most relevant, difference between the two situations...

…is that Iwamura was coming off three consecutive seasons as a productive starter, while Eveland had sucked donkey balls for his entire career. As such, the idea that another team might be interested in Iwamura was inherently more plausible, in that he, y’know, wasn’t coming off a long stretch of donkey ball-sucking.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well ...

There is another difference.

Aki was coming off one of the most devastating injuries I’ve seen an MI sustain.

And he had an expensive option for a player who was, at best, an injury concern.

Just a difference of opinion, Vlad. But I suspect future deals will have a physical as part of them.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

A physical would not have changed a thing.

Aki was playing just a month before the trade. Tampa’s doctors gave him examinations and the Pirates had access to all of his MRIs and records.

Giving Aki a physical at that moment would not have changed the Pirates’ decision one bit.

He would have passed the physical, just like he did when Tampa gave him one when they cleared him to play, and as has been shown in the videos, he was playing at a much higher level than he did in Pittsburgh just weeks before the trade.

It’s obvious that Aki did not work hard in the off season for the Pirates. He worked extremely hard for the Rays to get back into playing shape after only a few months after surgery. He does that and then gets traded to one of the worst teams in MLB.

Do you think he blew up like a balloon in the few weeks between the end of the season and when the Pirates would have given him a physical?

No. If he’d had a physical, the Pirates would have cleared him and then he would have gone on eating the Japanese version of Little Debbies until March.

If there was any fault on the Pirates part, it was that they should have spoken to him to get him excited about the team and its direction. Then maybe he would have worked harder during the off season.

by MarkInDallas on Sep 1, 2010 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Sure, he had a serious injury.

And then he came back from the injury at full strength and played for a month. And we had access to all Tampa’s medical records from when they activated him.

So I don’t see the issue here.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Let's assume that's the case

He came back full strength.

I don’t believe it. But let’s assume that’s true.

It doesn’t mean that the knee didn’t later became inflamed or reinjured. Hence the reason you check instead of relying on a scout’s word.

How is a scout going to know whether it’s gotten progressively worse? How is he going to know whether there is premature arthritis?

It doesn’t make sense not to do the physical.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

What makes you think...

…that if it became inflamed or reinjured, that it happened prior to the trade?

When you say “it doesn’t make sense not to do the physical”, what you’re saying is that it didn’t make sense to do the trade. Because no physical was logistically possible at that point.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, I believe Aki ...

who said so.

I provided you one quote where he admitted he wasn’t healthy. There are others as well.

I suspect Aki knew his health better than any of us.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

There's a big difference...

…between “not healthy” and “not 100%”.

by Vlad on Sep 2, 2010 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

The team didn't have to acquire Iwamura, specifically.

But they had to acquire a 2B, and Iwamura looked like the best one available (outside of O-Dawg, who was a Type A who would’ve cost us our second-round draft pick – the Dodgers didn’t decline to offer him arb until after we’d traded for Iwamura). We also kicked the tires on Kelly Johnson, but he indicated that he didn’t want to sign with us.

You can doubt that the team scouted Iwamura seriously if you like, but that contradicts what the front office has said. They watched him run, and were convinced that he was fine.

The most recent medical tests in Iwamura’s file would have come from late ‘09, when Tampa was preparing to activate him from the DL. It seems unlikely that his joints would’ve degraded significantly between then and the end of the season, doesn’t it?

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Again, maybe

Kelly Johnson didn’t indicate that he didn’t want to sign with us. The quotes I’ve read from him said that the Pirates were one of the finalists and that he gave them serious consideration.

Second, you always had the option, for example, of seeing if LaRoche could play there. Aki was not the only option, internally or externally.

Third, let’s assume that the front office’s version is true. The scouts who recommended a guy 40 pounds overweight with a knee problem should be fired.

I knew he wasn’t “fine” when I saw him in two spring training games.

Finally, I reiterate what others have said in earlier postings. If you are a small-market team making that investment, you make free agents go through a physical. Some teams mandate it for trades. Why not for Aki?

And I don’t want to hear that the deadline stopped it. If that’s the case, you move on, as anyone who’s done sales and marketing will tell you.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

The best indication that he didn't want to sign with us...

…is that he didn’t sign with us, even though we were the first team to make him an actual offer, and our offer was right in line with what he eventually got from Arizona.

Going into the season with LaRoche as the starting 2B would’ve required us to add a 3B to take the job he’d just vacated. It also would’ve been an incredibly risky move, in that we didn’t have a viable 2B backup plan behind him (with Walker not having broken out yet), in the event that he proved incapable of handling the position.

You’ve seen the videos that Mark posted earlier this year. Iwamura wasn’t significantly overweight at the tail end of last season, and he wasn’t moving like a guy with knee problems. There was no problem there for a scout to see.

Since you re-iterated the “Why not a physical?” question, I’ll re-iterate the “Why not a physical?” answer: By the time trade discussions between us and Tampa became serious, it was no longer logistically feasible. Iwamura was halfway around the world, where it was midnight, and where we had no medical personnel to examine him. Even if our team doctor had jumped on a plane and flown to Japan and somehow located the equipment and facilities to perform the tests people seem to want, he wouldn’t have gotten there in time to make it happen.

If you don’t like the fact that the deadline imposed limitations on the process, that’s too bad. That’s the way things were. Why should the team be obligated to kill what looked like an advantageous deal (by far the best available option for them) simply because they weren’t able to perform a series of tests that most teams don’t perform before consummating deals anyway?

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'll just reiterate.....

a point I’ve made 100 times this year, but not in a few months. As a supporter of the front office and their plan, they got incredibly lucky with Neil Walker. They had no plan to play him at second coming into the season. They had no idea that he would be there second baseman when they called him up. Ten days later he was given the job.

Of all the things that have happened and been unlucky, this was a godsend and was not planned for or expected and was incredibly lucky if one is keeping a scorecard from outside the organization.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

"They had no idea that he would be there second baseman when they called him up."

This has been repeated plenty of times, but I don’t buy it. Walker was playing second base almost exclusively during his final few weeks at Triple-A, after it became obvious that something needed to be done with Iwamura. And like you said, he was starting at 2B for the Pirates like a week after his promotion. I have little doubt that they planned for Walker to be the second baseman, and just played him at third for a few games while LaRoche was banged up. Just because the FO didn’t publicly commit to Walker at 2B immediately after his promotion does not mean they weren’t planning for it.

by MBandi on Sep 1, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

check the positions....

he played at Indy his last 30 games. If you are going to call up a guy to be your second baseman, how many times are you going to start him at third, in left or at first when he has little experience at second? My guess is zero. Not the case.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

He played in 43 total games at AAA this year, with 21 coming at 2B. That seems pretty significant, considering there were no indications we would need a new 2B until at least a few weeks into the season.

by MBandi on Sep 3, 2010 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

We've been through.....

this topic hundreds of times. Whether you believe it as true or not, NH said when he called up Walker that he would play the infield corners and get an occasional start in left. One week later he was the starting second baseman.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 3, 2010 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

I just find it hard to believe that Huntington wasn’t considering it, regardless of what he said publicly.

by MBandi on Sep 3, 2010 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

By the way....

as a side note, how did you link “Pittsburgh Lumber Co.” I’m not able to highlight or link in the box I use. Thanks.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 3, 2010 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

I have the html code (<a href=…) in the signature box of my profile settings.

by MBandi on Sep 3, 2010 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks. Could you copy the code.....

here so I can see it please?

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 3, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you want it for your site, it'd be:

[a href=“http://www.thehammerspeaks.com/”]www.thehammerspeaks.com[/a]

…only with angled brackets instead of square ones.

by Vlad on Sep 3, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks, Vlad. I was trying to figure out how to post it so the text would show up correctly.

by MBandi on Sep 3, 2010 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks guys.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 3, 2010 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

Let’s just say we have a difference of opinion. Okay. I’ll concede there is evidence to support your position. There is certainly evidence to support my opinion.

But a few comments:

1. The Pirates likely could have had Johnson with a higher offer than Arizona. They could have easily done that and still not approached Aki contract range. They also could have traded for Johnson instead.

2. It was clear to nearly every one on here that the Pirates weren’t going to be very good this year. I had them pegged for the 70-win range. But it was obvious they were going to be bad. I hardly see the high-risk nature in seeing if LaRoche could play the position or trying to trade for a guy like Kouz, who SD was trying to give away.

3. Yes, I’ve seen the videos that Mark has posted. But those videos weren’t taken when the deal was made. I think it’s good practice to have a physical for every trade.

4. I don’t believe that Aki was playing like an elite 2b in Japan and just started to suck in spring training.

5. I don’t buy the we had to because of the deadline logic. I had people try that with me when I was buying a house. Purchase it today without an inspection and we have a deal. No thanks. I did my due diligence. I think the Pirates should have done more research. This is Aki they were trading for, not Pujols.

6. I don’t buy the straw man argument that because the deal happened late that you couldn’t give him a physical before it was finalized. You make the deal contingent on a physical. If TB wants to take the risk and exercise the option, fine. If not, you walk away.

7. Maybe most teams don’t do physicals. But I think smart ones do. I certainly think small-market ones should.

8. Of course, I think the deadline imposed limitations. But that doesn’t mean you have to accept all the risk, as they did.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

Replyin', again:

1) You don’t know that Johnson would have come here if we’d offered him more money. Within the last few years, there are more than a half-dozen free agents who signed with other clubs in spite of us offering them more money. And the team would’ve been running an awful risk in assuming that he would, given the crying need for a second baseman. They saw a chance to lock in a solid option at the position, and they took it.

2) The high-risk nature of going with LaRoche at the position is that we have a rotation full of pitch-to-contact guys, who would perform terribly pitching in front of a below-average defense. As, indeed, they are doing right now. If they’d gone with LaRoche as the starting 2B, and he hadn’t been able to make the transition, it would have killed the trade value of guys like Duke and Maholm.

4) Aki wasn’t playing 2B at all in Japan. It was the offseason. He was hanging out at home. The part where he was playing like his old self was the tail end of the MLB season, after he came back from his injury at full strength.

5) Your comparison makes no sense. For it to be a proper analogy, the home on which you were bidding would have had to have been examined and given a thumbs-up by an inspector a month before you tried to buy it, just as Iwamura was examined and cleared by Tampa’s doctors before they activated him from the DL. And then you would’ve had to have been given the results of that inspection, to examine before making your offer. And there would’ve had to have been a legitimate reason for the seller to impose a hard short-term deadline, like an imminent forclosure. Just not a good comparison.

6) Why is that deal a “straw man”? It’s what happened. I understand that you, personally, are not comfortable assuming that level of risk in a player transaction – but GMs do it every day. It’s how the business works.

7) Again, this is more about your own personal preference than it is about common industry practice.

8) See 6.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

Aki quote from Tribune-Review:

“My knee is still not 100 percent,” Iwamura admitted. “But, I proved last year I can still play at a high level. It will be fine next season, completely healthy.”

Sorry, that’s stupid not to ask for a physical who tells you at the time of the trade he’s not healthy.

Also, just a few notes:

1. The Pirates could have traded for Johnson. Don’t you think he was a better option than an admittedly injured player?

2. IF you think Aki was a “solid” option, that’s great. I saw Aki’s quote (and similar ones) and thought it was a risk.

3. Sorry, I don’t think an admittedly injured player was any more of a risk than putting LaRoche there.

4. Aki also helped kill the value of Duke and Maholm.

5. I disagree on the analogy of a home inspection. I can’t think of any reasonable person who buys a home without it. I can’t think of why the Pirates would invest $5 million in Aki and not even take a look at how the knee is holding up. Any good businessman or businesswoman tells you to do your due diligence. It didn’t happen.

6. If you think physicals are unnecessary, fine. But I’ll bet you the Pirates insist on them in the future.

7. The business does not work the way you assert. Some teams require extensive physicals. Others did what the Pirates did. There is great variation. Moreover, teams almost always do a physical when the player was coming off a serious injury.

Vlad, you may think Aki was a wonderful addition. That’s your opinion.

Obviously, I and others questioned the move, noting that the player was telling the team he was still injured. And we questioned the process of investing so much in a player who conceded he was still injured.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Replying, again:

0) If we’d asked for a physical, Tampa would have said, “Sure, what’s the number of your doctor in Japan?” Because there is no other way that it could’ve gotten done. As such, saying that we should have asked for something that we knew in advance we could not have gotten is disingenuous. You said earlier that you would not have made the deal if you knew we could not have given him a physical. That’s a viable position. Wrong-headed, IMO, but viable. But repeating a demand for a physical that could not have been performed is no more helpful than repeating a demand for a unicorn, or the head of John the Baptist.

1) How do you know that we could have traded for Johnson? Maybe the Braves wanted a significant player back in return for him, rather than filler like Chavez.

2) You place too much emphasis on a player being 100%. Know how many players in the clubhouse right now are 100%? None of them. Everybody has little strains or pulls or bumps and bruises. That’s just the nature of the game.

3) If you don’t think that playing a guy at a position he has never played is less risky than playing a guy who played the position at a high level less than a month before, I really don’t know what to say to that.

4) But we had no way of knowing at the time that he was going to blimp up over the offseason and play like crap. If he had delivered a typical Iwamura season, he would have been an asset to the defense and the team.

5) You aren’t buying a home without a home inspection. You’re buying a pre-inspected home that was thoroughly investigated and documented a month ago, with those reports sitting on your desk for you to read and examine to your heart’s content. Trust me on this. I’m in real estate. Your analogy doesn’t work.

6) I bet that they don’t, because if they did, they wouldn’t be able to make any trades. Do you think they gave Martinez and Bowker and Lambo and McDonald physicals on deadline day? When all of those players were on the west coast, and the deals went down with less than an hour to spare before the deadline?

7) Your understanding of common industry practice appears to be flawed.

The move did not work out for us. But the failure of the move was not the result of a failure in the trade process, and altering our process due to the failure of the move would be reactionary and outright counterproductive.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

3) should be...

…“think”, rather than “don’t think”.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

Again, my final postings:

1. I think when a player admits he’s injured you should do your due diligence.

2. It is just ridiculous to argue that because the deadline was pending you make a deal without checking out an admittedly injured player.

3. I’ve posted this before. I’ll post it again. There was zero reason the Pirates could not have told TB weeks ahead of time that before we make a deal, he sees our doctor. It looks like it may have save $5 million. I’d suspect Mr. Nutting feels that way.

4. Since the Braves non-tendered Johnson, and made it clear that they were doing it, you know that they did not want a significant player. Again, just a silly argument.

5. Again, silly to compare a slight sprain with a player with a devastating knee injury who said he wasn’t fully recovered. Sounds like a warning sign to me. But I guess based on his stellar play this year, I was wrong.

6. LaRoche playing 2b was hardly riskier than a player with a terrible injury trying to come back. And please provide evidence that he played at a high level for TB in the final month. By what measure?

7. He had not been thoroughly inspected.He played approximately one month after coming off the disabled list. He was a part-time player. That’s hardly the “thoroughly inspected” commodity you claim.

8. Other teams that insist on physicals make trades. Giants, Phillies. Mets. A’s. Mariners. Here was a partial list on this site:

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2010/6/18/1524713/pirates-didnt-ask-for-physical-for

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Iwamura is not saying that he's "still injured".

1) He’s saying that he was not yet back to 100% in his rehab. If he were “still injured”, they wouldn’t have activated him from the DL and played him in games. They didn’t need him – they had plenty of middle infield talent on hand. They activated him because he was back in game shape.

You’ve obviously never suffered a major joint injury or you’d understand the difference. I had a tendon repair on my ankle performed about three years ago. Medically, the joint was totally sound less than a month after the surgeon cut it open. But it was some time after that before I had regained 100% of the strength and motion in the joint, even though it was pretty much inevitable that I would do so after completing rehab from the moment he finished sewing it up. And it was even longer after that before I fully regained psychological trust in the joint when running and changing direction, even though there was absolutely nothing wrong with it at that point in a physiologial sense (and therefore nothing that would show up on, say, a doctor’s physical exam).

2) Saying that the option deadline makes it “silly” to rush the trade through doesn’t actually make it “silly”. The deadline is what it is. It’s the circumstances under which you’re working. Gravity might seem “silly” sometimes, too, but that doesn’t mean that you can choose not to fall down if you jump out a window.

3) As I stated before, in response to your past assertion of this point, the reason that we could not have told Tampa we wanted a physical weeks earlier is that trade discussions about Iwamura weren’t serious at that point. We would have had no reason to contact them. Indeed, they weren’t even aggressively shopping Iwamura at that point, in an effort to maximize their leverage.

4) The fact that a player was ultimately non-tendered does not mean that a team was not asking for a significant return in trade for him prior to that non-tender. Look at our attempts to trade Matt Capps, for example. We weren’t hunting small game – we were asking about J.J. Hardy, right up until we cut him loose. GMs often think that if they back down in such situations, the opportunity cost that will be paid in future negotiations is higher than the diminished return from “settling”.

5) You keep inaccurately describing Iwamura’s injury as “devastating”. It wasn’t a devastating injury. It was a fairly standard torn ACL. Those get reconstructed every day, in a fairly vanilla medical procedure. If his injury was so “devastating”, how could he have come back and performed at a high level after only three months on the DL?

If you want to see what a REAL “devastating” knee injury looks like, check this clip. Livingston tore his ACL, PCL, and lateral meniscus, badly sprained his MCL, and dislocated his kneecap and tibia-femoral joint. There isn’t a structure in his knee that he didn’t wreck. It was a year and a half before he was even allowed to start engaging in sports-related activities.

See the difference?

6) I fail to see any way in which starting a player at second base who was playing second base at a high level a month ago, after successfully recovering from an injury, is more risky than starting a player at second base who has never played second base at a high level and may lack the skills necessary to do so.

7) Iwamura was thoroughly inspected by the Rays’ medical staff before they cleared him for game action and activated him from the disabled list. If they had not done so, they would have been opening themselves up to potential legal action from Iwamura. It would also have been a hell of a risk for the team to run, insofar as they were in the middle of a pennant race and couldn’t have afforded to give a bunch of starts to a guy who wouldn’t have been up to snuff.

8) That’s not a list of teams that “insist” on physicals before making trades. That’s a list of teams that gave at least one player a physical before trading for him. Big difference.

And for the record, if you’d bothered to actually read the link in question, you would’ve noticed that the Mets were explicitly mentioned as a team that did NOT insist on physicals.

by Vlad on Sep 2, 2010 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

What About Valentine....

He is experienced and supposedly good with young players……..

by JeffO225 on Aug 30, 2010 6:04 PM EDT reply actions  

If they keep Russell,

I hope it is for the right reasons — that they still believe he is the guy for the job. What worries me is that we may have come to a juncture where they keep him for the wrong reasons without realizing it, that their judgment has been skewed by the harsh running critique by many of “the plan.”

Specifically, I hope they haven’t reached the point of digging in their heals just to prove that the course that they are on is the correct course. Surely BN, FC, and NH are sensitive to the likelihood that cutting Russell lose now would be read as a tacit admission of failure and more “evidence” that the course is wrong and the flight crew incompetent.

Good people at levels of influence much higher than the front office of a MLB team have fallen prey to just such stubbornness. Please don’t let that happen here.

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on Aug 30, 2010 6:10 PM EDT reply actions  

+1

And please let the money owed never be part of the consideration. The Nutting-is-cheap crowd will undoubtedly latch on to that if he is brought back since he is under contract for another year.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 30, 2010 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

The “group”, post-Alvarez call-up, is 20-46. Is that a small sample size or what? I think the problem is more team composition than Russell, though. Andrew McCutchen has underperformed compared to last year, but he’s not the only one scuffing on the team, and some of the others are less surprising.

by Adam Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 6:12 PM EDT reply actions  

What i think is bad about Russell

First of all i don’t like how he puts guys in places where they have not succeeded so far (see Garrett Jones at first, Ryan Doumit at RF) Which is not allowing guys like Clement to get a chance. I mean sure he did not succeed at the beginning of the season, but neither did Mark Teixeria. Plus, with more playing time, Clement will learn how to hit for a better average as well as hitting a lot of home runs. My next thing that is wrong with Russell is his management of the lineup card (Garrett Jones in the 2 spot). Finally, my biggest concern with Russell which i think everyone will agree with me on is his management with the pitching which was most evident in this recent Milwaukee series. In the first game, it was obvious that McDonald was pretty much out of gas after the 6th inning and Russell kept him in for the 7th and ended up losing that game. In the second game Ledezma was kept out there for another inning after the fact that he is probably not used to pitching more than one inning, and with Evan Meek already warming up with 2 outs in the bottom of the 10th and we ended up losing that game also. Then on Sunday, it was obvious Morton should have been taken after the 3rd with still a possibility of winning the game only being down by 3, but Russell of course puts him in for another inning and guess what? we ended up losing. Please NH, if you have any hope of this plan actually working fire John Russell and his staff because Russell is just not cut out to be a major league manager.

by Pmadude on Aug 30, 2010 6:33 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

well written dtod. You’ve expressed what I’ve been thinking for a while, yet couldn’t aptly put it into words.The only other thing I would add, is that the GM bears some of the responsibility to instill the “Standard” as well, or at least make sure those under him are instilling his beliefs

by Danatural08 on Aug 30, 2010 6:40 PM EDT reply actions  

Accountability...

is just a 13 letter word to the Pirates…it has no meaning whatsoever. They preach it…they just don’t practice it.

by Thunder on Aug 30, 2010 8:13 PM EDT reply actions  

What should they do?

Regarding the 2010 record, Huntington has publicly said on multiple occasions, “This is my fault.” Two coaches have been fired. There are like three guys remaining from the opening day starting lineup. Etc.

by MBandi on Aug 30, 2010 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

NH may be too hard on himself

he did step into a cluster fuck when he got here. I blame it on Dave Littlefield

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
"Don't wory, I'm an untrained professional" WVPF
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan

by WVPiratesfan on Aug 31, 2010 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

He (NH) is to blame. He brought the players on this team in…with the exception of Duke, Maholm, Doumit, Cutch and Walker.

by Thunder on Aug 31, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

but outside of Jack, Jason and Freddy

he really had nothing to work with, Duke is a back of the rotation guy, Paulie is a middle of the rotation guy, Cutch is mired in a deep funk and Neal is looking like a solid player

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
"Don't wory, I'm an untrained professional" WVPF
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan

by WVPiratesfan on Aug 31, 2010 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Now wait ...

he traded the trash DL left behind for slightly better players.

Other than Bay, there was nothing to trade that would bring any kind of return.

You come to a franchise with a mediocre major league team and barren farm system, it’s going to take five to eight years to clean it up.

NH has not been perfect. But he’s hardly to blame for the the vast wasteland that DL left behind.

by Bernie6 on Aug 31, 2010 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

This

Santa Roberto Clemente
Ora Pro Nobis
FireRickReilly

by CTapps on Aug 31, 2010 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

First things first

Let’s clinch that #1 draft pick and THEN fire Russell! We are just starting to roll past the Orioles and their new manager.

by BrianO' on Aug 30, 2010 10:30 PM EDT reply actions  

After tonights game JR just plain has to go

team is no longer competitive.

JR just sits on the bench with a big wad of tobacco spitting most of the game. Not a leader, just dragging the team down at this point instead of making them better…

by BucsFaninCA on Aug 31, 2010 12:36 AM EDT reply actions  

JR ...

was an odd choice of manager to begin with.

I hate how he manages the pitching staff.

I also think he makes too many lineup decisions in self-preservation mode (think DL at the end of his tenure). GJ playing all the time. Cutch and Tabata never getting time off. Doumit in RF.

I suspect he’s a nice guy and a good third base coach.

But it’s time the Pirates brought in a guy experienced with building young teams. We have some decent everyday players. There is some promising pitcheing at AA.

But it’s still three years, I think, until the team is a realistic .500 team.

I don’t think anyone could have won with the rosters he’s had. But it’s time to bring in a guy who has shown he can build a young team into a contender.

by Bernie6 on Aug 31, 2010 12:50 AM EDT reply actions  

I agree...

The past two manager hires seem to have been really odd choices. I was pissed at the Tracy hiring and booed him at a Pens game he attended (everyone else cheered…I still have no idea why…). I didn’t think he was a good manager with the Dodgers…there was solid regression. Basically, I had the same feeling about JR, minus the anger/booing. Was not wowed at all when they announced it and now sad that we’re in essentially the same position we were in 3 years ago. If he is fired, I wish him luck and I hope the Pirates don’t let me down this time.

Pirates, Vikings, Hokies. I'm used to heartbreak. At least I have the Penguins....

"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-The Great One

by blackjackfishtaco on Aug 31, 2010 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions  

What's wrong with his handling of the pitching staff?

If anything, I think that’s one of his strengths.

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

Seriously?

Dr. Drakken: Must you always say “seriously”?
Motor Ed: Seriously?
Dr. Drakken: Seriously.
Motor Ed: Yeah, I do. Seriously.

by azibuck on Aug 31, 2010 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

1. I think the regression of the entire starting pitching staff reflects negatively on him. He was a catcher. He needs to put them into positions to succeed. It hasn’t happened.

2. He’s going to pitch Meek into TJ surgery.

3. I hate how he runs the bullpen with six guys in a blowout loss.

I really don’t see any positives there.

by Bernie6 on Aug 31, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Replying:

1) I don’t think that the entire pitching staff has regressed. Some guys (like Morton and Maholm) have regressed. Some guys (like Ohlendorf) have been about the same as they have been in the past. Some guys (like Duke) have been about the same as they have been in the past, but look like they’re doing worse due to the 2010 team’s defensive downgrade from the 2009 squad. And some guys, like Meek and Hanrahan and Karstens, have actually been better than expected. So, on the whole, not much of a pattern there.

2) Meek is the best reliever on the team, so it’d make sense that he’d get used a lot, particularly given how scabby some of Russell’s other options are. And Meek isn’t being used terribly heavily by league standards – he isn’t among the NL’s top 10 relievers in games pitched, for example. Meek has 58, while the NL leaderboard starts at 68 with Masset and Feliciano, and ends at 61 with Venters and Belisle.

3) What would you like to see him do differently in blowout losses? And how important is a manager’s handling of the bullpen in a blowout loss anyway, in the big picture?

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

I’m too tired to go through a point-by-point rebuttal.

Let’s just say we disagree on the rotation. Clearly,I think the starting pitching is worse this year.

Second, it’s important to also look at innings pitched for Meek (68.2 in August), not just appearances.

Third, pitching Meek or Hanrahan in a 16-2 game when they’ve been overworked is silly. Let Burress take one for the team.

But you don’t risk an elite arm and throw seven guys in a game like that. Sorry. Hence the reason Tony LaRussa brings in position players in those types of games.

by Bernie6 on Aug 31, 2010 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Meek is only fifth in the NL in relief innings (among guys used exclusively as RP).

Behind Matt Belisle, Tyler Clippard, Carrasco, and Jonny Venters. Apart from Meek and those guys, there are eleven other NL relievers with 60+ IP this year. I just don’t see that kind of usage as particularly excessive.

The SP, as a group, are worse this year (though a large fraction of that is due to the defense). The RP, as a group, are better this year. Why does Russell get blame for one but not get credit for the other?

Sometimes, when Meek or Hanrahan pitch in a 16-2 game, they’re just getting work because they haven’t pitched for a few games (high-leverage opportunities being somewhat few and far between for a last-place club). If they hadn’t pitched in the game, they would’ve gotten the same work in a side session instead, in the interest of staying sharp.

As for the position player thing – that’s a joke, right? You aren’t really upset about that?

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well.....

let’s start with the fact that the starters are the same and the relievers are different. How bout that as a reason he gets credit for one and not the other. The credit goes to Neal Huntington for putting the pen together.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Hanrahan

Well, I’m not sure I’d count him since he was a late season acquisition and barely pitched for the Pirates.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

He was acquired about halfway through the season. Pitched 32 innings for the Nats with a 7.71 ERA and 31 innings for the Buccos with a 1.72 ERA.

If JR takes the blame for Morton’s suckage, it’s only fair that he gets the credit for Hanrahan’s turnaround.

by maguro on Sep 1, 2010 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well ...

you also have to consider he was injured in Washington and the wide yearly fluctuation in a relief pitcher’s statistics.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sure, starters and relievers are different.

But not so different that the one couldn’t derive a similar amount of benefit from good instruction as the other.

And while Huntington deserves some of the credit for acquiring talent, both Meek and Hanrahan were on the big club last year, and both took large steps forward this season under Russell. If you’re going to blame him (unfairly, IMO) for Morton getting the yips, then you have to credit him for the gains made by the other arms.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

Only 5th?

Meek has been used too much. In fact, he will nearly double his innings pitched from last year.

Moreover, use Clippard as an example. His overuse has likely contributed to the fact that he’s been hammered since June.

Well, I’ll blame him for the starting pitchers being worse because they are … the same guys.

I don’t give him credit for the bullpen because it was overhauled.

No, I’d much rather Doumit pitch in a 16-2 game than Hanrahan after he’s pitched two or three nights in a row.

I think it’s incredibly dumb to run the bullpen when the guys have been used a lot lately and Meek, for example, may double his innings pitched this year.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Nearly double? How many innings do you think Meek is going to throw?

Last year, he had 55 2/3 innings pitched. 47 in the majors, and 8 2/3 in the minors. To double up that total in 2010, he’d need to pitch 111 1/3 for the season – or another 43 innings in the team’s remaining 30 games. Somehow, that seems implausible to me.

Clippard is pitching awfully well this month for a guy who’s been “hammered since June”. In August, he’s got a 1.88 ERA and a 19/5 K/BB in 14 1/3 IP. I wish more of our relievers were getting “hammered” like that.

How does the bullpen overhaul contribute to improved performances by relievers who were already on the 2009 club, like Meek and Hanrahan? Or do they not count because they contradict your point?

I went through Hanrahan’s game log to try and see whether I could find any games matching your description (pitched in a blowout, at the end of three consecutive days of use). Unsurprisingly, there were none. Hanrahan has pitched in exactly five blowouts this year:
*April 22, a 20-0 loss to the Brewers. It had been four days since Hanrahan’s last appearance, and he was getting some work in to stay fresh.
*April 26, a 17-3 loss to the Brewers. It had been four days since Hanrahan’s last appearance, and he was getting some work in to stay fresh.
*June 23, a 13-3 loss to the Rangers. It had been four days since Hanrahan’s last appearance, and he was getting some work in to stay fresh.
*July 17, a 12-6 win against the Astros. The game was 9-6 when Hanrahan entered in the top of the 8th, hardly an unreasonable spot to turn to him.
*August 16, a 7-1 win against the Marlins. It had been four days since Hanrahan’s last appearance, and he was getting some work in to stay fresh.
Now that you realize the error behind your assertion, I have no doubt that your opinion of Russell will improve accordingly.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

Hence the qualifier “nearly” double.

He’s going to pitch nearly 90 MLB innings after 47 last year.

That seems like a significant jump to me.

Also, you can cherry pick all of Clippard’s statistics you want. He started quickly, was overused, and the team admitted he was overused.

In addition, please provide a game log listing Meek’s use in blowouts?

Finally, you have posted multiple times about an RPs’ performance varying from year to year.

I guess you are ignoring your own logic when it doesn’t fit your argument?

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

90 innings?

Unlikely. If he continues at his present pace, he’s going to pitch 83 2/3 innings this year. Which is a perfectly normal and acceptable workload for a relief pitcher. It’d also be an increase of 50.3% from last year’s inning total – not even close to the same thing as “double”.

How am I cherry-picking Clippard’s statics? You said that he’s “been hammered since June”, and I pointed out that you were wrong. If you’d like to revise your statement to say “got hammered in July, and then went back to pitching like a stud in August without any alteration in his usage pattern”, that’d be fine with me. Much more accurate, too.

I’ll be glad to check Meek’s game log (listed below). Will you, in turn, admit that you were wrong about Hanrahan’s usage pattern?
*April 5, an 11-5 win over the Dodgers. The game was 8-5 when Meek entered, in the 7th inning. Additionally, it was Opening Day, so fatigue was not a concern.
*April 9, a 9-1 loss to the Diamondbacks.
*April 11, a 15-6 loss to the Diamondbacks.
*April 21, an 8-0 loss to the Brewers.
*April 26, a 17-3 loss to the Brewers.
[Breaking in for a second here. That’s a lot of blowouts. But it’s also important to remember that a) we got blown out a TON in April – 10 of 23 games had a margin of +/- 6 runs, and that b) Meek was, at that point, sitting behind Dotel, Hanrahan, and Donnelly in the bullpen’s RHP pecking order – as such, it’s normal that he’d see use in more low-leverage situations.]
*May 27, an 8-2 loss to the Reds. Meek hadn’t pitched in four days, and was getting some work to stay fresh.
*June 23, a 13-3 loss to the Rangers. Meek hadn’t pitched in four days, and was getting some work to stay fresh.
*July 17, a 12-6 win against the Astros. The game was 9-6 when Meek entered in the top of the 7th, hardly an unreasonable spot to use him.
So. Once Meek established himself as clearly superior to Donnelly, he was only used in blowouts when he was well-rested and in need of work, or when the game was not yet a blowout. Just like Hanrahan. Russell’s usage isn’t nearly as crazy as you thought! Who could have guessed?

RP performances are much more prone to variance than SP performances, it’s true. On the other hand, both Meek and Hanrahan have experienced HUGE positive shifts in their component ratios under Russell – much larger than the corresponding negative shifts of SPs like Duke or Maholm. So the question remains – why should he not get credit for the one, if he deserves blame for the other?

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also worth noting, since I didn't mention it above:

In none of Meek’s April blowout appearances was he pitching the day after a prior appearance. His last appearance before April 9 was April 7. His last appearance before April 11 was April 9. His last appearance before April 21 was April 17. And his last appearance before April 26 was April 23.

Just wanted to throw that out there, to help illustrate that Meek wasn’t getting his arm slagged to no good purpose.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Really, Vlad...

Izzat all you got?

Facts?

I expect so much less from you.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 1, 2010 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

Final postings:

1. Going from 47 to more than 83 innings for an RP is significant for an RP.

2. I’d be happy to point to time periods when Clippard’s been terrible.

Go through the entire year. Moreover, Clippard and the Nats coaching staff have both said he was overused.

I guess you know better than Clippard or the coaching staff does?

3. Your own statistics show that Meek, in particular, has been used in blowouts. I made the argument that it’s not an effective use of him. I think his injury last year. I think the number of innings pitched is not a smart use of his talent. I may be wrong. But I wouldn’t risk his arm in blowouts.

4. Look at the overall pitching statistics. If you think they show JR has done a great job, that’s fine. I disagree.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Replying

1) Meek didn’t go from 47 innings to 83+ innings. He pitched 55 2/3 innings last year. Which I already told you, and you ignored.

2) If Clippard had sustained any kind of actual harm from his workload this year, then why is he having his second-best month of the season right now, without having altered his usage pattern at all? And if Clippard and/or the coaching staff felt that he was in any actual danger, why wouldn’t they have changed his usage pattern in a way that resulted in him pitching fewer innings or appearing in fewer games?

3) I showed that Meek was used in blowouts in April, at a time when he was one of the low men on the totem pole on the staff. Once he pitched well for a month, he passed Donnelly in the pecking order, and from that time on was only used in blowouts when he was getting rusty from disuse and in need of work.

Ignoring the fact that you were 100% wrong in describing Hanrahan’s usage pattern won’t make you any less wrong, you know. Everybody reading the thread can already tell that you were wrong. It would have been more graceful of you to acknowledge it.

4) I was not aware that Russell was pitching for us this year. That changes everything! Obviously, the front office should have him stop inserting himself in games as a pitcher, so that he can return to his duties as a manager!

by Vlad on Sep 2, 2010 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

If you want to count minor league innings, then count bullpen sessions as well. His major league innings are going to jump as I listed.

Again, the Nationals disagree with you on Clippards’ innings and usage. Maybe you are right. But I’ll trust them instead.

JR is managing the pitching staff. The overall pitching numbers, as you know, have not shown a tremendous improvement this year.

You can be sarcastic, as I often am, but you are ignoring the fact that unless you cherry pick pitching statistics, there is nothing for JR to be proud of.

by Bernie6 on Sep 2, 2010 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

OK, let's count bullpen sessions too, then.

Is he throwing more bullpen sessions this year than last year? And if not, how are bullpen sessions relevant?

As far as the Nats are concerned, there’s a popular saying that would seem to be applicable here: “Actions speak louder than words.” It doesn’t matter how ostentatiously they express regret about Clippard’s workload if they don’t actually alter his workload. It’s called “lip service”.

JR manages the pitching staff, but the pitchers pitch. He can’t go out there and pitch the ball for them. If Pedro goes out and boots a ground ball, or Milledge hits into a double play, are those things Russell’s fault, too?

How am I “cherry-picking” pitching statistics? You defined the terms here. You said that you were sick of Russell doing a thing (i.e. “pitching Meek or Hanrahan in a 16-2 game when they’ve been overworked”), and I pointed out that he hasn’t actually done that this year. If you didn’t want me to object, you should’ve picked something that Russell had actually done to comlain about.

by Vlad on Sep 2, 2010 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

I’ll break my promise and not respond.

Boring day on here.

But I view MLB high-pressure innings differently than a AAA start where you throw nine pitches.

I’ve seen teams count IP your way. I’ve seen teams count IP my way.

Do we know the right answer? No.

That being said, my point is simply I’d be cautious on Meek’s innings based on the fact that the games are meaningless. No reason to risk his arm.

Second, Clippard’s ERA at one point was Gagne like. It’s no longer. Do I think the Nats and Clippard wonder if he could have been used better? Probably.

Third, a rhetorical statement you used as an operational definition to prove a point. I’d say that’s not appropriate. And even by your count, there have been worthless games where Meek has pitched. You said it was valuable “work.” I’m not sure it’s such a good thing when he’s being used as heavily as he was.

Meek’s innings would have gone up dramatically even by your definition if he hadn’t gotten hit by a line drive. Hanrahan’s innings would have increased as well if they didn’t start the year injured.

Fourth, the cherry pick comment related to using small timeframes to look at an RP’s statistics.

by Bernie6 on Sep 13, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why not break it again? You already did several times before.

The only blowouts in which Meek pitched, as I said above, are either:

a) prior to Meek earning a high-leverage role on the pitching staff (i.e. what had been Donnelly’s role).
or
b) days on which he would’ve needed to throw a side session in order to stay sharp if he hadn’t pitched in the blowout.
or
c) days on which the game wasn’t yet a blowout at the time he started pitching.

I don’t see how a rational person can find any of those to be objectionable.

If you would like to speculate as to what the Nats do or do not think, that is your right. It is not, however, any sort of actual evidence.

Your assumption that Meek and Hanrahan would have been used in the same manner under different circumstances is flawed, in that you are assuming that Russell would have taken actions that he has not taken, and then criticizing him for taking the aforementioned actions (which, again, he has not actually taken). You might as well criticize him for stealing the crown jewels and kidapping the Lindbergh baby, then flying away in a zeppelin while he twirls his moustache. After all, he could have done that if he were given the opportunity, right?

If you were referring to Clippard’s monthly splits with your remark about “cherry-picked” numbers, I can’t find any more merit to your criticism in that context than in the other. You were, again, the one who defined the terms: you said that Clippard had been “hammered since June”. That restricts the sample under discussion to July and the months following it. I merely pointed out that Clippard had, in fact, only pitched badly for a small portion of that sample, and then returned to his prior level of effectiveness, in spite of your clear implication that he was pitching badly at the time of our disagreement.

If anything, I was not vigorous enough in pointing that fact out. Clippard’s “hammering” actually comes down to two bad games in the space of a week, July 3 and July 10, in which he surrendered seven runs in a total of one inning. Since then, he’s been his old self.

[Since I first pointed out on September 1 that Clippard had sustained no real ill effects from his alleged abuse, by the way, he’s pitched 4 2/3 scoreless innings, with a 7/1 K/BB. So he’s still getting “hammered” as badly as ever.]

by Vlad on Sep 13, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

First, you have too much time on your hands today for these extensive responses. And that’s just a joke. Don’t take it personally.

But …

1. What was the date that Meek took over the high-leverage role you point to?

2. If you are going to dramatically increase a guy’s innings, I’d much rather you not use him in a blowout and have him do a side session.

3. Please stop the straw man nonsense with the Crown Jewels. I’m basing the post on the fact that both guys have injury histories. Meek’s season ended early last year. Hanrahan was not healthy for part of last year or this year.

It only makes sense to me that you don’t increase their innings pitched or high leverage situations dramatically.

Moreover, going through blogs you also see articles and comments on the Pirates’ use of Meek. A key question is whether he was overused.

http://allthingspirates.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

https://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php?option=com_signup&view=register&Itemid=109

You’ll have to explain to me why the Pirates sent him out to pitch in mid August when he was clearly suffering from a right leg injury. That was a great move by JR?

http://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/articles/evan_meek_is_a_stud_photo_diary_limps_to_the_mound_limps_on_mound_27_pitches_later_limps_to_dugout/3049001

Not a good idea, in my opinion.

As for Clippard, obviously, you can argue what you want. But I’ve seen the coaching staff and Clippard talk on the air about his usage.

You may disagree witth them. But nearly all Nats fans feel his usage his troubling.

Also, just a few links that support that:

http://www.federalbaseball.com/2010/7/8/1559239/washington-nationals-is-tyler

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/tyler-clippards-deceptive-results/

http://natsstats.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/washington-nationals-is-tyler-clippard-injured/

http://www.masnsports.com/the_goessling_game/2010/05/nationals-6-braves-3-second-look.html

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/06/06/my-least-favorite-move-of-2010/

by Bernie6 on Sep 13, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Math lesson, Vlad

Let’s use 84 innings this year as the “estimate,” rounding up a whole 1/3 of an inning.

47 IP last year

84 this year

Difference = 37

You then divide the difference by the original number:

37/47 = 79 percent

Sounds like a significant jump to me. I wish my stocks would jump as much.

by Bernie6 on Sep 2, 2010 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

You suck at math.

Meek didn’t pitch only 47 innings last year. He pitched 47 innings in the majors last year – plus another 8 2/3 in the minors. For a total of 55 2/3. Which I had already explained to you in this post, if you’d bothered to read it.

by Vlad on Sep 2, 2010 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

No, since you posted suck, I’ll return the favor.

There is an enormous difference between a minor league inning and a MLB inning.

If you use Vlad logic, you might as well count how many times he played catch with a neighborhood boy.

He had an injury last year and, as I posted, there will be an enormous jump in his innings pitched.

When Meek goes on the DL, I’ll love to hear your take on how “unexpected” it was.

by Bernie6 on Sep 2, 2010 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

"There is an enormous difference between a minor league inning and a MLB inning."

Oh, this sounds fascinating. Please elaborate.

Does he not throw at full strength when he pitches in the minors? And if minor league innings don’t count as “real” innings, why do we bother with workload restrictions on our minor league pitchers at all?

by Vlad on Sep 2, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

There's only 2 outs

in a Minor League inning. So the workload is reduced.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 2, 2010 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

There is an enormous difference between a minor league inning and a MLB inning.

……

Buh? Was Meek intentionally only throwing 80 MPH fastballs in the minors to alleviate stress on his arm?

by TravisDW on Sep 2, 2010 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Bernie is gettin killed in this argument

and that quote was the last act of a desperate man

by theatrain on Sep 8, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

Hardly ...

You really believe that an IP in a minor league rehab when you are just throwing fastballs is the same as an IP throwing all your pitches at Colorado.

Really?

So the logical conclusion to your argument Vlad is that it is no more difficult to pitch at Indy than at the MLB.

That’s ridiculous.

You can’t get guys out on only fastballs.

Also, on a rehab start, you pitch the first inning and then go home. It’s not the 9th inning trying to close out a playoff team.

As for minor league innings, obviously teams count them.

But I know scouts that do not consider them the same. Doesn’t that make sense that facing the Yankees would place a bit more stress on your arm than facing the Curve?

Travis, read some of the rehab reports. You’ll see tight pitch counts. You’ll see limitations on the number of pitches. You’ll see restrictions on the type of pitches. You’ll see guys used in low leverage situations.

Again, I suspect an inning versus the Yankees is hardly the same as an inning versus the Curve.

theatrain, really? I’m glad you think so.

Too bad many scouts disagree that there is a difference between an MLB and minor league inning.

by Bernie6 on Sep 13, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

It sure sounds like they sent Meek to the minors that April to baby him.

I mean, just look at Huntington’s quote on the decision to go with Chavez instead of Meek that spring:

Ultimately, logic won out over emotion," general manager Neal Huntington said. "Evan threw the ball very well — good velocity, good stuff, good command — and he’d gotten good results. That was tough to walk away from.

“But he hasn’t gone back-to-back (outings) yet and hadn’t gone multiple innings yet. He hasn’t really faced (a tough) lineup yet. Jesse has.” -Associated Press, 4/3/09

So in Huntington’s words, they sent Meek to the minors to see him throw back-to-back outings, throw multiple innings, and face tough lineups, with the intention of calling him back up once he showed he was ready. (You can confirm his usage, BTW, by looking at his Indy #s. Six games, two games finished, averaging more than one inning per game. That’s not how you use a pitcher whom you’re handling with kid gloves.)

by Vlad on Sep 13, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Again Vlad ...

if you think an IP versus the Curve is the same as one against the Yankees, that’s great. I don’t.

But most minor league outings, as you know, are not nearly the same intensity as MLB.

Just read any of the injury updates, for example, on all star stats. Limited number of pitches. Limited number of breaking balls.

Let’s just say we respectfully disagree. Okay?

by Bernie6 on Sep 13, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

not at all

i think it’s one of his biggest weaknesses.

by BurgherKing on Aug 31, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Maybe he doesn't have many strengths.

I am trying to think of the number of times I have heard anywhere that a pitcher was pulled too soon and I can’t think of any. A more common complaint I hear and read is that a pitcher was pulled too late, be it one batter or one inning. That is the kind of thing all managers face, but the timing of the hook and the use of so many pitchers in blowouts are valid concerns.

by Teek82 on Aug 31, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

As far as being pulled too late is concerned...

…I think the most important consideration for a manager is not leaving starters in well past the point of fatigue, letting them rack up huge pitch counts and injure themselves when their mechanics go off-kilter. And in that respect, Russell has been pretty good.

As far as leaving guys in and having them cough up runs, one of the most important developmental skills for a young pitcher is learning how to work out of a jam. Sometimes, you have to throw guys in the water and let them sink or swim.

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

so leaving a starter in past the point of fatigue, like in James McDonald’s last start, is okay, as long as it’s not well past the point of fatigue?

Sorry, my standard for “pretty good” is higher than “not nearly as bad as Dusty Baker in the early 2000s”.

by gonfalon on Aug 31, 2010 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

"like in James McDonald’s last start"

A start in which he pitched 6.1 innings, and threw 98 pitches. With a maximum per-inning pitch count of 19.

What a monster!

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

I mean, let's look at that 7th inning.

Five-pitch walk to Fielder. Nothing wrong with pitching Prince carefully – he’s a dangerous hitter.

Five-pitch strikeout of McGehee. Nothing wrong with that.

First-pitch ground-ball single up the middle for Dickerson. Decent result, just bad luck that Dickerson didn’t hit it at anybody with a glove.

[Now, this is probably the part where people start retrospectively freaking out about why Russell didn’t pull McDonald. But look at it from the other side: McDonald has done well this inning, and his pitch count is still low, and he’s facing the Brewers’ 7-8-9 hitters. So Russell gives him a chance to get out of the jam.]

After this point, McDonald throws a total of eight pitches, and only gives up one real hard-hit ball, before getting the hook. So where’s the damage (other than on his ERA)?

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

he was clearly gassed before the 7th inning

We’ve seen this time and time again this season, where a pitcher with nothing left is left out there to get one more inning.

In the past, when Russell’s options included Wreck Specs, TJ Beam, and Denny Bautista, maybe it was better to try to get one more inning out of the starting pitcher. But Russell had many better options this year, at least until the bullpen was dismantled at the trade deadline. and with the Pirates now so far out of contention, there was no good reason to keep the starters in there when they have nothing left.

and who’s calling Russell a “monster”? Dumb and/or incompetent does not mean “monster”. but if your standard is “better than Dusty Baker”, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. I expect more from a MLB manager.

by gonfalon on Sep 1, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

He was clearly gassed after 80 pitches?

Guess it’s a good thing Russell was stretching him out a bit, then.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

didn't watch that game live till midway through the 7th

if he was clearly gassed after 80 pitches, though, he should be getting pulled esp with 6 innings gone, or at least be on the quick hook. Fatigue on the given day may be due to any number of random reasons.

by BurgherKing on Sep 1, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

In many of the starts by Duke, Maholm, and Karstens

for example, it has been a trend that in the 5th-6th inning, they start to gas or they don’t adjust or they have a brain fart or whatever. It isn’t uncommon that when the first guy or two get on for whatever reason – hit, walk, error – a landslide of baserunners and/or homers soon follow, leading to the “big inning” that puts the game out of reach and plays hell with the team’s and the individual’s statistics. This might also have a corresponding effect on the confidence and future performance of the players involved. It might be beneficial in some of those situations to go to the bullpen before the onslaught to both salvage the game and get the best outcomes for the players. That rarely happens.

Working out of a jam is a skill worth learning for sure. I think the problem is that in many cases, they don’t work out of the jam. They make it worse until it completely unravels. That isn’t particularly instructional.

When a game is out of reach, let some of the guys in the pen who don’t see high leverage situations eat the innings. In the old days, position players would pitch at times, but that is frowned upon now because of some injuries and the size of the contracts. If you have 4 innings to get through and are behind by 8 or 10, try to not use more than 2 relievers if possible. Draining the pen in a blowout makes you less likely to be effective the next day if the game is close.

by Teek82 on Aug 31, 2010 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Exactly

there simply is no reason to use six or seven guys in a blowout loss.

Let one of their many terrible pitchers (Gallagher) pitch until he can’t go anymore.

It makes no sense that they use their two strong RPs in ridiculous blowouts.

by Bernie6 on Aug 31, 2010 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree for the most part...

but it’s kind of funny that Russell was getting hammered for not PH for Gallagher in a 7-2 game and now he is being crticized because he did PH for pitchers a couple days later. I think I’m ready for JR to move on as well but this guy can seem to do anything right by the fans or media these days, even when he is doing the things the fans and media had wanted him to. Not trying to be argumentative just pointing out how he is really in a tight spot these days.

by Slick1 on Aug 31, 2010 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

In a 7-2 game with runners on 2nd and 3rd…a base hit makes it a 3 run game…still within reach…a pinch hitter makes sense.

In a 9-0 game with no one on base (and an inning later in the games)…letting the pitcher hit makes sense.

Of course, Russell makes the opposite move in both cases. And it was the same pitcher (Gallagher) in both cases. He SHOULD be criticized.

by Thunder on Sep 1, 2010 7:24 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

It wasn't 7-2 at the.....

time Gallagher came to the plate IIRC. I think 5-2.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

which makes...

letting Gallagher bat even worse.

by Thunder on Sep 1, 2010 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

exactly....

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Slick

Your point is well taken.

But I’d draw a distinction between that and many of the blowouts where he keeps bringing in pitcher after pitcher.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think it's fair to blame a manager...

…for using the guys on his roster. If you give a manager an eight-man pen, he’s going to be more aggressive about changing relievers than a guy who has more bench bats and fewer crappy relief arms.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

And I disagree ..

which is why teams had a “long man” to avoid blowing up the pen for say 80 years of MLB history.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

You have to use pitchers once in a while...

…or they lose their mechanics and are ineffective when you turn to them. This is, like, Baseball 101. Having a long man on the staff has nothing to do with it.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

I concede ...

it’s much better to use six pitchers in a blowout game and then not have a bullpen the following day instead of having a long man suck it up and finish out the game.

That’s just silly.

by Bernie6 on Sep 1, 2010 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, because everybody knows...

…that pitchers can’t handle one inning the day after pitching one inning! That’s crazy talk!

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agree

with your points, dtoddwin, Russell is way past his expiration date, but please don’t write “multiple players.” It’s redundant and I get my shorts in a twist.

Thanks.

by bucdaddy on Aug 31, 2010 2:50 AM EDT reply actions  

Noted....

and corrected.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 31, 2010 6:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

Cool.

BTW, when you have a point to make I commend your eloquence in doing so. Your posts seem well thought-out and reasoned. I hope your radio gig is going well because you must be one of the few rational thinkers on sports talk. Since I have yet to hear even one, maybe you’re the only one.

by bucdaddy on Aug 31, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

thanks

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 31, 2010 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

Won't disagree with the end result .. but the timing isn't right

Like was posted earlier by BrianO, there’s not much to play for except the #1, and the Bucs are in 1st place for it right now. The last thing they need (at this point) is a firey personality to bring them from absolute misery to mediocrity.

I agree wholeheartedly JR should be fired, but I don’t think it’ll hurt too much to let him stay in place through the end of the season. There will still be plenty of good candidates available to replace him come October, and since most of the players are young, with a good leader, they should be able to rebound just fine.

by Pensburgh Pirates on Aug 31, 2010 1:31 PM EDT reply actions  

In the long term scheme of things…whether JR finishes the season or not is irrelevant. The important part is to bring in a good leader and manager for next season. That stuff can be fixed. Players tend to have a fairly short memory.

by Thunder on Aug 31, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think this is ......

a reasonable comment. I wasn’t really advocating blowing JR out this week, but at the same time I wouldn’t be opposed to it.

Certainly the rest of the year would be under an interim guy. The one advantage that might bring is it just might loosen things up in the clubhouse. Just pop psychology on my part so don’t think it is critically important either way.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 31, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Finishing the season or not is VERY relevant.

If we fire him now, and we grab whatever second-tier replacement happens to be on hand, and he goes on a hot streak, it’ll be tough to push him out for 2011.

If we’ve concluded that Russell isn’t the right guy for the job going forward (and I’m pretty neutral on the question), then we owe it to ourselves to find the best possible replacement. Which includes interviewing outside candidates.

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's not relevant.....

if the team is smart enough to know that whomever finishes the next 30 games is not anymore or less of a candidate than they otherwise would be.

If Jeff Bannister goes 25-5, then maybe it’s worth talking to him, but there is NO way you can convince me that the FO would be swayed by a month’s worth of performance and not interview outside guys. If you actually think that, which is fine, then you obviously think very little of the front office as a whole.

The front office isn’t going to fire Russell this week, install an interim manager and not go through a process of seeking other candidates at season’s end. Not possible.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 31, 2010 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

"If Jeff Bannister goes 25-5, then maybe it’s worth talking to him..."

See, right there, you just stepped in it. Is Jeff Bannister the right choice for us if he goes 25-5? Maybe, maybe not. But if he goes 25-5, is there any realistic chance that he won’t be the pick?

I mean, can you imagine the media shitstorm that would happen if they fired an interim manager who put up a winning record of any sort? Particularly if their actual choice got off to a slow start in 2011?

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes....

if he goes 25-5 I can imagine he might not be the choice. But if he is able to pull off that miracle I would certainly want to figure out how and why he was able to do it so I would have a conversation with him. Just like a player stepping in for an injured player. If they perform way above expectations—Garrett Jones for example, wouldn’t you try to figure out why and whether it was worth seeing more?

The front office has shown they don’t give a damn what the media or fans think of their decisions, so good for them. I don’t think they are going to beholden to someone who does a decent job over thirty games. Nothing in the past would suggest they would cave to public criticism.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 31, 2010 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

How far above expectations does it need to be...

…to trigger your curiosity? 20-10? 17-13? .500?

Wherever your personal threshold might be, I guarantee that a lot of yinzer fans’ is lower. And while the FO may not factor those opinions into their decision-making process, they do run the risk of taking an unnecessary beating in the press for no good purpose by going to a temp.

As for your Jones analogy – you remember who you’re talking with, right?

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

The record...

may not be as important as how the team plays over the final 30 games. However unlikely, the Pirates could go 17-13 over the last 30 games, but if they are playing as poorly as they have (lack of fundamentals, concentration, etc), that doesn’t mean that the interim is the man for the job. They could go 10-20, but if they look much better on the field, that might bump the interim’s chances up some.

by Thunder on Aug 31, 2010 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

LOL....

yes

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Look at Wallack's resume

He’s Altoona’s manager, he has won everywhere he has coached.

He has won 3 championships along with the baseball america’s TOP manager in ALL of MLB minor league system a couple years ago..

Add to that he’s worked with most our TOP guys over the past couple years and it’s obvious they have responded.

Friends out by Altoona claim they play great fundamental baseball, very fired up baseball and win all the games they should win.

It appears like an easy decision to me.

He was mentioned earlier this year as one of the top 3 minor league managers that will be managing in MLB the soonest.

by Dan Jenkins on Aug 31, 2010 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not that it means anything...

…but I went to the Altoona game on Sunday. The Curve made, by my count, about six defensive misplays. Two fieldable ground balls that d’Arnaud couldn’t handle, a line drive that went right through d’Arnaud and two ground balls that Mercer couldn’t handle. Also, Hague made a diving stop with runners at first and third and threw home when there was clearly no play, resulting in zero outs. They ended up losing by one.

Don’t know what that says about the manager, though.

by MBandi on Aug 31, 2010 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

look at their record

  they are the best team in the east yet they have no real hitters…good pitching and supposedly decent fielding.

  They hit and run alot, manufacture runs, and win a ton of games.

  It’s like SD, no hitting stars but their record is better than their talent. That’s the type of MGR you want

by Dan Jenkins on Aug 31, 2010 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Physical errors.....

in my book are very different and don’t reflect badly on the manager…..most of the time.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

That’s fair. Personally, I don’t really think mental errors reflect poorly on the manager either. I think they reflect poorly on the player.

by MBandi on Sep 1, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree for the most part...

but how long a manager will put up with mental errors reflects on him. I think Cedeno should have been benched for bunting with runners on 1st and third and one out (no outs?). He did nearly the same thing the day before. He should have been talked to that game and then benched the next. However, JR told DK when asked about the situation that it was a bad play with the pitcher on deck. Then he said when Cedeno was hitting 7th it might have been a good idea but with the pitcher on deck it was a bad idea. IMO it was a bad idea in both situations and his response to DK tells me that JR never said anything to Cedeno after the 1st failed bunt attempt that resulted in K. So I guess this post was a very long way of saying that not all mental errors are necessarily on the player, at least not exclusively.

by Slick1 on Sep 1, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Unless they happen repeatedly....

which is why I wrote the post.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

If they happen repeatedly, I think that reflects even more poorly on the player. How many times can the coaching staff tell Lastings Milledge not to run into stupid outs? Eventually, he has to stop doing it on his own.

And JR can’t really bench everyone who makes mental errors, because he needs to have enough players to fill out the lineup each day.

by MBandi on Sep 3, 2010 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

So what the hell is .....

the job of the coaching staff? Make out the line-up card and then go have a few beers? They have accountability for nothing?

Sure if reflects badly on the player as well—obviously.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 3, 2010 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

I just don’t think they should be evaluated based on the players’ performance, which obviously makes it difficult for us to judge them as fans. To get an accurate idea of how well they are teaching the players, we would have to be in the clubhouse and on the field observing that process directly. IMO, at least.

Now, if we’re saying that JR should be fired because he makes stupid lineups and his in-game decisions are goofy, that I would mostly agree with. I just have trouble blaming him for the fact that Milledge doesn’t know how to run the bases.

by MBandi on Sep 3, 2010 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree..

that you look for the best possible replacement…and that it is very likely that would come from outside the organization. Assuming for a second that JR is fired tomorrow, it does not mean that the guy in the dugout for the last month of the season will necessarily be the manager in April 2011. Does anyone truly think that Mike Quade will be managing the Cubs in 2011?? I don’t.

Frankly, there should already be a list of candidates in mind from the front office.

by Thunder on Aug 31, 2010 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

You don't always plan on the interim becoming the guy...

…but if he starts winning games, it can put you in an awkward position. What if we get hot under a placeholder, like the Orioles got hot under Showalter?

by Vlad on Aug 31, 2010 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Showalter wasn’t hired as a placeholder. He was hired with the expectation of being the full-time manager for next season. Juan Samuel was the interim.

Players knew when he walked into the dugout that he would be around next season. They are playing for spots on next year’s team, for the man that will make the decision. Developing a relationship with that manager is more vital than developing one with someone who likely won’t be there next year.

by Thunder on Aug 31, 2010 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

You aren't listening to what I'm saying.

The Orioles didn’t suddenly become drastically better players when Showalter took over. They just got hot, They could’ve just as easily done it under an interim guy as they did under Showalter. And if they had, Baltimore would have gotten stuck with that placeholder.

Baltimore was lucky enough to have a good long-term managerial candidate floating around unattached who was interested in their job. I don’t see the same for us. So if we want a new manager, we’d do better to wait until the offseason, when we can make an informed choice from a much larger talent pool.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

That isn't right Vlad....

I don’t care about Showalter’s results, but the Orioles spent a month or so going through the process of deciding who to hire after they fired the manager.

You give no front office credit. Why do you think no one has a process and will stick to it if the interim guy happens to get hot? It’s illogical and nonsensical. Do you think you are the only guy who understands you wanna hire the best guy for the job? It’s an incredibly arrogant attitude to suggest that any team who has a placeholder, interim guy who gets hot will definitely keep that guy when that isn’t the process they are committed to.

And there are plenty of good long-term candidates floating around for the Pirates unless you think they have to hire one of the 29 guys who is already employed. They have the world of guys out there.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Why do you think no one has a process and will stick to it if the interim guy happens to get hot?

Actually, this is how Dave Trembley got hired in the first place. He was the interim manager, the O’s went 19-13 and they removed the interim tag from Trembley.

So there’s good reason to think that they might have done it again if the team had chanced into some good results under Juan Samuel. It’s happened in other organizations as well, it’s a faily common pitfall.

by maguro on Sep 1, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

Go back and re-read what I wrote.

I did not say that they would stick with an interim manager who got hot. I said that there would be tremendous external pressure for them to stick with an interim manager who got hot, and that there’s no good reason to take a public relations beating for refusing to do so when they can just play out the string with Russell and then make a new hire this offseason (if, indeed, they have decided to go in another direction).

Why does no one pay attention to my actual words? If you want to beat up a straw man, build your own!

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

As I said in antother post....

the front office has shown repeatedly that they won’t kowtow to the media pressure or public opinion. Why should this situation be any different?

Build your own strawman. Love you throwing it out there when it has nothing to do with the conversation. It might make people overlook the conversation that is actually taking place.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 1, 2010 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top:

Go back and read what I wrote, rather than arguing with a position that I am not taking.

I did not say that the front office was going to kowtow to media pressure or public opinion. I said that the front office would attract unwarranted criticism by refusing to kowtow to media pressure or public opinion.

People here have consistently complained that the front office exposes themselves to too much needless criticism, and that they suck at the PR game. And yet here I am, getting a rasher of shit for advising that they take a course that avoids exposing them to needless criticism. I don’t get it.

by Vlad on Sep 2, 2010 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Okay, I understand.....

your point. I have never complained that the front office exposes themselves to needless criticism.

I think they have made some missteps for which they probably have bee too harshly criticized, but I only want to stick to the plan and see it through.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Sep 2, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

"the 29 guys who is already employed"

Well, sure, one of them. Or any other candidate currently employed by a team as a coach or minor league manager, insofar as you aren’t allowed to interview people under contract with another organization during the season.

If you hire a manager in-season, then your only options are guys who are currently unemployed, guys working in college, guys working for a media outlet, or guys who are already in your organization.

by Vlad on Sep 1, 2010 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Better players, no. More motivated…possibly.

by Thunder on Sep 1, 2010 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, Virginia, Santa Claus is dead in Pittsburgh

I agree with all the reasons stated here why Russell should be fired. I don’t expect miracles but I do expect improvement and if guys making high 6 and 7 figure salaries to play a boys game can’t get motivated or play cohesively as a unit then the obvious suspect is the manager. Russell has no fire in the belly. Ever heard the expression “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade?” Well Russell has no passion, no discipline, no winning expectation of his players and his “Standard” is sub-par at best. Nice guy or not, the Pirates have no where to go but up at this point. I thought we’d at least get out of the cellar and make a move past Milwaukee, Houston and Chicago, which we should have done this season. The expectation and the results should at least be .500 ball at this point, and at 43 games below .500 and heading toward 100+ losses, something is obviously not working on this club. Time to clean house and get a manager who will accept nothing less than 100% effort and execution of basic skills. A manager’s job is to execute the games intelligently, take advantage of the other teams mistakes, and put his players in postion to make winning plays. Russell ain’t got it, period. He just can’t get his players to play consistently.

by dougalmac on Sep 2, 2010 2:08 AM EDT reply actions  

Who SHOT J.R.?

TURNIP HEAD IS A ROTTEN MANAGER. HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME. HE SHOULD BE FIRED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN THE MOST UGLY WAY.

by rah0785 on Sep 2, 2010 3:18 AM EDT reply actions  

They already fired Russell.

They’re waiting until next July to tell the rest of us.

by bucdaddy on Sep 2, 2010 9:37 AM EDT reply actions  

I"m all for FIRING that bump on a log, but WHO should the pirates replace him with, the best guy for the job is now turning the O’s into respectable…..

by cmypath78 on Sep 10, 2010 2:25 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
A Meet & Greet with Joel Hanrahan
Smiling_small
Pedro Alvarez first in at-bats, Josh Harrison second in fWAR
Small
BD Community Top 30 Prospects
Small
Community Prospect #30

Recent FanPosts

Smiling_small
Did you know that Bryan Bullington was an All-Start last year?
Small
Point System Rankings
Towell_small
Color me skeptical, the sad story of Oswalt, Burnett and GFJ
Olz8s2gvbdn15zpl08hlumbr_500_small
Keith Law's Top 100 Prospects
Small
Best and Worst Free-Agent Signings In the Infield
Smiling_small
A look at some guys who didn't sign last year.
Small
Hopes for pitching
Small
Prospect Predictions

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Charlie_small Charlie Wilmoth

Editors

18470r_small Vlad

Authors

Davidtodd_small David Todd

Img_1692_small WTM

Mark_profile_pic_small MarkInDallas