Neal Huntington Deserves Extension, But Three Years Is Too Long
by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 9, 2011 9:31 PM EDT
Email
Print
After Dejan Kovacevic's tweet this morning that Neal Huntington's next deal could be for three years, I wonder whether signing him for so long is a good idea.
The precise length of a GM's contract isn't something we discuss much, and there's a good reason for that: it's not that big a deal. GMs aren't paid much at all relative to players, so if a team has to eat a year of a GM's contract, that's usually not much to worry about. I'm going to spend 1,000-plus words discussing it here, but that's mostly because it's interesting, and not because it's a matter of grave importance. It isn't.
Also, a three-year contract is not exorbitantly long. Royals GM Dayton Moore is signed to a four-year deal. Rangers GM Jon Daniels has a four-year deal that doesn't start until next year.
But a two-year deal wouldn't be strange, either. Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik recently signed a two-year deal. Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd worked on one- and two-year contracts for years.
Some GMs also have arrangements where their contracts roll over each year - Kenny Williams of the White Sox is one. (Thanks to the invaluable Cot's Contracts, which is where I got all this stuff.)
Basically, there doesn't appear to be any industry standard for GM contracts, even among GMs who are in roughly similar situations (like, say, Huntington, Moore and Zduriencik - emphasis on roughly there, and I think a case can be made that Huntington is the best GM of the three, but hopefully you get the idea).
I think Huntington should be extended. There is no good reason to change horses in midstream here. Huntington's plan of rebuilding the organization from the ground up was the right one, and he has executed it boldly. Some of the results he's gotten have been debatable, but the outline of what he's done has been right on, and he has earned the chance to show us whether or not that plan has worked.
I don't think, however, that we need three more years to figure that out. Two years from now, we should have a relatively clear perspective on most of Huntington's trades, and, more crucially, we'll know a great deal more about his 2008 and 2009 drafts than we do now. His draft strategy has always been decisive, and it's clearly astronomically better than that of Dave Littlefield, but it's not yet clear that it's been successful.
Also, we'll have two more offseasons to see whether he can be do better with free agents than he did with Lyle Overbay, Matt Diaz, Kevin Correia and Scott Olsen last winter. The Pirates' lack of funds and poor reputation do make it difficult for Huntington to sign free agents. But that's no excuse for the money and playing time the Pirates have wasted this year on veterans who didn't perform, particularly when it was obvious when those players were signed that they weren't very good. (To be fair, the successful signing of Jose Veras, which was sort of a de facto major-league signing, mitigates the other signings to a degree, but only a little bit.)
The issue of good free-agent signings may, actually, be crucial, in that Huntington is entering a stage in his career that may require different skills than the ones upon which his Pirates career has so far been based. As JRoth pointed out in the comments to the last thread, different GMs have different strengths. When Huntington was hired, what was needed was for someone to clear the debris that the previous GM left. Huntington did that, and for the most part, he did it well. He didn't listen when a lot of folks around the team were jabbering frivolously about how that piece of rusty aluminum might actually be gold, or how that warped hubcap would actually fetch thousands at the antique auction.
So now the Pirates have a piece of usable land. That's to Huntington's credit. But now that he's cleared it, can he plant a garden on it? He has certainly been planting seeds, but it's too early to tell if they'll grow.
The core of Huntington's strategy has been the draft, which is as it should be. Those of us who follow the minors closely have some idea of how his drafts have gone, obviously, but it's still only been three years since his first one, and we'll have a better understanding of what he's done in a couple years. (Normally I advocate evaluating moves when they're made, and not after, but the draft is a partial exception, since there's no way for most of us to have access to the information the Pirates do at the time.)
Also, Huntington needs to do a good job identifying major-league talent. I'm more of a defender of his trades than most, because the talent Huntington was trading had less value than most fans realize. I think the results of the Xavier Nady, Octavio Dotel and Nate McLouth trades, in particular, are big points in Huntington's favor. But he needs to do a better job with major-league free agents, and he can't keep having offseasons like the one he had last winter. This will be especially important as the Pirates' improved farm system churns out more talent. If the team can build on the leap forward it took this year, but Huntington can't find players to complement his core, he may not be the right GM to help the Pirates get to the next level, regardless of his role in building the farm system.
If this all sounds really critical of Huntington, it shouldn't. I'm simply saying that it isn't yet clear that he's a top-flight GM, and until it is, a two-year contract seems fine to me. As Epoc pointed out in the last thread, a three-year deal suggests a high degree of confidence in Huntington, and I don't think Huntington has yet earned that confidence.
Two years from now, we should have a good idea of where Huntington has taken the franchise, and if he continues to be the right person to lead the Pirates, then the Bucs can extend him at that time. There isn't much downside to having him on a shorter contract, and the upside is that if things aren't working out, you don't have to pay for the extra year. (GM contracts are essentially guaranteed.) I like Huntington, but there's not yet enough evidence to suggest he's a great GM.
In the last thread, there was also a comment that suggested that one potential downside to not signing Huntington to a longer deal is that another team could "poach" him. I suppose anything's possible, but I don't think that's in the right universe as the things we should be worrying about right now. There are lots of incredibly talented people who want to be general managers. Huntington isn't yet anywhere near the upper echelon of GMs, and if he were to leave against the Pirates' wishes (which I think would be highly unlikely, anyway), there would be literally dozens of highly-intelligent, highly-qualified people lining up to replace him.
If it were 15 years ago, and Huntington had become the Pirates' GM and begun a plan similar to the one he's enacted so far, it would have made him one of the best general managers in baseball. Today, the competency level of the average GM is so much higher than it was then that the best word to describe Huntington's talents relative to his peers - based on what we know so far - is "average." And again, that's not an insult. I honestly think that today, over half the GMs in baseball are operating at a high enough level that even judging them against each other is pretty hard, given all the variables involved. That's one reason it takes time to evaluate them.
The next couple of years will tell us a lot. So far, Huntington's single-mindedness in pursuing his plan, and his complete disregard for the silly things the media says, have been his best attributes. But they will serve him less well in the coming years than they did in his first four.
The reason is that a lot of what Huntington has done so far has been relatively straightforward. Some Huntington critics, of course, think Nate McLouth is a god and that everything Huntington has done has been idiotic, but those people aren't even really worth talking about. But another group of Huntington critics acts like the trades Huntington made were matters of great complexity. And that viewpoint isn't without merit. Whenever you trade someone, you want to make sure that you're making the right decision and that you get as much as possible back in return. So nitpicking about the trades certainly is fair game. But from my perspective, the decisions regarding the trades really boil down to something very obvious: 'Hey, we've got a 67-win team here, and everybody is set to hit free agency in a year. Let's trade them. Hey, we can get some modestly useful players! Great!' The trades were a purging, and purges are fundamentally simple - you lean over the bowl, you do your thing, and when it's done, you feel better.
The series of steps required to get a franchise from abysmal shape to reasonable shape are arduous, but they're not that complex. You clear the debris, you double your draft budget, and you're a lot of the way there. But now Huntington is trying to turn a franchise that's in reasonable shape into a franchise in good shape, and that job is more nebulous and uncertain. We don't yet know how well he's going to do it. So let's wait on the longer-term deals until we do.
Thanks to Jeff Euston from Cot's Contracts, Dejan Kovacevic, and Wilbur Miller for answering some questions about GM contracts that helped as I was writing this article. Incidentally, Dejan wrote three months ago that Huntington should receive a two-year extension.
141 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i think you get it right
early in the article, Charlie… when you note that the length of GM contracts isn’t really a big deal. if Huntington disappoints after two years, let him go and eat the year left on the contract. your assertion that GMs don’t make that much relative to players supports that kind of move, no?
imo, the 3 year contract shows the rest of the league that the Bucs have a long-term plan, they’re sticking to it, and that there’s some stability within the org … possible baby steps towards luring FAs.
if Huntington disappoints after two years, let him go and eat the year left on the contract. your assertion that GMs don’t make that much relative to players supports that kind of move, no?
Yes, you’re right. Like I said, I wrote about it because it was interesting, not because it’s all that crucial. If the Pirates sign him to a three-year extension, I’m definitely not going to lose sleep over it.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 9, 2011 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions
didn't mean to sound overly critical there..
its just that i’ve already read quite a few folks thoughts on this and many seem irrationally worked up over the length of the deal. it was a solid, well-written post btw.
by RetireNutting on Sep 9, 2011 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks. You didn’t sound that critical.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 9, 2011 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder whether we’ll hear the argument—which some of the pitchfork crowd made when news of the last extension came out—that Nutting would never fire the GM with guaranteed money left on the contract. Of course, the pitchfork-wavers forgot or ignored the fact that Nutting fired DL with over a year left on his deal.
I honestly think that today, over half the GMs in baseball are operating at a high enough level that even judging them against each other is pretty hard, given all the variables involved.
More than half, IMO. There’s so much money at stake in a MLB franchise now that the days when you’d see a DL, a Chuck LaMar, a Bill Bavasi, an Allard Baird, and 2-3 other obviously incompetent GMs employed at the same time, for years at a time, are gone.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Sep 9, 2011 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Where the women are strong,
the men are good looking,
And all the GMs are above average.
Just curious...how many would you deem incompetent now?
I can only think of Wade and Colletti.
by NastyNate82 on Sep 10, 2011 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m on an island, but I consider Ed Wade a step above incompetent. He’s done some dumb things with the Astros, but I think Drayton McLane is much more responsible for the mess.
Yeah, Wade actually built the core of the Phillies’ WS winner. He just couldn’t get the final pieces into place, partly due to his fixation on veteran middle relievers. You can’t really judge anything that’s happened in Houston because McLane’s refusal to put any money into the farm system or to rebuild left them in a terrible hole. You could see their current state coming before Wade even took over.
Coletti . . . well, he’s awful, definitely my choice for worst current GM. But even he gets a partial mulligan for being hamstrung by the McCourts, so I’m not sure I’d put him in the DL/Baird category yet.
I’m thoroughly unimpressed with Jack Zduriencik (sp?), but I don’t think he has enough of a track record to say he’s incompetent, or at least I don’t know enough about the M’s to feel sure about it. It’s ironic, because Perrotto fanatically promoted him for NH’s job.
I’m not impressed with Mike Rizzo, either, but he’s not terrible. He just brags a lot without that much to brag about. And he stumbled into the two best prospects of recent times.
Andy MacPhail has a terrible record with the O’s, but they just seem to have incredibly bad luck. They’re stuck in the AL Beast and they keep bringing up impressive-looking prospects who mysteriously tank. And he’s probably leaving anyway.
O’Dowd is overrated, but he’s certainly not terrible. He blundered around for years and years trying to find the secret formula for winning at altitude, but he finally gave up on that and just started looking for talent. And they have a great Lat. Am. operation now.
I think Smith in Minnesota is a huge downgrade from Terry Ryan and he may end up looking terrible, but I can’t say that now.
Dayton Moore may still end up looking terrible. He made some atrocious moves, like signing Jason Kendall’s corpse for two years, but he got a reprieve when half the players in his farm system took superstar pills last year. They’ve come back to earth quite a bit this year, so we’ll have to see what develops.
Everybody else I can think of who was really bad (Hendry, Minaya) is gone. Ricciardi was pretty bad, too, but he’s also gone. The possibility that the big market teams may be learning to avoid GMs like this is scary.
That’s about it. I really think the days of the Bairds, LaMars and Littlefields are over.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I think Smith in Minnesota is a huge downgrade from Terry Ryan and he may end up looking terrible, but I can’t say that now.
Their last couple drafts aren’t looking good at all, FWIW, and drafts are the lifeblood of a team like the Twins.
That’s about it.
Kenny Williams isn’t really a bad GM, but he has the potential to be terrible on any given day, if you catch him in the right mood.
Oh, and I’m very unimpressed with Tony Reagins so far. Even if you assume that the Wells trade was dictated by Moreno, there are plenty of questionable decisions to go ‘round. It’s a particularly black mark against him in my book that he fired Eddie Bane, because Bane’s a scout’s scout who can pick talent with the best of ’em.
Have to agree
It’s pretty hard to lay out all the pros and cons. Too often, fans and sportswriters sum up a GM’s performance entirely by listing trades and FA signings, when in fact those are just a few of the hundreds of personnel decisions a GM makes every year, and often not the most impact-ful ones, either.
Just hitting the highlights, I think NH has built the structure of a good organization and focused its efforts where they need to be. And I think he’s improved in some areas after really falling flat the first couple years. The bullpen is one. The bench . . . well, this team’s bench still sucks, but at least he’s gotten his focus away from washed-up vets. And he’s done better at negotiating contracts, a much overlooked skill. But you can’t ignore the team’s inability to hand the umpire a major league lineup card before each game. And this year’s FA signings were a predictable failure (except for Diaz, who was an unpredictable failure). And I don’t think the drafting has been as good as he’s been given credit for. IMO, NH needs to re-evaluate his scouting director.
If I was writing a fictional future history of the Pirates, I’d probably have them continuing to lose for another year or two, then some other GM coming in and succeeding with the foundation NH has laid. Of all the possible future scenarios I can come up with that have happy endings, I think that’s the most likely.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Sep 9, 2011 7:06 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
And I don’t think the drafting has been as good as he’s been given credit for. IMO, NH needs to re-evaluate his scouting director.
Yeah, given the amount of money they’re spending, I think they should at least begin to think about this.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 9, 2011 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Considering many of the people in his first draft were 18 at the time of the draft...
…it could take up to ~7 years for those players to become mature. I realize most players don’t take 7 years to get to the majors, but I think from June 2008 to September 2011 isn’t exactly a good time frame to judge a then 18 year old who is still developing. Also we are only talking about 1 draft class here, which would make it basically impossible to say how that would stack up compared to his future draft classes because we have even less data concerning those. I think it would take longer than Huntington’s current tenure to determine if the classes have been failures, especially because a good deal of the biggest money has been spent so recently (not that they didn’t spend well in 2008).
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Like this post, I find that mostly when people say NH is doing a good job evaluating talent, what they are really saying is that it’s too early to be certain that he’s doing a bad job.
That may be true, but the early returns are disappointing. The return on the Bay trade, the absence of impact players acquired through any means, the early post-acquisition performance of most of the amateur acquisitions, the Tony Sanchez/2009 mess — all these things should give objective fans serious cause for concern.
by RafaelBelliup on Sep 10, 2011 7:48 AM EDT up reply actions
This makes no sense.
How can it you agree that its too early, and then still judge the classes poorly?
A majority of the complaining on this site concerning Huntington is 20/20 hindsight arm chair QB style analysis. Of course Huntington has made mistakes, every GM does. He isn’t going to be 100% accurate on every transaction.
What you rarely hear, if at all, is a detailed argument from anybody here on what they would do going forward. All anyone posts are gross general points that all sound great when written on a website but are impractical or impossible.
Please provide us with the moves you would make for 2012, both before and during the season, so that we have something to compare it to when we look back at the end of next year.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
What makes no sense?
I’m saying it may be too early to declare that he’s bad at evaluating talent, but it would be much more absurd to declare that he’s good at evaluating talent.
NH had some premium assets to work with in 2008 and 2009 to acquire premium talent — notably, the Jason Bay trade, the #2 overall draft pick, the #4 overall draft pick, a lot of money to go overslot on later rounds. The early returns point to failure on all of those, although, again, that could still change and it is too early to declare one way or the other.
A lot of people here seem to think you simply tally trades as though all trades should be weighted equally. I think this is absurd. I mean, rate Tabata a plus, fine, but he’s a borderline starter on any good team and shows signs of not being able to take the grind physically. Rate all those lesser trades as pluses, if you like, none of the returns come close to impact talent. He had a lot to work with (as I mentioned, I mean Bay, 2008 #2, and 2009 #4, money that Littlefield never got) and shuffled a lot of cards, and still seems to have come up empty.
In the end, as I said in the other thread, I think people are rating NH mostly on asset allocation (which probably has more to do with the people above him) and hi having selected players we would have selected. A Pirates’ GM needs to do better than draft in a way that pleases baseball hobbyists and amateur draftniks at the time.
He can have more time. I don’t really care. But there is nothing that he’s done that would suggest that, at this point, his acquisitions perform at or above the assets he invested in acquiring them. Everything points the other way.
by RafaelBelliup on Sep 10, 2011 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
What is your plan for 2012? Still no answer.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Sep 10, 2011 4:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Plan for 2012
Off the top of my head:
1) Avoid signing any free agent position players who are older than 30, unless it’s for a utility spot or to be a safety valve in case Pedro is hitting .195 in late May.
2) Try to acquire a position player with power who is blocked in another organization (such as Clint Robinson).
3) Keep Ronnie Cedeno at short to start the year, but be ready to replace him with D’Arnaud or Mercer if either takes a step forward in spring training. I’d also try to acquire a minor league shortstop that my pro scouts like.
4) Listen to any offers forJoel Hanrahan. Sign a couple free agent middle relievers with good K/BB ratios and hope for the best.
5) Allow Maholm to join another club. Try to find a cheap fill-in via trade or free agency, but be prepared to let Morton, McDonald, Karstens, Lincoln, Correia, Locke and McPherson compete for the five jobs out of spring training.
6) Start 2012 with a Tabata, Presley, Cutch outfield. If the need arises, call up Marte from Triple-A, assuming he’s deserving of a promotion.
7) Bring Doumit back to split catching duties with someone who plays D.
Thank you
Most of these are very reasonable ideas and I agree with some. Unfortunately the original poster has no response.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Sep 10, 2011 7:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
This is my point
You all are applying the wrong standards. You think that if you didn’t disagree with the moves or (worse yet) propose better moves at the time, that it’s all unfair hindsight to criticize NH’s moves based on how they turned out or (again, worse) you excuse them as the product of poor player development rather than poor talent evaluation.
That isn’t appropriate. I don’t have to have the answers in order to be able to tell when someone else doesn’t. I don’t get paid to make the moves, I don’t have a staff of scouts, I don’t have a travel budget, I don’t have video breakdowns, I don’t claim to be a general manager.
If those things didn’t matter, then the Bucs could save themselves the trouble and hire you to do what NH does.
by RafaelBelliup on Sep 10, 2011 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
“But there is nothing that he’s done that would suggest that, at this point, his acquisitions perform at or above the assets he invested in acquiring them. Everything points the other way.”
What? Are you using 1.33 years of Bay to now equal every trade he’s made?
I am appropriately weighting the moves. Missing on his three big chances to acquire impact talent in 2008 and 2009 is much more significant than acquiring mediocre major leaguers like Tabata, Karstens, Morton, and McDonald. Those are four players who would still be pressed for playing time with the teams that traded them, and I would be surprised if any ever performs this well again.
I think we should strive for more than a collection of other teams’ spare parts and spare prospects.
by RafaelBelliup on Sep 10, 2011 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions
So it just boils back down to “everyone is a bust.” The guys with talent who had a down year are never going to get it back and the guys with less talent who ARE performing, will never duplicate their success.
I said elsewhere how good we’d look if Scheppers and his first two 1sts worked out, but they haven’t yet and they might not.
Prospects don’t always work out, the important part is why. Scheppers was a risk and ended up not recovering in time. His replacement Victor Black has a comparable arm but has had even more injury problems. Should NH have seen these concerns coming? Maybe. With Pedro we went with the highest upside. Was the problem that we rushed him through the minors? Was it simply that he can’t hit lefties or recognize well placed offspeed pitches? Is it all mental after his cold start? Does Tony Sanchez lack the batspeed or ability to hit upper level pitches or are his struggles more to do with his broken jaw last year?
I don’t see clear answers on whether it’s random chance, poor scouting or poor development. It’s also not definitive whether or not those guys will fully bust.
Missing on his three big chances to acquire impact talent in 2008 and 2009…
Just to be clear: to which three “big chances” are you referring?
I really don’t see how he “missed” on any of the players that haven’t made it to the majors yet. Anyone of them could become anything, and it is extremely premature to say that they won’t become impact players as you are implying.
by thecheeseisblue on Sep 10, 2011 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
And as for Tabata, see lower. If you think he’s a “mediocre major leaguer”" you are just completely incorrect. Unless your definition of average major leaguer is like a 4+ win player.
by thecheeseisblue on Sep 10, 2011 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Borderline starter? He’s a three win player at age 22 with potential to get much better. Any team would be glad to have that from one of their corner positions. And getting hurt once does not show “signs of not being able to take the grind physically.” It shows he got hurt once.
by thecheeseisblue on Sep 10, 2011 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Just to make it perfectly clear Tabata
is a three win player over his career per FG (1.2 per BR) not on a seasonal basis and he has had just one injury only if you don’t count his most recent one. He lasted about 10 days after coming off the DL after which it was pretty obvious to anyone who actually watched him play (except Hurdle apparently) that something was wrong. I’d say that there is reason to be concerned about his durability at this point.
by WestCoastBuc on Sep 11, 2011 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
His career that has been about 1 1/4 seasons worth of games. And I didn’t realize he was injured again. I haven’t been able to pay much attention to baseball lately being in Japan.
by thecheeseisblue on Sep 11, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
i don't think
Bay was as a premium asset. He’s basically done nothing since being traded. He had a good post season and a good couple of monthes but he was never a franchise player he is a supporting player best as a number 6 hitter. He was practiaclly used up when we traded him. People over estimate our own talent expect to get gold from lead.
We Are!!!!!!
by kingofsmoke on Sep 13, 2011 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Yep
And I don’t think the drafting has been as good as he’s been given credit for. IMO, NH needs to re-evaluate his scouting director.
s.zielinski
I asked this question on another thread
The infatuation with tall, “projectable” prep pitchers…what is the track record for those guys filling out and going from high 80’s heat to low-to-mid 90’s? That may sound snarky, but I don’t mean it to be that way at all. I guess a better way to phrase it is do other teams draft these pitchers like the Bucs do as well? I suppose it doesn’t matter too much as you just have to have a few of those hit to make it worthwhile.
In response to you agreeing that the scouting director needs to be re-evaluated…what do you think they’ve come up short on in that respect?
by NastyNate82 on Sep 11, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, the indifference to Rendon this summer caught my eye. I now wonder if the Pirates would have taken Rendon had he been healthy and had repeated his production of the prior two years? It’s not clear to me that Smith would have taken Rendon all things being equal.
I also didn’t care much for drafting projectable prep pitchers instead of Derek Fisher, and I wonder why the Pirates failed to sign Watts when he appeared to have a higher ceiling than any of the other prep pitchers they signed. The failure to sign Aaron Brown also made little sense to me. An incoming class that included Brown, Fisher and Bell is far more compelling than a draft class that does not include Fisher and Brown.
But drafting and signing Fisher and Brown would have taken money which the team spent on projectable pitchers and applied it to these position players.
It is when when taking projectable pitchers absorbs money which could have been spent on position players who have known high ceilings that I begin to wonder about the draft strategy. This is especially true for an organization which tries to load up on projectable pitchers every year. They have a lot of money invested in these projectable pitchers. But will this be money well spent.
Consider this fact: The Pirates have a number of blue-chip players. They are:
Pitchers
Allie
Cole
Heredia
Taillon
Position players
Bell
Marte
Blue-chippers reaching their potential are the key ingredients of a championship contender.
In addition to these blue-chippers, the Pirates have a lot of projectable pitchers, some of whom will become useful or excellent major league pitchers. The rationale for taking projectable pitchers is sound. But they drafted additional projectable pitchers in 2011. Eventually if not soon, the Pirates will have a glut of pitchers in the developmental pipe line. They will not have space on the 25-man roster for each one of these pitchers. They may find trade partners for some. But consider who the Pirates might get for, say, Locke, Wilson, Owens and a Major League position player. The key player in that deal would be the ML position player. In other words, the Pirates may be building a large bubble filled with good but not great Minor League pitchers. Lacking room for them, the Pirates may lose them in a Rule-5 Draft.
The goal ought to be to draft to increase the probability that the ML team will have enough blue chippers to compete for a championship. There are times when the projectable pitcher strategy interferes with that goal.
s.zielinski
"what do you think they’ve come up short on in that respect?"
I’m assuming you meant why, and it’s because none of them have had time to get past A ball yet. I imagine NH did some kind of research on this rather than just say hey that guy can probably throw hard in the future lets take him.
So really, it’s too early and other than that I’ve no idea other than believing Huntington is a reasonable man.
Actually, I meant to say where or in what way do you think they've come up short
I’m fully believing that the projectable pitchers are something they’ve obviously researched. Kind of what I’m driving it was if anyone else was employing this strategy as well. For the record, it seems to make sense to me, it was more of a response to those who had exhibited some nervousness in regards to the scouting director.
Two questions
A – Out of curiosity, which GMs do you believe are better? (I don’t think Huntington is the best GM in baseball either, I’m just interested in your opinion.)
B – You mention roughly 15 people who would be competent to take over the spot, who do you think would be some of those names if Huntington were to be fired today?
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Can’t speak for Charlie, but on A, you have to know a lot more about most GMs than I currently know to answer. There are some GMs who’ve been around a long time, or who I notice more because they’re in Comedy Central, or who I notice more because the media thinks the world revolves around their teams (i.e., Cashman and Theo), whom I feel I can rate. But with at least half the GMs out there, I just don’t feel like I know enough.
And even then, how can you possibly compare, say, Theo to the GM of . . . well . . . just about any team other than the Yankees?
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Sep 9, 2011 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions
A. I’m not sure I feel fully comfortable making a list of “better” GMs without a lot of time to sit and think about it, but it’s clear that a lot of GMs are really good. Friedman, Epstein, Anthopoulous, Antonetti, Beane, Daniels, Beinfest (assuming you’d say he’s the de facto GM of the Marlins) all seem like really bright, competent people. You could definitely make a case for several others, like Brian Cashman, but it’s tough because it depends on your criteria and because it’s very hard to compare someone like Cashman to someone like Huntington, for obvious reasons.
As for B., It’s impossible to know. Someone from the Red Sox organization, maybe, like Ben Cherington. I would hope they’d go with someone young. A.J. Preller, maybe? Or Thad Levine? I’m really just spitballing. That said, I don’t think Huntington should be fired, obviously.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 9, 2011 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't know if it helps
but Paul Sullivan at the Chicago Tribune did just such a ranking for the Cubs job. Here’s the link:
www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0909-gms-cubs-chicago—20110909,0,4455104.story
I strongly disagree on Cashman, many of the other guys are very good.
With the way Cashman ignores the draft and the money they shell out to free agents that are 50/50 at best, I don’ think he would be considered anywhere near the top half of GMs in the league.
The guys you list in Part B would largely be unproven (although they could well turn out to be great or terrible picks), but I’d rather take the risk of staying with somebody who I knew deeply believed in SABR than somebody who I had no background information on concerning their analysis preferences. I don’t want to say its a devil you know versus devil you don’t know situation, but I think the idea of losing SABR in the front office would set the team back substantially for many years.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Not sure that’s all Cashman’s fault. One gets the impression that there is a lot of input from ownership suite. They may simply not let him put money into the draft.
or decide whether or not Derek Jeter is allowed to walk
He built that team, even if he has more to work with than everyone else, he’s got a lot of handcuffs also.
The Yankees have actually spent pretty heavily in the draft since around 2006 or so, which I believe is around the time Cashman took full control. They’ve also concentrated much more heavily on younger veterans like Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia, Nick Swisher and Curtis Granderson rather than some of the older guys they used to target. I think he’s been running the team pretty well for a while.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 10, 2011 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Im not on a computer to find results back to 2006
Nor do I know who keeps track of it, but in 2011 it looks like they were 15th in spending.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Sep 10, 2011 7:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/2011/08/bonus-expenditures-2007-11/
They’ve mostly done quite well relative to their draft position. And this list just misses their 2006 draft, which featured Ian Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, Dellin Betances, Mark Melancon, Dan McCutchen and David Robertson, and was not a cheap draft.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 11, 2011 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions
You're right in how they ignore the draft for the most part
But they’re incredibly active in Latin America (Montero, Banuelos). Cashman, for obvious reasons, isn’t really in the same position as other GM’s, so I’m not sure if he should be compared to them.
By the way, I’m behind you 100% on the SABR idea. I wouldn’t go ONLY off SABR information, as I think the scouting input is obviously important, but losing SABR completely would destroy a lot of the progress made.
by NastyNate82 on Sep 10, 2011 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
They don’t ignore the draft. I really think that’s a myth.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 11, 2011 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions
You're right...should have chosen my words more carefully
Being from NY and not following them as I used to (grew up a Yanks fan) that was generally their MO under Steinbrenner. However, once Cashman took more control in 05, they have paid more attention to it.
You mention roughly 15 people who would be competent to take over the spot, who do you think would be some of those names if Huntington were to be fired today?
Some of the guys I liked for the job when Huntington was hired are still available. Dan Jennings, Logan White, Paul DePodesta, Kim Ng, etc.
Is NH a good evaluator of talent?
I have been meaning to write a fanpost about this topic, but haven’t got to it yet. This seems like a good place to ask that question.
I think the trades have been mostly favorable, and I’m with the folks around here who have been unhappy with the free agent signings. Then I see people write that "NH can’t evaluate major league talent. I emphasize that because I don’t know if you can separate Major League talent from Possible Major League talent.
The only reason I can see that the free agents have been so bad (other than NH being out of his depth) is that NH has not really tried to sign a qualilty player through free agency yet. Almost exclusively it seems like he’s digging through the bargain bin hoping to find something he can put some luster on and sell if/when the value is highest. Everyone is coming in on one or two year deals. I’ve never felt that any player signed via free agency was here to help for the long haul. Maybe he can do better by simply trying to sign someone who is actually good at baseball for a change.
That said, he’s not done a great job of finding value from the scrap heap. Garrett Jones, Dotel, Veras maybe a few others. The list is small.
I’m with WTM about the possible need to re-evaluate the scouting director, though. I was really hoping for a better year from the farm this season. But if we’re questioning the scouting of the major leagues, and now some venerable minds here begin to question the amateur scouting as well, perhaps it is time to question the scouting as a whole.
After all of this rambling, my question still stands: Is NH good at evaluating talent, on any or all levels?
It's a good day to be a Pirate
Evaluating major league talent
I don’t think this is similar to evaluating amateur or minor league talent. The latter two are all about projection, the former isn’t. I think the former is more a matter of evaluating a statistical record sensibly, taking into account career trends, health, and the way players of different types age, supplemented by whatever recent scouting reports you have. A lot of it also has to do with financial and team-building decisions, rather than purely looking at the player’s ability.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Sep 9, 2011 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
That's a pretty good response
So I’ll ask you another question: If you were NH, who (or what kind of players at least) would you be pursuing this offseason when free agency begins?
It's a good day to be a Pirate
I’d be looking mainly to bring back Lee, Doumit and Maholm. The Pirates can’t win in the FA market, aside from Veras-type relievers. I’d mainly be looking to trade some of the excess, Rule 5-eligible minor league pitching for somebody who might be able to hit.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Sep 9, 2011 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I would sign
Ross to a 5 year contract. Better lock up the big horse for the long run. What a performer.
You seem to have a far better grasp
than most of the critics.
“He thought Bobby Crosby had a 35% chance of turning his career around and he failed! Rabble Rabble Rabble. I know definitively about Huntington’s talent evaluation skills!”
Of course he couldn’t. If you’re pitching to your kids in T-ball, you’ve got major problems already.
by thecheeseisblue on Sep 10, 2011 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay
“If it were 15 years ago, and Huntington had become the Pirates’ GM and begun a plan similar to the one he’s enacted so far, it would have made him one of the best general managers in baseball”
You are making the assumption that the Pirates are actually going to develop these players. I have yet to see evidence they are capable of doing that.
Charlie you have been here too long
why the hell don’t you go some where else.
Who the hell are you to arbitrarlly throw a person out of a job that you would not even have a clue how to handle.
How arrogant can a person be?
maybe you might consider taking over the Smizak blog.
by oldfrothingslosh on Sep 9, 2011 8:29 PM EDT reply actions
Even if this your first post, you’ve definitely been here too long.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Sep 9, 2011 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions
+1 for not only not reading the post, but not even reading the headline.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 9, 2011 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
While flagging for being merely obnoxious
isn’t always the best answer, why the hell don’t you go somewhere else?
If you disagree with some aspect of the analysis above, lay out why. If you miss the basic concept that journalists, pundits, bloggers, and academics get to pontificate on matters that they have verying degrees of control over – and often, zero ability to influence – you shouldn’t be posting here.
Since in one fragment (I won’t digifiy it as a sentence), you arrogantly throw Charlie out of his job as this site’s manager without any evidence that you even have a clue how to handle Charlie’s job.
Surely your audacity is breathtaking.m
What does that mean?!
I was just responding to Charlie...
he was willing to throw NH out of a job ….what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
by oldfrothingslosh on Sep 9, 2011 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Please read the headline before commenting further.
And come on. How many people has NH thrown out of jobs?
by Charlie Wilmoth on Sep 9, 2011 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
With the simplistic
logic, the apparent inability or unwillingness to read or comprehend, and the apparent belief that a reasoned argument consists of yelling the same lines over and over, I’d almost positively ID this poster as the latest reincarnation of SenaprimeBlutmeekkulve.
Yeah, the screen name was created a year ago, but maybe SenaprimeBlutmeekkulve is like Voldamort – he has pieces of his soul stashed around in different computers, just waiting to have to use them.
What does that mean?!
This poster
is not the recently banned sentorbastardprimkekulve21
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 10, 2011 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Nice article, Charlie!!
Though I agree with you, that the difference between a 2-year and 3-year isn’t that big of a deal.
While the free agents, international signings, and trades are all important to the success of the Pirates, NH, FC and BN have ALL mentioned that the way to build this kind of team is through the draft. So, really, the only way for Bob Nutting to truly evaluate whether NH’s way is working or not, is to see the full-blown impact of the draft on the major league roster.
Personally, I’m in favor of the 3-year, because that 6th year will really be the one where all of NH’’s moves (free agents, trades, draft, etc.) should all come together to have a full-blown impact on the major league team. Seems like a fair time to see if it’s truly working.
I would think that in year 5, while the free agents and trades will have had an impact, much of Indy and Altoona will have NH’s fingerprints all over them. But a lot of those 2008 and 2009 guys will either have just come up to the Pirates or are about to break onto the roster. But year 6, will probably be the spillover, when we see the entire organization, including the Pirates themselves showing the effects of NH’s drafts. That year 6 team will have a lot of draftees having full years on the 25-man roster.
As we’ve seen with Pedro Alvarez, half-year evaluations don’t always tell the whole story, so perhaps Bob Nutting is best served to get a full dose of those 2008 (and some later ones) draftees as starters on the Pirates, before re-evaluating NH.
Sometimes, it’s hard to remember that only 2 of NH’s draftees have seen major league time. Pedro Alvarez and Chase d’Arnaud (though Matt Hague could have made 3!) and neither has exactly lit the league on fire.
I will be contrary since someone has to . . .
I am glad NH got extended, but I would rather it have been longer. I wish he had gotten the 4 year deal. Even though only 2 draftees have seen action, I think we can rightly say NH has shown he knows how to draft. The minors are soooo much better than they used to be. I am no longer waiting on a Brian Bixler, but on about 5 of 6 young arms and enjoying watching bats develop too.
NH is also underrated in signing Latin American talent. We got Heredia, and were in the running for Sano. I think in the GCL we are seeing some of the result of NH’s work down there, and Dilson Herrera looking good in VSL (which seems to always make the playoffs) and it continued this year with Harold Ramirez. This is just, if not more important, than the draft since if we get successfully our draft picks won’t be so high.
GM’s and trades are too hard to evaluate because you can make a good trade and get nothing for it. The Sanchez – Alderson trade comes to mind. I think, it was a good trade at the time, Alderson just blew up. Who could see that coming?
And as for Free Agents, I think that is over valued. Free Agents are not going to come knocking down the door of Pittsburgh until we win a title, and maybe not even then. NY will always be able to pay more as will Philly and Boston and LA not to mention the Cubs. The primary way the Pirates are going to get good is through its own system.
That is why I think NH deserved even more years.
by SojourningPirate on Sep 9, 2011 9:08 PM EDT reply actions
Don't worry, I was there long before you
Welcome to the party.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Top notch article
I’m not a Huntington fan and I don’t pretend to be. However, when he deserves credit I will give it to him like the outstanding job on this year’s draft and to lock up the young talent. My comment is more to the article itself for right now and not really the topic of extending Huntington’s contract. I just want to say that this was simply an EXCELLENT artcle that brought up terrific points both for and against the potential three year deal. Easily one of the best I’ve read regarding any discussion regarding the Bucs this season. It is a very fair article that I enjoyed reading.
As for extending his contract I’m not enthused but I hope like hell it works out for everyone involved.
Proud fan of Pittsburgh's professional sports teams and the Pirates too.
Understatement of the century
“It isn’t yet clear that [Huntington’s] a top-flight GM.” It also isn’t yet clear that the cast of Jersey Shore will be astronauts.
by dirkcalloway on Sep 9, 2011 9:24 PM EDT via iPhone app reply actions
One already is
the knucklehead who rammed his head against the wall last episode (or two) is still seeing the stars.
What does that mean?!
LOL! LOL! LOL!
Dirk, that’s gotta be the funniest line about the Pirates I’ve heard in a long time. The post All-Star break collapse of the Pirates has me crying in my Iron City, but your line made me laugh long and hard. Thanks for some much needed comic relief.
WTM i have been an admirer of you're writings.....
but when I look back at the abuse that this franchise had to endure for the previous 15 years before this front office took over and then expect someone to come in there and work a miracle without the aid of a half a billion dollars like the Yankees spent a few years ago on three players just makes my blood boil.
They have a major motion picture coming out soon about a so called genius with Brad Pitt no less starring… tell me how that guy is doing recently.
Has NH made mistakes ? Hell yes! ….So has Theo and Cashman and McPhail and Wren etc.,etc.and still you want a guy with one of the two or three lowest payrolls to take a team without a minor league system to the top in four lousey years!
It is easy to sit behind a keyboard and make arbitary statements I would like you to try do the job that Huntington has done.
by oldfrothingslosh on Sep 9, 2011 9:40 PM EDT reply actions
What I really came in here to say is that
I mildly disagree w/this:
Today, the competency level of the average GM is so much higher than it was then that the best word to describe Huntington’s talents relative to his peers – based on what we know so far – is “average.”
I thinks we can already rank Huntington as slightly (or for the technically minded, one standard deviation) above the norm. I say that because you also have to consider the assets Huntington inherited or had on hand the day he took over. Almost any GM could replace Brian Cashman, be average, and still have a successful Yankee’s franchise. While the Pirates are not yet where we want them to be, the improvements to both the Major League team and the overall farm system are, on a whole, better than I think we could have hoped for.
What does that mean?!
I think you hit the nail on the head
The Yanks have a perpetually competent scouting and development system. Anyone replacing Cashman inherits that, and can focus on the MLB issues knowing the farm will keep producing. Huntington has to deal with improving the entire system top to bottom. Going forward, the key issue is whether he can upgrade his scouting and development subordinates. Like JCBucs and Bucco, I am concerned these are the weak links in the organization.
by Central*Scrutinizer on Sep 10, 2011 5:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Anyone replacing Cashman also inherits nearly unlimited financial resources and a high prestige team that any free agent would be willing to play for, which I believe are more the assets Trogs was referring to.
"WHITESNAKE! DOKKEN! NIGHT RANGER!" -- Ronny Cedeño
All of the above...
If you inherit an organization that’s working well above average, and merely keep it at that level, you are an average GM.
If you inherit an organization that’s well above average and degrade it, you are a poor GM.
If you inherit an organization that is well below average (in scouting, spending, development, and the MLB product) and in a short time build that organization to the industry norm (but not the top tier of your industry), it doesn’t mean that you’re a poor GM. You’re at least an average GM and probably above average.
What does that mean?!
by Trogluddite on Sep 10, 2011 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
I support the extension, but...
I’d call Huntington average to this point. I’d give a B+ for vision and a C- results. The performance of baseball players is hard to predict and Neal has frankly had a run of bad luck. I’ve only been vehemently opposed to two of his moves (the Overbay signing and the Sanchez draft pick). The rest, to me, have been justifiable, but they just don’t work out….Aki, Milledge, Clement, Alderson, LaRoche, Ascanio etc.
Neal just hasn’t had that one lucky break, that Rincon-for-Giles type of luck. Yes, the Nady and Dotel trades were good, but they’ve yielded Karstens, Ohlendorf, McDonald and Tabata — nice players, but are they first-division type players? The jury’s still out.
i agree with you
i also think, as has been pointed out elsewhere, that part of the reason some of his moves may not have worked well yet is the development system. While the drafting principle has been sound, it’s yet to be seen whether:
[ A ] they’ve drafted the right guys
[ B ] they can develop those guys
If he keeps Brian Burres, I’m buying the domain firenealhuntingtonyesterday.com.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I detect
some sense of humor here WTM. You seem a reasonable, well-educated fan with ample knowledge of the game so I highly doubt your opinion of NH will hinge on a roster decision for a player like Burress, no? Every team has at least one or two guys on the 40 man who ought not be in baseball … there’s just not enough talent to spread around.
Again… I think you’re kidding. Just making sure..
by RetireNutting on Sep 9, 2011 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions
What if it comes down to a decision
between keeping Brian Burres or Pedro Ciriaco? How does one solve that dilemna, hmmm?
What does that mean?!
Easily.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 10, 2011 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm sure some would solve it this way...
What does that mean?!
by Trogluddite on Sep 10, 2011 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Personally,
I think neither Ciriaco nor Burres are worth that kind of decision.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 10, 2011 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Neal Huntington Drafts Breakdown
Since we’re talking about Neal Huntington and the contract extension, and most of us agree that, in the long run, it’s all going to be about the drafts, I was curious to see how he’s doing in that area. Obviously, it’s way too early to break down Neal Huntington’s drafts, but I figured I’d give it a go anyways, and take a look at the breakdown of numbers, how far guys have gone, etc. Obviously the numbers, don’t really have a lot to do with success (1 All-Star drafted is worth a lot more than 10 organizational players, but we won’t know much for a long while!!) So, I whipped up an Excel spreadsheet and took a look at Baseball-Reference to see where each of NH’s draft picks are to this point, and here’s what I found:
Neal Huntington drafts with the Pirates:
201 players selected: 86 college players, 85 high schoolers, 28 junior college, 2 military academies, 1 baseball academy (Puerto Rico) and 1 with "No School" listed.
106 of those players signed with the Pirates. Though, of course, Matt Curry and Jordan Cooper were both drafted twice by Huntington and signed the 2nd time.
Out of the 95 who didn’t sign, 26 were drafted by other teams (obviously, that number will go up since some of the non-signed HS players of the last couple drafts will get drafted again). The highest level achieved by a Pirates non-sign, who was drafted later is AAA (Scheppers), and 2 guys have made it to AA (den Dekker and Cannon) and, of course, Aaron Baker was promoted to AA after being traded.
Of the 106 who signed, here’s the highest level they have reached during 2011 (3 guys have been demoted and haven’t re-gained their highest level yet – Stevenson, Gourley, & Weidman):
Majors (2): Alvarez, d’Arnaud.
AAA – Indy (3): Mercer, J. Wilson, Hague.
AA – Altoona (7): Farrell, Colla, Sanchez, Holt, Irwin, Hernandez, Curry.
High A – Bradenton (21): Grossman, Gonzalez, Rubinstein, Anderson, Cunningham, Miller, Leach, Cox, White, Foster, Black, Chambers, Baker, Inman, Beckman, Erickson, Waldron, Cumpton, Maggi, Santos, Brown.
A – West Virginia (17): Freeman, Pounders, Dodson, von Rosenberg, Cain, Fuesser, Taillon, Rojas, Grovatt, Payne, Bencsko, Howard, Sadler, Townsend, Lyles, Ennis, Decker.
Low A – State College (21): Stevenson (demoted from A), Gourley (demoted from A+), Allie, Kingham, Hafner, Kleis, Skirving, Archibald, Dickerson, Gamache, Lewis, Poytress, Fuselier, Jefferson, Cooper, Sharp, Singer, Benedict, Trent, Lashmet, Jones.
Rookie (11): Schoenfeld, Weidman, Lakind, Trepagnier, Pevny, Burnette, Creasy, Myles, Hornback, Jagoditsh, Schwind.
Plus 2 late signees from this year were assigned to the Rookie Pirates, but did not appear: Glasnow & Holmes.
And 3 signed too late to play and were not "officially" assigned to a team: Cole, Bell& Brewer.
And 18 players that signed and played within the organization have since been dropped completely (unless they’re injured and didn’t play this year, I didn’t bother to double-check): Aure, Klinger, Roman, Saukko, Carver, Payne, Morgan, Knotts, Fagan, Simmons, Williams, Ponder, Brolsma, Parry, Summerlin, Baca, Fallon.
So, how have the Pirates done with College vs. HS and JC:
College players: 86 picked, 66 signed.
Highest level achieved: majors (2), AAA (3), AA (7), A+ (16), A (7), A- (14), Rookie (1) – Schwind, No team (1) – Cole, Out of the organization (14)
High School players: 85 picked, 26 signed.
Highest level achieved:
High A (3) – Grossman, Cunningham & Miller
A (6) – Freeman, Pounders, Dodson, von Rosenberg, Cain, Taillon
Low A (5) – Stevenson, Gourley, Allie, Kingham, Hafner
Rookie (9) – Schoenfeld, Lakind, Trepagneir, Pevny, Burnette, Creasy, Myles + Glasnow & Holmes (didn’t play)
Out of the organization (1) – Aure
Too late to join a team (2) – Bell, Brewer
Junior College players: 28 picked, 13 signed
Highest level achieved:
High A (2) – Chambers, Beckman
A (4) – Fuesser, Rojas, Payne, Sadler
Low A (2) – Kleis, Archibald
Rookie (3) – Weidman, Hornback, Jagoditsh
Out of the organization (2): Klinger, Saukko
Baseball Academy: 1 picked, 1 signed – Benji Gonzalez, currently in A+ (Bradenton)
Military Academy: 2 picked, 1 signed – Cole White, currently in A+ (Bradenton)
Breakdown by yearly draft:
2008: drafted 50, signed 32.
Out of the 32 signed: College (24), Junior College (2), No School (1), Baseball Academy (1), Military Academy (2), High School (5)
Highest Level: Majors (2), AAA (3), AA (2), A+ (10), A (1), A- (0), Rookie (0)
Where are the High Schoolers? A+ (3) – Grossman, Cunningham, & Miller, A (1) – Freeman, Out of the Org (1) – Aure
2009: drafted 51, signed 23.
Out of the 23 signed: College (13), Junior College (3), High School (7)
Highest Level: AA (4) – Sanchez, Holt, Irwin, Hernandez, A+ (4), A (1), A- (2), Rookie (1)
Where are the High Schoolers? A (4) – Pounders, Dodson, von Rosenberg, & Cain, A- (2) – Stevenson & Gourely, Rookie (1) – Schoenfeld
2010: drafted 50, signed 27.
Out of the 27 signed: College (14), Junior College (6), High School (7)
Highest Level: AA (1) – Curry, A+ (5), A (11), A- (6), Rookie (4)
Where are the High Schoolers? A (1) – Taillon, A- (3) – Allie, Kingham & Hafner, Rookie (3) – Lakind, Trepangier & Pevny
2011: drafted 50, signed 24.
Out of the 24 signed: College (15), Junior College (2), High School (7)
Highest Level: A- (13), Rookie (8) – counting Glasnow & Holmes, No team (3)
Where are the High Schoolers? Rookie (5) – Hornback, Jagoditsh, Burnette, Creasy, Holmes & Myles, No team (2) – Bell & Brewer
by impliedi on Sep 10, 2011 12:45 AM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Naturally,I screwed up the last sentence....
the 2011 Where are the High Schoolers….
Of course, Hornback & Jagoditsh were JC guys, not high schoolers….
So it was supposed to be:
Where are the High Schoolers? Rookie (5) – Burnette, Creasy, Glasnow, Holmes & Myles, No team (2) – Bell & Brewer.
This really underscores why it's too soon to evaluate Huntington
Considering the draft is really the only way that NH can acquire some high end talent, and considering how slowly prospects develop (especially high school prospects, and we seem to go after a lot of those), it’s way too soon to reasonably expect him to have built a contender.
Rec’d by the way. This is a really nice breakdown.
"WHITESNAKE! DOKKEN! NIGHT RANGER!" -- Ronny Cedeño
What an excellent breakdown.
Great work, and this shows why its much too early to make calls on the draft.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Sep 10, 2011 7:33 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Excellent work
For those unfamiliar, the military academy (both West Point in this case) draftees are essentially college players. You won’t see any more of them – there was a brief window where DA (Dept of the Army) allowed Cadets to fulfill their obligations in alternative ways if drafted by a Major League team (NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB). Then DOD came in and said, “Uh, NO.” and killed the program.
What does that mean?!
by Trogluddite on Sep 10, 2011 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Great analysis, but how does that compare to the rest of baseball? The Pirates have spent more on the draft than anyone else during this period and, other than the Nats, they’ve had the best draft positions as well. So, you’d expect they would have achieved among the best, if not the best, results. Did they?
Neal Huntington, like Frank Coonelly, is a great BSer...
but he is not a good evaluator of talent, whether deciding to sign free agents or whether making draft picks. We have seen how his major league free agents have NOT performed. We are waiting to see if some of his draft picks materialize, but this may take another two to four years. Alvarez is already a major question mark, and he was selected as a ’can’t miss’ talent. But in actuality, the only thing that Alvarez might be able to do is hit for power. We already know that he can’t run or field, and we also know that we can count on him for 125+ Ks per year. The only player that Huntington has traded for and is at the major league level and really shows future promise is Tabata And there are serious questions as to whether he can stay healthy. D’Arnaud and Bixler are a tossup in terms of talent. For those of you that don’t like Bixler, you will find that D’Arnaud is almost a carbon copy. Tallon, Allie, Bell and all the other draftees were high on everyone’s list. Let’s see Huntington uncover a low round draft pick like Albert Pujols or even Tony Plush (aka Nyjer Morgan). The good GMs hire astute scouts that find these players. What makes any of you Pirate supporters think that Coonelly and Huntington have their act together in the areas of scouting, minor league operations and hiring minor league instructors that know how to truly develop players on a fast track.
And my God, just because major league clubs are hiring more educated, statistiaccly oriented people to work in their front offices doesn’t mean squat. All that matters is - do they know how to evaluate talent and assemble a competitive major league club while building a good scouting department and a strong minor league system with good instructors to move the talent along.
You better pay attention to RESULTS on the field. The results have been abysmal not only for the last 19 years but also for the last four years.
by kyrene on Sep 10, 2011 2:48 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd
Everyone discusses Huntington as though he personally conducts every analysis and knows every prospect and player inside and out. Like all executives, Huntington is only as good as the staff he manages…scouting, development instructors, and the MLB field management. If they feed him faulty scouting reports or fail to instruct properly, he will fail. I hope we see some changes in the off-season that reflect Huntington is measuring his staff and making improvements where needed.
by Central*Scrutinizer on Sep 10, 2011 6:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
Not only do you have to be concerned about the people who do the talent evaluation for the Pirates, there’s also the coaching staff that develops that talent. The latter is really the most important part of the entire operation. Just look at guys like Pedro. All the talent in the world doesn’t mean squat if you can’t teach him how to use it.
“We have seen how his major league free agents have NOT performed.”
Please refer to this insult on that quality analysis.. "He thought Bobby Crosby had a 35% chance of turning his career around and he failed! Rabble Rabble Rabble. I know definitively about Huntington’s talent evaluation skills!"
“We are waiting to see if some of his draft picks materialize, but this may take another two to four years.”
Correct.
“The only player that Huntington has traded for and is at the major league level and really shows future promise is Tabata”
False. Hanrahan, Morton, Lee (if we don’t re-sign him feel free to cross this out), Mcdonald, Karstens, DCutch. There are also several more in the minors.
“Let’s see Huntington uncover a low round draft pick like Albert Pujols or even Tony Plush (aka Nyjer Morgan).”
Please refer two quotes up…
“What makes any of you Pirate supporters think that Coonelly and Huntington have their act together in the areas of scouting, minor league operations and hiring minor league instructors that know how to truly develop players on a fast track.”
Well, since we aren’t privy to insider info like personalities, pro scouting reports, a guaranteed way to develop prospects, what each individual players path/requirements are we can’t really judge. Also, please refer to three quotes up
“You better pay attention to RESULTS on the field.”
False. It has not been a goal before this year to win as many games as possible in either the majors or minors. It will never be the goal for the minors.
Charlie wrote:
Also, we’ll have two more offseasons to see whether he can be do better with free agents than he did with Lyle Overbay, Matt Diaz, Kevin Correia and Scott Olsen last winter. The Pirates’ lack of funds and poor reputation do make it difficult for Huntington to sign free agents. But that’s no excuse for the money and playing time the Pirates have wasted this year on veterans who didn’t perform, particularly when it was obvious when those players were signed that they weren’t very good. (To be fair, the successful signing of Jose Veras, which was sort of a de facto major-league signing, mitigates the other signings to a degree, but only a little bit.)
Specifically:
The Pirates’ lack of funds and poor reputation do make it difficult for Huntington to sign free agents.
If a poor reputation and a lack of funds makes it difficult for the Pirates to sign free agents, then those conditions do provide excuses for the kind of Free Agent signings Huntington has made since he became GM. That claim follows from the nature of a budget constraint (the Pirates lack money to sign higher quality free agents) and the market limiting effect of a bad reputation (the Pirates would need to spend additional money on a free agent in order to get that player to forgo a contract with a team that has a better reputation).
The Pirates use their free agent signings to acquire stopgap players. Their place in the scheme of things is a marginal one.
The upshot: Free agent signings are not the place to evaluate Huntington.
s.zielinski
That's why I've never understood why people knock Huntington for his FA signings
The FA market is a two way street, and no one good is going to come to the Pirates unless they severely overpay. It hasn’t made sense the last few years to overpay for someone because they haven’t been close to contention, and when you’re going after marginal bench options/roster filler, chances are the guys you acquire just won’t be very good.
"WHITESNAKE! DOKKEN! NIGHT RANGER!" -- Ronny Cedeño
I think it's only fair
this past year, this year and possibly moving forward. Huntington did have some $$ last December and will again this year.
The huge problem is the incredibly weak FA classes of these two years for our price range($12m > us). We took a shot at De La Rosa and whiffed. There are varying odds we pursue a guy like Edwin Jackson (medium interest) or Jimmy Rollins (weak interest) or DLee (serious interest) but that is almost no depth of options on mid-tier FA. All it takes is 1 guy to dis-like Pittsburgh or 1 overpaying team and we will be left with the scraps once again.
Some Huntington critics, of course, think Nate McLouth is a god and that everything Huntington has done has been idiotic, but those people aren’t even really worth talking about.
And yet people on this site constantly anguish over what’s being said by “yinzers” on other forums.
My own feelings on Huntington are that his rep for restoring the minor leagues may be a bit overstated. I’m no minor league expert, but I certainly don’t have the sense that our system is loaded.
I understand the emphasis on pitching becuse it’s a tradeable commodity for the pieces you’re lacking. But the heavy up pitching emphasis hasn’t produced anything remotely approaching a sure thing. Trust me, I’m not giving up on any of our kid pitchers. In some cases, they may have been started at levels where they’re facing older, more experienced batters and the results speak to that.
In that regard, I also know the minors are not about any given day’s statistical snapshot, but about a hopefully upward arc. And if our kids are progressing suitably, that’s fine. But once in a while, it’s nice to see someone who’s head and shoulders above everyone else.
Specifically regarding the draft (as opposed to minor league players returned in trades), we’re all praying for Pedro to succeed, but if he flops, and especially if Posey and Hosmer become stars, NH is going to own that. It might also have been nice if one of his scouts could have identified Mike Trout’s potential in 09, but lots of other GMs missed on that. Here’s hoping Josh Bell can move quickly thru the system because (strong grasp on the obvious here) we can use a good bat.
I have no problem extending NH, but I’ve long felt that he gets too much slack because a) he’s not a demonstrable bonehead like Littlefield and b) he has a “plan.” Plans are nice, successful execution is better.
PS, I liked the McLouth trade and will be pulling hard today for the pride of nearby North Conway, NH.
I have no problem extending NH, but I’ve long felt that he gets too much slack because a) he’s not a demonstrable bonehead like Littlefield and b) he has a "plan."
This I agree with. “Not being Dave Littlefield” was certainly the best business decision Huntington could have made and that’ll give him a lot more job security.
"WHITESNAKE! DOKKEN! NIGHT RANGER!" -- Ronny Cedeño
Yuns are driving me crazy.
The first word in analysis is ANAL. And that’s what I’m seeing here, a long list of posts that blah! blah! blah! over analyze the Pirates organization, particularly people like Neil Huntington. Should Huntington be signed to a 2 or 3 year deal blah! blah! I said at the beginning of this season that if the Pirates played .500 ball, I would be satisfied that they were indeed “turning things around.” By and large, I like Clint Hurdle. I think he’s been good for the team and brought a much needed attitude change to the Buccos. I’m not happy with EVERY move he’s made, but I like what he’s done.
We’re going to have a 19th losing season, that’s a fact. Losing to Florida 13-4 made me wonder if this team is really improving that much. I thought that getting Tabata and Lee back healthy would have given us some solid strength on offense, but it hasn’t really been consistent. And our pitching has fallen apart. Veras is a pitching joke that cost us games, and the teams overall performance since the All-Star break has been terrible. I’ve been tough on Huntington in the past, but I’m really convinced the problem all along has been Nutting. He just won’t spend what is necessary to get enough good players to make this team a winner.
I sponsored a NUTTING MUST GO movement last year because I’m tired of the excuses, tired of the player fire sales and gutting of any team that showed promise in the last 10 years, and tired of a culture of losing on the Pirates in a city where championship play is not only expected but demanded. I kept my mouth shut this season about NUTTING MUST GO because it looked like the Pirates had finally turned the corner. And then the post All-Star break collapse made me start thinking, “Sorry folks, it was good while it lasted, but it just ain’t working.” Huntington can only do what he can with the resources he is given, but Nutting bears the ultimate responsibility for the success-or lack thereof-of this team. If the Buccos were close to .500 ball, I’d say let’s see what next year will bring. But we’re not, so once again I say with conviction, NUTTING MUST GO!
This might win yinzer post of the year.
Unfortunately as this site as grown, the quality of the comments has steadily decreased. I realized there is nothing Charlie can do about it, I guess we just have to leave with it.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
*live with it.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I'm just gonna keep this simple.
Losing to Florida 13-4 made me wonder if this team is really improving that much.
That game was bad. But if you’re drawing your conclusions from the outcome of any single baseball game, that’s worse.
"I sponsored a NUTTING MUST GO movement last year ..."
Of course you did.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 10, 2011 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
This is all such BS!
Evaluating talent and enough payroll and the right free-agent moves and blah! blah! blah! Enough with all the anal-retentive analysis of the Pirates this and Huntington that. If a guy can’t get motivated or doesn’t have the talent to be paid, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to play MLB, then screw the idiot! I’m so sick of these over paid bozos coming and going like carnival freak show contestants. If they haven’t got the brains or balls to play MLB and be a solid, worthy addition to their team for the kind of money they get paid, screw ‘em! Let’s see ‘em find out what eking out a workingman’s pay 5-6 days a week is like in the real work-a-day world. Then try to tell me about how hard it is to play MLB. Too many of these clowns are wannabe’s who can’t be.
The Tinfoild hat crowd checks in
s.zielinski
Shows that Pirates have no desire to Win
Seriously if Huntington is your GM, Pirates fans are #ucked!!!!! Only reason he got the extension is he’s a mouthpiece for ownership……….
Silly
Only reason he got the extension is he’s a mouthpiece for ownership……….
Ummm, being a mouthpiece for ownership is part of the job description. It’s not something Nutting would give Huntington a reward for accomplishing. Nutting would expect any employee to be a mouthpiece for ownersnip.
BD needs a better class of troll.
s.zielinski
Doesn’t seem too controversial to me. He’ll be GM when Alvarez, Sanchez, Cole, and maybe Taillon (among others) should be producing in the majors. Seems fair. If his own draftees aren’t doing the job, he’s gone.
I wouldn’t complain if he was let go sooner, but a 3 year arrangement makes sense.
by Adam Reynolds on Sep 10, 2011 3:44 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I think DL could do as good if not better.
He drafted a lot of talent and wasn’t allowed to spend a lot in the draft. If Bullington, Benson, JVB, and so forth would have turned out great he would have been praised. Gms have a very tough job but im cool with Keeping NH but if they don’t have a 500 season after 2014 all is lost!
by Joey Mooney on Sep 10, 2011 6:36 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
NH would have passed on Cutch!
by Joey Mooney on Sep 10, 2011 6:49 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
"..If Bullington, Benson, JVB, and so forth would have turned out great ..."
If a frog had wings, it wouldn’t whomp it’s ass on the ground every time it jumped, either.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 10, 2011 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Huntington
What could be worse than two years of Neal Huntington?
Three years of Neal Huntington.
I don’t understand the logic of this possibility.
It seems
you don’t understand the “reply” button, either.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 11, 2011 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
