2012 Should Be A Crucial Season For Neal Huntington
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 30, 2012 2:52 AM EST
Email
PrintBucs Dugout once seemed to be a site that championed the Pirates' front office, but this offseason, the tone of the site seems to have changed. Here's why that's happening now, and why I think 2012 is a crucial season for Neal Huntington's future with the Bucs.
First, a look back. In the early years of the Neal Huntington era, criticisms of Huntington and of the Pirates' ownership rarely bore any relationship to reality. To point out that Huntington inherited a terrible situation has become an enormous cliche, but it's a cliche because it's true. It shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to notice that, in late 2007, there was very little in the farm system, that the big-league team was going nowhere with a core of aging players who would soon become free agents, and that the only logical plan for a team in the Pirates' position was to trade off its big-league core for younger talent and rebuild through the farm system.
Ultimately, though, many fans and many in the media did not accept that this was the right plan, particularly the part about trading away big-league players. That led to a ton of criticism of Huntington's trades, which is interesting because, while they were far from perfect, most of them made sense at the time, and aside from a massive but almost-completely-unforeseeable gaffe with Jose Bautista, they mostly look pretty darn good now -- the Pirates gave up very little, in the grand scheme of things, and got a bunch of useful or potentially-useful players in Jose Tabata, James McDonald, Charlie Morton, Joel Hanrahan, Jeff Karstens and so on.
The broader issue here, though, was that the trades were just one part of a larger plan, and almost all commentators, certainly including me, probably paid a disproportionate amount of attention to them, because there were big-league players involved. The more important point was that Huntington's plan, such as it was, was dead-on right. Not only was it right, it was clearly right. So I and others argued in favor of Huntington's plan, which was the only plan that made any sense at all. And often, that involved defending Huntington's trades
We pretty much had to argue in favor of Huntington's plan, because it was right, and because, at the time, it was very controversial, much moreso than it is now.
A related point: Fans in 2007 and 2008 generally did not appreciate the scale of the mess Dave Littlefield left behind, particularly where the farm system was concerned. Again, it's a cliche to point that out, but it's true. As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, someone recently asked me how the internet had changed Pirate fandom. Part of the answer is that in 2012, there's a ton of information out there regarding prospects. In 2007, there really wasn't.
Well, that's not entirely true. There were Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus, of course. I wrote about prospects, and Wilbur did a great job with his Pirate Player Profiles site even back then. But BA and BP didn't cover the Pirates minor league system as closely as various websites now do. Bucs Dugout had a small fraction of the readers it has now. And Pirate Player Profiles had even fewer. (Sorry, Wilbur.) If a site like Pirates Prospects had existed and been popular in 2007, a fairly large percentage of the fanbase probably would have been appalled at what was going on in the minor-league system. But that wasn't the case, because people just didn't read blogs that much back then. (Bucs Dugout, for example, will have over seven times more traffic in January 2012 than it had in January 2008, and Bucs Dugout and WHYGAVS were probably the two biggest Pirates blogs back then.)
Therefore, much of our energy was spent defending what should have been truisms. The trades made sense. The problem with the minor-league system was grave, and would take a very long time to fix. And so on. This wasn't really the same thing as thinking that Neal Huntington was a good GM. I and others expressed reservations about Huntington and about Bob Nutting, but at the time, there was nothing to do but let them pursue their plan, and hope it worked.
In 2012, we have a lot more information now than we had then. And, unfortunately, I have many of the same reservations about the Pirates' management that I had in 2008. I'm not sure Huntington is a bad GM, but I'm not sure he's a good one, either.
The Bucs have spent more in the past four drafts than any other team. That's excellent, but it really doesn't reflect on Huntington. It reflects on Nutting and Frank Coonelly, who presumably are the people who make the decisions about the draft budget. And the returns on those drafts have, thus far, been underwhelming in relation to the amount of money spent. In other words, we need to distinguish between spending a lot of money on the draft (for which Huntington doesn't deserve much credit) and actually doing good stuff with that buying power.
Yes, it's too early to judge Huntington's drafts conclusively. But the career of an average or struggling GM isn't long, and we need to try to be as clear as possible about what's going on here, because if Huntington's drafts aren't working, the Pirates need to act to correct what's wrong.
At least at this point, the 2008 draft looks rather weak. I can't blame the front office too much for Pedro Alvarez, who was widely considered the best player in the draft. But the rest of that draft boils down to Robbie Grossman (a possible outfield regular), Jarek Cunningham (a wild card), Wesley Freeman (a lottery ticket), and a few guys who might be role players. They dropped $900,000 on Quinton Miller, who currently looks like a bust. There's certainly time for the 2008 draft to be a good one, but right now, I'm not sure the chances look great that it will.
The 2009 draft might actually look worse. The risky choice to take Tony Sanchez in the first round and then load up on high-school arms later currently looks like a poor one -- Sanchez was awful last year, and really, the best you can say about the crop of high-school arms is that they've mostly stayed healthy. Again, there's time for one or more of them to blossom, but I'm not terribly excited about any of them right now.
That leaves the 2010 and 2011 drafts, and of course it's easy to get excited about those, but then it was pretty easy to get excited about the 2008 draft class in 2009, or the 2009 draft class in 2010, too. The Pirates will probably get a fair amount out of the 2010 and 2011 classes, but, you know, they should, because they picked second overall in 2010 and first overall in 2011, and because they spent almost $30 million between the two seasons.
And while it's too early to write off anyone from the 2010 draft class, it's worth pointing out that besides Jameson Taillon, the only player from that class who really stepped forward last year was Nick Kingham. The Pirates shelled out bonuses of $400,000 or more on five other players that year (Stetson Allie, Mel Rojas, Drew Maggi, Ryan Hafner and Jared Lakind), and none of them were much good in 2011. You can certainly make excuses for some of them if you like (FASTBALL COMMAND!), and again, it's way too early to write them off, but it's not too early to be concerned that, under Neal Huntington, the Pirates have a pattern of shelling out big money on players who don't even thrive in Class A, or even, sometimes, rookie ball. Most guys who succeed in the majors do perform well in Class A.
The end result here is that, after four years of heavy financial investment in the minors, the Pirates still have a farm system that most national analysts place in the middle of the pack, or slightly above. That's far better than it was, but it's not good enough. In fact, it's not close to being good enough. A lot could change this year. But it had better.
Then there's the offseason the Pirates are having. To some degree, Huntington deserves a mulligan on the seasons where the Pirates were trading off big-league talent, because there simply wasn't much talent in the organization, and not much he could do with what was there. But it's been four years. At this point, at the big-league level, the Pirates should be trying. Not "Hey look we just spent $200 million on Prince Fielder!" trying, but trying. And I just don't see a whole lot of evidence that they are.
Much of the dialogue this offseason has focused on the Pirates' decisions not to retain Paul Maholm, Ryan Doumit and Ronny Cedeno. I wanted the Bucs to pick up their options on Maholm and Cedeno. As it turned out, the bottom fell out of the market on mid- or lower-tier players, and Maholm and Cedeno ended up signing with other teams for much less than the prices of their options. In that limited sense, the Pirates made the right calls on those players. But that only goes so far when all the Pirates did to replace them was to sign a very talented but incredibly injury-prone pitcher in Erik Bedard, and a good defensive shortstop who will probably struggle to hit in PNC in Clint Barmes. They also got a decent but aging catcher in Rod Barajas to replace Ryan Doumit, and they picked up Casey McGehee in case Alvarez is horrible again.
And really, that's it. They're back to where they started. Meanwhile, they don't really have a first baseman, and they seem bizarrely oblivious to the game of Russian Roulette they're playing with the rotation. (And let's please not act like this is part of a grand plan to clear a path for someone like Jeff Locke or Rudy Owens. Neither of those guys looked at all ready last season, and if either of them do pitch well in 2012, an extra major-league arm to keep the rotation together wouldn't have posed an obstacle.) Basically, the Pirates have Bedard (ridiculously fragile), Charlie Morton (might or might not be healthy), Jeff Karstens (a swingman until last season), James McDonald (good pitcher, but averages less than six innings per start), and Kevin Correia (about whom the less said, the better). And their backup plan is ... Brad Lincoln! And that's it. Good luck pitching 450 innings, Mr. Lincoln. Maybe the Pirates' faith in their current rotation will turn out to be justified, but if not, they could go from zero to Jo-Jo Reyes in about six weeks, which is a time that would make Bugatti jealous.
What's worse is that there's no real reason to trust that Huntington sees this much more clearly than we do. Last year, he spent $15 million on Lyle Overbay, Kevin Correia, Matt Diaz and Scott Olsen. That looked like a terrible idea at the time, and it turned out to be ... Well, what do you know? A terrible idea.
There's still some time left this offseason. The Bucs might still do something. But with only a couple weeks left until Spring Training and with nary a rumor to be heard anywhere, the best guess is that they're just doing what they typically do, which is to spend a few million dollars vaguely trying to fill holes without really going about the business of taking themselves seriously as a baseball team.
The reasons for this might be more complicated than we realize, and it's very likely that this particular problem has more to do with ownership than with Huntington. There's still the fact that PNC Park ticket prices, despite a recent price increase, are still ridiculously cheap, and it's hard to see where exactly the Pirates are supposed to get the revenues to build a real team, if they're not getting the pieces they need from their farm system. There's a serious question in here about what, exactly, Major League Baseball thinks the role of a small-market club should be, because the deck is stacked against the Pirates to an obscene degree. But other franchises in similar situations have managed to avoid such questions of unfairness, at least for a time. The Pirates haven't, and four years into Huntington's tenure, there are few signs that they will in the near future.
I'm still open to the idea that Neal Huntington is the right person to lead the Pirates, and I think that he's done many smart things in his four years in Pittsburgh. But I think 2012 will be a crucial year for him. I want to see more of his draft picks emerge as serious prospects, and I want to see the Pirates have a top-five farm system by the end of the season. I also want to see some glimmer of hope that Huntington and the Pirates have some sort of plan to win at the major-league level -- a surprising trade, an Andrew McCutchen extension, something -- that goes beyond shuffling deck chairs and praying for draft picks to work out. If those things don't happen, I think the Pirates should consider dismissing Huntington at season's end.
354 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
spot on charlie.
We all understand what the problem is with Nutting and money. We realize that Neal cant do anything about it, but i like many feel that he could do better. I mean really Maholm was had for a price well below market, was there really no chance that he would come back? No firstbaseman ( for the umpteen year) and your solution is to not do anything?
I will continue to support him until the Pirates lose that magic 82nd game and the season is over. If he has done nothing to significantly improve this team at the major league level or a number of his prospect continue to struggle, I think most will agree that it is time to move in another direction.
Au contraire
We don’t all understand the “problem with Nutting and money”. Please splain to me. And also please refrain from the “sale the team” (Mark Cuban, Mario LeMieux, etc.) argument. Thanks for your patience.
he simply does not have it or......
he appears to not want to spend it, at least not in the 5 years that he has had the majority share. If he does not have it, then he has no real business owning this team in this in the current uncapped system that MLB has in place. FC says that when the time is right, they will spend. Well, I will believe it when i see it happen.
also,
the post below mine suggests that perhaps it is NH’s unwillingness to spend that is the problem. If that is true(something me might never know) then why is he unwilling to spend it?
Part of the issue Charlie's raised
is that it’s not even clear whether this year’s payroll is Nutting-driven. Presumably FC was playing it straight when he said ~$55M for 2012. That’s not a huge number, but it’s a substantial increase, it’s a reasonable number for a non-contending year, and it’s a good faith use of the extra income generated in 2011. For all we know, if things had gone better in 2011 and we were ready to compete for real in 2012, Nutting would be willing to OK $65M to get it done (he did OK the Morris trade, remember).
I don’t think that it helps to have a cash-constrained owner, but we don’t actually know just how constrained Nutting is – and won’t for at least 3 more years, IMO.
On preview, I see that this was covered while I was talking to a client. Stupid work, interfering with BD!
How much money Nutting has is completely irrelevant to what gets spent on the field. The money brought in by the organization from tickets, TV, revenue sharing, etc determines the payroll of the club. The sooner we get over this bullshit “Nutting has no money to spend” meme, the better off things will be. He could be broke personally and it would still not change the money spent on the field. Why? Because the funds going to the team are 100% separate from that of Nutting’s personal wealth.
And someone please link me to the story that FC said payroll would be in the mid $50M’s. IIRC, the statement was that the team was in a position to increase payroll if the time was right. I think it was Langosh that said the teams payroll would be $55M.
*Not directing this at JRoth, just seemed like a logical place to put that.
Owner's money is relevant
The owner could decide to contribute capital to be spent on the field in hopes of generating a return on that investment.
by dontgobobbybo on Jan 30, 2012 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
contribute capital?
You mean purchase a larger share of the team? OTOH, if you’re talking about additional cash available for spending on FA’s without changing the current ownership makeup, then you’re talking about debt (whether it comes from a third party or from FC himself to PBC). IMO, it’s not the appropriate time for PBC to take on additional debt. Wait and strike when the iron is hot. That is, when you have a much better chance of getting a significant return. Not only that, by first acquiring young talent, I believe they are thinking long term and avoiding the short term view.
Face it, taking on a ton of debt and adding Prince Fielder and CJ Wilson this year wouldn’t provide a winner and definitely wouldn’t provide a significant return in 2012 or even 2013. To quote that great American, Tony Soprano, “we’re running a business here.”
I don’t think dontgobobby meant $200m, but I certainly think those 2 plus a fluke year from Barajas would make us a winner.
Snicker
Yeah, but if dontgobobbybo didn’t mean much $, then we don’t need to get into Nutting’s personal stash. We already have budget room in 2012 to make additional moves while we’re waiting for the youngsters to develop. We can nitpick the offseason moves so far, but when it’s all said and done we aren’t going to make a splash in 2012 anyway without a lot of pieces falling into place.
I don’t mean purchase a larger share of the team….I mean add cash or resources to the pool available to be used…the PBC is a limited partnership. As such, they can contribute funds, personally or outside of the PBC itself. I believe these contributions would increase their capital account and ultimately affect when they pay taxes on any distributions. Depending on the partnership agreement, this may or may not affect a contributing partner(s) ownership share of the team
In addition, as you point out, the could make resources available by taking on debt. As an aside, taking on debt, if even available (I recall some controversy b/c nutting himself had a debt arrangement with the PBC – maybe b/c they had issue obtain additional financial), may be beneficial. Additionaly, generally debt is a good thing (see Modigilani Miller) because it reduces your WACC and increases value.
I am not sure we have enough information to evaluate the potential return a large singing would make.
But my point was simply, a Owner’s money is relevant to the strategic decision making of a business. For example, a different ownership group may be more willing to spend more money in hopes of generating additional cash flow.
by dontgobobbybo on Jan 30, 2012 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
Your points are received and appreciated
I believe we only disagree on timing. If I were a partner, I would like to see more progress (particularly in the development of young talent) before risking more of my assets. I feel the same about increasing PBC debt at this time.
I actually agree. I thought they should not have used the resources to sign the FA they did last off season.
I was just pointing out that the owner spending more money is an option and that ultimaely the owner’s money matters.
by dontgobobbybo on Jan 30, 2012 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
I was wondering
Thanks for the asterisk at the end.
For the record, IMO a non-cash-constrained owner can afford to do things like get a little ahead of his fanbase in terms of spending on a rising team – IOW, to take an 83-win, $75M team likely to draw 2M fans and cover costs and spend $15M in order to get into playoff contention a year early, thus to raise revenues. You hope that you break even in that very season, but the ultimate plan is about extending the window of contending and having high attendance/revenues.
People like to say that that’s crazy talk, but taking on debt in advance of sales is perfectly normal practice in other business fields. What you can’t do is to borrow/inject capital constantly – you need to reap returns at some point.
"you need to reap returns at some point."
That, my friend, is the dilemma. When do they make the major commitment. My opinion is that the time is not now. Some indication of when, if ever, the young arms are going to be ready will help with that decision.
Oh sure
That’s why I made my hypothetical not especially close to the current situation. Nutting is (apparently) willing/able to spend $55M in 2012, but it’s pointless to debate whether he should be willing to throw another $10M on top of that if we can’t agree whether $20M more payroll would take them to 75 wins or 80+.
But the odds are that there will come a time when Nutting’s inability to ante up (if that’s really the case – we don’t know, we’re assuming/inferring) will mean a missed opportunity, whether it’s failing to extend McCutchen or missing out on an FA who could put us over the top.
Well, when the team President clearly states
how much blame can you place on the team owner?
None, if the money was made available to him, and he just didn’t spend it.
On, this point
We’re 100% in agreement.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 31, 2012 4:30 AM EST up reply actions
Great article Charlie… I was willing to give NH until the end of the 2013 season. However, given the off season moves or lack of have been nothing less then frustrating. Having the 12th rated farm system is a huge improvement to what NH inherited. This rating could easy move in the top five or drop significantly before years end. It will be a critical year for many prospects to show marked improvement in their development. The lack of Impact Latin American prospects should be questioned and scrutinized. I hope the entire organization leaps two steps forward this season! My heart cannot take a step backwards. Damn, if that happens — I guess I’ll have to vote Smizik for President!
by Krid on Jan 30, 2012 6:18 AM EST via mobile reply actions
+1
I’m still a glass half full fan which is how I’m reading your post. I’m anticipating a jump in the farm system rating by year end.
I also think it’s too early to even bring up Huntington’s job status. No offense Charlie, but I’m going to blame this article on the no news blues.
Great analysis
I was thinking the same thing over the weekend. . .not as coherently, but along the same lines.
At some point the Pirates need to show their fans something, a sign that indicates the front office is willing to improve the team and reward the fan base—signing a free agent, for example. Not a Prince Fielder signing, but maybe an Edwin Jackson signing. Rewarding the fan base with a free-agent signing may seem like an emotional rather than a business decision, but I disagree. It would improve the team and build support, both of which eventually translate to dollars. I haven’t given up hope, but I don’t see this happening.
From s fans point of view you are correct
But if were a Gm who managed to bring about. 2mil fans,raise ticket prices and do it with no backlash all with an on field product thats only 50 mil,id ask for a raise
by tbote123 on Jan 30, 2012 7:27 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I'm just going to chalk this up to a lack of Pirate news during the last few weeks.
Seems like the only point you are trying to make is you aren’t happy with the draft class results, which I would say its way to early to say. Some of the kids drafted in 2009 are presumably only 21 years old now. I’m glad to know you have written them off, as it is inconceivable that they could develop into major leaguers at 23/24/25/26. Same goes for 2008 and obviously for 2010/2011.
In the second to last paragraph you answer your own question, there simply isn’t enough money to do the things you’d like the Pirates to do.
Also, giving no credit to Huntington for raising the draft spending is ridiculous. It didn’t happen until he got here, and another other GM could have lobbied for that to occur before. He definitely deserves some credit, if not most of the credit, for getting draft spending up. Most of this site is still under the false belief that the MLB budget and draft budget are two different entities just because the front office has stated that to be the case. This is so the newspapers don’t go out and make more anti-Pirate propaganda screaming that the Pirates hate keeping MLB players and only want to spend money on the minor leagues. The bottom line is that they have no other alternatives. The Pirates entire budget is a singular budget. There is not two different corporations or two different funding sources for the MLB team and the draft. You have to decrease one to increase the other, no exceptions.
The problem with the informed posters on this site who lack faith in Huntington is that their expectations were/are way too high, especially during last season when the Pirates were magically in 1st place for about 16 seconds. I don’t think its possible to analyze the situation accurately until you realize this was not a good team from 1993 thru 2011, will not be a good team in 2012, and may still not be a good team in 2013. That is the reality of the situation, whether Huntington is here or not. The only question is if the fans choose to accept reality.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Jan 30, 2012 7:28 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I Kinda Agree with Both of You
Kosstic518,
I agree with you that expectations are unreasonable from the fans, but I guess they always will be. NH has done a very good job considering this is his 1st GM job and the pitiful condition of thw Pirates when he took over.
However, I still am not confident in his ability to choose talent. Really it depends upon Alverez, Marte, etc. If they shine this this year, then he will look like a genius. Otherwise, he will look very bad. In that respect I agre that 2012 is an important year for NH.
Starling Marte was not signed by Huntington.
But you can assign him some credit for not trading him.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Jan 30, 2012 7:47 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
But NH is "On the Hook"
He might not have signed Marte, but he willbe judged based on how Marte turns out.
Me Too
I agree in some ways with both.
It DOES seem, as Charlie writes in the next to last paragraph, that other teams have been able to overcome small market shortcomings. BUT, were any of those teams in quite the same hole as the Buccos?
I guess you can praise Neil for not giving a shit about what the fans think, and staying the course, but his course, as is pointed out, of waisting his resources on the major league level by signing crap after crap player, doesn’t exactly make you confident that he knows what he’s doing.
My conclusion at this point is that the GM knows his ML team is not going to be very good, so “making a splash” is not worth it. It’d be interesting to see what he really thinks, but I know he’ll just tell the press that he likes his club, thinks they’ll improve, blah, blah, blah……In the meantime, unless Alvarez improves, and the rotation has unusually good luck, we are just waiting for more young talent that may never pay off. At this point, with so little evidence to support it, we have to just hope Neil knows what he’s doing.
I'm not quite sure about the next-to-last paragraph
Is it true that other franchises in similar situations have avoided questions of unfairness? KC is one fluky season away from matching the Pirates’ losing streak. They seem in a position to rebuild through the farm thanks to apparently hitting on some draft picks, including one from 2002, but that hasn’t happened yet. (And if Moustakas doesn’t hit, it might be a while.) The A’s have been pretty irrelevant since before Huntington was hired, and MLB’s plan for them to stop being irrelevant seems to be to leave their market. Sickels ranks their farm system two ticks above the Pirates’, after blowing up their roster. The Mariners are kind of spinning their wheels despite having the sixth-best organization in baseball. The Orioles — well, maybe their situation is just bad management rather than any problem with their role, though it doesn’t help that they’re in a division with two 800-pound gorillas.
Anyway, I’m not sure that other teams in the comparison class really are avoiding the unfairness, except for the Rays and to some extent the Brewers.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
"Sickels ranks their farm system two ticks above the Pirates’"
He also said that he doesn’t feel especially comfortable making the destinction between one team and another that is close in the rankings (coincidentally, he mentioned the Pirates and Athletics). So if push came to shove, I’m not sure he would even strongly disagree with an argument that the Pirates farm system is better than the one that Billy Beane has put together.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
right
I wound up editing out something that made this point in my original post, but my point was that the A’s don’t seem likely to break out of their rut any sooner than the Bucs. After their trades, their farm system isn’t that much better than the Pirates’, and they don’t look to have an awful lot to build on in the majors.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
True
I made this point on another thread, but Billy Beane and the A’s are currently entering their 6th straight year without a winning season despite having an ALCS team as its starting point. I find it interesting that people are ready to push Huntington out after 4 years (well, after 5 assuming that the Bucs make no progress this year) when Beane is in a very similar position.
Now I say this with the obvious asterisk that Beane’s previous track record buys him extra time. We might see a debate in a year or two (assuming Oakland is still not winning) that Billy Beane, once thought to be the definition of an elite GM, could be on his way out and he will have made that transition in less than a decade…
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
Decreasing effectiveness is a well-established tendency
At least it’s well-established for coaches & managers. GMs I’m less sure about.
That said, we have an excellent, coherent explanation for Beane’s decline: 1. his discovery of market inefficiencies has been broadcast, studied, and diffused; and, 2. he hasn’t lucked into another trio like Hudson/Mulder/Zito (one of those guys gets a torn labrum in 1998 and there’s no book, just a GM doing better than you’d expect in a small market, but with little to show for it).
Point being, Beane’s extraordinary success wasn’t (necessarily) a product of him being a supergenius: it was tied to one insight (well applied) and one triple stroke of luck. There’s no reason to presume that he can replicate that success indefinitely. He’s clearly a talented GM – most observers like most of his moves most of the time – but the secret sauce that led to the early ’00s teams is expired.
Meanwhile, as for NH, we have essentially zero evidence that he’s better than average; his best trade (Nady) wasn’t considered (by most) such at the time, and we don’t know if it was luck or talent. His general roadmap was the only sensible one, so it doesn’t tell us anything except that he’s sensible. And, as Charlie lays out, there are question marks and warning signs all over his record. Finally, even if he’s done everything up until now as well as anyone could have, that still doesn’t tell us whether he can take this org and turn it into a championship team.
How did Beane “luck into” the Hudson/Mulder/Zito trio? He drafted two of the three and they were all developed while he was GM.
So, if a number of NH’s draft picks pan out, did he “luck into,” having them in his system?
And just so we’re clear, I’m not even trying to compare Beane and NH as GMs. I’m just saying their performance as GMs should be assessed using the same criteria.
he didn't luck into them, he lucked into their health
Even Raybin Brad Pitt Billy Beane can’t guarantee that a pitcher stays healthy.
OK, I don’t really have anything to contribute here, I just wanted to make that joke.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What's the difference between Generation K and the A's big 3?
Luck. Having 3 SPs miss a combined total of like 10 starts in 4 seasons (I think that’s the number, I looked it up once) is not something you can plan or design (you can overwork pitchers and damage them, but you can’t do the opposite – at least no one has ever proved that they can, and it’s not as if Beane has an unblemished track record with SPs in his org).
What’s the difference between Generation K and the A’s big 3?
Luck.
Scouting/analysis, too. If the A’s scouts liked Mark Mulder more than Jeff Austin, then they deserve some amount of credit for that.
Oh sure
Luck is the residue of planning, etc. But recognizing the undervalued merits of OBP is not what kept Tim Hudson’s elbow healthy. Plenty of guys with big frames, clean deliveries, and no injury history blow out their arms/elbows/shoulders.
Beane (and the A's) got lucky with the Big 3's health
That is not to say that the organization didn’t do their due diligence in acquiring and developing those pitchers but pitching prospects (even great ones) depend so much on a near impossible to predict variable like health that getting perfect health from debut to dismantling is amazingly lucky.
I’m read a line from a review of Moneyball the movie (I forget where it was) that the problem with a movie about Scott Hatteberg is that it’s a movie about Scott Hatteberg and while his acquisition was a very good one, some of the “Moneyball” pickups highlighted merely took the team from a 95 win team to a 100 win team. I don’t say any of this to undermine what Beane and the A’s did. The construction of those teams was outstanding and the focus on market inefficiencies was inspired. Having said that, I have never been able to shake my belief that the reason the A’s were a true contender and not a merely a good, low payroll team was the Big 3, not the “Moneyball” decisions.
Beane and the A’s deserve credit for getting those players in the system BUT lady luck also deserves credit for keeping them away from Dr. James Andrews.
*I admit that pitching a prospect until his arm falls off a la Bobby Bradley also goes towards organizational competency but sometimes you can do everything right and the arm still goes wrong (Joba and Strasburg).
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
getting back to the original point I was making
Given that Beane is a talented GM, it’s disturbing for fans of small-market teams that even Beane has been unable to bring the A’s back to contention. To say that his secret sauce has expired is another way of saying he either needs a lot of luck or being one of the absolute best GMs in the business, or both, to contend. That’s why I think the A’s are another team that isn’t really avoiding questions of unfairness.
(The A’s may have the deck stacked against them in a unique way now that the new CBA deems them a large market team while MLB’s official division of markets is allowing the Giants to keep them out of San Jose. It seems like a real Catch-22 that they count as a large market even though they don’t have rights to most of it. But that hasn’t affected them up till now — they’ve been a garden-variety low-revenue team.)
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
My point about secret sauce
was that he may not have been one of the absolute best GMs in the business; he may have been an upper tier one (say top 10, out of 30) on general abilities who had a tool no one else did that put him into the top 3 or 5.
Think of Maury Wills and his speed. He was really a pretty ordinary starter – but his speed game, which exploited a market inefficiency (ML defenses weren’t designed to handle it) to outproduce his talent.
Also, of course, Beane was competing with Bonifay and Moore and Hendry and all of these gross incompetents, almost all of whom are out of the game now. Maybe he was top 5 in a weak field, but merely top 10 in a stronger one. Hell, as has been said, if you time-traveled NH to be hired in 2002(?) instead of 2007, he looks a lot better – he gets better return on his trades, his drafting is more advanced compared to his peers, etc.
The game doesn’t stand still. Mean Joe Greene wouldn’t be a star in today’s league (OK, maybe modern training techniques let him compete, but time machine Joe Greene, taken from 1974 and dropped into 2012, gets flattened).
i betcha dick butkus will still kick ass in 2012
but back to the GMs… who do YOU think is the best GM in baseball? and reasons, please.
Probably the Tampa guy
But honest to god, I don’t pay that much attention. The only reason I give a shit about NH is that his abilities are directly related to my enjoyment of Pirate baseball.
Brian Sabean
He’s the longest-tenured, he didn’t get destroyed by the Bonds circus (when pretty much every other GM would have), he won a World Series with a house of cards being anchored by great pitching with Aubrey Huff and Pat Burrell playing prominent roles, and he magically made Matt Morris disappear.
I’d say whoever runs the Blue Jays, Rays, Braves, Theo, Cards, and Rangers are doing pretty damn good.
Considering that pitchers and catchers
Haven’t reported for ST yet, I’d classify Theo’s state as “hopeful”.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 31, 2012 7:07 AM EST up reply actions
Reds seem well run
but it’s hard to tell. They’ve certainly made some nice moves, but they’ve also not quite lived up to potential (or maybe they have and I’m overvaluing 2011’s fallback).
Yeah, I was thinking about that
Does the GM have the juice to fire Dusty? Is the GM Dusty’s pet? No idea.
I’ll say this – my sense is that Dusty has been better in Cincy than he’s been elsewhere. Maybe he’s learning, maybe he’s on a shorter leash, or maybe in 2012 all his pitchers’ arms will fall off.
Sabean...
didn’t make Matt Morris magically disappear all by himself. He had the help of a well meaning idiot. Don’t give him all the credit.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me
Jason Schmidt and Matt Morris: the first and last big trades of the DL era.
Couldn't agree more.
The only real exception to the little guy rule in the recent past is Tampa Bay, which is why we should learn from what they were able to accomplish/are still accomplishing. As those who followed the Rays know, this process can literally take over a decade. The Pirates haven’t had a good process in place until recently, 2008 to be exact.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Seems like the only point you are trying to make is you aren’t happy with the draft class results, which I would say its way to early to say. Some of the kids drafted in 2009 are presumably only 21 years old now. I’m glad to know you have written them off, as it is inconceivable that they could develop into major leaguers at 23/24/25/26
They certainly could develop into major leaguers, but right now they mostly aren’t on track to do so. Greg Smith had at best an uneven record as the Tigers’ scouting director, so his record with us bears scrutiny. If he’s not going to get results commensurate to the resources that are being devoted to amateur talent acquisition, we need to get him out of that job and bring in someone who can.
When you make an extremely unconventional move like our strategy in 2009, and it doesn’t pay off, observers SHOULD question the judgment of the people who made the decision. That’s accountability. Similarly, when you spend almost $100k over slot on a kid like Schoenfeld, and then he can’t even win a starting job in rookie ball the next year and he’s out of the organization the year after that, it’s a significant problem.
That's the thing. We have 0 idea if 2009 did or didn't pay off yet.
Write this article in 3 or 4 years and get back to me.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Bullshit
“0 idea” is just ridiculous. If 2.5 professional years don’t tell you anything about a player, then you don’t know how to evaluate players.
As has been pointed out countless times when we look at some marginal acquisition and squint to think, “Well, maybe – Jack Wilson was a light-hitting SS, but he provided value”, ML regulars rake in the minors. ML starters put up video game K:BB in the low minors.
Yes, there are always exceptions, but this idea that you can’t know until a guy is 25 whether or not he’ll turn into a valuable player is simply fallacious. Hell, one of the core insights of saber metrics is that numbers are numbers – there’s no “makeup” or “grittiness” that turns a mediocre MiLer into a solid MLBer.
I'm not arguing make up or grittiness.
I’m talking about physical maturity. It’s the same reason many here hate ZVR after one bad season on an ERA basis, but I’m still pretty high on him and I think he is a top 15 prospect in the system, if not higher.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
It’s the same reason many here hate ZVR after one bad season on an ERA basis
Yeah, the site’s users hate him so much that they just voted him the #15 prospect in the farm system.
Skepticism about ZVR isn’t just the function of his ERA last year. It also comes from his low K rate, which was under 6 per nine in his first year of full-season ball. He hasn’t been bad, but he got more than a million bucks to sign – first-round money. For that kind of money, people were (rightly) hoping to see a bit more by now.
ZVR's K rate was 8.16 K/9 last year.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
And as a consequence of catching more of the plate, his hit and HR rates went way up. It’s all connected.
It's better that just referencing the below 6 number you did earlier, which was a year removed.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
It’s better that just referencing the below 6 number you did earlier, which was a year removed.
No, it’s not. I brought up his 5.9 K/9 in 2010 to point out that contrary to your contention in this post, the skepticism about ZVR wasn’t just an overreaction to “one bad season”. There have been holes in his record all the way along.
That’s the thing. We have 0 idea if 2009 did or didn’t pay off yet.
We know that some of the players from the 2009 draft didn’t pan out, because they’ve been released. And we know that others have delivered discouraging performances.
Are you unwilling to evaluate prospects within any context whatsoever? Or only within this particular context? The former would seem to make running an organization extremely difficult, while the latter is logically inconsistent.
What I'm saying is highlight failures of certain players in the draft class in any given year gives a skewed view of what is going on.
A good draft is if you can get just 2 or 3 out of 50 guys to contribute at the major league level. That means we can have a failure rate of 94% for players drafted, or 88% of players signed if you assume ~25 sign each year. In other words, I think people on this site significantly underestimate the failure rate.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
That means we can have a failure rate of 94% for players drafted, or 88% of players signed if you assume ~25 sign each year. In other words, I think people on this site significantly underestimate the failure rate.
Most low-round picks fail, and the lower in the draft you go, the higher the rate of failure. Which is why the strategy of taking a second-round talent with a top-five pick and spreading the money around in later rounds was such a questionable strategy. We took the slot with the highest chance of success, and basically punted on it.
If you don't like the Sanchez pick thats fine and a fair argument, but lets give him more time until we call him a failure.
I don’t think it was the best pick, nor do I think it was the worst. I’m okay with NH using that draft strategy if his analysis of the talent available led him to believe that was the most efficient use of our dollars.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I’m okay with NH using that draft strategy if his analysis of the talent available led him to believe that was the most efficient use of our dollars.
Yes, exactly. You give the benefit of the doubt until you have evidence. And now that we DO have enough evidence to see that it probably wasn’t the most efficient use of those dollars, we’re questioning the team’s scouting.
I disagree that we have enough evidence.
I probably won’t make that decision until about 5 years after a draft’s conclusion.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I disagree that we have enough evidence.
I probably won’t make that decision until about 5 years after a draft’s conclusion.
So you wouldn’t be able to make any decisions as to whether or not your scouting director was doing a good job until he’d been in place for nine years (five years to evaluate a draft, plus four drafts to evaluate)?
I fear you wouldn’t work out as a GM, if you moved at that pace.
I don't know how anyone outside of the front office can determine the difference in behind the scenes contribution between a GM and a scouting director.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s the GM’s job to determine if he has the correct scounting director. If he keeps that scounting director, he is 100% responsible for the outcome. I don’t really have an opinion on individual scourting directors, other than if the Pirates draft strategy doesn’t work its 100% NH’s fault, and if it does its 100% to his credit.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
As far as I’m concerned, it’s the GM’s job to determine if he has the correct scounting director.
So as fans, we should just sit on our hands until he gives a thumbs-up or thumbs-down?
Yes because I don't believe you know which of the contributions were Huntington's or Smith's.
I take the view that regardless of whose contributions they were, Huntington is fully responsible for them either way.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Yes because I don’t believe you know which of the contributions were Huntington’s or Smith’s.
I don’t care whether the contributions are Huntington’s or Smith’s. The results are a problem regardless of who’s ultimately responsible for them.
First you determine whether or not a problem exists, and then you determine the nature of the problem, and finally you determine and implement the corrective action. We’re still on Step 1.
I think that it’s fair for Kosstic to reserve judgment for longer than someone who actually has to make a decision as to whether to fire the scouting director. And he’s not privy to all the information that person has.
That said, we can tentatively conclude that early returns are not encouraging, to put it in the most wishy-washy way I can.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
We may be able to tentatively infer that earlyish returns might not be as encouraging as they would be, if they were more encouraging.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
You forgot
“… or not.”
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 30, 2012 7:57 PM EST up reply actions
agree (in response to Vlad's comment about Smith's track record)
And one of the problems I have with where the organization is at right now is that despite all the decision-makers in the org (Huntington and Smith the most obvious) being worthy of intense scrutiny, they were all instead given promotions and extensions. One of my quibbles with Charlie’s article is that it ignores the immense amount of faith ownership has already demonstrated toward highly questionable officials. 2012 may be a crucial season in our personal evaluations of Huntington, but the org has already made its mind up about him. That’s not a good thing, considering all of the questions Charlie raises.
Also the criticism of Jeff Locke is unwarranted.
He had 16.2 poor innings at the MLB level, after having 125.0 good innings at AA and 28.1 good innings at AAA. He is also 24 years old.
Rudy Owens had a down year at AAA due to injury, but had a very nice 2008, 2009, and 2010. He is also 24 years old.
Let’s not write off these guys just yet.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
The point wasn't writing them off
The point was that they’re not legitimate Plan Bs for 2012. 28 good IP at AAA and 17 bad innings in MLB shouldn’t put someone at #7 on your SP depth chart (especially when #1 is Eric Bedard), but that’s where Locke is, and that’s an indictment of NH, whether you’re hung ho about them sucking this year or not.
+1
Except for the part about “hung ho about sucking.”
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 10:12 AM EST up reply actions
I don't see a problem with expecting a 24 year old who has put up good minor league numbers to have some impact on the 2012 season, even if he doesn't make the opening day rotation.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
We're not talking "some impact"
We’re talking “almost certain to start games in May or June, ready or not.”
Should Sanchez be #3 on the catching depth chart? He has as much business being there as Locke does at #7.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see either of those guys have great 2012s and force themselves onto the ML roster… in July or August or September. But that’s not what NH has done in Locke’s case.
And as Charlie said, even if you expect them to do well this year, an extra rotation arm wouldn’t block them. If Pitcher X is pitching well in the rotation and Locke and Owens are blowing them away in Indianapolis, then we can trade Pitcher X. Worked with McLouth and McCutchen.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
i m not entirely sure of this
if we have a full rotation in Pitt currently, then what are we going to do? The AAA rotation projects to be Owens, Locke, McPherson, Martis (who, btw, is being terribly ignored) and possibly Wilson/Irwin/Pribanic/Colla. Where are we going to stash the #7 guy on the depth chart?
by BurgherKing on Jan 30, 2012 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think NH is going to let any prospect get blocked.
I just don’t see the need to waste resources on a season with 0% chance of competiting when we have decent young guys that we need to evaluate at the MLB level. I’d rather put the money elsewhere, considering all of the remaining SP FA options have no interest in coming to the Pirates unless they are significantly overpaid.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Convenient timing
considering all of the remaining SP FA options have no interest in coming to the Pirates unless they are significantly overpaid.
Yes, now that the offseason is 87% over, the remaining options are uninspiring. How did that come to pass?
Did 2011 have “0% chance of competing”? Did a half million extra fans, cover to raise ticket prices, and $12,000,000 (minimum) in cash make a difference to the organization?
Being better means making more money, which makes the team better able to compete in the future. I don’t know why you don’t understand this, but it’s obvious you don’t. You’re in love with the idea of 55-win teams through 2013, which will somehow prime us to win 108 in 2014. It’s risible nonsense.
I never said we should win 55 games. I think we should win 1 less game the second worst team.
We didn’t have a chance at top free agents when the offseason started either, that argument is ridiculous.
Your statement regarding the Pirates finances can’t be proven true or false without an accurate list of total additional expenses. On top of that, most of the contribution to get the Pirates to their magical 16 seconds of competing came from players that were not signed as free agents. Your argument makes no sense.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
You don't want to win
You are very clear on this point.
We know what the Pirates’ books look like. We know revenue per ticket sold, we know expenses per ticket sold. We don’t need to have the FY2011 audit to know that the “magical 16 seconds of contention” magically brought in over 10 million dollars – dollars you’d prefer to forego last year, this year, and the year after. Somehow, in your mind, losing out on $30M “preserves resources”.
BTW, I like the bait and switch from “SP FA options” to “top free agents”. Yes, if Pujols won’t sign here at a discount, the Pirates clearly shouldn’t sign anyone. There’s a nonsensical argument here, but I think you’re confused about where it lies.
You do not know what the Pirates books like, nobody on this website does.
Please produce accurate financial statements for the last 5 years, otherwise I do not believe that you know what their financial statements look like.
The nonsensical argument is that you think Pujols is the only free agent that would not consider coming here. Try adding 50+ names to that list.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
You do not know what the Pirates books like, nobody on this website does.
We know what some of the books look like, since they were leaked to Deadspin.
As of which dates and were they the full financial statements including all of Nutting's other interests?
The answer is no, they were not.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Year ended 10/31 2007 & 2008 are available for download at Deadspin. These include the notes to the financials.
So are financial documents for the 9 months ended 7/31/2009 (more limited).
Nuttings other interests would not be included in the PBC’s financials (unless there was a material related transactions – I believe the chances would be very remote, given the nature of his holdings)
by dontgobobbybo on Jan 30, 2012 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
Being better means making more money, which makes the team better able to compete in the future.
To me, this is the most convincing (and underused) argument in favor of the moves the team made, and didn’t make, last July. No, 82 wins should not be an end-all goal; however, the additional revenue that such a season would produce (over, say, a 62-win season) would be very useful in our pursuit of an eventual championship.
Hard work always beats talent if talent doesn't work hard.
"Matt Cooke and Evgeni Malkin for Brian Boyle, Derek Stepan, Brandon Dubinsky, Mike Rupp, and a first round pick." -JackCampbell
How many brooks would a Brooks Laich like if a Brooks Laich could like brooks?
by wg1of5 on Jan 30, 2012 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I disagree.
I’m okay with throwing Locke/Owens this season, even if its at the end of May. Obviously that’s not the preferable situation, but I’m okay with it.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
(sort of) agree
I think we should wait until they’re ready, whenever that is. But I also think Owens and Locke are getting to the point where they need to be ready or they’re not feasible options going forward. Lincoln is already at that point. Despite our frustrations about the Pirates continuing to be bad (which is, at this point, Huntington’s fault to a great degree), they’re still a crappy, rebuilding team, and crappy, rebuilding teams need to give guys like Lincoln, Owens, and Locke PT to see what they can do going forward. I think the team should have kept Maholm or signed a guy like Francis to fill out the rotation, but I don’t think handing the spot to Lincoln and counting on Owens and Locke to take spots later in the season is an unreasonable plan. It makes sense for an organization in the Pirates’ position.
My only problem...
with the above is the hint of equivocation: 2012 IS a HUGE season for NH and he needs to show significant agressiveness with regard to BOTH a big major league acquisition AND signing Cutch long term.
Overall, you nailed it.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jan 30, 2012 8:44 AM EST via Android app reply actions
Really good work
This off-season has been the most discouraging one yet. NH had a team that had made progress but had obvious needs, and completely failed to address those needs. The only thing you can credit him for was keeping the payroll from increasing without making the team worse.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
What would you have liked to have happened this offseason, WTM? As usual, I would have liked to see more creativity out of NH, but in general I didn’t think there was a chance in hell of turning this into a winning team between September of 2011 and April of 2012. I’m disappointed in some of the specific decisions that were made, but the general strategy of treading water seems like a reasonable one given the talent in the org at the moment.
Im a NH homer, and I still approve this message.
more of the draft picks really need to breakout or NH’s 5 year run will look pretty much stagnant
Not sure if I'd go as far as stagnant
I think he has done some positive things, but if there isn’t some serious movement, 5 years is too long to just move from the bottom of the pack to the middle.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 30, 2012 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
I know I've got some intelligent thoughts swirling around in here somewhere about this
Weird thought right? I’ve gotta collect my thoughts, but this will remind me to come back to them.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
The name of the game is
pitching, pitching, and more pitching; which the Pirates are not too strong on ihe BIG club. The only critcism that I really have is LAY OFF THE CHEAP FA’S. With what was spent on all the one’s that didn’t work out (and there was quite a few), it would have been worth using that $ for ONE GOOD ONE.
Tom Specht
What
and who did you tell? Charlie’s well thought out and well reasoned and well explained post is substantially different than the gems that you’ve provided us with lately like
bla bla bla you guy’s use a lot of words to say the pirates suck and the will never be any better than an also ran with this current ownership group.
and
maybe nutting should sale the team, its seem he can’t afford mlb salaries.
and
you lose 90 with him an with out him, try to trade him to set themselves up for window number 2.Core 4 is dead ,move on
and
thry got nothing (in response to Houston’s return for Hunter Pence)
So I ask again; what exactly did you tell us?
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
the only thing that tells me
that sweetleb is a gutless babbering yinzer troll that are a dime a dozen on PBC blog
So I ask again; what exactly did you tell us?
I seem to remember something about baloney.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
bleah
Baloney is the Red Delicious of lunchmeats. It’s fine when you don’t know any better, but give me Genoa salami or cappicolla or any other lunchmeat any day.
(It’s possible that this only applies to the bland Oscar Mayer stuff I always used to get in my sandwiches, not to the Sweet Lebanon stuff.)
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
Get yourself some mortadella
That’s what baloney is a bastardization of – delicious, fat-flecked, soft salami from Bologna.
Yes, mortadella
I’m in a mostly pescavegetarian household now, but before that happened I used to lunch a lot at this place which was like lunch meat heaven. It turns out giardiniera is the secret to an excellent sandwich.
(Yes, I know what city that’s in. Don’t judge me.)
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
Here's a tip
throw gardiniera and mayo together in a blender or food processor to make an awesome condiment.
Giardinera
Chicago’s version of relish.
I put it on everything.
Except cereal.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 30, 2012 8:36 PM EST up reply actions
huntington has done a very poor job and
its going to be hard for the pirates to sell the 2012 team to the fans. Also is it me or are some of you pro front office guys starting to back tract a little.
"please buy the team mr. cuban"
geez they play 500 ball for
3.5 months and everything is coming up roses until .309 ball the last 2.5 months and no up grades over the off season, so you tell me how do you sell this team to the fans. ‘the 2012 pirates come watch us muddle’
"please buy the team mr. cuban"
I have already re-ordered
my 20 game plan. I moved my seat just a bit because there was a railing in my view but I’m already on board.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
I'm going to be more critical of Charlie's analysis
While I agree that 2012 will be an important year in assessing NH, I think that your expectations about what one can expect from the draft are not grounded in what’s really likely. There’s a tendency here to think all Pirates all the time, and that leads to unrealistic expectations. To be concrete, let’s examine the Royals’ 2008 draft, which I regard as superb. They picked right behind the Pirates. Out of that draft they got a potential star (Eric Hosmer) and several pitchers who could make significant contributions down the road. The Royals also had a pick in round 1S, so they had an additional high pick.
1 3 Eric Hosmer, had an OPS of 799 with the Royals
1s 36 Mike Montgomery, had an ERA of 5.32 in AAA, but is extremely well thought of.
2 49 Johnny Giavotella, hit 247 in 187 AB, is a shaky second baseman. Could be quite a good hitter.
3 80 Tyler Sample, had an ERA of 5.25 in high A
4 115 Tim Melville, had an ERA of 4.32 in high A
5 145 John Lamb, sidelined from a good season’s start in AA with TJ
6 175 Alex Llanos, hit 246 in low A
7 205 Jason Esposito , out of baseball
8 235 Malcom Culver, converted to pitching, an ERA of 8.03 in rookie ball
9 265 J.D. Alfaro, out of baseball
10 295 Mauricio Matos. out of baseball
There you have it. One major contributor, one tiny unproven player at a position of weakness, a couple of guys who might do something, and a lot of also rans. An excellent draft in my view.
But the rest of that draft boils down to Robbie Grossman (a possible outfield regular), Jarek Cunningham (a wild card), Wesley Freeman (a lottery ticket), and a few guys who might be role players.
That’s probably a good assessment. But if Jordy Mercer, Chase d’Arnaud, Justin Wilson, and Matt Hague become role players. That’s a superb draft if Alvarez produces. If one of the non-Alvarez players becomes a significant contributor, NH has hit a home run.
Viva Clemente!
by Roberto on Jan 30, 2012 10:06 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
Excellent post.
As I said above, the unrealistic expectations never cease to amaze me.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
OK, let's look at a comparable 2009 draft to ours.
How about the Reds? They’re a NL Central team in a smallish city, and they were picking fairly close after us (#8 rather than #4) with the same number of sandwich picks.
Their first-rounder, Mike Leake, is up in the majors and producing as a solid mid-rotation SP. Their supplemental first-rounder, reliever Brad Boxberger, had a 2.03 ERA, 0.97 WHIP, and 13.5 K/9 last year between AA and AAA, and was part of the package they traded for Mat Latos. Their second-rounder, Billy Hamilton, entered the 2011 season ranked as BA’s overall #50, then stole 103 bases last year. He’s one of the best shortstop prospects in the game. Tenth-rounder Tucker Banhart projects as a future starter behind the plate, with a solid .274/.355/.373 career batting line and a killer glove (including an 83/77 career SB/CS). Plus an assortment of solid second-tier performers, a few of whom will likely end up seeing some ML time as well.
All of the guys the Reds picked were available to us when we picked. Many of them were more well-regarded by the scouting community at large on draft day than the players we ended up taking with our picks. Right now, if you offered to trade draft classes with Cincinnati, the Reds would decline. So why, once again, is it not legitimate for us to criticize the Pirates for their performance in that draft?
Instead of just pulling out one team, I'd like to see this for all 30 teams in each year compared to the Pirates to see where they rank.
Although that data won’t mean much to me until a number of years from now, but picking one team that had a great draft in order to say the Pirates had a bad draft is ridiculous.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I didn't pick "one team that had a great draft".
I picked the most comparable organization picking a few picks after us. And lo and behold, their draft blows ours out of the water.
I didn't say it was impossible.
Please list the candidates you wish to replace Huntington and why.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Please list the candidates you wish to replace Huntington and why.
We aren’t trying “to replace Huntington”. But the performance of the draftees under him is a problem for the organization, and it needs to be addressed. Figure out what’s going wrong, and fix it.
With the draft only being one piece of the puzzle.
The lack of inventiveness, agressiveness and improvement at the big league level has to be considered as well.
I’m firmly with Charlie, Wilbur, Vlad, JRoth, etc on this. I don’t think anybody is calling for firing NH, but entering the fifth year of a regime it is fair to evaluate where things stand the the evidence is clearly suggesting results that are mediocre or worse. Kosstick and crowd are focusing on whether we have enough information to pass definitive judgement on NH’s time with the Bucs, which is completely different from what Charlie et al are saying.
For the Bucs to have any hope of competing they need to have a very good GM. I’m not so sure they do… and I have yet to see an argument that NH is particularly good as opposed to the above argument that it is too early to determine.
Good day.
I would disagree that we are in a medicore or worse position than before NH's hiring.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
So would I. However, nobody suggested that.
What I am saying is that by any measurement based upon presently available evidence the results of NH’s tenure has been – at best – mediocre.
I’m no comparing him to anything or anyone else.
If you are disagreeing with that, please explain your position.
Good day.
I'm believe you are not properly analyzing presently available evidence by having an inaccurate reference point of where we came from in 2007.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Where did I reference 2007?
I did no such thing.
Good day.
You didn't
My assumption is that the entire anti-NH crowd doesn’t realize how bad it was before he got here.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
That's a really bad assumption
Since you seem to have lumped Vlad, Charlie, and WTM into the “anti-NH crowd” and they know better than most how bad it was.
didn't they fire the scouting staff a while back?
could it be that nh was not blown away with his early results and addressed it. they could have been leftover from dl, idk.
by karreemofwheat on Jan 30, 2012 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
Your subject and your post don't agree
Your subject suggests that you have a sane view of things: that NH may not be the best of all GMs in the best of all possible worlds.
Then your post challenges me to name names, if it were impossible for me (or anyone) to come up with a better candidate for the job.
Let me know when you’ve decided what you think.
I've decided that you are impatient in terms of the results you expect from the Pirates, and that this impatience if followed by the GM would be a bad move for the franchise long run.
The GM is clearly not following the strategy that you find optimal, so I’m asking you who would follow that strategy?
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
I’ve decided that you are impatient in terms of the results you expect from the Pirates, and that this impatience if followed by the GM would be a bad move for the franchise long run.
And in this, you are incorrect.
People make decisions based on the best available information every minute of every day.
That would explain
my first marriage…
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 30, 2012 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Do you literally want him to name every person that might be better than NH?
Please. I don’t see why have a successor GM in mind is a precursor to evaluating the job of the current GM.
Good day.
In my opinion, until there are actually viable alternatives brought to the table its all just a bunch of whining.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
This is idiotic
Did you know Neal Huntington’s name while Dave Littlefield was our GM? Did that mean DL should have been given another 5 years to destroy the club?
There’s not some farm league of GMs where you can follow their careers and translate their performances to ML general managing. There are 330 million Americans; I don’t think it’s outrageous to suggest that, other than the 29 employed by other clubs, one of them might be better than NH.
by JRoth95 on Jan 30, 2012 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
It was obvious from Littlefield's moves that he was not a fan a sabermetrics.
Which means I wasn’t a fan of him.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Is Huntington a fan of sabermetrics? I thought so when he was hired, but it doesn’t seem like the stat guys have had much influence in recent years.
He is.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Yeah this is nitpicking
But calling the Reds draft comparable to ours isn’t really accurate IMO. Yes, the teams have similarities but the drafts do not. The Reds’ first pick was a guy that was seen as incredibly close to the majors with a limited ceiling. So should we really be surprised that he got to the majors quickly and still has a limited ceiling? Boxberger is a good relief pitcher prospect (although this is probably a backhanded comliment) but he’s also a year removed from looking very questionable due to control problems. Opinions on Hamilton seemed to be divided within the scouting community because there are lingering questions about his bat. Barnhart does look like a really good defender but he’s also 5’8" which does not bode well for a major league catcher.
So ultimately, would the Reds’ system grade out better than the Pirates’ today? Yeah, probably but much of that is because of Leake’s early impact IMO. I am not convinced that the differences today will be as pronounced today as they will be in a year (let alone 3-4 years). I have to say that I think it’s too early to pass judgement on a class that still includes:
Tony Sanchez-coming off 1st bad year but IMO has a very good chance to rebound
Zack Dodson-pitched well for WV as a 20 year old
ZVR- well documented
Colton Cain-good performance to date, questions about his mechanics going forward
Brock Holt-at the very least “will likely end up seeing some ML time”
Ryan Beckman-pitched well as closer in A+
Phil Irwin-getting a little old but keeps pitching well…the Matt Hague of pitchers?
Zach Fuesser-probably nothing special but can’t complain yet can we?
Yamaico Navarro-Swap for Brooks Pounders
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
But calling the Reds draft comparable to ours isn’t really accurate IMO. Yes, the teams have similarities but the drafts do not.
They pick only four slots behind us.
First round: Polished, low-ceiling college talent, expected to move quickly.
Supplemental first: College reliever, for signability, since the pick isn’t protected.
Second round: High school player with polarizing opinions from scouts.
Tenth round: Above-slot high school catcher who dropped on signability.
The Reds’ first pick was a guy that was seen as incredibly close to the majors with a limited ceiling.
I’m confused – are we talking about Sanchez here, or Leake?
Boxberger is a good relief pitcher prospect (although this is probably a backhanded comliment) but he’s also a year removed from looking very questionable due to control problems.
That year counts. It happened.
Opinions on Hamilton seemed to be divided within the scouting community because there are lingering questions about his bat.
Yeah. They’re divided between the people who think he’s a good prospect and the people who think he’s a future star. I guarantee that there isn’t a scout in the game who wouldn’t take him over Pounders right now.
Tony Sanchez-coming off 1st bad year but IMO has a very good chance to rebound
Zack Dodson-pitched well for WV as a 20 year old
ZVR- well documented
Colton Cain-good performance to date, questions about his mechanics going forward
Brock Holt-at the very least "will likely end up seeing some ML time"
Ryan Beckman-pitched well as closer in A+
Phil Irwin-getting a little old but keeps pitching well…the Matt Hague of pitchers?
Zach Fuesser-probably nothing special but can’t complain yet can we?
Yamaico Navarro-Swap for Brooks Pounders
The Reds have a lot of those kinds of guys from the ’09 class, too. I just gave you the highlights.
Like I said, I was nitpicking
I’m confused – are we talking about Sanchez here, or Leake?
I could be wrong but I don’t think there was a single person who believe that Sanchez would go straight to the majors after being drafted. If Sanchez makes it to Pittsburgh this season (which I maintain is possible) I don’t think that would classify as taking a long time to get to the majors, especially given his unfortunate injury history. I am drawing a distinction (and maybe it’s an unnecessarily minor one) between a guy that can go straight to the majors and assume his (likely longterm) role as a #3-#4 starter.
That year counts. It happened.
Completely correct. I only pointed that out to touch on my later point that the success of a system can swing wildly based on one year so “I am not convinced that the differences today will be as pronounced today as they will be in a year (let alone 3-4 years).”
I guarantee that there isn’t a scout in the game who wouldn’t take him over Pounders right now.
This just strikes me as an example of “we took this guy when we should have taken that guy” and as a personal rule, I don’t like these type of comparisons. Just for example, I think it’s at least plausible that the Reds would rather have Nolan Arenado, Jason Kipinis, Wil Meyers and Robbie Erlin than Billy Hamilton.
The Reds have a lot of those kinds of guys from the ’09 class, too
I wasn’t trying to use those players as an argument that the Pirates system should be regarded more highly than the Reds, only that I believe it is too early to give up on a draft that still has these assets there.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
I could be wrong but I don’t think there was a single person who believe that Sanchez would go straight to the majors after being drafted.
No, but he was seen as an advanced guy who’d move quickly, and most people didn’t expect Leake to move as quickly as he did, either. They’re both the type of players you get when you sacrifice ceiling for polish and advancement.
Just for example, I think it’s at least plausible that the Reds would rather have Nolan Arenado, Jason Kipinis, Wil Meyers and Robbie Erlin than Billy Hamilton.
Sure, but it wasn’t an example chosen at random. We were looking at the Reds’ entire draft class vs. the Pirates’ entire draft class, and the Reds took Hamilton with that pick. I wasn’t just going through and cherry-picking talented players who went lower in the draft.
I wasn’t trying to use those players as an argument that the Pirates system should be regarded more highly than the Reds, only that I believe it is too early to give up on a draft that still has these assets there.
I agree that the Pirates have assets remaining from the draft, but at this point, the Reds have more, even though they picked after we did and spent less than we did. I don’t see that as a desirable state of affairs, and would like to see the situation corrected so that it doesn’t happen again.
I feel like we've done this before...haha
most people didn’t expect Leake to move as quickly as he did, either
Leake didn’t just move quickly, he started his pro career in Cincy. I also don’t think that Sanchez potentially arriving this year would mean that he didn’t move quickly, only that he wasn’t one of the handful of Dave Winfield’s (or Xavier Nady) of the world who go straight to the bigs.
We were looking at the Reds’ entire draft class vs. the Pirates’ entire draft class, and the Reds took Hamilton with that pick
I was only trying to illustrate why I don’t like that type of comparison. You can make them about almost any team and any pick, the Reds just happened to have one in that spot in the draft.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
Leake didn’t just move quickly, he started his pro career in Cincy.
It wasn’t a given that he was going to do so – he won that rotation spot in camp.
I was only trying to illustrate why I don’t like that type of comparison. You can make them about almost any team and any pick, the Reds just happened to have one in that spot in the draft.
But it’s not just one pick – I was comparing entire draft classes.
The Reds didn’t just end up with Hamilton by accident. They chose him because they liked him best out of all the remaining players.
Actually
But it’s not just one pick – I was comparing entire draft classes.
Yes, it was just one pick! At least in the context of what we’re talking about here. One specific point of your argument above, you made a “they should have taken this guy over that guy” argument:
I guarantee that there isn’t a scout in the game who wouldn’t take him over Pounders right now.
as I said in my response I don’t like those types of comparisons because you could say it about nearly every pick with the benefit of hindsight. I listed several players as an example. This was not to justify the Pirates’ or Reds’ entire drafts, but rather the one, single Hamilton v. Pounders comparison you made.
The only reason we were still talking about Hamilton at that point (as opposed to Tucker Barnhart where apparently you didn’t disagree with my assessment as much) is that I suggested that he was less of a prospect than you did while using him as an example of how strong the Reds’ draft class was. I stand by that evaluation. You mentioned that he was a top-50 prospect going into this year but I’m not sure his stock didn’t drop. By nearly every stat, Hamilton played worse in 2011 than he did in 2010. His BB% went down, his K% went up, his ISO went down, his Avg went down, his OBP went down, his SLG went down, his wOBA went down, his wRC+ went down. In fact, the only thing that went up was his SB which I take with a grain of salt in the minors (especially the low minors) because pitchers can’t hold runners and catchers can’t throw.
It ultimately boils down to the fact that I don’t think Hamilton is the type of impact prospect you seem to coming from that ‘09 draft and you do. To that end, I don’t even really disagree with you. What I do take issue with is a comparison like the one you made to justify your analysis (Hamilton over Pounders) because I feel like those comparisons are fatally flawed.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, it was just one pick! At least in the context of what we’re talking about here. One specific point of your argument above, you made a "they should have taken this guy over that guy" argument:
That was not a part of my initial argument. It was part of a response to this post, in which you asked, “So ultimately, would the Reds’ system grade out better than the Pirates’ today?” Since you wanted to directly compare the relative values of the players in the two systems, I went ahead and did it. If you hadn’t brought it up, I wouldn’t have, either.
as opposed to Tucker Barnhart where apparently you didn’t disagree with my assessment as much
Actually, that slipped past without me noticing it. I don’t think Barnhart’s size is a significant concern at this point, particularly since so much of his value is concentrated in his D.
You mentioned that he was a top-50 prospect going into this year but I’m not sure his stock didn’t drop.
It didn’t – at least, not in BA’s books. They have him as the Reds’ #2 prospect going into 2012, behind only Mesoraco, and the #2 prospect in the Midwest League, behind only Taijuan Walker.
It ultimately boils down to the fact that I don’t think Hamilton is the type of impact prospect you seem to coming from that ‘09 draft and you do.
Me, and most prospect analysts. Sickels gave him a B+ and named him the Reds’ #2. Goldstein at BPro gave him a five-star grade and rated him as the Reds’ #1. Etc.
You may ultimately be right to be more skeptical about him, but your opinion doesn’t reflect the industry’s current perception of his value.
sounds alot like my opinions of maholm’s value…
The two things really aren’t comparable, since we don’t know teams’ estimated value for Maholm, only what the Cubs paid for him.
i said MY opinions of his value, not other teams...
cmon Vlad, usually Im the one pushing buttons. lol.
I could absolutely be wrong about Hamilton's value
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time. I also wasn’t even really objecting to your opinion about Hamilton as a prospect (although I did try to explain why my opinion differs).
All I was objecting to, at least to the point that we’re still going back and forth 6 posts later is that you used the pick to pick comparison (Hamilton and Pounders) and I don’t like those kind of comparisons because I think that it opens up and endless string of hypotheticals. Yes, it wasn’t part of your original point but while I disagree slightly with your evaluation (for reasons I tried to explain above and won’t bore you with again) that evaluation and comment wasn’t why we are still going back and forth. We are still going back and forth regarding that one comment about Hamilton and Pounders.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 5:38 PM EST up reply actions
We are still going back and forth regarding that one comment about Hamilton and Pounders.
If you say that you’re going to compare the value of the teams’ players, then I fail to see the issue with comparing the teams’ players. If you didn’t want to go there, then why did you bring it up?
I'm going to take this opportunity
to step off the hamster wheel…
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
The Reds’ 2008 draft class isn’t as good a comparison for our 2008 draft class, due to the difference between the second overall pick and the seventh, as well as the fact that they had no second-rounder.
The best 2008 comparison for us is probably the Royals, who picked third overall, though you’d need to cross out their supplemental pick since we didn’t have one.
I'm not sure the Reds wouldn't swap drafts
it would come down essentially to what they thought of Alvarez right now. Leake has been OK but 2.5 WAR over 48 starts and 53 games pitched in isn’t anything I’d hold on to. Which is to say, if the Reds were picking higher, they would have picked someone else. Banhart seems interesting— I wasn’t aware of him, but the numbers and age look good. Hamilton is an impressive player, but he has some distance to go and struck out in over 21% of his plate appearances.
Also, saying the Reds would decline to swap drafts is only half the story. I’m not sure the Pirates would agree to swap drafts either. Which should tell you that the state of the draft is fairly undecided at this point.
by BurgherKing on Jan 30, 2012 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
ah, crap... regardless, the first para holds
I mean, it’s better than getting nothing, of course, but I wouldn’t want Leake like performance from my top pick. If the Pirates felt Sanchez could do better in a few years, that’s fair. Most of the rest has already been hashed out in KyPirate and your discussion above, and I’m inclined to side with the view that much could change in our analysis of the 09 draft yet (I do admit it doesn’t look terribly hot now).
i agree with this
i think NH will (and perhaps should) start to feel the heat if the ML team and farm aren’t performing well, but it’s far from clear at this point that the drafts were bad/unsuccessful.
by BurgherKing on Jan 30, 2012 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
Spot on, Charlie
1. Is it fair to say that excluding Jose Tabata (still promising), not one single consistent batting talent has emerged, anywhere in the system?
2. Aside from a few good trades during the 1st two years and pulling the Josh Bell deal out of the hat, what other value has this mgmt added in the 4 years?
Discouraged but still faithful NH fan
Piling on
This really is an excellent State of the GM post.
When we were talking about NH’s extension last summer/fall, I suggested (or someone else suggested and I heartily agreed) that NH might simply not be the right kind of GM to take a team to the next level. Setting aside draft outcomes (which A. are uncertain and B. are hugely dependent on the head scout), NH was extremely well-suited to do the job he was hired to do: stop the bleeding, rebuild the farm system and fearlessly make tough calls.
But it’s not clear that any of those skills are relevant to a team that needs to fill holes, activate the fanbase (in order to boost revenues), and make aggressive moves to add MLB talent, not MiL talent.
by JRoth95 on Jan 30, 2012 10:24 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
when and if the Pirates finally turn corner
they’ll need a more qualified GM (Ryan, Jack Z, LaCava) to handle the major league roster
I’m fine with Neal being director of minor league operations or whatever
i dont think thats going to matter at all.
is a Jack Z going to be able to bring a top FA to pitt when offering the same money as NH??
I dont think so.
What are fans expectations, exactly?
There’s a lot said about fan expectation; what is the general expectation of Pirates fans from this baseball team? The vast majority of fans don’t know the farm system and don’t particularly care, they want to see a winning MLB club. It isn’t NH’s fault that he inherited crap, but he has to be acutely aware of the long reputation of failure that the Pirates have.
I agree that it’s hard to judge the impact of a GM in 4 years on the job, especially when the situation presents as grim as it was when NH took over in 2007. But today’s sports landscape doesn’t allow for coaches/managers/GMs to learn on the fly; teams/fanbases have come to expect immediate results or at least signs of life.
So, realistic expectations? Last year showed that fans will come out and support a good Pirates team, even yearn for them to be competitive. I think putting together some kind of run, even if that run’s goal is something like 84 wins, isn’t unrealistic. I see the progress of the system and of the team… but I’m impatient like most everybody else and want to see some sort of winning out of the Pittsburgh Pirates.
84 wins is probably unrealistic.
It’s a possible outcome, but very unlikely. I think if you were talking more like ~72/73 wins, you would be more realistic. (That’s not my final prediction for the season, just throwing out a rough baseline).
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
If NH actually tried to increase wins
Then 84 would be a realistic, albeit ambitious, goal. As it is, 75 would be a good outcome, and 81 a best case scenario.
The fact that NH didn’t try to improve the team doesn’t mean that 72/73 was predestined for 2012. It was a choice.
84 wins is a terrible goal. Making the playoffs is a great goal. Making the playoffs without destroying your farm system and franchise is the ultimate goal.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
84 wins would result in
- attendance over 2 million for the 4th time in team history.
- a revenue increase on the order of 10-15 million dollars
- an increase in the likelihood of signing quality FAs at market rates
- the ability to raise ticket prices to bring our revenues more in line with Milwaukee and Cincinnati
- better odds of extending current players at reasonable rates
- needing only 5 more wins the following year, as opposed to needing 25 more wins
Boy, that sounds shitty. Your plan sounds much, much better:
1. Punt on every season
2. ????
3. WS Champions!
by JRoth95 on Jan 30, 2012 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
The problem is, we aren't close to 84 wins.
I think we are roughly a 72 win team. Find me 12 wins for $10MM-$15MM for 2012. Your plan is fantasy.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Jan 30, 2012 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But you said 84 wins was a terrible goal
It’s a terrible goal if you’re sacrificing future payroll or trading from the cream of your farm system. It’s a fine goal otherwise.
by CW on Jan 30, 2012 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
So please do tell...
what is your plan? Let me guess: maintain the status quo until you have 100% of information potentially pertinent to making a determination as to the quality of work performed by NH (or any other management person). If that means refraining from any sort of change for another 10 years, so be it.
You seem to think that being “fair” to NH (which is a highly subjective interpretation and theoretically never has an endpoint because there will always be some decisions that are too recent to judge) is more important that the team winning.
While I look forward to your responses to my several recent posts, I will try to refrain from responding as I’m sure this is becoming dull to others.
Good day.
My plan is to focus on acquiring both quality and quantity in the minor leagues. Right now we do not have nearly enough of either.
While trading any player on the major league team who is overvalued and keeping costs as low as possible until it is time to compete, at which point I would use the savings to increase the quality of the major league team with FAs and extensions.
I see the only chance the Pirates have of competiting as a boom and bust cycle, especially after the change in the draft spending rules.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
My plan is to focus on acquiring both quality and quantity in the minor leagues. Right now we do not have nearly enough of either.
I thought you said that we couldn’t assess the level of talent of the 2009 draftees yet? So how do you know how much talent we do or don’t have?
We don't have enough, or else we would be competitive right now.
I don’t know how far we are from enough, but I wouldn’t stop focusing on the minor leagues until we had enough. I’d continue to trade overvalued assets from the major league team to acquire minor leaguers at this point in time.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
You see, Vlad
if we had more blue chippers in Bradenton, we’d be on track to win 96 in Pittsburgh this year. Isn’t it perfectly clear?
The best way to improve the team in Pittsburgh is to trade ML talent for low-MiL lottery tickets. If you don’t understand this, it must be because you’ve never considered baseball on a sophisticated enough level.
Our ML talent won 72 games last year. It's not that good.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Not what you said
You said, “We don’t have enough [minor league talent], or else we would be competitive right now.”
We have more MiL talent than the NY Yankees. By your logic, that means that we should be more competitive than the Yankees.
What am I missing?
About $160 MM in payroll, and the Yankees being competitive in the first place.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
OK, sure
Cincinnati Reds, #21 system.
Milwaukee Brewers, #28 system.
Look, I can do this all night, or you can admit that your claim is utter crap, and that having 40 prospects on every MiL roster isn’t a prerequisite for competing, but rather an excuse for incompetent roster construction at the MLB level. “How can you expect to win more than 74 games in Pittsburgh when the 5th starter in State College is a mere organizational player? It’s only been 8 years!”
by JRoth95 on Jan 30, 2012 10:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
you make a great point
no team can win at the MLB level by focusing exclusively on the draft. not even the Rays.
The players need to be the in the minor leagues first before they make the majors leagues
Unless you think we can win with 25 free agents we can afford. We are so far away from having a core that is close to competing with the help of a few free agents, and should still be focusing on the minor leagues at this point in time.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
"I don't see a whole lot of evidence that they are (trying)."
The root of my current depression, right there.
Home run post, Charlie
You laid out pretty much exactly how I feel in every aspect and in words better than I could have come up with.
I’ve been a big Huntington supporter and still am, but my faith is rapidly draining away.
My only quibble is that I’d wait until the end of the 2013 season to possibly terminate him. Frankly, I think it’s only fair that the two guys he’s really staking his tenure on—Cole and Taillon—get at least a reasonable chance to pop up int he majors in June (Cole) or for a September roster expansion cup of coffee (Taillon).
I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it again: 2012 is the most important year in the past two decades. Huntington’s draft picks—particularly Alvarez and Sanchez—have got to start showing why they were drafted where they were. If Cole & Taillon dominate & those two come on, there’s huge reason for optimism going into 2013. If not, well…I think NH is hanging by a thread after that.
Honestly, I think his laissez-faire attitude toward the free agent market since jumping out early is, to me, a sign he knows he’s probably safe for another year (barring another 62 win debacle) and is content to let his prospects save him or not. That’s hard on us fans and not really a good idea, but this is the way things are pointing.
One of NH’s big strength has been his tone-deafness to the wailing of the Bob Smizik crowd as he made sensible baseball trades to build up a wasteland of a farm system, but at some point those expecations do matter.
The Pirates being in first, brief as it was, was an infusion of energy to a mostly lapsed fanbase like I’ve never seen. some sign, ANY sign, that they are trying to build on that brief ray of hope would be a welcome gesture for the people who, after all, are the ones who have to buy the tickets to fund the team.
Don’t mistake me for one of the people who thought the Pirates should go out and sign Prince Fielder. But something—a Cutch extension, an Edwin Jackson signing—would be a clear sign to the fanbase that the front office is saying “We’re almost there, stay with us.”
Granted it takes two to tango—maybe Cutch doesnt’ want to sign an extension or Jackson wouldn’t want to come to Pittsburgh at any price—but even a real, sincere attempt to do something of the sort would be a great PR move.
You can’t tell me if NH made a real, good faith effort to do one or both and was shot down he couldn’t call up Kovacevic or Biertempfl or Langosch or whoever and say “Hey, this is what we tried to do” and one of them wouldn’t print it citing “high level Pirates sources.”
Again, I’m not one for symbolic gestures—say, like offering Pujols a contract in December—but at some point public relations do matter , particularly with a fanbase as beaten down and cynical as the ones the Pirates have after the last two decades.
The Pirates for a time won last year and the fans showed up. I think a lot of them are waiting for the front office to hold up its end of the bargain now by using the extra dough to put a winning team on the field and the lack of real progress in that area is discouraging.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
Did Brad Pitt write this?
Oh I see, it was the equally perspicacious Raybin.
IOW, Agree.
by JRoth95 on Jan 30, 2012 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
As a follow up thought...
…as regards fanbase relations, the front office has shown itself to be amateurish on more than one occasion. We all know Huntington can be honest to a fault when speaking with the media, but Coonelly committed one of the more egregious blunders in recent memory when stating the team could put a $50-$55MM payroll on the field.
I know he didn’t say that as an absolute, but if you’re the president of a team like the Pirates, you don’t even raise the possibility if you think there’s even a chance you might not do so. Now reasonable estimates put the payroll at $46MM and fans are left wondering, not unreasonably, where that other $9MM has gone. It unnecessarily gives ammo to the “NUTTING JUST WANTS TO LINE HIS POCKETS AND LIGHT HIS CIGARS WITH 100 DOLLAR BILLS” crowd.
I really think that ~$9MM difference comes in the salary they were planning to pay Derrek Lee. Their lack of any other real plan at first beyond hoping the Good Garrett Jones shows up more often than the bad one and thinking maybe Casey McGehee can learn the position during ST shows me they had pretty much staked their hopes on Lee re -signing.
Anyway, clearly discretion is not a primary characterstic of the people in charge.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
Not to say I am bored, but...
in order to spend nine million dollars lighting cigars, Bob Nutting would need to smoke a cigar every four minutes, sixteen hours a day, for all of 2012. This would be a waste, not only of nine million dollars, but of a small mountain of cigars. I propose that BN use thousand dollar bills and take time to enjoy the cigars.
This is tremendous
I was annoyed I had to see to things like food and hygiene and commuting to work this morning, because I wanted to comment. I had a very similar phone conversation about the Buccos yesterday. I understand the 2009 plan and still think it could work, but it’s looking more and more like it might have just been smart to give the money to Shelby Miller or Jacob Turner. Charlie hits on so many points, but the two main things that really bother me:
1) The Maholm non-signing. Not the fact we didn’t pick up his option, but letting him sign with the Cubs for a very reasonable contract. I’m sure Paul would have taken similar money to not have to uproot his family, while there’s a very good chance in mid-April we’ll have Morton and Bedard on the DL while Correia gets battered like a pinata. Even if Karstens maintains his 2011 form and Brad Lincoln is respectable, we’ll be trotting out a bunch of AAA guys and praying it works out. I swear, if it’s the start of May, our starting pitching is terrible and someone says “Who could have seen this coming?!”, I will say so many mean things on the internet.
2) I think Huntington could have perhaps shown some bigger cajones at the deadline last year and become a seller. With the team taking on water and Mike Adams scoring top 50 prospects, I can’t help but think we missed an opportunity to move Hanrahan, Maholm, Doumit, Veras, Resop, etc. This is not hindsight, as others said this at the time and Pat wrote about it over at WHYGAVS.
(I also refuse to believe the “Oh, we’d alienate the new fans!” defense to this. If the Pirates are winning, the fans will come. A lot of people said they’d never be back after the McLouth/Wilson/Sanchez/Bay trades, and they were liars then. It’s not Neal’s job to make the fans happy, it’s his job to make the team better. Trading Hanrahan at the deadline would have done that.)
Perhaps Neal is simply a better demolitionist than builder. As Charlie so eloquently wrote, we’re all going to have a much better idea after this season.
I’m sure Paul would have taken similar money to not have to uproot his family
I’m sure he would not have.
I can’t help but think we missed an opportunity to move Hanrahan, Maholm, Doumit, Veras, Resop
I was one of those asking for trades, but Hanrahan was probably the only one. I don’t think we’d have gotten anything we didn’t already have for the rest. In fact, that might have been part of the motivation to keep Hanrahan as well.
by BurgherKing on Jan 30, 2012 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
Was there a falling out between him and the FO over the option not being picked up?
I ask that seriously, I may have missed it. I know I saw Maholm’s quote that he didn’t get an offer, but didn’t see anything else.
There had to be
I don’t think the Pirates wanted Maholm back at ANY cost
the "didnt get an offer" leaves plenty of grey area
i mean, if the Pirates had discussions but didnt make a formal offer after Maholm or his agent gave them a min starting point, that could also be represented as such. I don’t want to read that much into it. If the Pirates didn’t, in fact, intend to make any offer whatsoever, I’ll agree that they were remiss, but we don’t know that at this point.
Maholm
I think the FO just thought it was time to part ways with Maholm. I had no problem with that.; Bedard is certainly an upgrade, even with all of his injury potential. There were so few other options in the FA market too, except for Jackson, and, frankly, they may still be thinking about that. I’m all for taking a risk, and investing in him, but not for the money I am hearing now….
Bedard is certainly an upgrade, even with all of his injury potential.
Unless he gets hurt again, in which case, he isn’t.
if both are healthy, who is likely the better pitcher?
On a per-inning basis, Bedard is, though not by much as you seem to think. Maholm’s edge in durability more than cancels it out.
buzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!
i said “if both are healthy”, but you brought up the durability thang again.
tsk tsk Vlad, trying to work one past me like that.
but you brought up the durability thang again.
It’s not a small thing.
If you overlook the fact that George Washington’s dead, who’d be a better president, him or Obama?
please, nobody answer that
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
i ran the metrics on this one:
GW’s UZR was 4/5ths Presidential Average yet BO’s BeBLIP peaked at the end of the innaugural. That being said, GW had trouble holding English runners on base while BO suffers from being a team player.
both had high WAR numbers though. >:-D
by white angus on Jan 30, 2012 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Couldn't agree more
One of NH’s biggest mistakes, if not the biggest mistake, was being a buyer at the deadline last year. He should have sold as much as possible, especially Hanrahan. You are correct that is not hindsight, reasonable people were hoping he would do that at the deadline last year.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
There was a school of thought out there...
….that the Pirates could be both buyers and sellers at the deadline and in retrospect that would’ve been the smart move. Acquiring Lee and Ludwick while at the same time moving Hanrahan at the absolute height of his value would’ve been a best of both worlds solution.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
Charlie, please consider putting in a jump for this article on the main page
I’d rather not scroll down a long way to get to the comments. (Yes, I know, I could have just clicked on the title, but the rest of the articles below it are now even farther)
get a life
You all mostly hash over the same old stuff!!!!!
And you scrolled to the bottom of 65+ comments
to bitch about it.
Have you met Mr. Kettle?
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 30, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
Good article
When I first stumbled upon BucsDugout a few years back, as the article mentions, it appeared to me that the majority of participants were, in general, supporters of the front office (FO). I think some of that was people defending against some unfounded believes or information being disseminated, which was unfairly anti FO and ownership. I too have noticed lately a more pessimistic undercurrent to many participants.
I have always viewed the pro FO opinions as too strong or optimistic for the body of evidence that was before us. I feel that the FO’s performance has been average, until last offseason in which it turned poor. The plan was more of a predetermined path (nothing to be applauded). Execution of the plan has had mixed results. I thought last off season was a deviation from the plan and a poor use of resources (perhaps it was the FO feeling the heat to win at the major league level). I think this off season has been similar to last off season.
On the other hand, I don’t view the FO as an abject failure – I think they work within constraints set by ownership and passed down by former FOs.
I have always viewed the pro FO opinions as too strong or optimistic for the body of evidence that was before us.
In general, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until I have a reason not to do so. Perhaps others feel the same way?
I think in general
this is the core issue when there are two groups of fans arguing the two sides of this coin – those who prefer to give the benefit of doubt until given reason otherwise, and those who feel that there is no benefit to be given due to 18 consecutive years.
no benefit to be given due to 18 consecutive years
The losing streak is the only constant over those years, though. None of the players are the same. Nobody in management is the same. They don’t even play the games in the same place.
“18 years” is an illusion. There’s no continuity there, no matter how much fans might like to think that there is.
My opinion was not predicated on 18 years
I can’t speak for the referenced “fans” but I would think most are able to identify the appropriate relevant range for which their opinions apply.
Maybe semantics, but I do not think you give them the benefit of the doubt. Nor should one compare them to the prior FO and praise them for having a plan (not saying you did – but since we are making generalities)
Do you still give them the benefit of the doubt?
by dontgobobbybo on Jan 30, 2012 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
the market size is the same
If there’s one constant, it’s that.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
I certainly agree with you
And I’ve always felt the same about the Pirates situation – though the same words are always spewed back at you when you respond with something like that. “But, but, but… 18 years!”
People never really know how to respond when you mention the fact that the Royals have had far worse results over the past few seasons, except for the fact that during one or two of those seasons they popped above the .500 mark. But, dubious distinctions because those seasons never helped the franchise get out of the rut they were in.
I give everyone
the benefit of the doubt. They have to prove to me that they’re assholes.
I think the emphasis is in the wrong place.
Charlie kind of beat-around-the-bush to what, I think, ultimately is the real question mark: development.
It’s one thing to bring talent (or not bring talent) into the organization, but it’s quite another to develop that talent.
And that becomes the big unknown when making an analysis like this. Assuming something is wrong in the minors, is it picking players who had less talent than was previously thought OR is it that the Pirates do poor job of maximizing that talent?
I know it’s kind of impossible to know that answer, but I think people spend too much time saying whether draft pick “A” or “B” was the right choice, when the bigger picture issue is: are the Pirates, on the whole, doing a good job of developing what they have? Is this a development problem on the part of the player or the system or both?
Very few people talk about the Pirates organizational style of maximizing talent level (outside of the occasional mention of the pitchers not being allowed to throw anything but fastballs early on.)
But, you look at an Andrew McCutchen. He seemed completely capable of handling the major leagues when he was promoted. And I’m not just talking about hitting the ball or manning center field. He seemed comfortable talking to the media. He was well conditioned (almost no time on the DL). All of those transitional things beyond the batters box and on the diamond. He came to the league as a pro and fit right in. So, the question becomes: is that because Andrew brought all of that with him or can that be attributed to the preparation he received in the Pirates minor league organization.
I would have to assume so much more failure at the major leagues is about not adjusting or not having a smooth transition to daily major league life, as it is about having the talent level.
Scouting
If I remember correctly, Huntington retained the scouting staff of Littlefield for a year of two. If there was one department that needed a fire sale when he took over it was scouting. That includes Rene Gayo. The failure of the Pirates to have more legitmate prospects is totally Huntington’s. His failure to improve the team this off season should be his last gasp. Don’t disagree with his method- don’t think he can do the job. I’ve never espoused signing high dollar free agents, but entering the season w/o a first baseman, solid rotation and ? able 3rd base is ridiculous
Rene Gayo
I’m not his biggest fan (mainly because he effed us on Sano), but there’s some good buzz surrounding some of the guys he’s been bringing in/suggesting recently. He had some success with Cleveland, I’ve read good things about both Flores and Escobar this year, and in reading about Cespedes it seems like he’s really a respected guy in that scouting community. I’d have to see a more complete list of his wins/losses, but the fact that there was no Latin scouting director until him leads me to believe that the Pirates as an organization had a lot of work to do to be taken seriously there.
Just adding fuel to the fire, but...
I feel like AJ Cole could end up being a huge miss for this team. That can be said for hundreds of players in every draft, but I think this merits discussion.
The Pirates were going big in 2010 and essentially chose both Allie and Rojas over Cole. He must’ve been on the radar with the team looking to spend serious cash on guys falling in the draft.
AJ Cole still has plenty of work to be done, but I think the Pirates would gladly swap him out right now for Allie, Rojas, or maybe even both.
I agree that the Pirates screwed up over not getting AJ Cole
He would be the 4th or 5th best prospect in the Pirates farm system.
Where’s Rojas Jr in that equation?
this is a bit tricky
once the Pirates took Allie, they were already running into budget constraints. You can, of course, argue they shouldn’t have taken Allie, which was my point then (although I was arguing for Eibner).
But this also brings into play the unknown development side. Did Cole become what he is on his own, or is WSH’s dev staff due some credit? Which is to say, can we really say that if Cole was taken by Pit, he would have had the same career trajectory thus far?
This
is the most frustrating, and ultimately unknowable, unknown. I know it was already said on this thread, but it’s almost impossible to tease apart talent acquisition from talent development (unless you’re stunningly bad at one). Of course, it’s all under NH, but it’s one thing to say that NH has built a solid system but relied too long on a flawed scouting director, another to say that NH’s reasonable draft picks have been systematically screwed up by dozens of coaches at 5+ MiL levels.
Also...
(Not sure if this got brought up above) You forgot to mention the Miguel Sano fiasco, Charlie.
Interesting to note that Sano has recently fired his agent though. Really interesting.
too bad we won't get Sano back.
even with that
It's not Gayo's fault.
Plummer straight-up lied to us about having the chance to match/beat other offers. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Everything I remember (and can find now) mentions both NH and Gayo clashing with Plummer
Plummer seems like a douche, but he has something like 7 of the 12 biggest Latin signing bonuses, doesn’t he? From some Pirate sites, I’m reading that Plummer was insecure about how close Sano was to the NH and Gayo. Plummer seems pissed off at the Pirates; from the PPG:
“I think contracts are made entirely of relationships, that people should have a comfort level,” Plummer said. “Things fell apart because Pittsburgh never believed I had other teams interested in Miguel. I gave Neal every opportunity to sign Miguel for a reasonable amount, but he was afraid he was bidding against himself. When he sees the signing, he’ll see that.”
Plummer comes off as an a-hole and no one likes to deal with guys like that… but when signing players is your job, it’s something you have to do. Plummer’s been fired, but he’s already got his cut; Pittsburgh’s the only loser.
P.S. – Sano’s words, also from that article:
“I’m going to work very hard to try to get to the majors in two years.”
He’s not going to be in Minnesota; do they start him at low-A and promote him as warranted?
This whole thing comes own to how Neal thinks.
He has reiterated time n time again this offseason that the reason why this team had success last year was because of the “core”, and the “core” will be he reason this team will have success or not this year. He is fully banking on Alvarez to turn into a middle of the lineup run producer, Jose Tabata to bat lead off, stay healthy, hit over .300 and have a high OBS., along with Garret Jones learning to hit lefties, McGehee returning to form, and Presley becoming a everyday LF. Not saying it will work, but thatswhat hes seeing oung players growing n growing, adding younger players from the minors to the mix every year.
Now I dislike his free agent signings besides Bedard, because to me it’s waste of money, which I don’t think he realizes. Your better off going with a catching duo of McKenry, Morales, Fox, Fryer and see if any of them become anything, which they probably won’t but I would rather see a small market team like the pirates stay away from dead end free agents and o with youth or unprovens, so what if they all suck? No one expects you to win anyways, but if one of them turns out you look like a genius.
I do not think he uses money wisely, I do think he’s done a great job drafting, even though everyone expected more from he drafts already, there is till lot more talent here than we think.
How much of the whole thing comes down to how Hurdle thinks?
Barmes in particular has the scent of a Hurdle blessing. Barajas?
by Central*Scrutinizer on Jan 30, 2012 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
Is it all NH? or does some of it come from the minor league system staff
failing in itself to perform?
Obviously NH drafts the players, but then the minor league staff has to prepare them and help them improve so they can advance up the tiers of baseball. So are we failing the draft picks by not having top tier coaches teaching in the minors or is that something we don’t need as good of coaches there??
Best Example is……if we had drafted a Mike Leake would he be languishing in our system too? or make the same climb up in the Pirates organization as he did in Cincy’s?
This is all
just a long way of saying if Pedro rakes we’ll be OK, and if he doesn’t, everybody’s screwed, isn’t it?
by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2012 2:27 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
gah
I said this before in a much more abbreviated post. The minor league system in 2012 will have a chance to shine. This is the year that many from past drafts reach the higher end of the minors. Its not entirely sink or swim, but they need to show up this year for us to take a leap forward.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
Neal H is in over his head
Its nice to see people on here are finally coming to that realization. This offseason was a complete embarrassment overpaying players that are barely 40 man roster worthy (11 million for 2 years of Clint Barmes? Really?) Will Nutting figure that out or will he continue to call this the “Best Management Team in Baseball”
The minors are somewhat better than what Littlefield had but I mean how hard is it to take Taillion and Cole at the top of the draft? The miss in 2009 set back the franchise further since the other overslot guys haven’t performed at all. Should I give him credit for overslotting for Josh Bell? I guess but he’s not going to be here till 2015 so NH is going to have to show something before then. Pitching Staff is a joke, 1B is comical, Pedro looks to be a bust, SS an overpaid 33 year old and Hurdle annoys the hell out of me as a manager. And don’t even get me started with Cutch contract talks.
Neal H is so toxic at this point I really don’t even want to hear him give an interview anymore since he continually lies and acts like we aren’t paying attention (Bedard more healthy option than Maholm? LOL, veteran leadership we brought in this year, blah,blah) They can make their silly models or value sets on certain players but it doesn’t change the fact the TEAM SUCKS. And I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
What scares me is that we’ll fire Neal H and then hire a clone of his who will come in and trade Cutch and spin it like we have to do it to improve the minor league system. That will be the typical Pirates just repeating 5 year plans over and over. And Nutting will be laughing all the way to the bank while the Pirates fans continue to fall for the sham that is MLB baseball in Pittsburgh.
It’s a little dispiriting to see you repeating the line about “barely 40 man roster worthy” without any indication that you’ve processed the arguments people made against it on the other thread. In fact, they’ve been just about exactly average major leaguers.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
Try processing this
Major league average salary isn’t 5.5 million or 4 million. That’s what we are paying a bad SS and an old catcher for. But hey believe what you want.
Barmes isn't a bad SS
But hey believe what you want.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
LOL
Barmes has a career road line of .230/.272/.361 What a great deal we got getting him. LOL
LOL
Keep LOL cherry LOL picking LOL random LOL stats LOL you LOL fucking LOL simple LOL minded LOL idiot LOL troll LOL
P.S., LOL
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
Getting personal now?
Road stats for a guy that spent much of his career at Coors Field isn’t that far out there but hey whatever.
Road stats for a guy that spent much of his career at Coors Field isn’t that far out there
Road stats do not work that way.
Home/Road splits
Coors Field
2005: Home: .332/.369/.508 AWAY: .239/.286/.350
2006: Home: .231/.283/.357 AWAY: .210/.246/.315
2008: Home: .330/.362/.570 AWAY: .249/.281/.363
2009: Home: .283/.336/.498 AWAY: .207/.251/.380
2010: Home: .236/.327/.348 AWAY: .234/.285/.354
MM Park
2011: Home: .229/.301/.360 AWAY: .259/.323/.409
Yes, those are the numbers, but my objection was that you weren’t using them properly. You didn’t account for the normal home-field boost all hitters receive, or correct for the fact that a neutral-environment hitter would still have SOME games at Coors Field, or the “Coors hangover” that affects the road stats of that team’s players above and beyond the usual effects.
Using your method will systematically undervalue the offensive abilities of all Colorado hitters.
by Vlad on Jan 30, 2012 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well...
I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman’s back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days
…and that youre a troll..
by white angus on Jan 30, 2012 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Thanks for the coffee on my screen and up my nose.
I’m afraid I learned way more than I wanted to about you angus. High fiber huh?
Then again, I’m surprised Crash knew about trolls. Maybe I will take your advice and watch it a second time.
Again we disagree
1. Field of Dreams
2. Major League
3. Pride of the Yankees
4. The Sandlot
Tim Robbins as a pitcher? My imagination has its limits.
Ehhh
I’d go with Sugar as #1. Although I’m not sure if that qualifies as a baseball movie…
by NastyNate82 on Jan 30, 2012 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
Robbins played HS ball
and I’ve played softball with him.
Guy could still hit and field quite well even 6 or 7 years ago.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 30, 2012 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
Really?
I thought he looked ridiculous in Bull Durham. Not quite Corbin Bernsen from Major League ridiculous, but still unathletic.
has the Ross Ohlendorff at bat meme died already?!?
by BlindSquirrel on Jan 31, 2012 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
Major league average salary isn’t 5.5 million or 4 million.
That’s because the majority of players aren’t able to set their values against the open market. They don’t become free agents for six years.
If you look only at free agents, 1 marginal FA win is worth around $4.5M+ on the FA market.
by Vlad on Jan 30, 2012 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
this
Paying $9.5 M on the open market for two averagish players is not a problem.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 4:49 PM EST up reply actions
Bajaras you might have a case
Although I don’t like the signing we needed a veteran catcher.
But Barmes looks to be a total disaster.
Hey I hope I’m wrong but I don’t see the point in giving a 33 year old SS past his prime a 2yr contract on a team that will be lucky not to love 90 games.
past his prime
FWIW, Fangraphs WAR sees 2011 as the best season of Barmes’s career, a full win ahead of the runners-up: 2005 and 2008.
Best offensive year was 2008
We’ll see if his defense holds up the next 2 years
BTW he only played 81 games in 2005.
you're not standing near a window are you?
If so, don’t jump—at least until July. Let’s see what happens first.
the "try processing this" remark set me off a bit
especially when its aimed at someone like ZANE who is probably the most neutral guy on this blog.
by white angus on Jan 30, 2012 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
oh, I was definitely needling him
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
but thanks
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
the only window he's standing near is on his computer
i wish people would just ignore when others are trolling, but it never happens.
11 million for 2 years of Clint Barmes? Really?
That’s market price. He got $4M last year, and prices tend to go up with time, not down.
I mean how hard is it to take Taillion and Cole at the top of the draft?
A fan of a team that took Bullington first overall shouldn’t need to ask that.
And Nutting will be laughing all the way to the bank while the Pirates fans continue to fall for the sham that is MLB baseball in Pittsburgh.
I’m sure Nutting would rather build a cheap winner, sell a whole bunch of more expensive tickets, and make money hand over fist. What kind of businessman doesn’t like profits?
Barmes isn’t better than Cedeno (who ended up signing for like 1.5 million with the Mets), so no I disagree with that’s Barmes market price.
Point taken but I like to think nobody is as bad as Littlefield.
Nutting sold a bunch of tickets this year because of the 4 months pennant race. I’m sure he’d like a winner but is he willingly to spend for one? Doubt it.
Barmes isn’t better than Cedeno (who ended up signing for like 1.5 million with the Mets), so no I disagree with that’s Barmes market price.
He’s provided significantly more run value than Cedeno in the recent past.
You could always try arguing that one or the other wasn’t playing at his true level of ability, I guess…
Nutting sold a bunch of tickets this year because of the 4 months pennant race.
Second-lowest attendance in the NL, and one of the lowest average ticket prices in baseball, too.
and they dont own the stadium, they dont own Aramark, they dont have any parking decks...
yet Nutting is swimming in the benjamins. holy shit!
Quantify
I don’t see 3 + million more value in Barmes than Cedeno. Their offensive stats were very similar except for hr. Considering Barmes is another year out of his prime and moving into a less hitter friendly ball park, it was the worst move of the off season. Bad financially and positonal push at best. Barmes has had a superior career. No doubt he has been superior to Cedeno, don’t know if he is at this point. Doubt he could have signed with another team for close to the deal he got with the Bucs. That’s why he’s here. Any free agent with significant options would not be.
The Brewers were interested in Barmes, and
Of course we don’t know how much the Brewers were willing to offer, but it’s just not true that he had no other significant options. No other concrete offers, perhaps, but that may be partly because the Pirates signed him so early.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 7:34 PM EST up reply actions
I fail at linking
may have been willing to offer him a 2-year deal to start at short.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 7:35 PM EST up reply actions
good god
Vlad,
Just read your post about last season being Barmes best statistically, that makes it even worse. He just sucks. Why not pay 1.5 millilon for someone to suck instead of 11 million over 2 yrs. I’m sorry . It is not a defensible move. Good try though.
Barmes
was a 3 win SS last year (2.9 bWAR, 3.1 fWAR). There were only 10 of those in all of baseball last season. He also hit better on the road than he did in Houston, so it’s not entirely fair to say that all of his success is because of the short porch in left with the Crawford Boxes. Go ahead and explain to the group how a top 10 SS “just sucks.” Go ahead. I’ll wait here…
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
your right
what sucks is paying is paying 4 million dollars more for 1.3 differential in overall war. I stand by my statement that the signing is bad, But I retract the statement Barmes sucks, He does not. Hopefully he has a great year and makes the deal look great. We’ll have to see how not having the porch effects hr totals. I would imagine it benefitted his power numbers. By the way Kentcuky sucks
Based on
today’s “fair market value” estimations 1 WAR is equal to about $4.5M-$5M meaning the marginal value of Barmes’ increased production is between $5.85 and $6.5 million. Paying $4M sounds like a bargain to me, but math is hard is 4 bigger or smaller than 6?
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 8:57 PM EST up reply actions
As far as Kentucky goes
I tend to agree with you. I lived there for a couple years for work and thought that Louisville where I lived was actually a decent and very Pittsburgh-esque town. The other places I saw weren’t quite my cup o’ tea. It’s good to be back in the ’Burgh now…
Then again, I got together with my wife in Kentucky, so it’s hard for me to totally complain about it…
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
kentucky
I was born there but was raised elsewhere. Get a hard time from all my ky. relation all the time especially in basketball season. Had not idea that war translated into that much monetary differential. I stand corrected by all.
FWIW
I give you a lot of credit. This
I stand corrected by all.
is something you very rarely see from people even if the available evidence suggests they’re wrong…
Kentucky, especially during basketball season is an interesting place, especially since there is no pro team. It’s like a college town except it’s actually a college state. Almost every town (even Lexington and Louisville) is sharply divided between UK an U of L. The Kroger’s by my house was literally decorated half in red and half in blue year round. If it came up in conversation with people they either loved you (if you liked their team) hated you (if you liked the other) or looked at you like you had a third eye if you liked anybody else…
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 30, 2012 9:26 PM EST up reply actions
F'in team sucks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6W7FY0-mks
Hurdle: “There’s no 1B there! F it! We’ll do it live!”
I have to remember
“we’ll do it live” as something I can say when I want to say “F it” in front of my two-year-old.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 30, 2012 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
Would hardly call Pedro a bust just yet...
I’m sure alot of other teams would gladly trade us a bag of balls for him if you thought he was junk.
Outstanding article as always
I always liked the plan but the implentation has been poor. When NH was brought on I was glad that he got rid of the older players in an attempt to get the team younger and bring in talent. I was finally glad that someone actually had a plan on how to turn the team around. However, going into his fifth year I have not seen much that has led me to believe that he is the man capable of bringing a winner to Pittsburgh. When it comes down right to it he has failed way more than he has succeeded regarding trades and evaluating players. People are still blaming Littlefield for the problems of today. While it’s true that he was terrible the time has passed to keep always complaining about him for the troubles of today. He’s been gone for awhile now and it’s time that people start to hold NH accountable for a major league team that in his fifth year will still be one of the worst in baseball. It’s pretty bad that the team’s two best positional players are from the past regime.
This team needs more than a good farm system to eventually win. They need a GM that wins more trades than he loses and NH hasn’t done that. Also I’m still waiting for some of his draft picks to make a difference. Isn’t it time they start doing that? Still no power in the minors at all. The minor league pitching prospects have been up and down too. I do see some outstanding potential in the minors but not much of it from a guy who preaches about building through the draft.
I just don’t see the progress and a bright future with NH. What I do see is more of the same losing and a team that is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Proud fan of Pittsburgh's professional sports teams and the Pirates too.
by Black&GoldTrain on Jan 31, 2012 2:34 AM EST reply actions
yes, its time for NH's draft picks to start doing that, especially 2008 and 2009
once again for those who dont know: the average time spent in the minor leagues before “sticking” with the MLB club is over 5 years. this INCLUDES the stud prospects who
takes 3 years of less to make it. Jimmy Rollins took 6 years, for example.
i understand impatience, but it comes off as being pirate exclusive, and it is completely untrue.
There seems to be this misconception that I am impatient with how long it takes for minor leaguers to percolate through the system. I’m fully aware of how long it takes players to make it through the system. A minimum of 3 years, even for the studs, usually 5 or 6. Pedro is one of the few Pirates draftees since the draft started in the 60s, that made it in less than that, and later results indicated that the extra time in the minors would have done him good.
Where I DO have a problem is that I do not see results commensurate with the levels the players SHOULD be at in the minors. NH has had 4 drafts, all with very early picks. A good deal of money has been laid out for these players. That being said…we should be seeing at least a FEW standout performances…even if only at lower levels of the minors. There should be a few situations where these highly rated players should be outperforming their peers. Perhaps, you, Angus, could point out a few situations where Pirates draftees are significantly outperforming their peers. Not at the major league level, but even at age appropriate levels of the minors.
Look, no 1st or 2nd tier free agents are going to the Pirates, even if the Bucs have the money. They all want to play on a contending team. Even Derrick Lee, at his age, wants to play for a contender. So your stuck with filling holes with guys like Barmes, Barajas, McLouth etc. That being said, the only way to build a team like this is through the draft, or trades for prospects. McCutchen, Tabata, Walker, Alverez, Pressley….that’s a good start. We need to lock these guys up till Cole, Tallion, Stetson and others make thier way up. Just keep drafting talent, and hope they pan out. That’s the only way to get out of this mess.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
Related FanShots 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
