Huntington: My Work for the Year is Done!

by Charlie on Jan 10, 2008 2:20 PM EST in News Comment 27 comments

This article makes me a little sick to my stomach:

The Pirates' roster, despite precious few changes this offseason, is pretty much set for 2008.

"From a substantial additions standpoint, yeah, I think we are," general manager Neal Huntington said during a break at the team's minicamp. "There are still a lot of free agents out there, guys who need jobs who might add depth, so we're not done looking. At the same time, we're still willing to listen if somebody has a deal to make this organization better."

If nothing more happens, that will mean the Pirates are keeping together essentially the same group that went 68-94 last season, made no notable acquisitions beyond the signing of utility infielder Chris Gomez and five waiver claims, lost relievers Shawn Chacon and Salomon Torres without finding comparable replacements and added no significant talent to the minor-league system.

Not much cause for excitement, to be sure, and not much indication the team is attempting to improve in 2008 or focus on the future...

[Huntington]'s top priority, as he stressed repeatedly, is the future.

"I would say there is a pretty good nucleus in place with the major-league roster, particularly the rotation. I would argue, too, that, if you go around the diamond with our everyday players, there are as many as five who underachieved last year. If just three of those five meet or exceed expectations, those 68 wins become greater."

First things first: kudos to Dejan Kovacevic for spelling out the problem pretty clearly in the third paragraph.

The part here that really gets me is the part about underachieving, and we're left to wonder if Huntington really believes that junk or if he just has to say it. Here are the Pirates' 2007 everyday players:

C Ronny Paulino - too early to tell if he underachieved or is just godawful, but believe it or not, he actually pretty much matched his 2007 ZiPS projection

1B Adam LaRoche - maybe he underachieved, or maybe he just regressed to his career norms after a career season in 2006

2B Freddy Sanchez - had pretty much the season we expected

SS Jack Wilson - overachieved

3B Jose Bautista - pretty much what we expected

LF Jason Bay - underachieved, although it's unclear why

CF Chris Duffy / Nate McLouth - Duffy was worse than expected and McLouth was substantially better, so let's call it a wash

RF Xavier Nady - posted career highs in many statistical categories, including homers and OPS+

In summary, I have no idea what Huntington's talking about. Bay certainly underachieved, and I'll also give him Paulino and LaRoche. But that's it. And much of any rebound those guys have should be offset by Wilson's return to Wilson-dom, as well as potential regression by the rest of the offense, which is not particularly young. (I wouldn't be surprised if Sanchez took a dive this year, for example.) Actually, the Pirates' best chance of having an improved corps of position players next year is to open a spot for Steve Pearce and hope he catches fire, but Huntington has failed to do that.

In the article, Kovacevic explains Huntington's failure to make a big trade as follows:

Huntington has made no secret of his wish to make a trade in the Haren-Swisher mold for legitimate prospects to replenish a barren system, and he was known to have had many discussions regarding Bay and Nady. But other teams were wary of Bay's subpar 2007, in which he batted .247 with more knee trouble, and of Nady again failing to establish himself as everyday material because of various injuries.

Well, point taken about Bay. But has Huntington considered that perhaps the reason that Nady hasn't yet established himself as "everyday material" is because he is not, in fact, everyday material? He's now 29, injury prone, defensively challenged, and an average hitter. Teams don't give up a Nick Swisher-type package for those kinds of players. And at this point, having Nady in the starting lineup does not help the team, because it keeps Pearce in the minors. So trade Nady and be happy for what you can get.

Also, the Pirates have just two players who could potentially command anywhere near Swisher-type packages, and those guys are Ian Snell and Tom Gorzelanny. If Huntington is serious about using the trade market to replenish the farm system, he needs to quit bollixing around with Bay and Nady and think about trading Snell or Gorzelanny.

In the meantime, everything Huntington has done so far, and many of the things he has said so far, suggest that he's just fine with the players he has. Unlike Dave Littlefield, he's resisted wasting money on pointless free agents, and he hasn't lost anyone important with roster bungling, so that's good. But like Littlefield, he seems to think that mediocrity is just fine, or at least that this collection of mediocre, low-upside players is somehow going to blossom into a contender. I'm going to try to give Huntington the benefit of the doubt until after the draft, but he seems to be doing his best to make that hard for me.

In other news, the Pirates are in discussions with LaRoche about a long-term deal. I suppose you could argue that's okay in a buy-low sort of way, but you could also argue that it'd be spending a bunch of money on yet another average player, and it's almost certainly true that long-term deals shouldn't be the Pirates' first priority right now.

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Huntington's problem may have been....

...the current player's market and the injuries some of his players suffered last year coupled to the Pirates believing they need to put the best team they feasibly can on the field in 2008. In other words, years of "driving for 75" produce a situation in which a new management regime "drives for 75" in order to ward off fan backlash when the team sets the all-time record for consecutive losing seasons.

I'll give up on the team if they fail to draft well and to make a credible effort in the Caribbean and elsewhere.

by steve_z on Jan 10, 2008 2:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Or ...

I agree with Pat's take on WHYGAVS, that is, NH doesn't have any choice and/or viable trading chips:

I'm guessing that Huntington probably planned to ride in on his white horse and trade Bay and/or Nady for prospects and restock the system and quickly found out that things wouldn't be so easy. Not only are the pieces he has to trade already damaged, but I can't imagine things go over well when a new GM calls you and asks for your three best prospects. For at least a little while, everyone's going to assume they can rip Huntington off. Now we're almost four months into Huntington's tenure and he's finding himself with no choice but to hope some of these guys step it up so he can trade them. That's what leads to the first quote. Maybe he'll get lucky and these guys will step it up and give him an opening, but that's not very likely. That means it's probably back to the drawing board for Huntington.

by nick3849 on Jan 10, 2008 3:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Whoops

Pat wrote that ... not me.

by nick3849 on Jan 10, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Come on Charlie

First, I agree with the post I'm replying to, and also with bugdaddy down below.

Nowhere does it say NH thinks Bay or Nady should return what Swisher or Haren returned. Those are DK's words, and I interpret "in the mold (of those trades)" as established player for prospect(s). And what should he say? There's no good reason to say he needs to unload these guys and that 2008 will be tough going. None.

by azibuck on Jan 10, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So?

Just because he can't say one thing doesn't mean he has to say its opposite. He also has the option of effectively saying nothing, as Dave Littlefield did and other GMs frequently do.

I simply cannot believe that the Pirates can't get prospects for Nady. If Huntington can get prospects for Salomon Torres, he surely can get some for Nady. Their quality is almost irrelevant; if Nady starts and neither LaRoche nor Bay are traded, Nady's presence in the lineup actively hurts the team.

by Charlie on Jan 10, 2008 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Apparently, their quality is relevant

I don't get the rush to make any old deal for Nady. If the quality of the prospects really is irrelevant, then there's no harm in letting Nady start the season. If he flops, we'd get nothing for him anyway.

I agree Pearce should be in the lineup, but what would be wrong with 400 PA instead of 600? Let him platoon with LaRoche and get at least a pinch-hit appearance per day. Then after the deadline he's the full time starter, and that's about 240+ plate appearances between then and the end of the season. Surely they can find about 160 before the deadline. 600 is better than 400, but he's 25, and we're going nowhere, right? It's not that big a deal.

You and others keep saying that there is no way this team contends in 2008 anyway, so what is the point of 2008? Development of guys like Pearce, sure, but also at least trying to maximize your assets like Nady.

I guess what I'm really railing against is the apparent disappoint with the Coonington regime after 4 months. Four months and we know what this guy's really about? I don't think so. I'm willing to wait 4, 6, 10 months for this thing to be blown up if it means a better return for Bay, Nady, Paulino, (pitcher).

by azibuck on Jan 10, 2008 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would like that argument a lot better...

if Huntington had done anything of consequence so far. If he really plans to deal Nady, Bay, Marte, Wilson, etc., don't you think at least one of them would be gone by now, with all these teams wheeling and dealing and prospects being snapped up like Xboxes on Black Friday? Instead, the only trade of a veteran Huntington has made has been an inconsequential trade of Salomon Torres.

To put this offseason in perspective, look at this writeup of the Padres' offseason over at Lookout Landing. The writer oversells some of the moves a bit, and it's certainly true that Kevin Towers has more money and better weather to attract the free agents, but the point is that the lack of movement by Huntington has been weird. If he had a serious plan to trade some of these guys, a lot of that plan probably would've been put into action already.

by Charlie on Jan 10, 2008 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm looking

at a Milwaukee Journal story by Tom Haudricourt that says Bob Melvin says the Brewers have some interest in Mike Cameron. Here's what makes this relevant to the current discussion (and I hope I'm not violating fair-use by quoting about three graphs):

(Haudricourt writes that) In looking for what he considers the final piece to his puzzle for 2008, Melvin has encountered the same problem, over and over: None of the available players is exactly what he seeks: a left-handed hitter with a high on-base percentage who would improve the club's defense.
...
"None of these guys are perfect fits," Melvin said. "We only have so many options. We're trying to weigh them all."
Melvin said attempts to trade for a third baseman, such as St. Louis' Scott Rolen or Texas' Hank Blalock, went nowhere. The Brewers hoped to find an established third baseman who would allow them to move Ryan Braun to left field, improving their defense.
---
See, here's a GM with a team that seems to know what it's doing, that will probably contend for the NLC title this year, and HE can't get the deals done he wants. And this is a guy with actual talent to work with. You can't just snap your fingers or wave a wand and make it happen. It takes two to tango.

So maybe everybody should just cool their jets about NH, because while we know who Melvin's targets were because he just told us, we don't really know what deals NH has or has not been offered or has or has not sought. And making reckless trades just to make fans like us happy got us where we are in the first place.

by bucdaddy on Jan 10, 2008 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No one is saying...

that trading Xavier Nady is like waving a wand. But your example of the Brewers is telling, since

the Brewers already have a terrific core in place and don't need a complete overhaul like the Pirates do (that is, given their current situations, you would expect the Brewers' offseason to be less earthshaking than the Pirates) and
the Brewers still did more than the Pirates! They acquired Eric Gagne, David Riske, Jason Kendall and Guillermo Mota. It wasn't the offseason to beat all offseasons, but they were out there doing stuff, mostly to address their need for pitching.

Of course I don't want Huntington to make a flurry of transactions just to do it, but I do want him to do something to address the Pirates' many needs. The Brewers didn't have the world's best offseason, but they did address their needs, at least in a general way.

by Charlie on Jan 10, 2008 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll suggest

that the Brewers have every reason to be more frantic than the Pirates. The Bucs, as we know, are going nowhere, and would still be going nowhere if NH traded Nady for a couple A-ball hard-throwers tomorrow. That would be progress, yes, but there's absolutely no reason for panic on our part. This is a deep deep hole we've dug ourselves here, we have few resources to fill it with, but we DO have time. What's the rush?

But Melvin has to worry about the Cubs, mostly, who have way more money to throw around than he does, and he has to worry about them RIGHT NOW. He has an actual pennant on the line, as of yesterday. That third baseman he can't get might make the difference between beating out the Cubs and staying home in October, core of talent or no core of talent (the Cubs didn't sit around doing nothing all winter either). If anybody has incentive to panic and overpay, he does.

by bucdaddy on Jan 10, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, BTW

I think the fact they broke ground on a new facility in the Dominican today is way more important, in the big picture, than what they can scrounge off the dung heap for Nady.

by bucdaddy on Jan 10, 2008 10:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

that might turn out to be true. I didn't blog about it because I'm really not sure what it means. But it certainly seems like a promising sign.

by Charlie on Jan 10, 2008 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hope so

Anyways, to get back to the other thing, Brewers fans have actual expectations. They've waited a long time for a pennant too, so I'm sure being the Milwaukee GM brings a nice dose of pressure to bear. Real, good pressure, the pressure to find the final pieces of the puzzle, but pressure nonetheless. There's a guy who should be eager to throw a raft of prospects at a Bay or a Sanchez if his team's three games out on 7/31 and he needs a make-or-break hitter.

What expectations does anyone have for the Pirates? What pressure is NH under, except to appease his bosses, that he has to deal his few semi-valuable assets right now? Is there a pennant on the line? Course not. He might disagree, but trying to avoid a 16th straight losing season when 1.7 mil show up at the park no matter what? Pardon me, but that ain't pressure.

by bucdaddy on Jan 10, 2008 11:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Pirates Who Shouldn't Do Anything

Perhaps holding is the appropriate move. I point you to what Nate Silver said in October on what the Bucs should do this offseason:

What They Should Do: Hold. This is a frustrating group to analyze, because the Pirates have a lot of redundant assets that have value in theory but not in practice. Should Pearce, Walker, and Doumit take their respective places in the lineup? Certainly, but nobody's going to trade much of value for Xavier Nady, Jose Bautista, or Ronny Paulino. So you might instead need to be willing to trade the guys who could fetch something, like Jack Wilson, Freddy Sanchez, Adam LaRoche, and even Jason Bay. The reason I list this as "hold" rather than a "sell" is because two of those guys have their value at a low-water mark right now; Bay is coming off a terrible season, and Sanchez just had shoulder surgery. So I'd want to see how things play out, and have Neil Huntington buy one of those cellphone plans with some rollover minutes. If someone starts the year hot, you move him in June--unless a bunch of people get hot, in which case you shift gears and play to win. That's not as far-fetched as it might sound in the NL Central.

by Willton on Jan 10, 2008 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No PTBNL to Cubs

I see that Dejan also reported that we sent money to the Cubs instead of a player for renting Izturis.

by Thunder on Jan 10, 2008 3:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Would you ...

work hard if your boss told the beat reporter for the biggest newspaper in town, "Charlie really sucked at blogging last year, he was terrible, and since he ain't getting younger I frankly think he'll be horse sh*t again this year. He's worthless"?

Even if you were?

Didn't think so.

So why does anyone think NH should run around telling everyone, "My team sucks"? What do you WANT him to say? The truth?

by bucdaddy on Jan 10, 2008 3:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

There is a difference...

between saying the team's terrible and simply not saying what Huntington said.

by Charlie on Jan 10, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno

"No comment" might as well be "These guys suck." If I played for the Pirates, I'd like to think my GM had my back and thought I was a good person and decent player, right up until the moment he dumps my ass for a 24-year-old A-ball middle reliever.

by bucdaddy on Jan 10, 2008 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It wouldn't be hard...

to simply say,

"Well, we like a lot of the talent we have out there, particularly in the rotation. But at the same time, we won 68 games last year, and while I know these guys are dying to get out there and improve on that this year, I can't sit on my hands and be satisfied with a 68-win team. I'm going to do my best to make improvements until Opening Day and after it."

This is 1) inoffensive, 2) obvious and 3) doesn't require all that much cleverness to say. In fact, I imagine most GMs would say something like this. However, Huntington did not say anything like this, and this is not the first time he has said he's basically going to stand pat with what he has. And we're reaching the point in the offseason where you have to wonder if it's time to start taking him at his word when he says that, because he really hasn't done anything yet.

I can't fault any one person for stating their opinion, but I really can't win here. When I advocated patience earlier in the offseason, I was accused of enabling and who knows what else. Now that the offseason's almost over, the GM's done nothing, and he's now pretty much COME OUT AND SAID on multiple occasions that he plans to continue doing nothing, I'm hearing it from you guys that I need to be more patient and not listen to the things he says (which are pretty boneheaded things to say in any case).

by Charlie on Jan 10, 2008 9:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Hearing it from you guys"

Keep in mind who it is you hear what from. Unless we have some hypocrits on this forum (which is certainly possible in blog-world), my guess is that some people criticized you for advocating patience and OTHER people are now jumping on you for not being patient enough.

by Willton on Jan 10, 2008 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, that's true.

I'm not saying anyone's a hypocrite. Just that I can't win. :)

by Charlie on Jan 10, 2008 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The blogosphere is full of contrarians

You'll never win. :)

by Willton on Jan 10, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The blogosphere is full of contrarians

It is not!!!

by johnnycuff on Jan 11, 2008 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bingo.

Let's judge on deeds not words.

Nothing wrong with overstating your assets publicly. At least he's making concrete statements, unlike DL's endless unquantifiable drivel.

Perhaps NH is a good poker player - let's give him a season before rushing to judgments.

Personally I think he is itching in
a big way to blow this mess up, but he's not going to give anything away without a good return. We need good asset management with our near lack of assets.

by OmarMoreno18 on Jan 10, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cardinals

sign Josh Phelps to a minor-league deal.

by bucdaddy on Jan 10, 2008 4:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Huntington

I'll throw my two cents in here because I see myself quoted above: I have no idea what to make of Huntington. I'm attempting to stay positive until he does something stupid, but it's true that doing nothing can be qualified as stupid.

I hate jumping on people and saying, "Team X made this move with this team, so why couldn't we have moved Player Y and gotten the same thing," because I think there's a lot more to those deals than we know, but damn, why is Nady still on this team with Pearce and LaRoche around? Why would he trade Torres for two nothing relievers and keep Marte on the roster?

http://whereisvanslyke.blogspot.com
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/mlb

by whygavs on Jan 11, 2008 1:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Huntington

He has three choices here. He can adopt silence and let his actions next spring and summer speak for him. Or, he can continue talking as he has and sound stupid, much as Littlefield did when he felt compelled to expound (a rare occasion. Finally, he can continue to talk and risk sounding as duplicitous as did Littlefield, which was the case pretty much any time he opened up his mouth. If I'm Huntington, I go for door number one.

by RichieHebner on Jan 11, 2008 9:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs