243C3E39392E3F38252432570 wrote: Here are batting averages of some recent Cherington acquisitions:
Tom - .143
Fowler - .171
Owen - .000
Alford - ,083
Stokes - .000
Gamel - 063
I never ever thought I would say it, but I think Huntington was a better judge of talent than Cherington. Polanco is starting to look pretty good to me.
Three of those guys have less than ten at bats.
________
If you can't talk about Cherington's failures at the beginning because the sample size is too small and if you can't talk about Cherington's failures after they have been sent packing (Fowler and Alford) then I guess you never talk about Cherington's failures.
So you would have called Willie Mays a failure because he went 1-24 in his first at bats?
I didn't talk about Fowler and Alford. Who both had more than ten at bats. I'm not saying the other guys are good. They are probably mediocre at best, but it is too early to tell.
For example, Stokes increased his batting average by 182 points since you posted this. In one game.
ETA, does he get any credit for Tyler Anderson?
Anyone who wants NH over Cherington is delusional. In the first place he doesn't have enough of a Pirate body of work to have a reasonable idea what kind of GM he is. NH had a long track record with us and instead of improving as a GM his results were steadily becoming worse. His minor league development system was awful. Watching what a guy like Brubaker is doing now just shows they couldn't evaluate pitchers at all.
I'll say this much. That Ben guy sure is steadily making us better. We're all the way up to .405 now! Not bad!
Funny, I didn't see much banging on Huntington's evaluation skills when we had guys like Liriano, Cole, Burnett, Happ, etc. Nobody cared how he got them. Winning makes people look the other way. Lose, and people look right at you.
Revolving Door Continues
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster