456E79760F0 wrote: As was mentioned upstream, transparency is in question. While the players making the decisions have changed, the one constant is Nutting. It would seem to me, that he does not want any stated projections for the future that he may be accountable for, like "spending when the time is right" or about his "commitment to winning".
While I am, and will remain, open-minded and hopeful about the new leadership team, if Bob wants a shoe string operation, that is what we, the fans, will get. The guy is a winner in the business sense only, and doesn't give a fat rat's butt about the success of the team on the field. I have believed this for many years now, and until there is a sharp turn in the manner in which they conduct the business of the baseball operation, I will continue to believe that.
BC and his team will have to be extremely good at identifying and developing talent for this franchise to succeed on the field, and that success will be a continuous revolving door as salaries escalate through service time and arbitration.
As usual, Javy, you're on the money. Good to see you here. This is a much better place from whence we've just come.
Has anything really changed
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Has anything really changed
Hi to all of my old friends from other places. Glad to be here!
To all of the current members, thanks for the opportunity to join. I look forward to good discussions!
I'm a Pittsburgh area native, born in McKeesport, and lived outside of Elizabeth until we moved to SE Pa in the 60's. I've maintained my love for the Bucs though, so I am as distressed as anyone over the state of the Pirates through these last couple decades. Hopeful that the new management group will succeed despite the constraints they will face.
Again, thanks for having me!
To all of the current members, thanks for the opportunity to join. I look forward to good discussions!
I'm a Pittsburgh area native, born in McKeesport, and lived outside of Elizabeth until we moved to SE Pa in the 60's. I've maintained my love for the Bucs though, so I am as distressed as anyone over the state of the Pirates through these last couple decades. Hopeful that the new management group will succeed despite the constraints they will face.
Again, thanks for having me!
-
UtahPirate
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 10:36 pm
Has anything really changed
707C75786F33697470726975642F2D5D7A701D0 wrote: Now that the dust and all the "good feelings" about the change in management have settled in--they've essentially taken a last-place team and deleted its most talented player in exchange for a couple of guys who each have a 20 percent chance of making the majors four years from now.
This was my issue with the "let's rebuild" philosophy. We don't have enough talent to trade away for a successful rebuild. I would have gone after pitching and catching help, and if you're lucky, you contend, and if not, well, at least you have some pieces worth trading in July.
I, for one, haven't had many good feelings, but I'm thinking the same thing. Two 19 year olds bothers me a lot because your 20% success rate is probably accurate. And while NH caught a lot of flak for his dumpster diving at least some of the time you wondered if his garbage might have some potential. BC's version of dumpster diving has been Quad A bottom of the barrel guys who don't even sniff the Mendoza Line. And Riddle on a MLB contract? You have to be kidding. We had to snatch him ... teams must of been ringing his agent's phone off the hook.
What would it take to put a more competitive team on the field this year -- $15 to $20 million more. Even $25 million to be more competitive while we trade for 19 year old prospects or build through the draft and our 2024 window? Seriously can't both be done? We have salary space. And with just a few decent moves a team salary goes all the way to $70 to $75 million??? Who is choking on that? I think you could get a decent SP, RP and C with $25 million, have them on short contracts and at least put on the field an interesting team this year.
To repeat a well-worn OBN phrase from the past couple of years "how do the players feel." Well how do they feel now when the best the GM can do is a couple of good glove guys who can't hit above .180?
Well things aren't the same. It's another rebuild and so far BC is showing to me why Boston canned him -- his attention is all minors/prospects with little regard to tweaking his MLB lineup and keeping it competitive. Personally, I think he could do both. But it's good news for Nutting as he is going to pocket a handful of profits this year -- so I guess that's the same.
This was my issue with the "let's rebuild" philosophy. We don't have enough talent to trade away for a successful rebuild. I would have gone after pitching and catching help, and if you're lucky, you contend, and if not, well, at least you have some pieces worth trading in July.
I, for one, haven't had many good feelings, but I'm thinking the same thing. Two 19 year olds bothers me a lot because your 20% success rate is probably accurate. And while NH caught a lot of flak for his dumpster diving at least some of the time you wondered if his garbage might have some potential. BC's version of dumpster diving has been Quad A bottom of the barrel guys who don't even sniff the Mendoza Line. And Riddle on a MLB contract? You have to be kidding. We had to snatch him ... teams must of been ringing his agent's phone off the hook.
What would it take to put a more competitive team on the field this year -- $15 to $20 million more. Even $25 million to be more competitive while we trade for 19 year old prospects or build through the draft and our 2024 window? Seriously can't both be done? We have salary space. And with just a few decent moves a team salary goes all the way to $70 to $75 million??? Who is choking on that? I think you could get a decent SP, RP and C with $25 million, have them on short contracts and at least put on the field an interesting team this year.
To repeat a well-worn OBN phrase from the past couple of years "how do the players feel." Well how do they feel now when the best the GM can do is a couple of good glove guys who can't hit above .180?
Well things aren't the same. It's another rebuild and so far BC is showing to me why Boston canned him -- his attention is all minors/prospects with little regard to tweaking his MLB lineup and keeping it competitive. Personally, I think he could do both. But it's good news for Nutting as he is going to pocket a handful of profits this year -- so I guess that's the same.
Has anything really changed
7352474E764F54475243260 wrote: Now that the dust and all the "good feelings" about the change in management have settled in--they've essentially taken a last-place team and deleted its most talented player in exchange for a couple of guys who each have a 20 percent chance of making the majors four years from now.
This was my issue with the "let's rebuild" philosophy. We don't have enough talent to trade away for a successful rebuild. I would have gone after pitching and catching help, and if you're lucky, you contend, and if not, well, at least you have some pieces worth trading in July.
I, for one, haven't had many good feelings, but I'm thinking the same thing. Two 19 year olds bothers me a lot because your 20% success rate is probably accurate. And while NH caught a lot of flak for his dumpster diving at least some of the time you wondered if his garbage might have some potential. BC's version of dumpster diving has been Quad A bottom of the barrel guys who don't even sniff the Mendoza Line. And Riddle on a MLB contract? You have to be kidding. We had to snatch him ... teams must of been ringing his agent's phone off the hook.
What would it take to put a more competitive team on the field this year -- $15 to $20 million more. Even $25 million to be more competitive while we trade for 19 year old prospects or build through the draft and our 2024 window? Seriously can't both be done? We have salary space. And with just a few decent moves a team salary goes all the way to $70 to $75 million??? Who is choking on that? I think you could get a decent SP, RP and C with $25 million, have them on short contracts and at least put on the field an interesting team this year.
To repeat a well-worn OBN phrase from the past couple of years "how do the players feel." Well how do they feel now when the best the GM can do is a couple of good glove guys who can't hit above .180?
Well things aren't the same. It's another rebuild and so far BC is showing to me why Boston canned him -- his attention is all minors/prospects with little regard to tweaking his MLB lineup and keeping it competitive. Personally, I think he could do both. But it's good news for Nutting as he is going to pocket a handful of profits this year -- so I guess that's the same.
I think he could do both too but Nutting is not going to give him the resources to do both. Doing both also makes planning for the future harder as the first draft pick is 14 or higher while if he blows off a couple seasons he will have a couple top 5 picks.
As I wrote in an earlier post, BC's clock for producing a winner didn't start until 2020, but as a fan the team's clock started in 2016.
This was my issue with the "let's rebuild" philosophy. We don't have enough talent to trade away for a successful rebuild. I would have gone after pitching and catching help, and if you're lucky, you contend, and if not, well, at least you have some pieces worth trading in July.
I, for one, haven't had many good feelings, but I'm thinking the same thing. Two 19 year olds bothers me a lot because your 20% success rate is probably accurate. And while NH caught a lot of flak for his dumpster diving at least some of the time you wondered if his garbage might have some potential. BC's version of dumpster diving has been Quad A bottom of the barrel guys who don't even sniff the Mendoza Line. And Riddle on a MLB contract? You have to be kidding. We had to snatch him ... teams must of been ringing his agent's phone off the hook.
What would it take to put a more competitive team on the field this year -- $15 to $20 million more. Even $25 million to be more competitive while we trade for 19 year old prospects or build through the draft and our 2024 window? Seriously can't both be done? We have salary space. And with just a few decent moves a team salary goes all the way to $70 to $75 million??? Who is choking on that? I think you could get a decent SP, RP and C with $25 million, have them on short contracts and at least put on the field an interesting team this year.
To repeat a well-worn OBN phrase from the past couple of years "how do the players feel." Well how do they feel now when the best the GM can do is a couple of good glove guys who can't hit above .180?
Well things aren't the same. It's another rebuild and so far BC is showing to me why Boston canned him -- his attention is all minors/prospects with little regard to tweaking his MLB lineup and keeping it competitive. Personally, I think he could do both. But it's good news for Nutting as he is going to pocket a handful of profits this year -- so I guess that's the same.
I think he could do both too but Nutting is not going to give him the resources to do both. Doing both also makes planning for the future harder as the first draft pick is 14 or higher while if he blows off a couple seasons he will have a couple top 5 picks.
As I wrote in an earlier post, BC's clock for producing a winner didn't start until 2020, but as a fan the team's clock started in 2016.
Has anything really changed
Has anything really changed? Well, it's too soon to say for sure. It's clear though that some things have not changed. Most importantly an owner who will continue to maintain severe payroll restrictions on the franchise. The new President, GM and manager will be forced to work within those choking parameters just as the old management regime had to do. So, same old.
What I'm hoping will change is something that can't begin to manifest itself until spring training starts, and really probably much later into the season. That being a change in coaching philosophy and talent evaluation. Can this new management team better identify player talents and strengths? Can they better develop those players' talents and better utilize what talent they have by putting players in positions to best succeed to their talent level? If they can, then perhaps there will be a pleasant surprise in store for us Pirate fans, who right now see a talentless roster with no hope of competing for anything for at least several years.
I see a hint of this kind of strategy already with BC's FA signings of defense-first players: a needed plus for the confidence of a young pitching staff. An economically savvy move when working for an owner who constantly pleads penury.
To be safe, I'm keeping my expectations for this new management team as low as the payroll, but I do have hope that there could yet be some positive changes this year.
What I'm hoping will change is something that can't begin to manifest itself until spring training starts, and really probably much later into the season. That being a change in coaching philosophy and talent evaluation. Can this new management team better identify player talents and strengths? Can they better develop those players' talents and better utilize what talent they have by putting players in positions to best succeed to their talent level? If they can, then perhaps there will be a pleasant surprise in store for us Pirate fans, who right now see a talentless roster with no hope of competing for anything for at least several years.
I see a hint of this kind of strategy already with BC's FA signings of defense-first players: a needed plus for the confidence of a young pitching staff. An economically savvy move when working for an owner who constantly pleads penury.
To be safe, I'm keeping my expectations for this new management team as low as the payroll, but I do have hope that there could yet be some positive changes this year.
Has anything really changed
Quail
I too admire defensive talent, but when 3 of the 4 position players that BC has signed have hit less than .200, it is a bit hard to feel good about their defensive prowess. Further, none of these players really have a long-term upside or even offer much in the way of trying to tread water. The only real common denominators among the four are that they all have at most a 1 year contract, a low salary and that they were available as free agents as opposed to trades.
While I am bracing myself for what will likely be a lot of bad baseball this year, I also understand and support the sentiment that more could be done to make this year's team better without sacrificing or compromising the longer-term objective --- building for the future. I strongly supported trading Marte and I am comfortable with the return. I also have advocated trading others, such as Frazier and Kela (if they could command a decent return).
As you and others have pointed out, why couldn't the Nut tell BC that the franchise can spend up to $20 to $25 mil more to bring in some replacement talent. At a minimum, someone who is a true CF'er and some more depth arms for the starting rotation. For example, the Dodgers, in the aftermath of the Betts/Price trade, chose to send salary and some excess outfield and pitching talent, Pederson and Stripling, to the Angels. The talent coming back to the Dodgers did not seem that high. Why not offer Frazier, a middling prospect and $2 mil to the Dodgers to try and add Pederson's sock to the line-up. Geez, he also bats LH and would be at worst a logical platoon candidate for both CF and RF when Polanco inevitably goes down with shoulder problems come June.
Oh well, I guess its Maile and Riddle to the rescue, with Eflin to serve as the depth to what is now a relatively weak starting rotation. May have to start resorting to drinking Guiness again this year because there is only so much ice cream I can consume to keep my depression at bay.
I too admire defensive talent, but when 3 of the 4 position players that BC has signed have hit less than .200, it is a bit hard to feel good about their defensive prowess. Further, none of these players really have a long-term upside or even offer much in the way of trying to tread water. The only real common denominators among the four are that they all have at most a 1 year contract, a low salary and that they were available as free agents as opposed to trades.
While I am bracing myself for what will likely be a lot of bad baseball this year, I also understand and support the sentiment that more could be done to make this year's team better without sacrificing or compromising the longer-term objective --- building for the future. I strongly supported trading Marte and I am comfortable with the return. I also have advocated trading others, such as Frazier and Kela (if they could command a decent return).
As you and others have pointed out, why couldn't the Nut tell BC that the franchise can spend up to $20 to $25 mil more to bring in some replacement talent. At a minimum, someone who is a true CF'er and some more depth arms for the starting rotation. For example, the Dodgers, in the aftermath of the Betts/Price trade, chose to send salary and some excess outfield and pitching talent, Pederson and Stripling, to the Angels. The talent coming back to the Dodgers did not seem that high. Why not offer Frazier, a middling prospect and $2 mil to the Dodgers to try and add Pederson's sock to the line-up. Geez, he also bats LH and would be at worst a logical platoon candidate for both CF and RF when Polanco inevitably goes down with shoulder problems come June.
Oh well, I guess its Maile and Riddle to the rescue, with Eflin to serve as the depth to what is now a relatively weak starting rotation. May have to start resorting to drinking Guiness again this year because there is only so much ice cream I can consume to keep my depression at bay.
Has anything really changed
The reason that Bob will not tell Cherington to spend an additional $20-#25 million is because he wants to pocket it all.
-
Bobster21
Has anything really changed
Apparently the word "rebuild" is taboo in the Pirates front office. Season tickets don't sell too well when you admit to rebuilding, which means at least several years of being noncompetitive. So BC is playing with semantics. He says “If I think about the word rebuild, what comes to my mind is a team that has been doing well that you are taking apart to then rebuild it..." One of NH's duties as GM was to spin thing that the fans were not going to like. BC has inherited that chore now. Such is life working for Bob Nutting. Although I think the fans would prefer honesty.
So apparently, you can't rebuild a bad team; only a good one. His explanation of the nonrebuild rebuild is “We’re not tearing something down to start over,” Cherington told the Post-Gazette on Wednesday. “We are simply taking a team that wasn’t good enough or wasn’t as good as we wanted to be last year, but has a group of players with a chance to be much better, and we’re trying to build on that.”
His spin notwithstanding, there is no surprise there. He wants to see if the players they have can be developed to be better as opposed to deciding immediately upon being named GM that many players have to be replaced (which Nutting would never pay for anyway). Hopefully there will be different philosophies for pitching (much needed if we are to believe Cole and Glasnow), minor league development and drafting. If the new regime is good at those things, it theoretically could pay off in the long run but only if Nutting will pay to keep or obtain talent as needed. BC can call it whatever he wants (I get the refusal to admit it's a rebuild for the sake of selling tickets) but it's obvious what he's doing. I just hope he's good at it.
https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/pir ... 2002050151
So apparently, you can't rebuild a bad team; only a good one. His explanation of the nonrebuild rebuild is “We’re not tearing something down to start over,” Cherington told the Post-Gazette on Wednesday. “We are simply taking a team that wasn’t good enough or wasn’t as good as we wanted to be last year, but has a group of players with a chance to be much better, and we’re trying to build on that.”
His spin notwithstanding, there is no surprise there. He wants to see if the players they have can be developed to be better as opposed to deciding immediately upon being named GM that many players have to be replaced (which Nutting would never pay for anyway). Hopefully there will be different philosophies for pitching (much needed if we are to believe Cole and Glasnow), minor league development and drafting. If the new regime is good at those things, it theoretically could pay off in the long run but only if Nutting will pay to keep or obtain talent as needed. BC can call it whatever he wants (I get the refusal to admit it's a rebuild for the sake of selling tickets) but it's obvious what he's doing. I just hope he's good at it.
https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/pir ... 2002050151
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Has anything really changed
0C20282F2403342232410 wrote: Quail
I too admire defensive talent, but when 3 of the 4 position players that BC has signed have hit less than .200, it is a bit hard to feel good about their defensive prowess. Further, none of these players really have a long-term upside or even offer much in the way of trying to tread water. The only real common denominators among the four are that they all have at most a 1 year contract, a low salary and that they were available as free agents as opposed to trades.
While I am bracing myself for what will likely be a lot of bad baseball this year, I also understand and support the sentiment that more could be done to make this year's team better without sacrificing or compromising the longer-term objective --- building for the future. I strongly supported trading Marte and I am comfortable with the return. I also have advocated trading others, such as Frazier and Kela (if they could command a decent return).
As you and others have pointed out, why couldn't the Nut tell BC that the franchise can spend up to $20 to $25 mil more to bring in some replacement talent. At a minimum, someone who is a true CF'er and some more depth arms for the starting rotation. For example, the Dodgers, in the aftermath of the Betts/Price trade, chose to send salary and some excess outfield and pitching talent, Pederson and Stripling, to the Angels. The talent coming back to the Dodgers did not seem that high. Why not offer Frazier, a middling prospect and $2 mil to the Dodgers to try and add Pederson's sock to the line-up. Geez, he also bats LH and would be at worst a logical platoon candidate for both CF and RF when Polanco inevitably goes down with shoulder problems come June.
Oh well, I guess its Maile and Riddle to the rescue, with Eflin to serve as the depth to what is now a relatively weak starting rotation. May have to start resorting to drinking Guiness again this year because there is only so much ice cream I can consume to keep my depression at bay.
I think it would be a hard sell to Nutting if BC went to him asking for another $25 million to acquire good players who'll only be here for a year just so the team can win 78 games. Nutting would tell BC that winning 64 games with minimum wage players for the same one year period is a smarter business decision. I always try to remember what Nutting has demonstrated to be his first truth about running the Pirates: "Saving/making money always takes precedence".
I too admire defensive talent, but when 3 of the 4 position players that BC has signed have hit less than .200, it is a bit hard to feel good about their defensive prowess. Further, none of these players really have a long-term upside or even offer much in the way of trying to tread water. The only real common denominators among the four are that they all have at most a 1 year contract, a low salary and that they were available as free agents as opposed to trades.
While I am bracing myself for what will likely be a lot of bad baseball this year, I also understand and support the sentiment that more could be done to make this year's team better without sacrificing or compromising the longer-term objective --- building for the future. I strongly supported trading Marte and I am comfortable with the return. I also have advocated trading others, such as Frazier and Kela (if they could command a decent return).
As you and others have pointed out, why couldn't the Nut tell BC that the franchise can spend up to $20 to $25 mil more to bring in some replacement talent. At a minimum, someone who is a true CF'er and some more depth arms for the starting rotation. For example, the Dodgers, in the aftermath of the Betts/Price trade, chose to send salary and some excess outfield and pitching talent, Pederson and Stripling, to the Angels. The talent coming back to the Dodgers did not seem that high. Why not offer Frazier, a middling prospect and $2 mil to the Dodgers to try and add Pederson's sock to the line-up. Geez, he also bats LH and would be at worst a logical platoon candidate for both CF and RF when Polanco inevitably goes down with shoulder problems come June.
Oh well, I guess its Maile and Riddle to the rescue, with Eflin to serve as the depth to what is now a relatively weak starting rotation. May have to start resorting to drinking Guiness again this year because there is only so much ice cream I can consume to keep my depression at bay.
I think it would be a hard sell to Nutting if BC went to him asking for another $25 million to acquire good players who'll only be here for a year just so the team can win 78 games. Nutting would tell BC that winning 64 games with minimum wage players for the same one year period is a smarter business decision. I always try to remember what Nutting has demonstrated to be his first truth about running the Pirates: "Saving/making money always takes precedence".
Has anything really changed
557875646372652526170 wrote: Apparently the word "rebuild" is taboo in the Pirates front office. Season tickets don't sell too well when you admit to rebuilding, which means at least several years of being noncompetitive. So BC is playing with semantics. He says “If I think about the word rebuild, what comes to my mind is a team that has been doing well that you are taking apart to then rebuild it..." One of NH's duties as GM was to spin thing that the fans were not going to like. BC has inherited that chore now. Such is life working for Bob Nutting. Although I think the fans would prefer honesty.
So apparently, you can't rebuild a bad team; only a good one. His explanation of the nonrebuild rebuild is “We’re not tearing something down to start over,” Cherington told the Post-Gazette on Wednesday. “[highlight]We are simply taking a team that wasn’t good enough or wasn’t as good as we wanted to be last year, but has a group of players with a chance to be much better, and we’re trying to build on that[/highlight].”
His spin notwithstanding, there is no surprise there. He wants to see if the players they have can be developed to be better as opposed to deciding immediately upon being named GM that many players have to be replaced (which Nutting would never pay for anyway). Hopefully there will be different philosophies for pitching (much needed if we are to believe Cole and Glasnow), minor league development and drafting. If the new regime is good at those things, it theoretically could pay off in the long run but only if Nutting will pay to keep or obtain talent as needed. BC can call it whatever he wants (I get the refusal to admit it's a rebuild for the sake of selling tickets) but it's obvious what he's doing. I just hope he's good at it.
https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/pir ... 2002050151
I can't stand quotes like these and he is talking about a group of players with a chance to be much better at some point in the future. He is not talking about better in the next couple of seasons. If it isn't a rebuild, it is just a build?
Even the worst team in baseball has talent. So far I don't see that BC is doing any better communicating with fans than NH and company.
So apparently, you can't rebuild a bad team; only a good one. His explanation of the nonrebuild rebuild is “We’re not tearing something down to start over,” Cherington told the Post-Gazette on Wednesday. “[highlight]We are simply taking a team that wasn’t good enough or wasn’t as good as we wanted to be last year, but has a group of players with a chance to be much better, and we’re trying to build on that[/highlight].”
His spin notwithstanding, there is no surprise there. He wants to see if the players they have can be developed to be better as opposed to deciding immediately upon being named GM that many players have to be replaced (which Nutting would never pay for anyway). Hopefully there will be different philosophies for pitching (much needed if we are to believe Cole and Glasnow), minor league development and drafting. If the new regime is good at those things, it theoretically could pay off in the long run but only if Nutting will pay to keep or obtain talent as needed. BC can call it whatever he wants (I get the refusal to admit it's a rebuild for the sake of selling tickets) but it's obvious what he's doing. I just hope he's good at it.
https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/pir ... 2002050151
I can't stand quotes like these and he is talking about a group of players with a chance to be much better at some point in the future. He is not talking about better in the next couple of seasons. If it isn't a rebuild, it is just a build?
Even the worst team in baseball has talent. So far I don't see that BC is doing any better communicating with fans than NH and company.