4479676A656F64466E79686E6F0B0 wrote:
They do excel at drafting prep pitchers,
Can you provide a list of the successful major league pitchers, that were prep pitchers that NH has drafted and developed?
I'm not talking about prep pitchers that you thought seemed like good picks but flamed out, or picks that didn't cost much in term of signing bonus or late round picks that made AAA.
I'm talking about prep pitchers that are experiencing good major league careers, drafted and developed by NH that brought you to the conclusion that he and his guys excel at drafting prep pitchers.
The real problem
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
rucker59@gmail.com
The real problem
7A6D627A6B7F666B7E660A0 wrote: Well you all can jump on me but I think he was average, with good and bad like many GM's throughout the history of drafting in the first round.
Since I've been a fan and lived through DL(nice man) NH has done some very good things and in my estimation the only bad 1st. rounder he picked was Tony Sanchez and that was a bad draft for 1st. rounder's. Taillon has a chance to be a stud, Cole was highly touted and is good, Appel was replaced by Meadows and I think he's going to be good. McGuire still has a chance and the later ones other than Joe are still progressing. The Josh Bell pick changed the draft and I give a lot of credit to NH for that.
As far as the later rounds he's found a few and that's a plus. I also give him loads of credit for what he's done other than the draft with regard to the positioning infielders, Burnett, Martin, JA Happ,Liriano, Melancon, Rivero, etc. I'm sure if I had more time I could come up with more however I have to work.
Overall I'd give him a C+, so hammer me I can take it.
I took a different route but came to basically the same conclusion. Somehow, despite terrible drafts and player development and no resources he’s putting a near-.500 club on the field in a tough division. I’m not satisfied with the results but the results are better than seems possible considering all the negatives.
Since I've been a fan and lived through DL(nice man) NH has done some very good things and in my estimation the only bad 1st. rounder he picked was Tony Sanchez and that was a bad draft for 1st. rounder's. Taillon has a chance to be a stud, Cole was highly touted and is good, Appel was replaced by Meadows and I think he's going to be good. McGuire still has a chance and the later ones other than Joe are still progressing. The Josh Bell pick changed the draft and I give a lot of credit to NH for that.
As far as the later rounds he's found a few and that's a plus. I also give him loads of credit for what he's done other than the draft with regard to the positioning infielders, Burnett, Martin, JA Happ,Liriano, Melancon, Rivero, etc. I'm sure if I had more time I could come up with more however I have to work.
Overall I'd give him a C+, so hammer me I can take it.
I took a different route but came to basically the same conclusion. Somehow, despite terrible drafts and player development and no resources he’s putting a near-.500 club on the field in a tough division. I’m not satisfied with the results but the results are better than seems possible considering all the negatives.
-
Bobster21
The real problem
687F7068796D74796C74180 wrote: Well you all can jump on me but I think he was average, with good and bad like many GM's throughout the history of drafting in the first round.
Since I've been a fan and lived through DL(nice man) NH has done some very good things and in my estimation the only bad 1st. rounder he picked was Tony Sanchez and that was a bad draft for 1st. rounder's. Taillon has a chance to be a stud, Cole was highly touted and is good, Appel was replaced by Meadows and I think he's going to be good. McGuire still has a chance and the later ones other than Joe are still progressing. The Josh Bell pick changed the draft and I give a lot of credit to NH for that.
As far as the later rounds he's found a few and that's a plus. I also give him loads of credit for what he's done other than the draft with regard to the positioning infielders, Burnett, Martin, JA Happ,Liriano, Melancon, Rivero, etc. I'm sure if I had more time I could come up with more however I have to work.
Overall I'd give him a C+, so hammer me I can take it.
That's fair but I think a team that operates under the severe financial constraints of Nutting needs better than a C+ GM.
Since I've been a fan and lived through DL(nice man) NH has done some very good things and in my estimation the only bad 1st. rounder he picked was Tony Sanchez and that was a bad draft for 1st. rounder's. Taillon has a chance to be a stud, Cole was highly touted and is good, Appel was replaced by Meadows and I think he's going to be good. McGuire still has a chance and the later ones other than Joe are still progressing. The Josh Bell pick changed the draft and I give a lot of credit to NH for that.
As far as the later rounds he's found a few and that's a plus. I also give him loads of credit for what he's done other than the draft with regard to the positioning infielders, Burnett, Martin, JA Happ,Liriano, Melancon, Rivero, etc. I'm sure if I had more time I could come up with more however I have to work.
Overall I'd give him a C+, so hammer me I can take it.
That's fair but I think a team that operates under the severe financial constraints of Nutting needs better than a C+ GM.
The real problem
7D505D4C4B5A4D0D0E3F0 wrote: I agree with the article too. Teams that win, for the most part, build that core of young talent. The Pirates have not drafted well. This is my biggest knock on Huntington. Also why I blame him more than Nutting.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
The real problem
31302B3A2C6C6B5F0 wrote: I agree with the article too. Teams that win, for the most part, build that core of young talent. The Pirates have not drafted well. This is my biggest knock on Huntington. Also why I blame him more than Nutting.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
The real problem
When he was considered a good GM, it was because he made some very good FA signings that worked out. Liriano, Martin, Volquez. Traded for Burnett. Acquired Kang.
While this happened, the young guys were still prospects. Helping some and looking good. Marte, Polanco, Cole, Pedro initially. And the DL guys, Cutch and Walker we're producing.
That ship has sailed. That team is gone. Through trades, busts and in Kangs case, DUI.
What replaced it isn't very good.
While this happened, the young guys were still prospects. Helping some and looking good. Marte, Polanco, Cole, Pedro initially. And the DL guys, Cutch and Walker we're producing.
That ship has sailed. That team is gone. Through trades, busts and in Kangs case, DUI.
What replaced it isn't very good.
-
OrlandoMerced
The real problem
7555465B5A340 wrote:
They do excel at drafting prep pitchers,
Can you provide a list of the successful major league pitchers, that were prep pitchers that NH has drafted and developed?
I'm not talking about prep pitchers that you thought seemed like good picks but flamed out, or picks that didn't cost much in term of signing bonus or late round picks that made AAA.
I'm talking about prep pitchers that are experiencing good major league careers, drafted and developed by NH that brought you to the conclusion that he and his guys excel at drafting prep pitchers.
Well, Taillon. I also imagine the total number of high school pitchers drafted since 2010 that have had ML success is small. Probably somewhere between 25-40. The Pirates have one of those guys, and they also have Glasnow, Kingham, Holmes and Keller in the system at the moment.
I would suggest you go through past drafts, The hit rate on an ML draft pick is probably like 20% in the first round and 5% overall. That's why I have a problem with complaining about the Pirate drafting. They have some clear whiffs, but they have struck enough times to consider them at least a league average team in the draft. They also need to do a better job at signing picks, Guys they drafted and didn't sign include, Buehler, Trea Turner and Paul Dejong.
They do excel at drafting prep pitchers,
Can you provide a list of the successful major league pitchers, that were prep pitchers that NH has drafted and developed?
I'm not talking about prep pitchers that you thought seemed like good picks but flamed out, or picks that didn't cost much in term of signing bonus or late round picks that made AAA.
I'm talking about prep pitchers that are experiencing good major league careers, drafted and developed by NH that brought you to the conclusion that he and his guys excel at drafting prep pitchers.
Well, Taillon. I also imagine the total number of high school pitchers drafted since 2010 that have had ML success is small. Probably somewhere between 25-40. The Pirates have one of those guys, and they also have Glasnow, Kingham, Holmes and Keller in the system at the moment.
I would suggest you go through past drafts, The hit rate on an ML draft pick is probably like 20% in the first round and 5% overall. That's why I have a problem with complaining about the Pirate drafting. They have some clear whiffs, but they have struck enough times to consider them at least a league average team in the draft. They also need to do a better job at signing picks, Guys they drafted and didn't sign include, Buehler, Trea Turner and Paul Dejong.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
The real problem
28212938364C0 wrote: When he was considered a good GM, it was because he made some very good FA signings that worked out. Liriano, Martin, Volquez. Traded for Burnett. Acquired Kang.
While this happened, the young guys were still prospects. Helping some and looking good. Marte, Polanco, Cole, Pedro initially. And the DL guys, Cutch and Walker we're producing.
That ship has sailed. That team is gone. Through trades, busts and in Kangs case, DUI.
What replaced it isn't very good.
The last thing I want to do is defend the FO, but most of my frustration is directed to the owner. I also have lots of issues with Neal, including lots of total BS that spews from the FO. But I’m treating the present like a second cycle Neal is now in the midst of building. Unfortunately for him he won’t admit to a rebuild for some reason, but even Nutting said they are primarily looking toward 2019, 2020.
He possibly pulled a 3rd base and left field here Late that could, possibly match up with Bell and some potentially good arms and a few prospects that are on the verge.
What I just described is pretty close to the first cycle with a couple reclamation projects, a couple prospects, and a couple DL players and suddenly the Pirates were winning 90+ games.
I’m not predicting this to happen, but I’m willing to acknowledge that if things break right this could be a contending team by next year. If that happens Neal will look like a genius and we’ll be back where we were two years ago - FINISH THE TEAM!!!
Neal has lots of issues that hurt his grade, but I’m willing to acknowledge he’s done it once and I can see similarities to this rebuild. Let’s hope some key players produce - who knows.
None of this excuses the crapola of the past few years. But maybe next year....
While this happened, the young guys were still prospects. Helping some and looking good. Marte, Polanco, Cole, Pedro initially. And the DL guys, Cutch and Walker we're producing.
That ship has sailed. That team is gone. Through trades, busts and in Kangs case, DUI.
What replaced it isn't very good.
The last thing I want to do is defend the FO, but most of my frustration is directed to the owner. I also have lots of issues with Neal, including lots of total BS that spews from the FO. But I’m treating the present like a second cycle Neal is now in the midst of building. Unfortunately for him he won’t admit to a rebuild for some reason, but even Nutting said they are primarily looking toward 2019, 2020.
He possibly pulled a 3rd base and left field here Late that could, possibly match up with Bell and some potentially good arms and a few prospects that are on the verge.
What I just described is pretty close to the first cycle with a couple reclamation projects, a couple prospects, and a couple DL players and suddenly the Pirates were winning 90+ games.
I’m not predicting this to happen, but I’m willing to acknowledge that if things break right this could be a contending team by next year. If that happens Neal will look like a genius and we’ll be back where we were two years ago - FINISH THE TEAM!!!
Neal has lots of issues that hurt his grade, but I’m willing to acknowledge he’s done it once and I can see similarities to this rebuild. Let’s hope some key players produce - who knows.
None of this excuses the crapola of the past few years. But maybe next year....
-
Bobster21
The real problem
7279717D7879622721566F777E7979387579160 wrote: I agree with the article too. Teams that win, for the most part, build that core of young talent. The Pirates have not drafted well. This is my biggest knock on Huntington. Also why I blame him more than Nutting.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Dog, it sounds like you're talking more about his legacy. If so, I would agree with your point that he built up a bad organization and has done more good than bad. OTOH, if we're talking about his current performance as a GM, I'd say he leaves a lot to be desired. As you said, he has not drafted well and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. I don't think he has functioned well as a GM these past 3 years. And we are in the here and now. That doesn't mean he didn't do a better job at an earlier time. But legacy and current performance are 2 different things.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Dog, it sounds like you're talking more about his legacy. If so, I would agree with your point that he built up a bad organization and has done more good than bad. OTOH, if we're talking about his current performance as a GM, I'd say he leaves a lot to be desired. As you said, he has not drafted well and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. I don't think he has functioned well as a GM these past 3 years. And we are in the here and now. That doesn't mean he didn't do a better job at an earlier time. But legacy and current performance are 2 different things.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
The real problem
092429383F2E39797A4B0 wrote: I agree with the article too. Teams that win, for the most part, build that core of young talent. The Pirates have not drafted well. This is my biggest knock on Huntington. Also why I blame him more than Nutting.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Dog, it sounds like you're talking more about his legacy. If so, I would agree with your point that he built up a bad organization and has done more good than bad. OTOH, if we're talking about his current performance as a GM, I'd say he leaves a lot to be desired. As you said, he has not drafted well and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. I don't think he has functioned well as a GM these past 3 years. And we are in the here and now. That doesn't mean he didn't do a better job at an earlier time. But legacy and current performance are 2 different things.
I was commenting on this statement:
"I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can say NH is a good GM. He has proven that he clearly is not."
Overall, he has proven to be a good GM. Yes, I look at the whole picture than just a few years. It can change for sure, but at this point he has been a good GM, overall.
Do you rate players the same way? Just look at their bad years and not consider what they did overall. That isn't fair in my opinion.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Dog, it sounds like you're talking more about his legacy. If so, I would agree with your point that he built up a bad organization and has done more good than bad. OTOH, if we're talking about his current performance as a GM, I'd say he leaves a lot to be desired. As you said, he has not drafted well and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. I don't think he has functioned well as a GM these past 3 years. And we are in the here and now. That doesn't mean he didn't do a better job at an earlier time. But legacy and current performance are 2 different things.
I was commenting on this statement:
"I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can say NH is a good GM. He has proven that he clearly is not."
Overall, he has proven to be a good GM. Yes, I look at the whole picture than just a few years. It can change for sure, but at this point he has been a good GM, overall.
Do you rate players the same way? Just look at their bad years and not consider what they did overall. That isn't fair in my opinion.