0B262B3A3D2C3B7B78490 wrote: For me, under Coonelly, Huntington, and Hurdle, it was the chicken and the egg conundrum. Were they bad at identifying amateur talent or were they bad at developing players? The answer is, they were bad at both. But making it worse was that each decision made regarding their players started with, and centered on, money. That's because of the one guy still here: Nutting. It crippled them then, and it'll continue to for as long as he owns the team. That's the way it is when profit, rather than winning, is the motive.
Drafting and developing should not be dependent on money. In was, however, with Tony Sanchez. It wasn't with Alvarez, Cole, Meadows and Glasnow. But they overrated Alvarez, underrated Meadows and poorly developed Cole and Glasnow. They also failed to develop Morton. Basically, anything they could do wrong they did do wrong.
Doing things wrong was the one thing they were good at.
Bobby Bo Day
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
Bobby Bo Day
693F293D322838333E291B3C363A323775385B0 wrote: For me, under Coonelly, Huntington, and Hurdle, it was the chicken and the egg conundrum. Were they bad at identifying amateur talent or were they bad at developing players? The answer is, they were bad at both. But making it worse was that each decision made regarding their players started with, and centered on, money. That's because of the one guy still here: Nutting. It crippled them then, and it'll continue to for as long as he owns the team. That's the way it is when profit, rather than winning, is the motive.
Drafting and developing should not be dependent on money. In was, however, with Tony Sanchez. It wasn't with Alvarez, Cole, Meadows and Glasnow. But they overrated Alvarez, underrated Meadows and poorly developed Cole and Glasnow. They also failed to develop Morton. Basically, anything they could do wrong they did do wrong.
Doing things wrong was the one thing they were good at.
At least they were good at something.
Drafting and developing should not be dependent on money. In was, however, with Tony Sanchez. It wasn't with Alvarez, Cole, Meadows and Glasnow. But they overrated Alvarez, underrated Meadows and poorly developed Cole and Glasnow. They also failed to develop Morton. Basically, anything they could do wrong they did do wrong.
Doing things wrong was the one thing they were good at.
At least they were good at something.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Bobby Bo Day
163B36272031266665540 wrote: For me, under Coonelly, Huntington, and Hurdle, it was the chicken and the egg conundrum. Were they bad at identifying amateur talent or were they bad at developing players? The answer is, they were bad at both. But making it worse was that each decision made regarding their players started with, and centered on, money. That's because of the one guy still here: Nutting. It crippled them then, and it'll continue to for as long as he owns the team. That's the way it is when profit, rather than winning, is the motive.
Drafting and developing should not be dependent on money. In was, however, with Tony Sanchez. It wasn't with Alvarez, Cole, Meadows and Glasnow. But they overrated Alvarez, underrated Meadows and poorly developed Cole and Glasnow. They also failed to develop Morton. Basically, anything they could do wrong they did do wrong.
Doing things wrong was the one thing they were good at.
At least they were good at something.
:'(
Drafting and developing should not be dependent on money. In was, however, with Tony Sanchez. It wasn't with Alvarez, Cole, Meadows and Glasnow. But they overrated Alvarez, underrated Meadows and poorly developed Cole and Glasnow. They also failed to develop Morton. Basically, anything they could do wrong they did do wrong.
Doing things wrong was the one thing they were good at.
At least they were good at something.
:'(
-
JollyRoger
- Posts: 1469
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:31 pm
Bobby Bo Day
4E565453534455524F4E583D0 wrote: You can bet a lot more about BOB.
He will never pay for that level of talent.
This kind of talk help us give away Glasnow, Meadows, for that infamous great pitcher Chris Archer. It was almost like if they didn't make a move they were going to get called such awful names by fans calling them cheap that NH and BN were willing to do anything. Hope Cherington is stronger than NH and will walk away from stupid stuff no matter how much pressure from fans and media. May be wrong but it can't help by fans constantly complaining about how cheap the organization is. I'm not one who subscribes to spending more money is the only answer. I believe it's better to spend money wisely and not like a drunken sailor to achieve success. It's obvious NH was worse than drunk when he made that deal. Most of the free agents I see are over priced, that's why there free agents, duh. I want to see good draft picks, timely call ups, and trades that help the organization. I had no problem with the trade of Marte, the guy was just a head case with worlds of talent. Glasnow was mishandled from the get go by a awful NH, and CH. Instead of giving him a chance to succeed they broke him down mentally just awful. I wrote about it while it was happening, it was easy to see from where I sit. The way they were handling Chad Kuhl was awful, I wrote about that, saying I hoped his dad would talk to him about how drastically he had changed his pitching style, it was putting to much pressure on his arm, sadly no one stopped what was obviously going to happen. The way they handled Meadows was atrocious he was tearing it up but then a non productive regular returned from the injured list and he was benched. These are just a few of the not so smart baseball under CH, NH, and FC. I'm a long time baseball fan whose not just doing 20/20 hindsight, I wrote about these things while they were happening. I watch religiously and I'm no genius just a sincere fan who loved the Pirates from the first time I saw Clemente play.
Spending money wasn't the answer to any of few problems I just outlined it was about competent baseball management. I hope that's what Cherington brings to the Pirates and only time will tell.
If Huntington made that- or any other decision- based on "fan pressure," then he would have deserved to lose his job long before he did.
It was the result of poor evaluation, cut and dry.
Nobody that I'm aware of said it about LittleYield's Morris move.
The Pirates organization IS cheap. It has been incompetent. There is no getting around that.
And, we're seeing the result.
I agree about mishandling Glasnow. I am also hopeful that the 2 prospects received for Marte will will develop into core players.
Meadows was mishandled as well but that was again a financial decision to not start the super 2 clock. I don’t care how much you blame poor talent evaluation, mishandling of players, in game decisions, yes those are all part of the equation. But the BIGGEST part of the equation which makes the other factors important, is running the organization on a shoe string budget. It is beyond deplorable that the Pirates will have a team payroll that is 50% of the ML average. Until they are willing to pay for an average ML payroll the only chance they will ever have is if they catch lightening in a bottle and I don’t like those odds.
Probably true that Meadows Super 2 clock was a factor but I think it was more how stupid CH was about playing veterans ahead of rookies no matter how poor the vets are playing. Further if was all about money why did they take on Archer contract ahead of keeping Glasnow and Meadows. If it was only about money that theory doesn't work period. No one really knows but I do know that CH development of players was awful the longer he was with the Pirates. He was all about veterans many unproductive or with no long term benefit to the Pirates. His last three years were just awful. He obviously had a stud in Cole and he got almost nothing out of him, now how do you do something like that. If Cole couldn't succeed within the Pirates system then who could and it's obvious their's a problem with management that had nothing to do with money the years he was with the Pirates. If I was running the show I'd try my darnest to sign Musgrove, and Williams to long term contracts. Musgrove is a fierce competitor and so is Williams. If BN wants to show it's not just about money he would spend money on these guys, instead of wasting money on the disaster Archer.
Actually Archer’s contract was very team friendly and probably a big reason they traded for him. Player development is not a major responsibility of a ML Manager. That falls on the player development staff. A player is supposed to be ready to play at the ML level when he is called up. That cannot be blamed on CH. Too many of the players called up last year were not ready or did not have the talent to be in the Majors. Especially true of the endless parade of dreadful relievers. Of course the Pirates were hit with a high number of injuries and did not have the depth to survive them all. Again a big reason for that is financial.
He will never pay for that level of talent.
This kind of talk help us give away Glasnow, Meadows, for that infamous great pitcher Chris Archer. It was almost like if they didn't make a move they were going to get called such awful names by fans calling them cheap that NH and BN were willing to do anything. Hope Cherington is stronger than NH and will walk away from stupid stuff no matter how much pressure from fans and media. May be wrong but it can't help by fans constantly complaining about how cheap the organization is. I'm not one who subscribes to spending more money is the only answer. I believe it's better to spend money wisely and not like a drunken sailor to achieve success. It's obvious NH was worse than drunk when he made that deal. Most of the free agents I see are over priced, that's why there free agents, duh. I want to see good draft picks, timely call ups, and trades that help the organization. I had no problem with the trade of Marte, the guy was just a head case with worlds of talent. Glasnow was mishandled from the get go by a awful NH, and CH. Instead of giving him a chance to succeed they broke him down mentally just awful. I wrote about it while it was happening, it was easy to see from where I sit. The way they were handling Chad Kuhl was awful, I wrote about that, saying I hoped his dad would talk to him about how drastically he had changed his pitching style, it was putting to much pressure on his arm, sadly no one stopped what was obviously going to happen. The way they handled Meadows was atrocious he was tearing it up but then a non productive regular returned from the injured list and he was benched. These are just a few of the not so smart baseball under CH, NH, and FC. I'm a long time baseball fan whose not just doing 20/20 hindsight, I wrote about these things while they were happening. I watch religiously and I'm no genius just a sincere fan who loved the Pirates from the first time I saw Clemente play.
Spending money wasn't the answer to any of few problems I just outlined it was about competent baseball management. I hope that's what Cherington brings to the Pirates and only time will tell.
If Huntington made that- or any other decision- based on "fan pressure," then he would have deserved to lose his job long before he did.
It was the result of poor evaluation, cut and dry.
Nobody that I'm aware of said it about LittleYield's Morris move.
The Pirates organization IS cheap. It has been incompetent. There is no getting around that.
And, we're seeing the result.
I agree about mishandling Glasnow. I am also hopeful that the 2 prospects received for Marte will will develop into core players.
Meadows was mishandled as well but that was again a financial decision to not start the super 2 clock. I don’t care how much you blame poor talent evaluation, mishandling of players, in game decisions, yes those are all part of the equation. But the BIGGEST part of the equation which makes the other factors important, is running the organization on a shoe string budget. It is beyond deplorable that the Pirates will have a team payroll that is 50% of the ML average. Until they are willing to pay for an average ML payroll the only chance they will ever have is if they catch lightening in a bottle and I don’t like those odds.
Probably true that Meadows Super 2 clock was a factor but I think it was more how stupid CH was about playing veterans ahead of rookies no matter how poor the vets are playing. Further if was all about money why did they take on Archer contract ahead of keeping Glasnow and Meadows. If it was only about money that theory doesn't work period. No one really knows but I do know that CH development of players was awful the longer he was with the Pirates. He was all about veterans many unproductive or with no long term benefit to the Pirates. His last three years were just awful. He obviously had a stud in Cole and he got almost nothing out of him, now how do you do something like that. If Cole couldn't succeed within the Pirates system then who could and it's obvious their's a problem with management that had nothing to do with money the years he was with the Pirates. If I was running the show I'd try my darnest to sign Musgrove, and Williams to long term contracts. Musgrove is a fierce competitor and so is Williams. If BN wants to show it's not just about money he would spend money on these guys, instead of wasting money on the disaster Archer.
Actually Archer’s contract was very team friendly and probably a big reason they traded for him. Player development is not a major responsibility of a ML Manager. That falls on the player development staff. A player is supposed to be ready to play at the ML level when he is called up. That cannot be blamed on CH. Too many of the players called up last year were not ready or did not have the talent to be in the Majors. Especially true of the endless parade of dreadful relievers. Of course the Pirates were hit with a high number of injuries and did not have the depth to survive them all. Again a big reason for that is financial.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Bobby Bo Day
The things that made us "successful" (if making post-season play and early exits meets one's definintion of 'successful') were getting some good play from some lesser-experienced players, hitting paydirt with reclamation projects or undervalued players from other organizations, and, of course- the fine play from Andrew McCutchen, arguably the best offenseive, and possibly just 'best, period' talent the team's had since Barry Bonds bolted.
Looking at those three contributing factors, just my opinions:
A) Fine play from lesser-experienced players: Your guesses are as good as mine when it comes to suspects. For every one that does well, there are ten that don't amount to much. Those who have come behind haven't done as well. We're hanging our hats on guys like Mustgroove. Good luck with that.
B) Capitalizing on reclamation projects/undervalued talent from other organizations: I haven't seen anyone remind me of Happ/Martin/Burnett. For every three who do well, there are thirteen who are never seen again west of Asia.
This takes some amount of money to draw the guys to The Burgh, but not nearly as much as blue chippers who won't even consider it.
C) Superior talent. Let's just say that neither Bell nor Polanco rise to McCutchen's talent. Few do. And, the only reason we had Andrew is because he wanted to stay long enough and was willing to sign a BOB-friendly contract.
I don't see us matching that, let alone exceeding it. I hope I'm wrong.
And, this takes a boatload of money. Maybe two boatloads, depending on the size of the boats.
Looking at those three contributing factors, just my opinions:
A) Fine play from lesser-experienced players: Your guesses are as good as mine when it comes to suspects. For every one that does well, there are ten that don't amount to much. Those who have come behind haven't done as well. We're hanging our hats on guys like Mustgroove. Good luck with that.
B) Capitalizing on reclamation projects/undervalued talent from other organizations: I haven't seen anyone remind me of Happ/Martin/Burnett. For every three who do well, there are thirteen who are never seen again west of Asia.
This takes some amount of money to draw the guys to The Burgh, but not nearly as much as blue chippers who won't even consider it.
C) Superior talent. Let's just say that neither Bell nor Polanco rise to McCutchen's talent. Few do. And, the only reason we had Andrew is because he wanted to stay long enough and was willing to sign a BOB-friendly contract.
I don't see us matching that, let alone exceeding it. I hope I'm wrong.
And, this takes a boatload of money. Maybe two boatloads, depending on the size of the boats.
-
Bobster21
Bobby Bo Day
4B7E6969625B69696265690C0 wrote: The things that made us "successful" (if making post-season play and early exits meets one's definition of 'successful') were getting some good play from some lesser-experienced players, hitting paydirt with reclamation projects or undervalued players from other organizations, and, of course- the fine play from Andrew McCutchen, arguably the best offensive, and possibly just 'best, period' talent the team's had since Barry Bonds bolted.
Looking at those three contributing factors, just my opinions:
A) Fine play from lesser-experienced players: Your guesses are as good as mine when it comes to suspects. For every one that does well, there are ten that don't amount to much. Those who have come behind haven't done as well. We're hanging our hats on guys like Mustgrove. Good luck with that.
B) Capitalizing on reclamation projects/undervalued talent from other organizations: I haven't seen anyone remind me of Happ/Martin/Burnett. For every three who do well, there are thirteen who are never seen again west of Asia.
This takes some amount of money to draw the guys to The Burgh, but not nearly as much as blue chippers who won't even consider it.
C) Superior talent. Let's just say that neither Bell nor Polanco rise to McCutchen's talent. Few do. And, the only reason we had Andrew is because he wanted to stay long enough and was willing to sign a BOB-friendly contract.
I don't see us matching that, let alone exceeding it. I hope I'm wrong.
And, this takes a boatload of money. Maybe two boatloads, depending on the size of the boats.
The organization has been so messed up for so long. I remember Bryan Bullington being the 1st pick overall in 2002 and DL proclaiming he projected as a middle of the rotation starter. Zack Greinke went 5 picks later but I guess he projected as a top of the rotation guy and the Bucs had a desperate need in the middle.
Bullington and I have the same number of wins for the Pirates and he has only 1 more career win than me. Alvarez was projected as a franchise stud hitter. Turned out all he could do was launch one over the fence if the pitcher left one over the plate. Otherwise couldn't hit, catch or throw. Cole was projected as a stud pitcher. They were right but only after he followed the lead of Charlie Morton and had a chance to learn from another organization. Polanco was hailed as an outstanding outfielder who could play CF while being a stud hitter. Turned out to be a consistent .250 hitter and liability in the OF. Tony Sanchez was taken 4th overall with the explanation that his signability enhanced their ability to sign other picks. So Sanchez was taken ahead of Mike Leake, Mike Minor, Zack Wheeler, A.J. Pollock, James Paxton and that Trout guy who plays for the Angels. But the later picks that year who made an impact with the Pirates thanks to the money saved on Sanchez were [cue the crickets]. If they won't spend, then they better at least draft, evaluate and develop well. But with this organization there has been no "but at least..." It's just, "yeah, we don't do that well either." Now we have a new regime. Nothing can be ascertained from this screwed up season but hopefully the new front office will "at least" be better at the things that aren't directly dependent on money.
Looking at those three contributing factors, just my opinions:
A) Fine play from lesser-experienced players: Your guesses are as good as mine when it comes to suspects. For every one that does well, there are ten that don't amount to much. Those who have come behind haven't done as well. We're hanging our hats on guys like Mustgrove. Good luck with that.
B) Capitalizing on reclamation projects/undervalued talent from other organizations: I haven't seen anyone remind me of Happ/Martin/Burnett. For every three who do well, there are thirteen who are never seen again west of Asia.
This takes some amount of money to draw the guys to The Burgh, but not nearly as much as blue chippers who won't even consider it.
C) Superior talent. Let's just say that neither Bell nor Polanco rise to McCutchen's talent. Few do. And, the only reason we had Andrew is because he wanted to stay long enough and was willing to sign a BOB-friendly contract.
I don't see us matching that, let alone exceeding it. I hope I'm wrong.
And, this takes a boatload of money. Maybe two boatloads, depending on the size of the boats.
The organization has been so messed up for so long. I remember Bryan Bullington being the 1st pick overall in 2002 and DL proclaiming he projected as a middle of the rotation starter. Zack Greinke went 5 picks later but I guess he projected as a top of the rotation guy and the Bucs had a desperate need in the middle.
Bullington and I have the same number of wins for the Pirates and he has only 1 more career win than me. Alvarez was projected as a franchise stud hitter. Turned out all he could do was launch one over the fence if the pitcher left one over the plate. Otherwise couldn't hit, catch or throw. Cole was projected as a stud pitcher. They were right but only after he followed the lead of Charlie Morton and had a chance to learn from another organization. Polanco was hailed as an outstanding outfielder who could play CF while being a stud hitter. Turned out to be a consistent .250 hitter and liability in the OF. Tony Sanchez was taken 4th overall with the explanation that his signability enhanced their ability to sign other picks. So Sanchez was taken ahead of Mike Leake, Mike Minor, Zack Wheeler, A.J. Pollock, James Paxton and that Trout guy who plays for the Angels. But the later picks that year who made an impact with the Pirates thanks to the money saved on Sanchez were [cue the crickets]. If they won't spend, then they better at least draft, evaluate and develop well. But with this organization there has been no "but at least..." It's just, "yeah, we don't do that well either." Now we have a new regime. Nothing can be ascertained from this screwed up season but hopefully the new front office will "at least" be better at the things that aren't directly dependent on money. -
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Bobby Bo Day
You WOULD have to bring these things up. I was in a bad enough mood as it was.
Zack Greinke? If Zack Greinke was with the Pirates, he would have been Zach Duke. Or, Patty Duke.
As for Alvarez, I'll be nice. I give him some slack ONLY because, without him, I'm not sure we end the CLS and make post-season play as early as we did. Andrew couldn't take that team there on his own. Talk about a flare. Zip!..... Zip. :(
Zack Greinke? If Zack Greinke was with the Pirates, he would have been Zach Duke. Or, Patty Duke.
As for Alvarez, I'll be nice. I give him some slack ONLY because, without him, I'm not sure we end the CLS and make post-season play as early as we did. Andrew couldn't take that team there on his own. Talk about a flare. Zip!..... Zip. :(