764D474C60240 wrote: We cant afford to buy pitching .So we need to go after young bats . Then we hope and pray some of our young pitchers come around. And if we are lucky the young pitching and hitting will come around at the same time and we have another 3 year window.
What happened the last 4 years is gone. Get over it .
We are starting over with some plus players and some hopeful prospects. But it all has to come together at once . Hell i just need it to be once....Onetime will get me to the end of time. :-[
I don't get this. I mean, I understand that they can't buy pitching. They also can't buy hitting. I think they can trade for both when the opportunity arises.
The last 4 years are gone, get over it? Not sure I get that one. Offensively, this is still largely the same offensive team that won 98 games and has been solid over that era. If anything, they finally sured up 1B and RF. Two habitual complaining points for a long time. Plus, they have another stud OFer on the way.
Let's be honest, their rotation was suspect over all of these years...it just worked out in most years. They won a lot running Burnett, Morton, and Locke out there. When Liriano was on, he was dominant. When he decided to not throw strikes, he was terrible. In some ways, a healthy Cole and Taillon is better than what they had last year. I certainly agree that they need to bring in at least one more pitcher. As I have said in other threads, I'd trade Marte for Carrasco or Salazar. That gives you another really solid pitcher with Cole and Taillon. I'd easily have enough confidence in Kuhl and Glasnow as the other two starters.
Most of this team is signed for awhile. I simply don't understand the mindset of urgency that seems to exist here. Though, that is a very cultural thing, I guess.
2017 Outlook
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
2017 Outlook
When NH first came on-board I wondered how he would approach building a team. Several guys before him traded any prospect who looked good as soon as the team started to show any signs of life, thinking one more veteran would put them over the top (to a winning season, at that point). NH said pitching is the most important thing and drafted pitchers and more pitchers. Those guys are starting to arrive now. I heard Theo Epstein on the radio a day or so ago saying the position players really set the tone for the team so he started with them. He noted you can always get pitching (but didn't add, 'always if you have a big budget.'). At any rate, I've been considering this an interesting comparison of approaches. The Cubs certainly have good position players. Let's hope NH's pitchers pan out as well.
2017 Outlook
3032282E385D0 wrote: When NH first came on-board I wondered how he would approach building a team. Several guys before him traded any prospect who looked good as soon as the team started to show any signs of life, thinking one more veteran would put them over the top (to a winning season, at that point). NH said pitching is the most important thing and drafted pitchers and more pitchers. Those guys are starting to arrive now. I heard Theo Epstein on the radio a day or so ago saying the position players really set the tone for the team so he started with them. He noted you can always get pitching (but didn't add, 'always if you have a big budget.'). At any rate, I've been considering this an interesting comparison of approaches. The Cubs certainly have good position players. Let's hope NH's pitchers pan out as well.
The problem is though when you go that route, your pitchers had better develop or your organization looks like Littlefield's did. Remember his run on pitchers in the first round with high picks? JVB in 01; Bullington in 02, Maholm in 03, Lincoln in 06 and then Moskos in 07. That yielded little and was a total waste.
The problem is though when you go that route, your pitchers had better develop or your organization looks like Littlefield's did. Remember his run on pitchers in the first round with high picks? JVB in 01; Bullington in 02, Maholm in 03, Lincoln in 06 and then Moskos in 07. That yielded little and was a total waste.
2017 Outlook
7E6E6F584E4E422D0 wrote: When NH first came on-board I wondered how he would approach building a team. Several guys before him traded any prospect who looked good as soon as the team started to show any signs of life, thinking one more veteran would put them over the top (to a winning season, at that point). NH said pitching is the most important thing and drafted pitchers and more pitchers. Those guys are starting to arrive now. I heard Theo Epstein on the radio a day or so ago saying the position players really set the tone for the team so he started with them. He noted you can always get pitching (but didn't add, 'always if you have a big budget.'). At any rate, I've been considering this an interesting comparison of approaches. The Cubs certainly have good position players. Let's hope NH's pitchers pan out as well.
The problem is though when you go that route, your pitchers had better develop or your organization looks like Littlefield's did. Remember his run on pitchers in the first round with high picks? JVB in 01; Bullington in 02, Maholm in 03, Lincoln in 06 and then Moskos in 07. That yielded little and was a total waste.
That's a very good point. Though, I'd argue that those were terrible draft picks. None of those guys had any business being drafted in those slots.
Regardless, the point is still good now. Especially in this era of them drafting volatile HS kids (many of which have flamed out (Cain, Dodson, Von Rosenberg)). Also, the rise if TJ surgery is a major issue in trying to develop young pitchers.
The problem is though when you go that route, your pitchers had better develop or your organization looks like Littlefield's did. Remember his run on pitchers in the first round with high picks? JVB in 01; Bullington in 02, Maholm in 03, Lincoln in 06 and then Moskos in 07. That yielded little and was a total waste.
That's a very good point. Though, I'd argue that those were terrible draft picks. None of those guys had any business being drafted in those slots.
Regardless, the point is still good now. Especially in this era of them drafting volatile HS kids (many of which have flamed out (Cain, Dodson, Von Rosenberg)). Also, the rise if TJ surgery is a major issue in trying to develop young pitchers.
2017 Outlook
796440424C290 wrote: When NH first came on-board I wondered how he would approach building a team. Several guys before him traded any prospect who looked good as soon as the team started to show any signs of life, thinking one more veteran would put them over the top (to a winning season, at that point). NH said pitching is the most important thing and drafted pitchers and more pitchers. Those guys are starting to arrive now. I heard Theo Epstein on the radio a day or so ago saying the position players really set the tone for the team so he started with them. He noted you can always get pitching (but didn't add, 'always if you have a big budget.'). At any rate, I've been considering this an interesting comparison of approaches. The Cubs certainly have good position players. Let's hope NH's pitchers pan out as well.
The problem is though when you go that route, your pitchers had better develop or your organization looks like Littlefield's did. Remember his run on pitchers in the first round with high picks? JVB in 01; Bullington in 02, Maholm in 03, Lincoln in 06 and then Moskos in 07. That yielded little and was a total waste.
That's a very good point. Though, I'd argue that those were terrible draft picks. None of those guys had any business being drafted in those slots.
Regardless, the point is still good now. Especially in this era of them drafting volatile HS kids (many of which have flamed out (Cain, Dodson, Von Rosenberg)). Also, the rise if TJ surgery is a major issue in trying to develop young pitchers.
of them all, Moskos being selected fourth overall was the biggest crime. I always thought the Pirates had it backwards on two players. Should have put failed prospect Clinton Johnston on the mound and JVB at 1st. Bullington was a high consensus pick that failed.
The problem is though when you go that route, your pitchers had better develop or your organization looks like Littlefield's did. Remember his run on pitchers in the first round with high picks? JVB in 01; Bullington in 02, Maholm in 03, Lincoln in 06 and then Moskos in 07. That yielded little and was a total waste.
That's a very good point. Though, I'd argue that those were terrible draft picks. None of those guys had any business being drafted in those slots.
Regardless, the point is still good now. Especially in this era of them drafting volatile HS kids (many of which have flamed out (Cain, Dodson, Von Rosenberg)). Also, the rise if TJ surgery is a major issue in trying to develop young pitchers.
of them all, Moskos being selected fourth overall was the biggest crime. I always thought the Pirates had it backwards on two players. Should have put failed prospect Clinton Johnston on the mound and JVB at 1st. Bullington was a high consensus pick that failed.
2017 Outlook
44545562747478170 wrote: When NH first came on-board I wondered how he would approach building a team. Several guys before him traded any prospect who looked good as soon as the team started to show any signs of life, thinking one more veteran would put them over the top (to a winning season, at that point). NH said pitching is the most important thing and drafted pitchers and more pitchers. Those guys are starting to arrive now. I heard Theo Epstein on the radio a day or so ago saying the position players really set the tone for the team so he started with them. He noted you can always get pitching (but didn't add, 'always if you have a big budget.'). At any rate, I've been considering this an interesting comparison of approaches. The Cubs certainly have good position players. Let's hope NH's pitchers pan out as well.
The problem is though when you go that route, your pitchers had better develop or your organization looks like Littlefield's did. Remember his run on pitchers in the first round with high picks? JVB in 01; Bullington in 02, Maholm in 03, Lincoln in 06 and then Moskos in 07. That yielded little and was a total waste.
That's a very good point. Though, I'd argue that those were terrible draft picks. None of those guys had any business being drafted in those slots.
Regardless, the point is still good now. Especially in this era of them drafting volatile HS kids (many of which have flamed out (Cain, Dodson, Von Rosenberg)). Also, the rise if TJ surgery is a major issue in trying to develop young pitchers.
of them all, Moskos being selected fourth overall was the biggest crime. I always thought the Pirates had it backwards on two players. Should have put failed prospect Clinton Johnston on the mound and JVB at 1st. Bullington was a high consensus pick that failed.
Moskos was pretty highly rated but team didn't need a reliever, I was concerned they were going to take Ross Detweiler who for some reason I didn't want. Was not happy with Moskos as I really wanted Wieters (although the Bucs were too cheap). Seemed like a lot of misses in that draft.
had to look it up to be sure but the Bucs did have Johnston on mound for first three years of his career.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/regis ... hnst002cli
The problem is though when you go that route, your pitchers had better develop or your organization looks like Littlefield's did. Remember his run on pitchers in the first round with high picks? JVB in 01; Bullington in 02, Maholm in 03, Lincoln in 06 and then Moskos in 07. That yielded little and was a total waste.
That's a very good point. Though, I'd argue that those were terrible draft picks. None of those guys had any business being drafted in those slots.
Regardless, the point is still good now. Especially in this era of them drafting volatile HS kids (many of which have flamed out (Cain, Dodson, Von Rosenberg)). Also, the rise if TJ surgery is a major issue in trying to develop young pitchers.
of them all, Moskos being selected fourth overall was the biggest crime. I always thought the Pirates had it backwards on two players. Should have put failed prospect Clinton Johnston on the mound and JVB at 1st. Bullington was a high consensus pick that failed.
Moskos was pretty highly rated but team didn't need a reliever, I was concerned they were going to take Ross Detweiler who for some reason I didn't want. Was not happy with Moskos as I really wanted Wieters (although the Bucs were too cheap). Seemed like a lot of misses in that draft.
had to look it up to be sure but the Bucs did have Johnston on mound for first three years of his career.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/regis ... hnst002cli
2017 Outlook
Moskos was part of Littlefield's last draft, wasn't he? I was concerned with the pitching first approach based on the stats noted at the time that of top ten picks, pitchers were only successful about (something like) 30% of the time while position players had a much higher percentage of success. For a team that depends on the draft I thought it made more sense to go with the higher probability of successful players.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
2017 Outlook
54564C4A5C390 wrote: Moskos was part of Littlefield's last draft, wasn't he? I was concerned with the pitching first approach based on the stats noted at the time that of top ten picks, pitchers were only successful about (something like) 30% of the time while position players had a much higher percentage of success. For a team that depends on the draft I thought it made more sense to go with the higher probability of successful players.
At the time, I heard that Littlefield was worried about his job and drafted Moskos as he would get to the majors faster as he was a reliever.
Also why Littlefield traded for starting pitcher Morris from SF because he couldn't sign anyone.
Littlefield made moves to save his job and it really hurt the Pirates in the long run too. I didn't mind his strategy to go after pitching, but he still should have drafted the best available player. Moskos over Weiters was the last straw for me.
At the time, I heard that Littlefield was worried about his job and drafted Moskos as he would get to the majors faster as he was a reliever.
Also why Littlefield traded for starting pitcher Morris from SF because he couldn't sign anyone.
Littlefield made moves to save his job and it really hurt the Pirates in the long run too. I didn't mind his strategy to go after pitching, but he still should have drafted the best available player. Moskos over Weiters was the last straw for me.
-
Bobster21
2017 Outlook
7262635442424E210 wrote:
of them all, Moskos being selected fourth overall was the biggest crime. I always thought the Pirates had it backwards on two players. Should have put failed prospect Clinton Johnston on the mound and JVB at 1st. Bullington was a high consensus pick that failed.
Yes, JVB might have been a t 1st rd pick as a power hitter. But as a pitcher, he was a project at best. Using a #1 on a hitter who will be converted to a pitcher was insane. But typical Littlefield.
of them all, Moskos being selected fourth overall was the biggest crime. I always thought the Pirates had it backwards on two players. Should have put failed prospect Clinton Johnston on the mound and JVB at 1st. Bullington was a high consensus pick that failed.
Yes, JVB might have been a t 1st rd pick as a power hitter. But as a pitcher, he was a project at best. Using a #1 on a hitter who will be converted to a pitcher was insane. But typical Littlefield.
2017 Outlook
0C212C3D3A2B3C7C7F4E0 wrote:
of them all, Moskos being selected fourth overall was the biggest crime. I always thought the Pirates had it backwards on two players. Should have put failed prospect Clinton Johnston on the mound and JVB at 1st. Bullington was a high consensus pick that failed.
Yes, JVB might have been a t 1st rd pick as a power hitter. But as a pitcher, he was a project at best. Using a #1 on a hitter who will be converted to a pitcher was insane. But typical Littlefield.
can't remember his name but the person who wanted to do this was very well respected as judge of amateur and minor league talent. I think some of the draft previews said the JVB could be successful either way. I don't know why the Pirates thought he couldn't be a power hitter though as that must have been the reason for the switch.
of them all, Moskos being selected fourth overall was the biggest crime. I always thought the Pirates had it backwards on two players. Should have put failed prospect Clinton Johnston on the mound and JVB at 1st. Bullington was a high consensus pick that failed.
Yes, JVB might have been a t 1st rd pick as a power hitter. But as a pitcher, he was a project at best. Using a #1 on a hitter who will be converted to a pitcher was insane. But typical Littlefield.
can't remember his name but the person who wanted to do this was very well respected as judge of amateur and minor league talent. I think some of the draft previews said the JVB could be successful either way. I don't know why the Pirates thought he couldn't be a power hitter though as that must have been the reason for the switch.