OnlyBucs

4B49535543260 wrote: [highlight]The problem with Nutting as an owner is that he runs the operation like a business while we all want an owner who has personal ego invested in how the team does. He simply is not going to overspend his budget, even though it might result in the team winning. I watched Mike Illich who owned the Tigers spend and spend.[/highlight] When he died, and his personal representatives, trustees, whatever, took over, their fiduciary duty squelched that spending and the Tigers fell to Pirate level. It's almost always better to have a rich ego-maniac as owner.


I believe that’s absolutely correct. To him, the operation of The Pittsburgh Pirates Baseball Club should be conducted in the same way, and for the same purpose, as General Motors, IBM, and the local pizza shop are conducted: to maximize profit. All other goals take a back seat.

184E584C435949424F586A4D474B434604492A0 wrote:

If the Astros owner agreed to pay Verlander that amount of money, then he must feel he’s worth it and will get an acceptable return for his money. 
That's what the owner is hoping but there are no guarantees.

We have more than one problem at the top. 



BOB, more often than not, is too lenient on personnel.  He grew up a friend of the Rooney family, and is slower to make management changes than some of the other owners.  Patience can be a virtue.  But, there are times when patience can work against a person.  He's granted some managerial extensions when they weren't earned, in my opinion.  One of Huntington's- the one that was made in the middle of the night and not uncovered until some reporter discovered it- is an example.  People talk about The Archer Trade, and rightly so.  But, that trade doesn't get made- by Huntington- unless he's here.



I would argue that Coonelly probably should have been let go before he was.  In fact, I'm not sure that I should have written 'probably.'



At any rate, we're not allowed to discuss BOB and his wicked ways...except when we are.  We all know how he operates, or so I've been told.

0D382F2F241D2F2F24232F4A0 wrote: We have more than one problem at the top. 



BOB, more often than not, is too lenient on personnel.  He grew up a friend of the Rooney family, and is slower to make management changes than some of the other owners.  Patience can be a virtue.  But, there are times when patience can work against a person.  He's granted some managerial extensions when they weren't earned, in my opinion.  One of Huntington's- the one that was made in the middle of the night and not uncovered until some reporter discovered it- is an example.  People talk about The Archer Trade, and rightly so.  But, that trade doesn't get made- by Huntington- unless he's here.



I would argue that Coonelly probably should have been let go before he was.  In fact, I'm not sure that I should have written 'probably.'



At any rate, we're not allowed to discuss BOB and his wicked ways...except when we are.  We all know how he operates, or so I've been told.


100% agree that he has been slow to react in the past. I am hoping it was due to his inexperience and he has learned something from it, but I guess we'll see.

7F7A7D7B7379607D7467616C150 wrote: We have more than one problem at the top. 



BOB, more often than not, is too lenient on personnel.  He grew up a friend of the Rooney family, and is slower to make management changes than some of the other owners.  Patience can be a virtue.  But, there are times when patience can work against a person.  He's granted some managerial extensions when they weren't earned, in my opinion.  One of Huntington's- the one that was made in the middle of the night and not uncovered until some reporter discovered it- is an example.  People talk about The Archer Trade, and rightly so.  But, that trade doesn't get made- by Huntington- unless he's here.



I would argue that Coonelly probably should have been let go before he was.  In fact, I'm not sure that I should have written 'probably.'



At any rate, we're not allowed to discuss BOB and his wicked ways...except when we are.  We all know how he operates, or so I've been told.


100% agree that he has been slow to react in the past.  I am hoping it was due to his inexperience and he has learned something from it, but I guess we'll see. 


This may be old news but the Pirates released pitcher Tanner Anderson, catcher Taylor Davis and Phillip Evans

787D7A7C747E677A7360666B120 wrote: We have more than one problem at the top. 



BOB, more often than not, is too lenient on personnel.  He grew up a friend of the Rooney family, and is slower to make management changes than some of the other owners.  Patience can be a virtue.  But, there are times when patience can work against a person.  He's granted some managerial extensions when they weren't earned, in my opinion.  One of Huntington's- the one that was made in the middle of the night and not uncovered until some reporter discovered it- is an example.  People talk about The Archer Trade, and rightly so.  But, that trade doesn't get made- by Huntington- unless he's here.



I would argue that Coonelly probably should have been let go before he was.  In fact, I'm not sure that I should have written 'probably.'



At any rate, we're not allowed to discuss BOB and his wicked ways...except when we are.  We all know how he operates, or so I've been told.


100% agree that he has been slow to react in the past.  I am hoping it was due to his inexperience and he has learned something from it, but I guess we'll see. 




I wouldn't think that it's "inexperience." He's been with the franchise a long time. My thought is that it's probably more a matter of his leadership style, and the article from years ago said that the Rooneys were a big influence on him. The stability that began with the Noll era came at an influential time in his life.

Another point to consider on the "experience level:"



Though the Pirates is BOB's first experience at the major league professional sports level, it's far from his first experience in running a large business. He's been either self-employed or involved in running a family business from near birth. He's experienced. But, doesn't strike me as aggressive. I can't say what he is for sure. Don't know him.

406D60717667703033020 wrote:

If the Astros owner agreed to pay Verlander that amount of money, then he must feel he’s worth it and will get an acceptable return for his money. 
That's what the owner is hoping but there are no guarantees.


Right, just as there are no guarantees when we buy any good or service. We all make buying decisions based on the premise that we’ll receive a benefit of greater value than the money we’re spending. If we didn’t have that belief, we’d never buy anything.



The Astros owner has made that same leap of faith because he’s willing to take the risk, in spite of knowing there are no guarantees. That’s what will always separate Bob Nutting from the owners who place winning as their main goal. Nutting wants a guarantee.

There are few guarantees anywhere in life, whether we're talking about MLB or any other endeavor.



The owner takes calculated risks with veteran players.



The owner takes calculated risks with LMGs.



The owner takes calculated with suspects.



If someone's looking for a sure thing, MLB's probably not the best place to find one.

356375616E74646F627547606A666E6B2964070 wrote:

If the Astros owner agreed to pay Verlander that amount of money, then he must feel he’s worth it and will get an acceptable return for his money. 
That's what the owner is hoping but there are no guarantees.


Right, just as there are no guarantees when we buy any good or service.  We all make buying decisions based on the premise that we’ll receive a benefit of greater value than the money we’re spending.  If we didn’t have that belief, we’d never buy anything. 



The Astros owner has made that same leap of faith because he’s willing to take the risk, in spite of knowing there are no guarantees.  That’s what will always separate Bob Nutting from the owners who place winning as their main goal.  Nutting wants a guarantee.
I don't think Nutting wants a guarantee. He just wants to save money. If he had a guarantee that he could spend 25 million for a player who would win MVP, triple crown, and lead his team to a WS championship, he wouldn't do it. Nutting would like to win but only if it can be done on a minimal budget. He has seen Miami and Tampa have success on small payrolls and he wants that too.



The Huntington regime got close but after having the 2nd best record in MLB in 2015, setting a franchise attendance record, and needing only a few more key players to go further, the plug was pulled. The 2015 team had a payroll of about 75% of the MLB average. As close as they were, Nutting wouldn't even go to an average MLB payroll to get the success that narrowly eluded them. Instead, they tried to get by with the low key additions of Jaso, Vogelsong and Niese for 2016.



When drafting, development and trading became problematic, it was apparent the Huntington regime was not going to build the team back up on the Nutting budget and the Cherington regime was begun. He now faces the same financial restrictions and has to hope he can build a contending team on a shoestring budget. Upon taking over, Huntington said the team would spend when the time was right. He probably believed that only to find out that about 75% of the MLB average was the max. When Cherington was hired he said the same thing. But if he was aware of the Huntington situation, he probably doesn't expect much in the way of any payroll hike. Cherington clearly has a strategy of building through prospects at minimal cost. Working for Nutting, that's the only avenue available to him. But it's a tall order and a whole lot of things have to turn out right when you don't have the resources to fill remaining holes with proven talent.