OnlyBucs

767D75797C7D662325526B737A7D7D3C717D120 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.


I'm glad you brought that up. I was thinking of using such an example in my prior comment. Again, it's a question of legacy vs current performance.



Mazeroski is a HOFer, and well-deserved in my opinion. A great player. But as age and injuries affected his game, his last 4 years (not even that old really, at 32-35) he combined to hit .231/.287/.308/.595 with 11 HRs and 83 RBIs and lost his range at 2B. At that time of his career he was not one of their better players. If someone had asked me who the team's good players were for those seasons, that is, who could be expected to perform at a high level at that time, I would not have included Maz. But I probably would have added that overall for his career, Maz had been a great player but he just wasn't one anymore.



So saying someone isn't good now--which may be an accurate statement--doesn't mean they didn't used to be good and doesn't mean they won't carry a legacy of being good even tho there became a time later when they weren't. It's not a question of being fair. It's a matter of talking about different periods. NH did a good job for awhile. Now he's not. Both are fair comments. It sounds like you have anointed him "Good GM for Life" on the basis of what he did a few years ago even tho you agree he isn't drafting well, the team isn't doing well, and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. So you seem to feel that because he's had previous success, he's a good GM regardless of whether he's actually functioning as a good GM now. That's where I disagree with you. NH's legacy remains to be seen. He's got 4 more years so who knows how he'll be viewed when his career is over? And you may yet be proven right. But I think that right now, you are talking about his perceived legacy while others are talking about his current performance (of which even you have been critical).   








You are correct.  I answered the question as in overall performance.  That can easily change with a few more bad seasons.  That is why I also said "at this point".  In my opinion, he has done more good than bad making him a good GM.  If the bad outweighs the good, he will become a bad GM, overall.



If we don't see signs on improvement in the next three years, I will want him gone too.  With his past success, I think he deserves a chance to rebuild.  It will be a rebuild with all of his players, no hold overs.



To say he has proven that he is clearly not a good GM is not fair.  The time period wasn't put in place when the question was asked. 





Answering Win / Loss record question (notes34):



Win / Loss record can't be fully put on the GM.  Huntington had to knock it all down before he built it up.  So, those first few years under his tenure I give him a break.  The cupboard was really bare when he took over, so it took more time than usual to rebuild.  He has a winning record from 2011 to 2017.  2011 was the first year we (I) saw the improvement and the future.  Not saying that is where he should be judged from, just pointing it out.  Now, season to season he can be judged on record.  It is his team for sure.


I think you are being too patient with NH. He gets credit for building the team up but he deserves blame for needing to rebuild so quickly and having fallen enough to need more than 3 years to get back to winning.. A built up team (and one that didn't shoot for the moon by trading prospects and signing expensive free agents) shouldn't have fallen far enough to need a rebuild after 3 winning seasons.

343F373B3E3F246167102931383F3F7E333F500 wrote: I don't think Huntington has done a good job drafting, but I also have no idea how other teams have done overall. I know "impact" players can be an opinion, but there has to be overall numbers on players who made the majors, played so many games, innings pitched, etc.



I do think Huntington drafted a bunch of good players out of high school who didn't sign, but he didn't draft any again. I saw a list, it seemed high to me.


Of course you're going to have your opinion and there REALLY nothing anyone or any stats or anything will do to change it.



But



NH is a "small market" GM.   On one hand, you keep saying he's been bad at drafting.   On the other had, you say can't go by record.  On the third hand, you're saying overall a good GM.



What is he good at?  Signing free agents? trading?  If you're saying our "small market" GM is bad at drafting but good overall, what's he doing well that makes up for the bad drafts?

I think the two drafts which hurt the Bucs was the year they took Tony Sanchez and followed that up with many prep pitchers. The second draft which hurt the Pirates was the year they took the risk with taking Appel. They should have left him on the board and taken someone who was chosen after him. Both years they took risks and neither time did it work out for them.

2C20217A737A727F78677D4A0 wrote: I think the two drafts which hurt the Bucs was the year they took Tony Sanchez and followed that up with many prep pitchers. The second draft which hurt the Pirates was the year they took the risk with taking Appel. They should have left him on the board and taken someone who was chosen after him. Both years they took risks and neither time did it work out for them.


I agree with this, McCutchen and some savvy FA signings really glazed over some drafts that produced nothing. They have had some good draft classes and some really bad ones since. I think 2015 is going to be good with Newman, Kramer and Hayes. The 2016 is going to ride on Ogle and Craig. The 2017 looks incredibly promising, but we'll have to see which of the prep picks flame out.



All in all, they have found a lot of late round value through the years, but since Cole have not gotten enough value from their first selection.

Overall, I don't think he has done a good job drafting.  He had a couple hits, but not long tenures.  He got a couple good years out of guys that helped win.  He did well in adding pieces to the core, once it was built.  The next guy up rotation isn't happening right now.



He has done well in finding those bargain players and trading for some too.  I think his trades have been very good.  He got great returns and gave up nothing in return.  I do think he should trade more prospects, but I really don't know how valuable those prospects would be to others teams.



His organization strategy has been very good too.  He was one of the first GMs to bring in a nutritionist.  His shifting changed the game a little as now so many teams do it.  His player value analyst was very good too. 



I don't think you can go by overall record.  That's why I said once he cleaned house, you can start going by record.  Those first few years were rough and it was expected.  Many rumors that Littlefield pushed too much at the end of his tenure to save his job.  He really hurt the whole organization with that selfish move.  Of course, these are my opinions as an outsider looking in. I have stood by these opinions too even though I keep getting asked.



Would you fire Dayton Moore if you were the Owner of the Royals?  He took a back to back World Series team to a .500 record the last two years. He has three winning seasons in his eight years, only winning 90+ games once.  Two playoff teams.  Yeah, they came through and made the World Series as a WC team and then won the Division and WS.  But overall, his record isn't very good.  He didn't build on a 95 win team.  They let their players walk (some still aren't signed) and got nothing in return.  I certainly wouldn't fire Moore based on what he has done and rebuilt a team.  But I assume others would based on his last two years, right?  The year they won the WS, they wouldn't have made the playoffs if they were in the NL Central. Overall, Moore has been a very good GM in my eyes.

3935346F666F676A6D72685F0 wrote: I think the two drafts which hurt the Bucs was the year they took Tony Sanchez and followed that up with many prep pitchers. The second draft which hurt the Pirates was the year they took the risk with taking Appel. They should have left him on the board and taken someone who was chosen after him. Both years they took risks and neither time did it work out for them.


I agree with this, especially the prep pitcher draft. That draft was a major failure and has been the primer for NH. I don't know if the problem is drafting or the development. And for the record, at the time, I loved the draft. Colton Cain, Zach Dodson, ZVR, etc. I loved the idea of all of those prep pitchers throughout the first 15 rounds and paying them over slot to skip college. However, in hindsight, that was a HUGE failure. None of those guys made it. I don't know if it was poor drafting or terrible development. Personally, I think it is the latter which is really concerning.



Other than Glasnow, Brault and Kuhl, they simply haven't even drafted guys who have dominated in the minors. That is concerning!

I don't really understand the development aspect. If they draft garbage players, they won't develop in my opinion. You can develop a smart ball player, but if they can't hit or pitch, they still will never make it. Talent wins over the baseball smarts.



I also agree it was a good idea, but it failed. It was a small market strategy that could have been huge if worked. They drafted a bunch of guys teams stayed away from because of college commitments and asking price. It is also a reason I don't like drafting high school pitchers. I'd go college arm every time.

I don't know if it was a GOOD idea, but it was an interesting outside-the-box idea.

574A6E6C62070 wrote: I think the two drafts which hurt the Bucs was the year they took Tony Sanchez and followed that up with many prep pitchers. The second draft which hurt the Pirates was the year they took the risk with taking Appel. They should have left him on the board and taken someone who was chosen after him. Both years they took risks and neither time did it work out for them.


I agree with this, especially the prep pitcher draft.  That draft was a major failure and has been the primer for NH.  I don't know if the problem is drafting or the development.  And for the record, at the time, I loved the draft.  Colton Cain, Zach Dodson, ZVR, etc.  I loved the idea of all of those prep pitchers throughout the first 15 rounds and paying them over slot to skip college.  However, in hindsight, that was a HUGE failure.  None of those guys made it.  I don't know if it was poor drafting or terrible development.  Personally, I think it is the latter which is really concerning.



Other than Glasnow, Brault and Kuhl, they simply haven't even drafted guys who have dominated in the minors.  That is concerning!


Keller has.



The two drafts that intrigue me about NH are 2009 and 2014. They were sort of throwaway drafts, in 2009 they took a ton of prep pitchers and 2014 they took a ton of college hitters. I feel like they were sort of experiments for NH, you take a number of different guys possessing different attributes and then see how they develop in the system. I think if you look at their hit rate on high school pitchers after that 2009 draft, you see a hit rate that's much higher than the rest of MLB. I think Lodolo would have been another Keller/Glasnow, and that's also why I have been so high on Ogle for 2018. I think they have a good idea what to look for in their selections.



I don't think the college hitter's data provided them anything of value. Since 2014 they've taken Kramer, Newman and Craig with high selections and also a lot of random late round college hitters that are still in the system (like Hill and Owens). I think Newman was a botch because they wanted a guy that didn't strike out in an era when you need power guys. That said, Newman is holding his own in ST this year and Kramer is putting up a video game line so far (1.865 OPS). I'm also high on Craig having a big year in Altoona.



The Pirates definitely need to get more product out of their farm, while I understand why they sat out the International market when the structure was out of whack, it still reeks of being cheap and they put themselves in a hole in terms of acquiring talent. But I do think that NH and his scouting staff have ways of learning how to improve amateur scouting and improving draft selections.