67435A4D405B4D582C0 wrote: I think Musgrove has the pitches to be a good starter. Because of what he's able to throw that I have seen, its a possibility. He can control both left and right handed batters with what he's throwing.
Kuhl I believe has the arsenal to be better than a back of the rotation guy as well. He's got the weaponry to mix in
So, you have JT and a bunch of ????. Kuhl is no better than a five. He isn't consistent. To me, he would be a better bullpen guy.
No. JT is a question mark too, just less of one.. Kuhl and Musgrove are definitely bigger question marks, they just actually have the pitches and mix to end up better than back of the rotation. Something Williams, Nova, Brault, and possibly Kingham don't have.
Idk about Kingham yet. Probably no chance though
That is the whole thing. We have nothing but question marks. There is zero consistency with this crew. Dog will continue with the built in excuse that this rotation is young. Whatever. I don't see any long term solution in this rotation to be honest. When JT is one ... that is one thing, but he too is inconsistent.
Do you think they are not young?
Why is it that a lot of franchises can develop young pitchers that have success, but Pittsburgh fans like you use the built in excuse that they are young? It gets old.
---
Because when Pittsburgh gets a young pitcher developed like Gerritt Cole, they immediately trade/salary dump him away so they don't have to pay him.
If you look at the first few seasons of outstanding pitchers developed by other organizations, you will usually see that it took 3 years or more before they reached their ceiling. That's just the nature of the game. So it matters that the Pirates' rotation (with Nova out) consists entirely of such pitchers. It's too soon to know what their ceilings will be. They may or may not turn out to be good but the fact that they are not good at this early point in their careers doesn't mean they won't be.
But Kovalwat's point is well taken. Because of the financial structure of the game with arbitration after 4 years and free agency after 6, by the time the Pirates do develop a quality pitcher it's almost time to trade him so that Nutting can avoid paying top dollar to keep him. It's a no win situation. The Pirates endure the growing pains of young, developing pitchers to prepare them for success with other organizations more willing to pay them. The alternative for the Pirates has been to acquire established veteran pitchers who don't cost much due either to a history of mediocrity or injury. Sometimes it works out for a couple seasons with an aging Burnett or reclamation projects like Liriano or Volquez or Correia. Or a couple months of Happ, who they wouldn't pay to hold onto. Or you wind up with a Niese or a Worley or a Vogelsong. But you can't sustain pitching success unless you are willing to pay to keep good, young pitchers entering their prime. And we all know that won't happen here.
30 Wins- 30 Losses
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
30 Wins- 30 Losses
4353526573737F100 wrote:
Do you think they are not young?
Why is it that a lot of franchises can develop young pitchers that have success, but Pittsburgh fans like you use the built in excuse that they are young? It gets old.
What is your answer:
Do you think they are not young?
Do you think they are not young?
Why is it that a lot of franchises can develop young pitchers that have success, but Pittsburgh fans like you use the built in excuse that they are young? It gets old.
What is your answer:
Do you think they are not young?
30 Wins- 30 Losses
7A575A4B4C5D4A0A09380 wrote: I think Musgrove has the pitches to be a good starter. Because of what he's able to throw that I have seen, its a possibility. He can control both left and right handed batters with what he's throwing.
Kuhl I believe has the arsenal to be better than a back of the rotation guy as well. He's got the weaponry to mix in
So, you have JT and a bunch of ????. Kuhl is no better than a five. He isn't consistent. To me, he would be a better bullpen guy.
No. JT is a question mark too, just less of one.. Kuhl and Musgrove are definitely bigger question marks, they just actually have the pitches and mix to end up better than back of the rotation. Something Williams, Nova, Brault, and possibly Kingham don't have.
Idk about Kingham yet. Probably no chance though
That is the whole thing. We have nothing but question marks. There is zero consistency with this crew. Dog will continue with the built in excuse that this rotation is young. Whatever. I don't see any long term solution in this rotation to be honest. When JT is one ... that is one thing, but he too is inconsistent.
Do you think they are not young?
Why is it that a lot of franchises can develop young pitchers that have success, but Pittsburgh fans like you use the built in excuse that they are young? It gets old.
---
Because when Pittsburgh gets a young pitcher developed like Gerritt Cole, they immediately trade/salary dump him away so they don't have to pay him.
If you look at the first few seasons of outstanding pitchers developed by other organizations, you will usually see that it took 3 years or more before they reached their ceiling. That's just the nature of the game. So it matters that the Pirates' rotation (with Nova out) consists entirely of such pitchers. It's too soon to know what their ceilings will be. They may or may not turn out to be good but the fact that they are not good at this early point in their careers doesn't mean they won't be.
But Kovalwat's point is well taken. Because of the financial structure of the game with arbitration after 4 years and free agency after 6, by the time the Pirates do develop a quality pitcher it's almost time to trade him so that Nutting can avoid paying top dollar to keep him. It's a no win situation. The Pirates endure the growing pains of young, developing pitchers to prepare them for success with other organizations more willing to pay them. The alternative for the Pirates has been to acquire established veteran pitchers who don't cost much due either to a history of mediocrity or injury. Sometimes it works out for a couple seasons with an aging Burnett or reclamation projects like Liriano or Volquez or Correia. Or a couple months of Happ, who they wouldn't pay to hold onto. Or you wind up with a Niese or a Worley or a Vogelsong. But you can't sustain pitching success unless you are willing to pay to keep good, young pitchers entering their prime. And we all know that won't happen here.
I honestly don't mind going after older veteran pitchers. As long as they have a track record of being good at some point in their career and maybe need a change of scenery. Like Burnett, and Liriano. The moves for guys like Niese, Vogelsong, and Worley aren't going to work.
Kuhl I believe has the arsenal to be better than a back of the rotation guy as well. He's got the weaponry to mix in
So, you have JT and a bunch of ????. Kuhl is no better than a five. He isn't consistent. To me, he would be a better bullpen guy.
No. JT is a question mark too, just less of one.. Kuhl and Musgrove are definitely bigger question marks, they just actually have the pitches and mix to end up better than back of the rotation. Something Williams, Nova, Brault, and possibly Kingham don't have.
Idk about Kingham yet. Probably no chance though
That is the whole thing. We have nothing but question marks. There is zero consistency with this crew. Dog will continue with the built in excuse that this rotation is young. Whatever. I don't see any long term solution in this rotation to be honest. When JT is one ... that is one thing, but he too is inconsistent.
Do you think they are not young?
Why is it that a lot of franchises can develop young pitchers that have success, but Pittsburgh fans like you use the built in excuse that they are young? It gets old.
---
Because when Pittsburgh gets a young pitcher developed like Gerritt Cole, they immediately trade/salary dump him away so they don't have to pay him.
If you look at the first few seasons of outstanding pitchers developed by other organizations, you will usually see that it took 3 years or more before they reached their ceiling. That's just the nature of the game. So it matters that the Pirates' rotation (with Nova out) consists entirely of such pitchers. It's too soon to know what their ceilings will be. They may or may not turn out to be good but the fact that they are not good at this early point in their careers doesn't mean they won't be.
But Kovalwat's point is well taken. Because of the financial structure of the game with arbitration after 4 years and free agency after 6, by the time the Pirates do develop a quality pitcher it's almost time to trade him so that Nutting can avoid paying top dollar to keep him. It's a no win situation. The Pirates endure the growing pains of young, developing pitchers to prepare them for success with other organizations more willing to pay them. The alternative for the Pirates has been to acquire established veteran pitchers who don't cost much due either to a history of mediocrity or injury. Sometimes it works out for a couple seasons with an aging Burnett or reclamation projects like Liriano or Volquez or Correia. Or a couple months of Happ, who they wouldn't pay to hold onto. Or you wind up with a Niese or a Worley or a Vogelsong. But you can't sustain pitching success unless you are willing to pay to keep good, young pitchers entering their prime. And we all know that won't happen here.
I honestly don't mind going after older veteran pitchers. As long as they have a track record of being good at some point in their career and maybe need a change of scenery. Like Burnett, and Liriano. The moves for guys like Niese, Vogelsong, and Worley aren't going to work.
30 Wins- 30 Losses
Side note related to the pitching philosophy debate: It's important that we keep in mind that Burnett and Liriano were not pitch to contact guys. They were K guys, who could also induce groundballs. Frankie's best pitch was his wipeout slider and Burnett had a super nasty curveball. They were strikeout pitchers who were able to induce a high % GBs when not missing the bats.
To my memory since our pitching "plan" started, Only Edinson Volquez (when he pitched for us) was a GB guy who didn't miss many bats and still put up very good ERA. This turned out to be a SSS, as he couldn't repeat it in his career. Morton did as well the one year, while he was still "ground chuck" and all that jazz. Also SSS noise or luck, as he was unable to repeat it with any consistency until he changed his team and revamped his approach to pitching.
Volquez was unable to sustain his performance as he moved on. Sometimes the contact you're pitching to finds holes or poor defense and you end up with more baserunners than you otherwise would have... and a high WHIP. You've got to be able to get that critical K (liriano Burnett) when that happens. It's not always about getting that DP ball, which even our announcers have drooled over for the past 3-5 years. STRIKE HIM OUT. Then you can get a popup, groundout, whatever next batter and get out of the inning.
To my memory since our pitching "plan" started, Only Edinson Volquez (when he pitched for us) was a GB guy who didn't miss many bats and still put up very good ERA. This turned out to be a SSS, as he couldn't repeat it in his career. Morton did as well the one year, while he was still "ground chuck" and all that jazz. Also SSS noise or luck, as he was unable to repeat it with any consistency until he changed his team and revamped his approach to pitching.
Volquez was unable to sustain his performance as he moved on. Sometimes the contact you're pitching to finds holes or poor defense and you end up with more baserunners than you otherwise would have... and a high WHIP. You've got to be able to get that critical K (liriano Burnett) when that happens. It's not always about getting that DP ball, which even our announcers have drooled over for the past 3-5 years. STRIKE HIM OUT. Then you can get a popup, groundout, whatever next batter and get out of the inning.
30 Wins- 30 Losses
Bobster,
This is good. Exactly. This is why I wouldn't trade a Dickerson for a starting pitcher (within reason, of course).
1) We don't seem to have success developing young top rotation talent anyway
2) We will "need" to sell them off to avoid high arbitration costs and definitely FA if they do end up being top of the rotation quality
We should stick with the rotation we have and revamp our developmental process. Try to take some young, talented guys we currently have and get them to perform to their abilities.
We should concentrate on building a powerhouse lineup and try for solid to strong defense along with it. Draft starting pitching, accept mediocre rotations, but focus on hitting and defense.
Hitting is much more repeatable and projectable
Hitters are much less injury prone than pitchers, at least catastrophic injuries.
Hitters are much less expensive.
Hitters develop much more quickly and peak in their mid to late 20s generally (arb years).
High octane offenses will tend to put more butts in the seats too, which I guess is good but I really don't care about.
If anything, I'd be trading pitchers for hitters, not visa-versa.
Build a powerhouse lineup, rely on internal development and reclamation projects for starting rotation. This is actually what we've been doing, what we haven't done though is TRADE PITCHING PROSPECTS for hitters. We've held the "prospects" until their flaws are exposed and then we deal with their growing pains through their arb years.
This is good. Exactly. This is why I wouldn't trade a Dickerson for a starting pitcher (within reason, of course).
1) We don't seem to have success developing young top rotation talent anyway
2) We will "need" to sell them off to avoid high arbitration costs and definitely FA if they do end up being top of the rotation quality
We should stick with the rotation we have and revamp our developmental process. Try to take some young, talented guys we currently have and get them to perform to their abilities.
We should concentrate on building a powerhouse lineup and try for solid to strong defense along with it. Draft starting pitching, accept mediocre rotations, but focus on hitting and defense.
Hitting is much more repeatable and projectable
Hitters are much less injury prone than pitchers, at least catastrophic injuries.
Hitters are much less expensive.
Hitters develop much more quickly and peak in their mid to late 20s generally (arb years).
High octane offenses will tend to put more butts in the seats too, which I guess is good but I really don't care about.
If anything, I'd be trading pitchers for hitters, not visa-versa.
Build a powerhouse lineup, rely on internal development and reclamation projects for starting rotation. This is actually what we've been doing, what we haven't done though is TRADE PITCHING PROSPECTS for hitters. We've held the "prospects" until their flaws are exposed and then we deal with their growing pains through their arb years.
30 Wins- 30 Losses
I agree almost completely with dmetz. NH's philosophy has been to try to develop pitchers and it hasn't worked all that well. Other teams - the Cubs and Brewers, for example - have gone for hitters, on the theory that they can always get pitchers. The Cubs can, of course, because of their checkbook. The Brewers have been more able than would otherwise been thought because exciting offense does bring in fans and generate revenue to allow a bigger budget. (I do think if attendance is better that more money filters to the teams budget - maybe not much, but more, so on that point I do care about attendance.)
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
30 Wins- 30 Losses
The Cubs did it perfectly. When they won the World Series, they didn't have one pitcher they drafted in their rotation. They still don't have anyone they drafted in their rotation.
Houston only had one drafted pitcher in their rotation when they won the World Series. He was also an 8th rounder.
Teams still draft pitchers very high. The Pirates did it with Cole (1), Taillon (2), and Appel (8). Anyone know of any drafted pitchers in the top ten picks of their draft to win a World Series? I can't think of any off the top of my head since Huntington became a MLB GM.
I am all for drafting bats and have been for a long time. I think they rise through the minors faster, less injury prone, and safer to judge talent wise. Only Cole was a drafted pitcher in the rotation for the Pirates' most recent run (Locke was probably groomed more by the Pirates, but was not drafted by the Pirates).
Houston only had one drafted pitcher in their rotation when they won the World Series. He was also an 8th rounder.
Teams still draft pitchers very high. The Pirates did it with Cole (1), Taillon (2), and Appel (8). Anyone know of any drafted pitchers in the top ten picks of their draft to win a World Series? I can't think of any off the top of my head since Huntington became a MLB GM.
I am all for drafting bats and have been for a long time. I think they rise through the minors faster, less injury prone, and safer to judge talent wise. Only Cole was a drafted pitcher in the rotation for the Pirates' most recent run (Locke was probably groomed more by the Pirates, but was not drafted by the Pirates).
30 Wins- 30 Losses
another possible change that could be beneficial is to get Moran time at 1b to keep him in the linup, with Kang and Jhay and Jordy still giving us the better defense at SS.
Of course there's no chance we would do that (sit Bell) often, but Moran has played 1b, isn't any good defensively at 3b anyway.. and if he does get the power going that is needed he could be a possible solution if Josh Bell busts.
That would work for me. Less time for Bell, Moran keeps getting at bats and gets time at 1b (where he may end up anyway). Id be interested in seeing Moran's defense at 1b. He may be better suited to play there anyway.
My thoughts being that if Moran does get more power going, he would get up in the 125 w/RC+ range. If he can play an average 1b as opposed to a bad 3b, that will play! Especially if Bell can't hit 30 bombs, because Bell SUX defensively at 1b...
I know that wouldn't happen often, but it could be a way to get Kang, JHay and Moran all in the lineup together when it does, while strengthening our infield defense at the same time (potentially)
Of course there's no chance we would do that (sit Bell) often, but Moran has played 1b, isn't any good defensively at 3b anyway.. and if he does get the power going that is needed he could be a possible solution if Josh Bell busts.
That would work for me. Less time for Bell, Moran keeps getting at bats and gets time at 1b (where he may end up anyway). Id be interested in seeing Moran's defense at 1b. He may be better suited to play there anyway.
My thoughts being that if Moran does get more power going, he would get up in the 125 w/RC+ range. If he can play an average 1b as opposed to a bad 3b, that will play! Especially if Bell can't hit 30 bombs, because Bell SUX defensively at 1b...
I know that wouldn't happen often, but it could be a way to get Kang, JHay and Moran all in the lineup together when it does, while strengthening our infield defense at the same time (potentially)