OnlyBucs

I honestly never put much thought into Ben's word choice. I generally ignore most of what Pirates GM's say since it is

full-to-bursting with GM-speak. Then I found myself stuck in Pittsburgh traffic on the way back from the reptile expo in Monroeville...



So, here are my stuck-in-traffic thoughts...



'Rebuild' could be seen as a bit of a once-and-done thing, kind-of static. We built a team, used it till it fell apart (like I do with my cars), now we need to rebuild it.



'Build' though can either be seen the same way or from a process perspective. We are not building a team as much as a pipeline. We want to build it as strong and thick as possible, so it provides as much talent as possible for the major league roster. The team never needs rebuilt because it is always in flux. The talent flows from the pipeline and keeps it fresh. We supplement from free agency or trades as needed, filling in gaps here and there.



Maybe Bob was thinking along these lines with his word choice? Not sure - I eventually got out of traffic and stopped tkinking about it.

Did you read Tim Williams First Pitch Article from Sept 26? He alludes to just what you are saying when he tries to rate a GM on a 20-80 scale. Take a look and see if that is what you are thinking too.

Probably a little of both. I would say the immediate issue at hand for BC is to take a failing organization and make it successful at least in terms of being a legit contender for a championship. The process of doing that involves improving the talent at all levels of the minor leagues. The talent that Huntington added was not all that useful (or was given away) so there are no guarantees. But if Cherington's efforts are successful it should lead to a pipeline of talent. But even under the best circumstances, how long can that be maintained? The more success you have, the lower positions from which to draft. And as the prospects hopefully become valuable players for competitive Pirate teams, there are fewer options on who to trade to acquire more prospects to stock that pipeline. For instance, if this year's Pirate team was fighting for a post season spot they would likely have held onto Frazier, Rich Rod and Anderson instead of trading them to add 7 prospects to the system. So the better a team performs, the more difficult it becomes to maintain success with a steady pipeline of talent.

446964757263743437060 wrote: Probably a little of both. I would say the immediate issue at hand for BC is to take a failing organization and make it successful at least in terms of being a legit contender for a championship. The process of doing that involves improving the talent at all levels of the minor leagues. The talent that Huntington added was not all that useful (or was given away) so there are no guarantees. But if Cherington's efforts are successful it should lead to a pipeline of talent. But even under the best circumstances, how long can that be maintained? The more success you have, the lower positions from which to draft. And as the prospects hopefully become valuable players for competitive Pirate teams, there are fewer options on who to trade to acquire more prospects to stock that pipeline. For instance, if this year's Pirate team was fighting for a post season spot they would likely have held onto Frazier, Rich Rod and Anderson instead of trading them to add 7 prospects to the system. So the better a team performs, the more difficult it becomes to maintain success with a steady pipeline of talent.


All that you wrote, Bobster, is very true. The proof that maintaining a competitive major league team on a shoestring budget is ongoing in Tampa. If Nutting refuses to spend above a certain threshold ($100 million?), the only way for the Pirates to win is to follow the Rays' strategies.



I believe Cherington's far more capable of achieving success in that regard than Huntington was. So I'm fine with giving him the three-four years it'll take to build the organization, and major league roster, in the Tampa image.

316771656A70606B667143646E626A6F2D60030 wrote: Probably a little of both. I would say the immediate issue at hand for BC is to take a failing organization and make it successful at least in terms of being a legit contender for a championship. The process of doing that involves improving the talent at all levels of the minor leagues. The talent that Huntington added was not all that useful (or was given away) so there are no guarantees. But if Cherington's efforts are successful it should lead to a pipeline of talent. But even under the best circumstances, how long can that be maintained? The more success you have, the lower positions from which to draft. And as the prospects hopefully become valuable players for competitive Pirate teams, there are fewer options on who to trade to acquire more prospects to stock that pipeline. For instance, if this year's Pirate team was fighting for a post season spot they would likely have held onto Frazier, Rich Rod and Anderson instead of trading them to add 7 prospects to the system. So the better a team performs, the more difficult it becomes to maintain success with a steady pipeline of talent.


All that you wrote, Bobster, is very true.  The proof that maintaining a competitive major league team on a shoestring budget is ongoing in Tampa.  If Nutting refuses to spend above a certain threshold ($100 million?), the only way for the Pirates to win is to follow the Rays' strategies. 



I believe Cherington's far more capable of achieving success in that regard than Huntington was.  So I'm fine with giving him the three-four years it'll take to build the organization, and major league roster, in the Tampa image.
Tampa seems to have gone outside their comfort zone this year with the July deal for Nelson Cruz. They paid the 5.1 million remaining on his contract this year. It's hard to imagine the Pirates doing something like that. But it was a good move. Before the trade TB was in 2nd place at 58-39, winning at a .598 clip. They were in 2nd place 1 game behind Boston. Since the trade they have gone 39-21 (a .650 clip) and have clinched 1st place with the best record in the AL. The "time was right" to spend.

1C313C2D2A3B2C6C6F5E0 wrote: Probably a little of both. I would say the immediate issue at hand for BC is to take a failing organization and make it successful at least in terms of being a legit contender for a championship. The process of doing that involves improving the talent at all levels of the minor leagues. The talent that Huntington added was not all that useful (or was given away) so there are no guarantees. But if Cherington's efforts are successful it should lead to a pipeline of talent. But even under the best circumstances, how long can that be maintained? The more success you have, the lower positions from which to draft. And as the prospects hopefully become valuable players for competitive Pirate teams, there are fewer options on who to trade to acquire more prospects to stock that pipeline. For instance, if this year's Pirate team was fighting for a post season spot they would likely have held onto Frazier, Rich Rod and Anderson instead of trading them to add 7 prospects to the system. So the better a team performs, the more difficult it becomes to maintain success with a steady pipeline of talent.


All that you wrote, Bobster, is very true.  The proof that maintaining a competitive major league team on a shoestring budget is ongoing in Tampa.  If Nutting refuses to spend above a certain threshold ($100 million?), the only way for the Pirates to win is to follow the Rays' strategies. 



I believe Cherington's far more capable of achieving success in that regard than Huntington was.  So I'm fine with giving him the three-four years it'll take to build the organization, and major league roster, in the Tampa image.
Tampa seems to have gone outside their comfort zone this year with the July deal for Nelson Cruz. They paid the 5.1 million remaining on his contract this year. It's hard to imagine the Pirates doing something like that. But it was a good move. Before the trade TB was in 2nd place at 58-39, winning at a .598 clip. They were in 2nd place 1 game behind Boston. Since the trade they have gone 39-21 (a .650 clip) and have clinched 1st place with the best record in the AL. The "time was right" to spend.


To be fair, during the most recent playoff years, Huntington did acquire players at the Deadline to help solidify a playoff spot. When those acquisitions didn’t lead to a World Series appearance, I believe Nutting was turned off to that extra spending. I’m anxious to see what he’ll do if/when the situation arises again. I’m not hopeful.

I'm at least hopeful that Cherington can improve the club.  Of course, fans of 29 other clubs say the same thing when needed.  Some clubs are already there and are more maintenance projects.



I won't even entertain thoughts toward a world championship before the first thing happens.  After all, we should understand that next year will mark the 30th anniversary of our most recent division championship.



First things first, though I absolutely agree with Doc's conclusion.  I'm not hopeful.  I hold the opinion that the Final Four is the realistic best to expect.  That's 'expect,' not 'hope for.'

626760666E647D60697A7C71080 wrote: I honestly never put much thought into Ben's word choice.  I generally ignore most of what Pirates GM's say since it is

full-to-bursting with GM-speak.  Then I found myself stuck in Pittsburgh traffic on the way back from the reptile expo in Monroeville...



So, here are my stuck-in-traffic thoughts...



'Rebuild' could be seen as a bit of a once-and-done thing, kind-of static.  We built a team, used it till it fell apart (like I do with my cars), now we need to rebuild it.



'Build' though can either be seen the same way or from a process perspective.  We are not building a team as much as a pipeline.  We want to build it as strong and thick as possible, so it provides as much talent as possible for the major league roster.  The team never needs rebuilt because it is always in flux.  The talent flows from the pipeline and keeps it fresh.  We supplement from free agency or trades as needed, filling in gaps here and there.



Maybe Bob was thinking along these lines with his word choice?  Not sure - I eventually got out of traffic and stopped tkinking about it.





 
I’d like to see them “build up” the franchise and “build up” the fanbase

785D5E5E4B605D555740320 wrote: I honestly never put much thought into Ben's word choice.  I generally ignore most of what Pirates GM's say since it is

full-to-bursting with GM-speak.  Then I found myself stuck in Pittsburgh traffic on the way back from the reptile expo in Monroeville...



So, here are my stuck-in-traffic thoughts...



'Rebuild' could be seen as a bit of a once-and-done thing, kind-of static.  We built a team, used it till it fell apart (like I do with my cars), now we need to rebuild it.



'Build' though can either be seen the same way or from a process perspective.  We are not building a team as much as a pipeline.  We want to build it as strong and thick as possible, so it provides as much talent as possible for the major league roster.  The team never needs rebuilt because it is always in flux.  The talent flows from the pipeline and keeps it fresh.  We supplement from free agency or trades as needed, filling in gaps here and there.



Maybe Bob was thinking along these lines with his word choice?  Not sure - I eventually got out of traffic and stopped tkinking about it.





 
I’d like to see them “build up” the franchise and “build up” the fanbase


I think it's important that you wrote, "build up the franchise", because BC has more to do than just put together a major league roster.  He's been changing nearly everything, from personnel at all levels, including management, coaches, and players, to training and development approaches, along with scouting, drafting, and international strategies. 



That all doesn't lead to a World Series in two years.  That's why I have no concern for last year's or this year's major league results, nor have I become attached to most of the players because nearly all of them will be gone by 2023.  What excites me is what we got to witness last night, one of those promising guys who BC has acquired, performing for the major league club.  It's the beginning of that stream of talent that will steadily replace the current guys who just aren't good enough to be contributors.