OnlyBucs

the Nats have 5 players on 25 man roster that were born in 1996 or later.



Sure they have there share of older players but a bad team like the Bucs should have younger players that get a chance to play.



Right now we just don't have them.



Nats Players



Seth Romero lhp 4/19/96

Luis Garcia inf 5/16/2000 (granted called up due to injury)

Carter Kieboom inf 9/3/97

Victor Robles of 5/19/97

Juan Soto of 10/25/98



Three youngest Pirates



Mitch Keller p 4/4/96

Nick Mears p 10/7/96

Cole Tucker inf-of 7/3/96





Bryan Reynolds of 1/27/95



O'Neil Cruz born in 1998 and Hayes in 1997.



Will Craig 1994.



The Bucs are bad and aren't young either.

You can lay this at Huntington's feet.

193F3E293F2F5C0 wrote: the Nats have 5 players on 25 man roster that were born in 1996 or later.



Sure they have there share of older players but[highlight] a bad team like the Bucs should have younger players that get a chance to play.

[/highlight]

Right now we just don't have them.



Nats Players



Seth Romero lhp 4/19/96

Luis Garcia inf     5/16/2000 (granted called up due to injury)

Carter Kieboom inf  9/3/97

Victor Robles of   5/19/97

Juan Soto of      10/25/98



Three youngest Pirates



[highlight]Mitch Keller  p   4/4/96

Nick Mears p     10/7/96

Cole Tucker inf-of  7/3/96

[/highlight]



Bryan Reynolds of   1/27/95



O'Neil Cruz born in 1998 and Hayes in 1997. 



Will Craig 1994.



The Bucs are bad and aren't young either.








I don't and won't agree. Never have. The way a bad team gets good....is to replace bad players with better players.



Since this is about the Pirates, I'll leave the Nats out of it. Looking at the Pirates players you list, none of them would be on my team. The issue isn't their age. It's their poor resuits.



We'll blame Huntington until we let Cherington go. Ben's the man, and he's choosing who is on the team. This is on his doorstep.

Ideally, sure. Just get out the check book. You can rail against Nutting til you're green blue in the face and it won't change the fact that they don't operate as you want them to. I think, realistically, most of us realize they won't operate that way (i.e., they are not going to just go out and sign established, productive players--they can't even trade for them because they have little to trade and they won't accept good players with high salaries in a trade) so if improvement is to be made it has to be via developing young players.



Having a policy of refusing to spend on good players is one thing. But they do not have a policy of refusing to draft, trade for and develop good young players. That is an option--the only viable option--available to them within their own self-imposed financial constraints. And yet they are woefully awful at it. This is an area they can improve on. We don't see it from the roster which is distressing. That's on Huntington. Like it or not, Cherington is not going to pull out Nutting's checkbook and immediately improve the roster by either free agents of expensive players in trades. So he better do a much better job than Huntington at developing their own talent because right now it's way too sparse.

It's not just about money.  It's about incompetence, too.  Few acknowledge it.  But, this thread points in that direction.



We have the double whammy.  Cheapness.  Incompetence.



I don't mind being cheap as long as they're competent.  To have both of them working against us is hard to accept and defend.

251007070C3507070C0B07620 wrote: It's not just about money.  It's about incompetence, too.  Few acknowledge it.  But, this thread points in that direction.



We have the double whammy.  Cheapness.  Incompetence.



I don't mind being cheap as long as they're competent.  To have both of them working against us is hard to accept and defend.
Exactly! Since they won't spend, they have to identify, acquire and develop their own young talent. They have been incompetent in that area. Even when Huntington enjoyed winning seasons, his key players-Cutch, Walker and Marte-were Littlefield acquisitions. If Cherington is to be of any value as a GM, he needs to excel where Huntington failed.

The way I figure it, they can't just stop at pissing me off about only one thing.  They have to piss me off about both.



Huntington gets credit from me for extending certain contributors and finding some cast-off.



I give a pass on Cole.  Even those Cheatstros couldn't keep him.



Some were over-extended (Marte, Polanco) but every team has some.



That got us to one second round.



To top that, Ben has to get off his lead ass.

7C515C4D4A5B4C0C0F3E0 wrote: Ideally, sure. Just get out the check book. You can rail against Nutting til you're green blue in the face and it won't change the fact that they don't operate as you want them to. I think, realistically, most of us realize they won't operate that way (i.e., they are not going to just go out and sign established, productive players--they can't even trade for them because they have little to trade and they won't accept good players with high salaries in a trade) so if improvement is to be made it has to be via developing young players. 



Having a policy of refusing to spend on good players is one thing. But they do not have a policy of refusing to draft, trade for and develop good young players. That is an option--the only viable option--available to them within their own self-imposed financial constraints. And yet they are woefully awful at it. This is an area they can improve on. We don't see it from the roster which is distressing. That's on Huntington. Like it or not, Cherington is not going to pull out Nutting's checkbook and immediately improve the roster by either free agents of expensive players in trades. So he better do a much better job than Huntington at developing their own talent because right now it's way too sparse.


Cherington hasn't even had a draft nor an International signing period, so I'm not going to vilify him just yet.  In addition, he has no decent veterans to deal away in exchange for young talent from other organizations.  And as you pointed out, and what we all are well aware of, he is constrained like few other GMs by a boss who doesn't prioritize winning, so more money isn't going to be coming his way. Throw in the game being closed down for five months and I'm just not sure what he could've done to rebuild the organization through the acquisition of young amateurs, which is the only realistic way going forward.

0D5B4D59564C5C575A4D7F58525E5653115C3F0 wrote: Ideally, sure. Just get out the check book. You can rail against Nutting til you're green blue in the face and it won't change the fact that they don't operate as you want them to. I think, realistically, most of us realize they won't operate that way (i.e., they are not going to just go out and sign established, productive players--they can't even trade for them because they have little to trade and they won't accept good players with high salaries in a trade) so if improvement is to be made it has to be via developing young players. 



Having a policy of refusing to spend on good players is one thing. But they do not have a policy of refusing to draft, trade for and develop good young players. That is an option--the only viable option--available to them within their own self-imposed financial constraints. And yet they are woefully awful at it. This is an area they can improve on. We don't see it from the roster which is distressing. That's on Huntington. Like it or not, Cherington is not going to pull out Nutting's checkbook and immediately improve the roster by either free agents of expensive players in trades. So he better do a much better job than Huntington at developing their own talent because right now it's way too sparse.


Cherington hasn't even had a draft nor an International signing period, so I'm not going to vilify him just yet.  In addition, he has no decent veterans to deal away in exchange for young talent from other organizations.  And as you pointed out, and what we all are well aware of, he is constrained like few other GMs by a boss who doesn't prioritize winning, so more money isn't going to be coming his way.  Throw in the game being closed down for five months and I'm just not sure what he could've done to rebuild the organization through the acquisition of young amateurs, which is the only realistic way going forward.


Yes, it remains to be seen how Cherington will do in this area. Way too soon to form any judgments. For all NH's talk of building the system, he was terrible at it, culminating in the mess BC inherited. Even best case scenario is that BC will need several drafts and a few years to develop the young players. Years were lost as NH failed to acquire and/or develop internal talent. Hopefully, the next few years will be an investment in the team's future success and not just another bunch of wasted years until another GM comes in to try his hand at it.

Which brings us back to our owner. This organization is where it is, because of him. Is there a single person on this board who thinks we'll keep Bell? Are we going to trade him because we have talent pushing him off the roster, or is it because we will have to pay market price for his production as he becomes a free agent? And this is FAR from elite production. We're going to trade him and we won't get back equal or better production, simply because that production equates to a certain cost, one we will not pay. This organization is not one which can ever win in the future, it is built to win right now. We will not develop our talent into productive ballplayers, because we will not pay productive ballplayers. Production will always get traded for prospects and we will keep, acquire and trade for the level of production that costs far less.