We have one of the worst front offices in baseball. Just look at the ridiculous things that has happened with this team in the last 2 years. 1. Let Nicasio go without getting anything for him. Phillies pick him up and then trade him to the Cards a few days, incredible. 2. Not on top of the Kang situation, a competent GM would have been over there moving heaven and earth to get him a Visa. 3. Renewing Clint Hurdle's contract after 2 miserable losing season in a row. 4. Giving away Liriano and 2 prospects in return for a pitcher that shows no big league ability or future. Don't give me the unloading his contract because he is the one that gave Liriano the bad (overpaid) contract. 5. Giving away Neal Walker for a worthless pitcher (Jon Niese) who no longer in baseball. In other words getting nothing for NW. Now we are going to let him trade Andrew McCutchen, I live in horror to see what that's going to look like.
Unfortunately we have a owner that doesn't know anything about baseball and is relying on this incompetent bumpkin to run his baseball team. This team is being run into the ground by Neal Huntington. That's my opinion, anyone want to try and defend him.
Incompetent Front Office
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
Incompetent Front Office
All I'll say for NH is that he works for a cheap owner with a small budget. One thing we know for sure is that he won't acquire a highly paid player in a trade regardless of who he gives up. So even if trading Cutch, the return is limited by payroll. In other words, I could see another GM offering a couple very good players who come with market sized contracts for Cutch. NH's response would probably be, "No thanks. Got any prospects or low salaried veterans?" NH has made some bad moves and there's no margin for error for a team that gives away Nicasio to save little more than minimum salary. We can forget about acquiring veterans currently producing at a high level. It would raise payroll above that #25-26 comfort zone. I think the Pirates define a good trade as one that doesn't raise payroll and a great trade as one that lowers it.
Incompetent Front Office
567B76676071662625140 wrote: All I'll say for NH is that he works for a cheap owner with a small budget. One thing we know for sure is that he won't acquire a highly paid player in a trade regardless of who he gives up. So even if trading Cutch, the return is limited by payroll. In other words, I could see another GM offering a couple very good players who come with market sized contracts for Cutch. NH's response would probably be, "No thanks. Got any prospects or low salaried veterans?" NH has made some bad moves and there's no margin for error for a team that gives away Nicasio to save little more than minimum salary. We can forget about acquiring veterans currently producing at a high level. It would raise payroll above that #25-26 comfort zone. [highlight]I think the Pirates define a good trade as one that doesn't raise payroll and a great trade as one that lowers it. [/highlight]
Unfortunately not a winning strategy.
Unfortunately not a winning strategy.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
Incompetent Front Office
1F323F2E29382F6F6C5D0 wrote: All I'll say for NH is that he works for a cheap owner with a small budget. One thing we know for sure is that he won't acquire a highly paid player in a trade regardless of who he gives up. So even if trading Cutch, the return is limited by payroll. In other words, I could see another GM offering a couple very good players who come with market sized contracts for Cutch. NH's response would probably be, "No thanks. Got any prospects or low salaried veterans?" NH has made some bad moves and there's no margin for error for a team that gives away Nicasio to save little more than minimum salary. We can forget about acquiring veterans currently producing at a high level. It would raise payroll above that #25-26 comfort zone. I think the Pirates define a good trade as one that doesn't raise payroll and a great trade as one that lowers it.
I'm not so sure, any good business man has got to know that if your not successful it's not good for business. If the Pirates were winning they could get a much better TV deal, attendance and ticket prices can go up if your winning. You may be right, I can't say for sure. My observation is he's (Nutting) not a savvy baseball fan, therefore he's depending completely on the GM. I have not seen much from the 10 years of NH being the GM. As I said in other post the #1 player (Cutch) we've had over his term was drafted by none other than Dave Littlefield. I guess I don't blame this bad team all on Nutting as some on here do. I just can't figure out how a GM can't draft, can't trade, and can't fire a bad manager. Maybe Nutting inherited all his money, but most successful business men wouldn't be successful by being stupid, this team will not be worth much if we continue on this course. I can see a successful business man putting his trust in someone who had a couple of years success when it was all just dumb luck, odds were with NH that a team is bound to break there losing streak sometime.
Guess I would like to know, how everyone knows it's Nutting who doesn't want to spend any money on this team. Do you have someone on the inside, that you trust completely or something.
I personally don't want or trust NH to go out and get a high priced FA. I don't trust his judgment at all.
I'm not so sure, any good business man has got to know that if your not successful it's not good for business. If the Pirates were winning they could get a much better TV deal, attendance and ticket prices can go up if your winning. You may be right, I can't say for sure. My observation is he's (Nutting) not a savvy baseball fan, therefore he's depending completely on the GM. I have not seen much from the 10 years of NH being the GM. As I said in other post the #1 player (Cutch) we've had over his term was drafted by none other than Dave Littlefield. I guess I don't blame this bad team all on Nutting as some on here do. I just can't figure out how a GM can't draft, can't trade, and can't fire a bad manager. Maybe Nutting inherited all his money, but most successful business men wouldn't be successful by being stupid, this team will not be worth much if we continue on this course. I can see a successful business man putting his trust in someone who had a couple of years success when it was all just dumb luck, odds were with NH that a team is bound to break there losing streak sometime.
Guess I would like to know, how everyone knows it's Nutting who doesn't want to spend any money on this team. Do you have someone on the inside, that you trust completely or something.
I personally don't want or trust NH to go out and get a high priced FA. I don't trust his judgment at all.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Incompetent Front Office
The team went from a $92 million value to $900 million - $1 billion value in 20 years. I don't know what Nutting paid McClatchy to get control, but I do know it wasn't close to a billion dollars.
What if you looked at the last five years of Huntington's tenure instead of just the last two years? I still don't understand why so many people concentrate on the last two years instead of the whole picture.
What if you looked at the last five years of Huntington's tenure instead of just the last two years? I still don't understand why so many people concentrate on the last two years instead of the whole picture.
Incompetent Front Office
515A525E5B5A410402754C545D5A5A1B565A350 wrote: The team went from a $92 million value to $900 million - $1 billion value in 20 years. I don't know what Nutting paid McClatchy to get control, but I do know it wasn't close to a billion dollars.
What if you looked at the last five years of Huntington's tenure instead of just the last two years? I still don't understand why so many people concentrate on the last two years instead of the whole picture.
I don't understand why you look at the past. The past is just that. Sports are a what have you done for me lately! The last 2 years he has been a failure of epic proportions.
What if you looked at the last five years of Huntington's tenure instead of just the last two years? I still don't understand why so many people concentrate on the last two years instead of the whole picture.
I don't understand why you look at the past. The past is just that. Sports are a what have you done for me lately! The last 2 years he has been a failure of epic proportions.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Incompetent Front Office
No, I am looking at the whole picture. His whole tenure, not just the two recent down years.
In your case, what were you saying two years ago? Would you have given him a 10 year extension?
In my opinion, the good has outweighed the bad. It is fine to disagree with that. I make that assessment on the whole picture, not just the last two years. Why are we picking certain years? That just narrows down the discussion. Of course the last two years were bad, but the last five, last four weren't.
In your case, what were you saying two years ago? Would you have given him a 10 year extension?
In my opinion, the good has outweighed the bad. It is fine to disagree with that. I make that assessment on the whole picture, not just the last two years. Why are we picking certain years? That just narrows down the discussion. Of course the last two years were bad, but the last five, last four weren't.
Incompetent Front Office
48434B474243581D1B6C554D444343024F432C0 wrote: No, I am looking at the whole picture. His whole tenure, not just the two recent down years.
In your case, what were you saying two years ago? Would you have given him a 10 year extension?
In my opinion, the good has outweighed the bad. It is fine to disagree with that. I make that assessment on the whole picture, not just the last two years. Why are we picking certain years? That just narrows down the discussion. Of course the last two years were bad, but the last five, last four weren't.
I could see your point if 2016 was the blip, but 2017 was a down year and it is very likely that 2018 will be another down year unless the team changes its off season approach.
There has been no indication from management at all that they plan on changing the way they prepare for the season and there are indications that they will get even more conservative.
For example, I don't see how any team that is going to keep payroll flat or reduce it can justify adding S-Rod at his salary.
In your case, what were you saying two years ago? Would you have given him a 10 year extension?
In my opinion, the good has outweighed the bad. It is fine to disagree with that. I make that assessment on the whole picture, not just the last two years. Why are we picking certain years? That just narrows down the discussion. Of course the last two years were bad, but the last five, last four weren't.
I could see your point if 2016 was the blip, but 2017 was a down year and it is very likely that 2018 will be another down year unless the team changes its off season approach.
There has been no indication from management at all that they plan on changing the way they prepare for the season and there are indications that they will get even more conservative.
For example, I don't see how any team that is going to keep payroll flat or reduce it can justify adding S-Rod at his salary.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Incompetent Front Office
The off season didn't even start yet. Of course, you haven't seen any moves. What approach are you talking about? It hasn't started yet.
The Cardinals won 100 games in 2015 and then missed the playoffs the last two years (17 game difference). They have a President and GM who were signed until 2020. They haven't made any moves yet either. Are they done too? If you just look at the last two years, they are on the downside big time. I am going to give John Mozeliak the benefit of the doubt because of his whole tenure, not because of the last two years.
The Cardinals won 100 games in 2015 and then missed the playoffs the last two years (17 game difference). They have a President and GM who were signed until 2020. They haven't made any moves yet either. Are they done too? If you just look at the last two years, they are on the downside big time. I am going to give John Mozeliak the benefit of the doubt because of his whole tenure, not because of the last two years.