68636B676263783D3B4C756D646363226F630C0 wrote: That's just it:
When good things happened, it was because they were lucky. When the bad things happen, its because they stink.
Ugh!
Now you get it. ::)
Strategies
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
Strategies
41737F7F6B597A737E7B7473120 wrote: You could say the same things about the bad times too, though. THere were certainly mistakes made--too many--but you can't credit winning with luck if you're not at the same time blaming it to a small extent for losing.
This is not to say that I'm happy with the current state of things, but I feel you need to stay consistent. You hear too often the other way around, too--when things go bad it's because of some unfair/unlucky thing that happened but when they go well it's all "us."
Luck can play a part either way. Some would say the Pirates had no right to expect the outstanding contributions of Burnett and Russell when both seemed on the decline prior to being obtained. Ditto for Liriano initially. Also Grilli and Melancon, who arrived with a 6+ ERA. And Happ. All greatly exceeded reasonable expectations. It was bad luck for the team that Cuitch struggled in 2016 and most of 2017. And that Cole regressed. And that Kang was lost and also Marte for half the season. It was not bad luck that when they needed a 1Bman and a starting pitcher, they cut costs and settled for Jaso and Vogelsong. And it was not bad luck when they needed to replace Kang and Marte and did nothing. And it was not bad luck when they had only 2 legit outfielders on the team and chose not to add a 3rd. It was not bad luck when they forced Watson into the closer's role and let him blow game after game even after it was clear he couldn't handle it. So while luck-good and bad-has played a role, mgt decisions these past 2 years have certainly hurt and not helped.
This is not to say that I'm happy with the current state of things, but I feel you need to stay consistent. You hear too often the other way around, too--when things go bad it's because of some unfair/unlucky thing that happened but when they go well it's all "us."
Luck can play a part either way. Some would say the Pirates had no right to expect the outstanding contributions of Burnett and Russell when both seemed on the decline prior to being obtained. Ditto for Liriano initially. Also Grilli and Melancon, who arrived with a 6+ ERA. And Happ. All greatly exceeded reasonable expectations. It was bad luck for the team that Cuitch struggled in 2016 and most of 2017. And that Cole regressed. And that Kang was lost and also Marte for half the season. It was not bad luck that when they needed a 1Bman and a starting pitcher, they cut costs and settled for Jaso and Vogelsong. And it was not bad luck when they needed to replace Kang and Marte and did nothing. And it was not bad luck when they had only 2 legit outfielders on the team and chose not to add a 3rd. It was not bad luck when they forced Watson into the closer's role and let him blow game after game even after it was clear he couldn't handle it. So while luck-good and bad-has played a role, mgt decisions these past 2 years have certainly hurt and not helped.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Strategies
I think you're on there, Bobster. And it's also their jobs to mitigate the luck. Get some backup plans.
Strategies
It just doesn't make sense. The GM hasn't drafted well and/or got unlucky with his drafrs from the beginning.
The US domestic draft has developed so little compared to our awesome draft positions all those years.
All those drafts where we had to wait 5 years to judge them, have come up below average.
The 3 players added who turned the franchise around were aquired through trade and FA. Burnett, Liriano, Martin
Kang was a wonderful signing that we got unlucky on, also not a draft pick.
He didn't do it (the turn around) through drafting. It was done inspite of it The US draft has flat out sucked. Whether that's bad luck or not, what difference does it really make? The results of those classes are the results.
I would move on and get a new GM before selling off and trying this all over again (over the next 3-5 years)
That's why I want us to go for it now.
The US domestic draft has developed so little compared to our awesome draft positions all those years.
All those drafts where we had to wait 5 years to judge them, have come up below average.
The 3 players added who turned the franchise around were aquired through trade and FA. Burnett, Liriano, Martin
Kang was a wonderful signing that we got unlucky on, also not a draft pick.
He didn't do it (the turn around) through drafting. It was done inspite of it The US draft has flat out sucked. Whether that's bad luck or not, what difference does it really make? The results of those classes are the results.
I would move on and get a new GM before selling off and trying this all over again (over the next 3-5 years)
That's why I want us to go for it now.
Strategies
232A22333D470 wrote: It just doesn't make sense. The GM hasn't drafted well and/or got unlucky with his drafrs from the beginning.
The US domestic draft has developed so little compared to our awesome draft positions all those years.
All those drafts where we had to wait 5 years to judge them, have come up below average.
The 3 players added who turned the franchise around were aquired through trade and FA. Burnett, Liriano, Martin
Kang was a wonderful signing that we got unlucky on, also not a draft pick.
He didn't do it (the turn around) through drafting. It was done inspite of it The US draft has flat out sucked. Whether that's bad luck or not, what difference does it really make? The results of those classes are the results.
I would move on and get a new GM before selling off and trying this all over again (over the next 3-5 years)
That's why I want us to go for it now.
I could not agree with you more. This should be a decent team with all the pieces on the field at the same time. Add where it is needed for next season and if doesn't work its then time to sell everyone and I mean everyone that would get a viable return.
The US domestic draft has developed so little compared to our awesome draft positions all those years.
All those drafts where we had to wait 5 years to judge them, have come up below average.
The 3 players added who turned the franchise around were aquired through trade and FA. Burnett, Liriano, Martin
Kang was a wonderful signing that we got unlucky on, also not a draft pick.
He didn't do it (the turn around) through drafting. It was done inspite of it The US draft has flat out sucked. Whether that's bad luck or not, what difference does it really make? The results of those classes are the results.
I would move on and get a new GM before selling off and trying this all over again (over the next 3-5 years)
That's why I want us to go for it now.
I could not agree with you more. This should be a decent team with all the pieces on the field at the same time. Add where it is needed for next season and if doesn't work its then time to sell everyone and I mean everyone that would get a viable return.
Strategies
5A51595550514A0F097E475F565151105D513E0 wrote: That's just it:
When good things happened, it was because they were lucky. When the bad things happen, its because they stink.
Ugh!
Do you really believe that acquiring aging veterans or underachievers over and over is going to be a sustainable strategy? Do you not think luck played a large role in getting 3 veteran players that had not been performing well to come together and have great years all at the same time? You are delusional if you think NH can replicate that same model for success over and over. Do I think they could add expiring contracts, older players, and/or underachieving guys to a great core and extract some value. Sure, but to do anymore than supplement a great core with these types of players isn't realistic.
When good things happened, it was because they were lucky. When the bad things happen, its because they stink.
Ugh!
Do you really believe that acquiring aging veterans or underachievers over and over is going to be a sustainable strategy? Do you not think luck played a large role in getting 3 veteran players that had not been performing well to come together and have great years all at the same time? You are delusional if you think NH can replicate that same model for success over and over. Do I think they could add expiring contracts, older players, and/or underachieving guys to a great core and extract some value. Sure, but to do anymore than supplement a great core with these types of players isn't realistic.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Strategies
The core was built. Huntington brought in veterans to fill in the holes. They performed for the most part or were at least better than what the Pirates currently had. Huntington even said at the time of the trade/signings why those players were acquired.
The one I felt was the biggest shock was JA Happ. He had a great run for the Pirates and Huntington even said how he was on their radar for years before he was in uniform.
I don't think it was all luck, but calculated to some extent. Good moves can't be labeled as lucky as bad moves can't be labeled as unlucky every time.
The one I felt was the biggest shock was JA Happ. He had a great run for the Pirates and Huntington even said how he was on their radar for years before he was in uniform.
I don't think it was all luck, but calculated to some extent. Good moves can't be labeled as lucky as bad moves can't be labeled as unlucky every time.
Strategies
2A21292520213A7F790E372F262121602D214E0 wrote: The core was built. Huntington brought in veterans to fill in the holes. They performed for the most part or were at least better than what the Pirates currently had. Huntington even said at the time of the trade/signings why those players were acquired.
The one I felt was the biggest shock was JA Happ. He had a great run for the Pirates and Huntington even said how he was on their radar for years before he was in uniform.
I don't think it was all luck, but calculated to some extent. Good moves can't be labeled as lucky as bad moves can't be labeled as unlucky every time.
Do you even bother to read what people post at this point? ::)
The one I felt was the biggest shock was JA Happ. He had a great run for the Pirates and Huntington even said how he was on their radar for years before he was in uniform.
I don't think it was all luck, but calculated to some extent. Good moves can't be labeled as lucky as bad moves can't be labeled as unlucky every time.
Do you even bother to read what people post at this point? ::)
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Strategies
I guess not. I must be "delusional".
So lucky Bell is good. Lucky draft pick, lucky to pay him over slot. So lucky.
So lucky Bell is good. Lucky draft pick, lucky to pay him over slot. So lucky.
Strategies
363D35393C3D266365122B333A3D3D7C313D520 wrote: I guess not. I must be "delusional".
So lucky Bell is good. Lucky draft pick, lucky to pay him over slot. So lucky.
Enjoy your site Dog, like VA before me I am going to let you have it too yourself. The conversations on this board used to be good baseball conversations but I guess that is over.
So lucky Bell is good. Lucky draft pick, lucky to pay him over slot. So lucky.
Enjoy your site Dog, like VA before me I am going to let you have it too yourself. The conversations on this board used to be good baseball conversations but I guess that is over.