OnlyBucs

577170677161120 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. 
I guess it's like being a good driver for 3 years and then causing a slew of accidents in each of the next 2 years. At best you could say, "Overall, he was a good driver. But he isn't anymore." And in the present, the present matters more than the past. I wouldn't want to drive with that person just because there was a time when he wasn't a bad driver.



That said, I believe NH's performance as GM is linked to the financial constraints of the owner. He was a better GM when the payroll was going up. It's gone down the past 2 years when his moves were not good. Trying to catch lightning in a bottle with guys like Jaso and Vogelsong doesn't work. But better players cost more money.

7D767E7277766D282E596078717676377A76190 wrote: 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. 


at this stage, just going by what was in the paper:



his winter holds as much or more uncertainty for the Pirates, though it’s not at all clear there’ll be much roster change. Stephen Nesbitt of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette tackles some fan questions in an interesting read. He predicts that, so long as the team doesn’t find trades for significant players, it will likely keep the same essential form as it had this year. (Side note: best wishes to Stephen as he transitions off of the beat into a new role, as he discusses in the link.)

4C474F4346475C191F685149404747064B47280 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.
You ALWAYS pick certain years 2013-2015!!

51504B5A4C0C0B3F0 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.


If you don't look at history you won't know where your likely going. If you go apply for a job they're going to want to know your history. That the reason people study history. Ignoring history is a recipe for disaster.

50514A5B4D0D0A3E0 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.
You ALWAYS pick certain years 2013-2015!!


My reasoning was that after 20 plus years of having losing more games than you win, odds were through just luck you would have a couple of winning seasons. My big concern is looking at his record especially lately, with the Nicasio fiasco and the Lariano deal, and the S. Rodriguez deal, I don't trust his judgment at all. I don't know that these were because Nutting was wanting to save money or he's just a bad negotiator and bad judge of talent.

557875646372652526170 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. 
I guess it's like being a good driver for 3 years and then causing a slew of accidents in each of the next 2 years. At best you could say, "Overall, he was a good driver. But he isn't anymore." And in the present, the present matters more than the past.  I wouldn't want to drive with that person just because there was a time when he wasn't a bad driver.



That said, I believe NH's performance as GM is linked to the financial constraints of the owner. He was a better GM when the payroll was going up. It's gone down the past 2 years when his moves were not good. Trying to catch lightning in a bottle with guys like Jaso and Vogelsong doesn't work. But better players cost more money. 




I guess that's my point is that Nutting or NH just trying to show how smart he is and it backfired. I don't know, just really really concerned about NH's judgment.

283032353522333429283E5B0 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.


If you don't look at history you won't know where your likely going.  If you go apply for a job they're going to want to know your history.  That the reason people study history.  Ignoring history is a recipe for disaster.   


I am looking at history. That is my point.



I'm wrong in narrowing it down to the last five years but people are right for just going by the last two years? How does that make sense?



In history, Huntington built an al time loser into a winner. I would give him the chance to do it again. If he doesn't turn it around, he will be gone with good reason. I just don't think that time is now.

2E252D2124253E7B7D0A332B2225256429254A0 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.


Okay, let's look at the whole picture:



7 losing seasons in 10 years.



Below average drafting results.



A minor league system that will likely be ranked in the middle of the pack before 2018.



No division titles.



Oh, I know what you're thinking Dogknot. He broke the 20 year losing streak!!! While true, what happened with this organization 15-20 years before NH took over could not be more irrelevant. Yes, they were in bad shape when he took over. But that is true whether they had a 5, 10, 20 or 30 year losing streak. Had the Pirates somehow finished with a winning record in 1999 and only had a 13 year losing streak instread if 20, does that diminish NH's accomplishment? Of course not. So let's not use years of ineptitude by previous management as the barometer to evaluate NH.



But I know what you're also thinking. Small market teams can't compete!!! Here's how 7 of the 9 small market teams have fared since the Pirates hired NH.



In the past 10 years the Twins have finished above .500 five times, won the AL Central twice and reached the playoffs three times.



In the past 10 years the Royals have finished above .500 four times, won the AL Central once, reached two World Series and have won a Championship.



In the past 10 years the Indians have finished above .500 six times, won the AL Central three times and been to a World Series.



In the past 10 years the Brewers have finished above .500 five times, won the NL Central once and reached the NLCS once.



In the past 10 years the Reds have finished above .500 three times and won the NL Central twice.



In the past 10 years the A's have finished above. 500 four times and won the AL West twice.



In the past 10 years the Rays have finished above .500 six times, won the AL East twice and reached a World Series.



So with the exception of the Padres and Marlins, all the other small market teams have accomplished as much, if not more, than the Pirates. In some cases, much more. But keep applauding 3 winning seasons and 2nd place finishes like it's some remarkable feat, while telling us he's won before, ignore what taken place the past 10 years (and the last 2, in particular) and blindly believe they can easily win again.

Just so you know, I don't think any of those things you think I think. I have said why I think he can do it again numerous times. Huntington was given four years. If he doesn't produce, he will be gone and I will want him gone too.

0323302D2C420 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.


Okay, let's look at the whole picture:



7 losing seasons in 10 years.



Below average drafting results.



A minor league system that will likely be ranked in the middle of the pack before 2018.



No division titles.



Oh, I know what you're thinking Dogknot. He broke the 20 year losing streak!!!  While true, what happened with this organization 15-20 years before NH took over could not be more irrelevant. Yes, they were in bad shape when he took over. But that is true whether they had a 5, 10, 20 or 30 year losing streak. Had the Pirates somehow finished with a winning record in 1999 and only had a 13 year losing streak instread if 20, does that diminish NH's accomplishment?  Of course not. So let's not use years of ineptitude by previous management as the barometer to evaluate NH.



But I know what you're also thinking. Small market teams can't compete!!!  Here's how 7 of the 9 small market teams have fared since the Pirates hired NH.



In the past 10 years the Twins have finished above .500 five times, won the AL Central twice and reached the playoffs three times.



In the past 10 years the Royals have finished above .500 four times, won the AL Central once, reached two World Series and have won a Championship.



In the past 10 years the Indians have finished above .500 six times, won the AL Central three times and been to a World Series.



In the past 10 years the Brewers have finished above .500 five times, won the NL Central once and reached the NLCS once.



In the past 10 years the Reds have finished above .500 three times and won the NL Central twice.



In the past 10 years the A's have finished above. 500 four times and won the AL West twice.



In the past 10 years the Rays have finished above .500 six times, won the AL East twice and reached a World Series.



So with the exception of the Padres and Marlins, all the other small market teams have accomplished as much, if not more, than the Pirates. In some cases, much more. But keep applauding 3 winning seasons and 2nd place finishes like it's some remarkable feat, while telling us he's won before, ignore what taken place the past 10 years (and the last 2, in particular) and blindly believe they can easily win again.




You need to realize, you are discussing this with the biggest NH apologist. I have always thought Dog was NH.



Yes, he has made some good moves over the years, but his drafting has sucked; the prospect pool isn't strong and has made some very very questionable decisions over the last two years. We can say all about our resources or lack there of, but that doesn't hold much water to me as much anymore. KC made it to the WS back to back years and won it once. Minnesota made it to the wild card this year. Those two organizations are in Pittsburgh's same money situation. Minnesota is better positioned to do better things than Pittsburgh is right now. Let that sink in.