OnlyBucs

7868695E4848442B0 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.


Haven't I mentioned his bad drafting numerous times?

Haven't I mentioned the questionable moves the last two years?



Yes, KC made a great run. The Pirates did too. KC got further as a Wild Card. The Pirates need to focus on windows like KC did. I have mentioned that many times too.



The Twins rebuilt. They are in great shape going forward after six losing seasons. They remind me of the 2013 Pirates. They snuck up on people this year but will be considered big contenders next year.



So, judging his whole tenure is bad compared to just judging the last two seasons? And this makes sense to people?

Yes it makes sense because we are headed in the wrong direction.

14040532242428470 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.


Oh, I'm aware. The intention of my post wasn't for Dogknot (just look at his non-answer reply). The intention of my post was to show how dishonest Dogknot is.

6F4F5C41402E0 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.


Oh, I'm aware. The intention of my post wasn't for Dogknot (just look at his non-answer reply). The intention of my post was to show how dishonest Dogknot is.






Dishonest? What am I lying about?

5A51595550514A0F097E475F565151105D513E0 wrote:



Dishonest?  What am I lying about?




Almost every word you write is a lie.  You see, you're willing to make yourself look, as if you don't understand things. You pretend to be more naive than you are in order to make the front office look better than they are. Like this one:



"Yes, KC made a great run.  The Pirates did too."



No, these are lies. Their, "runs," aren't even close.



Kansas City made the World Series in back to back seasons, won a world championship and then in an effort to keep the success going, increased the payroll the following year.



The loser Pirates, led by your favorite losers NH and Nutting, made the post season three times, lost in the wildcard game twice, then lost in the LDS in the third year. They then decreased payroll, made awful transactions in the offseason that were al money based, decreased the number of team wins from 98-78, have done nothing but go downhill with no end in sight and they show their quite content with it by giving the same losers in charge lengthy extensions.



So, let's look again at their equal, great runs.



So, KC walks away with a World Championship and an appearance in a 2nd World Series.



The loser Pirates walk away with a video highlight of Johnny Cueto dropping a baseball.



4 YEAR EXTENSIONS!!



DOGKNOT SAYS THEY CAN DO IT AGAIN!!!! AWESOME!!!!



WHO DROPS THE BASEBALL THIS TIME?!?!?!?



And that's just one line of your dishonesty dissected. I could keep going.

So, the Pirates didn't make a three year run at the playoffs? I didn't say it was better than KC's. KC made the playoffs twice. The Pirates made it three times. KC was also a wild card team. These are facts. I am not lying.



What you aren't noticing is that I am actually down on Huntington. He needs to do better. His moves the last two years didn't pan out. But I am not erasing what he did before 2016. I think he can do it again.



Having an opinion and lying are two different things. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt and lying are two different things.



People are so against the Pirates in general that they aren't seeing any positives. It's funny that the Pirates have to win the WS to be successful, but other teams just have to make it past the wild card game to be successful. Sorry, for being fair of criticism across the board.

6D666E6267667D383E497068616666276A66090 wrote: People are so against the Pirates in general that they aren't seeing any positives. 




I actually love the Pirates. And that's why the sham that you cheer Bob Nutting to get away with disgusts me.



You? You no longer love the Pirates. You love Neal Huntngton and Bob Nutting.

For me it's impossible to label the front office as incompetent. NH has done some good things and bad things as a GM. He's had some successes and experienced some failures. In my view he's proven on balance to be no better than an average GM during his tenure, somewhere south of good and somewhere north of incompetent.



There is a context however that does mitigate some of the failures- the Nutting ownership.



I believe that more than a few of the "bad" moves we've seen NH make have been necessitated by an overly restrictive ownership imposed salary cap. The payroll information below from spotrac.com serves to illustrate.



Year League Average Payroll Pirate Payroll

2015 $136.3M $105.0M

2016 $145.4M $105.8M

2017 $152.3M $109.8M



While League Average Payroll increased by 11.7% over the last 3 years Pirate Payroll increased by 4.6%. It's clear that the Pirate payroll hasn't kept up with inflation. If it had the Pirate payroll in 2017 would have been $117.3M ($7.5M more than Nutting actually allowed NH to spend). NH is operating as a GM while being handcuffed by ownership that won't even provide money for payroll that at a bare minimum stays even with the operating costs defined by inflation of this business sector.



Sure NH has earned some legitimate criticism (what GM hasn't?) but believing that another GM could be significantly more successful under the restrictive financial constraints that Bob Nutting so obviously demands is probably unrealistic.

5B7F6B63660A0 wrote: For me it's impossible to label the front office as incompetent. NH has done some good things and bad things as a GM. He's had some successes and experienced some failures. In my view he's proven on balance to be no better than an average GM during his tenure, somewhere south of good and somewhere north of incompetent.



There is a context however that does mitigate some of the failures- the Nutting ownership.



I believe that more than a few of the "bad" moves we've seen NH make have been necessitated by an overly restrictive ownership imposed salary cap. The payroll information below from spotrac.com serves to illustrate.



Year              League Average Payroll           Pirate Payroll

2015              $136.3M                                $105.0M

2016              $145.4M                                $105.8M

2017              $152.3M                                $109.8M



While League Average Payroll increased by 11.7% over the last 3 years Pirate Payroll increased by 4.6%. It's clear that the Pirate payroll hasn't kept up with inflation. If it had the Pirate payroll in 2017 would have been $117.3M ($7.5M more than Nutting actually allowed NH to spend). NH is operating as a GM while being handcuffed by ownership that won't even provide money for payroll that at a bare minimum stays even with the operating costs defined by inflation of this business sector.



Sure NH has earned some legitimate criticism (what GM hasn't?) but believing that another GM could be significantly more successful under the restrictive financial constraints that Bob Nutting so obviously demands is probably unrealistic.   


They're not completely incompetent.



They were able to capitalize on having an MVP that was left to them from the previous GM, and a few players that appeared to be past their primes coming back and performing well above expectations. That was a nice run.



Now, without the MVP that was handed to them and the few reclamation projects gone, we're seeing what NH has built over a decade.



And he was rewarded for his blatant mediocrity with a 4 year extension because in todays MLB economic climate, you can grow the value of your franchise tremendously, by just being a mediocre team.



Nutting reached his goal and therefore rewarded those that helped him reach his goals.



Neal's extension has nothing to do with baseball.



It's all about setting up future generations of Nutting's to be able to make their manicure appointments.

7450444C49250 wrote: For me it's impossible to label the front office as incompetent. NH has done some good things and bad things as a GM. He's had some successes and experienced some failures. In my view he's proven on balance to be no better than an average GM during his tenure, somewhere south of good and somewhere north of incompetent.



There is a context however that does mitigate some of the failures- the Nutting ownership.



I believe that more than a few of the "bad" moves we've seen NH make have been necessitated by an overly restrictive ownership imposed salary cap. The payroll information below from spotrac.com serves to illustrate.



Year              League Average Payroll           Pirate Payroll

2015              $136.3M                                $105.0M

2016              $145.4M                                $105.8M

2017              $152.3M                                $109.8M



While League Average Payroll increased by 11.7% over the last 3 years Pirate Payroll increased by 4.6%. It's clear that the Pirate payroll hasn't kept up with inflation. If it had the Pirate payroll in 2017 would have been $117.3M ($7.5M more than Nutting actually allowed NH to spend). NH is operating as a GM while being handcuffed by ownership that won't even provide money for payroll that at a bare minimum stays even with the operating costs defined by inflation of this business sector.



Sure NH has earned some legitimate criticism (what GM hasn't?) but believing that another GM could be significantly more successful under the restrictive financial constraints that Bob Nutting so obviously demands is probably unrealistic.   


Quail: In a “nuttshell” you nailed it!