OnlyBucs

586179767166577B140 wrote: I feel sorry for NH to a point, he is made to build a team with 30-40 million less than the average team has to work with from the get go and that is not even taking in to account what the upper crust big spenders get away with.  on the other hand he keeps signing up for the challenge, makes you wander what he sees that keeps him here.  Pretty sure he could double his salary in a different situation. makes you wander if the low ball budget is really his or the principle owners doing?  this thing is hard to figure.  Ugh, usually stinks to be a Bucco fan, yet here we are






One of the things he said in the interview after he signed his extension was that he likes the challenges associated with working for a smaller market team.

525750565E544D50594A4C41380 wrote: I feel sorry for NH to a point, he is made to build a team with 30-40 million less than the average team has to work with from the get go and that is not even taking in to account what the upper crust big spenders get away with.  on the other hand he keeps signing up for the challenge, makes you wander what he sees that keeps him here.  Pretty sure he could double his salary in a different situation. makes you wander if the low ball budget is really his or the principle owners doing?  this thing is hard to figure.  Ugh, usually stinks to be a Bucco fan, yet here we are






One of the things he said in the interview after he signed his extension was that he likes the challenges associated with working for a smaller market team.


That loosely translates to:



"After a decade as a major league GM, I haven't received a single employment offer. Bob Nutting isn't concerned with winning, so he offered me a deal to stay.



I'm not held accountable for the results of my work and I still get paid millions of dollars. Why would I not stay?



In case anyone is wondering, I'm lying when I say I love the challenges of being in a small market. What I actually love is making a few million dollars every year to build a bad baseball team."

7D505D4C4B5A4D0D0E3F0 wrote: Good post by BenM and dmetz. 



Good answers and you both might be right.  Maybe teams did catch up to his strategy?  Maybe he needs a new strategy?  Very good points. 



To the owner question and money, Huntington has never had the resources and succeeded.  I just don't buy that payroll is the answer and the only reason teams win and lose.  The Brewers (first team out of the playoffs) had the lowest payroll and the Diamondbacks, Rockies, Astros, and Indians were in the bottom half of payroll and all made the playoffs.  The Tigers, Blue Jays, Giants, Rangers, Orioles were all in the top ten in payrolls and didn't have winning seasons (the Pirates had a better record).  Smart money wins, not just spending in general.
That's all true. But neither can you dismiss payroll as a significant factor. After the 98-win season of 2015, Pedro was let go so they needed a better defensive 1Bman who could provide power. Instead, they settled for Jaso, an inexpensive catcher with little power who would be converted to 1B and routinely replaced for defense. The talent level of that 98-win team also diminished when Neil Walker was traded rather than letting him go to arbitration. The pitching issues of the 98-win team that needed to be addressed were that Locke and Charlie Morton were 40% of the rotation and that Burnett retired. They had Happ but chose to let him go rather than pay for a quality starter. Walker was traded to add a lackluster Jon Neise to the rotation while 38-year old, inexpensive Ryan Vogelsong was also signed to lug his 4.67 ERA from SF to round out the rotation. And the problematic Jeff Locke was retained. So instead of supplementing the 98-win team with a quality 1Bman and good starting pitchers, we got Jaso, Niese and Vogelsong. 



As a result, an already low payroll with seemingly plenty of room to grow without even getting to mid-range was reduced while cheaper, less talented players were acquired to fill needs. Was the reduction in payroll merely the coincidental result of a ghastly decision by NH that the 98-win team would actually be improved with Jaso, Niese and Vogelsong and without Walker? If he actually believe that, then he has no business being a GM. Or was the addition of these less talented players the result of a mgt decision to fill holes without increasing payroll? So when a team substantially reduces its talent level while lowering payroll, it seems payroll can be a significant factor. It's hard to believe there are any Pirates now who don't realize that payroll is a major--if not the primary--reason why 3 years of winning culminating in a 98-win season has been replaced by a less talented, noncompetitive team.   


I answered this before, but it is my opinion that bad talent was brought in and it wasn't based on payroll.  The big names were Alvarez and Walker.  So many people wanted Alvarez gone and Jaso was an on base guy.  Jaso failed in that role.  It was a bad signing.  Walker was traded because Harrison was seen as better, younger, and the future.  Walker was traded for someone who would help the rotation (thought he would at least) at the same cost.  I think Walker was dealt more because they didn't think he could play 1B and Harrison was seen to be the better option.



Funny how when Locke and Morton were gone, people wanted them back.  They were decent for the Pirates, but many were done with them too.  Their replacements (Niese, Nicasio, Voglesong) didn't perform. 



Yeah, payroll went down.  But it went down in my opinion based on the talent thought process.  Huntington failed in who he replaced guys with.  No doubt.  I just don't think it was totally money/payroll driven.  Huntington missed on talent.



We have seen over and over how bad money and high payrolls lose. We have seen low payrolls break through to make a run. The Cubs just won the WS after 109 years. The Dodgers haven't won since 1988. These teams are always at the top of the payroll list.

6F646C6065647F3A3C4B726A6364642568640B0 wrote: Good post by BenM and dmetz. 



Good answers and you both might be right.  Maybe teams did catch up to his strategy?  Maybe he needs a new strategy?  Very good points. 



To the owner question and money, Huntington has never had the resources and succeeded.  I just don't buy that payroll is the answer and the only reason teams win and lose.  The Brewers (first team out of the playoffs) had the lowest payroll and the Diamondbacks, Rockies, Astros, and Indians were in the bottom half of payroll and all made the playoffs.  The Tigers, Blue Jays, Giants, Rangers, Orioles were all in the top ten in payrolls and didn't have winning seasons (the Pirates had a better record).  Smart money wins, not just spending in general.
That's all true. But neither can you dismiss payroll as a significant factor. After the 98-win season of 2015, Pedro was let go so they needed a better defensive 1Bman who could provide power. Instead, they settled for Jaso, an inexpensive catcher with little power who would be converted to 1B and routinely replaced for defense. The talent level of that 98-win team also diminished when Neil Walker was traded rather than letting him go to arbitration. The pitching issues of the 98-win team that needed to be addressed were that Locke and Charlie Morton were 40% of the rotation and that Burnett retired. They had Happ but chose to let him go rather than pay for a quality starter. Walker was traded to add a lackluster Jon Neise to the rotation while 38-year old, inexpensive Ryan Vogelsong was also signed to lug his 4.67 ERA from SF to round out the rotation. And the problematic Jeff Locke was retained. So instead of supplementing the 98-win team with a quality 1Bman and good starting pitchers, we got Jaso, Niese and Vogelsong. 



As a result, an already low payroll with seemingly plenty of room to grow without even getting to mid-range was reduced while cheaper, less talented players were acquired to fill needs. Was the reduction in payroll merely the coincidental result of a ghastly decision by NH that the 98-win team would actually be improved with Jaso, Niese and Vogelsong and without Walker? If he actually believe that, then he has no business being a GM. Or was the addition of these less talented players the result of a mgt decision to fill holes without increasing payroll? So when a team substantially reduces its talent level while lowering payroll, it seems payroll can be a significant factor. It's hard to believe there are any Pirates now who don't realize that payroll is a major--if not the primary--reason why 3 years of winning culminating in a 98-win season has been replaced by a less talented, noncompetitive team.   


I answered this before, but it is my opinion that bad talent was brought in and it wasn't based on payroll.  The big names were Alvarez and Walker.  So many people wanted Alvarez gone and Jaso was an on base guy.  Jaso failed in that role.  It was a bad signing.  Walker was traded because Harrison was seen as better, younger, and the future.  Walker was traded for someone who would help the rotation (thought he would at least) at the same cost.  I think Walker was dealt more because they didn't think he could play 1B and Harrison was seen to be the better option.



Funny how when Locke and Morton were gone, people wanted them back.  They were decent for the Pirates, but many were done with them too.  Their replacements (Niese, Nicasio, Voglesong) didn't perform. 



Yeah, payroll went down.  But it went down in my opinion based on the talent thought process.  Huntington failed in who he replaced guys with.  No doubt.  I just don't think it was totally money/payroll driven.  Huntington missed on talent.



We have seen over and over how bad money and high payrolls lose.  We have seen low payrolls break through to make a run.  The Cubs just won the WS after 109 years.  The Dodgers haven't won since 1988.  These teams are always at the top of the payroll list.   




another miscalculation for both 2016 and 2017 is the team's assessment of Glasnow. He really had to come in and perform like at least a number three starting pitcher for either team to have a chance of being successful.

I agree that Glasnow is not performing at the MLB level, but I never expected him to be a #3 in 2016 or 2017. Nor did I think he was the key to the rotations. I don't expect many 22 or 23 year olds to produce at that high of a level. Glasnow was a 5th round pick. The book is not over with him. Hopefully, some expert can figure him out and help him.

The mistake wasn't think that Glasnow would be good at some point.  People throughout the industry thought that.  The mistake was assuming it would be the case (and sooner than later), and not filling rotation needs at the beginning of last season--just signing placeholders for his inevitable ascension in a month or two time.

14262A2A3E0C2F262B2E2126470 wrote: The mistake wasn't think that Glasnow would be good at some point.  People throughout the industry thought that.  The mistake was assuming it would be the case (and sooner than later), and not filling rotation needs at the beginning of last season--just signing placeholders for his inevitable ascension in a month or two time.


Agreed. They should have signed someone and put them in the pen with the idea that they could take Glasnow's rotation spot if he flopped. That just seems like common sense to me.

484D4A4C444E574A4350565B220 wrote: The mistake wasn't think that Glasnow would be good at some point.  People throughout the industry thought that.  The mistake was assuming it would be the case (and sooner than later), and not filling rotation needs at the beginning of last season--just signing placeholders for his inevitable ascension in a month or two time.


Agreed.  They should have signed someone and put them in the pen with the idea that they could take Glasnow's rotation spot if he flopped.  That just seems like common sense to me. 




Trevor Williams? He had 25 starts with a 3.96 ERA.

4E454D4144455E1B1D6A534B4245450449452A0 wrote: The mistake wasn't think that Glasnow would be good at some point.  People throughout the industry thought that.  The mistake was assuming it would be the case (and sooner than later), and not filling rotation needs at the beginning of last season--just signing placeholders for his inevitable ascension in a month or two time.


Agreed.  They should have signed someone and put them in the pen with the idea that they could take Glasnow's rotation spot if he flopped.  That just seems like common sense to me. 




Trevor Williams?  He had 25 starts with a 3.96 ERA. 


I was thinking more about last year (2016). It didn't help them that Niese flopped. Sign one more starter, not a star but not Vogelsong. I like redundancy, and if they all did well that's a nice problem to have.

This year the pitching was a different issue IMO--plenty of competence but no stars.