OnlyBucs

I used to think the way to go was to draft some high profiled pitchers. It would be nice to get those young guys and have them for a while. It was good to draft them high (Cole, Taillon).



My strategy is changing. As I think the Pirates should focus on windows of opportunity compared to staying competitive year after year, drafting hitters is the better strategy. This is exactly what the Cubs did and the Dodgers have a young core of hitters too.



It was mentioned here (maybe Bobster) how pitchers aren't developing as they once were. How they are becoming good down the road entering free agency. Like, after their six years of control, they become really solid pitchers. Sure, there are some special talents that are good from day one and stay good, but it might be a better strategy to get that 28-30 year old pitcher to go with the young hitters.



It is easier to project hitters over pitchers too. You can see that sweet swing and power potential against almost any level. The same can't be said for pitchers who dominate in high school or in college. Plus, who knows how damaged these pitchers are when they leave school?



I think Huntington had a few good drafts when he first came aboard. Recently, he hasn't drafted well. His mid to late high school arms who signed have not panned out. It is time to focus on hitters for the next few drafts. Maybe trade the young pitching for some hitters in some even swamps? Of course, this means they need to spend on the free agents, which they have in Liriano, Nova, Burnett.

7E757D7174756E2B2D5A637B7275753479751A0 wrote: I used to think the way to go was to draft some high profiled pitchers.  It would be nice to get those young guys and have them for a while.  It was good to draft them high (Cole, Taillon).



My strategy is changing.  As I think the Pirates should focus on windows of opportunity compared to staying competitive year after year, drafting hitters is the better strategy.  This is exactly what the Cubs did and the Dodgers have a young core of hitters too.



It was mentioned here (maybe Bobster) how pitchers aren't developing as they once were.  How they are becoming good down the road entering free agency.  Like, after their six years of control, they become really solid pitchers.  Sure, there are some special talents that are good from day one and stay good, but it might be a better strategy to get that 28-30 year old pitcher to go with the young hitters. 



It is easier to project hitters over pitchers too.  You can see that sweet swing and power potential against almost any level.  The same can't be said for pitchers who dominate in high school or in college.  Plus, who knows how damaged these pitchers are when they leave school?



I think Huntington had a few good drafts when he first came aboard.  Recently, he hasn't drafted well.  His mid to late high school arms who signed have not panned out.  It is time to focus on hitters for the next few drafts.  Maybe trade the young pitching for some hitters in some even swamps?  Of course, this means they need to spend on the free agents, which they have in Liriano, Nova, Burnett. 


I don't think this was the point of your post, but this is a great topic for conversation. Perhaps it should be moved to a topic of its own.



I think there are many others on here who simply want to shoot for everything and go for it now. Much in the way the Royals have done. They won their WS. They are competitive for a window. And now, after this year, they are going to have to rebuild.



I have always been a person who wanted consistent winning. IMO, that means some great years and it means years like last year and this year where you have a shot pretty much the whole season and you could eek in to the playoffs. No bottom dwelling years.



There are some pretty valid points for either way. I get the feeling many on here would rather they go all in for a 3 year window.

Going all in for a limited window would be nice. Being consistently competitive would be nice. Unfortunately, they are doing neither.

416C61707766713132030 wrote: Going all in for a limited window would be nice. Being consistently competitive would be nice. Unfortunately, they are doing neither.


I don't think a small market can do both.



The teams playing well now like the Indians, Royals, Astros were all rebuilt. The Cubs and Dodgers are young too (relying on young stars), but they can hang around with their money.



It looked real good in 2011-2015 and thought the Pirates can compete year after year. That would be ideal and it is very possible. But I am leaning toward being very, very good for a few years and guaranteeing playoffs with a few years of squeaking by and making it to the playoffs.



Huntington has said he wants to compete every year. With that mindset, is he hurting the team overall?

575C54585D5C470204734A525B5C5C1D505C330 wrote: Going all in for a limited window would be nice. Being consistently competitive would be nice. Unfortunately, they are doing neither.


I don't think a small market can do both. 



The teams playing well now like the Indians, Royals, Astros were all rebuilt.  The Cubs and Dodgers are young too (relying on young stars), but they can hang around with their money.



It looked real good in 2011-2015 and thought the Pirates can compete year after year.  That would be ideal and it is very possible.  But I am leaning toward being very, very good for a few years and guaranteeing playoffs with a few years of squeaking by and making it to the playoffs.



Huntington has said he wants to compete every year.  With that mindset, is he hurting the team overall? 
My advice for Huntington for competing would be to put together a team that wins more games than it loses. ::)

It would be easier to do when drafting hitters. They usually produce a lot faster with less growing pains than pitchers. I would draft hitters knowing the arms can be added later.

060D05090C0D165355221B030A0D0D4C010D620 wrote: It would be easier to do when drafting hitters.  They usually produce a lot faster with less growing pains than pitchers.  I would draft hitters knowing the arms can be added later.
You are correct that hitters produce faster, but good pitchers are nearly priced out of the Bucs market when they become free agents, and also when a team has a good pitcher they either hold onto him, or if they consider trading him they request a lot of talent to complete the trade. I am of the philosophy to draft and develop pitching, and then possibly you can trade from the strength to acquire hitters.

This variance of approaches does raise truly interesting choices. NH went with drafting pitchers, even though the percentage of pitching draft picks who succeed is much lower than those of hitters who do. The Cubs GM went with hitters, on the theory that they could get good pitchers in the free agent market but hitters were hard to find. (Of course, they have more money to acquire free agent pitchers.) A better example might be the Brewers. They also went with hitters. The secondary benefit of this approach is they get exciting games. In the win-loss column, a 2 -1 win is no different than a 6 - 5 win, but for the fan in the seats, the second game has a lot more excitement. It gives a boost to attendance, which gives more money for payroll. The also get the direct benefit of having more of their picks make a contribution at the ML level. Given all that, my thought is that going with hitters probably makes more sense, even for a small market team.

I was going to bring up the Brewers too. They went after hitters the last time they were in the post season too.



Developing pitchers is nice and even better if they stay. But they also are at max value after their "rookie contract". A team like the Pirates can invest all of this money and time in a pitcher and they could still walk as a free agent. We might be seeing that with Cole very soon. Don't you expect Cole to be better at ages 28-31 than he is now? Would you rather get those years from a pitcher than their 22-27 ages? That's the question.



Having this plan would mean you have to get pitchers via trade or free agency as many wouldn't develop (less were drafted). So, they would still have to plan extensions and manage the salary going forward.

The elephant in the room is trading.  Regardless of draft strategy, we aren't going to sign many FAs. 



If there are 3 methods of building a team, drafting, trading, and FA and we know FA isn't going to be used to fill many holes, NH has to turn meaningful, impact trades and he has to win them more than he loses.



He's not doing that.  As far as FA, Nova fell off to a mid-rotation starter quality.   A good FA signing to be sure.   Hudson has been a total bust. That's probably what we are going to get from FA. Not much help.



I like the SRod trade.  But it's utility player level.   He needs to make more meaningful trades and win them.   Sorry, that's the hand he is dealt here in Pittsburgh.   



Hes not able to hang his hat on Burnett, Liriano and Martin any more.   That was years ago now.