Pittsburgh Pirates: [Lie]Nutting Pledges To Increase Payroll to $75 Million[/Lie] - Pittsburgh Pirates

Jump to content

  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

[Lie]Nutting Pledges To Increase Payroll to $75 Million[/Lie]

#1 User is offline   Jeff King 

  • Proficient At Judging Books By Their Covers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 19,422
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Men's Room Stall Doing Lines With Josh Hamilton And A Couple Of Broads

Posted 25 January 2010 - 11:45 AM

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10025/1030840-63.stm

QUOTE
SEVEN SPRINGS, Pa. -- A year ago, at the opening of the Pirates' Winter Caravan promotional tour here, the franchise's controlling owner, Bob Nutting, said of his expectations for 2009, "We're not going to accept an inferior performance," and he pledged accountability.

The team's record fell from 67-95 to 62-99, and it grew worse after several veteran-for-prospect trades in June and July. Management and coaching staff remained almost entirely untouched.

The Post-Gazette met with Nutting again yesterday at the Seven Springs resort he owns for another interview that covered that topic, as well as:

• Opening-day payroll, projected to drop to $35.6 million.

• Whether payroll will ever increase to the level of division and market peers in Milwaukee and Cincinnati, each now in the range of $75 million.

• Confidence in team president Frank Coonelly and general manager Neal Huntington, his hires in late 2007.

• The Pirates' failure to sign top Latin American prospect Miguel Angel Sano last summer.

• Whether the Pirates are at risk of being pushed to spend more by Major League Baseball and the players' union, as occurred last month with Florida.

Question: A good place to start would be with your expectations for the coming season, same question as last year.

Answer: Well, we're in a very different position than this time last year, but I'm enthusiastic about 2010.

If you look at the moves that were made, with talent coming in at every level, then you look at the impact that talent will have in Pittsburgh in 2010 and beyond, that's encouraging. From there, if you look at the veteran additions Frank and Neal made, it was very strategic and, I think, very effective. They brought in support where the young team was going to need some help.

Q: You almost have to view 2009 as a bottoming out, don't you?

You can't keep hovering around 62 or so wins and see that as progress, right?

A: Oh, absolutely. We are going to win more games than last year. We are going to see improvement on the field in Pittsburgh, in terms of wins and loses. We have to.

I said last year that was my expectation and, midway through the season, we clearly weren't seeing that. And the team took decisive action, made change. That's part of why you have the broader pool from which the pieces will come for 2010 and moving forward.

Q: Can we expect to see accountability beyond changing the roster?

A: I think, just as you saw accountability at the player level last year, ultimately, my job is very simple: It's to set the level of expectation to win games in Pittsburgh, period. And my tool to do that is to hold people accountable to reach this goal.

I think I've done that effectively so far, and I believe everyone in the organization understands that the expectation is high.

Q: You've expressed confidence in Frank and Neal, notably calling them "the single best management team in all of baseball, maybe in all of sports" a couple summers ago ...

A: And I've never backed away from that comment.

Q: That's what I wanted to ask.

A: I need to believe in and support them. If I ever don't believe in the team, we'll replace the team. We'll make changes. We've made changes along the way.

Pittsburgh needs to have extraordinarily capable leaders who are focused on the process and driving the team forward. That's what we need to compete, to win.

Q: When you see some of these prospects about to come up -- Pedro Alvarez, Jose Tabata, Brad Lincoln -- what's your view of the talent pool that could be in Pittsburgh at some point in 2010?

A: Clearly, we have more depth, more options. And what I'm thrilled about is that Neal has the time and opportunity to make good baseball decisions to be able to pull people up when it's appropriate to the player's development.

Do we have enough talent?

Absolutely not.

We need another great draft. We've had two good ones, and we need to do it again. And again and again. With international signings, we need to keep our focus on that ball, as well. We need to continue to bring in talent at the bottom every way we possibly can, so those options are available in 2010 and, hopefully, those choices become more and more difficult every year.

Q: You mention international signings. Minnesota ended up signing Sano for a $3.15 million bonus, and the Pirates' final offer was $2.6 million. Did you authorize that the team could spend in the range of the Twins?

Or was your final offer it?

A: It [Sano's bonus with Minnesota] was comfortably within the range of what we could have paid.

Q: I understand that the opening-day payroll figure can increase as the season goes along but, at the same time, it's probably going to end up down from the $48 million of last year.

What went into your thinking?

A: First of all, I think it's never going to be about the total dollars we spend as much as how effectively we put them to use.

Part of the reason for the payroll level is that we have young players, and it is normal, expected and natural that, as those players mature, those dollars are going to have to come up. That certainly is my expectation.

But I think we've shown good discipline in building this 2010 team, in that there is lots of flexibility that Neal still has. He's building the team that he thinks will perform best for the coming year but also can still succeed going forward.

Q: So, Neal can spend more than what we see right now?

A: Absolutely.

Q: Why not, some might say, just take some heat off yourself and have a $50 million-$55 million payroll?

A: Well, what I really believe is that we've put in place an orderly, systematic plan, and the last thing we can do is divert from that plan or change it, as I've seen done before in Pittsburgh and with other clubs. I believe that the decisions being made are giving the team the best opportunity to compete this year, as well as going forward. I don't want to do anything that handicaps that.

Look, some of the trades we've made ... would it have been easier not to do those?

Of course it would have.

But I really believe we're going in the right direction and that we're being driven by baseball decisions, not financial ones.

Q: So, your expectation remains that, if this group becomes competitive, you will be able to someday spend at the level of the Brewers and Reds?

A: I think that's expected. I think it's rational. I think it's where Pittsburgh needs to be.

And we're in that trajectory now. As you see our current core of players -- one I have faith in -- as they mature, the dollars are going to increase. If that needs to be supplemented, we need to have the flexibility to be able to do that.

Q: You can understand where the general public can look at the payroll with frustration?

A: Again, I understand the focus on that single number. I also strongly believe that is not the right indicator for organization performance or strength. You need to look at our commitments top to bottom, the foundation we've built.

Q: Do you have any expectation that what just happened with the Marlins could happen to the Pirates?

A: I really can't speak to the Marlins' situation, but what I can say is that, in Pittsburgh, I'm very comfortable that what we're doing is in the best interest of the team. We're using our revenue-sharing dollars appropriately, and we're building a program to improve on-field performance, which is the goal of revenue-sharing.

Q: So, you have no reason to think the Pirates are next in that regard?

A: Again, I can't speak to what the union might do, or the commissioner's office. But I'm comfortable that we're moving in an appropriate direction. We're using our dollars correctly, efficiently and well. And we're going to continue moving down that path.

Q: What would you consider a successful 2010?

A: Honestly, I won't be satisfied with any season until we win a championship. Incremental improvement might be encouraging at some level but, in terms of what's satisfactory ... I'll be pleased with a championship season.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10025/10308...m#ixzz0ddwuZQlw

Posted Image

To leave feedback or to reach me directly, please use this intercom.
0

#2 User is offline   ecbenito 

  • Veteran Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 26,748
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:with the outlaws

Posted 25 January 2010 - 11:49 AM

QUOTE
You've expressed confidence in Frank and Neal, notably calling them "the single best management team in all of baseball, maybe in all of sports" a couple summers ago


funniest thing I've read in quite a long time
0

#3 User is offline   Pjoma 

  • Bench Manager
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,468
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Adirondacks

Posted 25 January 2010 - 01:02 PM

QUOTE (LonghornBuc @ Jan 25 2010, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why is the key question never asked.

If you agree you should be spending 75 mil in payroll, but instead are spending half that, why isnt the 40 mil difference spent on draft picks, IFAs and FAs that are closer to 20 than 40? Why not double the draft budget and go balls out, for example; thats not even 10 million of the 40 mil you arent spending on the roster. Its not like we have to do that every year, but we could do it for 08, 09, 10 and 11 to get some real talent in the organization at rock bottom prices.

I think the question of whether ownership is pocketing tens of millions, as some other owners have stated, has just been answered.


Why don't you email your question to Dejan and get his response?
"Huntington is doing exactly what he was hired to do, and that the fans and media in Pittsburgh cant quite grasp this, that they still hold the 2008-09 trades against him, is an indictment of their sensibilities." Joe Sheehan 6/6/10
0

#4 User is offline   crosscuttersno1 

  • Bench Manager
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,235
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:central pa

Posted 25 January 2010 - 01:39 PM

QUOTE (LonghornBuc @ Jan 25 2010, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why is the key question never asked.

If you agree you should be spending 75 mil in payroll, but instead are spending half that, why isnt the 40 mil difference spent on draft picks, IFAs and FAs that are closer to 20 than 40? Why not double the draft budget and go balls out, for example; thats not even 10 million of the 40 mil you arent spending on the roster. Its not like we have to do that every year, but we could do it for 08, 09, 10 and 11 to get some real talent in the organization at rock bottom prices.

I think the question of whether ownership is pocketing tens of millions, as some other owners have stated, has just been answered.

Good question LHB.

Also, if money wasn't a problem with Sano, why not ask him why we didn't get him then?
Failure is the key to success.
0

#5 User is offline   ECBucs 

  • Bulldog Veteran
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,347
  • Joined: 21-November 08

Posted 25 January 2010 - 01:52 PM

How may other sports mangement teams does he know?

If he only knows DL and FC And Opie then he does have the best.
0

#6 User is offline   oblongatta 

  • Supreme Overlord of the Universe
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15,716
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:a bar
  • Interests:Whisper Fighting

Posted 25 January 2010 - 02:35 PM

QUOTE
Look, some of the trades we've made ... would it have been easier not to do those?

Of course it would have.

But I really believe we're going in the right direction and that we're being driven by baseball decisions, not financial ones.


Wait, so trading Jason Bay (for example) was not a financial decision but was a baseball decision? At best it was financial decision that could result in a longer frame of baseball production. There's no way you can say that a trade of one of best players in baseball (though apparently not-elite) for several players whose combined upside isn't as high as Bay's current production can possibly be described as a baseball decision.


You're pretty on the inside,
That's better than not pretty at all,
You're pretty on the inside,
Too bad I'm an outside kinda pretty guy.
0

#7 User is offline   seanawesome 

  • Master of the Powerbomb
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,077
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2010 - 03:11 PM

QUOTE (LonghornBuc @ Jan 25 2010, 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Done. Didnt even edit, just cut and paste.


Hey Sean, there are a bunch of blogs on this page, did we get banned? Fucking Nut suckers.

http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/pbc/default.aspx


Beats me, I've never tried to submit the forum to any Pirates sites. F em.
0

#8 User is offline   mercerboy 

  • Aspiring Legend
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,917
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Castle, PA

Posted 25 January 2010 - 03:13 PM

I've put a few posts on that blog. You just sign up for a username on there. I'd say 90% of the posters are hopeless optimists and 10% are Nutting haters.
Proud member of the Soul-sucking Pessimist Club.

"The power of Change In Atmosphere Night defies all known laws of the universe." - Syrbucco

The One, The Only, The Incomparable Mercer Boy - as seen on CNBC and ESPNEWS for making $324.34 by betting $20 against the Pirates in every game of the 2010 season.
0

#9 Guest_defdog_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 25 January 2010 - 03:14 PM

Maybe he's counting the $36M it'll cost to pay off Scott Boras and sign Bryce Harper.

0

#10 User is offline   jpbucco 

  • Koveltwats Daddy
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8,088
  • Joined: 18-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:state college

Posted 25 January 2010 - 03:14 PM

The most amusing part is that BobNuts continually points out that instead of spending on the ML roster, they are pouring the $$$ into the minors and Latin America......Two things come to mind here Bob....THEY OTHER TEAMS DO THAT AS WELL AND UNLIKE YOU, HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh shit! There's stickers!
0

#11 User is offline   mercerboy 

  • Aspiring Legend
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,917
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Castle, PA

Posted 25 January 2010 - 03:23 PM

One guy did point out that Nutting never actually said he would increase payroll regardless of how the team does. It's still a matter of when they are competitive and are in a position to win..to that he replied, "I think that's expected. I think it's rational. I think it's where Pittsburgh needs to be." Sounds good...but will they ever get there? Probably not. As the older players get to free agency, they will not keep them around if they continue to lose 90-95 games per year. Then Nutting will "lose faith" in his "best management team in sports" and "we'll replace the team. We'll make changes. We've made changes along the way." That's what they've been doing for the last 15 years.

There was one thing in this interview that I don't believe was a lie:

"Do we have enough talent?

Absolutely not."
Proud member of the Soul-sucking Pessimist Club.

"The power of Change In Atmosphere Night defies all known laws of the universe." - Syrbucco

The One, The Only, The Incomparable Mercer Boy - as seen on CNBC and ESPNEWS for making $324.34 by betting $20 against the Pirates in every game of the 2010 season.
0

#12 User is offline   Bloop and a Blast 

  • Little League
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 04-January 10

Posted 25 January 2010 - 04:07 PM

QUOTE (LonghornBuc @ Jan 25 2010, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why is the key question never asked.

If you agree you should be spending 75 mil in payroll, but instead are spending half that, why isnt the 40 mil difference spent on draft picks, IFAs and FAs that are closer to 20 than 40? Why not double the draft budget and go balls out, for example; thats not even 10 million of the 40 mil you arent spending on the roster. Its not like we have to do that every year, but we could do it for 08, 09, 10 and 11 to get some real talent in the organization at rock bottom prices.

I think the question of whether ownership is pocketing tens of millions, as some other owners have stated, has just been answered.

This debating the round and pick that a player was taken is simply getting absurd. Who the hell cares is a player was expected to go 12th, 4th, 30th or whatever pick? Isn't the ONLY measure of a team's ability to draft and develop based on how those players perform at the MLB level?

In 1988, Andy Benes, Mark Lewis, Steve Avery, Gregg Olsen, Bill Bene, Monty Fariss and Will Ansley were the first seven picks. Robin Ventura, Tino Matinez, Royce Clayton and Charles Nagy were drafted 10, 14,15 and 17.

Marquis Grisson went 76th and Louis Gonzalez went 90th. Kenny Lofton went 428th (17th Round) and Mike Piazza went 1,390th (62nd Round)

Are the Dodgers remembered for drafting Bill Bene with the 5th pick in the draft, or because they drafted and developed Mike Piazza? Are the Indians going to be remembered for drafting Mark Lewis second in the country, or that they got Nagy at the 17th pick and Lofton in the 17th round?


The draft yielded more productive players in the middle of the first round than it did in the first nine picks and the entire 1988 draft yielded more "stars" in the 6th round and below than it did in rounds 1-5. My point isn't that Sanchez is the 4th best player in that draft. The point is that's who the Pirates wanted, who they signed and who they are developing with very good initial results. It's what allowed them to use the rest of the draft in a manner thet they wanted to execute it. It may have been a drastic overspend there too, but it was their sense of what plan they wanted to use in that draft. It was exactly the opposite of the method they used the year before, where they believed there was a talent there that they couldn't pass on, no matter the cost.

Who the hell knows if it's going to work out, but just like every draft before that one, teams will be evaluated on the talent they extracted and developed from that draft, top to bottom, not that they drafted Sanchez ahead of 20 other guys, drafted a potential ace in the 6th round, or found a diamond in the rough late in the draft. Nobody cares about measuring them by anything other than their ability to find talent, sign it and develop it.


But as for being a safe pick, I don't think there is such a thing. When someone gets to the big leagues and performs, then I'll say he's a safe pick. Until that happens, there's no such thing. -Bruce Seid- Brewers Director of Scouting
0

#13 User is offline   mercerboy 

  • Aspiring Legend
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,917
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Castle, PA

Posted 25 January 2010 - 04:19 PM

QUOTE (Bloop and a Blast @ Jan 25 2010, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nobody cares about measuring them by anything other than their ability to find talent, sign it and develop it.


OK, I'll go with that. But I have absolutely no confidence that the Pirates can draft and develop talent. The amount of good players that have come from the minors that have actually bloomed here is ridiculously small.

If the Pirates want to find a good way to spend more money, hire some GOOD scouts that know inherent baseball talent when they see it, and hire some GOOD baseball instructors
that are able to develop said talent. Don't be stupid and hire John Russell because he wanted the least amount of money to manage the team. If you're going to try to build a club through your minor league system and not through acquiring free agents, your minor league system has to be the best it can be.
Proud member of the Soul-sucking Pessimist Club.

"The power of Change In Atmosphere Night defies all known laws of the universe." - Syrbucco

The One, The Only, The Incomparable Mercer Boy - as seen on CNBC and ESPNEWS for making $324.34 by betting $20 against the Pirates in every game of the 2010 season.
0

#14 User is offline   The Lumber Company 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,151
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Lovetron

Posted 25 January 2010 - 04:44 PM

QUOTE (Bloop and a Blast @ Jan 25 2010, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This debating the round and pick that a player was taken is simply getting absurd. Who the hell cares is a player was expected to go 12th, 4th, 30th or whatever pick? Isn't the ONLY measure of a team's ability to draft and develop based on how those players perform at the MLB level?

In 1988, Andy Benes, Mark Lewis, Steve Avery, Gregg Olsen, Bill Bene, Monty Fariss and Will Ansley were the first seven picks. Robin Ventura, Tino Matinez, Royce Clayton and Charles Nagy were drafted 10, 14,15 and 17.

Marquis Grisson went 76th and Louis Gonzalez went 90th. Kenny Lofton went 428th (17th Round) and Mike Piazza went 1,390th (62nd Round)

Are the Dodgers remembered for drafting Bill Bene with the 5th pick in the draft, or because they drafted and developed Mike Piazza? Are the Indians going to be remembered for drafting Mark Lewis second in the country, or that they got Nagy at the 17th pick and Lofton in the 17th round?


The draft yielded more productive players in the middle of the first round than it did in the first nine picks and the entire 1988 draft yielded more "stars" in the 6th round and below than it did in rounds 1-5. My point isn't that Sanchez is the 4th best player in that draft. The point is that's who the Pirates wanted, who they signed and who they are developing with very good initial results. It's what allowed them to use the rest of the draft in a manner thet they wanted to execute it. It may have been a drastic overspend there too, but it was their sense of what plan they wanted to use in that draft. It was exactly the opposite of the method they used the year before, where they believed there was a talent there that they couldn't pass on, no matter the cost.

Who the hell knows if it's going to work out, but just like every draft before that one, teams will be evaluated on the talent they extracted and developed from that draft, top to bottom, not that they drafted Sanchez ahead of 20 other guys, drafted a potential ace in the 6th round, or found a diamond in the rough late in the draft. Nobody cares about measuring them by anything other than their ability to find talent, sign it and develop it.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Another copout explanation for not taking the prospects who are widely considered the best available is to point out that sometimes prospects do not pan out, or that all-stars come from later round picks. That's just poor argumentation, combined with a little long-windedness usually only seen from pjoma around these parts.

0

#15 User is offline   oblongatta 

  • Supreme Overlord of the Universe
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15,716
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:a bar
  • Interests:Whisper Fighting

Posted 25 January 2010 - 04:45 PM

QUOTE (Bloop and a Blast @ Jan 25 2010, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It was exactly the opposite of the method they used the year before, where they believed there was a talent there that they couldn't pass on, no matter the cost.



I like the implication that last year it was a purely baseball decision and this year it was for a financial reason.


And really if the proposed philosophy was in fact being followed by the Pirates, they should have never missed on a player in the past in the top couple rounds. How can you miss if you have this ability to see who is going to be productive out of the later rounds and just overdraft them before other teams try?


You're pretty on the inside,
That's better than not pretty at all,
You're pretty on the inside,
Too bad I'm an outside kinda pretty guy.
0

#16 User is offline   Pantsless Jose Lind 

  • The Ugandan Giant
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,766
  • Joined: 08-December 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, PA
  • Interests:I enjoy playing second base and cocaine.

Posted 25 January 2010 - 05:45 PM

Bloop and a Blast = tWTM ?
"What other businesses do you expect to lose money for your entertainment?" --sisyphus -UPPMD
0

#17 User is offline   Penguin 

  • Collective Wisdom
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 17,075
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2010 - 06:09 PM

QUOTE (Bloop and a Blast @ Jan 25 2010, 01:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This debating the round and pick that a player was taken is simply getting absurd. Who the hell cares is a player was expected to go 12th, 4th, 30th or whatever pick? Isn't the ONLY measure of a team's ability to draft and develop based on how those players perform at the MLB level?

In 1988, Andy Benes, Mark Lewis, Steve Avery, Gregg Olsen, Bill Bene, Monty Fariss and Will Ansley were the first seven picks. Robin Ventura, Tino Matinez, Royce Clayton and Charles Nagy were drafted 10, 14,15 and 17.

Marquis Grisson went 76th and Louis Gonzalez went 90th. Kenny Lofton went 428th (17th Round) and Mike Piazza went 1,390th (62nd Round)

Are the Dodgers remembered for drafting Bill Bene with the 5th pick in the draft, or because they drafted and developed Mike Piazza? Are the Indians going to be remembered for drafting Mark Lewis second in the country, or that they got Nagy at the 17th pick and Lofton in the 17th round?


The draft yielded more productive players in the middle of the first round than it did in the first nine picks and the entire 1988 draft yielded more "stars" in the 6th round and below than it did in rounds 1-5. My point isn't that Sanchez is the 4th best player in that draft. The point is that's who the Pirates wanted, who they signed and who they are developing with very good initial results. It's what allowed them to use the rest of the draft in a manner thet they wanted to execute it. It may have been a drastic overspend there too, but it was their sense of what plan they wanted to use in that draft. It was exactly the opposite of the method they used the year before, where they believed there was a talent there that they couldn't pass on, no matter the cost.

Who the hell knows if it's going to work out, but just like every draft before that one, teams will be evaluated on the talent they extracted and developed from that draft, top to bottom, not that they drafted Sanchez ahead of 20 other guys, drafted a potential ace in the 6th round, or found a diamond in the rough late in the draft. Nobody cares about measuring them by anything other than their ability to find talent, sign it and develop it.

And there you have it, folks. The single greatest and most embarrassing attempt to defend NH in message board history. Because those argument aren't grounded in logic, they're grounded in supporting NH for what NH just did. No number of exceptions to the drafting rule will change the fact the majority of MLB players come from the top of the 1st round of the draft. So explaining how Marquis Grissom was drafted in the millionth round doesn't justify a team passing over the most talented players with the 4th pick in the draft.

"The business of baseball is to make money, not break even. I don't understand why you think the Pirates should run their team like a charity." - Willlton 6/18/2009

"The Bay trade doesn't look like it (a slam dunk winner), but if you take into account the fact that all they lost was eight months of Jason Bay's services, as well as the fact that even the Red Sox look like they won't be able to re-sign him, it's not nearly the loser many people seem to think." - tWTM 11/26/2009

"Morton is finding himself, now while this may sound weird and out there, but the fact he put on a solo concert at Piratefest shows he finally has the confidence that he lacked within himself that he didn't have in the lower minors." - aso513 2/8/2010

"Dave Littlefield vindicated." - Xiga 4/30/2011 after one scoreless inning of relief by Daniel Moskos.

"Hanrahan and Cedeno would be a gross overpayment for Belt. Sorry, but I'll stick with my realistic analysis of the market and the teams involved." - Steve Zielinski 5/25/2011

"He (Barmes) could have a .000 Batting Average and still be an asset." - bradlej31 5/28/2012

"The last time the Pirates won an extra-inning game in St. Louis that lasted at least 16 frames was April 20, 1986 at Chicago." - Kristy Robinson 8/19/2012

"I want to tweet something clever and interesting to you that will earn your respect and make you smile, since you do that to me all the time." - jpbucco to Colin Dunlap 4/12/2016

"If the Pirates had acquired Giancarlo Stanton from the Marlins, Im not sure they would have won the Benedict trade." - David Todd 11/11/2015
0

#18 User is offline   Jeff King 

  • Proficient At Judging Books By Their Covers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 19,422
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Men's Room Stall Doing Lines With Josh Hamilton And A Couple Of Broads

Posted 25 January 2010 - 06:26 PM

QUOTE (Penguin @ Jan 25 2010, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And there you have it, folks. The single greatest and most embarrassing attempt to defend NH in message board history. Because those argument aren't grounded in logic, they're grounded in supporting NH for what NH just did. No number of exceptions to the drafting rule will change the fact the majority of MLB players come from the top of the 1st round of the draft. So explaining how Marquis Grissom was drafted in the millionth round doesn't justify a team passing over the most talented players with the 4th pick in the draft.


Why do you want Pjoma to fail?
Posted Image

To leave feedback or to reach me directly, please use this intercom.
0

#19 User is offline   cbh 

  • Bulldog Veteran
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,232
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

Posted 25 January 2010 - 06:42 PM

Since PJ hasn't been on to say anything stupid yet today I'll respond to his love child:

QUOTE (Bloop and a Blast @ Jan 25 2010, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This debating the round and pick that a player was taken is simply getting absurd. Who the hell cares is a player was expected to go 12th, 4th, 30th or whatever pick? Isn't the ONLY measure of a team's ability to draft and develop based on how those players perform at the MLB level?


Sure...and so far how many homegrown Pirates have been mainstays on ANY MLB roster in recent years?

1994 - 1 (Anderson)
1995 - 1 (Arroyo)
1996 - 1 (Benson); Gonzalez and Capuano did not sign
1997 - 2 (Grabow, Gonzalez)
1998 - 2 (Beimel, Sparks)
1999 - 1 (Doumit)
2000 - 5 (Burnett, Chris Young, Bautista, Snell, McLouth)
2001 - 3 (Keppinger, Duke, Davis)
2002 - 2 (Capps, Morgan)
2003 - 3 (Maholm, Garzalny)
2004 - 0 (Unless you're counting Bixler as a "mainstay")
2005 - 1 (Cutch)

So even if we're measuring the Pirates' ability to draft players regardless of "reaching" or "landing", they've done an awful job in the past 12 years.

Sure, you're arguing that NH has better drafts as a whole instead of looking at just early round picks, and while I am in no position to disagree you really don't have any supporting evidence besides prospect lists and pre-draft rankings. Unless you've physically seen every one of our picks perform in person that's all we have to go on. If Player X was ranked as the 150th best prospect in the draft and we took him 30th, most reasonable people would feel that it was an overdraft. He was ranked 150th for a reason: poor arm slot, bad curveball hitter, played in India, etc.

QUOTE
In 1988, Andy Benes, Mark Lewis, Steve Avery, Gregg Olsen, Bill Bene, Monty Fariss and Will Ansley were the first seven picks. Robin Ventura, Tino Matinez, Royce Clayton and Charles Nagy were drafted 10, 14,15 and 17.

Marquis Grisson went 76th and Louis Gonzalez went 90th. Kenny Lofton went 428th (17th Round) and Mike Piazza went 1,390th (62nd Round)

Are the Dodgers remembered for drafting Bill Bene with the 5th pick in the draft, or because they drafted and developed Mike Piazza? Are the Indians going to be remembered for drafting Mark Lewis second in the country, or that they got Nagy at the 17th pick and Lofton in the 17th round?


First off, you're blowing the Dodger's cock as if drafting Piazza in the 62nd round was a shrewd move by the GM to land a very very very underrated player, when in fact he was drafted purely as a favor to Piazza's brother's godfather...Tommy Lasorda.

Second, the 1988 draft went pretty much as everyone expected: Benes was easily the highest rated prospect, Lewis and Avery were in the top 5. You're blaming teams for drafting these guys as if they knew how they would turn out. While Sanchez has put up decent minor league numbers we STILL don't know how he'll turn out. Again, he was ranked where he was for a reason.

QUOTE
The draft yielded more productive players in the middle of the first round than it did in the first nine picks and the entire 1988 draft yielded more "stars" in the 6th round and below than it did in rounds 1-5.


Well, fucking duh. How many rounds are there after the 6th? Statistically speaking there SHOULD be more productive players in the later rounds simply because the pool of players is greater.

QUOTE
My point isn't that Sanchez is the 4th best player in that draft. The point is that's who the Pirates wanted, who they signed and who they are developing with very good initial results. It's what allowed them to use the rest of the draft in a manner thet they wanted to execute it. It may have been a drastic overspend there too, but it was their sense of what plan they wanted to use in that draft. It was exactly the opposite of the method they used the year before, where they believed there was a talent there that they couldn't pass on, no matter the cost.


And everyone else's point is that if they had drafted anyone with more potential in the first round chances are Sanchez still would have been there in the 2nd (or as the 49th pick in round 1). Again, you're using hindsight to defend a move that didn't make sense at the time it happened, and I can absolutely guarantee you that if Sanchez hit .100/.200/.250 in his first minor league stint with 15 errors you wouldn't be having this conversation.

QUOTE
Who the hell knows if it's going to work out, but just like every draft before that one, teams will be evaluated on the talent they extracted and developed from that draft, top to bottom, not that they drafted Sanchez ahead of 20 other guys, drafted a potential ace in the 6th round, or found a diamond in the rough late in the draft. Nobody cares about measuring them by anything other than their ability to find talent, sign it and develop it.


Yup, and that ability is going to be scrutinized to the nth degree by how poorly it was done by the previous regime, and it will continue to happen until some of NH's draftees reach the majors.



If I dared your son to do something, he'd be DEAD. I wouldn't do a wimpy dare, like "read a short story quickly". I'd have a real dare, like EAT A BAG OF FIRE!!!!"
0

#20 User is offline   Jeff King 

  • Proficient At Judging Books By Their Covers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 19,422
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Men's Room Stall Doing Lines With Josh Hamilton And A Couple Of Broads

Posted 25 January 2010 - 06:59 PM

QUOTE (cbh @ Jan 25 2010, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Since PJ hasn't been on to say anything stupid yet today I'll respond to his love child:



Just so you know CBH, that's not Pjoma's love child. That's Pjoma. See, he's been posting over on OBN with the screen name, "Bloop and a Blast." A few weeks ago that same screen name started posting here on CIA.

It didn't dawn on me what exactly has been going on until now. Now that there are no NH supporters left on this board, Pjoma is left on "Chewing on Deal Nothington's Balls Island," all by his lonesome. So in an effort to try to even the sides up a bit, he registered the same name over here on CIA. Now after he posts his propaganda over there on OBN, he reposts it here on CIA.

Sadly for him, no matter how many aliases he uses, it won't change the fact that Neal Huntington is absolutely clueless and sucks as a GM.
Posted Image

To leave feedback or to reach me directly, please use this intercom.
0

Share this topic:


  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »


Fast Reply