Proud fans of a 132-year old tradition

It is currently Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:02 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:42 pm
Posts: 2333
PirateParrot wrote:
rellimie wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
I’d have rather had one more year of Cutch than getting a project outfielder and our 815th relief pitcher...


:roll:

If you’d remove your lips from NH’s ass for a minute...

If this was going to be the return, then I would’ve preferred keeping Cutch. Trade him at the deadline if need be. The return wouldn’t have been much different. We have all of these supposed hard throwing youngsters in our system, some of which debuted last year in Pittsburgh, yet we keep bringing in more hard throwing(and wild) relief pitchers. We could field an entire 25 man roster with relief pitchers.


My eye-roll is about how you describe the return.

The outfielder is no better or worse than we would have received as a compensation pick if we gave Cutch a QO at the end of the season.

The pitcher we received has nice potential.

As far as the stocking up on relief pitching, well look around the league. It is no longer about pitchers going 7+. It's about starters giving you a quality start (6 innings, 3 ER) and letting your bullpen do the rest. If you have an okay rotation and a dominant bullpen you can contend in this league.

In addition, if you want to know what outfielders are worth with less than a year on a contract take a look at what JD Martinez got at the break last year. None of the top 3 prospects from Arizona, none higher than double AA. If Cutch didn't get traded now the value would continue to drop regardless of what kind of season he was having. If a mistake was made it was not trading him last offseason.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:12 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 7308
bucco boy wrote:
It might have been the right pick at the time, but it doesn't mean it was the right pick either. I get that's hindsight, but these guys are paid to recognize what these players will become. A great example is Taillon. Could end up being pretty good, but imagine if the Pirates took Sale. He would have been here during the playoff run. So you either chalk it up to luck or skill


This type of hindsight logic is THE WORST.

At the time, there was no consensus #2 after Bryce Harper, but the top-three after him were J.T., Machado, and Christian Colon. Sale wasn't on the top-10 radar.

If the Pirates had drafted Sale, the fans would have called it a DL-like Bryan Bullington pick and blamed Nutting for being too cheap to 'take a top talent that would demand $$$'.

NH took the best arm; just as he did the following year when he took Gerrit Cole and the year after that when he took a chance on Mark Appel.

Yes, NH could have taken Machado and Rendon and the Pirates would likely have the best infield in baseball right now (shit, throw in Addison Russell over Appel and they CERTAINLY do). NH took the arms; it was defensible then, a fair decision in hindsight, and a regrettable outcome on the field, but he's a decent (first round) drafter.

I'm not going to blast the guy for drafting three potential 'aces' when this team hasn't had one since Doug Drabek.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:14 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 7308
IA Pirate wrote:
What this means from me...

- No more trips to Pittsburgh for games
- I won't buy the MLB package this season. I'll illegally stream games if I want to watch.
- I won't buy any Pirates apparel. If I get the urge to purchase something it'll be a Montreal Expos hat.

I've got too much emotional investment to give up. I will stop giving money though.


This.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:17 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:42 pm
Posts: 2333
NSMaster56 wrote:
bucco boy wrote:
It might have been the right pick at the time, but it doesn't mean it was the right pick either. I get that's hindsight, but these guys are paid to recognize what these players will become. A great example is Taillon. Could end up being pretty good, but imagine if the Pirates took Sale. He would have been here during the playoff run. So you either chalk it up to luck or skill


This type of hindsight logic is THE WORST.

At the time, there was no consensus #2 after Bryce Harper, but the top-three after him were J.T., Machado, and Christian Colon. Sale wasn't on the top-10 radar.

If the Pirates had drafted Sale, the fans would have called it a DL-like Bryan Bullington pick and blamed Nutting for being too cheap to 'take a top talent that would demand $$$'.

NH took the best arm; just as he did the following year when he took Gerrit Cole and the year after that when he took a chance on Mark Appel.

Yes, NH could have taken Machado and Rendon and the Pirates would likely have the best infield in baseball right now (shit, throw in Addison Russell over Appel and they CERTAINLY do). NH took the arms; it was defensible then, a fair decision in hindsight, and a regrettable outcome on the field, but he's a decent (first round) drafter.

I'm not going to blast the guy for drafting three potential 'aces' when this team hasn't had one since Doug Drabek.


I agree with all of this. People can bash NH for some of his decisions, his drafting isn't one of them. This is from last March and highlights some of his most notable picks http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/1207 ... pirates-gm


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:23 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 7308
The Rotten One wrote:
Neal Huntington's Drafts - Who he could have had

2008 - Alvarez - All-Star (2nd pick) - Buster Posey (5th Pick)
2009 - Tony Sanchez -(5nd pick) - Mike Trout (25th Pick)
2009 - Victor Black - (50th pick) - Billy Hamilton (57th Pick)
2010 - Jameson Taillon - (2nd pick) - Chris Sale (13th Pick) Christian Yelich (23rd Pick)
2011 - Gerrit Cole - (1st pick) - Cole best player in that draft. Fransisco Lindor 7 picks behind
2012 - Mark Appel - (8th pick) -Addison Russell (11th Pick) Cory Seager (18th Pick)
2012 - Barrett Barnes - (45th pick) - Alex Wood (85th Pick)
2013 - Austin Meadows -(9th pick) -
2013 - Reese McGuire - (14th pick) -Tim Anderson (17th Pick) Aaron Judge (32nd Pick)
2014 - Cole Tucker - (24th Pick)
2014 - Connor Joe - (39th)
2015 - Kevin Newman -(19th Pick)
2015 - Ke'Bryan Hayes - (32nd Pick)
2016 - Wil Craig - (22nd Pick)
2016 - Nick Lodolo - (41st Pick)
2017 - Shane Baz - (12th Pick)

*** This is not a statement or a criticism. I could do this with all 32 teams


It isn't a criticism, but it is a statement; a very dumb statement. 24 teams passed on Trout. EVERY team passed on Pujols for like 16 rounds. Cole has NOT been the best player in his draft (Rendon, Lindor, Springer, and Jose Fernandez*), though he was the 'consensus #1' at the time.

There's zero guarantee that drafting Buster Posey over Pedro would have resulted in Buster Posey turning into the Buster Posey we know now; he may have turned into Tony Sanchez, or even Mike Zunino.

And so on.

This sort of hindsight only works if you re-draft EVERY slot, for every team, account for the re-drafted rosters over the years, and see who the Pirates MIGHT have had a chance to draft and/or who would have fit their roster**.



*R.I.P.

**for example, drafting Pedro is what 'blocked' Machado and/or Rendon years later; the Bucs clearly thought Pedro would be at 3B for a while and focused on arms, an area of weakness. Likewise, Trout probably wasn't an option in 2009 for the Pirates because they HAD Cutch, just landed Tabata, and had a young Marte in low A-ball. They felt comfortable that they could develop 'their guys'.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 7308
The Rotten One wrote:
I think some of the pick selection mentality has a lot to do with stocking depth at the minor league level for future development. I think the bigger question is not about who is selected, rather who is developing these players. Case and point is that Tony Sanchez was a cant miss prospect when he was picked 5th overall. But I can remember the last good catcher the Pirates developed. Who is to say that Buster Posey wouldnt just be another guy in the Pirate organization?


THIS!

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 7700
Location: Keystone State
If it's not just about drafting, then it's developing. So maybe you are right and he has drafted well, but then why aren't these guys turning into what everyone thought they could become?

Either way, there has not been the success the Pirates need with the farm system that a small-revenue franchise needs to win championships.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:27 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 7308
Ryann wrote:
NSMaster56 wrote:
Ryann wrote:
They are not in rebuild mode? :lol:

How is this not a full rebuild? They traded their two best players for next to nothing in return. Purely to save money. If they wanted to tread water to see how competitive they would be they would have waited to make these moves in July. The fans should be outraged, not trying to justify another salary dump.


Bell, Marte, Polanco and Taillon are still on the team. Meadows will be up soon.

If the Pirates were in "full rebuild" mode, they would have traded Cole and Cutch for more long-term prospects. They're splitting the difference. They're trying to extend the last of their corps and develop at the same time.

I'm not saying I like it, or that it's smart, but it's pretty clear what their vision is.


I think it is pretty clear what the vision is...to save money. That's what these moves were about, that is clear.


That's the immediate goal, with the secondary goal of maintaining a respectable on-field product and third/supplementary goal of that remaining (young) talent developing into another pennant-chasing squad.

If they had 'blown the team up' and traded Marte, GP, Taillon, etc., then we could call this a Marlins-esque butchering. The Pirates simply took a single step back. They're not jumping off the roof, here.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 1076
Quote:
It isn't a criticism, but it is a statement; a very dumb statement.


You cant undisclaimer my disclaimer. Thats a personal foul...or unsportsman like conduct...Or something like that.
Anyway, you momentary moron. your point is exactly what I was trying to say. Theres 3 other teams that past on Posey. 20 teams past on Trout. Its the whole reason I posted that. Those cant be complained about. Now if each of those stars were selected 1 pick directly after the Pirates pick...well ..ok then

Why must everyone assume that everyone either hates NH or doesnt. Cant I not like somethings but defend him on others?

_________________
Hop Slam Ale - 10% ABV - 8 of those makes for big regret
But they are good


Last edited by The Rotten One on Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:40 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:42 pm
Posts: 2333
I do not think there is any question that NH could have got much better returns if he would have accepted players AA and lower, still a few years away from the Majors.

The Pirates philosophy (right or wrong) is simple, bring players up around age 23/24, keep them during their peak years 25-28, trade them by 30.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 1076
rellimie wrote:
I do not think there is any question that NH could have got much better returns if he would have accepted players AA and lower, still a few years away from the Majors.

The Pirates philosophy (right or wrong) is simple, bring players up around age 23/24, keep them during their peak years 25-28, trade them by 30.


My question would then be: Can you have a slow development philosophy and have a trade them by 30 at the same time? With that, are you not limiting your return on your investment?

Unlike say...The Cubs who bring up guys like Bryant and Swarber before they can grow facial hair

_________________
Hop Slam Ale - 10% ABV - 8 of those makes for big regret
But they are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:55 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:42 pm
Posts: 2333
The Rotten One wrote:
rellimie wrote:
I do not think there is any question that NH could have got much better returns if he would have accepted players AA and lower, still a few years away from the Majors.

The Pirates philosophy (right or wrong) is simple, bring players up around age 23/24, keep them during their peak years 25-28, trade them by 30.


My question would then be: Can you have a slow development philosophy and have a trade them by 30 at the same time? With that, are you not limiting your return on your investment?

Unlike say...The Cubs who bring up guys like Bryant and Swarber before they can grow facial hair


I'm not sure what you mean by slow development philosophy? The average age for a rookie in the majors is 24-25. Guys coming up at age 19, 20, 21 are the exception, not the rule. Cutch was an exception as he came up at age 22, Cole was also an exception, he came up at age 22 also and with less than 40 MiLB starts. Polanco was up at age 22 which was too early IMO, Marte at 23, Bell at 23.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 1076
I guess it matters where the player is coming from. Is he coming from the University of somewhere or Somewhere high school.

But the main issue with that is with the guys who hang around without being much. Ie; in that scenario it becomes frightening to know that the Indianapolis Indians were the oldest AAA franchise by a long shot

_________________
Hop Slam Ale - 10% ABV - 8 of those makes for big regret
But they are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:46 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:42 pm
Posts: 2333
The Rotten One wrote:
I guess it matters where the player is coming from. Is he coming from the University of somewhere or Somewhere high school.

But the main issue with that is with the guys who hang around without being much. Ie; in that scenario it becomes frightening to know that the Indianapolis Indians were the oldest AAA franchise by a long shot


The average AAA player age in 2017 was 28 in all of MiLB.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:12 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 7308
The Rotten One wrote:
Quote:
It isn't a criticism, but it is a statement; a very dumb statement.


your point is exactly what I was trying to say.


That was not clear.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2923
rellimie wrote:
The Rotten One wrote:
I guess it matters where the player is coming from. Is he coming from the University of somewhere or Somewhere high school.

But the main issue with that is with the guys who hang around without being much. Ie; in that scenario it becomes frightening to know that the Indianapolis Indians were the oldest AAA franchise by a long shot


The average AAA player age in 2017 was 28 in all of MiLB.

Well, of course. Nobody cares about all those 33 year olds still chugging at AAA. The point is Indianapolis has far too many of that type. To be a winner you need the infusion of the 22 year old types mentioned above. Bryant, Schwarber, Cutch, Bell.

The problem is that, under NH, that infusion just hasn't happened enough to create a winner. It could have. Key pieces were still in place after the 98 win team. The correct approach should've carried the Pirates window of opportunity through the end of Cutch's contract. But I digress.

Point is, NH has not been able to draft/acquire enough high end talent. And when your approach is to get rid of them when the contract money gets too high, then you better bring in higher end talent when you get the chance. Otherwise you get a long cycle of mediocrity at best.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:12 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:29 am
Posts: 425
very tough pill to swallow, but nothing lasts forever, best of everything cutch and thanks for making the bucs respectable, and a contender.

Image


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:20 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:06 pm
Posts: 52
NSMaster56 wrote:
The Rotten One wrote:
Neal Huntington's Drafts - Who he could have had

2008 - Alvarez - All-Star (2nd pick) - Buster Posey (5th Pick)
2009 - Tony Sanchez -(5nd pick) - Mike Trout (25th Pick)
2009 - Victor Black - (50th pick) - Billy Hamilton (57th Pick)
2010 - Jameson Taillon - (2nd pick) - Chris Sale (13th Pick) Christian Yelich (23rd Pick)
2011 - Gerrit Cole - (1st pick) - Cole best player in that draft. Fransisco Lindor 7 picks behind
2012 - Mark Appel - (8th pick) -Addison Russell (11th Pick) Cory Seager (18th Pick)
2012 - Barrett Barnes - (45th pick) - Alex Wood (85th Pick)
2013 - Austin Meadows -(9th pick) -
2013 - Reese McGuire - (14th pick) -Tim Anderson (17th Pick) Aaron Judge (32nd Pick)
2014 - Cole Tucker - (24th Pick)
2014 - Connor Joe - (39th)
2015 - Kevin Newman -(19th Pick)
2015 - Ke'Bryan Hayes - (32nd Pick)
2016 - Wil Craig - (22nd Pick)
2016 - Nick Lodolo - (41st Pick)
2017 - Shane Baz - (12th Pick)

*** This is not a statement or a criticism. I could do this with all 32 teams


It isn't a criticism, but it is a statement; a very dumb statement. 24 teams passed on Trout. EVERY team passed on Pujols for like 16 rounds. Cole has NOT been the best player in his draft (Rendon, Lindor, Springer, and Jose Fernandez*), though he was the 'consensus #1' at the time.

There's zero guarantee that drafting Buster Posey over Pedro would have resulted in Buster Posey turning into the Buster Posey we know now; he may have turned into Tony Sanchez, or even Mike Zunino.

And so on.

This sort of hindsight only works if you re-draft EVERY slot, for every team, account for the re-drafted rosters over the years, and see who the Pirates MIGHT have had a chance to draft and/or who would have fit their roster**.



*R.I.P.

**for example, drafting Pedro is what 'blocked' Machado and/or Rendon years later; the Bucs clearly thought Pedro would be at 3B for a while and focused on arms, an area of weakness. Likewise, Trout probably wasn't an option in 2009 for the Pirates because they HAD Cutch, just landed Tabata, and had a young Marte in low A-ball. They felt comfortable that they could develop 'their guys'.



In baseball, this is the worst possible way to draft. You always need to take the best player (you believe), available... always, regardless of position.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:50 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 7308
TBayXXXVII wrote:
In baseball, this is the worst possible way to draft. You always need to take the best player (you believe), available... always, regardless of position.


Agreed. Explaining what NH and co. were doing/thinking isn't the same as advocating it.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cutch trades to the Giants pending physical
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:33 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:06 pm
Posts: 52
NSMaster56 wrote:
TBayXXXVII wrote:
In baseball, this is the worst possible way to draft. You always need to take the best player (you believe), available... always, regardless of position.


Agreed. Explaining what NH and co. were doing/thinking isn't the same as advocating it.


Agreed. I was just making a statement, that's all.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits