May 1—Hello, yinz crazies. Welcome to Jason Mackey’s mailbag, where the Post-Gazette columnist alternates between this and a chat on Thursdays. If you have a question or comment, drop him a line at jmackey@post-gazette.com. Passable array of questions this week. Let’s get started.
STATZ N’@ (@STATZ_N_AT): Do you find your approach to writing/reporting is impacted by covering a winning or losing team? All major Pittsburgh teams are in such a weird position. I can imagine that can be intriguing but potentially dismal.
Jason Mackey: This is a great question … and something I love to discuss with journalism students.
Short answer is that it has zero impact. As Gene Collier taught me long ago, “They win, we write. They lose, we write.” Now, there are also tradeoffs with that.
If you have a losing team, everybody is usually upset and less willing to chat. You’re probably not going to unearth much detail-wise because the answers are short. You’ll also sift through less fluff, and there’s usually more good emotive reaction.
If you have a winning team, everyone is more participatory. There are naturally more storylines to pursue. It’s easier to do any job when those in your workplace — for us, locker rooms — are in a good mood, right? Again, tradeoffs.
Readership-wise, the upside to a winning team is that people get really into a topic, and interest builds. I think about the Penguins during their 2017 Stanley Cup run, the catfish that was thrown on the ice and what that became.
The upside to covering a bad team is that things can come apart, controversy will likely ensue, more news will break, and those things have never been bad for business.
I think about it this way: When I chose to leave the Penguins beat in May 2019 and move over to Pirates, a lot of people thought I had lost my mind or had been demoted.
These days, as a columnist, I fight the perception that I’m a baseball/Pirates-only guy.
Covering a bad team actually helped my career in a big way because I broke news, found stories, owned another beat, etc. That’s this job. We’re not fans of teams. We root for stories and the stuff to chronicle — good and bad.
——
LetsGoPens (@LetsGoPens4Life): Do you think the Penguins parting ways with Mike Sullivan was essentially about [president of hockey operations Kyle] Dubas feeling they will a bottom-feeder team for the next season or two and Sully not wanting to go lower before going higher?
Jason Mackey: A few different aspects to this storyline — and thanks for the awesome, non-baseball question.
Dubas firing Sullivan — let’s be honest — was never about the coach’s unwillingness to endure a few tough years. The discrepancy likely involved how many of them.
My sense is that Sullivan wanted to prioritize winning sooner, while Dubas has talked about taking longer to build something more sustainable.
There’s also a larger, societal issue here: It’s no one person’s fault, while multiple things can be true at the same time. Sullivan’s a very good coach, one of the best in the NHL. At the same time, things had run their course.
It’s a great time for him to enter the pool of coaching candidates in the NHL. If I had to pick, I’d predict he ends up with the New York Rangers.
Given the number — and quality — of openings, Fenway Spots Group and Dubas might’ve actually done Sullivan a favor. Dubas also likely saw that he could use more of a development-focused coach.
Sullivan will always be a legend here and should be treated as such. The needs for the Penguins and Dubas also no longer aligned with his strengths.
——
Tim Wright (@tawpsu): Going into the season, why did you insinuate the Pirates would be even remotely close to contending in 2025? Was that your personal thought, or were you just instructed to share Bucs propaganda by Travis Williams, Bob Nutting and Ben Cherington?
Jason Mackey: Ah, expressing fan frustration by questioning the credibility of those of us who write about the team. One of my favorite traditions of Pirates baseball.
Look, quibble with my assessment all you want. I predicted the Pirates would win 84 games, and they still could — if they make some changes and do some things (within their grasp) better. My basis has been a pitching staff that has actually been pretty good; they’re tied for the second-most quality starts in the National League (13) and overall have the 12th-lowest FIP (3.77).
The issues, of course, have been offense and poor fundamentals.
It’s possible to for someone to be wrong without being “instructed to share Bucs propaganda” by those in charge. I’ve also spoken to Bob Nutting for a grand total of about 60 seconds in the past year — since the Sheetz announcement. Gimme a break.
For what it’s worth, the Pirates should’ve been about an 84-win team last year. They finished with 76. With some combination of an OK offense, better managerial decisions and bullpen execution, they could’ve turned a 10-game losing streak into 3-7 or 4-6.
What if they also played fundamentally sound baseball? Obviously they didn’t do that. But going from 76 to 80 or 84 wins isn’t insane when you consider Paul Skenes, Jared Jones (he was healthy when I made the prediction), Mitch Keller and Andrew Heaney, plus the changing of a hitting program that limited the effectiveness of several young guys.
——
Aileen Bowers (@AileenBowers20): Oneil Cruz seems to be to the Pirates what George Pickens is to the Steelers: young, blessed with a boatload of talent, and yet they both make some dumbfounding plays. Who is working with Cruz on learning to play center field?
Jason Mackey: Thank you for the question, Aileen. Hope you’re doing well. The short answer is Tarrik Brock. But I think the larger comparison is interesting.
Cruz and Pickens are definitely different people. They also struggle with different stuff in-game. With Pickens, it can be letting his emotions getting the best of him, whether that manifests with caring more about fighting in the back of the end zone (versus a Hail Mary), pouting on the sideline or quitting on routes/blocking because he’s ticked about something. It’s obviously not good and needs to change.
With Cruz, it’s more a lack of awareness or focus. If Cruz has had some sort of emotional freakout, I haven’t seen it. He’s a fun-loving guy and pretty chill most times. You could say sometimes he’s a little too relaxed.
(I also think some of his center-field issues stem from a lack of confidence or uncertainty, though that’s not absolving him from the effort- or focus-oriented stuff.)
The upside of both is obviously incredible, which may be why they frustrate us so much, because we get glimpses of what they can do at their best. We also need to remember that they’re young.
I know I wasn’t a finished product in my mid-20s, and I think we need to extend that sort of grace for these guys, as well.
——
Bill (@BV1387): When do you think Nutting will realistically have had enough and dismiss Cherington and Shelton?
Jason Mackey: I can’t give you a magical answer, Bill. But I do think it’s probably worth having a discussion about sample size.
Two months is often viewed as the first real marking point of a major league season. For our purposes, let’s circle May 27, which would mean 56 games or 35% of the season. I also think that’s a little much.
By then, I’d really worry about irreparable damage. I also can’t imagine Nutting wants to experience 25 more games like this.
It’s just one example, but the Rockies in 2009 fired Clint Hurdle after 46 games (18-28 start).
In 2003, Jack McKeon took over the Marlins following a 16-22 start, which gives us another data point at 38 games.
The Brewers fired Ron Roenicke after 25 games in 2015, and the Reds switched from Bryan Price to Jim Riggleman after 18 games three years later. But the Phillies waited 51 games to fire Joe Girardi in 2022.
I think it’s one of those things where you know when you know. And, as I wrote the other night, I do think we’re at the point where it’s no longer just a slow start; it’s what you’ve become. Which should be concerning.
——
Dan Byers (@DByers21): Any alternatives to Tommy Pham on the horizon? What’s the May-June outlook for players returning from injury, especially Nick Gonzales, Endy Rodriguez and Johan Oviedo?
Jason Mackey: There may be some alternatives, Dan. I’ll get to those shortly. But there’s something we need to remember here, as you weren’t the only one asking about Pham.
I get it. He’s hitting .170 with a .460 OPS. That’s not good enough. However …
Pham’s on a guaranteed $4,025,000 contract. You can hate that, but it’s money the Pirates have already spent. They can’t save anything by designating him for assignment. They’re going to try and salvage this.
Also, the Pirates struggle every year to attract quality free agents. Cutting bait on a veteran after 28 games won’t sit well with others considering Pittsburgh as a potential destination. Not saying Pham gets endless opportunities, but he’ll get more than 105 plate appearances.
Now, if they do ultimately go in another direction, the candidates I see include:
—Jack Suwinski has two home runs and a 1.192 OPS in five games since returning to Triple-A.
—Billy Cook has struggled this season (.185 average and .556 OPS) but has played major league outfield before.
—Nick Solak has played 255 MLB games, including 127 with the Rangers in 2021, and has been really good in Triple-A. Small sample size — five homers and a 1.070 OPS in 20 games — but he’s in the mix.
—Ji Hwan Bae could get another shot, but I think we’ve seen what he is (and isn’t) at this point.
Injury-wise, Nick Gonzales is out of his walking boot and will begin minor agility work by the end of the week. He’s still a ways off. Rodriguez will need another week with his right index finger immobilized. Couple weeks total there.
Maybe when Gonzales returns, Adam Frazier plays more outfield. They could use Jared Triolo there when Spencer Horwitz gets back (roughly two more weeks), if his bat warrants it, but I think you’re going to see the Pirates continue to give Pham opportunities to get right.
© 2025 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Visit www.post-gazette.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
14
