Touched down yesterday morning, in time to catch a few, random, reporting-day glimpses at Pirate City, as well as the obligatory meal at Mixon Fruit Farms next door.

Anyone who makes it down for any part of the Pirates' spring training and does not stop at Mixon is missing out on, well, just about all the area has to offer beyond red lights and chain restaurants. And that is no shot at Mixon, believe me. I cannot recommend it highly enough, and not just for eating. Take the tour of the grove, as well as the factory, to see how they basically toss random fruits into their citrus drink, which gives it a slightly different taste each time you try it.

Tell Janet Mixon that the guy who orders the Italian hoagie every single day sent you.

Anyway, as we did in the weeks leading up to spring training, we focus today on the final Building Blocks installment about the GM's evaluation system ...

---

Q: Any prognosticator is only as good as his formulas, whether it be a meteorologist, a stock broker or, in this case, our PBC in scouting. While I'm quite sure that details about formulas were kept to a bare minimum, did you get any sense that any elements of "the formula" were being borrowed from Neal Huntington's previous employer in Cleveland or from knowledge of other clubs' approaches? Conversely, did you get any sense that this formula was made completely from scratch by Huntington and his staff?

Brian Leary of Clarion, Pa.

KOVACEVIC: From the sound of it, this formula will be unique to the Pirates, which was the obvious reason Huntington had no wish to broadcast its specifics. That does not mean aspects of it were not culled from other places, but it has been quite a while since I have heard anyone at any level of the front office mention Cleveland.

The way it sounds to me, the formula was put together by the Pirates' staff - evaluators and instructors alike - and made into something that works specifically within their parameters and needs, whether that means finances or ballpark dimensions or something as simple as John Russell's preference for a type of player at a given position.

I would be lying to all of you if I did not reveal here that I was very impressed by all of this, by the way. I fully understand that any formula is thoroughly irrelevant unless, well, you know, the team can find really good baseball players. But one has to start somewhere, and I had only heard about this type of thing with other franchises, most definitely not your once-proud Pittsburgh Baseball Club.

---

Q: Candor? Detailed plans and clear explanations thereof? Have aliens landed in Pittsburgh? I want the Bucs to win tomorrow, too, but the type of planning and discipline the new GM described in the last Building Blocks piece seems exactly what we need, what we've lacked, and what we've all been talking about in the Q&A for three years.

I am not going to raise new false hopes of my own, but he's got my attention.

Your take, DK?

Keith Vollberg of Stanton Heights, Pittsburgh

KOVACEVIC: You sound way too optimistic for someone claiming to have followed this forum for three years, my friend.

But yes, there is no question that many of the things we are hearing and beginning to see from the Pirates sound very much like the discussions here, though the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Generally, the people who read something like this tend to follow the sport more closely than the Fireworks People, and they see how successful teams were doing it and had a better scope of how that compared to the Pirates' efforts under previous management.

Obligatory zillionth-time disclaimer, though: None of it means a thing unless they execute. You can have the greatest system in the world, and it means nothing if you end up trading for Brant Brown on the premise that he can handle center field, when, in fact, he was a danger to mankind out there.

---

Q: Dejan, I was very impressed with Neal Huntington after reading your Building Blocks piece. I am encouraged by his Billy Beane-Moneyball approach to evaluating players, and I respect his first-do-no-harm mentality in avoiding bad trades.

Why did Cleveland demote him? I'm hoping it was because they have such a crowded and talented front office. If so, maybe the Pirates picked a gem from a winning organization.

Jim Maruca of Ross Township

KOVACEVIC: The story out of Cleveland, which we went over a few times back when Huntington was hired, was that Indians general manager Mark Shapiro felt very strongly about Chris Antonetti and promoted him to assistant GM, with an unstated but somewhat clear intent to anoint him an heir to the throne. Huntington's duties were lessened and, because he wanted to stay more involved in actual baseball matters, he asked to do advance scouting so that he could keep watching and evaluating talent.

The next person who disputes any part of that version of the story will be the first, and it surely is supported by the fact that several teams - most recently, St. Louis - have approached Antonetti to fill GM vacancies, only to be rejected.

Another point: I know that every time anyone mentions on-base percentage or valuation of players or statistical analysis, "Moneyball" comes up. This always makes me cringe a little, for a couple reasons: One, it probably does not give enough credit to independent thought that goes into any team's systems after the one Beane created. Two, I think it limits unfairly the true message of "Moneyball," which espoused above anything else the importance of exploiting weaknesses in the market.

That book gets painted with too many narrow strokes. It is much better than even some of its most ardent supporters seem to grasp.

---

Q: Dejan, why in the world would the Pirates let Josh Phelps go to eventually end up signing Doug Mientkiewicz?

I understand they want to change the culture, and Mientkiewicz has won a World Series, but this is a bad move, in my opinion. Mientkiewicz is a good player and strong defensively, but he is not as good a hitter and doesn't have the power that Phelps does. This is especially bad because the Pirates lack a power hitter coming off the bench, and Phelps didn't go to the American League. He went to a division rival: St. Louis.

Jason Loutsenhizer of Murrysville

KOVACEVIC: Got quite a bit of mail about Mientkiewicz, so wanted to sneak one of those in here, too.

For those who might not get your last reference, Jason, let me repeat that Huntington's explanation for Phelps at the time of the release was that the Pirates saw him as an American League-type of player, entirely because of his defensive limitations. He can only play first base, having no experience at other positions beyond a sliver of duty at catcher where his arm simply does not play.

There also seemed to be some sentiment in the organization that Phelps' August might have represented the exception rather than the norm. That will be tough for any of us who watched him positively destroy baseballs to digest, I am sure, but time will tell on that front.

Anyway, I kind of wish we could go back and forth here, Jason, so that you could explain to me better your objection about the Pirates acquiring "a good player" who is "strong defensively." Seems to me there is no crime committed here.

The pluses and minuses: Mientkiewicz has been a better overall hitter over a longer span than Phelps, has a far better glove and, as the Pirates plan to find out this spring, has the flexibility to play several other positions as a reserve. On the other hand, as you point out, Phelps has the power edge, and he would have brought the Pirates some right-handed pop they very much could use off the bench.

There might not be anything inspiring about the move, but it is worth pointing out that it was a minor-league deal, which means the Pirates are on the hook for zero if it does not work out. Two, if Mientkiewicz can establish some value over the spring and first half of the season, he might represent a good trading chip to a contender. Clearly, other contenders have found value in him in the very recent past.

---

Thing No. 66 that makes Pittsburgh great: As if the number itself were not enough of a reminder as to what this installment should describe, I happened to run into Craig Patrick in our airport yesterday morning after not having seen him since my hockey days. (He looks and sounds great, by the way.)

There is only one Mario Lemieux, and our city will never see another like him. Not in any sport, in my view.

Arguments can be constructed - good ones - that Honus Wagner was Pittsburgh's greatest athlete. Others can point to Roberto Clemente, Billy Conn, Joe Greene or our myriad high school quarterbacks who went on to become NFL Hall of Famers, from Dan Marino to Joe Montana to Johnny Unitas. The kid wearing No. 87 across town surely will be mentioned in this category someday, too.

But I throw out the high school QBs and limit the category to athletes who competed for one of our three professional teams, and I cannot imagine any way Lemieux is not No. 1 and will not remain No. 1, if only for this variable: People inside the game, with the exception of those in Canada leery of seeing a French speaker usurp Wayne Gretzky, generally accept that he was the most talented player ever to play the game. And that is a mantle no one else in our city's rich sporting history can claim.

Add to that his having spent his full career in Pittsburgh, his tireless charitable work, and his singular, almost regal association as the many-times anointed savior of a franchise, and no one else compares.

Need a reminder? Check out what these two slickly dressed dudes had to say a few years ago.

I consider myself very much fortunate to have covered a small part of Lemieux's career, including his one-of-a-kind comeback. And I take pride as a Pittsburgher in that, anytime I am in Europe, common citizens there can identify two things about our city: Lemieux and the Steelers.

---

Until Tuesday ...