PDA

View Full Version : How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?



Krusty
10-25-2004, 06:35 PM
Looking back this past year, I give O'Brien a C rating for this year. Considering that he wasn't hired till November, he had little time to prepare for the Winter Meetings. Instead, his first three months on the job was busy revamping the front office and farm system while instituting policies that were to be followed by every farm team. His first trade is pretty much inconclusive because we won't know for another year or two if Bong and Nelson pan out. You look at Reitsma's numbers and really they didn't improve that much while in a Braves uniform.

Even then, he took conservative approaches by signing journeyman John Vanderwal for the bench and signing journeyman pitcher Corey Lidle and picking Todd Jones off the scrap heap. But if the young players O'Brien got in return for Lidle and Jones pays off two or three years from now, then you have to say O'Brien's moves were a success. But right now, they are inconclusive.

IMO, I expect O'Brien to be more active this offseason. He personally had the entire season to view the entire organization from top to bottom. He made the moves necessary to revitalize the farm system. That is in place. Now, he can devote more time to the major league roster and if Lindner and Allen allows him to bump the payroll to the 57 million mark, I do expect him to be more active addressing the major league roster this offseason.

So, how do you rate O'Brien's first year?

M2
10-25-2004, 06:48 PM
D

I covered this in another thread, but the pitching's still a mess, he wasn't able to move any of the team's big contracts, he failed to lock up Dunn and now faces the unenviable to trying to sign an arb eligible with a ton of leverage, the draft was (in my opinion) a mess and DanO didn't manage to land any high end prospect talent in the summer trade market.

He did a few minor things well, so I don't give him an F, but he went 0-fer on the big stuff and his inability to make any progress in those areas has put him in a less advantageous position than when he took over.

Raisor
10-25-2004, 06:57 PM
D-

Only thing saving him from an F is that he didn't sign Miley to an extension.

Wait, what do you mean he did sign Miley to an extension?

RedsBaron
10-25-2004, 07:17 PM
incomplete-he failed to complete a number of assignments

Ravenlord
10-25-2004, 07:19 PM
D

i feel pretty much the way M2 feels. i think there will be some improvment this off season though. but if there is none, DanO fails.

VI_RedsFan
10-25-2004, 07:40 PM
D

Did not get us mlb ready, solid pitchers. He better get to work this off-season.

pedro
10-25-2004, 07:47 PM
what M2 said

Krusty
10-25-2004, 08:07 PM
I covered this in another thread, but the pitching's still a mess, he wasn't able to move any of the team's big contracts, he failed to lock up Dunn and now faces the unenviable to trying to sign an arb eligible with a ton of leverage, the draft was (in my opinion) a mess and DanO didn't manage to land any high end prospect talent in the summer trade market.
----------------------------------------------------------
In defense of O'Brien, he wasn't hired till late. The first priority was restructuring the scouting and player development departments. That pretty much took it till the end of January.

As for the pitching, how many top pitching prospects do other organizations part other than if you're the Yankees? These prospects are the crown jewels of the organizations and as the old say goes, "You never have enough pitching."

As for moving big contracts, what would the fans reaction have been if he traded Griffey right before he hit his 500 home run? Don't you think there would be alittle fan backlash? Right after Griffey's 500th home run is when he tore his hamstring. As for Casey and Graves' contracts.....do you conduct another firesale to unload contracts especially after the last trading deadline? And who would assume those contracts if they insisted the Reds to pay a portion of what is still owed?

Now would you lock Dunn to a longterm deal after coming off the 2003 season he did? If O'Brien wants to, this would be the offseason to do it with the improvement Dunn has made under Chris Chambliss. A five year deal would keep him out of arbitration and the first two years of free agency.

While we might have a few players eligible for arbitration, none of them will break the bank because they didn't have outstanding seasons.

As for the draft, how do you rate something you won't know honestly five years from now?

And finally, how many high-end prospects get traded at the trading deadline. Take away the Claussen-Boone deal, and I don't see anyone trading their crown jewels unless they know for sure trading them will get them into the World Series.

steig
10-25-2004, 08:38 PM
Grade: F :thumbdown
I agree with M2. He also failed to approach the game from a moneyball view when he continued to draft a high school player in the 1st round. To develop pitching we need arms in the minors that don't get blown out after 3 months due to over use in high school.

M2
10-25-2004, 08:47 PM
In defense of O'Brien, he wasn't hired till late. The first priority was restructuring the scouting and player development departments. That pretty much took it till the end of January.

As for the pitching, how many top pitching prospects do other organizations part other than if you're the Yankees? These prospects are the crown jewels of the organizations and as the old say goes, "You never have enough pitching."

As for moving big contracts, what would the fans reaction have been if he traded Griffey right before he hit his 500 home run? Don't you think there would be alittle fan backlash? Right after Griffey's 500th home run is when he tore his hamstring. As for Casey and Graves' contracts.....do you conduct another firesale to unload contracts especially after the last trading deadline? And who would assume those contracts if they insisted the Reds to pay a portion of what is still owed?

Now would you lock Dunn to a longterm deal after coming off the 2003 season he did? If O'Brien wants to, this would be the offseason to do it with the improvement Dunn has made under Chris Chambliss. A five year deal would keep him out of arbitration and the first two years of free agency.

While we might have a few players eligible for arbitration, none of them will break the bank because they didn't have outstanding seasons.

As for the draft, how do you rate something you won't know honestly five years from now?

And finally, how many high-end prospects get traded at the trading deadline. Take away the Claussen-Boone deal, and I don't see anyone trading their crown jewels unless they know for sure trading them will get them into the World Series.

A) O'Brien took over within a week of when last season ended. He had five months to get a club ready for the season. That he can't multi-task isn't a point in his favor.

B) I didn't say "pitching" prospects, but since you brought that up I count three pitchers off the BA top 100 who got moved last summer in addition to at least four other highly interesting prospect arms who got moved at the same time. None of them landed in Cincinnati.

C) There wouldn't have been any backlash from this fan if the Reds had moved Jr. or Graves. Either the club makes smart moves or it doesn't. If DanO doesn't have the backbone to move an albatross contract for fear of some momentary criticism, then the Reds hired the wrong guy. And if the ownership wouldn't allow him to consider such deals this summer, then he's a toothless GM.

D) Yes, I would have locked up Dunn to a LTC after his 2003. Must've said so at least 100 times. Would have locked him up after 2002 and 2001 too (though you can't blame DanO for those oversights). I'm one of the least surprised people on the planet that Adam Dunn had a huge season.

E) To me, taking five years to assess a draft is a copout. For instance, you could smell the stank hanging over the 2001 and 2002 Reds drafts within seconds of their completion. The 2004 effort's no different. The arms they drafted are massive long-term projects and the bats they drafted went out slapped "suspect" labels on themselves once they hit the rookie leagues.

F) Good prospects get moved every summer and every winter. Last summer and winter were no exceptions. This coming winter will be no exception. It's a matter of who can put together those deals and get those kids. DanO hasn't shown that ability yet. He's gathered some interesting C prospects, but the only kid he landed with any sort of pedigree was Bubba Nelson and that didn't exactly pan out well (though I wouldn't write Bubba off just yet as he's young and clearly wasn't healthy last season).

Krusty
10-25-2004, 08:57 PM
I still think Bong will make the club as a lefthanded reliever next season. And, don't count out Nelson making the Louisville roster. Patience is the key.

By the way M2, I'm not singling you out. Ole Krusty is sicker than a dog and off from work today. Looking for some delightful chatter to cure my ill woes.

Ravenlord
10-25-2004, 09:04 PM
I still think Bong will make the club as a lefthanded reliever next season. And, don't count out Nelson making the Louisville roster. Patience is the key.
i'll agree with that. i thought Bong probably should have been up this year over Norton, or at least called up after Louisville's season.

buckeyenut
10-25-2004, 09:52 PM
B-

OBrien has spent his time and effort where it should have been spent, on restructuring a farm system in disarray. He made several moves that were very good, looking at the future of this ballclub.

Not an A because I really felt there were some opportunities missed. If he was truly sticking to the plan, I think there were opportunities this year to move any of Graves, Jr, Casey and Wilson and I think the return could have been pretty high in most cases if timed correctly. Reason he gets a little bit of a pass for that is the timing in which he would have had to have moved those guys would have resulted in a PR hit that would have been difficult for this team to handle after last year's PR nightmare, even if it was the right move. I think that more than anything is why the guys were not dealt.

4256 Hits
10-25-2004, 10:02 PM
D-

Only thing saving him from an F is that he didn't sign Miley to an extension.

Wait, what do you mean he did sign Miley to an extension?

Gets a F from me for same reason.

Falls City Beer
10-25-2004, 10:48 PM
F

He'd get an F minus if he hadn't made the Reitsma/Bong-Nelson trade.

The guy's clearly slow, but more than that (and more important) he had the worst draft in a long, long time, which was supposed to be his strong suit.

MWM
10-25-2004, 10:56 PM
That's quite a change of heart, FCB. IIRC, you were highly supportive of his hire.

REDREAD
10-25-2004, 11:36 PM
Wow, I thought I'd be the harshest critic, but I'm not. :MandJ:

I give him a D-. The only thing saving him from a failing grade is that he didn't do anything monumentally stupid, like trading Dunn for bad pitching prospect.

Resigning Miley, botching the Reitsma trade, wasting all the payflex, not locking up the core, ignoring the pitching and 3b problem, poor draft, not moving us forward on inch this season give him a very bad grade.

That by far overshadows his few minor positive moves: Todd Jones, Gabe White (nice low risk deal, attempt to improve bullpen), and the longshot prospects he got from the Phils.

Does anyone really think we are better off than we were a year ago? I don't.
Everyone that is good is one year closer to being priced out of town, no talent was added.

REDREAD
10-25-2004, 11:39 PM
D-

Only thing saving him from an F is that he didn't sign Miley to an extension.

Wait, what do you mean he did sign Miley to an extension?

Yes, he did it twice :MandJ: He even broke his "no negotiation" rule to do it.
:MandJ:

And why in the heck did he already commit to Miley for 2006? Miley's agent must've given the FO a heck of a deal to give Miley some security.

Good to see you have a sense of humor in the face of disaster Raisor. I predict that within 2 years, Miley will be despised more than Boone. In fact, I'm sure he'll have a worse W-L record too.

boobhat
10-25-2004, 11:45 PM
I would have to grade O'Brien a C. He did re-sign Miley, brought back Gabe White( the Reds were still in it at the time) and got Machado and Hancock for basically nothing in Todd Jones and Corey Lidle ( correcting the original mistake in signing him). On the flip side, he should have traded Paul Wilson ( or re-signed him, which i would've preferred) and moved Danny Graves and made more of an attempt in bringing back Aaron Boone.

gonelong
10-25-2004, 11:47 PM
I'll give him an F since PU is not really a grade.

GL

MacMan
10-25-2004, 11:50 PM
Wow, you guys are rough

Aronchis
10-25-2004, 11:50 PM
To give O'brien a "F" after 1 season is typical Redszone chicken little "I know everything" attitude. Considering the little money and value he had to work with, he gets a C from me. He didn't wow me, nor am I overly surprised by his lack of activity his first year with the Reds.

SteelSD
10-26-2004, 12:06 AM
D

Did nothing to help the MLB product. Non-tendered Branyan without a legit option at 3B. Two "big" moves were bringing in an old part-time OF and a non-projectible SP. Knew about Juan Cruz' availability and didn't move on it. Took a step forward with the Reitsma deal and two steps back with the draft and inability to figure out how to get value for Paul Wilson. Supposedly had a bunch of PayFlex and didn't spend a cent of it.

Was 1-for-a-bunch on waiver wire pickups. Didn't bring a single productive MLB player from outside the system who was here at the end of the season. Implements minor league development strategy and then backs off of it.

Lost binder sometime around June.

Decision-making process appears to take four times as long as one needs to dissect of one of his oh-so-politically-correct-and-never-to-the-point doublespeak quotes.

Dislikes children and old people. Treats animals poorly. Ok, I made those up. He might like children, old people, and animals. Makes no difference. He's a General Manager. I just want him to like good players. Pitchers mostly.

The only reason he gets a D is because I think he can do worse.

That scares me.

Should scare kids too. Maybe animals as well.

I dunno.

wheels
10-26-2004, 12:09 AM
The fact that he didn't trade Paul Wilson when he had the chance elicits a failing grade from me.

Trading a guy like that could have really paid dividends.

And don't get me started on the draft.

Aronchis
10-26-2004, 12:10 AM
What was Wilson going to bring? Nada, maybe not as much as Lidle brought by Augest.

Just because O'brien didn't make "moves" to upgrade in 2004 is exactly what your describing. Rebuilding. The sad thing is, the Reds didn't have a player outside Dunn who would bring in the kind of talent you want.

SteelSD
10-26-2004, 12:18 AM
Rebuilding.

One doesn't rebuild with Elmers glue, paper mache, duct tape, and bailing wire. One patches with those- and badly if they don't know what they're doing.

Rebuilding is done with brick, mortar, concrete, sturdy wood, hammer, and nails.

O'Brien didn't "build" in 2004. He didn't "rebuild" in 2004. He stuck a Band-Aid on a gushing head wound.

That doesn't fix anything. It only makes it appear that one's "trying" while the patient bleeds to death.

Falls City Beer
10-26-2004, 12:37 AM
That's quite a change of heart, FCB. IIRC, you were highly supportive of his hire.

Nope. Was in the WOY "give the guy more than a month before bashing him" camp. I've seen close to twelve of those months and I don't like what I see...at all.

MWM
10-26-2004, 12:38 AM
Nope. Was in the WOY "give the guy more than a month before bashing him" camp. I've seen close to twelve of those months and I don't like what I see...at all.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought I remembered making a comment about how you were glad they brought in someone with great intelligence (Rhodes Scholar) who knew how to think, etc...

MWM
10-26-2004, 12:59 AM
Aha, I found it. I don't meant to throw this in your face, FCB, but I thought I remembered you saying something like this and I found it, so here goes.


Outside of DePodesta, O'Brien is the guy I want.

This may sound like snobbery, but I respect a GM who combines ambition AND intelligence/restraint, things that O'Brien's vita suggests he has.

I think it's an out-and-out fallacy to believe there is a necessary connection between office rank (gm, asst. gm, third in command, etc.) and qualifications. I think intelligence and success (Rhodes Scholar, drafting history) are FAR better criteria to judge a candidate by.

I'm happy with the Reds' choice and wish O'Brien the best.

M2
10-26-2004, 01:40 AM
What was Wilson going to bring? Nada, maybe not as much as Lidle brought by Augest.

Just because O'brien didn't make "moves" to upgrade in 2004 is exactly what your describing. Rebuilding. The sad thing is, the Reds didn't have a player outside Dunn who would bring in the kind of talent you want.

You've created a nice little strawman for yourself there. By pretending others expect a cornucopia of talent for Paul Wilson, you give yourself permission to ignore the Reds' failure to work any sort of deal for the guy.

Minnesota got a great young arm for Doug Mientkiewicz for cripes sake. Even guys like Carl Everett and Ismael Valdes fetched live bodies.

Teams work deals. Prospects get traded for veterans every season and often it's unexciting veterans they're dealt for. If I had told you in mid-July the Mets would trade Scott Kazmir and another arm for Victor Zambrano, you'd have responded, "Try Carlos Zambrano and then maybe you're talking." Successful GMs find the other teams who covet their tradeable commodities and get something for them. It's been that way since the invention of the game. It doesn't have to be a Scott Kazmir or even a pitcher for that matter. No one's asking DanO to fix everything with one deal or in one year, but he needs to identify moments of opportunity and convert them into real gains if wants to perform any kind of rebuilding. Catergorically he did not do that this summer.

Inventing false expectations in others doesn't alleviate him of that responsibility.

wheels
10-26-2004, 01:43 AM
What was Wilson going to bring? Nada, maybe not as much as Lidle brought by Augest.

Just because O'brien didn't make "moves" to upgrade in 2004 is exactly what your describing. Rebuilding. The sad thing is, the Reds didn't have a player outside Dunn who would bring in the kind of talent you want.

In July (at the end of which is the trade deadline), Paul Wilson's numbers were at their most deceptive, and most assuredly would have fetched far more than what they got from Lidle. He hadn't even made his trip to the DL at that point (unless I'm sorely mistaken). So, I'm not talking about August, I'm talking about July. O'Brien mistakenly thought this team had what it took to compete, and blundered miserably by pinning his hopes on a guy like Paul Wilson.

I was all for giving the guy some more rope up to that point, but the unwillingness to deal Wilson, coupled with a draft that stunk mightily.....Well, I've just seen about enough of Dan O'Brien.

Ga_Red
10-26-2004, 02:10 AM
2/09/07

Krusty
10-26-2004, 09:36 AM
O'Brien didn't "build" in 2004. He didn't "rebuild" in 2004. He stuck a Band-Aid on a gushing head wound.

Sure we aren't talking about Jim Bowden and his 10 years at the helm of GM?

O'Brien restructured the farm system and scouting departments. And while he might seem a tad slow making decisions on possible deals, who is to say a rookie GM doesn't make mistakes?

It's amazing how many people want to kick O'Brien to the curb after one year but fail to realize in 10 years Bowden ran the ship, things weren't much better with developing homegrown talent.

Krusty
10-26-2004, 09:44 AM
After reading people's posts criticizing Dan O'Brien's first draft, I ask, "Was O'Brien's First Draft Really That Bad?"

Okay, he took another high school pitcher in the first round with Homer Bailey. But Bailey was ranked as a top 10 player. And even though the risks of taking high school pitchers is greater, they do have higher ceilings than college pitchers....even though college pitchers are the surer bets.

But what about the rest of the draft? We all know first round picks don't make a draft. Are the rest of the players drafted that horrible? And how can you say it was a horrible draft when we haven't really seen if the players have developed after a half of season of organized ball?

Everyone talks about Moneyball and how it is the baseball gospel. Before computers came on the scene, GMs like Branch Rickey and even Bob Howsam relied on scouts watching these kids to see if they will be successful major leaguers. So, I guess we kick scouts to the curb since we can rely on statistics to determine if a player will be successful ballplayer? Sounds like Marge Schott talking.

So, I ask.....Was O'Brien's First Draft Really That Horrible?

wheels
10-26-2004, 09:46 AM
No one expected O'Brien to develop homegrown talent in one season.

I just expected that he take more steps towards accelerating the process. He could have shed more dead weight veterans (like he did with Reitsma). Would any of them landed a top tier prospect or two? Quite possibly.

The thing is, I don't think O'Brien really even tried.

wheels
10-26-2004, 09:49 AM
With all due respect....Couldn't this be discussed on the other Dan O'Brien thread?

Krusty
10-26-2004, 09:52 AM
Hey, I got no problems moving it. But with everyone blasting last year's draft, I thought maybe the draft deserved a thread of its own.

But if the moderators would, please move it.

Krusty
10-26-2004, 09:56 AM
Maybe O'Brien figured that if he had the opportunity to thoroughly make an analysis of the orgainzation firsthand, it would give him a better idea what he needs to do.

Think a minute people. If you are in O'Brien's shoes, do you come in and start making changes without seeing firsthand what you actually have? Do you just shoot from the hip or do you study what you have and what you need to work on?

REDREAD
10-26-2004, 11:12 AM
Krusty, another thing I don't like is that he made no real effort to do anything over the winter. He signed Lidle, who was one of the worst reclamation projects and then signed Vanderwall and acted as though that was a big deal (press conference). It took him all winter to trade Reitsma. Supposedly teams were also hot for Reidling and Wilson, but he did nothing.

The only prospect he added over last winter was rule V pick Mattox.

So, he basically wasted the entire year. While I still hold out some hope for Nelson to develop into a decent middle reliever, Bong appears to be another in a long line of sub-mediocre pitchers that we have to endure. IMO, he really got taken in the only big trade he made. It's also not comforting to read in the press that DanO turned down better offers for Reitsma, simply because he insisted on getting two arms (instead of the best talent he can get). That's what rebuilding is all about. Collecting talent.

I really don't have much faith that this offseason will be much different. In theory, DanO should have a detailed report on everyone in the entire organization by now (except the recent draftees). He SHOULD have reports on all the other prospects in other organizations.. However, does anyone expect much more than last year? Sign Wilson or another retread starter, and make another rule V draft pick? Maybe dump a salary or two in the spring?

SteelSD
10-26-2004, 11:30 AM
Sure we aren't talking about Jim Bowden and his 10 years at the helm of GM?

Krusty, with all due respect, I don't care who shot the patient.

But when that victim gets wheeled into the ER I don't want to see the attending physician cleaning out his wound with a handi-wipe and trying to operate with a rusty spoon and scotch tape.

We have a GM who, in 12 months, has failed to bring in a single productive MLB player who's still with the club. He allegedly had a bunch of PayFlex to work with and spent none of it on long-term productive MLB talent. His drafting methodology was not sound for the needs and competitive timeline of the club. His development strategy appears to be "Try this...uh...no, now let's do that...crap...what would Grady Fuson do?". He just re-signed a Manager he didn't want in the first place.

And no. "Moneyball" doesn't play into it at all. Even the least statistically-aligned fan can tell whether or not a team appears better or worse after 12 months of a General Manager's machinizations and whether or not "better" or "worse" is a direct result of said General Manager's efforts.

I might not see "worse", but I sure don't see "better".

johngalt
10-26-2004, 12:03 PM
B-

Plus side
- I really liked the Cory Lidle move. He was exactly the kind of pitcher (innings eater, durable, keeps you in games) that virtually all Reds fans and observers have said is what we need here. He was a little more inconsistent than I would have liked, but he was a good sign for us.

- Signing Todd Jones was another good move. He had some blow-ups, but finding a guy off the scrap heap to be probably our most dependable reliever was very good.

- I like the prospects we netted in the Lidle and Jones trades, particularly the fact that we got a major-league ready pitcher (Hancock), a talented albeit unpolished middle infielder (Machado) and a solid pitching prospect (Ramirez) who did alright at Double-A at 21.

- Adding guys to the pro scouting end of things is really good for this organization too. I know it got more play in Spring Training and early on than it did as the season wore on, but I like the fact that we're spending more time and money to scout out players across the organizations.

- Finally being the one to step up a tell Larkin "Thanks for everything, but we have to move in a different direction" gets a big plus from me.

Negative side
- The Reitsma trade is something I've gone back and forth in my assessment on. When the trade was made, I said it was a good move, and I still contend that trading a reliever (albeit a young, cheap one) for two starting pitching prospects is a good idea. Having said that, I've never viewed Bong as a starter. I still like Nelson despite his struggles, but I think Bong is fairly overrated. And in any event, we could have used Reitsma's arm in the pen this year.

- The drafting of Bailey was questionable to me. Not because I abhor all high school pitching draftees but because I think some of the college arms that were available still had stuff almost as good as Bailey's and were perhaps less than two years away from being ready for a permanent spot in the rotation. That's not something to pass up, even though I do love Bailey's ceiling.

- The reluctance to give Encarnacion a shot in September really puzzled me. The kid hit well at Double-A after having a decent showing in Spring Training and deserved at least a few days of big-league life after the playoffs were over.

- I liked the signing of Vander Wal at the time, but once he tore up his knee, that should have been it. There's no way a guy who's almost 40 is going to blow out his knee and come back later that season to be effective.

lollipopcurve
10-26-2004, 12:21 PM
O'Brien did fine. We have better young starters than we did before -- remember he acquired Hancock for very little and signed off (I assume) on the promotion and steady use of Hudson. The handling of mega-assets Dunn and Pena (for which everyone seems to want to credit Chambliss, an O'Brien/Miley hire) worked very well. Top prospects Encarnacion, Gardner, Pauly, Moseley, Votto (to name just the top 5) made solid-excellent advances in the minors. In general, the 8-man/75 pitch system, in place for most of the season, helped our lower level pitchers avoid injury. The team, built on a low budget, was competitive and interesting enough (untraded Griffey's chase of 500 helped) to get fans to the park in numbers significantly higher than projected for a small-market team in its 2nd year in a new ballpark. In turn, the payroll is expected to climb in 2005.

Perhaps most importantly, he appears to have helped stabilize a FO that, from all accounts, was in chaos. We don't see that stuff.

No grade from me until 3 years from now, when his contract is up. Even then, it'll still be too soon to have a final reckoning on the 2004 draft.

M2
10-26-2004, 01:32 PM
So, I ask.....Was O'Brien's First Draft Really That Horrible?

The Reds lack pitching at the major league level. They've got maybe two starting pitchers in the system right now who might show up by 2007 and give them some help (Pauly and Gardner -- you can take a flyer on guys like Moseley and Kelly, but given the way they've pitched in the minors I see that as wishful thinking).

So they've got a relatively empty cupboard for the foreseeable future and what do the Reds do? They stock up on HS arms high in the draft. They took five pitchers in the top 10 rounds, four HS arms and one juco arm.

Take a look at what they did in 2003. They got Wagner, Pauly and Gardner in that haul -- all guys who were able to start at low A or higher and who can be expected to be ready within fours of their selection.

The kids the Reds drafted in 2004 are much longer-term projects. They all started in rookie ball (low rookie ball in most cases). It may take them until 2006 to reach low A and pitch there with any sort of competence. A reasonable timetable for any one of these kids would be 2010 before he's ready to come to the majors and thrive. Now I'm not saying some of these kids won't be worth waiting for or that it's impossible that one or two won't be able to handle an advanced timetable (though that's up to nature and not the Reds), but how much sense does it make to you to put your area of greatest need on the slow track?

Homer Bailey was high risk selection, which I certainly didn't think was wise, but let's allow the Reds the roll of the dice on that one. Why, why, why not follow up with some quality college arms after that? It's one thing to take an educated gamble here and there, unfortunately what the Reds did was put themselves consistently in harm's way.

Then you get to the bats. Take a look at how these kids did in a hitters paradise (Billings) this season. Outside of Cody Strait's 49 ABs of glory, they put up fairly blah numbers. Unless some of these guys unlock heretofore undiscovered talents within themselves, they're going to hit a brick wall in Dayton next season. Hopefully a specimen like Szymanski avoids that peril, but others like Tatum, Janish, Lawhorn and Anderson need to show a lot more quality before you even can begin to call them prospects.

The 2004 Reds draft was a combination of enormous risk on the pitching side coupled with a pack of hitters who almost immediately got exposed. Rather than lather, rinse, repeat on the 2003 draft which provided an immediate shine to the Reds' faded and scraggly system, the Reds went back on a path toward baldness.

M2
10-26-2004, 02:07 PM
I should note here that the guy in my signature, Jim McLaughlin, is the fellow who set up the scouting department that begat the BRM. He'd put together what became the Baltimore Orioles dynasty before that.

McLaughlin insisted on using the most advanced scientific methods of the day in evaluating talent and tried to wring out scout BS at every juncture. Bob Howsam did not rely on scouts watching the game. He relied on Jim McLaughlin, who relied on objective measures when scouting ballplayers. Once he no longer could sign a zillion prospects and sift through them at will, Branch Rickey also sought to be as objective as possible in scouting players.

So Krusty, the examples you gave of old-time scouting are actually the grandfathers of "Moneyball" and in this era, they'd have been in the lead vanguard when it comes to performance projection and risk management. As much as some on this board abhor the concept, it's how the BRM got built.

REDREAD
10-26-2004, 02:20 PM
B-

Plus side
- I really liked the Cory Lidle move. He was exactly the kind of pitcher (innings eater, durable, keeps you in games) that virtually all Reds fans and observers have said is what we need here. He was a little more inconsistent than I would have liked, but he was a good sign for us.
.

Lidle gave us 149 innings of 5.32 ERA ball. The only starters with worse ERAs were Haynes, Acevado, and Claussen. While I like his durabilty, I really don't think he kept us in many games. His 7-10 record as a Red reflects that. The almost 3 million spent on Lidle was a blown opportunity, IMO.

I agree Jones worked out good, and it was prudent to flip him and Lidle for prospects when the opportunity arose. I hope Jones wasn't just a dump luck accident though (desparately grabbing the first available bullpenner, since Reitsma was about to get shipped out). We'll see if he can find some more bullpen gems this winter.

The Phils prospects we got were ok considering what we gave up. Hancock (the best of the lot), will provide cheap rotation filler until the Reds figure out how to get some quality pitching (well, maybe Hancock won't live that long :MandJ: ) But none of them are going to be better than replacement level players, IMO.

As far as the other positives, even if you think giving Larkin the boot was a good idea, give the credit to Allen, who was determined since opening day to push Lark out. I'm not giving DanO credit for any new hire (other than Chambliss) until they start showing results.

Kc61
10-26-2004, 03:07 PM
The way I see it. O'Brien didn't care about the major league team last year. His main goal was to restructure the organization, bring in his own people, improve the minor league system. I think he did all three. I think the minor league system is improved although not top tier quite yet. The organization seems more professional. He signed lots of draft choices and seems to have drafted some good arms, although very young ones. On these tasks I would give him a B+.

However, the major league team was not improved. His acquisitions were the usual array of cast-offs and fringe veterans. He didn't trade off salaries (Graves, for example) that need to go. He did nothing to bring the Griffey situation to a head, and now Griffey has 10 and 5 rights. And when the team was competing, he didn't try to bolster it (except for Gabe White). On these tasks I would give him a D.

If he doesn't turn his attention to the major league team this off-season, I will be disappointed.

MWM
10-26-2004, 04:01 PM
Does anyone really know HOW O'Brien "restructured" the farm system and scouting department; or are people content just to say that he "restructured" the farm system and scouting department. I hear an awful lot of people singing the praises of this restructuring, but I've yet to read a single analysis of why it was such a good thing. Because when people talk about DanO's accomplishments in his first year, that seems to be top on the list.

REDREAD
10-26-2004, 04:14 PM
I really don't see how DanO did anything different than Bowden as far as improving the farm system.

His biggest score this year short term was Hancock, Nelson is the best long term hope.

He didn't bring in one high ceiling guy. Even Bowden found a way to usually bring in one high ceiling guy occasionally, even if they didn't pan out, such as Bell, Encarcion, Pena, etc.

All GMs utilize the rule V draft when they have roster spots. DanO picked an injured guy, who we're going to have to carry on the roster in 2005. That's going to make it kind of tough to carry a Rule V guy we're probably going to pick this winter, as 25 man roster spots are going to be tight with a lot of marginal guys out of options this year. Now IIRC, Mattox was a known injured guy, and that's why the Mets let him dangle. Poor decision. It would be better to grab a high ceiling guy like Burnside (as Jimbo did a couple years ago). Someone healthy who could've mopped up this year and been sent back to the minors in 2005.

DanO's first draft is downright scary. As M2 said, we're not going to see any help from that class in a long, long time. Long after the good position players we have now are gone.

IMO, grabbing Nelson, Hancock, and some very marginal guys is not making progress on fixing up the farm. A poor rule V pick and a potentially disasterous draft may actually be a step backwards, although it's hard to say.

Since DanO hasn't shown Bowden's talent for mining retreads, he's going to have to do MUCH better on the minors to give us some hope.

wheels
10-26-2004, 07:27 PM
Maybe O'Brien figured that if he had the opportunity to thoroughly make an analysis of the orgainzation firsthand, it would give him a better idea what he needs to do.

Think a minute people. If you are in O'Brien's shoes, do you come in and start making changes without seeing firsthand what you actually have? Do you just shoot from the hip or do you study what you have and what you need to work on?

Or do you maybe go and have a bang up draft that includes some players that can help the organization quickly and effectively a-la Ryan Wagner, Thomas Pauly, and Richie Gardner?

I guess not.

I guess DanO felt the need to gamble on Homer Bailey and BJ Syzmanski.

Not really a good way to lay a solid foundation if you ask me.

ODERED
10-26-2004, 07:31 PM
O'Brien did fine. We have better young starters than we did before -- remember he acquired Hancock for very little and signed off (I assume) on the promotion and steady use of Hudson. The handling of mega-assets Dunn and Pena (for which everyone seems to want to credit Chambliss, an O'Brien/Miley hire) worked very well. Top prospects Encarnacion, Gardner, Pauly, Moseley, Votto (to name just the top 5) made solid-excellent advances in the minors. In general, the 8-man/75 pitch system, in place for most of the season, helped our lower level pitchers avoid injury. The team, built on a low budget, was competitive and interesting enough (untraded Griffey's chase of 500 helped) to get fans to the park in numbers significantly higher than projected for a small-market team in its 2nd year in a new ballpark. In turn, the payroll is expected to climb in 2005.

Perhaps most importantly, he appears to have helped stabilize a FO that, from all accounts, was in chaos. We don't see that stuff.

No grade from me until 3 years from now, when his contract is up. Even then, it'll still be too soon to have a final reckoning on the 2004 draft.


lollipopcurve, how in the heck did you come up with that name? Is this something the significant other calls you? ;)

On one hand, I think your approach of wait-and-see is a level-headed one. On the other hand, the Reds basically used that approach four times since their last visit to the playoffs. If you're basing that conclusion on the period of time since their last playoff appearance. It's ironic that we as fans are tearing DanO to shreds over his "slow, methodical thinking", yet we want to give him years of this before we make a decision on whether he passed or failed as GM. Given the thread is about rating his first year as GM, I'd give him a C. There's no point in reiterating what you and others have taken the time to do. We all know the story about DanO. I think the difference in grades given to him comes down to each fan's "patience rating" :RedinDC:

4256 Hits
10-26-2004, 09:41 PM
[QUOTE=Ga_Red]1)
8) rule 5 draft he gets a B
QUOTE]

How can spending 350k to have a player being on the DL for a year with the potential at best to be the next Todd VanPople be anything but an F?

4256 Hits
10-26-2004, 11:05 PM
[QUOTE=johngalt]B-

[B]
- Finally being the one to step up a tell Larkin "Thanks for everything, but we have to move in a different direction" gets a big plus from me.
QUOTE]

Letting your 5th best hitter go that wanted to come back and be willing to play for less than 1 mil be considered a plus move it gives you an idea of how bad of first year was.

I counted up the Reds had 12 postion players that played for the Reds last year that were much worst than Larkin. So to make the Reds better next year DanO needs to go out and get 12 players better than Larkin and since he hasn't brought in one player (in a year) yet better than Larkin I find it hard that he will bring in 12.

gonelong
10-27-2004, 12:38 AM
To give O'brien a "F" after 1 season is typical Redszone chicken little "I know everything" attitude.

Uh, you might want to consider re-reading the original question that was posed ...

How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

GL

Phhhl
10-27-2004, 12:41 AM
You gotta give him an F to balance out the A+ Ebaneezer Lindner and John Allen give him.

Doc. Scott
10-27-2004, 09:36 AM
I think he deserves a C+ or B-:

-The Reitsma trade didn't look good out of the chute, but both guys are still figuring in organizational plans.

-The Jones and Lidle trades were quite solid. Jones did a decent job and was cashed for two players who look like they'll make the 25-man for 2005.

-The Barry Larkin decision: tough, but correct.

-Organizational depth: increasing.

-Nabbed a couple of intriguing players off waivers for nothing.

Marked down for:

-Thinking that Lidle and Vander Wal would be "enough", whether they worked out or not. That's a big one.

Incomplete or equivocal on:

-The eight-man rotation in the minor leagues.

-The draft. Lots of upside, not many results so far.

-Austin Kearns to third: I still think it could mess with his bat and it's likely just for one year, but it's a novel alternative to dumping Casey or (heaven forbid) Dunn or Pena.

It's really quite tough to assign a grade because the biggest decisions are still to come- do you trade Jimenez or LaRue or Casey, which pitchers do you sign, etc. Those two things could swing the grade drastically one way or the other.

I think many of you are still not used to the slower, more gradual pace at which things are happening in the organization. I think you're also taking your frustration at Lindner/Allen/etc. out on O'Brien. Allen and Rob Butcher need to be fired today and replaced with a more visionary COO and a competent PR team, sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with DanO.

M2
10-27-2004, 11:56 AM
I think many of you are still not used to the slower, more gradual pace at which things are happening in the organization. I think you're also taking your frustration at Lindner/Allen/etc. out on O'Brien. Allen and Rob Butcher need to be fired today and replaced with a more visionary COO and a competent PR team, sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with DanO.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my frustration with DanO has everything to do with DanO. A year ago I thought DanO had two must-dos at the major league level: move at least one of the big three contracts and pick up arms for the long-term. He did neither. Sad that you'd offer Nelson and Bong as guys "still figuring in organizational plans." That's a sorry state of the union if ever I've heard one. Nelson's become an extremely iffy proposition and Bong's not a good pitcher. BTW, those two must dos still apply.

Coupled with a poor draft (let me use the name Terry Reynolds here, because he may go down in history as the worst scouting director in the history of the game) and no visible change in the organization's Peter Principle pitching development philosophy and I'm one unhappy camper.

And the Dunn situation has me verklempt.

I agree he added some depth in terms of bringing in potential 21st-25th man on the roster types, but I'm hardly impressed by it.

A year into the DanO regime and absolutely every player on whom I can attach some hope was here before he arrived (I don't put an ounce of faith in draft picks until they start doing something noteworthy in professional baseball). The one thing you don't see on this thread is the list of names of the players DanO acquired who've done real well since arriving in the organization. Simple reason for that. The list doesn't exist. Would that be acceptable next year and the year after? Absolutely not. That's why I grade him low, because it's a show-me job. I don't give speculative brownie points on the hope that maybe his moves, or lack thereof, won't look so bad in the future.

Doc. Scott
10-27-2004, 01:52 PM
The one thing you don't see on this thread is the list of names of the players DanO acquired who've done real well since arriving in the organization. Simple reason for that. The list doesn't exist. Would that be acceptable next year and the year after? Absolutely not. That's why I grade him low, because it's a show-me job. I don't give speculative brownie points on the hope that maybe his moves, or lack thereof, won't look so bad in the future.

Fair enough on the show-me criteria (I personally like to give players a little more time to perform if they're minor-leaguers), but I think Josh Hancock, Anderson Machado, and Javon Moran have all shown a little bit. Todd Jones was pretty solid, then brought a fair return when cashed.

Lidle flopped, but the Reds got three guys for him (of which two showed some potential post-trade). Vander Wal was an unmitigated flop, albeit not something that really seemed like DanO's fault.

DanO did get downgraded from me for not doing more to bring in some halfway decent pitchers in the offseason; that's the biggest knock against him.

Bong and Nelson had poor seasons, but could conceivably bounce back, so I don't grade that deal worse than "mediocre" just yet.

My grade could fall precipitously based on what happens over the next few months. But I would also think that if DanO can get rid of Danny Graves, pretty much everyone here would bump him up a letter grade or two without a doubt.

Spring~Fields
10-27-2004, 02:00 PM
We have a GM who, in 12 months, has failed to bring in a single productive MLB player who's still with the club. He allegedly had a bunch of PayFlex to work with and spent none of it on long-term productive MLB talent. His drafting methodology was not sound for the needs and competitive timeline of the club. His development strategy appears to be "Try this...uh...no, now let's do that...crap...what would Grady Fuson do?". He just re-signed a Manager he didn't want in the first place.


Yes. Plus we saw a sample of his work by the bullpen and bench that he orchestrated last season. Lindners and Allens talking puppet worries me!!

REDREAD
10-27-2004, 02:25 PM
I think Josh Hancock, Anderson Machado, and Javon Moran have all shown a little bit. .

Those guys were fair return for what we gave up. But are they even replacement level players. I mean, does anyone expect Hancock to be a sub 5.00 ERA pitcher next year? Does anyone expect Machado to be anything other than a weak hitting utility infielder?

Guys like Hancock and Machado are a dime a dozen. IIRC, the Phils got Hancock for Jeremy Giambi. Hancock is a fifth starter type on a bad team.
Sure, it makes more sense to have Hancock on the roster than to have a 3 million dollar Lidle doing the same role, IF the payflex gained can be used.. but it really doesn't move us forward at all. Reith or Acevado could probably be inserted in the rotation and give comparable results.

westofyou
10-27-2004, 02:48 PM
Those guys were fair return for what we gave up. But are they even replacement level players.

Yes they were, well anderson at least but what do you want for nothing?

You say Machado won't be anything, but the fact is he can field and take a walk, plus he has speed... those are tools and they are good to get cheap



NAME TEAM LG POS PA PA% AVG OBP SLG SB CS MLVr PMLVr VORPr MLV PMLV VORP


Anderson Machado CIN NL ss 66 1.1 0.268 0.379 0.393 3 1 0.056 0.141 0.275 0.9 2.2 4.2

NAME TEAM LG G GS IP H/9 BB/9 SO/9 HR/9 BABIP ERA RA PK_RA RA+ RP VORP

Todd Jones CIN NL 51 0 57.0 7.7 3.9 5.8 0.6 0.280 3.63 3.95 3.95 118 4.7 11.1
Josh Hancock PHI NL 4 2 9.0 13.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 0.323 9.00 9.00 9.38 50 -4.7 -3.2
Cory Lidle PHI NL 10 10 62.3 7.8 2.5 4.8 0.4 0.264 3.90 4.04 4.21 111 3.3 11.9

REDREAD
10-27-2004, 03:01 PM
Yes they were, well anderson at least but what do you want for nothing?

You say Machado won't be anything, but the fact is he can field and take a walk, plus he has speed... those are tools and they are good to get cheap


I agree that those trades were good. The cost to the Reds was practically nothing, and I doubt another team would've given up more.

I'm not going to get too excited about Hancock's relatively good 5 starts (or whatever his brief appearance at the end of the year was). I've seen too many Acevados get lit up the 2nd or 3rd time a team sees them.

You have a good point, maybe Machado will amount to something better than Juan Castro Jr. If he does, I'll go back and retroactively raise DanO's grade for this year.

The point I was trying to make though, is that when Hancock and Machado are the best things on your resume, that doesn't deserve a high first year grade. The Phillie trades were good, but everything else DanO did, ranged from mediocre to disastrous.

westofyou
10-27-2004, 03:04 PM
The point I was trying to make though, is that when Hancock and Machado are the best things on your resume, that doesn't deserve a high first year grade. The Phillie trades were good, but everything else DanO did, ranged from mediocre to disastrous.

I give him an I.

But he's officially on Dean Wermers Double Secret Probation watch.

johngalt
10-27-2004, 03:23 PM
Letting your 5th best hitter go that wanted to come back and be willing to play for less than 1 mil be considered a plus move it gives you an idea of how bad of first year was.

The direction of this organization should be toward the future - 2006, 2007, etc. Yes, putting the best team on the field should be an objective at all times, but Dan O'Brien's goal from Day 1 was to build this organization into a winner for the future.

In order to do that, you have to give the future a chance. Keeping Barry Larkin for 2005 would be completely counter to everything else this organization is trying to do. The argument's been beaten to death, but the move gets a plus from me because it was time. It was time last year and it's way past time now.

johngalt
10-27-2004, 03:31 PM
A year ago I thought DanO had two must-dos at the major league level: move at least one of the big three contracts and pick up arms for the long-term. He did neither.

This is the point that I keep hearing people bring up that just perplexes me to no end.

Now, from the way I read this, you're marking off a couple points on DOB's resume for not doing a couple of things. If that's the reasoning, I completely understand it and it's a valid negative for him.

However, what I hear a lot of people saying is that they see it as a negative that DOB and the Reds haven't tried to move some contracts or haven't tried to sign a free agent or haven't tried to sign Dunn to a LTC.

The problem with that argument is that we don't know everything these guys are trying to do. When Bowden was in charge, you heard rumors every day on TV and in the papers about deals, signings, etc. because that's how he oprated. He leaked more stories to the press than an old Chevy. Therefore, everyone was always aware of what he was trying to do and always had the impression that "Hey, Bowden's trying to do this" or "Bowden's really working hard."

With DOB, it seems like he's the kind of guy to keep things quiet. He doesn't seem to want all that out in the press. As a result, people don't hear things and assume he's not doing anything. Making trades, signing players and extending contracts takes more than one party, folks.

SteelSD
10-27-2004, 04:02 PM
However, what I hear a lot of people saying is that they see it as a negative that DOB and the Reds haven't tried to move some contracts or haven't tried to sign a free agent or haven't tried to sign Dunn to a LTC.

Try or try not. DO or DO NOT. There is no try.

Krusty
10-27-2004, 04:02 PM
It takes two teams in order to do the MLB tango.

SteelSD
10-27-2004, 04:06 PM
It takes two teams in order to do the MLB tango.

And that being said, there have been some UGLY contracts that moved to different beats at trade sockhops in recent years.

You either put a good team on the field or you don't. Effort doesn't play into it.

I'm sure Jim Bowden tried very hard to improve the Reds' pitching.

See?

johngalt
10-27-2004, 04:29 PM
And that being said, there have been some UGLY contracts that moved to different beats at trade sockhops in recent years.

You either put a good team on the field or you don't. Effort doesn't play into it.

I'm sure Jim Bowden tried very hard to improve the Reds' pitching.

See?

My point was that some people aren't judging it that way. Some people are criticizing him for not trying, not necessarily for what he has or has not accomplished.

Redsland
10-27-2004, 04:41 PM
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't criticize him for not trying; I criticize him for not doing.

As M2 said, DanO's in a show-me job. So far he hasn't shown much.

wheels
10-27-2004, 05:35 PM
I guess I used the word "try", but his inability to "do", I surmised that he wasn't trying hard enough. Conjecture? Sure?

But you can't argue with the lack of results.

GAC
10-27-2004, 10:11 PM
DanO has to be given more time. He inherited a mess IMO. He has taken some risks his first year, and has had some successes, and also some mistakes. But it's just too early to tell. But I thik his main objective is to get our pitching straightened out. And not necessarily via FA, but by building up our program in developing young pitching. He has made strides in this area IMO.

But he has to address this BP in the off-season. He has released some players (which is good). Now he must do his homework and fill the voids aptly.

Dano is no Jim Bowden (and thank God!)

wheels
10-27-2004, 10:15 PM
Who's to say he's not going to put some wheels in motion this offseason?

I'm definitely hopeful he can bring some quality to the organization in one way or another.

The thing is, he's not shown a propensity for the dramatic deals that need to be made to right the ship.

What's his contract length? Three years? Five years?

He needs to get cracking. :help:

REDREAD
10-28-2004, 10:45 AM
. But I thik his main objective is to get our pitching straightened out.

And he's failing miserably, IMO.
Other than Todd Jones (who was just a 1/2 season bandaid), every pitching move he's done has backfired.
Although the jury is out on Hancock, he doesn't project to be a guy to brag abuot.

GAC
10-28-2004, 11:01 AM
And he's failing miserably, IMO.
Other than Todd Jones (who was just a 1/2 season bandaid), every pitching move he's done has backfired.
Although the jury is out on Hancock, he doesn't project to be a guy to brag abuot.

What moves in particular? Reitsma?.... maybe. I was never a Reitsma fan though. ;)

But what others? He tried to utilize what he had on hand (or what was handed down to him). Dumping Haynes and dealing Lidle were good moves. Releasing some of the BP guys at season's end were good moves.

His objective is to continue to bring some of the younger arms along in this organization, while also making some acquistion (not high priced FA's) to add to and continue that process. Are you saying he should have had instant results in his first season?

While I agree they did a very poor job with the BP they assembled (they tooks some risks that didn't pan out), we got to see some maturity (and hope) out of a couple young guys in '04.

Plus...what was available on the market during the season (pitching-wise) that could have been obtained. When you have teams taking a serious look at Estes, then you know it's lean. ;)

I still believe RR that we would go along way to helping ourselves in '05 if we emphasize our middle relief/BP. I'm not sure to the exactness of this stat (help anyone?); but didn't we blow 30+ games in the 7th inning or beyind when we were either tied or had the lead? That's atrocious.

Spring~Fields
10-28-2004, 01:52 PM
Are you saying he should have had instant results in his first season?


Something that O'Brien and the Reds budget can do is to seriously strengthen the bullpen and bench to a degree of respectability for the coming season. We shall see if they do.

REDREAD
10-28-2004, 03:59 PM
What moves in particular? Reitsma?.... maybe. I was never a Reitsma fan though. ;)

But what others?

Anyone can cut bad players like Haynes. That doesn't take genius. A good GM would've cut him before the season even started, instead of waiting for pressure from the fans and media.

DanO did nothing in the offseason to even attempt to improve the bullpen.
He grabbed Jones right before the season started because Jones was the first body available. And yes, he failed on the Reitsma trade. If one thinks Bowden did a poor job getting pitching, I can't see how one can complement O'Brien.
Basically, none of DanO's moves provided more than a 1/2 season bandaid.
And then out of desparation, he moved up some guys from AAA, like Hudson and Claussen, and had mixed results.

We have less pitching talent in the organization than when DanO arrived, IMO.
And that's saying a lot. I say this because Wagner, Claussen and Acevado's stock have fallen, and Reitsma/Wilson aren't Reds anymore.

Getting Hancock and Bailey does not offset that.

westofyou
10-28-2004, 04:02 PM
A good GM would've cut him before the season even started

And a good one would have never given him that players option at 2.4.

Before any contract dump (as in eating it) the call only begins at the GM desk.

GAC
10-28-2004, 09:49 PM
Anyone can cut bad players like Haynes. That doesn't take genius. A good GM would've cut him before the season even started, instead of waiting for pressure from the fans and media.

DanO did nothing in the offseason to even attempt to improve the bullpen.
He grabbed Jones right before the season started because Jones was the first body available. And yes, he failed on the Reitsma trade. If one thinks Bowden did a poor job getting pitching, I can't see how one can complement O'Brien.
Basically, none of DanO's moves provided more than a 1/2 season bandaid.
And then out of desparation, he moved up some guys from AAA, like Hudson and Claussen, and had mixed results.

We have less pitching talent in the organization than when DanO arrived, IMO.
And that's saying a lot. I say this because Wagner, Claussen and Acevado's stock have fallen, and Reitsma/Wilson aren't Reds anymore.

Getting Hancock and Bailey does not offset that.

The guy came into the job in December, and had approximately 3-4 months to sit down and evaluate the entire situation/dilemna that this organiation was in RR. You give no "grace period" at all to a guy who is new to the job, and knows absolutely zip about our farm system, what is there, the progress of many young players, let alone being familair with those on the major league roster. So yeah, he didn't do a huge shakeup of this BP because he really didn't know what he had...except unprovens.

And with the exception of Reitsma, it wasn't DanO who dismantled this BP the year before in the 2nd half (even though I agreed with some of the decisions/trades they made.... Sully, Williamson, White (whom DanO got back at a much discounted rate).

But I have also stated over and over that going into '05, the BP is gonna be DanO's biggest challenge IMO. He has to address this issue. Give the guy a chance to do his job, and a fair amount of time in order to accomplish it. That is all I am saying.

You say "If one thinks Bowden did a poor job getting pitching, I can't see how one can complement O'Brien."

Unfair comparison IMO. How many years was Bowden in the job compared to DanO? That is my whole point.

And is the "bean counter" Allen more to blame, who sets the perameters that DanO must work within?

Spring~Fields
10-28-2004, 09:56 PM
The guy came into the job in December, and had approximately 3-4 months to sit down and evaluate the entire situation/dilemna that this organiation was in RR. You give him no "grace period" at all to a guy who is new to the job, and knows absolutely zip about our farm system, what is there, the progress of many young players, let alone being familair with those on the major league roster. So yeah, he didn't do a huge shakeup of this BP because he really didn't know what he had...except unprovens.



In that case since you are saying that the man was unprepared for the job, then Allen should interviewed Redszoners who do know the team. What's the difference, they would still have to jump through the purse masters hoops.

Aronchis
10-28-2004, 10:00 PM
The guy came into the job in December, and had approximately 3-4 months to sit down and evaluate the entire situation/dilemna that this organiation was in RR. You give him no "grace period" at all to a guy who is new to the job, and knows absolutely zip about our farm system, what is there, the progress of many young players, let alone being familair with those on the major league roster. So yeah, he didn't do a huge shakeup of this BP because he really didn't know what he had...except unprovens.

And with the exception of Reitsma, it wasn't DanO who dismantled this BP the year before in the 2nd half (even though I agreed with some of the decisions/trades they made.... Sully, Williamson, White (whom DanO got back at a much discounted rate).

But I have also stated over and over that going into '05, the BP is gonna be DanO's biggest challenge IMO. He has to address this issue. Give the guy a chance to do his job, and a fair amount of time in order to accomplish it. That is all I am saying.

You say [b]"If one thinks Bowden did a poor job getting pitching, I can't see how one can complement O'Brien."

Unfair comparison IMO. How many years was Bowden in the job compared to DanO? That is my whole point.

And is the "bean counter" Allen more to blame, who sets the perameters that DanO must work within?


If you want to put it that way, you should have said: DanO just used the year to evaluate the franchise, check out some parts and pieces then move ahead for 2005. For die-hards that is always going to be tough to take.

johngalt
10-28-2004, 10:36 PM
We have less pitching talent in the organization than when DanO arrived, IMO.And that's saying a lot. I say this because Wagner, Claussen and Acevado's stock have fallen, and Reitsma/Wilson aren't Reds anymore.


Since O'Brien's taken over...

Gone
Chris Reitsma
Jimmy Haynes
John Bale
Mark Watson
Charlie Manning
Scott Randall
Seth Etherton

Added
Bubba Nelson
Jung Bong
Josh Hancock
Homer Bailey
Ben Kozlowski
Gabe White
Joe Wilson
Elizardo Ramirez
Damian Moss

Can you honestly look at those two groups and say you'd rather have the first one?

And it's a little early to be writing off Wagner and Claussen after a combined two years of Major League service time.

M2
10-29-2004, 12:03 AM
I can honestly look at those two groups and say it's a big wad of I don't care. Only guy in the "in" pile who does anything for me is Kozlowski. It's entirely possible Reitsma goes on to have a better career than everyone else on those two lists combined ... and Reitsma might only need another year like 2004 in order to achieve that.

SteelSD
10-29-2004, 12:42 AM
Since O'Brien's taken over...

Gone
Chris Reitsma
Jimmy Haynes
John Bale
Mark Watson
Charlie Manning
Scott Randall
Seth Etherton

Added
Bubba Nelson
Jung Bong
Josh Hancock
Homer Bailey
Ben Kozlowski
Gabe White
Joe Wilson
Elizardo Ramirez
Damian Moss

Can you honestly look at those two groups and say you'd rather have the first one?

And it's a little early to be writing off Wagner and Claussen after a combined two years of Major League service time.

You did leave out Russell Branyan, who was more productive in 2004 than anyone the Reds through out at 3B. Also left out was Jason Romano who does so little for me, I hate to even mention him. And please, let's not get into the draft (where Homer Bailey resides). Please?

The single player for whom I hold out hope for from that mix is Bubba Nelson. Otherwise, it's a mess of crud.

Basically, what O'Brien has done is move a pile of crud and acquired a pile of crud. Whoopee!

Aronchis
10-29-2004, 12:47 AM
You did leave out Russell Branyan, who was more productive in 2004 than anyone the Reds through out at 3B. Also left out was Jason Romano who does so little for me, I hate to even mention him. And please, let's not get into the draft (where Homer Bailey resides). Please?

The single player for whom I hold out hope for from that mix is Bubba Nelson. Otherwise, it's a mess of crud.

Basically, what O'Brien has done is move a pile of crud and acquired a pile of crud. Whoopee!

Calling "O'briens" pile crap, which was hauled in one years time is absurd. Calling outcomes is classic fan nilihilism. Cut it out.

SteelSD
10-29-2004, 01:02 AM
Calling "O'briens" pile crap, which was hauled in one years time is absurd. Calling outcomes is classic fan nilihilism. Cut it out.

Then objectively debate the point.

Keep in mind that this thead was started to guage fan reaction to O'Brien's first year at the helm.

Argue away. What has Dan O'Brien done in his first year at the helm to make Reds fans feel that the team was better off in 2004 and will be better off in 2005?

And please don't say "He spent a year evaluating the franchise". Good GM's move quicker than that.

BuckeyeRedleg
10-29-2004, 01:11 AM
Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Incomplete.

Aronchis
10-29-2004, 04:52 AM
Then objectively debate the point.

Keep in mind that this thead was started to guage fan reaction to O'Brien's first year at the helm.

Argue away. What has Dan O'Brien done in his first year at the helm to make Reds fans feel that the team was better off in 2004 and will be better off in 2005?

And please don't say "He spent a year evaluating the franchise". Good GM's move quicker than that.

Then you should debate as well instead of calling players "crap" when you don't have a clue how they will turn out.

Listen, we all have different opinions, but we must not fall into patterns of self-rightousness because the GM didn't make your fantasy move. Every GM has a plan, whether is works out or not is the question. I contended that Dan O'brien, the new GM of the Reds was handcuffed because of money and value, both of which he had little of entering last season minus players he probably didn't want to deal(AD for example). My suspicions of DanO's rational:
1)The team wasn't going to have much value or money to make many deals so DanO used the money he had to sign "stopgap" player like Lidle and Vanderwal so he wouldn't rush the younger players.
2)Trade away pieces that had value for younger players with further Arb/FA times. Reitsma fell into this part
3)Redux for the "veterens". Casey,Wilson,Haynes,Graves,Larson ete. Bring them back, see if they can bring their value back up and possibly trade them. Haynes washed out, Casey got back on track, Wilson had a better year than 2003, Graves returned to the closer role though all to hittable, Larson washed out. Why was Branyon cut? Because they wanted to watch Larson. If they had intended to contend in 2004, no way is Branyon non-tendered, but Branyon's of the world aren't rare. In the end, nobody from the list was dealt and many different factors could be reasons why. Maybe they didn't want to trade Casey at this time? Haynes and Larson did so bad, they had to be cut. Wilson is the mystery, why wasn't he dealt? Keep grumpy fans happy? Couldn't get a good return? Keep players happy? Maybe a little bit of all. Did DanO screw up by not trading Wilson or even Casey? Possibly, hard to tell however. How they end up being used in DanO's plan will probably be evidence enough(in other words, Wilson being let go off without getting a draft pick or prospect would stink).
4)Bring up the "young players". WMP,Lopez,Claussen,Hudson ete. Players who the Reds had which couldn't quite be called "prospects" but youngsters that could have a good future up in the bigs or have been delayed by injury. WMP and Lopez fit the latter. With Larkin supposedly to "retire" and Griffey's career winding down due to injury. Both these guys were pushed to see if they could fill in the void to a degree. Lopez got used at SS and 3rd base,especially in September when Machado got called up. WMP took over for Griffey in July and didn't collapse like I thought he would in Augest. Getting their performance and AB's like the Reds did, gives DanO some good material on how they fit into this organization. In other words, if DanO is still SS prospect hunting this winter, Lopez didn't grade out well.
Pitching wise, I will focus Hudson and Claussen considering Harang and Hancock are 4/5 fillers. Both were injured in 2003, though hardly anybody figured Hudson would do as well as he did on his return. He didn't pitch alot of innings, but was fairly good and better than most expected. Claussen struggled out of the gate in AAA but rebounded by June and July. He got called up the end of July and posted some seemly poor numbers. But considering this was his first extended time in the majors and still working back from TJ surgury, he obviously flashed some of his talent which made Kullman/Maddox deal for him in the first place. Again, they gave some valuable film and data for DanO to see how they fit in this organization.

Maybe DanO was to "sleepish" he missed on some big deal that would have transformed the Reds around. However, maybe a "good" GM does exactly what DanO did and start from the inside, evaluate the products inside your system and try to move with money and value you got, the best you can. It lead to a few trades and low class FA pickups in year 1. However, we got to see some younger players in extended roles for the first time with "some" success, veteren's rebound and old friends saying goodbye.

This coming offseason will undoubtly test DanO. He has more value and probably will have more money to play with. How he works it will determine how quickly we rise. So my view is pretty simple: The year most posters are saying DanO should have had last year, he will most likely have this year. I think you all were a year to quick considering what DanO had to work with and are just a bunch of bitter die-hard fans in the end. But be carefull what you wish for, you may get it ;)

GAC
10-29-2004, 09:31 AM
In that case since you are saying that the man was unprepared for the job, then Allen should interviewed Redszoners who do know the team. What's the difference, they would still have to jump through the purse masters hoops.

unprepared is not the right word. Look at his credentials while at Houston, over the course of his career. He was simply new to the job/position. How many GM positions has he held in the past?

In the private sector, if you were newly hired in a high profile management position, and the reason they brought you in was because the company was in trouble, and they wanted you to turn it around... wouldn't you first take the time and effort to first oversee and evaluate the mess you inherited...what they were doing wrong....what you have on hand...what you can change immediately to start to make an impact...and what steps you need to take that looks/builds toward the future?

Aronchis mat have worded/put it better then I did when he said.... DanO just used the year to evaluate the franchise, check out some parts and pieces then move ahead for 2005. For die-hards that is always going to be tough to take.

And the die-hards are gonna have to show some sort of pateince with DanO. I don't think he is getting a fair shake from alot of fans, for the short time he has been in the job.

Shouldn't more of the blame be put on Allen then DanO?

Steve4192
10-29-2004, 10:33 AM
In the private sector, if you were newly hired in a high profile management position, and the reason they brought you in was because the company was in trouble, and they wanted you to turn it around... wouldn't you first take the time and effort to first oversee and evaluate the mess you inherited
Absolutely.

However, it usually takes a few weeks or a month to wrap your head around a new job, not a year. Baseball ain't brain surgery, and the Reds are certainly not an extremely complex organization. I'd venture to say that a brand manager at P&G has to deal with more complexity than baseball GM. If a brand manager took a YEAR to 'evaluate' without actually doing anything, he'd find himself looking for work before he had fully 'evaluated' the situation.

Krusty
10-29-2004, 10:34 AM
Excellent post Archonis. I couldn't have said it any better. :thumbup:

M2
10-29-2004, 11:59 AM
3)Redux for the "veterens". Casey,Wilson,Haynes,Graves,Larson ete. Bring them back, see if they can bring their value back up and possibly trade them.


Even when jerry-rigging an argument to support DanO, you manage to point out something he failed to do. 3/5 of that list did bring up their value. 2/5 of that list should have been at the top of the team's to trade list. None of them got dealt.



Maybe DanO was to "sleepish" he missed on some big deal that would have transformed the Reds around.


Back to the same old strawman again. NO ONE expected DanO to transform the Reds in one season. That is a false expectation you've invented for argumentative purposes. What people expected, or at least hoped for, was that DanO would be able to diagnose the team's averarching problem -- lack of pitching -- and start adding players who could be part of a rebuilt, quality staff.

It's a problem he should have been aware of walking into the job, because it's no more difficult than going to zoo and picking out the elephants. Yet he got next to nothing. Every single kid arm DanO brought in is covered in warts. All of them, except maybe Kozlowski who's coming back from TJ surgery, has been getting exposed in the minor leagues. So we do have a clue as to how they'll turn out. That clue is performance and their performances tell you that unless they start doing some things a whole lot better, then we needn't worry about them being quality pitchers in the majors. Where the clues/evidence is lacking is in support of the notion that they've got bright futures ahead of them.

I agree DanO had/has limited resources in terms of cash and talent. Welcome to the Cincinnati Reds. That's not going to change any time soon. Either he figures out how to operate with those limitations or he takes this team nowhere. So far he hasn't shown any ability to thrive within those constraints. You used the phrase "nihilisitc" earlier in this thread. Well, I think it's quintessential nihilism to sit and there and insist that the Reds can't start, and let me stress that word -- START, making the kinds of player acquisitions needed to turn this franchise around. I don't buy that sort of fatalism for a moment. You're trying to justify the team's lack of progress with the pat excuse that progress is an unattainable goal. Bull.

It's not like people are calling for his head, but surely you've got to recognize that more of what we've seen in DanO's first year would dig this franchise deeper into the hole. He's got to do far better than this if we want to be rooting for a winning franchise anytime this decade.

SteelSD
10-29-2004, 12:14 PM
Maybe DanO was to "sleepish" he missed on some big deal that would have transformed the Reds around.

Look, it's obvious that you're wanting to give O'Brien the benefit of the doubt. I'm ok with that, but I'll remind you that this is a thread about rating a single year- not next year or the year after. 2004. No one's calling for O'Brien to be fired. I'm one of the fans who's excited to see what this offseason may hold for the franchise. If he does well, O'Brien's 2005 grade goes up.

But that doesn't affect his 2004 grade.

In rating 2004, let's take a look at the list of MLB performers that Dan O'Brien was able to acquire from outside the organization:

<Begin List>

...

<End List>

Sorry, man. If you have 12 months to bring in one performer- just one- and can't do it, you don't get a high grade. I didn't expect a dramatic turnaround in 2004. But not one guy? Well, I think we could all expect more than nothing.

GAC
10-30-2004, 09:54 PM
Look, it's obvious that you're wanting to give O'Brien the benefit of the doubt. I'm ok with that, but I'll remind you that this is a thread about rating a single year- not next year or the year after. 2004. No one's calling for O'Brien to be fired. I'm one of the fans who's excited to see what this offseason may hold for the franchise. If he does well, O'Brien's 2005 grade goes up.

But that doesn't affect his 2004 grade.

In rating 2004, let's take a look at the list of MLB performers that Dan O'Brien was able to acquire from outside the organization:

<Begin List>

...

<End List>

Sorry, man. If you have 12 months to bring in one performer- just one- and can't do it, you don't get a high grade. I didn't expect a dramatic turnaround in 2004. But not one guy? Well, I think we could all expect more than nothing.

He may have gotten out of the gate slow, but lets hope DanO is a strong finisher. :allovrjr:

Krusty
10-30-2004, 11:09 PM
Rome wasn't built in one day either.

M2
10-30-2004, 11:38 PM
Rome wasn't built in one day either.

The Reds won't ever be built in this method and at this pace.

You even gave the guy a C for his first year performance. So now are you going to sit there and tell me he doesn't need to do better in order to turn this ship around?

Krusty
10-31-2004, 10:02 AM
What did you expect, him to come in and turn things around over night? Did you think he was going to come in shoot from the hip......fire this guy, hire that guy. Trade players for the sake of making an impression in his first year?

Bowden did that in the past and look where it got us. But O'Brien takes his first year of taking his time to make an analysis of the club himself and everyone is up in his butt.

The guy was given three years to turn this thing around. His first year he brought in his baseball people he wanted. He instituted precedures to be done throughout the minor leagues. He gave lip service to the major league roster but I think he knew he couldn't change that over night. When the payroll was cut from 59 to 47 million, he was limited to what he could do.

Now is his second offseason. If he only gives lip service to the major league roster, than I'll be more critical especially if Allen and Lindner okays to raise the payroll.

M2
10-31-2004, 11:33 AM
What did you expect, him to come in and turn things around over night? Did you think he was going to come in shoot from the hip......fire this guy, hire that guy. Trade players for the sake of making an impression in his first year?

Well, I've been pretty specific in this thread that I didn't expect anything of that sort and I've taken pains to state exactly what I did expect. Apparently you've glossed right over that stuff. I'm not going to bother rewriiting it.

I'll simply point out again that you gave O'Brien a C to start this thread so it would seem you're all too aware of the fact that he had a lackluster first year on the job. Now you're acting like it's all right to be a C student, like that's somehow something he should aspire to. It's not, so stop acting like he doesn't have to start doing a lot better if we want to see a turnaround at any point in the aughts. THAT, in a nutshell, is the criticism that's been levelled at DanO in this thread and the post you made to start this thread indicates that it's a sentiment with which you agree.

DoogMinAmo
10-31-2004, 12:23 PM
I am curious, are these grades being handed to O'Brien for his first season:
A.) In comparison with other GMs
B.) In comparison with other GMs first seasons
C.) In comparison with a realistic season for a GM
D.) In comparison with lofty ideas of how a GM should act based on everyones intrenched and disgusted view of an organization that used to be in disarray.

I believe the majority of us are between C and D. What other GMs inherited organizations as messed up as ours recently? In all honesty, I don't believe Dan O has done a poor job for a first season. If this becomes the status quo and his approach in all other seasons, then yes it would be a low grade.

While a few of you are picking on Aronchis for saying that it is only his first season, and that future plans should have no indication or bearing on first season grades, I would like to point out, that it is his first season, first in a series. The man set his own goals, and he satisfied them to the best of his ability. If what we are grading him on is his ability, AND comparing that ability to others, AND what those others would do in an organization in their first year, then it is safe to say he failed or succeeded. However, if you are trying to blast him for not turning over an entire organization from loser to winner in one season, then it is a little brash. After all, if it is so easy to fix an organization, then why are so many other organizations in a mess? One of the downsides of Moneyball is that everyone now believes they have the "secret" elixir to fix it all. Its a tough job, I know I couldn't do it. I know a few of you here probably could handle it. The question is, what would your FIRST year grade be by the rest of us?

And Steel, saying he doesn't need an entire year to evaluate in baseball seems to be the antithesis of majority thinking on this board. Isn't the great equalizer here the myth of the "small sample size?" Would it be fair to those released and tainted if after only a short while O'Brien started to turn the whole organization on its heels? He took a year, evaluated talent, and accomplished some minor trades. NOW is time to see what he can do to fix the organization, and what indeed needs fixing. :)

M2
10-31-2004, 12:34 PM
If this becomes the status quo and his approach in all other seasons, then yes it would be a low grade.

So when exactly should I grade 67 out of 100 like it was 67 out of 100?



However, if you are trying to blast him for not turning over an entire organization from loser to winner in one season, then it is a little brash.

Find me one person in this thread who's said anything like that. I'm getting real tired of having to discuss this fiction.

DoogMinAmo
10-31-2004, 01:26 PM
So when exactly should I grade 67 out of 100 like it was 67 out of 100?




Find me one person in this thread who's said anything like that. I'm getting real tired of having to discuss this fiction.

So what is the 67, and what is the 100? As long as it is on the basis of a first year GM in a new organization, than feel free. I just don't think its fair to expect too much in the first year. Maybe that's my problem, lower standards...

By the way, I said most of us fall between the two extremes.

M2
10-31-2004, 01:50 PM
So what is the 67, and what is the 100? As long as it is on the basis of a first year GM in a new organization, than feel free. I just don't think its fair to expect too much in the first year. Maybe that's my problem, lower standards...

You can check in my above posts for what I thought the 100 was. Honestly, I think my standards were set pretty low too. Even worse, since DanO made such little progress, I've got to grade him on the same material again.

SteelSD
10-31-2004, 02:32 PM
And Steel, saying he doesn't need an entire year to evaluate in baseball seems to be the antithesis of majority thinking on this board. Isn't the great equalizer here the myth of the "small sample size?"

Huh?


Would it be fair to those released and tainted if after only a short while O'Brien started to turn the whole organization on its heels? He took a year, evaluated talent, and accomplished some minor trades. NOW is time to see what he can do to fix the organization, and what indeed needs fixing.

Please read the title of the thread.

Steve4192
10-31-2004, 02:51 PM
I just don't think its fair to expect too much in the first year.
I disagree.

Paul DePodesta got immediate results this season, and manged to shave $20MM off the payroll in the process. Theo Epstein got immediate results in 2003 while shaving $9MM off his payroll. Both of those guys made bold moves IN THEIR FIRST YEAR, despite being under orders to cut payroll.

Depodesta shipped out Paul Loduca, Gary Sheffield, and Kevin Brown. He added a combination of veterans (Juan Encarnacion, Jeff Weaver, Steve Finley, Jose Lima) and young guys (Milton Bradley, Jason Werth, Duaner Sanchez). The result of those moves was the Dodgers first trip the playoffs in eight years.

Epstein turned over half of the lineup in his first year, bringing in Bill Mueller to replace Shea Hillenbrand at 3B, Kevin Millar to replace Tony Clark at 1B, Todd Walker to replace Rey Sanchez at 2B, and David Ortiz to replace Brian Daubach at DH. He also rebuilt the bullpen with Scott Williamson, Byung-Hyun Kim, Ramiro Mendoza and Mike Timlin. The result of those moves was the Red Sox first trip to the playoffs in four years.

Management then rewarded Epstein by loosening the purse strings in year #2, allowing him to go out and get Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke. He then traded the best SS in the history of the club for a couple of judy hitting defensive specialists. The rest is history.

Good executives don't sit on their hands and take a year off to 'learn the organization'. They come in, learn the environment/organization ASAP, develop an action plan, and ACT on it.

MWM
10-31-2004, 03:39 PM
Good executives don't sit on their hands and take a year off to 'learn the organization'. They come in, learn the environment/organization ASAP, develop an action plan, and ACT on it.

Fantastic paragraph, Steve. Pretty much sums it up for me.

Kc61
10-31-2004, 03:49 PM
I disagree.

Paul DePodesta got immediate results this season, and manged to shave $20MM off the payroll in the process. Theo Epstein got immediate results in 2003 while shaving $9MM off his payroll. Both of those guys made bold moves IN THEIR FIRST YEAR, despite being under orders to cut payroll.

Depodesta shipped out Paul Loduca, Gary Sheffield, and Kevin Brown. He added a combination of veterans (Juan Encarnacion, Jeff Weaver, Steve Finley, Jose Lima) and young guys (Milton Bradley, Jason Werth, Duaner Sanchez). The result of those moves was the Dodgers first trip the playoffs in eight years.

Epstein turned over half of the lineup in his first year, bringing in Bill Mueller to replace Shea Hillenbrand at 3B, Kevin Millar to replace Tony Clark at 1B, Todd Walker to replace Rey Sanchez at 2B, and David Ortiz to replace Brian Daubach at DH. He also rebuilt the bullpen with Scott Williamson, Byung-Hyun Kim, Ramiro Mendoza and Mike Timlin. The result of those moves was the Red Sox first trip to the playoffs in four years.

Management then rewarded Epstein by loosening the purse strings in year #2, allowing him to go out and get Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke. He then traded the best SS in the history of the club for a couple of judy hitting defensive specialists. The rest is history.

Good executives don't sit on their hands and take a year off to 'learn the organization'. They come in, learn the environment/organization ASAP, develop an action plan, and ACT on it.

Very fine post. The problem, of course, is that Reds fans expect so little at this point that even conservative non-action is looked at as reasonable. The past is the past but now O'Brien has about 3 and a half months to show that he is capable of taking bold action and seriously improving the team.

REDREAD
10-31-2004, 08:08 PM
And a good one would have never given him that players option at 2.4.
.

Yes, I agree with that. I think the Haynes signing is in contention for Bowden's worst move ever.

Still, I don't think you could find anyone that expected Haynes to be remotely close to respectable, coming off that horrible year, bad back, and reporting to spring training out of shape.

The scary thing is that if there wasn't so much pressure from the media, Haynes would probably stayed on the roster longer.

DanO would've scored a couple points if he had left Haynes in Florida permanently. He shouldn't have to ask permission to cut Haynes if he's just going to call up someone making the minimum. He might have to ask permission, but he shouldn't be micromanaged to that level.

REDREAD
10-31-2004, 08:15 PM
The guy came into the job in December, and had approximately 3-4 months to sit down and evaluate the entire situation/dilemna that this organiation was in RR.


He had plenty of time to try and fix up the bullpen. He had time to sign Lidle and Vanderwall. I said at the time that VAnderwall's salary should've been used to sign a relief pitcher.

He had plenty of time to commit to Brandon Larson.

DanO had all of Bowden's staff to get feedback from. Instead, we get Kullman telling us in chat that the bullpen is "just fine". That tells me that they were either too stupid to realize they had a problem or just didn't care. Either one is inexcusable.

The guy has now had about an entire year, and he's done NOTHING to make us better. Time is not on his side. The ML players we have are going to price themselves out of town soon. We don't have 3 years for him to analyze and study the situation.

GAC, if DanO does a brilliant job this offseason, I'd love to give him an "A" next year. But I have no confidence he will. He'll probably spend all winter haggling with Wilson over that 1 million gap in their offers, then eventually sign him. Maybe dump a salary or two. Then sign one really lame retread and hold it up for PR. I honestly don't expect much more than that. I'm sure he's bringing his Pictionary game again to the winter meetings to keep his staff occupied :MandJ:

REDREAD
10-31-2004, 08:21 PM
Since O'Brien's taken over...

Added
Bubba Nelson
Jung Bong
Josh Hancock
Homer Bailey
Ben Kozlowski
Gabe White
Joe Wilson
Elizardo Ramirez
Damian Moss

.

Every GM gets a 1st round draft pick to add, and DanO unwisely picked Bailey.
Maybe Nelson will someday be as good of a reliever as Reitsma, it's hard to say. No one else there is worth getting excited about.

DanO unwisely spent about 3 million in payflex this winter to get those Phillie prospects. Think about it. Think about the talent you could sign in the draft for an extra 3 million.

Krusty
10-31-2004, 10:03 PM
When you cut payroll from 59 to 47 million, you are limited to what you can do.

And how easy do you think it would have been to move Casey, Graves and Junior's contracts after coming off the 2003 seasons they had?

Maybe O'Brien should have dealt Griffey before his 500th home run but the backlash from fans would have crucified the front office worst than the firesale of 2003.

O'Brien's hands were tied by the bad contracts that Bowden signed Casey, Graves and Junior to. O'Brien's hands were tied by Lindner and Allen's decision to cut the payroll. And O'Brien's hands were tied to the lousy performances of Casey, Graves and Junior in 2003 to get anything substantial.

There is so much you can do with a 47 million dollar payroll where 12.5 million goes to a broken down outfielder.

MWM
10-31-2004, 10:06 PM
Krusty, payroll was NEVER $59MM.

SteelSD
10-31-2004, 10:25 PM
There is so much you can do with a 47 million dollar payroll where 12.5 million goes to a broken down outfielder.

See: A's, Oakland: re- Dye, Jermaine

Steve4192
10-31-2004, 10:30 PM
O'Brien's hands were tied by the bad contracts ...
O'Brien's hands were tied by Lindner and Allen's decision to cut the payroll.
Depodesta was under the gun to cut $20MM out of the Dodgers payroll.

* He let Brian Jordan and Andy Ashby walk, leading to a $18MM savings.
* He managed to unload Kevin Brown's hideous $15.7MM contract.
* He also unloaded Paul LoDuca and Guillermo Mota midseason.

If Kevin Brown's contract can be moved, then anyone's contract can be moved. However, it requires is having a plan TAKING ACTION to move that plan forward.

Raisor
10-31-2004, 10:32 PM
Depodesta was under the gun to cut $20MM out of the Dodgers payroll.

* He let Brian Jordan and Andy Ashby walk, leading to a $18MM savings.
* He managed to unload Kevin Brown's hideous $15.7MM contract.
* He also unloaded Paul LoDuca and Guillermo Mota midseason.

If Kevin Brown's contract can be moved, then anyone's contract can be moved. However, it requires is having a plan TAKING ACTION to move that plan forward.


Was the Brown deal a PD move, or was that the previous administration?

Steve4192
10-31-2004, 10:41 PM
Was the Brown deal a PD move, or was that the previous administration?
I just checked. It was made during the previous administration. Brown was traded on 12/15/2003 and Depodesta was hired on 2/16/04. My mistake.

However, just look at how much Depodesta has changed the Dodgers despite taking over the team in mid-February. Now contrast that with Dan O'Brien, who took over the Reds in late October. O'Binder had a four month head start on Depodesta yet Paul has already lapped him.

Aronchis
10-31-2004, 11:33 PM
I just checked. It was made during the previous administration. Brown was traded on 12/15/2003 and Depodesta was hired on 2/16/04. My mistake.

However, just look at how much Depodesta has changed the Dodgers despite taking over the team in mid-February. Now contrast that with Dan O'Brien, who took over the Reds in late October. O'Binder had a four month head start on Depodesta yet Paul has already lapped him.

Maybe, but he did deals that O'brien couldn't do. You talking about 2 different situations and putting your own biases to support a flimsy position. You don't like O'brien, gotcha, but don't say Depodesta "lapped" him when the 2 situations were different in 2004. The Dodgers were hardly "changed" from where they were in the past. The Diamondbacks fell apart and the Giants were lesser than the year before. Depodesta may be a good GM, but he isn't anymore proven than O'brien.

SteelSD
11-01-2004, 12:58 AM
The Diamondbacks fell apart and the Giants were lesser than the year before. Depodesta may be a good GM, but he isn't anymore proven than O'brien.

Productive Major League players acquired by Paul DePodesta:

Milton Bradley
Hee Seop Choi
Brad Penny
Steve Finley
Jayson Werth

The 2003 Dodgers fielded this team:

1B- Fred McGriff/Robin Ventura
2B- Alex Cora
SS- Cesar Izturis
3B- Adrian Beltre
C- Paul Lo Duca
LF- Jeromy Burnitz/Brian Jordan
CF- Dave Roberts
RF- Shawn Green

By the end of 2004, this is what we saw:

1B- Shawn Green
2B- Alex Cora
SS- Cesar Izturis
3B- Adrian Beltre
C- Brent Mayne
LF- Jayson Werth
CF- Steve Finley
RF- Milton Bradley

When you turn over half your lineup, acquire a very solid SP (Penny) and a cheap productive future alternative at 1B (Choi), I'd call that far more than "hardly changed".

As a team, the Dodgers scored 187 more Runs in 2004 versus 2003. Additionally, the Dodgers drew 129 more Walks in 2004. Go figure.

But really, even with all that, DePodesta was more proven than O'Brien while he was still working with Billy Beane.

Ravenlord
11-01-2004, 08:05 AM
anyone else think we'll see Bradley in CF for the Dodgers and Green back in RF is Finley isn't resigned?

Steve4192
11-01-2004, 08:57 AM
he did deals that O'brien couldn't do.
I don't get this.

Why do you feel that O'Brien couldn't do any deals? Most of DePodesta's deals were salary neutral or resulted in a net reduction of payroll. Why couldn't DanO move contracts when the new guy in LA was doing it regularly?

Krusty
11-01-2004, 09:09 AM
Let me be honest here....do you think DePodesta could have moved Casey, Graves and Junior's contracts coming off the 2003 seasons they had and given the amount of money that was still owed to them? And what if Lindner told him he couldn't add money to the deal in order to move them?

O'Brien's hands were tied last offseason. Now if the reason for reducing the payroll was to put emphasis into the farm system, fine. But if the payroll doesn't go up next season, expect the same thing. But don't blame O'Brien instead of directing the blame to Lindner and Allen who set the budget.

Ravenlord
11-01-2004, 09:14 AM
Let me be honest here....do you think DePodesta could have moved Casey, Graves and Junior's contracts coming off the 2003 seasons they had and given the amount of money that was still owed to them?yes...i think Sabien and Minyana could do it too


And what if Lindner told him he couldn't add money to the deal in order to move them?still can be moved.

Krusty
11-01-2004, 09:15 AM
If that is the case, then I'm all for O'Brien sending Junior to the AL to be a DH.

Steve4192
11-01-2004, 09:47 AM
Let me be honest here....do you think DePodesta could have moved Casey, Graves and Junior's contracts coming off the 2003 seasons they had
Honestly, I think he could have. He might have had to throw in some cash or take back another bad contract, but I think he could have moved them.

However, for the sake of argument let's assume he could not move them after the 2003 season. Now let's ask the same questions at the all-star break.

Could Depodesta have moved Casey when he was hitting 352 (1008 OPS) with 42 extra base hits (including 15 dingers) and 54 RBI? YES!

Could Depodesta have moved Graves when he was leading the majors in saves with 33 and had a sterling 2.72 ERA? YES!

What did DanO do? He ignored the fact that the Reds, as currently structured, are going nowhere and held onto those guys. Casey proceeded to hit 296 the rest of the way with a mediocre 821 OPS. Graves absolutely imploded with only 8 saves and a whopping 7.23 ERA in the second half.

Now rather than entering 2005 with an additional $14MM in payflex, O'Binder still has the same two unattractive contracts on his hands. Way to pounce on that opportunity DanO!

Ravenlord
11-01-2004, 09:52 AM
Could Depodesta have moved Casey when he was hitting 352 (1008 OPS) with 42 extra base hits (including 15 dingers) and 54 RBI? YES!

Could Depodesta have moved Graves when he was leading the majors in save with 33 and had a sterling 2.72 ERA? YES!

What did DanO do? He ignored the fact that the Reds, as currently structured, are going nowhere and held onto those guys. Casey proceeded to hit 296 the rest of the way with a mediocre 821 OPS. Graves absolutely imploded with only 8 saves and a whopping 7.23 ERA in the second half.

Now rather than entering 2005 with an additional $14MM in payflex, O'Binder still has the same two unattractive contracts on his hands. Way to pounce on that opportunity DanO!
but don't you know by not making those moves that's how we got so much for Lidle and Jones. :rolleyes:

M2
11-01-2004, 11:25 AM
Honestly, I think he could have. He might have had to throw in some cash or take back another bad contract, but I think he could have moved them.

However, for the sake of argument let's assume he could not move them after the 2003 season. Now let's ask the same questions at the all-star break.

Could Depodesta have moved Casey when he was hitting 352 (1008 OPS) with 42 extra base hits (including 15 dingers) and 54 RBI? YES!

Could Depodesta have moved Graves when he was leading the majors in saves with 33 and had a sterling 2.72 ERA? YES!

What did DanO do? He ignored the fact that the Reds, as currently structured, are going nowhere and held onto those guys. Casey proceeded to hit 296 the rest of the way with a mediocre 821 OPS. Graves absolutely imploded with only 8 saves and a whopping 7.23 ERA in the second half.

Now rather than entering 2005 with an additional $14MM in payflex, O'Binder still has the same two unattractive contracts on his hands. Way to pounce on that opportunity DanO!


That pretty much covers it. Jr. also rehabilitated his market early in the 2004 season. Now he's got 10/5 trade veto rights. DanO's failure to move on this front has got him in a "Groundhog Day" situation this offseason.

Krusty, I'm fairly certain a lot of GMs, not just DePodesta, would have seen how critical it was for the future of the Reds to unload one or two or perhaps even all three of the Reds' three biggest contracts. These deals were the shackles that tied O'Brien's hands last offseason. They're the reason why he's limited in his options this offseason. Had DanO done nothing else other than clear those contracts so that he was free and clear heading into 2005, I'd probably have graded him a B+ for his first season.

You can't expect the Reds ownership to turn into free spenders. A GM has to work inside a $45M-$50M cap in this organization. DanO did nothing to buy himself more operating room this offseason. Failing to help himself, that's all on his shoulders.

lollipopcurve
11-01-2004, 11:50 AM
WEll, one of the things O'Brien did was maximize the competitiveness/attractiveness of the 2004 roster while Graves, Casey and Griffey were going well. Remember, the team was high in the standings, and Griffey was chasing 500. If he had unloaded these (very) popular players in order to gain salary relief (i.e., not receiving high-salaried proven starters in return), less than a year after the so-called fire sale, while the team was contending, can you imagine the PR hit this team would have taken? Can you imagine the drop in attendance? Do you think potential free agents would be looking at this franchise seriously, had that happened? Do you think guys like Dunn and Kearns would have been encouraged about the future?

By keeping the team intact, and letting the roster as constituted take a run, O'Brien fielded a fairly competitive, popular team for at least half a year, and this resulted in significantly higher attendance than they would have had, in my opinion, had he started dumping players for salary reasons. This "bump" in attendance is very likely one of the reasons the Reds are looking at a higher payroll for this year.

Let's remember, too, that O'Brien's hands are pretty tied re: Griffey until he shows he's healthy. And, I wouldn't be surprised if he is forbidden to trade Casey by ownership.

And I have no problem with Paul Wilson coming back, either.
:RedinDC: :RedinDC:

Steve4192
11-01-2004, 12:36 PM
If he had unloaded these (very) popular players in order to gain salary relief (i.e., not receiving high-salaried proven starters in return), less than a year after the so-called fire sale, while the team was contending, can you imagine the PR hit this team would have taken?
A GM with a plan/vision will take those hits in the short term in order to move his plan forward.

Depodesta got roasted in the press for trading away the 'heart and soul' of the Dodgers (LoDuca) in the middle of a playoff run. The beatings got worse after Penny came up lame. Depodesta weathered the storm and his team is better for it.

Theo Epstein got drilled in the court of public opinion for trading local icon Garciaparra to pick up a couple of judy-hitting glovemen. He was blasted by the press when the Red Sox lost 4 of 6 from 7/31 through 8/6, falling 10.5 games behind the Yankees. Epstein weathered the storm and watched his team rally to win the World Series.

Would DanO have taken some heat for trading Casey/Graves/Griffey at the deadline? Perhaps. Let's not forget that the Reds had lost 9 of their last 10 before the trade deadline, effectively removing them from the wildcard race and squashing any fan enthusiam for 2004.

The team would be in a much better position to contend in the future if they had rid themselves of those albatross contracts. O'Brien chose to 'play it safe' and will now end up facing the same problems in 2005 that he faced in 2004.

lollipopcurve
11-01-2004, 12:46 PM
Steve 4192, I disagree with your assumption that Griffey and Graves were tradeable at the trade deadline. I doubt O'Brien could have unloaded them at all, much less for full salary relief.
Casey is another matter. In that case, I don't think we're looking at an albatross contract. He's earning his dough.

Steve4192
11-01-2004, 12:54 PM
By keeping the team intact, and letting the roster as constituted take a run, O'Brien fielded a fairly competitive, popular team for at least half a year
Yep. He sacrificed a chance to make meaningful changes in 2005 so that they could be 'fairly competitive' for HALF a year. Attaboy DanO!

this resulted in significantly higher attendance than they would have had, in my opinion, had he started dumping players for salary reasons. This "bump" in attendance is very likely one of the reasons the Reds are looking at a higher payroll for this year.
Bull-feces.

The Reds attendance went in the dumper not long after the trade deadline, helped in large part by the team losing 19 of 25 from 7/21 through 8/17.

Just before the deadline (7/26-8/1) they drew 27K/game for a weekday series with the Cardinals and 35K/game for a weekend series with the Astros. Less than one month later (8/24-8/29), they couldn't break 20K/game for a weekday series with the Cardinals and barely manged to crack 25K/game in a weekend series with the Diamondbacks.

The Reds had already squeezed out all the 'attendance boost' they could get out of this sorry lot by the time the deadline rolled around. The attendance would have declined with or without Casey/Graves/Griffey.

M2
11-01-2004, 12:55 PM
No market for Graves and Jr., huh?

And yet there was a market for Jose Contreras. Go figure.

Steve4192
11-01-2004, 01:05 PM
Steve 4192, I disagree with your assumption that Griffey and Graves were tradeable at the trade deadline.
We will have to agree to disagree on Graves. I think he was VERY moveable at that point in time. I agree that moving Griffey was very unlikely.

I doubt O'Brien could have unloaded them at all, much less for full salary relief.
Who said anything about full relief? I'd have settled for picking up a similar contract with an earlier expiration date or by taking on a smaller albatross.

Casey is another matter. In that case, I don't think we're looking at an albatross contract. He's earning his dough.
He earned his money (and then some) this year, no argument there. However, that's the first time he has earned the big salaries he collects in his current contract. The first three years of that deal were an unabashed disaster. The question is, which Sean Casey will show up in 2005? Since the Reds have five guys (Casey, Griffey, Dunn, Kearns, Pena) to play four positions (LF/RF/CF/1B), I'd advise letting some other team deal with Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Casey.

westofyou
11-01-2004, 01:06 PM
No market for Graves and Jr., huh?

And yet there was a market for Jose Contreras. Go figure.

For Loiza and his contract to another rich team that could do the salary dance.

The problem with comparing DePodesta and Theo is that they have the backing of owners thar are younger, more dynamic, new to their market, visionary and have more money revenue ect to correct mistakes (like hiring non visionary GM's.. but I digress)

The White Sox are pondering Omar Visquel for 2 years and 8 million, their decision process skills in any deal make said deal an anomoly to normal behavior IMO.

D.O reminds me of a "type" of CEO sent in to do specific business, they have the stern, money tightening CEO's, the visionary, the slash and burn, the salesman, the organizer....... That's D.O the organizer, implement and sit back, implement and sit back......looking for a paradigm shift.... sit back and wait.

M2
11-01-2004, 01:13 PM
Loaiza cost $4M last year and now he's a free agent. Any team could have done that salary dance.

westofyou
11-01-2004, 01:17 PM
Loaiza cost $4M last year and now he's a free agent. Any team could have done that salary dance.

Any team that wasn't owned by a depression era millionaire stuck in a time warp.

princeton
11-01-2004, 01:24 PM
they have the stern, money tightening CEO's, the visionary, the slash and burn, the salesman, the organizer....... That's D.O the organizer, implement and sit back, implement and sit back......looking for a paradigm shift.... sit back and wait.

My exposure to CEOs is admittedly limited, but I've met the first three, never the fourth.

looking for a paradigm shift with a guy that has no vision and can neither act nor sell seems more like "cross your fingers and have faith that the meek shall inherit"

Steve4192
11-01-2004, 01:26 PM
Loaiza cost $4M last year and now he's a free agent. Any team could have done that salary dance.
M2 beat me to it.

The Yankees unloaded a $17MM salary obligation owed to Jose Contreras, and took on a $4MM obligation to Esteban Loaiza. That's the kind of trade that any small market GM with an albatross around his neck should be searching for. If you can eliminate a future obligation by making a trade that is salary neutral in the present, you have to jump all over it.

Unfortunately, the GM of a team that bleeds green has figured this out while DanO and his bosses are still sitting on their hands.

M2
11-01-2004, 01:29 PM
Any team that wasn't owned by a depression era millionaire stuck in a time warp.

I'm no fan of Carl, but I don't see why he'd object to that sort of deal. BTW, I think you're right about DanO's type, though I refer to it as "bureaucrat" rather than "organizer." Main difference being that an organizer would be ready for a paradigm shift. DanO's inability to address the team's contract situation (I include the failure to lock up Dunn before his value went into the stratosphere) has left him largely unable to seize upon a paradigm shift.

Steve4192
11-01-2004, 01:34 PM
I think you're right about DanO's type, though I refer to it as "bureaucrat" rather than "organizer."
There have been some wonderful CEO's that been non-visionary types. There's the guy who ran the buggy whip industry, the brand manager for Betamax (I think Sony made him a CEO), the guy who decided the future of Amtrak was in passenger trains, and all those guys who decided that upstart in Redmond WA could never dislodge their market leading software (Lotus 123, Wordperfect, DBase, Netscape).

Love those guys.

westofyou
11-01-2004, 02:11 PM
I'm no fan of Carl, but I don't see why he'd object to that sort of deal.

Because he's a long term vision businessman who prefers stability and small growth over long shot bets and temporary red spots on the ledger.

I'm not saying that it's right for the baseball business, but that is what I see happening.

Vision has always been filtered through a stack of worn out dollar bills as far as the Reds are concerned.

M2
11-01-2004, 02:19 PM
Because he's a long term vision businessman who prefers stability and small growth over long shot bets and temporary red spots on the ledger.

I'm not saying that it's right for the baseball business, but that is what I see happening.

Vision has always been filtered through a stack of worn out dollar bills as far as the Reds are concerned.

Again, I'd agree if were talking about going further into the red, but Loaiza cost less than Graves. A deal like that would have immediately pushed the ledger deeper into the black. That was a have your cake and eat it deal. Why other GMs don't camp out in Chicago and schedule a daily round of golf with Kenny Williams escapes me. Then again, Bill Bavasi might need a links buddy up in Seattle.

westofyou
11-01-2004, 02:28 PM
Again, I'd agree if were talking about going further into the red, but Loaiza cost less than Graves.

Maybe Ozzie thinks he can "fix" Jose because they both speak Spanish?

Maybe no one wanted Graves because his K/9 is consistently below league average and his SLG % against is outrageous, maybe no one is fooled by his Saves?

We aren't.... why should guys who have to justify his salary in a divsion race.

I think it's easy to pick out who should have been moved, but as I said before I think this season was just about creating a positive atmosphere in the Reds workplace as it was about "winning now" that's why Lidle was traded (he was new, he whined a bit) and Jones (he was asked if it was OK)

It doesn't do squat for the team on the ledger or in the W/L column, but it creates an air of stability to the general public and to the team.

flyer85
11-01-2004, 02:44 PM
Incomplete

- has made no long term siginings
- has not unloaded any of the bloated contracts
- has made no significant acquisitions

Maybe they should install some motion detectors in the FO to see if anything at all is going on in there.

flyer85
11-01-2004, 02:48 PM
They come in, learn the environment/organization ASAP, develop an action plan, and ACT on it.

I guess DanO is still deciding if he should go for the prune juice or the dried apricots.

Is it just me or does DanO look like a card carrying member of the Golden Buckeye club?

M2
11-01-2004, 03:40 PM
Maybe no one wanted Graves because his K/9 is consistently below league average and his SLG % against is outrageous, maybe no one is fooled by his Saves?

We aren't.... why should guys who have to justify his salary in a divsion race.

I think it's easy to pick out who should have been moved, but as I said before I think this season was just about creating a positive atmosphere in the Reds workplace as it was about "winning now" that's why Lidle was traded (he was new, he whined a bit) and Jones (he was asked if it was OK)

It doesn't do squat for the team on the ledger or in the W/L column, but it creates an air of stability to the general public and to the team.

And you can pick out just as many faults with many of the players throughout the league who've been dealt since DanO took the reins. I guess I'm in a no-win argument here (and not specifically with you WOY, but it's sort of general theme on this board). First I get told that no one wanted flawed players like the guys on the Reds. So I point out where other flawed players get dealt. Then I get told that the contracts the Reds players have are too onerous to trade. So I point out that other onerous contracts managed to get dealt. Then I encounter one of the last two lines of defense: "Well, you don't know anyone offered those deals to the Reds." -- or -- "Deals like this didn't fit in with the plan."

To the first, it's true, I don't know specifically what the Reds were offered. Though I'm pretty sure it's well-nigh impossible to make the kind of moves we're talking if you wait around for someone else to bring up the idea. All I'm able to say is it CAN be done and other teams DO it. The Reds would be well-served to join those ranks.

To the second, well, I'm not exactly sure why I'm supposed to laud inaction because it fits in with a crap plan. That would seem to be a double barrel of bad. I saw the 2002 and 2003 Reds. Both were tight-knit, gritty, overachieving teams. Seemed like a real positive atmosphere to me -- team full of affable players who pulled together for a string of unlikely victories. Sure it fell apart both times and that let out some negative vibes, but that was an inevitable consequence of fielding an undertalented team.

All DanO managed to do was get a repeat of that pattern in 2004. Same feel-good first half, followed by the same feel-bad second half. Nothing gained. Nothing established. Everyone's breathing the same air they were a year ago. If you're right, if creating a better work environment was DanO's lone objective for 2004, then he wasted a year and I graded him too kindly in giving him a D.

westofyou
11-01-2004, 03:56 PM
If you're right, if creating better work environment was DanO's lone objective for 2004, then he wasted a year and I graded him too kindly in giving him a D.

But if that was his goal then my bet is they don't give a rats behind what the grade is from outsiders.

lollipopcurve
11-01-2004, 04:04 PM
M2, we're talking about a huge front office transition last year. Dan O had more to do than construct a 25-man roster for major league play. But you pretty much fail to acknowledge anything beyond what you saw at the major league level (except to render immediate judgment that the draft was a failure, even though those players are years away). O'Brien has said many times that it's going to take a while. He's not trying to fool anyone. Doesn't mean you have to like it. But to claim that he's done nothing in the transition from the Bowden era is disingenuous.

M2
11-01-2004, 04:08 PM
But if that was his goal then my bet is they don't give a rats behind what the grade is from outsiders.

I doubt they gave a rat's behind about that regardless.

All I'm saying is if DanO continues to ignore his larger problems in the pursuance of trifles then he'll have to surrender a truckload of rodent hindquarters on the day he gets pink-slipped after a string of consistent failure. Also, if DanO's that oblivious, if where we're at can be summed up by princeton's "looking for a paradigm shift with a guy that has no vision and can neither act nor sell seems more like 'cross your fingers and have faith that the meek shall inherit,'" then maybe it's time I stopped caring so much about this franchise.

M2
11-01-2004, 04:38 PM
M2, we're talking about a huge front office transition last year. Dan O had more to do than construct a 25-man roster for major league play. But you pretty much fail to acknowledge anything beyond what you saw at the major league level (except to render immediate judgment that the draft was a failure, even though those players are years away). O'Brien has said many times that it's going to take a while. He's not trying to fool anyone. Doesn't mean you have to like it. But to claim that he's done nothing in the transition from the Bowden era is disingenuous.

I know this guy. He's a CIO-for-hire and only works for BIG companies. Generally he's regarded as the best at what he does. He rolls in, figures out what he's got, maps out where he needs to go and gets there within two to three years. One thing he's adamant about is not wasting time on bureaucracy. He gets a small leadership team, works like a dog to establish buy-in throughout the entrenched personnel in the corporation and makes sure that he's got constant, visible progress. If something needs to go, he gets rid of it. If something needs to be added, he adds it. One time he told me, "Get the momentum rolling and people will want to join the team." Now, he's hardly the only person I've met who works off that template, but he's the best I've seen at it in the business world, certainly he's the most articulate about it (places like Harvard, Yale and Wharton fly him in for annual lectures).

DanO had the same front office transition that every team that replaces its GM has. We see this year after year after year. New execs come in, they hire a few chief lieutenants, business goes on. Big deal. It's what they do that counts (and office management doesn't fill the bill).

I never said DanO's done nothing. He's done nothing important and the Reds find themselves in the same place they were a year ago as a result.

princeton
11-01-2004, 04:43 PM
the two goals, as I saw 'em, was to not lose badly on $45mill while also building a top farm system

we didn't lose badly at first, then we did. But more importantly, to not lose badly on $45mill will require moving players as they get expensive, and we didn't do that.

to build a top farm system, good drafts will be required. We didn't do that.

so we missed both of our goals, and it was a bad year. He'll need to be more aggressive in moving players, and he'll need to change the drafter. I don't see either thing happening. Another bad year coming up.

wheels
11-01-2004, 04:46 PM
Yeah, I never really understood how he supposedly restructured the front office.

I always thought that a new GM brings in his own people, and they just commence to getting rolling.

I understand the importance of fixing the minor leagues, and DanO's paid lots of lip service to them, but not much else, so I don't really see that as an excuse for ignoring the two big problems on the big league front. Pitching, and bad contracts.

He had things plop right down in his lap this past mid season, and he did nothing.

Nobody's asking him to build Rome, but a couple of roads leading up to the constuction site were needed and he failed.

Krusty
11-01-2004, 06:32 PM
Funny that I never seen the criticism directed at O'Brien in just one year compared to the 10 years Bowden was at the helm.

Go figure. :help:

REDREAD
11-01-2004, 11:48 PM
All DanO managed to do was get a repeat of that pattern in 2004. Same feel-good first half, followed by the same feel-bad second half. Nothing gained. Nothing established. .

And let's not forget, Time is NOT on DanO's side here. His farm is bare, and his offense is going to get expensive on him in a hurry.

Within 2-3 years, it's likely that most or all of Dunn, Kearns, LaRue, and Jimmeniz will have to be unloaded due to salary. When that happens, say goodbye to our offense, because there's nothing in the pipeline to replace them.

So by doing practically nothing all year, DanO left the parking break off, and the little Red machine rolled a little closer to the cliff.

Redsland
11-02-2004, 12:20 PM
Funny that I never seen the criticism directed at O'Brien in just one year compared to the 10 years Bowden was at the helm.

Go figure. :help:
Bowden conspicuously tried.

That's the difference.