PDA

View Full Version : Why All The Negativity?



Krusty
12-28-2004, 11:39 AM
Have to ask why all the negativity towards the Reds moves this offseason? They go out and shore up the bullpen, acquire a good fielding third baseman that is a capable hitter in the seventh spot of the order. They acquire a lefty pitcher capable of winning 15 games.

But judging by reactions on this board, you would think the Reds don't have a clue to what they are doing. They don't spend money they get criticized. They spend money and people complained that they overpaid.

Seems to me no matter what they do it won't be to the fans satisfaction. Even if they acquired Randy Johnson you would have people complaining the talent the Reds gave up and assuming Johnson's contract.

The Reds have money. They just don't tell the world they do. It helps them in their negotiations with the agents.

I have to say if you can't get excited about the moves the Reds have made without trading anyone with the exception of Moseley, then nothing will. I can hear it now if the Reds are winning next year with fans saying another collapse is just around the corner.

Like I said the doom and gloom on this board by some people is amazing considering the Reds haven't even played a game yet for the 2005 season.

SanDiegoRed
12-28-2004, 11:51 AM
Amen Krusty

traderumor
12-28-2004, 11:51 AM
Krusty,

What I see is accentuating the downside of the transactions and looking at the deals on an individual basis. From the posts you've made, it seems you recognize that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts. That part of the equation seems to be missing from the analyses I've seen that are dead set against what the Reds have done.

Personally, Milton is pricey, and I think he is being paid about $3M a year too much. But then, when I look at the market, I do believe that he was likely to get the same money elsewhere, so in that sense we didn't overpay.

I can see where both camps are coming from, and like most things, you can throw out the extreme "Totally Hate It, we're doomed" opinions on one end and the extreme "Great job DanO, we're now contenders" opinions on the other end and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

westofyou
12-28-2004, 11:54 AM
Personally, Milton is pricey, and I think he is being paid about $3M a year too much. But then, when I look at the market, I do believe that he was likely to get the same money elsewhere, so in that sense we didn't overpay.



When Joe Mays gets 7.25 a year it's gonna be hard to pick up guys for pennies.

RANDY IN INDY
12-28-2004, 12:02 PM
Well said.

traderumor
12-28-2004, 12:03 PM
When Joe Mays gets 7.25 a year it's gonna be hard to pick up guys for pennies.

That was my thought this morning. I know some are skeptical about what Milton was gonna get from the big boys, but the Phils paid him $9M last year, so its reasonable to assume that he would get similar money in this market. From his perspective, he could say he had a good season last year, blame the ballpark for the outrageous home runs allowed, and say he actually took a pay cut to come to the Reds.

Like it or not, we are going to have to pay some market prices here and there, and they are not always going to be our first choices. I do think that this is somewhat virgin territory to see the Reds have to pay through the nose just to secure some average pitchers, but with the years of non-prductivity from the farm system, the mortgage came due.

Spitball
12-28-2004, 12:05 PM
It is good to see the front office finally realize they are going to have to spend some money to put fannies in the seats (and thus make money).

MWM
12-28-2004, 12:10 PM
They go out and shore up the bullpen, acquire a good fielding third baseman that is a capable hitter in the seventh spot of the order.

Respectfully Krusty, that's just your opinion and others don't have to agree with it. That doesn't make them "negative", it just means they've analyzed the situation and come to a different conclusion than you have. That is allowed isn't it.


They don't spend money they get criticized. They spend money and people complained that they overpaid.

Not the same people, Krusty. There are a lot of people on this board with amny opinons. I have never been one to toot the horn of just spend money. I know lots of people who feel the same way I do. Those people who simply wanted the Reds to spend money have been very happy this offseason. Seeriously Krusty, have you looked atthe Milton thread and the poll thread? There's an overwhelming majority of people who actually DO like the Milton signing and the moves the FO has made. So what's the poblem. Does EVERYONE have to agree. No, there's always going to be people who disagree with the majority and they shouldn't be marginalized because of it.


I have to say if you can't get excited about the moves the Reds have made without trading anyone with the exception of Moseley, then nothing will.

Come on Krusty, don't you think that's a little of an exaggeration? There's plenty of things the Reds could do that would make me and plenty of the naysayers happy. Do you think the Reds have a chance to conend for the playoffs this year?


I can hear it now if the Reds are winning next year with fans saying another collapse is just around the corner.

Now this is a comment I don't get. Have you watched the last three years? If they come out of the gate winning, there's a good chance another collapse WILL be around the corner. People have predicted it in each of the last two years and been utterly lambasted for it. But were they right or wrong? And trust me, there's no joy in being right about it. I would have LOVED nothing more than to be completely and utterly wrong about the collapse. But when you look at all the factors and objectively analyze the situation, it was clear that the Reds early season success wasn't sustainable. Some of us just spoke up and voiced our opinion.

baseballPAP
12-28-2004, 12:11 PM
I think all the moves made aregood solid moves. I worry a bit about the relatively high risk of the pitchers, but thats why we could afford them. The bullpen moves were shocking to me, but welcomed by someone who is used to Gulley trying to re-vamp complete washouts. This time around he has a couple arms with some past success to build on. I still feel a trade coming from the OF, and the only one that makes sense is WMP.
This ones for you Krusty:
WMP, Randa and Graves to the Cubbies for Aramis Ramirez.

Cuts salary, fills one hole while eliminating a surplus and a bad contract......
Cubs get the OF to replace Sammy, a setup man and a replacement for Ramirez.

Maybe?

westofyou
12-28-2004, 12:12 PM
but with the years of non-prductivity from the farm system, the mortgage came due.

Yep, currently the Reds are unemployed and are using their high interest credit cards to buy stuff for the house. Stuff they need, but will have to pay a little more for over time.

Sure they wanted that Krupps coffee maker and the wide screen TV, but the Mr Coffee and the 36 inch TV will have to do.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 12:14 PM
There's plenty of things the Reds could do that would make me and plenty of the naysayers happy.

MWM, I'm curious, what are some of these things?

redsfan30
12-28-2004, 12:21 PM
Have to ask why all the negativity towards the Reds moves this offseason? They go out and shore up the bullpen, acquire a good fielding third baseman that is a capable hitter in the seventh spot of the order. They acquire a lefty pitcher capable of winning 15 games.

But judging by reactions on this board, you would think the Reds don't have a clue to what they are doing. They don't spend money they get criticized. They spend money and people complained that they overpaid.

Seems to me no matter what they do it won't be to the fans satisfaction. Even if they acquired Randy Johnson you would have people complaining the talent the Reds gave up and assuming Johnson's contract.

The Reds have money. They just don't tell the world they do. It helps them in their negotiations with the agents.

I have to say if you can't get excited about the moves the Reds have made without trading anyone with the exception of Moseley, then nothing will. I can hear it now if the Reds are winning next year with fans saying another collapse is just around the corner.

Like I said the doom and gloom on this board by some people is amazing considering the Reds haven't even played a game yet for the 2005 season.
:clap:

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 12:22 PM
I think from a Red's point of view, they are trying to improve....but from a general baseball perspective they are not a championship team. It stil comes down to certain teams that spend more money, have a better farm system, etc...

Lets look at the Red's starting pitchers they signed. All of them have 4 plus ERA's and average stats. Yes, once again from the Red's perspective, the team has improved but only to a certain degree.

And didn't I once hear the Red's were rebuilding? Hmmm, so let's see. They trade their young pitching prospect(Mosely) for Ortiz. That's not staying young. Even though I think these are good additions to the team, Randa, Weber, Weathers, and Mercker are 35 and over. I'm looking forward to Encarncion in the minors to play third in a year or so.

The Reds should be a 500 club next year, probably barely. It still comes down to other teams in this division that will dominate over the Reds.

redsfan30
12-28-2004, 12:23 PM
Do you think the Reds have a chance to conend for the playoffs this year?
Yes.

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 12:28 PM
MWM, I'm curious, what are some of these things?

Acquire a single player who was worth significantly more Runs than average in 2003 versus their positional peer group.

For starters.

MartyFan
12-28-2004, 12:29 PM
I dig what the Reds have been doing this offseason...I am amazed we only traded away Mosley in the process and kept our projected payroll under $70mil and then we signed a very proudctive bat to a minor league contract in Cruz...DanO...well, I think he rawks!

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 12:33 PM
I dig what the Reds have been doing this offseason...I am amazed we only traded away Mosley in the process and kept our projected payroll under $70mil and then we signed a very proudctive bat to a minor league contract in Cruz...DanO...well, I think he rawks!

Yes, I like the moves too, they were "good". BUT the Reds still do not have an ace starting pitcher!

RedlegJake
12-28-2004, 12:34 PM
Although directed at Krusty, can I interject?


Respectfully Krusty, that's just your opinion and others don't have to agree with it. That doesn't make them "negative", it just means they've analyzed the situation and come to a different conclusion than you have. That is allowed isn't it.

I define negative as the people on either side who tell posters they disagree with that they are stupid, or "haven't learned a thing about baseball after all these years" because their opinion is different. That's negative. The opinions themselves are just that - opinions. Even with Dunn, who I just think its so apparent what a tremendous player he is - there are opinions on both sides. When I stop and set aside my bias toward Dunn I can usually see some element of truth in the other argument. Same with the debate on these moves.


No, there's always going to be people who disagree with the majority and they shouldn't be marginalized because of it.

Agreed.


Do you think the Reds have a chance to conend for the playoffs this year?

Actually - yes, I do.



Now this is a comment I don't get. Have you watched the last three years? If they come out of the gate winning, there's a good chance another collapse WILL be around the corner. People have predicted it in each of the last two years and been utterly lambasted for it. But were they right or wrong? And trust me, there's no joy in being right about it. I would have LOVED nothing more than to be completely and utterly wrong about the collapse. But when you look at all the factors and objectively analyze the situation, it was clear that the Reds early season success wasn't sustainable. Some of us just spoke up and voiced our opinion.

And if the Reds break out with a great record but the numbers are similar (minus runs scored-allowed , tons of relief innings early in games that will burn out the pen later on, lower than average OBP, etc) then I'll be predicting the same collapse. It's my opinion the moves made will address some of that.

I agree with the thrust of what Krusty says. Milton is not Perez or Clement, but maybe we couldn't get them foir any price. Maybe they just weren't seriously interested or wanted even more than market to come here - and the market is ridiculous for pitching. It seems some posters think that you want a guy you just go out and sign him or trade for him. Like there are no other factors that go into it. I would have loved Perez and Clement fronting the rotation but Milton - Ortiz beats the heck out of Hancock-Harang. And we still have the H boys for some depth, too.

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 12:38 PM
Although directed at Krusty, can I interject?



I define negative as the people on either side who tell posters they disagree with that they are stupid, or "haven't learned a thing about baseball after all these years" because their opinion is different. That's negative. The opinions themselves are just that - opinions. Even with Dunn, who I just think its so apparent what a tremendous player he is - there are opinions on both sides. When I stop and set aside my bias toward Dunn I can usually see some element of truth in the other argument. Same with the debate on these moves.



Agreed.



Actually - yes, I do.




And if the Reds break out with a great record but the numbers are similar (minus runs scored-allowed , tons of relief innings early in games that will burn out the pen later on, lower than average OBP, etc) then I'll be predicting the same collapse. It's my opinion the moves made will address some of that.

I agree with the thrust of what Krusty says. Milton is not Perez or Clement, but maybe we couldn't get them foir any price. Maybe they just weren't seriously interested or wanted even more than market to come here - and the market is ridiculous for pitching. It seems some posters think that you want a guy you just go out and sign him or trade for him. Like there are no other factors that go into it. I would have loved Perez and Clement fronting the rotation but Milton - Ortiz beats the heck out of Hancock-Harang. And we still have the H boys for some depth, too.


But think about this, do you honestly(not because you want them to because you like them) think the Reds can dominate over the other top 3 teams in this division?

Red Leader
12-28-2004, 12:39 PM
Acquire a single player who was worth significantly more Runs than average in 2003 versus their positional peer group.

For starters.


:clap:

deltachi8
12-28-2004, 12:40 PM
I thought alot about this last night. I was not impressed with the Milton signing yesterday, but am impressed that the FO and ownership are out there fighting to be a winner. I like all of the bullpen moves (i think Weber is going tobe a steal), Ortiz is someone I have liked and have come around on that deal.

On Milton, I think the Reds overpaid. Then it occours to me, the Reds most likely would hav eto overpay for anyone (decent) to play in Cincinnati right now. Ala the Bengals of recent years. They were in on Clement, and who i sto say they were not in on Perez or Millwood as well? Milton is one they could "sell" and did it.

Its kinda like having a bad credit rating. You can probably still buy a car, but your going to pay more for it and probably wont get your first choice when the time comes. In time, as you do thing s right, pay your bills and all, you will pay market prices and have more choice.

The same can happen for the Reds if they play things right the next couple years - show a committment to winning and continue to build the orgainization.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 12:46 PM
Having seen this organization over since Lindner bought the team I am skeptical.

What if Milton pitches poorly and the Reds flop early. We will see another purge? Will Dunn and Kearns be traded because Jr and Milton are overpaid and the Reds "can't afford them"?

Spending a little money this offseason is a start but will this FO see it through if the teams starts losing and the fans don't show up? I have little faith that they will and the cycle begins all over again.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 12:47 PM
I thought alot about this last night. I was not impressed with the Milton signing yesterday, but am impressed that the FO and ownership are out there fighting to be a winner.

Will they see it through if the times get tough or will they punt?

RedlegJake
12-28-2004, 12:51 PM
But think about this, do you honestly(not because you want them to because you like them) think the Reds can dominate over the other top 3 teams in this division?

I didn't say dominate - I said contend for a playoff spot. I think they will.

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 12:51 PM
Having seen this organization over since Lindner bought the team I am skeptical.

What if Milton pitches poorly and the Reds flop early. We will see another purge? Will Dunn and Kearns be traded because Jr and Milton are overpaid and the Reds "can't afford them"?

Spending a little money this offseason is a start but will this FO see it through if the teams starts losing and the fans don't show up? I have little faith that they will and the cycle begins all over again.


If the Reds do poorly next year, expect to see a fire sale.

deltachi8
12-28-2004, 12:52 PM
Will they see it through if the times get tough or will they punt?

thats the question, flyer. I think it all depends on how deep the commitment goes. I also want to see if they (the Reds) plan on a committment long term to Dunn, that would go futher than Eric Milton in showing a commitment.

RedlegJake
12-28-2004, 12:53 PM
If the Reds do poorly next year, expect to see a fire sale.

Agreed. Since all these moves are short term anyway, I'd expect just that. I'd agree with it too. To me that means moving out all the veterans you can, adding prospects and retaining the younger players. If this bunch collapses, why not? OB's moves have been predicated on being competitive this year without hurting the future. Hudson, Claussen, Wagner, Valentine, Pauly, Gardner, Bailey, Votto et al. I'm talking 2007-2008. I still think that's the real timetable the FO is looking at. Everything til then is just trying to keep fannies in the seat with a somewhat competitive team.

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 12:54 PM
I didn't say dominate - I said contend for a playoff spot. I think they will.

The point is, if they can't beat these teams they don't stand a chance. I think wild card spot is there only chance but that is a long shot. But I really think they could be a 500 team next year.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 12:55 PM
also want to see if they (the Reds) plan on a committment long term to Dunn, that would go futher than Eric Milton in showing a commitment.

Amen.

Or at least a couple of the young OFs.

I have never seen any statements from the Reds about trying to sign Dunn to a LT deal or any statements from Dunn about be interested in a LT deal with the Reds. It is a big unknown at this point.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 12:56 PM
Acquire a single player who was worth significantly more Runs than average in 2003 versus their positional peer group.

For starters.

Such as? I'm just curious, trying to understand your perspective.

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 12:56 PM
They should have already signed Dunn to a long term deal! It is very unusual

traderumor
12-28-2004, 01:06 PM
Having seen this organization over since Lindner bought the team I am skeptical.

What if Milton pitches poorly and the Reds flop early. We will see another purge? Will Dunn and Kearns be traded because Jr and Milton are overpaid and the Reds "can't afford them"?

Spending a little money this offseason is a start but will this FO see it through if the teams starts losing and the fans don't show up? I have little faith that they will and the cycle begins all over again.

The flip side would be that each time they get a little deeper into the water, they realize that they didn't drown and try to go into even deeper water. Sometimes cycles get broken from learning and humbly admitting past failures. Now, I'm only saying that's possible, once again giving folks the benefit of the doubt rather than always assuming that, given a course of actions, that the worst alternative will always be chosen.

TRF
12-28-2004, 01:08 PM
Such as? I'm just curious, trying to understand your perspective.

Why sign Randa when you have Freel?

Why offer 25.5 mil to Milton if O. Perez is still on the market?

Why trade a Mosely for an Ortiz? Especially if from all reports it is likely the reds could have gotten him for much less?

Why not sign or at least go after Wade Miller? for 1.5 mil, he might be the steal of the off season.

it's mistake after mistake after mistake going all the way back to drafting homer bailey over chris nelson.

that's the reason for negativity.

maniem
12-28-2004, 01:16 PM
If the Reds do poorly next year, expect to see a fire sale.

You are absolutely right. I believe that Milton's contract was backloaded for that reason, 4.5 mil for 2005. If the Reds really tank the first half of the 2005 season, i'd expect Milton to be gone at the deadline.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 01:16 PM
At some point you have to build around something. The only player the Reds had signed LT(past 2006) before yesterday was Jr and he is not something to build around. He contract is just living with a past mistake.

The Reds have 3 players to build around for the next 4 to 5 years. We have seen or heard of no effort to sign these players. Instead we have seen the Reds throw money at complementary players(Larue, Randa, Ortiz, Milton, Jimenez, etc). Nothing wrong with that if they are used to build around a nucleus for the LT.

Trace's Daddy
12-28-2004, 01:17 PM
I Like This Team As Is. Look At All Of The Depth - There's Someone To Step Up At Every Position.

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 01:17 PM
Why sign Randa when you have Freel?

Why offer 25.5 mil to Milton if O. Perez is still on the market?

Why trade a Mosely for an Ortiz? Especially if from all reports it is likely the reds could have gotten him for much less?

Why not sign or at least go after Wade Miller? for 1.5 mil, he might be the steal of the off season.

it's mistake after mistake after mistake going all the way back to drafting homer bailey over chris nelson.

that's the reason for negativity.

I agree.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 01:17 PM
You are absolutely right. I believe that Milton's contract was backloaded for that reason, 4.5 mil for 2005. If the Reds really tank the first half of the 2005 season, i'd expect Milton to be gone at the deadline.

He may be untradeable like Jr and Graves have been. Meaning they will be stuck with him unless they want to include a decent sized amount of cash.

Puffy
12-28-2004, 01:17 PM
They should have already signed Dunn to a long term deal! It is very unusual

Why? He strikes out too much and doesn't hit sacrifice flies. Not to mention he never bunts. :mhcky21:

Puffy
12-28-2004, 01:19 PM
Why sign Randa when you have Freel?

Why offer 25.5 mil to Milton if O. Perez is still on the market?

Why trade a Mosely for an Ortiz? Especially if from all reports it is likely the reds could have gotten him for much less?

Why not sign or at least go after Wade Miller? for 1.5 mil, he might be the steal of the off season.

it's mistake after mistake after mistake going all the way back to drafting homer bailey over chris nelson.

that's the reason for negativity.

Wow - great post TRF. Kinda sums up all of most people's problems with the signings in half the words - good job. I especially agree with the Miller and Randa sentiments. :thumbup:

deltachi8
12-28-2004, 01:20 PM
Dunn's batting average is kinda low too! :allovrjr:

westofyou
12-28-2004, 01:20 PM
Why sign Randa when you have Freel?

Because they don't like him at 3rd, think he might be a "career year" recipent?



Why offer 25.5 mil to Milton if O. Perez is still on the market?

Are they're any reports that the Reds were interested in him? Or vica versa? Perhaps he had no desire to live in the midwest?


Why trade a Mosely for an Ortiz? Especially if from all reports it is likely the Reds could have gotten him for much less?

Mosley is likely a few years away (if he even makes it), and other reports said that other teams were going to trade for Ortiz before he was non-tendered.



Why not sign or at least go after Wade Miller? for 1.5 mil, he might be the steal of the off season.


Maybe they did? The Reds prior MO was signing guys who "might" help out, that is a perhaps a sunk cost and we all know that term is too new for the Reds. Plus I think Miller envisions bigger things from the Sox then he'd get in Cincinnati.

See there are lots of reasons for everything. ;)

Doesn't make everything ok though.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 01:24 PM
Why sign Randa when you have Freel?

Why offer 25.5 mil to Milton if O. Perez is still on the market?

Why trade a Mosely for an Ortiz? Especially if from all reports it is likely the reds could have gotten him for much less?

Why not sign or at least go after Wade Miller? for 1.5 mil, he might be the steal of the off season.

it's mistake after mistake after mistake going all the way back to drafting homer bailey over chris nelson.

that's the reason for negativity.


Randa, to me is depth, it gives you a utility guy like Freel to fill in whereever needed, and having lost Castro, we need someone like that. I also still am not sold on Felo at SS and think they may still feel that D'Lo could play short and Freel at 2nd.

How do you know O Perez didn't turn us down? (which I believe he did, plus the draft pick compensation kept us from doing), Who's to say they liked OP as much? He pitched in a pitchers park, and there are rumors of him being a malcontent.

I've heard much from scouts that Mosely won't turn out to be more than a 5 man or bullpen fodder.

Wade Miller wanted to go to a sure fire contender while establishing his value with a one year contract. He was contacted, we were shot down.

How do we know that Nelson will be better than Bailey yet? Have either of them been in a system long enough to show this?

IMO, that's the problem with some not all of the naysayers, some think that every option was available to us, realistically that is not the case. I don't like the fact that we gave Milton so much money, but as long as it doesn't hinder us from doing other things, I don't care, it makes my beloved team better on paper. As for truly evaluating this signing, I don't think any of us can at this point. We'll just have to take a "wait and see" approach to see how things turn out. At this point in time, anything any of us say is conjecture and opinion alone. I just dont see how it can be a negative, but that is your opinion and many others, I'm just having a hard time seeing it that way and trying to understand where you are coming from.

traderumor
12-28-2004, 01:26 PM
Why sign Randa when you have Freel?

Why offer 25.5 mil to Milton if O. Perez is still on the market?

Why trade a Mosely for an Ortiz? Especially if from all reports it is likely the reds could have gotten him for much less?

Why not sign or at least go after Wade Miller? for 1.5 mil, he might be the steal of the off season.

it's mistake after mistake after mistake going all the way back to drafting homer bailey over chris nelson.

that's the reason for negativity.

What makes you think that Perez didn't just flat out say "no" to the Reds? After all, he has had Jose Rijo and Jim Bowden talking in his ear. I'm sure they gave the Reds props.

Because Randa was cheap, gives us a legit (not perfect) third baseman, and allows Freel to do what he should be doing--being a supersub that gets 250-350 ABs filling in all over the diamond.

Ortiz was not likely to be non-tendered. Moseley was a middling prospect. Of course, suddenly he's a top prospect because he isn't ours anymore.

The Reds made it publicly know they were going after Wade Miller. Maybe they didn't like what they heard with respect to medical opinions--from the Red Sox, he got their equivalent of the major league minimum, and he probably wanted to be a part of a more sure thing than the Reds.

traderumor
12-28-2004, 01:28 PM
Good to see I'm on the same page with someone, Ryan. :MandJ:

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 01:30 PM
Nice simultaneous responses from the same perspective, and no we didn't collaborate guys. :MandJ:

TRF
12-28-2004, 01:31 PM
ok woy, first of all.... thppt!

next good points mostly. Except i am of the opinion you do not overpay for Ortiz. If they want Mosely, then that is too much. Smile and let Atlanta or Chicago overpay.

Freel's offense waayyyy made up for his defense at third, which imo would have gotten better this year. Now the reds lose the best leadoff hitter they have had in the last 10 years. all to get Randa's glove? blech

You are right that we haven't heard a word about O. Perez, but from all acounts a blitz by players and management happened to get Milton. Why not do that for Perez? It's good to be wanted, and it can play into signing a contract. I think it did in Milton's case. He could easily have signed with the Champs or the Yanks.

DanO does keep things close to the vest... so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on Miller.

None of this excuses Homer Bailey though.

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 01:32 PM
Such as? I'm just curious, trying to understand your perspective.

Above average players are acquired by teams all the time. Many as Free Agents, many via trade.

I could throw out the names "Matt Clement" and "Odalis Perez", but all that ends up leading to is claims of "Oh, the Reds couldn't have had either of those players at any price...etc...etc." Defeatist rhetoric.

I disagree with that reasoning, but it appears to be pervasive. I fail to see the logic behind the concept that, because the Reds didn't sign Player A that means they couldn't have possibly signed Player A. The fact that something didn't happen in no way means that it couldn't have.

Same tune, different notes as last season. Last year the defense was that O'Brien needed time to evaluate and that the Reds didn't have any money to spend. But now that he's had that time and has the money, what does he do? Spend it on average-to-below-average players, that's what.

And O'Brien's praised for making the hampster-wheel "effort" to make the team better. I'll be supportive of the guy as soon as he actually DOES make the Reds significantly better.

157 Runs. That's the improvment it'll take just to get the Reds to 81-81 in 2005. I don't see anything achieved this offseason that will significantly impact that number. Nada.

Good General Managers make things happen that truly benefit their clubs. They find ways to do it.

And it's not like folks have unrealistic expectations. Identify and acquire an above average performer who'll really help the Reds. Make it happen.

O'Brien hasn't. Maybe...just maybe...some of the negativity from folks is tied to that one simple concept?

Just a thought.

BadFundamentals
12-28-2004, 01:35 PM
Agree Krusty.

My grade is B or B- to date for off season moves. Gives fans reason for hope/optimism. No, doesn't bounce them into heavy contender/favorite role but takes them out of the "sat on :allovrjr: " all winter club.

stevekun
12-28-2004, 01:36 PM
Bottom line...people complain when we don't sign players...people complain when we do. The same people complaining about the signings are the same one that will be here praising them when they do good.

MikeS21
12-28-2004, 01:37 PM
Why the negativity? Because once again, we have to depend on "if's" and "maybe's" and "hope so's" and "question marks" and "keeps us IN the game" and all the other cliches we are sick of hearing.

The smoke and mirrors on this year's model may be a little more shiney and a little more flashy and a whole lot more expensive than last year's model, but it is still smoke and mirrors.

DoogMinAmo
12-28-2004, 01:38 PM
Why sign Randa when you have Freel?

If you want a reason, I will offer you near gold-glove caliber defense. I will offer you the injury history of the outfielders, and the value of having Freel and his versatility available. Most importantly, there is the backup plan offering a proven commodity if the one year wonder can not reproduce.


Why offer 25.5 mil to Milton if O. Perez is still on the market?

How do you or I know if DanO did not Offer Odalis Perez the money. How do you or I know that DanO did not atleast consider, looked into the matter further, and saw something in OP that he did not like.


Why trade a Mosely for an Ortiz? Especially if from all reports it is likely the reds could have gotten him for much less?

Because for every "report" that said the Reds did not need to trade for him, there are "reports" that the Angels were going to tender a contract to Ortiz, no matter what. There was enough interest from enough teams that warranted such a move. DanO is too careful to be hypocritical. He is not gonna give a prospect away, even if it is not a top one, especially if he is stating that the future of the organization is in the farm, unless it is necessary.


Why not sign or at least go after Wade Miller? for 1.5 mil, he might be the steal of the off season.

He did look into Miller. He specifically stated such when Miller was officially non-tendered. The problem is, this year everyone would more or less have to be Miller-less, due to his shoulder problems. Now why would they tie up 1.5mil in someone who is not even gonna play this year, let alone with concern as to whether he can pitch the following year. Shoulder injuries are the black hole of baseball.


it's mistake after mistake after mistake going all the way back to drafting homer bailey over chris nelson.

This one is to early to call. Wait until after this year at least, I have a weird feeling that our Homer Bailey will be comparable to this Miller kid in Cleveland. The kid throws some heat, and has one smooth delivery. Granted, taking a high school pitcher is not always a smart choice, but every once in a while, it works out. I have good vibes on this, way better than Ty. We gotta trust them on this one, for now. As to Nelson, in a year, we will find out how "can't miss" he is.


that's the reason for negativity.

Thats the reason for the, uh, positivity.

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 01:39 PM
157 Runs. That's the improvment it'll take just to get the Reds to 81-81 in 2005. I don't see anything achieved this offseason that will significantly impact that number. Nada.

[

I agree, I can see them being a 500 club, barely over that maybe.

I'll keep saying the same thing:

1. Reds still don't have a legit #1 starter. Most of them have ERA's over 4.

2. Randa is a fill in until Edwin Encarnacion is ready.

3. SS is a questionable area.

4. Good outfiled, with injury risks. If certain players are not healthy the team will go down hill.

TRF
12-28-2004, 01:40 PM
Ryan and TR name the last 5 HS pitcher drafted in the first round to make a significant impact in the Major Leagues.

Now name the last 5 SS taken in the first round to make a significant impact in the major leagues.

Not a lot of ARods on the pitching side is there?

Randa is a 35 year old 3B with no pop, and average at best OB skills. Everything about him screams stay away. If you don't like Freel at third, let him battle Ed E. for the spot, and hope to catch lightning in a bottle. Oh, and you save a million bucks while you are at it.

On top of all that, read the article i believe woy posted about Milton from BP concerning his knee.

BadFundamentals
12-28-2004, 01:41 PM
we have to depend on "if's" and "maybe's" and "hope so's" and "question marks" and "keeps us IN the game" and all the other cliches we are sick of hearing. .

That has been my position too - that ownership has done just enough in recent years to put the carrot out there in front of fans and keep them "hoping"......."unlikely" but if willing to put on happy face there has been enough talent to be "hopeful".

These moves don't represent an overhaul of that philosophy but certainly more siginificant than last year and I'm willing to give a little credit where its due.

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 01:42 PM
Why the negativity? Because once again, we have to depend on "if's" and "maybe's" and "hope so's" and "question marks" and "keeps us IN the game" and all the other cliches we are sick of hearing.

The smoke and mirrors on this year's model may be a little more shiney and a little more flashy and a whole lot more expensive than last year's model, but it is still smoke and mirrors.

Very good post, Mike.

When one's hopes for a ball club rely on players becoming altogether different players, the "IF" machine is truly churning.

If Eric Milton turns into a different pitcher in 2005 than he was in 2004, it'll be a good signing.

Shades of Cory Lidle.

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 01:43 PM
Ryan and TR name the last 5 HS pitcher drafted in the first round to make a significant impact in the Major Leagues.

Now name the last 5 SS taken in the first round to make a significant impact in the major leagues.

Not a lot of ARods on the pitching side is there?

Randa is a 35 year old 3B with no pop, and average at best OB skills. Everything about him screams stay away. If you don't like Freel at third, let him battle Ed E. for the spot, and hope to catch lightning in a bottle. Oh, and you save a million bucks while you are at it.

On top of all that, read the article i believe woy posted about Milton from BP concerning his knee.

You the most clear thinking person Ive seen on here so far.

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 01:44 PM
I agree, I can see them being a 500 club, barely over that maybe.

I'll keep saying the same thing:

1. Reds still don't have a legit #1 starter. Most of them have ERA's over 4.

2. Randa is a fill in until Edwin Encarnacion is ready.

3. SS is a questionable area.

4. Good outfiled, with injury risks. If certain players are not healthy the team will go down hill.

Yeah. "Iffy", ain't it.

BTW, I'm wondering if anyone can name the last team who improved their Run Differential by 157 Runs from one season to the next?

Anyone?

DoogMinAmo
12-28-2004, 01:45 PM
Yeah. "Iffy", ain't it.

BTW, I'm wondering if anyone can name the last team who improved their Run Differential by 157 Runs from one season to the next?

Anyone?

The 2005 Reds. :mhcky21:

Puffy
12-28-2004, 01:45 PM
Yeah. "Iffy", ain't it.

BTW, I'm wondering if anyone can name the last team who improved their Run Differential by 157 Runs from one season to the next?

Anyone?

It has never happened. Thats my answer and I'm sticking to it.

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 01:46 PM
Very good post, Mike.

When one's hopes for a ball club rely on players becoming altogether different players, the "IF" machine is truly churning.

If Eric Milton turns into a different pitcher in 2005 than he was in 2004, it'll be a good signing.

Shades of Cory Lidle.

Totally agree. Finally people here making some sense!

TRF
12-28-2004, 01:48 PM
You the most clear thinking person Ive seen on here so far.

You're obviously new. :)

pay close attention to SteelSD, Raisor, WOY, M2 and a few others. Me? I usually just nod in agreement when they post. I have learned more in the last year about the sport I have followed the last 25 from these guys.

they know their stuff. I'm still learning.

westofyou
12-28-2004, 01:50 PM
Ryan and TR name the last 5 HS pitcher drafted in the first round to make a significant impact in the Major Leagues.

Here's my list

C.C. Sabathia

Josh Beckett

Jeremy Bonderman

Jason Marquis

Kerry Wood

LetsGoReds11
12-28-2004, 01:52 PM
It's Your Opinion Steels but I don't see how you come up with 157 runs will make the team only 81-81......I think this team will be better then 81-81 and I don't think they will have to score 157 more runs to do it......

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 01:52 PM
You're obviously new. :)

pay close attention to SteelSD, Raisor, WOY, M2 and a few others. Me? I usually just nod in agreement when they post. I have learned more in the last year about the sport I have followed the last 25 from these guys.

they know their stuff. I'm still learning.

LOL, I didnt mean it literally...but for the short time Ive been here Ive seen some interesting comments to say the least. Like showing all of Adam Dunns homeruns were not solo because people get on Dunn for that, and I merely pointed out his flaw is his strikeout totals and his homeruns are fine. I got interesting reponses to that.

DoogMinAmo
12-28-2004, 01:54 PM
Here's my list

C.C. Sabathia

Josh Beckett

Jeremy Bonderman

Jason Marquis

Kerry Wood

All of them, with the exception of Marquis, or perhaps Bonderman, I admit I dont know that much about him, I find more valuable the pitchers than the chance of an Arod (one in million, even more rare of an athlete than the high school pitcher) or more likely a Nomar/ Renteria/ Cabrera mold.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 01:54 PM
It's Your Opinion Steels but I don't see how you come up with 157 runs will make the team only 81-81.

Pythagorean Record

traderumor
12-28-2004, 01:56 PM
TR name the last 5 HS pitcher drafted in the first round to make a significant impact in the Major Leagues.I didn't comment on that. The rest you and I disagree on. It's my opinion based on the same info you're looking at. I'm not as crazy about Freel as others are and am not gonna fuss about a little over $2M for an upgrade. Now if the Reds can move Jimenez for even more pitching help, there's Freel at the ready.

I also am not in the habit of finding something to hate about every thing the Reds do.

TRF
12-28-2004, 01:59 PM
Here's my list

C.C. Sabathia

Josh Beckett

Jeremy Bonderman

Jason Marquis

Kerry Wood

For some reason, a lot of SS are signed as amateur FA. but a quick look gives me 4 pretty good SS's

ARod
Jeter
Nomar
Larkin

I win. with those four alone I win. With Larkin and ARod alone I win. All first round picks are crapshoots. Heck all picks period are. but woy knows as well as anyone that HS pitchers are the biggest crapshoot of all.

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 02:01 PM
You're obviously new. :)

pay close attention to SteelSD, Raisor, WOY, M2 and a few others. Me? I usually just nod in agreement when they post. I have learned more in the last year about the sport I have followed the last 25 from these guys.

they know their stuff. I'm still learning.

Oh yeah, and I forgot when I mentioned the Padres were interested in Dunn a couple of years ago in exchange for Oliver Perez, people here had heart attacks. There would be your 200+ K pitcher with a 3 or below ERA, easily could be the Red's ace. And if the Padres threw in Jason Bay(roookie of the year2004) with it, there would be Dunn's replacement. I know its a thing of the past but I thought more people would like this idea.

TRF
12-28-2004, 02:02 PM
LOL, I didnt mean it literally...but for the short time Ive been here Ive seen some interesting comments to say the least. Like showing all of Adam Dunns homeruns were not solo because people get on Dunn for that, and I merely pointed out his flaw is his strikeout totals and his homeruns are fine. I got interesting reponses to that.

Read the strikeout equal to any other out thread. not to hijack or anything, but it was clearly proven that the K's don't matter as long as his OBP and SLG are the monster forces they have been.

Welcome to the board.

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 02:03 PM
It has never happened. Thats my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Oh, it's happened. And rather recently at that:

2001 Anaheim Angels

Runs Scored- 691
Runs Allowed- 730

2002 Anaheim Angels

Runs Scored- 851 (+160)
Runs Allowed- 644 (-86)

Run Differential Swing- 246

I've done some research on that in the past, and what happened in Anaheim in 2002 is truly historical.

But alas, where the Angels needed a swing of only 39 Runs to get to the .500 mark, the Reds need 157. To get to the playoffs? Well, let's just say that betting on a second lightning strike is generally a bad wager.

MikeS21
12-28-2004, 02:04 PM
You're obviously new. :)

pay close attention to SteelSD, Raisor, WOY, M2 and a few others. Me? I usually just nod in agreement when they post. I have learned more in the last year about the sport I have followed the last 25 from these guys.

they know their stuff. I'm still learning.
My sentiments exactly. It took them awhile to bang some sense into my head, but I'm still learning.

M2
12-28-2004, 02:11 PM
Krusty, what board are you reading?

Seems to me most posters love the moves DanO's made.

My takes on the various moves:

Wilson - Shouldn't have been re-signed. Has done all he can to be a below average pitcher the past four years and could be on the verge of a slide (there's some strong evidence for that in fact).

Ortiz - Never was that good a pitcher and already has hit his slide. Best case scenario, IMO, is he pitches like Cory Lidle last season -- lots of innings, lots of runs.

Bullpen - Historically the Reds have collected younger power arms for bullpen duty. DanO clearly prefers older control pitchers, or at least that's what he's brought in. Mercker doesn't throw a lot of innings. We'll have to see if Weber's healthy. Glom's the key acquisition. Looks like a mediocre unit unless kids like Ryan Wagner and Todd Coffey step up and have big seasons.

Randa - Glove helps, bat hurts.

Milton - The Reds are paying him like he's something a whole lot better than what he is. I was hoping other clubs, the Yankees for instance, would be foolish enough to throw gobs of money at this guy. In fact, back in October I figured he'd make a pretty good desperation yardstick, that he was one of the offseason's booby prizes, that you could assume any team that signed him had more cash than brains. Not going to change that opinion just because the Reds wound up being the team that landed him.

Doesn't look like it adds up to very good team to me. Though I'm in a distinct minority on that.

letsgojunior
12-28-2004, 02:12 PM
I'm with you M2.

archiebunker
12-28-2004, 02:14 PM
I agree too. I'm starting to think DanO is here posting stuff under different names.

westofyou
12-28-2004, 02:20 PM
but woy knows as well as anyone that HS pitchers are the biggest crapshoot of all.

Yep and if you have to pull Kerry Wood out as a "recent example" (the guy hit MLB 7 seasons ago!!) then you know there are lot of loser picks out there selling insurance now.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 02:26 PM
Drafting HS position players isn't much better than drafting HS pitchers. Nomar and Larkin both played college baseball, they should not be on the SS list.

TRF
12-28-2004, 02:35 PM
Drafting HS position players isn't much better than drafting HS pitchers. Nomar and Larkin both played college baseball, they should not be on the SS list.


eh. good point. Jeter and ARod still beat the list woy posted. thanks woy

BTW both Kearns and Dunn were drafted out of HS.

HS hitters drafted in the 1st round are far less a likely to fail than HS pitchers.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 02:39 PM
eh. good point. Jeter and ARod still beat the list woy posted. thanks woy

BTW both Kearns and Dunn were drafted out of HS.

HS hitters drafted in the 1st round are far less a likely to fail than HS pitchers.

Dunn was a 2nd round draft pick. As was Larkin, out of high school.

And high school position players are more likely to fail than college players(both pitchers and positions players).

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 02:43 PM
Above average players are acquired by teams all the time. Many as Free Agents, many via trade.

I could throw out the names "Matt Clement" and "Odalis Perez", but all that ends up leading to is claims of "Oh, the Reds couldn't have had either of those players at any price...etc...etc." Defeatist rhetoric.

I disagree with that reasoning, but it appears to be pervasive. I fail to see the logic behind the concept that, because the Reds didn't sign Player A that means they couldn't have possibly signed Player A. The fact that something didn't happen in no way means that it couldn't have.

Same tune, different notes as last season. Last year the defense was that O'Brien needed time to evaluate and that the Reds didn't have any money to spend. But now that he's had that time and has the money, what does he do? Spend it on average-to-below-average players, that's what.

And O'Brien's praised for making the hampster-wheel "effort" to make the team better. I'll be supportive of the guy as soon as he actually DOES make the Reds significantly better.

157 Runs. That's the improvment it'll take just to get the Reds to 81-81 in 2005. I don't see anything achieved this offseason that will significantly impact that number. Nada.

Good General Managers make things happen that truly benefit their clubs. They find ways to do it.

And it's not like folks have unrealistic expectations. Identify and acquire an above average performer who'll really help the Reds. Make it happen.

O'Brien hasn't. Maybe...just maybe...some of the negativity from folks is tied to that one simple concept?

Just a thought.

Defeatist Rhetoric??? What if it's the truth? "The fact that something didn't happen in no way means that it couldn't have." It doesn't mean it could have either. Ok so let's assume for the sake of it, that Perez and Clement and Miller said no to the Reds, what would you have done differently, who would you have signed, for what offer? What leads you to believe that your deals could have been done?

RosieRed
12-28-2004, 02:44 PM
What does it really matter if there are some "negative" people, or some "negative" opinions out there? Why should everyone agree with everyone else? The Reds just signed an average/lucky pitcher for an extremely large sum of money. Why can't people question that move?

Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic about the 2005 season. I think the sum of the moves does improve the team. But on a case-by-case basis, none of the newly acquired players gives me much reason to rejoice. Even when taken as a whole, it's my opinion that the team only marginally improved, at least on paper. I'm still worried about trading an outfielder (okay, an outfielder named Dunn or Kearns), and I'm not going to rest easy while the speculation of such a trade is still rampant.

I am more than willing to see how the season unfolds, and I'm still as big a fan of the team as I was yesterday morning. So what does it matter if I think the Milton signing is worrisome?

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 02:46 PM
Why the negativity? Because once again, we have to depend on "if's" and "maybe's" and "hope so's" and "question marks" and "keeps us IN the game" and all the other cliches we are sick of hearing.

The smoke and mirrors on this year's model may be a little more shiney and a little more flashy and a whole lot more expensive than last year's model, but it is still smoke and mirrors.

If's, maybe's, hope so's, questions marks and Keeps us in the game's. Tell me one sure thing in baseball, isn't everything a gamble? Is there any guarantee that even the big unit does well next year? Could it not be the year he finally bottoms out at his age? Could Odalis not sink in a new stadium that isn't so pitcher friendly? What else does any team have to hang it's head on but if's, maybes and hope so's?

TRF
12-28-2004, 02:48 PM
Dunn was a 2nd round draft pick. As was Larkin, out of high school.

And high school position players are more likely to fail than college players(both pitchers and positions players).

i specified the round you didn't. Dunn's committment to UT allowed him to drop to the second round Kudos to JimBo for recognizing that there was a chance to get two first round talents.

When HS position players hit big in the majors, we equate their names with the HOF.

For some reason, I don't see Josh Beckett in the HOF. Kerry Wood Maybe, but not Beckett. or anyone else on the list woy posted.

the point is if you pick a HS pitcher in the first round, unless you have the first pick, and that HS pitcher is the concencus pick, then you more than likely punted your first pick.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 02:50 PM
Are the Reds in a better position to win in 2005 than 2004? YES.

Are the Reds in a better position to win in 2007 and 2008 than 2004? No evidence of that.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 02:51 PM
Ryan and TR name the last 5 HS pitcher drafted in the first round to make a significant impact in the Major Leagues.

Now name the last 5 SS taken in the first round to make a significant impact in the major leagues.

Not a lot of ARods on the pitching side is there?

Randa is a 35 year old 3B with no pop, and average at best OB skills. Everything about him screams stay away. If you don't like Freel at third, let him battle Ed E. for the spot, and hope to catch lightning in a bottle. Oh, and you save a million bucks while you are at it.

On top of all that, read the article i believe woy posted about Milton from BP concerning his knee.

TRF, I never have nor never will claim to be a draft guru, so I couldn't tell you any of the things there, but I can tell you you can't just throw Bailey away b/c he was straight out of high school, tell me this, has there ever been a great pitcher come straight out of high school? Why can't that be Bailey? Randa to me is what this team needs, a solid type defender, who is a team player, a players player. Who can bat in the bottom of the line up and hit 30-40 doubles a year and get 75-90 RBI's. And on Milton's knee, I did read the article, it's scary, but it's a year old as well. Milton had no knee problems that I know of last year.

Jpup
12-28-2004, 02:52 PM
Krusty, what board are you reading?

Seems to me most posters love the moves DanO's made.

My takes on the various moves:

Wilson - Shouldn't have been re-signed. Has done all he can to be a below average pitcher the past four years and could be on the verge of a slide (there's some strong evidence for that in fact).

Ortiz - Never was that good a pitcher and already has hit his slide. Best case scenario, IMO, is he pitches like Cory Lidle last season -- lots of innings, lots of runs.

Bullpen - Historically the Reds have collected younger power arms for bullpen duty. DanO clearly prefers older control pitchers, or at least that's what he's brought in. Mercker doesn't throw a lot of innings. We'll have to see if Weber's healthy. Glom's the key acquisition. Looks like a mediocre unit unless kids like Ryan Wagner and Todd Coffey step up and have big seasons.

Randa - Glove helps, bat hurts.

Milton - The Reds are paying him like he's something a whole lot better than what he is. I was hoping other clubs, the Yankees for instance, would be foolish enough to throw gobs of money at this guy. In fact, back in October I figured he'd make a pretty good desperation yardstick, that he was one of the offseason's booby prizes, that you could assume any team that signed him had more cash than brains. Not going to change that opinion just because the Reds wound up being the team that landed him.

Doesn't look like it adds up to very good team to me. Though I'm in a distinct minority on that.


What do you suggest the Reds should have done with the players available? All of the players that the Reds signed are better than the player they are replacing. You have to realize the market. It is my belief that the Reds stole Paul Wilson, in this market. I'll be the first to tell you that he is not a #1 pitcher or even a #3 pitcher on most teams, but in this market, he is worth every penny that the Reds signed him for. Do you not think that if he was out there right now that someone wouldn't give him more? Joe Randa is better than Ryan Freel, I like Ryan, but I don't think he will be as successful as Joe Randa has been over the long term.

I think that Eric Milton will prove to be a very good pitcher. Was he worth 25.5 million over 3 years? Probably not, but who is? It is my belief that very few players are worth the kind of money that they get, but that is the current market. If the Reds want to be contenders, or at least, a Major League Baseball team, they have to spend what the market bares at the time. You can't keep hoping that Todd Van Poppel or a Jimmy Anderson has a career year. I would much rather give the money to Milton based on the kind of arm he has.

Kent Mercker is a premiere left-handed specialist. He is simply one of the best lefties out there. Do you not think that Boston, New York, LA, etc, would not love to have this guy? I think that we simply got lucky getting him due to location. As for Weathers and Weber, I don't know about them, I haven't watched them enough the past couple of years to really give you an opinion on them.

Ramon Ortiz, sure we should have probably waited and tried to sign him on the open market, but I highly doubt we could have gotten him for any less than, if you add up Mosely and the money, what we signed him for.

If the Reds will sign 1 more starter and make a trade for a shortsop, I have no reason to believe that they won't make a run at the wildcard, at least. Don't forget that Houston and Chicago won't be nearly as good as they have been. St. Louis, they have the hitting, but they have lost some key pieces such as Kline, Matheny, and Womack. They did get a great pitcher, but it's very hard to return to the top of the mountain. I think the Reds have a realistic chance of finishing with 90 wins and the wildcard. Do I bet the farm on it, no, but I think it's realistic if we can add a couple more players.

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 02:52 PM
Defeatist Rhetoric??? What if it's the truth? "The fact that something didn't happen in no way means that it couldn't have." It doesn't mean it could have either. Ok so let's assume for the sake of it, that Perez and Clement and Miller said no to the Reds, what would you have done differently, who would you have signed, for what offer? What leads you to believe that your deals could have been done?

Ok, let's assume that only Eric Milton was truly available and that no other talent could have possibly wanted to come to Cincinnati at any price for the sake of argument.

I'd have put my checkbook back in my pocket and would have kindly thanked Eric Milton for considering the Reds. I would have saved that cash to be used at a later date...maybe when a high-dollar pitcher would have been available in a trade after his team figured out that they were out of the race.

Of course, we're assuming that no one else was possibly available at any price. I disagree with that position but, if true, then doing nothing was preferable to signing Eric Milton- particularly since the Reds gave him four million dollars before he'd thrown a single pitch for the franchise.

RosieRed
12-28-2004, 02:53 PM
Defeatist Rhetoric??? What if it's the truth? "The fact that something didn't happen in no way means that it couldn't have." It doesn't mean it could have either. Ok so let's assume for the sake of it, that Perez and Clement and Miller said no to the Reds, what would you have done differently, who would you have signed, for what offer? What leads you to believe that your deals could have been done?

Sometimes it's the moves you don't make that help your club. Or something like that.

I'm not Steel, but I'll step in and say this: If the Reds couldn't find a starting pitcher that is actually good, or a starting pitcher that is average but could be had for less than $25.5M, then why not just NOT sign one? Why not take that $25M and go to Dunn and say "We recognize what we have in you, and we want you around for some years in the future. Let's talk LTC."

Regardless of all of our speculation, it is not OUR job to improve this team. It is Dan O'Brien's job. And what exactly has he done? Acquired average, and in some cases below average players, some of whom may or may not have carpal tunnel or a knee with no cartilage in it, all for quite a few dollars.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 02:54 PM
the point is if you pick a HS pitcher in the first round, unless you have the first pick, and that HS pitcher is the concencus pick, then you more than likely punted your first pick.

It is more of a risk but there is always that possibility that Homer ends up being a Beckett or Wood or Greincke.

While Homer was a risky pick as Nelson would have been, can't say it was a bad pick until he does not succeed.

The safe pick would have been Townsend.

TRF
12-28-2004, 02:56 PM
True, but he had an old man's knee a year ago. now it's a year older.

See the list woy posted about recent HS pitchers. now that's scary. And as for the why can't Homer Bailey be that guy question, Ty Howington says hi.

Freel was better than Randa in every category except fielding % last year. So why is Randa an upgrade? Especially when it costs the team 50 points of OB and 35+steals a year.

westofyou
12-28-2004, 02:57 PM
Why not take that $25M and go to Dunn and say "We recognize what we have in you, and we want you around for some years in the future. Let's talk LTC."

What if Dunn replies, "Why should we? you won't even sign any FA pitchers and you can't develop your own."

flyer85
12-28-2004, 02:57 PM
has there ever been a great pitcher come straight out of high school?

The only HS pitcher in recent memory who pitched little in the minors before exploding on the majors would have been the 19 year old Dwight Gooden.

Gooden pitched 1 short season and 1 full season in the minors.

There is certainly a lot of evidence in the case of Gooden that the early heavy workload didn't help him. He threw 270+ innings at the age of 20 and was never as good after that and was basically done at 28.

I don't want a high school pitcher given a heavy workload before age 22. Will be interesting to see how many innings KC allows Greincke to throw this year.

westofyou
12-28-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan
has there ever been a great pitcher come straight out of high school?

Gary Nolan, Bob Feller, Larry Dierker and Mike McCormick are the recent ones.

RosieRed
12-28-2004, 03:02 PM
If's, maybe's, hope so's, questions marks and Keeps us in the game's. Tell me one sure thing in baseball, isn't everything a gamble? Is there any guarantee that even the big unit does well next year? Could it not be the year he finally bottoms out at his age? Could Odalis not sink in a new stadium that isn't so pitcher friendly? What else does any team have to hang it's head on but if's, maybes and hope so's?

Sure it's all a gamble. But if you weigh the odds, you're going to win more hands than if you throw the odds out the window altogether.

M2
12-28-2004, 03:03 PM
It is my belief that the Reds stole Paul Wilson, in this market. I'll be the first to tell you that he is not a #1 pitcher or even a #3 pitcher on most teams, but in this market, he is worth every penny that the Reds signed him for.

Right there in a nutshell is where you and I depart. If you're not good enough to be a #3 pitcher on most (and I'm assuming here you mean good) teams, then I'm not paying you $4M per.

The idea isn't to spend the money for the sake of spending the money. The idea is to spend the money on identifiably good players. IMO, the Reds haven't done that. They've still got what could be one of the worst rotations in baseball (won't surprise me in the least if they're in the bottom quarter in ERA and bottom tenth in IP). To spend $16M and still be in that boat is a sin of the cardinal variety.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 03:03 PM
Ok, let's assume that only Eric Milton was truly available and that no other talent could have possibly wanted to come to Cincinnati at any price for the sake of argument.

I'd have put my checkbook back in my pocket and would have kindly thanked Eric Milton for considering the Reds. I would have saved that cash to be used at a later date...maybe when a high-dollar pitcher would have been available in a trade after his team figured out that they were out of the race.

Of course, we're assuming that no one else was possibly available at any price. I disagree with that position but, if true, then doing nothing was preferable to signing Eric Milton- particularly since the Reds gave him four million dollars before he'd thrown a single pitch for the franchise.

Ok, so Perez and Miller say no to the reds, which by the way they did, you put the money back in your pocket? Do you think that the reds are better off without Eric Milton on their team? Why do you think that this will keep us from doing something down the road?

And just one more question steel, what was the last move the reds made that you liked? Any of you that are against this move, I pose that question to.

RosieRed
12-28-2004, 03:06 PM
What if Dunn replies, "Why should we? you won't even sign any FA pitchers and you can't develop your own."

Well, then at least you know where Dunn stands, and in the process you haven't just given Eric Milton $25M.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 03:07 PM
Eric Milton- particularly since the Reds gave him four million dollars before he'd thrown a single pitch for the franchise.

I am guessing that the reason of the signing bonus was so the money went on the 2004 books, not the 2005 books. One Milton signed the deal the money is obligated.

Jpup
12-28-2004, 03:08 PM
Right there in a nutshell is where you and I depart. If you're not good enough to be a #3 pitcher on most (and I'm assuming here you mean good) teams, then I'm not paying you $4M per.

The idea isn't to spend the money for the sake of spending the money. The idea is to spend the money on identifiably good players. IMO, the Reds haven't done that. They've still got what could be one of the worst rotations in baseball (won't surprise me in the least if they're in the bottom quarter in ERA and bottom tenth in IP). To spend $16M and still be in that boat is a sin of the cardinal variety.

Where are you going to find a pitcher as good as Wilson for less than $4 million per? I'm not seeing any.

M2
12-28-2004, 03:13 PM
And just one more question steel, what was the last move the reds made that you liked? Any of you that are against this move, I pose that question to.

D'Angelo Jiminez and the 2003 draft. There's been other moves that I haven't minded since then, but those are the last two moves I really liked. Actually I really like the Ben Kozlowski pickup too, though that's more a case of a minor move with high upside.

Here's my question to folks who've reflexively liked every move the Reds have made in recent years, at what point do you recognize that not every move is a sure-fire winner?

RosieRed
12-28-2004, 03:17 PM
Ok, so Perez and Miller say no to the reds, which by the way they did, you put the money back in your pocket? Do you think that the reds are better off without Eric Milton on their team? Why do you think that this will keep us from doing something down the road?

And just one more question steel, what was the last move the reds made that you liked? Any of you that are against this move, I pose that question to.

The Reds of today are better with Milton on their team. But signing FAs doesn't happen in a vacuum. The budget of this team has been discussed ad nausem on here. How many times have we heard that this team just can't afford to carry multiple big contracts, such as Griffey, Casey, Graves? And now we have Milton's contract on top of that. Is there going to be even more money available in the future, when Dunn and Kearns and even WMP are going to be making millions?

Everything in recent Reds history indicates that for every salary move, there are consequences. Why should we expect that to all of a sudden be untrue?

The last move(s) I really and truly liked that the Reds made, off the top of my head: trading for Jimenez, and the Reitsma trade. Also, I don't mind the Mercker signing this year, and I thought we were lucky to get what we got for Cory Lidle and Todd Jones last year.

Jpup
12-28-2004, 03:18 PM
D'Angelo Jiminez and the 2003 draft. There's been other moves that I haven't minded since then, but those are the last two moves I really liked. Actually I really like the Ben Kozlowski pickup too, though that's more a case of a minor move with high upside.

Here's my question to folks who've reflexively liked every move the Reds have made in recent years, at what point do you recognize that not every move is a sure-fire winner?

I don't think that any move that a team makes is a sure fire winner. You know that. He could have the best stats in the world, but he could break his leg and then it would be a bad move.

I think the fence is being optimistic vs. be pessimistic. C'mon at least give them a chance to fail. :MandJ:

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 03:18 PM
I'm not calling it a sure fire winner, what I am calling it is a step in the right direction, a breath of fresh air to see some effort being put into this team. I just see some people who aren't happy if moves aren't being made and aren't happy if they are. I hope these people have more optimism in their personal lives than they do with the Reds. ;)

Jpup
12-28-2004, 03:20 PM
I'm not calling it a sure fire winner, what I am calling it is a step in the right direction, a breath of fresh air to see some effort being put into this team. I just see some people who aren't happy if moves aren't being made and aren't happy if they are. I hope these people have more optimism in their personal lives than they do with the Reds. ;)

I'm starting to find myself agreeing with you more everyday. :crossfing

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 03:24 PM
Ok, so Perez and Miller say no to the reds, which by the way they did, you put the money back in your pocket? Do you think that the reds are better off without Eric Milton on their team? Why do you think that this will keep us from doing something down the road?

I don't see the Reds being significantly better with Eric Milton on the team. So yes, I put the money back in my pocket and save it for a player who'll actually make a difference (note: having 9M to play with a couple seasons ago would have meant landing Scott Rolen in trade).

The contract Milton signed- and particularly the signing bonus- reeks of a desperate attempt to establish credibility. Yet, I'd consider the Reds to be more credible if they'd put the checkbook away and done nothing OR signed a better player regardless of the dollar value of the contract.

And if Perez or Miller or Clement said "no" to the Reds, you find out what would make them say "yes". If you can justify the Milton contract, then you've just identified Matt Clement as a player who's worth geometrically more money to you so you pay it. But if what you need isn't available, buying what you don't need at the same price isn't exactly the smartest thing to do.

In any case, what you just paid Eric Milton just set a standard for what mediocrity is worth to the Reds. Joy.


And just one more question steel, what was the last move the reds made that you liked? Any of you that are against this move, I pose that question to.

Dumping Lidle and moving Todd Jones at the deadline. I also supported the Reitsma trade. So you'll have to excuse me for disrupting that picture you're attempting to paint showing me hating on everything Dan O'Brien does or says just for the heck of it.

<Edit: I also liked the signing of Jimenez this offseason and the Mercker acquisition should be a small help>

He gets props from me when he does something truly significant for the franchise. No sooner.

westofyou
12-28-2004, 03:25 PM
Well, then at least you know where Dunn stands, and in the process you haven't just given Eric Milton $25M.

Then O'Brien is negotiating from a disadvantage. As for the 25 million, 4 will go against the 2004 books and he has an out clause himself, that 25 could be seen as 13 over the next 2 seasons in relation to those 2 budgets.

It's hard enough to worry about a business budget I have no control over for one season much alone 3.

For all we know the Reds could be watching the progress of Dunns money handling, or other assets (like his new home being built) and waiting until it's done and then swooping in to make an offer when he has to start filling it up with furniture and paying the mortgage.

IMO the team owns the guy and they're probably scoping out a deal, waiting for the right time to offer years, meanwhile they worry about contracts like Burrell and the history of players with "old ballplayer skills"

M2
12-28-2004, 03:32 PM
Where are you going to find a pitcher as good as Wilson for less than $4 million per? I'm not seeing any.

Again, totally the wrong question to ask. The Reds should be looking to make impact additions not, as Steel aptly termed it, hamster-wheel additions.

There were 25 free agent pitchers who were looking for multi-year deals with some reasonable expectation of getting one. Most of those pitchers were worth avoiding.

The Reds had money to spend, there's no longer any disputing that point. If they couldn't land the free agents they wanted, then they should have gone to the trade market and looked to make that work.

Before this offseason ends, some teams will bottomfish better pitchers than Paul Wilson, happens every year. The world's full of better pitchers than Paul Wilson. It's neither a privilege nor a distinction to have him in your rotation.

RosieRed
12-28-2004, 03:33 PM
I'm not calling it a sure fire winner, what I am calling it is a step in the right direction, a breath of fresh air to see some effort being put into this team. I just see some people who aren't happy if moves aren't being made and aren't happy if they are. I hope these people have more optimism in their personal lives than they do with the Reds. ;)

Ryan, with all due respect: If you think signing an average pitcher to a $25M deal is a step in the right direction, that's great. It's also your opinion, and someone isn't inherently pessimistic just because they disagree.

Caveat Emperor
12-28-2004, 03:34 PM
D'Angelo Jiminez and the 2003 draft. There's been other moves that I haven't minded since then, but those are the last two moves I really liked. Actually I really like the Ben Kozlowski pickup too, though that's more a case of a minor move with high upside.

Here's my question to folks who've reflexively liked every move the Reds have made in recent years, at what point do you recognize that not every move is a sure-fire winner?

I know I haven't been posting on this board much (It was only the recent furry of FA activity that motivated me to actually get an account and stop lurking), but I have to say that I regard D'Angelo Jimenez as living proof that you cannot base a GM philosophy on sabermetrics and statistics alone.

Jimenez is seemingly beloved by every Reds fan who considers himself/herself to be a person that understands the game of baseball. This is a natural thing: he's upper-50th percentile among 2B in just about every measureable stat and, in some cases, lurking in the top-10. D'Angelo Jimenez does all of these things, but despite all the numbers, I cannot find a single thign that the man does well. Sure, he doesn't embarass you in any facet of the game, but he dosen't excell at any partciular aspect of the game.

I've come to the conclusion that most of the so-called "knowledgeable" Reds fans have resigned themselves to a belief that the Reds must, under all circumstances, play it safe. They have to slavishly follow stats like OPS, Runs vs Replacement, and whatever else gets cooked up by dividing number of IBBs by Slugging Percentage during months with more than three vowels. Unfortunately, playing it safe and going by the numbers can only work for so long. D'Angelo Jimenez is the living embodiment of "playing it safe," in that regard. The fact that you think D'Angelo Jimenez is the best thing the Reds have done, IMO, speaks volumes as to where you think this ballclub should be headed.

If you want to be a winning ballclub, there are risks along the way. If you want to be a winning small-market ballclub, those risks are magnified because you cannot underwrite a failure the way NY does. Of course a lot of people want the Reds just to sit back, save their money, and keep developing right along. Somebody call up to PNC Park or Miller Park and ask their FOs how "sitting back and doing nothing" is working for them.

Not every move is a surefire winner, but not every move is a surefire loser. I don't think any of us can armchair quarterback this kinda stuff.

-CE

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 03:35 PM
Ok so we shouldn't have resigned Wilson, we shouldn't have traded for Ortiz, shouldn't have signed Milton, and shouldn't have signed Randa, so we go into the season with a payroll at hi 30's low 40's, haven't improved the team, lose our most consistent starter from last year, somehow I have a feeling some folks around here would be yelling a bit. But hey, we kept the money in our pocket.

Jpup
12-28-2004, 03:42 PM
Again, totally the wrong question to ask. The Reds should be looking to make impact additions not, as Steel aptly termed it, hamster-wheel additions.

There were 25 free agent pitchers who were looking for multi-year deals with some reasonable expectation of getting one. Most of those pitchers were worth avoiding.

The Reds had money to spend, there's no longer any disputing that point. If they couldn't land the free agents they wanted, then they should have gone to the trade market and looked to make that work.

Before this offseason ends, some teams will bottomfish better pitchers than Paul Wilson, happens every year. The world's full of better pitchers than Paul Wilson. It's neither a privilege nor a distinction to have him in your rotation.


So you don't think that Paul Wilson is a decent pitcher? I think he's faired pretty well in Cincinnati the past couple of years considering the circumstances. I do think he make the Reds a better team even at $4 million per.

M2
12-28-2004, 03:49 PM
I'm not calling it a sure fire winner, what I am calling it is a step in the right direction, a breath of fresh air to see some effort being put into this team. I just see some people who aren't happy if moves aren't being made and aren't happy if they are. I hope these people have more optimism in their personal lives than they do with the Reds. ;)

I hear that same sappy line of thinking every offseason. Heard it with Cory Lidle. Heard it with the Todd Walker (people really liked the Brandon Larson direction) and the first Paul Wilson signing. Heard it with Joey Hamilton. Hear it every time the Reds announce a signing or trade. Heck, go and check the lovefest that accompanied the Gabe White trade this past summer.

Technically speaking, every move the organization makes reflects effort being put into the team. Doesn't change the fact that the Reds have collected demonstrably below average starting pitchers and now folks are expecting above average results from them.

Frankly, this discussion is real Groundhog Day for me. Sure I'm just negative/trying to look smart/a bad fan for taking a sober look at these pitchers and noting their fairly obvious deficiencies. Run with that.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 03:53 PM
I'm OK with the signing Milton under one condition ... that the money spent on signing Milton doesn't preclude the signing of others.

As long as the Reds will still be willing to spend money to keep their own players and signing Milton didn't remove money from the pool available, then I don't have a problem that they overspent.

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 03:53 PM
D'Angelo Jimenez does all of these things, but despite all the numbers, I cannot find a single thign that the man does well.

You mean except being worth more Runs offensively than all but 7 other MLB Second Basemen?

He's not just "safe". He's productive.


I've come to the conclusion that most of the so-called "knowledgeable" Reds fans have resigned themselves to a belief that the Reds must, under all circumstances, play it safe.

Then you've misinterpreted what has been said.

Play it SMART. Not "safe". SMART. Embrace risk, but only when there is a reasonable chance of payoff. Period. Smart. End of story. Nothing more to explain.

There simply isn't a high-level payoff for the 9M risk in reference to Eric Milton. There's no way to possibly get nine million dollars of value from the guy. There's no risk/performance equity in play. None.

Risky? Yes. Smart? No.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 03:57 PM
There's no way to possibly get nine million dollars of value from the guy. There's no risk/performance equity in play. None.

No way Milton has a good year? No way he's worth that money? Say Milton wins 20 games, what do you say then?

flyer85
12-28-2004, 03:58 PM
D'Angelo Jimenez does all of these things, but despite all the numbers, I cannot find a single thing that the man does well.
-CE

Translation - all the objective data says he's a solid player but he still sucks.

TRF
12-28-2004, 03:58 PM
That he got record run support.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 03:59 PM
No way Milton has a good year? No way he's worth that money? Say Milton wins 20 games, what do you say then?

You would have had a better shot if you said a 3.50ERA and 1.15WHIP while pitching 200+ inings.

M2
12-28-2004, 04:01 PM
So you don't think that Paul Wilson is a decent pitcher? I think he's faired pretty well in Cincinnati the past couple of years considering the circumstances. I do think he make the Reds a better team even at $4 million per.

I think I spent enough time over the past two years delving into exactly why Paul Wilson's no better than a #4 starter (something you alluded to higher in this thread) and not even that on a playoff-bound team not to have to rehash it for a guy with 113 posts. Nothing personal, but I'm not going to spend the rest of my life having the same discussion with every newbie who comes to the board.

Go here:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wilsopa02.shtml

Look at the ERA+ column.

Caveat, there's a reason why the Reds have been a losing team for the past four season. They make poor decisions. I've been amazed at how easy they've been to spot up front.

As for Jiminez, he's a competent offensive ballplayer who gets by on defense. Good pickup for a AA reliever. He was the equivalent of a free second baseman. Would I build a team around the guy? No and I never suggested anything of the sort. Was he a really good pickup in a league where a lot of teams have a gaping hole at 2B? You bet your bippy he was.

Playadlc
12-28-2004, 04:01 PM
Oh, it's happened. And rather recently at that:

2001 Anaheim Angels

Runs Scored- 691
Runs Allowed- 730

2002 Anaheim Angels

Runs Scored- 851 (+160)
Runs Allowed- 644 (-86)

Run Differential Swing- 246

I've done some research on that in the past, and what happened in Anaheim in 2002 is truly historical.

But alas, where the Angels needed a swing of only 39 Runs to get to the .500 mark, the Reds need 157. To get to the playoffs? Well, let's just say that betting on a second lightning strike is generally a bad wager.

Not to get completely off track here, but how do injuries play into the Pythagorean? Like last year we didn't have Griffey the entire 2nd half and Kearns for basically the entire year. Those are arguably our best two players and they missed a considerable amount of time. You have to think our run differential would have been a lot closer had those two played longer.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 04:02 PM
I know Flyer, I wanted to go at it from this angle, he could have all you said and still go 5-15. And I understand the Saber folks are all about those stats when they are looking at potential, but do they matter if he goes 20-7 with a 4.80 ERA, 1.85 WHIP, or for that matter if he goes 20-7 does it matter what any of the rest of his stats are? Well, that's an argument for another thread. I don't disagree with saber evaluation, only that I believe some only look at that and not other factors.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 04:04 PM
but how do injuries play into the Pythagorean?

They don't. It is based on run differential, not what may have happened if everyone was healthy.

BTW, if you're expecting a healthy Jr in 2005 I have a bridge and some swampland you might like to buy.

Playadlc
12-28-2004, 04:07 PM
They don't. It is based on run differential, not what may have happened if everyone was healthy.

BTW, if you're expecting a healthy Jr in 2005 I have a bridge and some swampland you might like to buy.

Okay. I never said I expected Jr. to stay healthy the entire year. But there is a chance he can, right? My only point is that if Kearns and Griffey stay healthy, I think there is a good chance for this team to score more runs than their opponents for the year.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 04:08 PM
but do they matter if he goes 20-7 with a 4.80 ERA, 1.85 WHIP, or for that matter if he goes 20-7 does it matter what any of the rest of his stats are?

Yes it does because the W-L stat has too much noise in the data. If the Reds are giving Milton enough support to win 20 with a 4.8ERA you can count on the fact that some other Reds pitcher is getting the bad luck of pitching with poor run support. Unless you think the Reds are going to score 1000+ runs this year.

M2
12-28-2004, 04:09 PM
No way Milton has a good year? No way he's worth that money? Say Milton wins 20 games, what do you say then?

I'd say we're living inside of your solipsistic universe.

Say Eric Milton has yet another season with an ERA in high 4.00s (career 4.76 ERA), surrendering gobs of homers along the way. In other words, say Eric Milton pitches like he's Eric Milton, what do you say then?

flyer85
12-28-2004, 04:10 PM
But there is a chance he can, right?

Yes there is. However, counting on it would be foolhardy.

If the Reds are smart they should count on no more than 250 ABs from Jr.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 04:12 PM
solipsistic universe.


Thanks, Howard.

----> [goes off to look that one up]

michst
12-28-2004, 04:24 PM
Ok I did some quick numbers crunching using the ballpark adjustment on ESPN
I assumed that the pitchers pitched 1/2 their innings at home and adjusted their ERAs from their old team to GABP:
ERA Home Runs
Cincinnati 0.847 1.048
Philly 1.024 1.134
Anaheim 0.972 1.062

Assume 50% of innings and Homers occur at home Adjusted Adjusted
2004 ERA 2004 HR Adjusted ERA Adjusted HR
Eric Milton 4.75 43 4.339477539 41.36948854
Ramon Ortiz 4.43 16 4.145149177 15.89453861

While a 4.33 and 4.14 isn't amazing its much much better than anything else we had last year. Between Claussen, Van Popple, Acevedo and Sanchez started about 50 games last year. With ERAs - 5.9,6.0,6.1 and 7.1. Milton and Ortiz starting based on last years numbers means the Reds give up about 60 less runs.

I didn't look at the bullpen but you have to figure it will give up a lot less runs also. Get Kearns or Griffey healthy most of the year, and there could be a remarkable turnaround.

Hooligan
12-28-2004, 04:28 PM
Without negativity we would all be Yankee fans.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 04:34 PM
I'd say we're living inside of your solipsistic universe.

Say Eric Milton has yet another season with an ERA in high 4.00s (career 4.76 ERA), surrendering gobs of homers along the way. In other words, say Eric Milton pitches like he's Eric Milton, what do you say then?

I say it's still better than what we had before we signed him. But I'll have to wait and see what happens.

Aronchis
12-28-2004, 04:35 PM
I don't get the Griffey love. Even his "healthy" half he wasn't a great ballplayer, lesser than Casey and Dunn. Even if he is "healthy", I am not sure he is a better player than WMP right now. His best role is swapping DL spots with Kearns every 1-2 months :allovrjr:

.

Reds1
12-28-2004, 04:37 PM
I'll tell you what there is a lot of fire in Reds fans these days. Did you see the Milton signed post. 550 replies and 12,964 views. For the off season that's pretty impressive.

Just for the record I"m very positive on the Reds and am very excited. It's not really my job as a fan to worry about who paid what for who. I just see the Reds making an effort to retain talent and add talent. Upgrades all around mean a more competative team and that's what I'm excited about. Face it. Winning a WS takes not only skill from players, but a lot of luck. You could add Schilling, Randy Johnson, and Pedro and no WS is guaranteed. I just know the other teams in the division are not much stronger if not weaker and we are much better, deeper, etc. etc.

Go Reds! :gac:

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 04:37 PM
Not to get completely off track here, but how do injuries play into the Pythagorean? Like last year we didn't have Griffey the entire 2nd half and Kearns for basically the entire year. Those are arguably our best two players and they missed a considerable amount of time. You have to think our run differential would have been a lot closer had those two played longer.

Actually, using reasonable projections and rate stats, you can create a Runs Created model that can be adjusted by PA for offensive players. So yes, you can factor injuries in to a team's Run Differential before the season starts if you want to. You can do the same with Pitchers.

flyer85
12-28-2004, 04:40 PM
I don't get the Griffey love. Even his "healthy" half he wasn't a great ballplayer, lesser than Casey and Dunn. Even if he is "healthy", I am not sure he is a better player than WMP right now. His best role is swapping DL spots with Kearns every 1-2 months :allovrjr:

.

Them be fightin' words roun' here.

M2
12-28-2004, 04:45 PM
I say it's still better than what we had before we signed him. But I'll have to wait and see what happens.

Why? You didn't have to wait when you were inventing the unlikely animal that is Eric Milton 20-game winner and resident ace.

So what if the likely occurs? What if what you've seen is what you get with Eric Milton?

You're pretty quick to conclude that an entire section of posters here are awful, negative folks and thus I ask again, say Eric Milton pitches like he's Eric Milton, what do you say then?

michst
12-28-2004, 04:47 PM
Ok I lied about the 60 runs that Ortiz and Milton would have saved us.

Acevedo (157 IP,144 Earned Runs), Van Poppel (115,78), Claussen (66,45), Sanchez (14,12) together pitched 352 innings and gave up 279 Earned Runs.

If Ortiz and Milton pitch 180 innings and have the same adjusted ballpark ERAs as last year - (4.13 for Ortiz, 4.33 Milton) They would give up 83 and 87 Earned Runs or 170 in 360 Innings.

Thats a savings of 119 Runs right there. If you don't adjust their ERA's its still a savings of 90 Runs.

M2
12-28-2004, 04:56 PM
Ok I lied about the 60 runs that Ortiz and Milton would have saved us.

Acevedo (157 IP,144 Earned Runs), Van Poppel (115,78), Claussen (66,45), Sanchez (14,12) together pitched 352 innings and gave up 279 Earned Runs.

If Ortiz and Milton pitch 180 innings and have the same adjusted ballpark ERAs as last year - (4.13 for Ortiz, 4.33 Milton) They would give up 83 and 87 Earned Runs or 170 in 360 Innings.

Thats a savings of 119 Runs right there. If you don't adjust their ERA's its still a savings of 90 Runs.

Who replaces Lidle? And why are you taking the low estimate on Ortiz when his work as a starter was far less encouraging?

Every year, during and after the season, folks identify the worst pitchers on the staff and insist the new guys who've come in will improve the mix. And every year they overestimate the quality of the new guys and underestimate the teeming reservoir of bad pitchers the Reds still have to draw upon to pitch innings for their team.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 05:04 PM
Why? You didn't have to wait when you were inventing the unlikely animal that is Eric Milton 20-game winner and resident ace.

So what if the likely occurs? What if what you've seen is what you get with Eric Milton?

You're pretty quick to conclude that an entire section of posters here are awful, negative folks and thus I ask again, say Eric Milton pitches like he's Eric Milton, what do you say then?

I say I'll take the 13-14 wins he's averaged over the last full 4 seasons. So I'll take Eric Milton. And I wasn't inventing that, it's called a hypothetical. Hey his history shows he averages 13-14 wins, I'll take that if you want to go straight stats.

michst
12-28-2004, 05:04 PM
Who replaces Lidle? And why are you taking the low estimate on Ortiz when his work as a starter was far less encouraging?

Every year, during and after the season, folks identify the worst pitchers on the staff and insist the new guys who've come in will improve the mix. And every year they overestimate the quality of the new guys and underestimate the teeming reservoir of bad pitchers the Reds still have to draw upon to pitch innings for their team.

Lidle's starts will be taken over by Hudson. Its not like Lidle pitched well for the Reds - he gave up 88 earned runs in 150 innings (5.32ERA).

I took the total season ERAs for Ortiz and all the pitches (including Acevedo who did much better as releiver than starter).

Just trying to show that Ortiz and Milton are pretty big upgrades over what we started last year. And the 157 run differential isn't unsurmountable. I did not even include Jimmy Haynes stellar 4 starts giving up 16 runs in 15 innings.

M2
12-28-2004, 05:22 PM
I say I'll take the 13-14 wins he's averaged over the last full 4 seasons. So I'll take Eric Milton. And I wasn't inventing that, it's called a hypothetical. Hey his history shows he averages 13-14 wins, I'll take that if you want to go straight stats.

Do the Reds give him the 5.85 runs of support he got from the Phillies last year?

This isn't hard. Say Milton pitches like he pitches every season and the Reds score their average amount of runs for him. That's how you perform a realistic W-L projection, not by picking a number out of the air.

His history shows he was a pretty good pitcher from 1999-2001 and not so good from 2002-2004. I sincerely doubt you're fine with the 2002-2004 model. I know I'm not. Then again, I'm just a negative, horrible, unhappy person.

MikeS21
12-28-2004, 05:24 PM
I say I'll take the 13-14 wins he's averaged over the last full 4 seasons. So I'll take Eric Milton. And I wasn't inventing that, it's called a hypothetical. Hey his history shows he averages 13-14 wins, I'll take that if you want to go straight stats.
And what if the Reds offense doesn't give him the luxury of the almost 6 runs per game support for his starts? My grandmother could win 14 games if you scored almost six runs every time she pitched. Take Ramon Ortiz, for example. In 2003, the Angels provided him with the 4th best run support in the AL.

You forget that the Reds dwell in the same division as Kerry Wood, Ben Sheets, Roy Oswalt, and Oliver Perez. In fact, they may be the very pitchers Milton will match up with. It's not beyond the stretch of reality that the Reds could face each of those pitchers 4 times next year. And they aren't going to be giving up the five or six runs in order to counter the four or five runs Milton will give up. If we get the average Eric Milton pitching against the average Kerry Wood, Ben Sheets, Roy Oswalt, and Oliver Perez three times each, Milton will be 0-12 in those games. And that doesn't count any of his starts against the Cardinals, who will feature Pujols and Rolen and Edmonds and Walker as HR threats.

You see 20 wins from Milton. I see a REAL possibility of him getting 15 losses just from within our own division if we get the average Eric Milton, and not some "hope for", "what if" version where Milton wins the Cy Young.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-28-2004, 05:24 PM
Do the Reds give him the 5.85 runs of support he got from the Phillies last year?

This isn't hard. Say Milton pitches like he pitches every season and the Reds score their average amount of runs for him. That's how you perform a realistic W-L projection, not by picking a number out of the air.

His history shows he was a pretty good pitcher from 1999-2001 and not so good from 2002-2004. I sincerely doubt you're fine with the 2002-2004 model. I know I'm not. Then again, I'm just a negative, horrible, unhappy person.

M2, I'm not saying you are a horrible person, not at all. I'm saying that if Milton continues to win at the clip he has, I will be happy. You asked me if I'd be happy with Eric Milton, I told you I would be if he continues to win at that clip. capeche?

traderumor
12-28-2004, 05:27 PM
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/snlcn/franken/stuarttop.gif

Then again, I'm just a negative, horrible, unhappy person.

You are not, M2. Your name is M2, and gosh darn it, people like you.

M2
12-28-2004, 05:30 PM
M2, I'm not saying you are a horrible person, not at all. I'm saying that if Milton continues to win at the clip he has, I will be happy. You asked me if I'd be happy with Eric Milton, I told you I would be if he continues to win at that clip. capeche?

What I get is that you've got a tenuous grasp of how a pitcher collects wins. And I can't imagine where I'd get this notion that you were flaming the character of those who are looking at what Milton has done over the past three years and saying it's not worth the amount the Reds will pay him. Maybe that's just because I need to be more optimistic in my personal life.

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 05:42 PM
I'm saying that if Milton continues to win at the clip he has, I will be happy. You asked me if I'd be happy with Eric Milton, I told you I would be if he continues to win at that clip. capeche?

In 2004, Eric Milton led all of MLB in Wins recorded (4) while posting Non-Quality Starts (i.e. Cheap Wins). He was tied for ninth among all MLB Starting Pitchers in Run Support (6.54 Runs Per Game).

Just to give that it's proper perspective, if a team scored 6.54 Runs per game over a season, they'd have scored about 100 Runs MORE than the top scoring MLB team last season.

In 2003, Brett Tomko went 13-9. Not difficult to do, even with a 5.28 ERA, considering that he received 6.75 Runs per Game in support that year. Derek Lowe posted a 14-12 record with a 5.42 ERA last season. Why? His team scored an average of 7.29 Runs per Game when he pitched.

The fact is that, since 2001, I can't find a single MLB Starting Pitcher who put up a losing record while receiving 6.00 or more Runs per Game in support of his efforts- regardless of how mediocre those efforts were. There are some good pitchers on that list. And there are some pitchers who performed poorly on that list but reaped the benefits from their respective offenses. Milton is one of the latter.

Where you see Wins and attribute them to Pitcher skill, I see Losses that should have been.

redsfan30
12-28-2004, 05:58 PM
I don't get the Griffey love. Even his "healthy" half he wasn't a great ballplayer, lesser than Casey and Dunn. Even if he is "healthy", I am not sure he is a better player than WMP right now. His best role is swapping DL spots with Kearns every 1-2 months :allovrjr:

.
Wily Mo Pena has had (half of) one year of success. Ken Griffey Jr. has had 15 years of success. Yes, I know you said "right now." But let's let Wily Mo have at least a full good season before we start calling him a better overall option that a Hall of Famer.

Caveat Emperor
12-28-2004, 07:37 PM
And what if the Reds offense doesn't give him the luxury of the almost 6 runs per game support for his starts? My grandmother could win 14 games if you scored almost six runs every time she pitched. Take Ramon Ortiz, for example. In 2003, the Angels provided him with the 4th best run support in the AL.

Does it occur to anyone that pitchers change their approach when being spotted a lot of runs?

If you're given solid cushions when you pitch, then your new goal is to throw strikes and get batters to put the ball in play. There's no need to go full on every batter when you're up 7-0 (a fact you wouldn't know by watching Aaron Harang pitch).

What is Milton's record in 1-run games? That, to me, is a better measure of a pitcher's moxy than speculating on how bad he is when he gives up 5 while already up by 11.

-JMKB

Caveat Emperor
12-28-2004, 08:06 PM
Translation - all the objective data says he's a solid player but he still sucks.

Translation: The objective data says he is a solid player, but every single bit of circumstantial evidence I have personally seen (watching Reds games, watching other players, looking at the value of his contract, looking at the obvious disinterest in retaining him the White Sox had) taken in the totality of the circumstance tells me that D'Angelo Jimenez is not the player he gets credit in the sabermetrics for being.

It's the reason I hate all these new baseball statistics, they scrape away the fun of the game, IMO.

-CE

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 08:12 PM
What is Milton's record in 1-run games? That, to me, is a better measure of a pitcher's moxy than speculating on how bad he is when he gives up 5 while already up by 11.

1-2, and only one of those games qualifies as a Quality Start.

Your other assertion never happened in 2004.

Milton picked up a cheap Win on June 29th when the Phillies put 17 Runs on the board against the Expos. The Phillies spotted Milton an 8-2 lead after the third Inning and Milton couldn't hold it. After throwing 102 Pitches through five IP and walking 4 while striking out one hitter and allowing 7 Runs to cross the plate, Milton was mercifully pulled. The Phillies then threw up a six spot in the bottom of the fifth and Milton picked up about the ugliest Win you can imagine due to his offense's performance after almost blowing a game that should have been neatly tucked away.

Yeah. Good "moxie".

Redmachine2003
12-28-2004, 08:52 PM
Why? You didn't have to wait when you were inventing the unlikely animal that is Eric Milton 20-game winner and resident ace.

So what if the likely occurs? What if what you've seen is what you get with Eric Milton?

You're pretty quick to conclude that an entire section of posters here are awful, negative folks and thus I ask again, say Eric Milton pitches like he's Eric Milton, what do you say then?
I enjoy the fact that he won 70% of his decisions and move on.

M2
12-28-2004, 09:03 PM
I enjoy the fact that he won 70% of his decisions and move on.

I prefer pork to chicken in a burrito. It's got about as much to with how well Milton's going to pitch with the Reds.

CougarQuest
12-28-2004, 09:18 PM
Pork in a Burrito? My gawd man, were you born in a cave?!?!?

:MandJ:

M2
12-28-2004, 09:22 PM
Pork in a Burrito? My gawd man, were you born in a cave?!?!?

:MandJ:

I could be wrong about this, but I think pork's the industry standard burrito stuffing in Mexico.

pedro
12-28-2004, 09:23 PM
Pork in a Burrito? My gawd man, were you born in a cave?!?!?

:MandJ:

I don't like it myself but actually pork in green sauce is a pretty standard option in a lot of authentic taqueria's.

Whether or not that means M2 lives in a cave, I'll leave up to you.

I know I do.

CougarQuest
12-28-2004, 09:26 PM
Do you have the statistics to back that up?

(BTW, I was only joking, trying to lighten up this thread a bit. Same goes with this posts, really no need to look up stats on pork, I'll believe you.)

pedro
12-28-2004, 09:30 PM
Do you have the statistics to back that up?



Concerning pork burritos or the the fact that I live in a cave?
:MandJ:

Raisor
12-28-2004, 09:39 PM
This is what happens when I'm at work all day and don't have internet access until I get home.

A thread like this pops up, but everything I would say has already been said.

Rats.

Roy Tucker
12-28-2004, 10:52 PM
I thought all the pre-Milton moves pretty much got the Reds back to .500. Maybe.

I haven't figured out yet what Milton does for them.

But then, I guess that's why they play all those games.

It will be interesting to see how these moves all play out.

BUTLER REDSFAN
12-28-2004, 11:09 PM
wonder if any of the reds ever read these threads?!?!?!?

Matt700wlw
12-28-2004, 11:11 PM
wonder if any of the reds ever read these threads?!?!?!?

I wouldn't

oregonred
12-29-2004, 05:17 AM
Great discussion. This is the first offseason between Oct-Opening Day in years that I've actually had much of an interest in the franchise since rarely was a pulse measured. I'd even go months without posting...

I think the difference is that if you can't develop pitching then you must overpay in the market even to find middle of the rotation guys. Wilson's contract looks like a steal for the Reds given all that transpired -- given the empty cupboard and need to run some short term CC debt as WOY eloquently stated. $4M for a #3 type starter is a BARGAIN for this franchise in its current state.

Portfolio Mgmt

high risk/high reward -- Milton. Fortunately this is only a three year deal. Quality LH are few and far between, heck Milton was 5th among LHP in K/9IP last season. Milton's a fine addition (albeit at a steep cost). For a franchise that relies on the season tix/gate as much as any in MLB and with the putrid rotation of the post 2000 era, a worthwhile roll of the dice.

low risk/high reward -- Hudson, Claussen. They are cheap and high potential and if one of them hits you're golden.

low risk/med reward -- Harang and his med-ceiling. He's cheap and serviceable until something better. Almost a godsend for a small marekt team with little home grown MLB talent like the reds.

med risk./med reward = Wilson. Almost certain to post a low 4 ERA and deliver you a ton of QS. With a better pen the Reds easily have a chance to win (and probably will win) the majority of his starts. Finding a Wilson was a must have for 2005, few names fit the bill at a $4M per year rate.

med risk/med-high reward -- Ortiz. Worth taking a flyer on someone you can control for two years if he pans out.

low risk/high reward on the open market. Good luck via FA... Agree with M2 that creative trades are the path to fill this magic solution. Teams can bottom fish for 2M per and someone out of 30 might find a Loiaza 2003 or an injury flier, but that's a high risk venture given the number of blind darts you have to toss at the board.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-29-2004, 10:47 AM
In 2004, Eric Milton led all of MLB in Wins recorded (4) while posting Non-Quality Starts (i.e. Cheap Wins). He was tied for ninth among all MLB Starting Pitchers in Run Support (6.54 Runs Per Game).

Just to give that it's proper perspective, if a team scored 6.54 Runs per game over a season, they'd have scored about 100 Runs MORE than the top scoring MLB team last season.

In 2003, Brett Tomko went 13-9. Not difficult to do, even with a 5.28 ERA, considering that he received 6.75 Runs per Game in support that year. Derek Lowe posted a 14-12 record with a 5.42 ERA last season. Why? His team scored an average of 7.29 Runs per Game when he pitched.

The fact is that, since 2001, I can't find a single MLB Starting Pitcher who put up a losing record while receiving 6.00 or more Runs per Game in support of his efforts- regardless of how mediocre those efforts were. There are some good pitchers on that list. And there are some pitchers who performed poorly on that list but reaped the benefits from their respective offenses. Milton is one of the latter.

Where you see Wins and attribute them to Pitcher skill, I see Losses that should have been.

So I ask this Steel, 1, what about other years? The 3 full years he pitched before that, I believe he averaged 13 or 14 wins as well. and 2, if Milton has a 5 ERA, wins 14 games, and get over 6 runs of support this year, will you be disappointed? And come on losses that should have been? Were they a W in the win column? Isn't that what matters? I doubt the team that lost was happy because they "should have won".

MartyFan
12-29-2004, 10:49 AM
So I ask this Steel, 1, what about other years? The 3 full years he pitched before that, I believe he averaged 13 or 14 wins as well. and 2, if Milton has a 5 ERA, wins 14 games, and get over 6 runs of support this year, will you be disappointed? And come on losses that should have been? Were they a W in the win column? Isn't that what matters? I doubt the team that lost was happy because they "should have won".


I could not agree more, a W is a W is a W no matter what.

flyer85
12-29-2004, 11:28 AM
and get over 6 runs of support this year, will you be disappointed?

Not if every other Red starter get the 6 runs of support as well.

Ravenlord
12-29-2004, 11:30 AM
it's not that the Reds are signin' (i'm happy about that), it's who the Reds are signin'

the bullpen is the only thing that has been improved to any truly meaningful level.

traderumor
12-29-2004, 11:37 AM
While we're going with the assumption that Clement > Milton, Milton = Booby Prize, they have amazingly similar career ERAs relative to league average. The primary difference is that Milton's career ERA has been on the rise since 2001, while Clement's has been lowering over the same period. However, there is that catch phrase out there "regressing to career norms." Both have good stuff, both got paid the same $, yet Clement is clearly superior? That I'm not following.

Oregon Red, nice analysis.

SteelSD
12-29-2004, 12:01 PM
So I ask this Steel, 1, what about other years? The 3 full years he pitched before that, I believe he averaged 13 or 14 wins as well. and 2, if Milton has a 5 ERA, wins 14 games, and get over 6 runs of support this year, will you be disappointed? And come on losses that should have been? Were they a W in the win column? Isn't that what matters? I doubt the team that lost was happy because they "should have won".

In 2001, Milton received 5.18 Runs per Game in support.

And yes, if Milton has a 5.00 ERA, I'll be supremely disappointed regardless of Run Support. Run Support is not a constant. It cannot be projected. It's random. If Milton posts a 5.00 ERA that means that the Reds could have plugged pretty much an schmo into the rotation for far FAR less than 8.5 million dollars while getting the same results- including recorded Wins.

Seriously, not a single sub-.500 record from a pitcher who got at least 6.00 Runs in support since 2002. Not one, no matter how badly they actually pitched. You think those Wins can be attributed to pitcher skill?

Using your logic, Randy Johnson wasn't as valuable as Derek Lowe in 2004. Not because of how they actually pitched- but because of how many Runs were scored when they were pitching. And we all know that's just not true.

Ben Sheets posted a 13-14 record. Are you telling us that Eric Milton is a preferable option to Sheets- who received 3.53 Runs per Game in support from his offense? What about Odalis Perez? Do you think that maybe his 7-6 record was a product of the Dodgers scoring an average of only 3.30 Runs per Game in his Starts despite his 3.25 ERA? Kelvim Escobar posted a record of 11-12. Why? Because he allowed 3.93 Earnies per game while his team averaged exactly 3.93 Runs Scored in games he pitched.

All of these players appear to be worse options than Milton using your "Wins are everything" reasoning. But there's not a player on that list who wasn't a geometrically better pitcher last season than Eric Milton.

The problem is that it appears you view Wins and Losses as being solely dependant on pitcher skill level. They're not. In fact, for Pitchers, Wins and Losses shouldn't even be considered performance evaluation metrics because they tell us so little about what actually happened. They're team-dependant event outcome assignments. A pitcher can't record a Win if something beyond their control doesn't perform (ie. the offense) but CAN record a win even if their performance hinders their team's chances of outscoring their opponent.

Pitcher-recorded Wins simply don't care how good or bad the Pitcher actually was. And yes, if a Pitcher posts a 5.00 ERA they're hurting their team.

All Wins are not created equal.

M2
12-29-2004, 12:26 PM
Great post Steel.

I've never understood why folks fail latch onto this concept. It's not like ERA's anything new. We all grew up with it. They print it on the backs of baseball cards and sort pitchers by it in the Sunday papers.

Give Ben Sheets Eric Milton's run support last season and he wins the Cy Young going away. Give Milton Sheets' run support and he's pushing up toward 20 losses.

flyer85
12-29-2004, 12:31 PM
Great post Steel.

I've never understood why folks fail latch onto this concept. It's not like ERA's anything new. We all grew up with it. They print it on the backs of baseball cards and sort pitchers by it in the Sunday papers.

Give Ben Sheets Eric Milton's run support last season and he wins the Cy Young going away. Give Milton Sheets' run support and he's pushing up toward 20 losses.

How about give RJ that run support. He was clearly the best pitcher in the NL last year. It was just his W-L record didn't reflect it and most Cy Young voters could get past giving the award to a guy that barely had a winning record. His .90 WHIP was just ridiculous.

MikeS21
12-29-2004, 12:34 PM
Everyone keeps saying that Milton is an upgrade over Hancock, yet I'd almost rather have Hancock's 5.02 ERA over Milton's 4.75 ERA because Hancock is younger and I can dismiss his struggles as growing pains. Hancock is no stud, but I think even he could post a 4.75 ERA. He did post a 4.45 ERA after coming to Cincy last year.

Puffy
12-29-2004, 12:38 PM
Everyone keeps saying that Milton is an upgrade over Hancock, yet I'd almost rather have Hancock's 5.02 ERA over Milton's 4.75 ERA because Hancock is younger and I can dismiss his struggles as growing pains. Hancock is no stud, but I think even he could post a 4.75 ERA. He did post a 4.45 ERA after coming to Cincy last year.

Dude - never say that again!!!!!

While I agree that Milton is not worth 8 million a year, Josh Hancock does not belong in any rotation thats league does not have the intitals of AAA on it. Hancock throws slop. He has no out pitch. If he is in a rotation that rotation is in serious trouble. He had a decent month. Lots of bad pitchers have had decent months. Don't let it fool you - he is not an answer to any relevant question.

flyer85
12-29-2004, 12:40 PM
Everyone keeps saying that Milton is an upgrade over Hancock

Only time will tell. I would say the kind of deal DanO gave Milton is one where the GM is staking his job on a good outcome because evaluating the signing on his past performance, Milton is being seriously overpaid.

Maybe Milton will take his performance to a new level over the next 2 years.

Is DanO staking his job on that? BTW, I hope he is because if this flops he ought to lose his job over it.

traderumor
12-29-2004, 12:45 PM
because Hancock is younger and I can dismiss his struggles as growing pains. Hancock is no studHancock is pushing 27, so he's hardly experiencing growing pains, he just isn't very good. Nothing but middle relief fodder at best in the long run.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-29-2004, 12:59 PM
In 2001, Milton received 5.18 Runs per Game in support.

And yes, if Milton has a 5.00 ERA, I'll be supremely disappointed regardless of Run Support. Run Support is not a constant. It cannot be projected. It's random. If Milton posts a 5.00 ERA that means that the Reds could have plugged pretty much an schmo into the rotation for far FAR less than 8.5 million dollars while getting the same results- including recorded Wins.

Seriously, not a single sub-.500 record from a pitcher who got at least 6.00 Runs in support since 2002. Not one, no matter how badly they actually pitched. You think those Wins can be attributed to pitcher skill?

Using your logic, Randy Johnson wasn't as valuable as Derek Lowe in 2004. Not because of how they actually pitched- but because of how many Runs were scored when they were pitching. And we all know that's just not true.

Ben Sheets posted a 13-14 record. Are you telling us that Eric Milton is a preferable option to Sheets- who received 3.53 Runs per Game in support from his offense? What about Odalis Perez? Do you think that maybe his 7-6 record was a product of the Dodgers scoring an average of only 3.30 Runs per Game in his Starts despite his 3.25 ERA? Kelvim Escobar posted a record of 11-12. Why? Because he allowed 3.93 Earnies per game while his team averaged exactly 3.93 Runs Scored in games he pitched.

All of these players appear to be worse options than Milton using your "Wins are everything" reasoning.
When was the last time you saw a team make the playoffs, not because their win/loss record put them there, but because they had the top ERA in the league, not to say ERA may not get them to having the wins to put them there, but last I looked, standing were based on wins and losses. Now, come on, I know other factors get you to wins, and yes ultimately I believe wins are everything, at least they are what get you to the playoffs. I understand Milton's ERA hasn't been the best, but if he comes in and wins, I don't care what it is.

But there's not a player on that list who wasn't a geometrically better pitcher last season than Eric Milton.

The problem is that it appears you view Wins and Losses as being solely dependant on pitcher skill level.
Definitely not, there are many factors that go into wins. If I am looking at a pitchers skill level, sure I'll look at ERA, K/9, K/BB, SLG against, BAA, WHIP, and W's. But what I care about is if my team makes the playoffs, and wins are what get a team to the playoffs, so that is what I'm ultimately worried about. So if for some reason, whether it's run support or a low ERA/WHIP that gets Milton wins, I don't care, if he's not getting wins, I'm upset.

They're not. In fact, for Pitchers, Wins and Losses shouldn't even be considered performance evaluation metrics because they tell us so little about what actually happened. They're team-dependant event outcome assignments. A pitcher can't record a Win if something beyond their control doesn't perform (ie. the offense) but CAN record a win even if their performance hinders their team's chances of outscoring their opponent.

Pitcher-recorded Wins simply don't care how good or bad the Pitcher actually was. And yes, if a Pitcher posts a 5.00 ERA they're hurting their team.

All Wins are not created equal.

Edited to add: Please see my comments amongst yours above in red. When I looked at the post, they don't stick out as much as I thought they would.

Let me ask you this, if Milton goes 5-10, with a 3.25 ERA, 1.25 WHIP what will your thoughts be then?

And just to be clear Steel, I respect your opinion, just want understand it more, I appreciate you going through what you have here, I just want you to understand mine as well, I think what it comes down to here is I'm looking at ultimately I want the Reds in the playoffs, which I'm sure you do as well, and I don't care what the stats are as long as we get the wins. You are evaluating and getting on a more probability look at it than I. I'm no saber man, I admit it. But I just don't believe you can only look at stats. There are intangibles. Like why historically has Milton been given this run support? What was his run support as compared to other pitchers on the team? Could it be that players play better for some reason when he is pitching? Is he such a good team guy that consciously or subconsciously players play better for him? I know, far fetched, but I think there is more to it that just stats. I'll admit, if you look at his ERA it's not great, but his K/9 and K/BB numbers are pretty good. Let's hope Gully can get him to keep the ball down, go 23-3 with a 2.57 era, 1.15 whip and 7K's per 9. Then I think we'd all be very happy. :gac:

flyer85
12-29-2004, 01:01 PM
Let me ask you this, if Milton goes 5-10, with a 3.25 ERA, 1.25 WHIP what will your thoughts be then?


That he earned his money but his W-L record doesn't reflect it. The W-L record is subject to too many variables outside the control of the starting pitcher.

MikeS21
12-29-2004, 01:05 PM
Dude - never say that again!!!!!

While I agree that Milton is not worth 8 million a year, Josh Hancock does not belong in any rotation thats league does not have the intitals of AAA on it. Hancock throws slop. He has no out pitch. If he is in a rotation that rotation is in serious trouble. He had a decent month. Lots of bad pitchers have had decent months. Don't let it fool you - he is not an answer to any relevant question.
You missed my point. My point is that the level of upgrade from Hancock to Milton is not as wide as some would have us believe. I agree that Hancock has an extremely low ceiling. And he does have junk pitches, I'll grant you that. But I'm not conviced you can pawn him off as lifetime AAA material just yet. He may have had a good month, but he also pitched four pretty good games - two against the Cubs and two against the Cards.

All I'm saying is that I think Hancock could pitch 150 innings and post an ERA around 4.80. While that's not great numbers, it also not that much worse than Milton's 200 innings and 4.75 ERA.

SteelSD
12-29-2004, 01:05 PM
Let me ask you this, if Milton goes 5-10, with a 3.25 ERA, 1.25 WHIP what will your thoughts be then?

That he's well worth the price and that something went horribly wrong with the offense.

And then I'd identify that as a career year and deal him for much cheaper talent while his value is high.

Puffy
12-29-2004, 01:13 PM
You missed my point. My point is that the level of upgrade from Hancock to Milton is not as wide as some would have us believe. I agree that Hancock has an extremely low ceiling. And he does have junk pitches, I'll grant you that. But I'm not conviced you can pawn him off as lifetime AAA material just yet. He may have had a good month, but he also pitched four pretty good games - two against the Cubs and two against the Cards.

All I'm saying is that I think Hancock could pitch 150 innings and post an ERA around 4.80. While that's not great numbers, it also not that much worse than Milton's 200 innings and 4.75 ERA.

No, I got your point - and I don't think he is AAA material per se. I do think that he is AAA Starter material. Hancock might have a place on a major league roster, but its in the pen. If hitters get too many looks at him, watch out.

So I understood what you were saying, I just disagree with your conclusion. If Hancock got 33 starts, then I think his ERA will be higher than the 4.80 you suggest. I think it would be solidly in the 5's. And I also doubt he would get to 200 innings - the whiplash alone would cause him to miss a start or three :devil: Seriously, he would never average the 6 innings to get to 200 innings.

But I do hear what your saying - 8 million is a lot to spend on 4.75, 200 innings, and you could get those numbers from someone for less. Like Luke Hudson. I just disagree with you that Hancock would be the one to get those numbers.

Sorry if I sounded rude or anything - I was mainly joking. I just want no part of Hancock in any rotation

MWM
12-29-2004, 01:49 PM
Ryan, last year Milton was 14-6. That's a .700 winning percentage. According to your logic, a staff full of Eric Milton's would win 113 games.

Crumbley
12-29-2004, 01:52 PM
Josh Hancock more like Josh Hansuck am I right

MWM
12-29-2004, 02:03 PM
Since 1970, only 9 teams not in Colorado, have had an ERA vs. the league of more then -.4 (Milton's was -.43 last year) while still having a winning record. And the most wins of all of those teams was 85.


ERA <= -.4 vs. the league average
WINS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WINNING PERCENTAGE >= .500

ERA YEAR ERA ERA W PCT
1 Redsox 1972 3.50 -.43 85 .548
2 Phillies 1981 4.05 -.56 59 .551
3 Phillies 1979 4.16 -.42 84 .519
4 Giants 1970 4.50 -.44 86 .531
5 Tigers 1991 4.52 -.42 84 .519
6 A's 1991 4.57 -.47 84 .519
7 Indians 1986 4.63 -.44 84 .519
8 Rockies 1995 4.97 -.78 77 .535
9 Royals 2003 5.07 -.54 83 .512

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-29-2004, 02:54 PM
Ryan, last year Milton was 14-6. That's a .700 winning percentage. According to your logic, a staff full of Eric Milton's would win 113 games.

I don't see anywhere that I've said that MWM.

M2
12-30-2004, 02:54 AM
You know, the more I think about it, the weirder the whole concept of pitcher's wins is.

Think about it. How does a team win a ballgame?

It scores more runs than the opposition.

What are the main components to doing that?

Scoring runs and preventing runs.

How do runs get prevented?

Pitching and defense.

So pitching has nothing to do with half of what gets a team a win and it's not even the whole ball of wax on the run prevention side. Bill James figures it to be roughly 35% of how wins happen.

And these days starting pitchers only average roughly 6 IP a start. So a starting pitcher, on average, only holds about 25% of the responsibility for any game he wins. Plus, if the starting pitcher doesn't get the win, it then gets awarded to a reliever based on when the team scored the go-ahead run. What does that have to do with pitching?

When you think back to the birth of the wins statistic, the pitcher was one guy. He went out to the mound and threw a complete game. Relief appearances were an extreme rarity. For instance, the 1891 Reds had 13 relief appearance over 138 games and in no game was more than one reliever used. You could claim the pitcher earned the win because he was THE pitcher. Ten years earlier clubs only carried two or three pitchers for the entire season. Your best pitcher in those days was your star player, the main difference between winning and losing. Old Hoss Radbourn could go out and win a title pretty much single-handedly.

You've got to wonder if the game 130 years ago was played like the modern game if the pitcher's win would have been considered a meaningful measure of something. My guess is common sense would have dictated that wins were a team statistic and that no single pitcher does enough to earn credit for those wins. Yet now we've got the statistic built into the vocabulary of the game.

It amazes me how decision made in the 1870s based on what was a very different game gets passed along generation to generation without a second thought even though the rationale for it has long since evaporated.

MWM
12-30-2004, 03:00 AM
Great post, M2. I think you have the makings of a great article there. Have you thought about taking that idea and making it a little more robust and submitting it to BP?

M2
12-30-2004, 03:11 AM
Great post, M2. I think you have the makings of a great article there. Have you thought about taking that idea and making it a little more robust and submitting it to BP?

Thanks. It just popped into my head tonight. Had to exorcise the demon otherwise I wouldn't be able to sleep.

Mutaman
12-30-2004, 08:41 AM
Negativity is very underated.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-30-2004, 11:04 AM
You know, the more I think about it, the weirder the whole concept of pitcher's wins is.

Think about it. How does a team win a ballgame?

It scores more runs than the opposition.

What are the main components to doing that?

Scoring runs and preventing runs.

How do runs get prevented?

Pitching and defense.

So pitching has nothing to do with half of what gets a team a win and it's not even the whole ball of wax on the run prevention side. Bill James figures it to be roughly 35% of how wins happen.

And these days starting pitchers only average roughly 6 IP a start. So a starting pitcher, on average, only holds about 25% of the responsibility for any game he wins. Plus, if the starting pitcher doesn't get the win, it then gets awarded to a reliever based on when the team scored the go-ahead run. What does that have to do with pitching?

When you think back to the birth of the wins statistic, the pitcher was one guy. He went out to the mound and threw a complete game. Relief appearances were an extreme rarity. For instance, the 1891 Reds had 13 relief appearance over 138 games and in no game was more than one reliever used. You could claim the pitcher earned the win because he was THE pitcher. Ten years earlier clubs only carried two or three pitchers for the entire season. Your best pitcher in those days was your star player, the main difference between winning and losing. Old Hoss Radbourn could go out and win a title pretty much single-handedly.

You've got to wonder if the game 130 years ago was played like the modern game if the pitcher's win would have been considered a meaningful measure of something. My guess is common sense would have dictated that wins were a team statistic and that no single pitcher does enough to earn credit for those wins. Yet now we've got the statistic built into the vocabulary of the game.

It amazes me how decision made in the 1870s based on what was a very different game gets passed along generation to generation without a second thought even though the rationale for it has long since evaporated.

Very interesting M2, and very well written. Thanks for the insight. I have to say, it holds some water and makes a lot of sense. :gac:

westofyou
12-30-2004, 11:42 AM
It amazes me how decision made in the 1870s based on what was a very different game gets passed along generation to generation without a second thought even though the rationale for it has long since evaporated

Batting average says hi.