PDA

View Full Version : Randa signed



Pages : 1 [2]

Crash Davis
12-21-2004, 04:42 PM
if we were talking about a DH, then yes. But we're not. Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think Freel cuts it defensivley at 3rd base.

Bingo. Freel is bad everyday third baseman. He just gives away to many outs over the course of a season.

His optimal position is 9th man, covering 2B, 3B and the outfield.

Raisor
12-21-2004, 04:42 PM
So, if I'm reading this right, they are approximately equal in runs created.

Randa can field 3b better than Freel, so it's an upgrade, IMO.

.


Is Randa's defense going to be worth the difference in cost?

Redsfaithful
12-21-2004, 04:43 PM
I'm too lazy to register--what are they suggesting the deal is?

Horacio Ramirez for Kearns

It's what they want to happen anyway. I don't think its a rumor or anything.

flyer85
12-21-2004, 04:44 PM
Horacio Ramirez for Kearns

It's what they want to happen anyway. I don't think its a rumor or anything.

Good deal for the Reds, trade for a sore-armed pitcher.

traderumor
12-21-2004, 04:46 PM
Maybe Jimeniz is on his way elsewhere. Just because he was offered arb doesn't mean he'll be on the team on opening day.



Getting a head start on two New Year's Resolutions? First, you have been so positive it's scary. Second, you spelled Jimenez right :MandJ:

That is my game plan with Jimenez, to get him signed to a nice $ figure, they did that. Now, if someone is looking for a second baseman with a modest contract, Jimenez is signed, sealed, and tradeable.

REDREAD
12-21-2004, 04:46 PM
Redread, you're really starting to scare me lately.

Well, I don't think it's a brilliant move, but I think that realistically all we should expect this offseason is some incremental improvements.

I'm mainly glad that Kearns is getting pushed back to the OF.

Doesn't say much in DanO's confidence that Freel could man 3b that the Reds were considering converting Kearns to 3b.

I still give DanO a "C" on the offseason (unless these acquisions really outperform expectations). But I expected him to get another failing grade like last year. So I'm happy DanO is getting off his duff and doing something.

Although, if you step back at the bigger picture, I can definitely now see the arguement of folks that claim he's wasting payflex that could've been used on a longterm solution. I mean, Ronda is another 2-3 million in all likelyhood.

RANDY IN INDY
12-21-2004, 04:47 PM
Do you feel comfortable enough that Freel will continue to put up the offensive #'s to pencil him in every day at third after only 1 year of doing so, Raisor? I love Freel, but I'm not completely sold that he is an everyday third sacker.

pedro
12-21-2004, 04:48 PM
For what Freel costs, yeah I can live with him on defense at third.

I want to see Freel starting at 2nd against left handers, backing up at third and as a defensive replacement in CF. But that's just me.

RFS62
12-21-2004, 04:48 PM
I don't think there will be any problem getting Freel playing time as super-sub.

REDREAD
12-21-2004, 04:49 PM
Is Randa's defense going to be worth the difference in cost?

That's a good point.. It's hard to say since "Financial terms weren't disclosed".

However, part of that cost means that Freel can supersub or perhaps Jimenez is now trade bait.

What do you think of signing Ronda just to gain the depth to trade Jimenez?
I don't expect Jimeniz to bring that good of a return.. but given the Reds needs, perhaps a Ronda/Jimeniz swap (in essence) is ok. What do you think?

Redsfaithful
12-21-2004, 04:50 PM
I don't think there will be any problem getting Freel playing time as super-sub.

If he gets less than 450 at bats I'll be shocked.

Raisor
12-21-2004, 04:52 PM
Do you feel comfortable enough that Freel will continue to put up the offensive #'s to pencil him in every day at third after only 1 year of doing so, Raisor? I love Freel, bit I'm not completely sold that he is an everyday third sacker.


Considering that I don't feel the team is contending anyway, and that Encaracion is on deck for 2006, then yeah, I feel comfortable with Freel. Much less risky then bringing in a 35 year old for what's going to be a multi-million dollar contract.

Randa is the kind of guy you bring in if you're making a run and you need that ONE last piece.

RFS62
12-21-2004, 04:52 PM
If he gets less than 450 at bats I'll be shocked.


Me too. His versatility is his biggest asset.

johngalt
12-21-2004, 04:52 PM
Maybe Jimeniz is on his way elsewhere. Just because he was offered arb doesn't mean he'll be on the team on opening day.


Jimenez.

Sorry, I'm picky. :)

Puffy
12-21-2004, 04:52 PM
Getting a head start on two New Year's Resolutions? First, you have been so positive it's scary. Second, you spelled Jimenez right :MandJ:

That is my game plan with Jimenez, to get him signed to a nice $ figure, they did that. Now, if someone is looking for a second baseman with a modest contract, Jimenez is signed, sealed, and tradeable.

Actually he did not spell it correct, but he did come closer. All we need him to do now is change that "iz" to "ez" and he will finally have it correct.

PS - of course Redread then proceeded to spell Randa as Ronda, but I think we should only work on one name at a time!!! :allovrjr:

pedro
12-21-2004, 04:54 PM
Is Randa's defense going to be worth the difference in cost?

Look at the cost of finding replacements for all the other things Freel can do as a super-sub/platoon player.

Raisor
12-21-2004, 04:55 PM
Me too. His versatility is his biggest asset.


Personally, I think his biggest asset is that .375 OBP he put up last year.

RANDY IN INDY
12-21-2004, 04:56 PM
Considering that I don't feel the team is contending anyway, and that Encaracion is on deck for 2006, then yeah, I feel comfortable with Freel. Much less risky then bringing in a 35 year old for what's going to be a multi-million dollar contract.

Randa is the kind of guy you bring in if you're making a run and you need that ONE last piece.

Exactly what I expected you to reply and makes perfect sense. Next question. Do you think EE is a can't miss.

Raisor
12-21-2004, 04:57 PM
Do you think EE is a can't miss.


No such animal.

RFS62
12-21-2004, 04:57 PM
Personally, I think his biggest asset is that .375 OBP he put up last year.


Yep, it's big. But he can spell several positions, and fill in for injuries too.

He's much more valuable as a supersub than a regular thirdbaseman, especially since he's pretty mediocre on defense there.

Krusty
12-21-2004, 04:58 PM
12/21/2004 3:53 PM ET
Reds sign Randa to one-year deal
Ends experimental move of Kearns to third base
By Carrie Muskat / MLB.com


Joe Randa gives the Reds a proven bat and glove at third base for 2005. (Ed Zurga/AP)



Joe Randa is in, and Austin Kearns is back in the outfield.
On Tuesday, the Cincinnati Reds signed Randa, a free agent third baseman, to a one-year contract, effectively ending the Kearns' experiment to move to third.

The Reds also announced the signing of second baseman D'Angelo Jimenez to a one-year deal on his 27th birthday, thus avoiding arbitration.

Kearns had been working out in Lexington, Ky., and following a plan established by the Reds in an attempt to make the conversion from right field to third. But the addition of Randa puts an end to that, though it wasn't for lack of effort on Kearns' part.




Complete coverage >
"It was evident [Kearns] had made progress," Reds general manager Dan O'Brien said Tuesday. "But from our perspective, the pace of the progress he was making left some question in our minds as to whether or not he'd be ready to handle this challenge on Opening Day of the 2005 season.

"Collectively, we felt that it wasn't fair, not only for Austin, but his teammates to have that uncertainty going into the season," O'Brien said. "We walked through that with Austin. He's still a very integral and important part of our ballclub. He understood it and was supportive of us bringing on board Joe Randa."

Randa wasn't aware of the opening on the Reds. He simply wanted to stay in the Midwest.

"When the season was over, with the debacle I went through in Kansas City, I knew I wasn't going to be coming back," Randa said. "You look on the map and look at the opportunities. Things may present themselves."

The "debacle" in Kansas City wasn't just losing Carlos Beltran.

"Injuries, and one thing led to another," Randa said. "It was a situation where we went from being picked to win the division, with the additions that we made in Spring Training, to having the injuries. One led to another, and we just fell apart. It was so frustrating for me.

"In the latter part of your career, you want to win," he said. "Things were going in a different direction [in Kansas City]."

Randa is familiar with the Reds organization, having played against them often in Spring Training.

"This seemed to be the best fit for me and my personality," he said.

Having Kearns back in the right, does create a logjam in the outfield.

"Having four quality outfielders is not a problem," O'Brien said.

Randa, 35, batted .287 with eight home runs and 56 RBIs in 128 games for the Kansas City Royals. He missed one month after undergoing arthroscopic surgery on his right knee but came back to earn honors as the Royals Player of the Month in September. He hit .316 in the final month with two homers and 14 RBIs.

"First, he's a professional hitter, he's a professional in terms of his defensive play," O'Brien said. "He knows how to play the game. For us, I think he'll be a very valuable addition to our lineup. We needed a professional hitter who is a contact hitter and knows how to handle the bat. We hope that makes our offense more efficient and hopefully more productive."

On Sept. 9 at Detroit, Randa became the first player in American League history to record six hits and six runs in one game.

A 10-year veteran, he has spent the last six seasons in Kansas City, averaging 13 homers and 80 RBIs. In 2000, he had his best season, batting .304 with 15 homers and 106 RBIs in 158 games.

"I have a chance to play with two of the nicest first basemen in the league in Mike Sweeney and Sean Casey," Randa said.

The Reds' infield for 2005 will have Casey at first, Jimenez at second, either Felipe Lopez or Anderson Machado at short, and Randa at third. Ray Olmedo, a candidate for the shortstop job, had Tommy John surgery on his right elbow on Nov. 9.

Jimenez hit .270 with 12 homers and 67 RBIs in 152 games last season. The infielder established career highs in runs (76), hits (152), doubles (28), RBIs and stolen bases (13).

Jimenez was one of four Reds who were arbitration eligible. Kearns, outfielder Adam Dunn and newly acquired pitcher Ramon Ortiz also are arbitration eligible.

Carrie Muskat is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was n

RANDY IN INDY
12-21-2004, 04:59 PM
Yep, it's big. But he can spell several positions, and fill in for injuries too.

He's much more valuable as a supersub than a regular thirdbaseman, especially since he's pretty mediocre on defense there.

I'm with you there, RFS62.

traderumor
12-21-2004, 05:00 PM
Considering that I don't feel the team is contending anyway, and that Encaracion is on deck for 2006, then yeah, I feel comfortable with Freel. Much less risky then bringing in a 35 year old for what's going to be a multi-million dollar contract.

Randa is the kind of guy you bring in if you're making a run and you need that ONE last piece.It seems that DanO doesn't agree with you as far as contention goes. Not to mention the speculation that his acquisition may knock some other dominoes over, which may result in some long-term solutions. I think we need to see if some other deals result as a part of this signing, then we can evaluate our ability to contend this year. Signing vets to improve prior year weaknesses smells of a GM who thinks he can make some noise yet this year. Agree or disagree, but that seems to be DO's mindset.

RANDY IN INDY
12-21-2004, 05:00 PM
No such animal.

Not even Adam Dunn?
;)

No, seriously, how confident do you feel in EE being a real good major leaguer?

Krusty
12-21-2004, 05:02 PM
With the exception of Dustin Mosley, none of these acquisitions cost us any young talent.

REDREAD
12-21-2004, 05:02 PM
Personally, I think his biggest asset is that .375 OBP he put up last year.

I agree with that. I'm skeptical he can repeat it though. I hope he does though.

I agree with your main assumption.. If that OBP is repeatable, they need to find a starting job for him somewhere. I'd prefer 2b though over 3b.

RANDY IN INDY
12-21-2004, 05:03 PM
With the exception of Dustin Mosley, none of these acquisitions cost us any young talent.

Good point, unless it cuts into the draft budget.

RANDY IN INDY
12-21-2004, 05:04 PM
I would feel real comfortable with Freel as the everyday 2B, but I really agree with RFS62 in that he seems to have the most value as a super sub.

REDREAD
12-21-2004, 05:05 PM
"First, he's a professional hitter, he's a professional in terms of his defensive play," O'Brien said. "He knows how to play the game. For us, I think he'll be a very valuable addition to our lineup. We needed a professional hitter who is a contact hitter and knows how to handle the bat. We hope that makes our offense more efficient and hopefully more productive."


Sounds eeriely similiar to what Bowden said about Castilla :MandJ:

Falls City Beer
12-21-2004, 05:06 PM
I'm just excited knowing that none of the Reds' infielders will OB below .330 this season. Except Lopez.

westofyou
12-21-2004, 05:07 PM
I'm just excited knowing that none of the Reds' infielders will OB below .330 this season. Except Lopez.


Possible Platoon

.288 .383 .423 .806 Machedo VS RH
.292 .333 .523 .856 Lopez VS LH

Raisor
12-21-2004, 05:08 PM
I really really HATE the term "professional hitter".

jmcclain19
12-21-2004, 05:12 PM
Randa today at GABP

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/images/2004/12/21/5xhqz7eL.jpg

jmcclain19
12-21-2004, 05:13 PM
I really really HATE the term "professional hitter".

Same connotation as "Sanitation Engineer" or "She's REALLY funny"

pedro
12-21-2004, 05:13 PM
I really really HATE the term "professional hitter".


me too. even Castro was "professional hitter". He was getting paid.

westofyou
12-21-2004, 05:15 PM
I really really HATE the term "professional hitter".

To me it means a guy who doesn't walk or strikeout alot, he hits the ball thus he's a "hitter" not a "batter"

RANDY IN INDY
12-21-2004, 05:20 PM
To me it means a guy who doesn't walk or strikeout alot, he hits the ball thus he's a "hitter" not a "batter"

Me too.

RFS62
12-21-2004, 05:20 PM
To me it means a guy who doesn't walk or strikeout alot, he hits the ball thus he's a "hitter" not a "batter"


I always felt that at the very least it means a guy with strike zone command who can work a count. Some bat control guys would be in the upper echelon of "professional hitters", like Larkin who can go the other way with a pitch, lay down a bunt, or still drive the ball... the classic number two hitter.

traderumor
12-21-2004, 05:22 PM
even better is boone's "he can give us a professional at bat"

LvJ
12-21-2004, 05:25 PM
Randa today at GABP

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/images/2004/12/21/5xhqz7eL.jpg

:thumbup: Welcome aboard.

gm
12-21-2004, 05:38 PM
"Having four quality outfielders is not a problem," O'Brien said.

Unless one of them is named Jose Guillen (or Juan Encarnacion)

Redny
12-21-2004, 05:52 PM
300 posts for Randa. Boy are we aching for Reds news.

RBA
12-21-2004, 05:54 PM
300 posts for Randa. Boy are we aching for Reds news.
I was thinking the same thing.

traderumor
12-21-2004, 05:57 PM
300 posts for Randa. Boy are we aching for Reds news.
Except I doubt that half of them are about Randa :MandJ:

buckeyenut
12-21-2004, 06:46 PM
Sounds eeriely similiar to what Bowden said about Castilla :MandJ:

As long as we didn't pay him the contract Bowden paid Castilla, that is OK. :)

zombie-a-go-go
12-21-2004, 07:02 PM
Wow, but Randa's eyes are red.

Put down the hippie-lettuce, Joe! There's work to be done!

RFS62
12-21-2004, 07:18 PM
Wow, but Randa's eyes are red.

Put down the hippie-lettuce, Joe! There's work to be done!


Joker? Red Eyes?

M2
12-21-2004, 07:26 PM
IMO, Randa's chief benefit to the team is his glove. Should be a help to whatever overmatched SS the team plays.

A few points on Vazquez:

A) There's no reason to worry about his contract. He won't be coming to Cincinnati unless another team (probably the Yankees) picks up a huge chunk of his money or unless the Dodgers take Jr. in return. Either scenario is fine by me.

B) The Reds need to turn an OF into a frontline pitcher, all the better if it's the oft-injured Kearns than the launching pad that is Adam Dunn. Given the current evidence you can't build a team around Kearns. You can around Dunn.

C) Vazquez had a miserable half season. Though prior to the All-Star break he was one of the best pitchers in the AL. Even with his second half meltdown he wound up with a 6.82 K/9, 1.29 WHIP and .755 OPS against. So this guy falls apart and he still puts up better peripherals than any Reds pitcher, better than any current Reds starter is likely to manage in 2005 for that matter.

D) The Reds would have themselves a 28-year-old pitcher whom they'd control for the next three years. Again, no way he's coming unless someone pays for a huge chunk of him or unless Jr.'s gone. So why would you want starter who's been dominant in previous seasons for three years that should be right in his prime at a price you can afford? Seems to me that's exactly what the Reds need.

BrooklynRedz
12-21-2004, 07:40 PM
So looks as though the mega-deal is (presumably) dead. LA pulled the plug after something else fell through. I don't know what the something else was, and I'm not comfortable making a guess. Does this mean something still couldn't happen tonight/tomorrow/sometime? Nope. Just means this whole thing took another turn.

M2
12-21-2004, 07:52 PM
BTW, props to DanO for stepping up and stating that Kearns at 3B wasn't a fair thing to do to the team. That's exactly the right attitude to have and to act on. The Reds shouldn't be used like a junior chemistry set.

Also props to Peter Gammons for reporting weeks ago that Kearns at 3B wasn't all sunshine and lollipops. Good source work (thanks Tim, Ron, whoever) and it's exactly the kind of ahead-of-the-curve that a Reds fan like myself likes to read.

Wonder if the Yankees would do Kearns and Jr. for Vazquez and Navarro?

wheels
12-21-2004, 07:56 PM
Agreed M2...

Some other notes on Vasquez:

His lowest innings pitched total was in 1999, when he pitched in 154.2. Last year he pitched 198, and in most years previous he's pitched in over 200.
He struck out 241 batters in '03.
Talk about Ramon Ortiz having "stuff"...Well this guy's got STUFF and I'd be more than fine with losing Kearns to get him.

If this is even a remote possibility, I'd be ecstatic, but as it looks now, I don't see it. Especially now that the Johnson deal is dead.

It was a nice thought.

Now do we move on to a Kearns/Edwin Jackson deal?

CougarQuest
12-21-2004, 08:09 PM
M2, think Jr and Graves :thumbup:

RosieRed
12-21-2004, 08:11 PM
Apologies if this has been reported already here. :)

AP says Randa's contract is for $2.15M.

CougarQuest
12-21-2004, 08:13 PM
Really Rosie? That's better than people thought in here!

SteelSD
12-21-2004, 08:21 PM
Third Base Comps- 2004:

Joe Randa

.263 EQA
-3.7 Runs Above Position
14.1 Runs Above Replacement

Ryan Freel

.276 EQA
5.9 Runs Above Position
24.8 Runs Above Replacement

2.15 Million Dollars for a 36-year Third Baseman who was negative versus his positional averages and less valuable offensively than Ryan Freel. Torn cartilege in his knee landed Randa on the DL last year.

"But it's only one year."

2.15 Million Dollars for a net gain of nada.

But he's old, so I guess that's something.

<Edit to correct neo-dyslexic EQA digit switcheroo I did on Randa>

Raisor
12-21-2004, 08:24 PM
That's 2.15 million NOT going towards Odalis Perez now.

Hey, I LIKE the fact that the team seems to be spending money. I'm very disapointed on HOW they're spending the money.

Falls City Beer
12-21-2004, 08:25 PM
Third Base Comps- 2004:

Joe Randa

.236 EQA
-3.7 Runs Above Position
14.1 Runs Above Replacement

Ryan Freel

.276 EQA
5.9 Runs Above Position
24.8 Runs Above Replacement

2.15 Million Dollars for a 36-year Third Baseman who was negative versus his positional averages and less valuable offensively than Ryan Freel. Torn cartilege in his knee landed Randa on the DL last year.

"But it's only one year."

2.15 Million Dollars for a net gain of nada.

But he's old, so I guess that's something.

He's better than Castro.

RosieRed
12-21-2004, 08:27 PM
Really Rosie? That's better than people thought in here!

Really CQ! :) Unless AP is wrong, of course, but I think they're right.

CougarQuest
12-21-2004, 08:29 PM
I like Freel as a sub. Freel at 3rd, even on a 'frequent basis', was going to hurt someone.

To me, this sounds like a good deal for the Reds. And it appears to give the Reds further options for "Plan B or Plan C".

I'm still waiting to see what else is in store.

tom browning
12-21-2004, 08:34 PM
Randa is ok. But I hope this seriously isnt our new starting 3b.

Matt700wlw
12-21-2004, 08:39 PM
Randa is ok. But I hope this seriously isnt our new starting 3b.

He's keeping the seat warm until Edwin Encarnacion is ready

D-Man
12-21-2004, 08:41 PM
Third Base Comps- 2004:

Joe Randa

.236 EQA
-3.7 Runs Above Position
14.1 Runs Above Replacement

Ryan Freel

.276 EQA
5.9 Runs Above Position
24.8 Runs Above Replacement

2.15 Million Dollars for a 36-year Third Baseman who was negative versus his positional averages and less valuable offensively than Ryan Freel. Torn cartilege in his knee landed Randa on the DL last year.

"But it's only one year."

2.15 Million Dollars for a net gain of nada.

But he's old, so I guess that's something.

Unless I'm blind, Randa's EqA was .263, not .236.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/eqa2004.html

Given his pretty good D (he was fourth in the majors in Zone Rating and seventh in Range Factor) and a fairly weak set of internal options, Randa looks a lot better than the other overpriced guys on the open market (Batista, Castilla).

In the end, I'm not singing praises for O'Brien (I feel the same <shrug> for the Mercker/Donnelly/Weathers that I do here), but the situation at third needed to be addressed.

M2
12-21-2004, 08:41 PM
Steel, Raisor,

I agree with both of you that Randa does nothing for the offense, less than nothing in fact. I'd also be upset about what the price tag isn't going toward except I think the ship sailed on the Reds going after a better class of starting pitcher when the Ortiz deal went down. The only way a pitcher we can get jazzed about is going to happen is in some sort of payroll-neutral fashion.

IMO the one thing Randa adds is sanity. The Reds have at least decided to play a 3B at 3B and deal with the crowded OF situation head on. Randa also picks the ball up and throw it to the right place on a consistent basis. That's got a certain value for these Reds. A two-year contract would have bugged me a lot, but that's not an issue here.

The Reds can reshuffle the deck next year I suppose, or at least try to reshuffle it. This is a maintenance move on the design that got solidified last week. I don't like the design, but I'm trying to give them some slack on the maintenance.

Actually the scariest offensive part of this move is that it could push Felipe Lopez or Andy Machado into the #2 slot.

Falls City Beer
12-21-2004, 08:45 PM
Unless I'm blind, Randa's EqA was .263, not .236. BIG difference.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/eqa2004.html

Given his pretty good D (top six in the majors in Range Factor & Zone Rating ). With the internal options extremely weak and the open market is a free-for-all.


It is D-Man. Randa's average. Freel is above average and will hit his way into the lineup.

The important thing for me is that it removes crap like Castro (and hopefully Machado) from the 25 man.

Raisor
12-21-2004, 08:46 PM
Actually the scariest offensive part of this move is that it could push Felipe Lopez or Andy Machado into the #2 slot.


Something I mentioned earlier in the thread, and yeah, I agree.

It won't happen, since Mr "Hey, I'll put Juan Castro in the #2 slot" Miley is the manager, but with him coming off injury, I'd love to see Austin hit in the two slot, if Freel is on the bench.

Good things would happen.

westofyou
12-21-2004, 08:46 PM
FWIW last year was the worst Reds offensive season from 3rd base since Eddie Kasko and crew in 1962.


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1945-2004
3B
RCAP displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS CREATED/GAME YEAR DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE RCAP
1 Reds 1945 -1.58 3.27 4.85 -23
2 Reds 1962 -1.34 3.50 4.84 -25
3 Reds 1959 -1.26 3.67 4.93 -39
4 Reds 2004 -1.04 4.22 5.26 -28
5 Reds 1951 -1.04 3.97 5.00 -17
6 Reds 1954 -1.03 4.10 5.12 -26
7 Reds 1964 -.96 3.36 4.32 -34
8 Reds 1981 -.90 3.38 4.28 -19
9 Reds 1958 -.84 4.07 4.91 -14
10 Reds 1953 -.83 4.57 5.40 -21

M2
12-21-2004, 09:05 PM
I'd love to see Austin hit in the two slot, if Freel is on the bench.

Good things would happen.

Word to that. I'd love to see him hit second even without Freel on the bench.

gm
12-21-2004, 09:42 PM
It won't happen, since Mr "Hey, I'll put Juan Castro in the #2 slot" Miley is the manager, but with him coming off injury, I'd love to see Austin hit in the two slot, if Freel is on the bench.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Miley bat Randa #2, since the Joker's a "professional hitter who handles the bat well" etc"

wheels
12-21-2004, 09:43 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to see Miley bat Randa #2, since the Joker's a "professional hitter who handles the bat well" etc"

...And he can lay down a bunt. :rolleyes:

PuffyPig
12-21-2004, 09:59 PM
It makes no sense to hit Kearns #2, as it leaves the 3 LH hitters in a row. Kearns needs to break them up. Dunn neeeds to hit 2nd.

M2
12-21-2004, 10:04 PM
Dunn neeeds to hit 2nd.

I'd dig that too, though I figure 46 HR buys Dunn a cleanup job.

Neither that nor Kearns in the #2 slot will happen though. It'll be either the SS or Randa in the #2 slot dependent upon how much running Miley wants to do (though the thought of FeLo trying to steal lots of bases mortifies me).

SteelSD
12-21-2004, 10:52 PM
Steel, Raisor,

I agree with both of you that Randa does nothing for the offense, less than nothing in fact. I'd also be upset about what the price tag isn't going toward except I think the ship sailed on the Reds going after a better class of starting pitcher when the Ortiz deal went down. The only way a pitcher we can get jazzed about is going to happen is in some sort of payroll-neutral fashion.

IMO the one thing Randa adds is sanity. The Reds have at least decided to play a 3B at 3B and deal with the crowded OF situation head on. Randa also picks the ball up and throw it to the right place on a consistent basis. That's got a certain value for these Reds. A two-year contract would have bugged me a lot, but that's not an issue here.

M2, I completely agree with the line of thinking you have on that. In fact, I share your sentiments. I do think that speaks volumes about our current GM.

O'Brien chose to lose a resource (Moseley) and will spend an estimated 4M on Ramon Ortiz. I can't find the signing bonus for Moseley (help...anyone), but I can guarantee this club spent upwards of 1.5M to draft and develop him. They're paying Paul Wilson 3.6M for 2005. They signed Randa for over 2M.

Add that all up, and you have 11.1 Million Dollars. The Reds could have shot the moon on Matt Clement, kept Dustin Moseley and had dollars to spare this season. I'm not even going to get into the cost of the fruitless endeavors of signing Weathers and Weber. O'Brien's primary task was to improve the pen, and no GM has done that with more futility.

But instead, O'Brien viewed Moseley as a sunk cost rather than a value asset and gave the rest of the funds to quantity instead of quality. Considering that their mantra has always been "PayFlex" and that they just spent a lot of whatever their flexibility was, I'm now convinced that we should alter the name to "WasteFlex", because that's exactly what the Reds did.

The Reds took a bunch of money that should have gone to actually improving the team and wasted it on players they think can improve the team. I'm done. My patience is spent.


The Reds can reshuffle the deck next year I suppose, or at least try to reshuffle it. This is a maintenance move on the design that got solidified last week. I don't like the design, but I'm trying to give them some slack on the maintenance.

I wish I considered it maintenance instead of PR. I think it was a great PR move to add the players they've added. But I also feel that it's much ado about nothing. It's snake oil salesmanship. The worst part is that I don't, at all, perceive that Dan O'Brien feels that way. I really think he feels he helped the Reds this week.

That scares me more than just about anything else. The only thing that scares me more is that O'Brien thinks that this patchwork job is going to hold out until his draft class matures. Unfortunately, by the time his draft class matures, all we'll have is wasted money and players showing up (if they ever do) after he's already gone.


Actually the scariest offensive part of this move is that it could push Felipe Lopez or Andy Machado into the #2 slot.

Oh lord, don't I know that feeling. I have no doubt that either Lopez or Randa will be pushed into the two-slot due to Miley's evaluation of Lopez' speed or Randa's "bat handling".

Heck, if we've got Lopez up there, the hitters behind aren't going to have the opportunities (I like Lopez, but not enough to put him there). If we have Randa in the two-slot and Casey in the three-slot, it means that no one scores from 2nd unless someone hits a double. I cringe at what'll happen with that lineup.

westofyou
12-21-2004, 10:58 PM
I can't find the signing bonus for Moseley

http://www.cincypost.com/sports/2000/reds112100.html

The Reds finally have agreed to terms with pitcher Dustin Moseley, their second pick in this year's draft.

The right-hander out of Texarkana (Ark.) High School received a signing bonus believed to be about $930,000.

MWM
12-21-2004, 11:01 PM
IThe worst part is that I don't, at all, perceive that Dan O'Brien feels that way. I really think he feels he helped the Reds this week.

That scares me more than just about anything else.

Yep, that's what I've been saying. It's not the moves themselves as much as what they say about the "New" Reds leadership.

johngalt
12-21-2004, 11:19 PM
I'm not even going to get into the cost of the fruitless endeavors of signing Weathers and Weber. O'Brien's primary task was to improve the pen, and no GM has done that with more futility.


I'm scratching my head wondering how O'Brien has proven futile in improving the bullpen.

-Signed Weathers, Weber and Mercker, all of whom are very capable relievers. He also attempted to sign Jones and Christiansen, also very capable relievers.

-Released and/or nontendered Van Poppel, Padilla, Norton and Riedling, all of whom were wildly inconsistent and proved horrible.

-Protected Coffey and Shackelford and taken flyers on Robertson and Stone as possible cheap fallback options.


The worst part is that I don't, at all, perceive that Dan O'Brien feels that way. I really think he feels he helped the Reds this week.


I still don't see how you can say he hasn't helped the Reds this week.

1. The starting rotation needed improvement. He re-signed Paul Wilson and added Ramon Ortiz. Each are upgrades to what we had last year, and the club is still looking at adding another starter through free agency.

2. The bullpen needed an overhaul. O'Brien jettisoned most of the dead weight and added veterans who have a history of success at quality prices.

3. Third base was a blackhole last year. Seeing the Kearns Experiment failing, O'Brien grabbed an inexpensive veteran to keep the seat warm for Encarnacion. Randa's here on a one-year deal people. It's NOT a big deal.

4. The bench needed improvement. By re-signing Jimenez, Freel moves back to the bench and really bumps that up a level. With the talk that Mohr or Eckstein could be added soon as well and the Big 4 in the OF, the bench is looking much better.

Seriously, why does everyone think Odalis Perez or Matt Clement would have such a tremendous effect on this club? I would rather fill holes in the bullpen, bench, rotation and third base spots than blow it all on a starter just so everyone could scream and yell that we have an "ace." I just don't see the logic in that.

pedro
12-21-2004, 11:29 PM
DanO knew the Reds weren't going to compete this year and just want to make sure we don't lose 90 games. Whether it will work or not, that's to be seen, but I do think the Reds are better than they were last year, just not really good. Now, if they sign one more good starting pitcher maybe things won't be so bad. As it is this club is built to win 84 games, if everything goes right.

alloverjr
12-21-2004, 11:33 PM
I still don't see how you can say he hasn't helped the Reds this week.

1. The starting rotation needed improvement. He re-signed Paul Wilson and added Ramon Ortiz. Each are upgrades to what we had last year, and the club is still looking at adding another starter through free agency.

2. The bullpen needed an overhaul. O'Brien jettisoned most of the dead weight and added veterans who have a history of success at quality prices.

3. Third base was a blackhole last year. Seeing the Kearns Experiment failing, O'Brien grabbed an inexpensive veteran to keep the seat warm for Encarnacion. Randa's here on a one-year deal people. It's NOT a big deal.

4. The bench needed improvement. By re-signing Jimenez, Freel moves back to the bench and really bumps that up a level. With the talk that Mohr or Eckstein could be added soon as well and the Big 4 in the OF, the bench is looking much better.

Seriously, why does everyone think Odalis Perez or Matt Clement would have such a tremendous effect on this club? I would rather fill holes in the bullpen, bench, rotation and third base spots than blow it all on a starter just so everyone could scream and yell that we have an "ace." I just don't see the logic in that.

1. I've yet to hear that they are looking for another starter through FA. Hope you're right, AND I hope it's a meaningful sign. Ramon Ortiz is only an upgrade over last year because of how pathetic they were last year. Not woth $4mil in my opinion.

2. He's added veterans that (specifically with Weathers) are well overpriced for their production/use. I'm not all that tore up over the Merker acquisition. But Weathers was a waste of $1.6+ mil this year alone.

3. While not on the same level defensively, Freel does it for me at a fraction of the price. Better offensively (albeit with one real year under his belt). If DanO gives up on his infatuation with pitchers that have anemic K/IP ratio's, defense wouldn't play the enormous role it plays on this team.

4. He could have landed two quality to decent bench players for what he just spent on Randa.

DanO has spent over $17 mil in the last three weeks and has done little to address the weakness of this club which is quality (not quantity) starting pitching. He could have had a CLement-type, Wilson, stengthened his bench and bullpen for that. So far, he has failed IMO.

CougarQuest
12-21-2004, 11:37 PM
Weathers makes $1.25M in '05 and $1.6M in '06

Where are you getting $4M for Ortiz?

TC81190
12-21-2004, 11:39 PM
DanO knew the Reds weren't going to compete this year and just want to make sure we don't lose 90 games. Whether it will work or not, that's to be seen, but I do think the Reds are better than they were last year, just not really good. Now, if they sign one more good starting pitcher maybe things won't be so bad. As it is this club is built to win 84 games, if everything goes right.

But if we have a winning season next year, and then in 2006 win only 70 games, people are going to be PISSED. (See: Cincinnati Bengals)

MWM
12-21-2004, 11:40 PM
1. The starting rotation needed improvement. He re-signed Paul Wilson and added Ramon Ortiz. Each are upgrades to what we had last year, and the club is still looking at adding another starter through free agency.

How is Paul Wilson an upgrade over Paul Wilson?

And some of us, me included, don't think Ortiz is an upgrade over Lidle. So there's a legit reason to think our rotation is no better this year than last.


2. The bullpen needed an overhaul. O'Brien jettisoned most of the dead weight and added veterans who have a history of success at quality prices.

These are minor improvements, I'll give you that. But what good is addressing the bullpen in 2005? they aren't going to win next year, so why use those resources on 35+ year old pitchers who, with the exception of Mercker, weren't all that good last year? Moves like this might allow them to win 72 games instead of 70. And he's paying them entirely too much for bullpen stopgaps.


3. Third base was a blackhole last year. Seeing the Kearns Experiment failing, O'Brien grabbed an inexpensive veteran to keep the seat warm for Encarnacion. Randa's here on a one-year deal people. It's NOT a big deal.

Stop-gap. Makes the team incrementally better in 2005, but not beyond.


4. The bench needed improvement. By re-signing Jimenez, Freel moves back to the bench and really bumps that up a level. With the talk that Mohr or Eckstein could be added soon as well and the Big 4 in the OF, the bench is looking much better.

how does resigning players they had last year improve the bench? And Eckstein doesn't make ANYONE better. I'd rather have Pokey than Eck.


Seriously, why does everyone think Odalis Perez or Matt Clement would have such a tremendous effect on this club? I would rather fill holes in the bullpen, bench, rotation and third base spots than blow it all on a starter just so everyone could scream and yell that we have an "ace." I just don't see the logic in that.

Filling holes only keeps the Reds out of the cellar.....maybe. They still have noc chance of sniffing .500 let alone make them a real contender.

So he's filled some holes, none of which turn the team into a contender, and none of which brings them any closer to building a future contender. Heck, anyone could make these types of moves.

westofyou
12-21-2004, 11:41 PM
Major FA pitchers will demand a 3 year contract at the least, from my POV currently the Reds have no plan on taking on contracts more than 2 years or contracts that are big ticket costs, they might if it was Dunn about to walk but I don't see anothert multi year contract of significant length and value until the Griffey millstone is the only one weighing down the corpse of this franchise.

They're going the Connie Mack route. Trying to keep it competive while they reload the system, or their pockets from what some around here report.

CougarQuest
12-21-2004, 11:43 PM
The Reds aren't done.

Cedric
12-21-2004, 11:44 PM
You don't build a team for the future through free agency in Cincinnati, small market. These signings are exactly what you are calling them, stopgaps.

Edit- WOY said that up above, I just didn't read.

SteelSD
12-22-2004, 12:01 AM
I'm scratching my head wondering how O'Brien has proven futile in improving the bullpen.

-Signed Weathers, Weber and Mercker, all of whom are very capable relievers. He also attempted to sign Jones and Christiansen, also very capable relievers.

-Released and/or nontendered Van Poppel, Padilla, Norton and Riedling, all of whom were wildly inconsistent and proved horrible.

-Protected Coffey and Shackelford and taken flyers on Robertson and Stone as possible cheap fallback options.

Ok. How many additional Runs are the acquisitions worth versus the Innings pitched by those the Reds let go?

That's all I ask, just give me a number backed by reasonable research.


I still don't see how you can say he hasn't helped the Reds this week.

1. The starting rotation needed improvement. He re-signed Paul Wilson and added Ramon Ortiz. Each are upgrades to what we had last year, and the club is still looking at adding another starter through free agency.

That is not an "improvment". That is a status quo. There's nothing added by the signing or Ramon Ortiz that the Reds didn't add by the signing of Cory Lidle before the 2004 season. Paul Wilson will not repeat his 2004 numbers so now we're at a net loss.


2. The bullpen needed an overhaul. O'Brien jettisoned most of the dead weight and added veterans who have a history of success at quality prices.

Please note anyone that Dan O'Brien has inked to a pen slot who pitched over 60 Innings in 2004 with an ERA under 4.00.

Name them.


3. Third base was a blackhole last year. Seeing the Kearns Experiment failing, O'Brien grabbed an inexpensive veteran to keep the seat warm for Encarnacion. Randa's here on a one-year deal people. It's NOT a big deal.

It IS a big deal when you spend over two million dollars on a player who projects to be a Run Value bust at the position versus a player you had in hand. That's a BIG DEAL.


4. The bench needed improvement. By re-signing Jimenez, Freel moves back to the bench and really bumps that up a level. With the talk that Mohr or Eckstein could be added soon as well and the Big 4 in the OF, the bench is looking much better.

Freel doesn't move back to the bench because of the Jimenez signing. He moves back to the bench because of an overpaid and underproductive Joe Randa signing. I could care less about Mohr or Eckstein.


Seriously, why does everyone think Odalis Perez or Matt Clement would have such a tremendous effect on this club? I would rather fill holes in the bullpen, bench, rotation and third base spots than blow it all on a starter just so everyone could scream and yell that we have an "ace." I just don't see the logic in that.

Because having a Matt Clement (I am not a proponent of Odalis Perez) means that you have a great chance of beating any team every fifth day out. Because having a sub-.700 OPS in a Starter slot actually means something- because there were only 25 Starting Pitchers in MLB who posted sub-.700 OPS Against numbers in 2004 and those pitchers are geometrically more valuable than the below-league-average puds the Reds now own lock, stock, and barrel.

Very simply, there was no hole at 3B that couldn't have been filled for less. There was no bullpen deficiency that couldn't have been fixed for less. There was no hole on the Reds ballclub that couldn't have been fixed for less.

Instead, what we got as Reds fans was the perception that things were fixed "for less". That's a perception and not the reality.

The reality is that the Reds have on LH reliever who we can reasonably expect to get hitters out over 50 IP. His name is Kent Mercker.

Other than that, it's a high-priced crap shoot and I want nothing of it.

But activity sure looks good to folks, doesn't it?

TC81190
12-22-2004, 12:04 AM
The worst part of this Randa deal is that we're gonna lose an amazing young player out of this. Bye Austin.

johngalt
12-22-2004, 12:05 AM
How is Paul Wilson an upgrade over Paul Wilson?

And some of us, me included, don't think Ortiz is an upgrade over Lidle. So there's a legit reason to think our rotation is no better this year than last.

I worded that wrong. Re-signing Wilson and adding Ortiz together make the rotation better, because it improves the 1-2 spots in the rotation and pushes one of the young guys either to the bullpen or the minors. I would hope you agree that Ortiz/Wilson/Harang/Hudson/Claussen is better than Wilson/Harang/Hudson/Claussen/Hancock.

I would say that Ortiz is better than Lidle, because I believe you'll see Ortiz post better numbers in the NL.


These are minor improvements, I'll give you that. But what good is addressing the bullpen in 2005? they aren't going to win next year, so why use those resources on 35+ year old pitchers who, with the exception of Mercker, weren't all that good last year? Moves like this might allow them to win 72 games instead of 70. And he's paying them entirely too much for bullpen stopgaps.

What good is addressing the bullpen? Do you remember how many games the bullpen cost this club in May/June/July? Losing leads (especially big leads) are some of the most demoralizing losses you can suffer, and that had to have an effect on these guys when they started to fall off the pace. There's no question an improved bullpen - even with "minor" improvements (which I would disagree with, but that's another story) - could have had a profound impact on this team's fortunes in 2004.


Stop-gap. Makes the team incrementally better in 2005, but not beyond.

Isn't that part of getting better? You can't make every free agent signing be a move that improves you for years to come. We have EdE coming up soon, and DanO got someone to improve that position until he arrives.


how does resigning players they had last year improve the bench? And Eckstein doesn't make ANYONE better. I'd rather have Pokey than Eck.

It improves the bench, because Freel actually would be a bench player this year instead of a regular like he was much of last year. The Randa signing and the re-signing of Jimenez pretty much guarantee that. If we had not signed Randa or nontendered Jimenez, our bench would have been weakened because Freel would be forced into a regular role. Make better sense?


Filling holes only keeps the Reds out of the cellar.....maybe. They still have noc chance of sniffing .500 let alone make them a real contender.

So he's filled some holes, none of which turn the team into a contender, and none of which brings them any closer to building a future contender. Heck, anyone could make these types of moves.

I just don't see how people can say that after what we witnessed last year. This club was winning and on top in the Central last year early on despite a bullpen with only two or three reliable arms, Freel and Castro playing regularly at third, Pena still struggling mightily and Kearns on the shelf and/or struggling much of the time. Each one of those components has improved assuming Kearns stays healthy (yes, a big if), and I would argue the bullpen has improved a great deal. The rest of the lineup and the rotation remains pretty much the same (though I would argue the rotation has improved slightly). That should equal success in the present, while progress of guys like EdE, Pauly, Gardner, Votto, etc. is boding well for the future.

Cedric
12-22-2004, 12:06 AM
The best part of the Randa deal is Austin isn't at 3b.

M2
12-22-2004, 12:09 AM
I really think he feels he helped the Reds this week.

It's human nature that we all like our own ideas. Though the Reds' ideas on how to "fix" a pitching staff are maddening.

That said, let me try to channel why DanO might really think he's done something positive with Randa. I'm assuming he's been getting plenty of reports on Kearns similar to what leaked out in that Gammons blurb. One of the best traits of the Reds system through the years has been defensive snobbishness. I've certainly never seen a good Reds team that didn't take care of the baseball (though there was a time right before I started watching when Lee May, Deron Johnson and Alex Johnson wore the uniform and Tony Perez played 3B).

Anyway, DanO's probably getting daily feedback that Austin's torturing the hot corner. Plus he's been playing this game of "Jr.'s rehab is going so well that I refuse to put any sort of timeline whatsoever on when he might be healthy enough to stroll within five miles of a baseball diamond." So he gets Randa to make his infield less painful and puts Kearns back into the OF where he may not be as flush as his earlier posturing would indicate.

I'm sure he also thinks Randa's a good hitter, which isn't true. Yet the Reds still can have a good offense with Joe Randa in tow.

Though, for the record, I'd have started Freel at 3B and not bothered with Randa. Clearly DanO needed a "proven veteran" to allay his concerns.



Seriously, why does everyone think Odalis Perez or Matt Clement would have such a tremendous effect on this club? I would rather fill holes in the bullpen, bench, rotation and third base spots than blow it all on a starter just so everyone could scream and yell that we have an "ace." I just don't see the logic in that.

Because the Reds literally may be 11 pitchers shy of a good staff. Certainly it's likely they're five starters shy of a good rotation. The absolute lack of quality innings out of the starting rotation croaked the team when the Reds had one of the best bullpens in baseball. The pen is nowhere close to that good anymore and the starting pitching actually has gotten worse. Put concisely, until the Reds stop with the sisters-of-the-poor pitching act they're irrelevant in any discussion of teams that might win something. Get one good pitcher, then start adding more. Simplest of concepts, but it starts with first guy. I've been waiting 53 months for that first guy to show up.

What you're lauding is what the Reds have done the past four seasons. It doesn't work.

Cedric
12-22-2004, 12:12 AM
I think it's argueable that signing 31 year old pitchers to multiple year contracts isn't smart in this market, not to mention I shudder at the thought of how much we would have to overpay to get him. Like it or not this team's future relies on Gardner, Pauly, Claussen, Hudson, Coffey and the likes. Let's pray that history suddenly turns and we get lucky.

Bailey also.

SteelSD
12-22-2004, 12:28 AM
So he gets Randa to make his infield less painful and puts Kearns back into the OF where he may not be as flush as his earlier posturing would indicate.

Bud, let me echo Ced's sentiments that the only good part about a Joe Randa signing is that it allows us to know what we already knew.

Of course, we already knew what O'Brien knows now and that's Austin Kearns can't field the 3B position. That being said, we obviously both know that Joe Randa can't hit the 3B position.

And, of course, that all just puts a cap on things considering that we knew what Dan'O couldn't figure out about Kearns and that we still know what Dan'O couldn't figure out about Randa.

The only good part? Neither of the groups we work for is over two million shy because we were smart enough to know what we know.

The Reds? Yeah. I'm starting to believe that the "dumb people" quotient is about 80%. That means that Dan O'Brien is at the bottom of the food chain. Not good.

M2
12-22-2004, 12:33 AM
I think it's argueable that signing 31 year old pitchers to multiple year contracts isn't smart in this market, not to mention I shudder at the thought of how much we would have to overpay to get him. Like it or not this team's future relies on Gardner, Pauly, Claussen, Hudson, Coffey and the likes. Let's pray that history suddenly turns and we get lucky.

Bailey also.

The team's future rests on figuring out how to get the pitching it hasn't grown. I was banging that drum five years ago and I'll be banging it five years from now if the Reds don't make that leap.

The Reds do not have enough pitching talent in the organization to form anything near a good staff at any point in the foreseeable future. The Reds literally would need to bat 1.000 with the paltry talent they've got.

For comparison's sake, the Pirates have eight, count 'em eight, prospect arms who'll be starting in AA and AAA this season. If four of those guys turn into reliable major league starters that will be a fantastic return. If only three of them turn out, that still will count as awfully good.

I certainly hope the Reds' plan isn't to get lucky. That was JimBo's plan. That's why JimBo needed the firing he got.

M2
12-22-2004, 12:37 AM
Bud, let me echo Ced's sentiments that the only good part about a Joe Randa signing is that it allows us to know what we already knew.

Of course, we already knew what O'Brien knows now and that's Austin Kearns can't field the 3B position. That being said, we obviously both know that Joe Randa can't hit the 3B position.

And, of course, that all just puts a cap on things considering that we knew what Dan'O couldn't figure out about Kearns and that we still know what Dan'O couldn't figure out about Randa.

Great stuff.

I guess my silver lining is that DanO figured out he didn't know something and maybe it lays the groundwork for not knowing less in the future.

Cedric
12-22-2004, 12:40 AM
I do agree with you that letting other teams develop the pitching and then trading for it might be the best route. That's pretty simplistic, but true.

M2
12-22-2004, 12:47 AM
I do agree with you that letting other teams develop the pitching and then trading for it might be the best route. That's pretty simplistic, but true.

Hey, I'm all for developing it too, but the Reds have to be honest with themselves about where they are (aka, nowhere close to being able to deliver a meaningful pitching staff).

If DanO successfully builds an assembly line without any setbacks or mistakes getting in the way, it'll start churning out major league pitchers in 2010, maybe 2009 if he starts drafting some college arms. In the meantime you might get a Pauly or a Gardner, maybe both, but, if you want the Reds to have good pitching, the bulk of the Reds pitching staff for the balance of this decade currently resides in other organizations.

Cedric
12-22-2004, 12:50 AM
That's for sure. I agree completely, not much to add.

johngalt
12-22-2004, 12:58 AM
Ok. How many additional Runs are the acquisitions worth versus the Innings pitched by those the Reds let go?

That's all I ask, just give me a number backed by reasonable research.

From 2002-2004....

Van Poppel, Riedling and Norton:
545.3 innings
334 runs (208 earned)
5.512 runs/9 IP
*For Norton, this is only 2003-2004 because he didn't pitch in the Majors in 2002.

Weathers, Weber and Mercker:
Totals:
508.3 innings 56.48
246 runs (216 earned)
4.356 runs/9 IP
*For Mercker, this includes 2002 with Colorado.




Paul Wilson will not repeat his 2004 numbers so now we're at a net loss.

Actually, Wilson has registered the same ERA vs. League Average rating for four straight years, so I'd say it's a safe bet he'll repeat 2004 (whether that's good or bad is another debate)



Please note anyone that Dan O'Brien has inked to a pen slot who pitched over 60 Innings in 2004 with an ERA under 4.00.

In 2003 and 2004, Mercker had ERAs of 1.95 and 2.55 in 55 1/3 and 53 innings, respectively. Not 60 innings, but that's splitting hairs.

Prior to 2004, Weathers pitched at least 75 innings with an ERA no higher than 3.08 for four straight years. Last season that ERA hit 4.15 in 82.3 innings.

Sorry, just barely missed your random criteria, but I still see a high probability you'll see both guys with ERAs closer to 3.00 than 4.00 in 2005.


It IS a big deal when you spend over two million dollars on a player who projects to be a Run Value bust at the position versus a player you had in hand. That's a BIG DEAL.

Spending $2.1 million on a starting third baseman just doesn't seem extravagant to me. Will Randa be an All-Star? No, but he will earn that money this season.

And let's go ahead and make the Freel comparison.

*Each had 67 runs created in 2004, Randa's coming in 539 PAs and Freel's coming in 592.

*Randa has the advantage in BA (.287 vs. .277), slugging percentage (.408 vs. .368), OPS (.751 vs. .743), RBIs (56 vs. 28), total bases (198 vs. 186), home runs (8 vs. 3), doubles (31 vs. 21) and fewer strikeouts (77 vs. 88).

*Freel has the advantage in OBP (.375 vs. .343), steals (37 vs. 0), runs scored (74 vs. 65), hits (140 vs. 139), walks (67) and triples (8 vs. 2).

*On the defensive side, Randa had a .967 fielding percentage (11 errors in 119 games) against a league average of .951. Freel had a .925 fielding percentage (12 erros in 56 games) against a .956 league average. Randa's range factor/game was 2.74, while Freel's was 2.66.

Looking at that info, I'd give the offensive nod to Randa (not by much), although I can understand the argument that what Freel provides offensively might be more valuable to our lineup in relation to what we already have. On the defensive side, I don't think there's any question Randa is much better than Freel at third, particularly if we're looking at an everyday guy.

Additionally, if you start Freel at third, your first infielder off the bench is going to either be Machado or a free agent, with Reese a possibility. I'd definitely take a Randa/Freel combo over a Freel/Machado combo and I would take it over Freel/Reese as well.


Because having a Matt Clement (I am not a proponent of Odalis Perez) means that you have a great chance of beating any team every fifth day out. Because having a sub-.700 OPS in a Starter slot actually means something- because there were only 25 Starting Pitchers in MLB who posted sub-.700 OPS Against numbers in 2004 and those pitchers are geometrically more valuable than the below-league-average puds the Reds now own lock, stock, and barrel.

I'm with you as far as Clement having an impact, and I do believe he could have helped us out. But signing Clement would probably mean him being our biggest signing not just this year, but next year as well because of the commitment that would need to be made. Every fifth day, Clement's chances of winning would be much, much greater than any pitcher the Reds have right now. But I look at these other additions, and to me, it gives the Reds a much better shot at winning the other four games. That's just more valuable to me.


Very simply, there was no hole at 3B that couldn't have been filled for less.

Aside from Freel, how else could third have been filled for less? Tony Batista? Vinny Castilla? Mark Derosa? I don't see anyone out there that fits coming cheaper and providing more of an improvement.

Redmachine2003
12-22-2004, 01:10 AM
I am not sure what to think about this move. I guess I am just waiting for the second shoe to fall. If signing Randa means the Reds are going to trade one of our out fielders I want to see what they get in return before I say this was a good deal.

oregonred
12-22-2004, 01:36 AM
Don't worry Freel will still find a way to get 450+ AB's this season. History says you'll be lucky to get 600 AB's combined out of KGJ/Kearns.

Position wise this team is much deeper than the beginning of 2004. The bench/subs are going to be WAY better than the 2004 squad

Hello to Earth... Folks we suffered through 750+ sub .300 OBP/.610 OPS AB's of Castro/Thug Life/Cruz/Larson/Bragg littering the lineup in 2004. Now you're looking at slotting almost all of those forgettable 700AB's for a Randa/Freel and WMP/Kearns combination. The worshipped Twins FO forked out 1M per for Juan Castro (Juan Castro!). Randa at 2.15M for a one year deal looks highway robbery compared to the Castro contract. Sorry, 3B isn't a position you fill easily -- you certainly aren't finding Randas for $500-1M on the open market. I'm actually surprised Randa didn't cost a bit more in the market --especailly for a one year deal. Do we print playoff tickets, heck no, but it's a lot better than the stinkfest this weak roster trolled out on a daily basis from June onwards.

Finally, I love how people proclaim with certainty that they are smarter than the GM and have all the answers. We have some very talented people here, but Dan O's running one of 30 MLB franchises and has been part of two very successful MLB minor league system retoolings all while we're playing around on an internet message board in our spare time (albeit the best sports one in existance I've ever seen). Dan O likely knew the Kearns to 3B experiment was a crapshoot at best, and almost certainly knew with 98% certainty that Kearns would be in RF or in another city come opening day. Maybe the AK 3B experiment was to smokescreen trade value (not look like you needed to deal a young OF). Who knows??

Redsfaithful
12-22-2004, 02:22 AM
I really don't get the Ryan Freel fetish. I know he's cheap, and he gets on a base at an ok clip (I wouldn't call .375 amazing or anything, especially when combined with a .368 slugging percentage). But the guy's an injury waiting to happen, and he's played one full season at the major league level. And that was at the age of 28.

I know everyone seems to have the attitude that the Reds can't win in 2005, so why bother, but I really don't see the point in giving up entirely. Starting Ryan Freel at third instead of Joe Randa would save the team like $1.5 million. How does that make the Reds better? What AAAA scrub would then be on the bench instead of Freel?

O'Brien seems to want to put something watchable on the field while we wait for minor league development. I don't agree with everything he's doing, but I appreciate the effort.

None of this has cost the Reds any youth except for Dustin Moseley. I haven't seen any long term deals handed out to anyone that we've signed. So how does any of this hurt things? People seem to want Matt Clement instead of everyone we've signed, but I don't think Clement was ever an option, whether the Reds explored it or not. He signed with Boston, a team more than capable of beating any offer little ol' Cincinnati would be willing to put on the table. Not to mention that the guy has family in Philadelphia who can now watch him pitch on a regular basis.

Worst case scenario the Reds don't improve, and we're a year closer to EdE, Joey Votto, Richie Gardner, and Thomas Pauly. And we're also a year further in the development of Wily Mo, Kearns, Dunn, Wagner, Claussen, Hudson, etc. That seems fine to me.

Redmachine2003
12-22-2004, 02:34 AM
I really don't get the Ryan Freel fetish. I know he's cheap, and he gets on a base at an ok clip (I wouldn't call .375 amazing or anything, especially when combined with a .368 slugging percentage). But the guy's an injury waiting to happen, and he's played one full season at the major league level. And that was at the age of 28.

I know everyone seems to have the attitude that the Reds can't win in 2005, so why bother, but I really don't see the point in giving up entirely. Starting Ryan Freel at third instead of Joe Randa would save the team like $1.5 million. How does that make the Reds better? What AAAA scrub would then be on the bench instead of Freel?

O'Brien seems to want to put something watchable on the field while we wait for minor league development. I don't agree with everything he's doing, but I appreciate the effort.

None of this has cost the Reds any youth except for Dustin Moseley. I haven't seen any long term deals handed out to anyone that we've signed. So how does any of this hurt things? People seem to want Matt Clement instead of everyone we've signed, but I don't think Clement was ever an option, whether the Reds explored it or not. He signed with Boston, a team more than capable of beating any offer little ol' Cincinnati would be willing to put on the table. Not to mention that the guy has family in Philadelphia who can now watch him pitch on a regular basis.

Worst case scenario the Reds don't improve, and we're a year closer to EdE, Joey Votto, Richie Gardner, and Thomas Pauly. And we're also a year further in the development of Wily Mo, Kearns, Dunn, Wagner, Claussen, Hudson, etc. That seems fine to me.
With Freel it is the Pete Rose likeness the Reds fans go crazy for. I really don't understand it myself but Cincy fans are Rose nuts.

Ravenlord
12-22-2004, 03:02 AM
Wilson, Ortiz, Randa combined make about 10.17 mil. with whom came off the books last year, and who's on now, the Reds are using about 14.2mil of a possible 14.5 mil (that does include arb and Graves and Casey's upage). gee, wonder who could have been signed with that 10.17 :rolleyes:

O'Brien has a direction. it's one i very much don't agree with, but there is a consistant plan of trying to obviously improve. :thumbup: he's just make poor choices. :thumbdown

TeamCasey
12-22-2004, 04:38 AM
I wonder who'll make the last post on this thread? ;)

Redmachine2003
12-22-2004, 05:06 AM
Wilson, Ortiz, Randa combined make about 10.17 mil. with whom came off the books last year, and who's on now, the Reds are using about 14.2mil of a possible 14.5 mil (that does include arb and Graves and Casey's upage). gee, wonder who could have been signed with that 10.17 :rolleyes:

O'Brien has a direction. it's one i very much don't agree with, but there is a consistant plan of trying to obviously improve. :thumbup: he's just make poor choices. :thumbdown
Yes he could have signed superman to play 3rd and take two spots in the starting rotation. Your boat is sinking there are 5 little holes and one big hole so you go out and buy the nicest biggest plug out there and you plug up the big hole. You spent all of your money and The boat still sinks because you have 5 little holes still letting in water.

Ravenlord
12-22-2004, 05:44 AM
Yes he could have signed superman to play 3rd and take two spots in the starting rotation. Your boat is sinking there are 5 little holes and one big hole so you go out and buy the nicest biggest plug out there and you plug up the big hole. You spent all of your money and The boat still sinks because you have 5 little holes still letting in water.
and he entirely misses the point.

3B Branyan $800,000
RHP Clement $8,330,000
RHP Millwood $3,000,000
LHP de los Santos $450,000
RHP Weber (i like this one sorta) $1,250,000
don't non-tender Riedling.
and i think with a back loaded deal, you could get Wade Miller for about $900,000 and 2-3 million next year on a team option
sign LaRue to a two year deal instead of a single year. first year 2.5, second year 3.3. incentives for both years.

total: $14.73 million, plus $500,000 saved for 05 on LaRue. also i wouldn't have let Etherton go. i figure he'll start the year in Oakland's bullpen. undervalued minorleaguer who's hitting peak years and had a bloody good year in AAA last year.

though don't get me wrong, i still think this team will finish better than they did last year. i just don't think that'll hold through in 06

RFS62
12-22-2004, 08:34 AM
I really don't get the Ryan Freel fetish. I know he's cheap, and he gets on a base at an ok clip (I wouldn't call .375 amazing or anything, especially when combined with a .368 slugging percentage). But the guy's an injury waiting to happen, and he's played one full season at the major league level. And that was at the age of 28.

I know everyone seems to have the attitude that the Reds can't win in 2005, so why bother, but I really don't see the point in giving up entirely. Starting Ryan Freel at third instead of Joe Randa would save the team like $1.5 million. How does that make the Reds better? What AAAA scrub would then be on the bench instead of Freel?

O'Brien seems to want to put something watchable on the field while we wait for minor league development. I don't agree with everything he's doing, but I appreciate the effort.

None of this has cost the Reds any youth except for Dustin Moseley. I haven't seen any long term deals handed out to anyone that we've signed. So how does any of this hurt things? People seem to want Matt Clement instead of everyone we've signed, but I don't think Clement was ever an option, whether the Reds explored it or not. He signed with Boston, a team more than capable of beating any offer little ol' Cincinnati would be willing to put on the table. Not to mention that the guy has family in Philadelphia who can now watch him pitch on a regular basis.

Worst case scenario the Reds don't improve, and we're a year closer to EdE, Joey Votto, Richie Gardner, and Thomas Pauly. And we're also a year further in the development of Wily Mo, Kearns, Dunn, Wagner, Claussen, Hudson, etc. That seems fine to me.



I have to agree with about every word.

You too, Oregon

indyfan5
12-22-2004, 09:09 AM
I like the signing, it frees up Freel to play other positions and come off the bench. Also, if we are dealing an OF, why didn't we make an offer like Pena/Clausen and a minor leaguer to the As for say Hudson?

Cedric
12-22-2004, 09:13 AM
Free agent at the end of the year. It really makes no sense to trdae away future like Wily Mo for a rental, but I would love to have Hudson. From reading between the lines of DanO I would say Wily Mo Pena is almost the most untouchable player on the roster. I'd say Dunn and Pena are the two most unlikely to be traded but Dunn less so because of salary.

CougarQuest
12-22-2004, 09:34 AM
Ravenlord, if you are talking about Ben Weber, he will make $600,000 in '05, not $1.25M.

"Wilson, Ortiz, Randa combined make about 10.17 mil."
Wilson will make $3.6 in 2005. Randa will make $2.15M in 2005. No one knows what Ortiz will make yet. Where are you coming up with $10.17M for 2005?

CougarQuest
12-22-2004, 09:37 AM
I knew yesterday that we were in for a lot of snow. By reading this thread, the sky is falling.

traderumor
12-22-2004, 10:32 AM
Randa at about $2.15M is agreeable. I don't think it is wasted money, and I think that his lack of power for a corner position is not as critical with the offensive mix the Reds have, who have enough power. From what I've read, he will help a defense that needs all the help it can get. Plus, its a one year contract with a prospect on the way.

I also don't see his signing preventing us from doing other things. It shouldn't have any effect on the draft budget, it didn't in and of itself keep us from signing a #1 pitcher, and it could open the door to letting go of one of the three amigos to get that.

Just to admittedly stoke those flames, it seems that when Billy Beane makes a deal, great gyrations are performed to find reasons why a deal makes sense or is a genious move, while the exact opposite seems to occur with moves the Reds FO makes. I said I wasn't going to defend obvious stupid moves, but when I look at signing Randa to play third, I'm just not seeing the downside others are seeing on this one.

traderumor
12-22-2004, 10:40 AM
Need some clarification here. It is widely accepted that EE is our future at 3B. He OPSd .795 in a full season at AA last year, which is only 30 points higher than the guy we just signed, whose biggest flaw is lack of power for a corner position. So why are we so hip on EE?

And that's not a rhetorical question.

Jpup
12-22-2004, 10:42 AM
Need some clarification here. It is widely accepted that EE is our future at 3B. He OPSd .795 in a full season at AA last year, which is only 30 points higher than the guy we just signed, whose biggest flaw is lack of power for a corner position. So why are we so hip on EE?

And that's not a rhetorical question.

he's young.

Personally I don't put much stock in Minor League numbers. I would actually like to see them play on the MLB level before I take a stance one way or another.

REDREAD
12-22-2004, 10:59 AM
I'm not even going to get into the cost of the fruitless endeavors of signing Weathers and Weber. O'Brien's primary task was to improve the pen, and no GM has done that with more futility.

...
Considering that their mantra has always been "PayFlex" and that they just spent a lot of whatever their flexibility was, I'm now convinced that we should alter the name to "WasteFlex", because that's exactly what the Reds did.

The Reds took a bunch of money that should have gone to actually improving the team and wasted it on players they think can improve the team. I'm done. My patience is spent.
.

Steel, you make an interesting case. But consider this. Allen and Carl are giving DanO some money to spend. If the team doesn't improve it's W-L record over last year, I wonder if DanO is going to be on the hot seat.
Maybe Carl is tired of being booed at the stadium. We all know Allen wants DanO to come out looking better than Bowden was. If DanO falls on his face this year, I wonder if they'll show him the door. I have got to think that Carl probably expects a club that is improved this year.

REDREAD
12-22-2004, 11:12 AM
Filling holes only keeps the Reds out of the cellar.....maybe. They still have noc chance of sniffing .500 let alone make them a real contender.
.

The team was in such a wreck last year, that I think it's impossible to turn the team into a contender in 2005. This is the fault of Bowden, Kullman, Maddox, Allen, Lindner, and DanO.

I mean even if you had the cash, it would be almost impossible to sign a legit #1, #2, #3, and resign Wilson as your #4 all in one offseason. The only team I can recall that did such a quick rebuilding was when the Marlins went on that big spending spree in 1997 (?) with Brown, Alou, Sheffield, etc.

IMO, this team needs to climb up the ladder of respectablity for someone like Clement to even consider signing here. Like EXBRAVEDAD said (and I believe), there's no chance even Millwood would even consider coming here.

Now Washington might end up snagging O Perez. There's usually a couple guys that can be had by a small market that overpays, but not enough to turn the team into a contender overnight.

I think whether the team cracks 500 next year will largely depend on Clauseen, Hudson, and Harang. And that would be true even if we traded for Randy Johnson. I think the revamped bullpen will help. I'm not a big fan of Weathers, but he's an upgrade by default. I like the Mercker signing. That's probably worth 2-4 wins alone over Norton.

I can see the arguement that perhaps DanO isn't spending the money optimally though. I just think that we are in such a big hole, that a reasonable goal would be to try to patch the team to marginally improve.
I'd rather do that than have the team tell the fans to be "patient" until 2009 when the farm help arrives.

And I'm happy as a clam that Kearns will not be at 3b next year.

princeton
12-22-2004, 11:19 AM
Need some clarification here. It is widely accepted that EE is our future at 3B. He OPSd .795 in a full season at AA last year, which is only 30 points higher than the guy we just signed, whose biggest flaw is lack of power for a corner position. So why are we so hip on EE?
.

power is the last tool to develop. Some never get it, and become Joe Randas. But the best bets to develop it are very young hitters with great bat speed and good plate discipline, especially if they're advancing quickly.

REDREAD
12-22-2004, 11:27 AM
gee, wonder who could have been signed with that 10.17 :rolleyes:


Who's to say that Clement would've came here? Boston would've probably just upped their offer to 11 million/year.

If you believe the press, 8-10 teams were chasing Clement hard. Cleveland supposedly pulled out all the stops to get him.

I don't know if the Reds seriously pursued Clement or not. To be honest, I'm kind of skeptical that they made an offer that made Clement think hard.. (ie I doubt they offered him more than 2 years). But it's hard for me to believe we were a serious contender for him.

The Reds have been losing for 4 years straight now. They just aren't a very attractive spot for a FA.

MWM
12-22-2004, 11:28 AM
The team was in such a wreck last year, that I think it's impossible to turn the team into a contender in 2005.

So why try? Why not just admit the team's going to be bad for a few years and not waste money on 35+ years old players, just so you can "climb the ladder of respectability." Again, it's about deciding on a strategy and going for it all the way instead of trying to straddle the fence between respectability and bad. the only way a team climb's this ladder is by being in a playoff race. That ain't going to happen.

One thing that hasn't been discussed in all of this is the draft. If the Reds had all this money available, I would have preferred they saved it for signing draft picks instead of going to the Randas and Weathers of the world. If using money to sign these players just to keep out of the cellar means they're drafting on the cheap again, then I will be royally pissed. If they save some of this cash, they can draft whoever they want to. Last year if they would have had more cash, they could have drafted Jered Weaver or Stephen Drew.

johngalt
12-22-2004, 11:28 AM
power is the last tool to develop. Some never get it, and become Joe Randas. But the best bets to develop it are very young hitters with great bat speed and good plate discipline, especially if they're advancing quickly.

Randa should still be good for 15 homers or so. Not huge power, but adequate enough considering people wanted Freel to play third.

Last year his homers dipped because of the changes they made to the ballpark with pushing back the fences. It ended the year giving up the second-fewest homers in all of baseball.

MWM
12-22-2004, 11:30 AM
Redsfaithful,

In reference to your last post, for me, it's not what DanO HAS done. It's what he HASN'T done.

traderumor
12-22-2004, 11:30 AM
power is the last tool to develop. Some never get it, and become Joe Randas. But the best bets to develop it are very young hitters with great bat speed and good plate discipline, especially if they're advancing quickly.Or use the cream :mhcky21:

All kidding aside, thanks for an explanation. So it is safe to say that there is a significant risk that EE will not be able to put up the numbers we would like to see our 3B have in the lineup of the future, or we will have to take that into account as we fill other positions.

As for Randa, I can live with his 10-15 homers and 30-35 doubles and .340 OBP and he seems to fit in the lineup at a reasonable price. It isn't like we have a lineup full of judys.

RedsFan75
12-22-2004, 11:33 AM
The Reds have been losing for 4 years straight now. They just aren't a very attractive spot for a FA.

I think this is a very good point. The FA's we've attracted the last few years have involved.... Lidle, Wilson, and ....... Hmm...

The Red's are attracting guys getting away from situations, wanting to show their abilities. The Red's, as much as we love em, will never attract the top flight guys, until they can show that these guys are going to be either contending, or supported enough to raise their numbers, so they get a bigger raise the next year.

Imagine being a Pirate or Brewer fan.... how do they get the FA's there... They are usually lower than the Reds.

REDREAD
12-22-2004, 11:33 AM
and he entirely misses the point.

3B Branyan $800,000
RHP Clement $8,330,000
RHP Millwood $3,000,000
LHP de los Santos $450,000
RHP Weber (i like this one sorta) $1,250,000
don't non-tender Riedling.
and i think with a back loaded deal, you could get Wade Miller for about $900,000 and 2-3 million next year on a team option
sign LaRue to a two year deal instead of a single year. first year 2.5, second year 3.3. incentives for both years.

total: $14.73 million, plus $500,000 saved for 05 on LaRue. also i wouldn't have let Etherton go. i figure he'll start the year in Oakland's bullpen. undervalued minorleaguer who's hitting peak years and had a bloody good year in AAA last year.

though don't get me wrong, i still think this team will finish better than they did last year. i just don't think that'll hold through in 06

I think you are way underestimating what Miller will get. Unless his arm is completely detached, he'll get more than 900k and a TEAM option for 2006 that locks him into a lowball deal.

Look at what Leiber got from the Yanks.

Also, I do agree with you that letting Brayan go 2 years ago was dumb, but now we have to consider that we'd have to trade something to Milwaukee to get him back. And Milwaukee considers him to have value.

Also, I think you are low on Millwood as well. I expect him to get 4-5 million. IIRC, he has no health problems, just had an off year. Now, if he had an injury I'm unaware of, you might be right. But again, EXBRAVEDAD has said we have no chance at Millwood.. part of the reality when you've had 4 losing seasons in a row.. you can't pick and chose the FA you want.

I agree that they should've tendered Reidling. Also, I think the Reds only paid 600k for Weber, so that strengthens your case :)

MWM
12-22-2004, 11:34 AM
Randa should still be good for 15 homers or so. Not huge power, but adequate enough considering people wanted Freel to play third.


Here's the SLG for all 3B last year with more than 400 ABs:


SLG YEAR SLG
1 Adrian Beltre 2004 .629
2 Scott Rolen 2004 .598
3 Aramis Ramirez 2004 .578
4 Melvin Mora 2004 .562
5 Vinny Castilla 2004 .535
6 Alex Rodriguez 2004 .512
7 Mike Lowell 2004 .505
8 Eric Chavez 2004 .501
9 Hank Blalock 2004 .500
10 Corey Koskie 2004 .495
11 Aubrey Huff 2004 .493
12 Casey Blake 2004 .486
13 Chipper Jones 2004 .485
14 David Bell 2004 .458
15 Tony Batista 2004 .455
16 Brandon Inge 2004 .453
17 Bill Mueller 2004 .446
18 Ty Wigginton 2004 .433
19 Chone Figgins 2004 .419
20 Joe Crede 2004 .418
21 Morgan Ensberg 2004 .411
22 Joe Randa 2004 .408
23 Chad Tracy 2004 .407
24 Edgardo Alfonzo 2004 .407
25 Eric Hinske 2004 .375
26 Ryan Freel 2004 .368
27 Sean Burroughs 2004 .365
28 Scott Spiezio 2004 .346
29 Desi Relaford 2004 .305

REDREAD
12-22-2004, 11:46 AM
So why try? Why not just admit the team's going to be bad for a few years and not waste money on 35+ years old players, just so you can "climb the ladder of respectability." .

If Carl is willing to spend the money to improve the team, why not?
If the team did nothing this offseason, Pittsburg probably moves past them in the standings. Milwaukee has a lot of good young talent arriving soon, and if the Reds don't try, we'll be passed by them soon.
The Reds aren't going to be a contender any time soon, but they have to keep the fans interested in the product. None of the moves DanO has done are going to hurt the team long term or slow down the rebuilding process, unless Mosely backfires on them.
I can see the argument that perhaps DanO didn't spend the money optimally, but the Reds really aren't in a position to pick and chose whatever FA they want, even if DanO did have 10 million to spend. Does anyone think Clement would want to come here with a horrible bullpen and defense when he could get the same money in Boston? I mean, seriously, why would Clement want to come here with Kearns at 3b, Lopez at SS, and Wily Mo in CF? That sounds like a pitcher's nightmare.. and then the horrible pen would blow most of his W's.









Again, it's about deciding on a strategy and going for it all the way instead of trying to straddle the fence between respectability and bad. the only way a team climb's this ladder is by being in a playoff race. That ain't going to happen.
.
I have yet to see a reasonable alternative with our payflex that would've produced a contender. People say Ortiz is not a good gamble, yet Wade Miller is??




One thing that hasn't been discussed in all of this is the draft. If the Reds had all this money available, I would have preferred they saved it for signing draft picks instead of going to the Randas and Weathers of the world. .

Now this is a reasonable alternative. However, apparently this money is coming from Carl getting tired of being embarrassed. Historically, Allen has been quite stingy with the draft, it would be a hard sell to get him to double or triple the draft budget. Now maybe when the Reds get a farm success story under DanO, it would be an easier sell, but ever since the Howington disaster, Allen has been very cold towards the draft.

traderumor
12-22-2004, 11:46 AM
So why try?

I don't see any indication that they are going to short the draft budget. So far, whether or not you agree with the picks, they funded the picks they made last year.



Why not just admit the team's going to be bad for a few years and not waste money on 35+ years old players, just so you can "climb the ladder of respectability." Again, it's about deciding on a strategy and going for it all the way instead of trying to straddle the fence between respectability and bad. the only way a team climb's this ladder is by being in a playoff race. That ain't going to happen.If a GM isn't always looking at both the short term and the long term, he is a poor GM. Again, separating the actual deals and only looking at the intent, it is a good business plan in sports to not tank a season. I know the losing seasons are piling up, I've been sitting right here with you watching them. Still, these are short term decisions that you seem to think will hinder the long-term goals of the franchise. However, the flip side of that is "sign Clement" which is also counter to strictly a long-term focus. I don't see any fence straddling here. I see attempts at accomplishing growth in the franchise both in the short and long term. Again, disagree with whether that's being done or not, but that does seem to be the intent. I might add, what good does it do to sock away a pile of cash if you don't know what to do with in anyways? If they're incompetent, they're incompetent, whether they waste the money now or later.


One thing that hasn't been discussed in all of this is the draft. If the Reds had all this money available, I would have preferred they saved it for signing draft picks instead of going to the Randas and Weathers of the world. If using money to sign these players just to keep out of the cellar means they're drafting on the cheap again, then I will be royally pissed. If they save some of this cash, they can draft whoever they want to. Last year if they would have had more cash, they could have drafted Jered Weaver or Stephen Drew.I did mention the draft in my last post, and the track record with DanO as GM is the draft was funded, no significant non-signings IIRC. Some would like more, but I don't recall much criticism with the funding of the draft, just with the picks that were made. And I for one am glad they didn't throw the cash being asked for at the two names you threw out there. But then again, we're hopeless because the money spent on draft picks will be a waste because they don't know how to draft either.

MWM
12-22-2004, 12:16 PM
If Carl is willing to spend the money to improve the team, why not?

Because I couldn't care less about an "improved" team. What good is "improved" if it doesn't lead to a contender. That's just it. I think traderumor touched on this in his Bengals analogy. People have gotten so accustomed to mediocrity that they seem to be satisfied with "improved." If improving the team still means a losing season, and those improvements are older players who won' be around for permanent improvement, it serves no purpose whatsoever if you're looking to get to the playoffs.

Basically, whether they lose 85 games or 95 games means very little to me.

MWM
12-22-2004, 12:21 PM
I don't see any indication that they are going to short the draft budget. So far, whether or not you agree with the picks, they funded the picks they made last year.

Of course they funded the picks, but theypicked the guys they knew they could fund. Are you trying to tell me that they would have rather had Homer Bailey than Jered Weaver? No way. They didn't pick Weaver because they couldn't afford him. He was by far the best pitcher in the draft and will probably be ready for the majors by 2006, maybe even late 2005.


If a GM isn't always looking at both the short term and the long term, he is a poor GM.

That's fine. But if they aren't making moves that will actually lead to a CONTENDER in the short term or the long-term, then he's a bad GM. And you even said it. What has he done for the long-term?

westofyou
12-22-2004, 12:28 PM
Basically, whether they lose 85 games or 95 games means very little to me.

But it matters to their bottom line and budgeting for the next few years.

Everyone knows what the Reds need to win next year, more starting pitching, more depth in the BP, more bench depth, more minor league depth to deal when they're close in July.

Only problem is they don't plan on being close, this isn't the year they're gonna go for it. They don't think that if they spend the jack like everyone here wants them to that it will be enough, they don't think that they have the horses on the bench or the bodies to flip to make a serious run.

They're running for .500 and hoping they can flip some guys and contracts down the line.

That's the business plan, not trying to win 88 game at the expense of another long term contract. Don't expect to ever see another Red signed for more than 5 years and no pitchers for more than 3.

We all know what the Reds need, they're the ones that have to execute it, live with it and pay for it.

traderumor
12-22-2004, 12:37 PM
That's the problem with the long-term. It's hard to gauge if "anything's been done." On the flip side, what has been done to hurt the long-term? The only thing you have come up with thus far is speculation about the draft budget dropping because they signed some modest priced free agents to plug known holes, yet the evidence from last year indicates that DO convinced his bosses to sign his draft picks.

As for Weaver, the Reds weren't the only team that wanted no part of the money he was asking for. You assume it was a signability issue, when I think it was a pick based on their opinion that Homer Bailey was the best option for the money. That opinion has the likelihood of being wrong, as has been firmly established a multitude of times, but I agree with their assessment that Weaver was not worth what he was asking for, either. Certainly you would agree that if they concluded that, as did many other teams, then they shouldn't draft that person. Overpaying is almost always a bad thing, but I would say its insanity in a crapshoot like the draft.

MWM
12-22-2004, 12:39 PM
But it matters to their bottom line and budgeting for the next few years.

Well, if that's what's driving these decisions, then just shoot me now. If they're trying to just win enough to not lose money, then they're NEVER going to try for something special. At some point I want them to attempt greatness. Theyr'e trying for mediocrity in the hopes they don't absolutely suck.

I want to see them do ONE THING that tells me they are looking to build somthing great down the road. For example, make an attempt to sign Adam Dunn.

DoogMinAmo
12-22-2004, 12:39 PM
Basically, whether they lose 85 games or 95 games means very little to me.

Then you are lying to yourself, plain and simple. It does matter how many games they win/ lose, otherwise you are not a fan. While you might contend the how is just as important, don't say that losing is losing, no matter what.

I personally contend that while these moves are stopgaps, they are not BAD moves. It seems that Dan O is buying time while the kids develop, and trying to fill seats, so that when we are only a few/ couple pieces away from truly being a contender, we have the payroll to support the team.

As far as mediocrity, it is one thing to be a bad team striving for mediocrity, and another to be a mediocre team striving to be better/ above average. These moves push us to the latter, and with continual development, I and all other Reds' fans hope for the better end result. I can not wait til spring training and the season, I am feeling good about this team. Well, atleast a whole lot better than years past... aren't you?

MWM
12-22-2004, 12:43 PM
Then you are lying to yourself, plain and simple. It does matter how many games they win/ lose, otherwise you are not a fan.


Spare me the condescending remarks about me not being a fan. Lying to myself? I think I can judge that for myself, thanks.

My point was that 85 losses or 95 losses still means I'm watching someone else in October. What additional satisfaction to you get out of a 3rd place team instead of a 4th place team? i want the playoffs. That's how I measure wins and losses. 5 additional wins that have no impact on the playoffs mean absolutely nothing to me. If that makes me less a fan than Doog, so be it. Watch a .500 team for the rest of your life.

DoogMinAmo
12-22-2004, 12:51 PM
Spare me the condescending remarks about me not being a fan. Lying to myself? I think I can judge that for myself, thanks.

My point was that 85 losses or 95 losses still means I'm watching someone else in October. What additional satisfaction to you get out of a 3rd place team instead of a 4th place team? i want the playoffs. That's how I measure wins and losses. 5 additional wins that have no impact on the playoffs mean absolutely nothing to me. If that makes me less a fan than Doog, so be it. Watch a .500 team for the rest of your life.

Not trying to be condescending, if I am, I apologize. I am merely saying that if at any point you want to become a contender, go to A from D, you need to hit C and B along the way. You want to attract free agents, show that you are a team that wins 85 instead of loses them first. Want to have a bigger budget, show the fans you are trying, and the Reds are improving from year to year. Whether or not the merits of long term and short term strategies are being executed properly are for us here to squabble over. The fact that a plan is in place to improve the team slightly year by year is the reality. 85? 95? 105? It matters to me, and probably to a lot of other people, hence the fan comment.

Now back to the earlier question, do you feel better about this team than any other in the past 5 years? I take Joe Randa's word for it, he was a prospective free agent that saw this team as one on the rise. Another year of improvement, and more are hopefully sure to follow.

Redsfaithful
12-22-2004, 01:28 PM
So why try? Why not just admit the team's going to be bad for a few years and not waste money on 35+ years old players, just so you can "climb the ladder of respectability."

Because completely tanking in 2005 would probably cause attendance to drop, and it would also cause you to lose goodwill with all of the players currently employed by the Reds. Both of those results would hurt the Reds ability to try for something great in coming years.

It's not completely out of the possibility that the Reds stay in the playoff hunt through September, or even sneak in. They only need to improve by 15 wins or so, which is a lot, granted, but with some breaks it's doable.

A playoff run is great PR. It's great PR for the fan base, and it's even better PR for attracting free agents.

O'Brien is giving 2005 a little bit of a shot. If it works out, awesome. If the Reds suck anyway, then I'm sure he'll flip some people in July, and the organization will be stronger for it. Either way, none of this has hurt the Reds future.

As far as the draft, it was fully funded last season. Until O'Brien runs a draft that isn't, I think we have to assume that he'll be signing his draft picks.

It could be that John Allen doesn't mind lobbying for more money now that O'Brien is the GM. I'm sure he'll try harder if he likes Dan'O, since he didn't have the greatest relationship with Bowden.

MWM
12-22-2004, 01:38 PM
Now back to the earlier question, do you feel better about this team than any other in the past 5 years? I take Joe Randa's word for it, he was a prospective free agent that saw this team as one on the rise. Another year of improvement, and more are hopefully sure to follow.

Not really. I don't think they're going to lose 100 games, but I also don't think they're going to be that close to .500. I'm thinking about 72-75 wins.

If moves like Randa and Weber and Weathers are getting us from D to , they aren't going to "KEEP" as C. I'm all for incremental improvements if those improvements will be more than a one year improvement and part of a plan that will eventually lead to a winner. I just don't see anything that leads me to believe they are working towards a winner.

MWM
12-22-2004, 01:44 PM
As far as the draft, it was fully funded last season. Until O'Brien runs a draft that isn't, I think we have to assume that he'll be signing his draft picks.

I'm not sure I buy that logic, RF. Was it fully funded because they drafted players that fit within their limited budget or did they draft the players based on who was the best at the time? Jered Weaver was available at the time, but he wanted big bucks.

Heck, with the exception of Jeremy Sowers, JimBo pretty much signed most of his first rounders. But there's no doubt that the draft was underfunded during many of those years.

Redsfaithful
12-22-2004, 01:45 PM
I'm not sure I buy that logic, RF. Was it fully funded because they drafted players that fit within their limited budget or did they draft the players based on who was the best at the time? Jered Weaver was available at the time, but he wanted big bucks.

Heck, with the exception of Jeremy Sowers, JimBo pretty much signed most of his first rounders. But there's no doubt that the draft was underfunded during many of those years.

Honestly? I think O'Brien really, really liked Bailey.

It scares me too, but I think he thought he got the best player available.

johngalt
12-22-2004, 01:46 PM
I'm not sure I buy that logic, RF. Was it fully funded because they drafted players that fit within their limited budget or did they draft the players based on who was the best at the time? Jered Weaver was available at the time, but he wanted big bucks.


In this case, I think the Reds (like a lot of teams) just didn't feel it was worth it to spend that much on a draft pick. Even teams that have money to spend just don't see these guys as valuable enough to throw that kind of money their way before they've even put on a GCL Reds uniform. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but I can understand the logic.

Aronchis
12-22-2004, 01:55 PM
Honestly? I think O'Brien really, really liked Bailey.

It scares me too, but I think he thought he got the best player available.

I definitely think so to. Pressure's on DanO's Bailey to rip through Aball next year like Kerry Wood did in the mid-90's.

DanO drafted him like he was as good as a College pitcher.

REDREAD
12-22-2004, 02:08 PM
Because I couldn't care less about an "improved" team. What good is "improved" if it doesn't lead to a contender. That's just it. I think traderumor touched on this in his Bengals analogy. People have gotten so accustomed to mediocrity that they seem to be satisfied with "improved." If improving the team still means a losing season, and those improvements are older players who won' be around for permanent improvement, it serves no purpose whatsoever if you're looking to get to the playoffs.

Basically, whether they lose 85 games or 95 games means very little to me.

I want a contender too, but I sure don't want to sit through 6 years of 90-100 loss seasons. If I have do that, I might not care when the Reds are contenders in 2010.

I can respect your opinion that a 4th place team isn't much more fun that a 5th place team, but I'm glad we'll have a 3b not named Larson and hopefully a bullpen that doesn't blow every game. Ortiz.. I'm not sure how he'll do, but there's some hope there. He's certainly a step up from Hancock, who I dreaded seeing every 5th day.

I just don't see any real downside to any of these moves DanO made. It would be impossible for him to make us a contender this offseason, so while I'm not completely satisfied with the team, I like the fact that supposedly Carl wants to improve the team. That might end up being another empty promise, but if we can get Carl to jack up the payroll at least in the 60-70 million range, there's hope that sometime in the future we might contend.

I think the Reds are going to be a lot more tolerable to watch. IMO, last year was one of the most frustrating seasons I've ever sat through.
Maybe DanO gets us to .500 this year, and then is able to improve the W-L record by 3-5 games/year.. Of course, there's no guarantee that he will, but you've got to start somewhere, and filling your most glaring holes (bullpen, 1 starter, 3b) is a great start, even if it is only a stopgap.