PDA

View Full Version : What is the Reds' "Plan"



registerthis
01-12-2006, 10:30 AM
I was just talking with my fiancee last night, explaining to her non-baseball-centric self about the follies of my favorite club. She listened with some amusement, and then asked "Well, what is their plan? Why do you think they're making--or not making--these moves?"

And I pondered it for a second, and realized that I hadn't a bloody clue.

Do they honestly think the team can be competitive with the rotation and bullpen they have? I have to think that, somewhere deep down, DanO realizes that this pitching staff is among the worst in all of baseball, and no amount of raking by the offense is going to overcome that.

So, are they trying to sell tickets with a couple of marquee names in the lineup?

Are they trying to catch lightning in a bottle, as the '99 team did, and play over their heads for an entire season?

Are they so cost-conscious that they refuse to sign worthy players to LT contracts, and so wary of a fall off in attendance that they would rather play aging vets with a "name" over younger, unproven (but likely superior) players?

Are they honestly trying to build the team from the ground up and have an entire front office that is woefully incompetent?

Are they trying to win now and have deluded themselves into thinking that guys like Womack, Aurilia and Hammond are the missing parts?

Or, is there no plan at all? Are the Reds being run like a ship without a rudder, bumping into icebergs and other debris, leaking water all over the place with a crew simultaneously threatening mutiny and to plunge overboard?

I honestly don't have an answer...i think you could make a strong argument for several of the scenarios above, and perhaps I left some out. I dunno. What I do know is that the reds FO somehow took an awful team from last year and, through celever maneurvering and strategic thinking, managed to make it a little bit worse. And that's really saying something.

KronoRed
01-12-2006, 10:39 AM
Plan to not suck as much as we could.

flyer85
01-12-2006, 10:46 AM
Plan to not suck as much as we could.I disagree, I think the plan is to take suckitude to a new level.

Johnny Footstool
01-12-2006, 10:56 AM
The plan has to involve trading vets like Womack, Aurilia, and Hammond to contenders in exchange for semi-prospects.

Assuming, of course, that the Reds actually have a plan to succeed.

Blimpie
01-12-2006, 10:59 AM
Now that we have re-signed Jason Larue, my wife thinks the Reds can stand pat. Apparently, he is dreamy...:rolleyes:

Ravenlord
01-12-2006, 11:03 AM
Do they honestly think the team can be competitive with the rotation and bullpen they have?i honestly believe that O'Brien & Friends think they can be.


Are they trying to catch lightning in a bottle, as the '99 team did, and play over their heads for an entire season?that's the reality that will have to happen to hit 500 let alone win 90+ games.


Are they so cost-conscious that they refuse to sign worthy players to LT contracts, and so wary of a fall off in attendance that they would rather play aging vets with a "name" over younger, unproven (but likely superior) players?i fear that it's more like they believe that McCoy and Brennamen are reflective of how a vast majority of fans think of players and the game. i also think this front office, like the Reds media believe that veteran presence and playoff experience are two of the most relavent things for a team.


Are they honestly trying to build the team from the ground up and have an entire front office that is woefully incompetent?they probably believed most everything was in place, and that they simply needed some 'winning pitchers who are battlers' and some guys with 'playoff experience' to set the team into place.


Are they trying to win now and have deluded themselves into thinking that guys like Womack, Aurilia and Hammond are the missing parts?Womack is the starting Reds 2B according to the Reds homepage, and Narron has basically said he'll be leading off. O'Brien siad for all intents and purposes, that he believes Womack's disaster last year was playing in the AL.


Or, is there no plan at all? Are the Reds being run like a ship without a rudder, bumping into icebergs and other debris, leaking water all over the place with a crew simultaneously threatening mutiny and to plunge overboard?i honestly think that would be better than the current state of affairs.

RFS62
01-12-2006, 11:05 AM
There are plans, and then there is the execution of the plan.

I believe that DanO had quite a plan when he interviewed. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear. He told them that he could rebuild the infrastructure and develop talent from within, just like the Twins and A's. He sold them on this approach as the only way a small market team could compete.

That was the long term plan.

I believe he told them that we weren't all that bad right now, and with a few key acquisitions we could be "competitive".

Competitive. The holy grail. Not champions. Competitive.

And to an old school businessman like Lindner, it must have sounded reasonable. Get the infrastructure in order, become competitive in the short term, and build for the future.

Problem is the guy in charge of the few "key acquisitions" was DanO. And when the purse strings loosened last winter, he wasn't up to the task.

He's in over his head. I don't know for sure what he's done with the infrastructure. I'm not there. I know with absolute certainty what he's done for the big league team.

Institutionalized mediocrity.

savafan
01-12-2006, 11:14 AM
I'm sick of hearing competitive, I want to win. I'm tired of hearing baseball fans talk about Billy Beane and Moneyball like they are the second coming of Jesus Christ. Billy Beane and the Oakland A's haven't won a damn thing. The plan should be to win year in and year out. Not playing to win is playing to lose, and that is unacceptable.

Rant over.

RedsBaron
01-12-2006, 11:17 AM
I've posted it before: Yes, DanO and the Reds may have a plan, but Custer had a plan at Little Big Horn--it just wasn't a good plan.

Ravenlord
01-12-2006, 11:18 AM
what exactly did Billy Beane have to do with this?

savafan
01-12-2006, 11:24 AM
what exactly did Billy Beane have to do with this?

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. :evil:

What I was saying is if the plan isn't good enough to win, then it simply isn't good enough. So many here would like for Beane's plan in Oakland to be adopted by the Reds. Why? How has it worked for the A's?

Ravenlord
01-12-2006, 11:29 AM
Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. :evil:

What I was saying is if the plan isn't good enough to win, then it simply isn't good enough. So many here would like for Beane's plan in Oakland to be adopted by the Reds. Why? How has it worked for the A's?
171 games over 500 and more wins than any team except the Yankees...whom have all of 11 wins more than the A's.

of course, Beane himself says "my ____ don't work in the playoffs."

registerthis
01-12-2006, 11:29 AM
Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. :evil:

What I was saying is if the plan isn't good enough to win, then it simply isn't good enough. So many here would like for Beane's plan in Oakland to be adopted by the Reds. Why? How has it worked for the A's?

I'll take "competitive" over whatever it is the Reds can be considered these days.

savafan
01-12-2006, 11:31 AM
I'll take "competitive" over whatever it is the Reds can be considered these days.


How frustrating must it be to always be on the cusp of the playoffs or knocked out in the first round? No, if I'm going to the playoffs, I want my team built to win the whole thing.

Ravenlord
01-12-2006, 11:32 AM
How frustrating must it be to always be on the cusp of the playoffs or knocked out in the first round? No, if I'm going to the playoffs, I want my team built to win the whole thing.
so then what's your theory on building a team to win in the season, and win in the playoffs?

deltachi8
01-12-2006, 11:38 AM
I'm sick of hearing competitive, I want to win. I'm tired of hearing baseball fans talk about Billy Beane and Moneyball like they are the second coming of Jesus Christ. Billy Beane and the Oakland A's haven't won a damn thing. The plan should be to win year in and year out. Not playing to win is playing to lose, and that is unacceptable.

Rant over.

This morning on the local sports station in Buffalo they were talking how the Sabres captains (Drury and Briere) pulled the team aside this year and said no more of this nonsense frm the past of hoping to get to .500. We want to win.

Hoping or trying for .500 or to be competitive may or may not get you there, but it most certainly keeps your eyes of truly winning. Its really a distraction to make fans or teams feel like they are accomplishing something great, when really they are just avoiding suckitude.

savafan
01-12-2006, 11:44 AM
so then what's your theory on building a team to win in the season, and win in the playoffs?


Start putting banned substances in the visitor's clubhouse. :evil:

Chip R
01-12-2006, 12:31 PM
There are plans, and then there is the execution of the plan.

I believe that DanO had quite a plan when he interviewed. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear. He told them that he could rebuild the infrastructure and develop talent from within, just like the Twins and A's. He sold them on this approach as the only way a small market team could compete.

That was the long term plan.

I believe he told them that we weren't all that bad right now, and with a few key acquisitions we could be "competitive".

Competitive. The holy grail. Not champions. Competitive.

And to an old school businessman like Lindner, it must have sounded reasonable. Get the infrastructure in order, become competitive in the short term, and build for the future.

Problem is the guy in charge of the few "key acquisitions" was DanO. And when the purse strings loosened last winter, he wasn't up to the task.

He's in over his head. I don't know for sure what he's done with the infrastructure. I'm not there. I know with absolute certainty what he's done for the big league team.

Institutionalized mediocrity.

I think that pretty much sums it up. I honestly think they are trying to build through the farm system but they really haven't done too good of a job so far. Last year's draft showed promise but it's still going to be a few years before any of those players can contribute on the big league level. But they fear actually backing up the truck and going on a full rebuilding mode on the big league level because they fear attendance will drop like a rock. That's why they go after guys like Aurilia and Womack because they don't quite trust the youngsters to make mistakes on the major league level because an error or a strikeout may lose a game for them. I do believe that they think the pitching is what it's not cracked up to be but what can you do about it? Basically their plan is to tread water until the young pitchers are ready.

Joseph
01-12-2006, 12:31 PM
Now that we have re-signed Jason Larue, my wife thinks the Reds can stand pat. Apparently, he is dreamy...:rolleyes:

We need to start a club.

RedsManRick
01-12-2006, 12:37 PM
I think O'Brien sees the franchise as the A's pre-trio. We have some solid major league talent, but not enough to make the playoffs. However, a full scale rebuilding effort is out of the question for public relations reasons. So the 'plan' is to continue to stockpile young arms, around which a team will someday be built. In the meantime, the goal is to be as competitive as possible. I don't think this is a bad plan.

The problem, as has been pointed out, is in the execution. We basically just traded a 2nd round pick to resign a backup IF. They are so worried about maintaining appearances that they are hurting the rebuilding effort. They'd rather pour 25MM in to Eric Milton and claim he's a #1 then let Matt Belisle spend the whole year doing the same thing. Admitting that there simply aren't any top pitchers who make sense to sign (ie. pay) and that our #1/#2 types are going to have to come from in house and then ACTUALLY ACTING THAT WAY would be a wonderful first step. If a "proven" guy like Milton bombs, you can blame the player for having a bad year. If a prospect like Belilse bombs, it's managements fault for counting on a young guy who's not ready. They don't seem willing to take the responsibility. Furthermore, they aren't even very good about maintaining appearances -- thinking lipstick on the cow makes us forget that it's a cow in the first place.

The one thing I actually think they've done sort of right so far is the bullpen. Until we have starters who can give us 6 IP, there's no use "solidifying" the back end with a top end closer. In the meantime we have a few capable vets who can mentor the young guns. And we aren't wasting cash on a proven closer who may only get 40 opportunities the whole season anyways.

The failure in the lineup is a direct result of not understand the concept of replacement level talent. There is no doubt in my mind that Ray Olmedo would provide more to the roster than Tony Womack, for less money, and with the potential to become an actually useful player. Any at bats Freel gets in the OF while Aurilia is at 3B could've gone to Chris Denorfia w/ Freel at 3B.

Management is scared of looking bad, and in the process is looking bad. Some of the right ideas are in place. They just need the balls to do it the right way and stop trying to fool the public in to thinking we're just another "proven veteran" away from being right there with the Cards. We aren't that stupid.

M2
01-12-2006, 01:10 PM
I actually think DanO has a simple, well-defined plan: Fill holes with veterans and draft tools.

On a different club, say the Yankees, that's not a bad idea. New York's got the money to buy veterans off the top of the stack and it mostly uses its minors for trade fodder.

The problem is these things aren't relevant to the Reds. Shaky veteran patches only reinforce the pitching woes the club has endured and DanO's veterans, namely Rich Aurilia, have gotten in the way of the younger players the club needs to be building around.

On the draft end, tools drafts don't create depth, which is what the Reds' system desperately needs. They also can take a long time to bear fruit. The Reds can't afford to wait until 2010 before the system starts offering help. The Reds need a block of players to arrive and perform in 2007-2009 and those players just aren't in the mix right now. Maybe one of the college pitchers from the 2005 draft can bust through high A this year and have some major league impact by 2009, but the HS arms from 2004 (including Homer Bailey) likely will take a bit longer just as a function of age (and that's IF they ever pan out). DanO inherited a time hole that his tools proclivities haven't been able to fill and he hasn't been able to address it via trade either.

It makes the latter part of this decade a real dicey proposition. If the Reds lose any talent, the pipeline doesn't look capable of replacing it. Basically, DanO fiddled with veterans while the farm system has continued to burn.

registerthis
01-12-2006, 01:40 PM
It's funny, the farm system became depleted during the Schott years, amd everyone bemoaned this fact. Then, it seems, the system made a bit of a recovery, and it looked like we were on our way to bouncing back. Suddenly, it's in the pits again, with barely a prospect worth mentioning in sight.

If this team could just develop two top-tier starters (rather than the three Oakland developed), with our offensive capabilities we would be a force to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, this team hasn't produced a starter worth remembering since Tom Browning which is, you know, completely pathetic.

Heath
01-12-2006, 01:58 PM
Someone had made a mention of the execution of a plan.

I'm all in favor of it.

deltachi8
01-12-2006, 02:22 PM
I actually think DanO has a simple, well-defined plan: Fill holes with veterans and draft tools.

On a different club, say the Yankees, that's not a bad idea. New York's got the money to buy veterans off the top of the stack and it mostly uses its minors for trade fodder.

The problem is these things aren't relevant to the Reds. Shaky veteran patches only reinforce the pitching woes the club has endured and DanO's veterans, namely Rich Aurilia, have gotten in the way of the younger players the club needs to be building around.

On the draft end, tools drafts don't create depth, which is what the Reds' system desperately needs. They also can take a long time to bear fruit. The Reds can't afford to wait until 2010 before the system starts offering help. The Reds need a block of player to arrive and perform in 2007-2009 and those players just aren't in the mix right now. Maybe one of the college pitchers from the 2005 draft can bust through high A this year and have some major league impact by 2009, but the HS arms from 2004 (including Homer Bailey) likely will take a bit longer just as a function of age (and that's IF they ever pan out). DanO inherited a time hole that his tools proclivities haven't been able to fill and he hasn't been able to address it via trade either.

It makes the latter part of this decade a real dicey proposition. If the Reds lose any talent, the pipeline doesn't look capable of replacing it. Basically, DanO fiddled with veterans while the farm system has continued to burn.

Good analysis of why Dan O is terribly miscast as GM for this team.

pedro
01-12-2006, 02:28 PM
to play three card monty until he gets found out for the fraud he is and gets fired.

Roy Tucker
01-12-2006, 02:29 PM
I think the Reds plan is to tell its customers "just give us your damn money and shut up".

Aronchis
01-12-2006, 03:00 PM
Ask Cast and his people he hires. They hold your fortune. You need to let go of the present.

M2
01-12-2006, 03:13 PM
Ask Cast and his people he hires. They hold your fortune. You need to let go of the present.

If those who don't know that past are doomed to repeat it, then I'd argue that those who don't know the present have become a walking fiction.

Roy Tucker
01-12-2006, 03:23 PM
I feel like I'm reading fortune cookies.

pedro
01-12-2006, 03:23 PM
I feel like I'm reading fortune cookies.

with no fortune in the middle.

Aronchis
01-12-2006, 03:44 PM
If those who don't know that past are doomed to repeat it, then I'd argue that those who don't know the present have become a walking fiction.

What are you saying, Cast doesn't know the condition of Reds baseball over the last 10 years? Nah;)

registerthis
01-12-2006, 03:46 PM
I feel like I'm reading fortune cookies.

"You will acquire several sub-par veterans, who will lead your team to a 72-90 record and 5th place finish in your division.

Learn Chinese! Neehow = Hello

Lucky #'s 8 13 19 25 36 48"

westofyou
01-12-2006, 03:52 PM
What is the Reds' "Plan"Whatever it is it makes me feel like I'm holding Dega's "Plan" in Papillon.

M2
01-12-2006, 04:19 PM
What are you saying, Cast doesn't know the condition of Reds baseball over the last 10 years? Nah;)

No, what I'm saying is that DanO's chief mistake was that he paid no attention the Reds' current situation when he took the reins in 2003, tried to graft on a plan that didn't fit and blew open a wormhole of suckitude into the latter part of the decade as a result.

While the new ownership hopefully walks in swinging a scythe, that won't matter until some pays attention to the Reds' present problems and addresses them. It's not just a matter of understanding what mistakes were made, it's being able to look at the organization and accurately assess what sort of animal you're trying to tame. The Reds' present problems don't evaporate when DanO, John Allen and Carl Lindner get to stepping.

ochre
01-12-2006, 04:27 PM
The playoffs are where you hope to catch lightning in a bottle, not the regular season. Just thought I'd point that out.

Matt700wlw
01-12-2006, 04:36 PM
The plan is obviously what it has been......keep doing what hasn't worked and think it will work this time.

Insane, isn't it?

Caveat Emperor
01-12-2006, 06:34 PM
The plan is obviously what it has been......keep doing what hasn't worked and think it will work this time.

Insane, isn't it?

The plan is quite simple -- "rebuild" the franchise while attempting to keep the fans from labeling the team is being IN the "rebuilding" stage. The front office keeps the fans coming to the ballpark by making strategic acquisitions designed to give the team an appearence of competitiveness and an outside shot at respectability. Then, on the back end, draft lots of raw talent and wait for it to make it's way through the minor leagues.

Think of it as a modification of the same plan the Pirates and Brewers have been on for a decade -- except with the occaisonal bone thrown to the fans to keep them excited and buying tickets when ownerships sees intrest waning. Last year, team getting worse, fans getting apathetic -- bam, make a comparatively "big dollar" signing and get the buzz back up around the team before tickets go on sale.

Fire managers every so often to try and make it seem like winning is a priority -- that's why there's been no attempt to secure the services of a top name or winning manager. All of these guys (from Boone to Miley to Narron) are just fall guys, holding the place until they get fired, some new guy is named interim manager, promoted to manager, and fired only to have the process repeated. Keep costs under control. Keep interest in the product high. Hope that someday all of these drafts pan out.

That's the Reds plan. Being executed to perfection. But for Carl Linder selling the team, I expect Dan O'Brien would've stayed GM for another 3 or 4 years running this program and keeping the fans JUST interested enough to come out to the ballpark.

KronoRed
01-12-2006, 08:33 PM
I disagree, I think the plan is to take suckitude to a new level.
Nah, as long as someone else sucks more the Reds go to bed smiling.

RFS62
01-12-2006, 11:12 PM
I actually think DanO has a simple, well-defined plan: Fill holes with veterans and draft tools.

On a different club, say the Yankees, that's not a bad idea. New York's got the money to buy veterans off the top of the stack and it mostly uses its minors for trade fodder.

The problem is these things aren't relevant to the Reds. Shaky veteran patches only reinforce the pitching woes the club has endured and DanO's veterans, namely Rich Aurilia, have gotten in the way of the younger players the club needs to be building around.

On the draft end, tools drafts don't create depth, which is what the Reds' system desperately needs. They also can take a long time to bear fruit. The Reds can't afford to wait until 2010 before the system starts offering help. The Reds need a block of players to arrive and perform in 2007-2009 and those players just aren't in the mix right now. Maybe one of the college pitchers from the 2005 draft can bust through high A this year and have some major league impact by 2009, but the HS arms from 2004 (including Homer Bailey) likely will take a bit longer just as a function of age (and that's IF they ever pan out). DanO inherited a time hole that his tools proclivities haven't been able to fill and he hasn't been able to address it via trade either.

It makes the latter part of this decade a real dicey proposition. If the Reds lose any talent, the pipeline doesn't look capable of replacing it. Basically, DanO fiddled with veterans while the farm system has continued to burn.



I think you're exactly right.

Killer post.

LoganBuck
01-12-2006, 11:20 PM
The Reds Plan
Step 1: Steal Underpants
Step 2:
Step 3: Profit

Aronchis
01-12-2006, 11:34 PM
No, what I'm saying is that DanO's chief mistake was that he paid no attention the Reds' current situation when he took the reins in 2003, tried to graft on a plan that didn't fit and blew open a wormhole of suckitude into the latter part of the decade as a result.

While the new ownership hopefully walks in swinging a scythe, that won't matter until some pays attention to the Reds' present problems and addresses them. It's not just a matter of understanding what mistakes were made, it's being able to look at the organization and accurately assess what sort of animal you're trying to tame. The Reds' present problems don't evaporate when DanO, John Allen and Carl Lindner get to stepping.

and I don't care about DanO. He is dead to me. It is the "plan" to get rid of these problems, which is critical now. That is what needs to be disconcerned and evaluated now.

red-in-la
01-12-2006, 11:44 PM
I am going to bring up Jimbo again....but for a good reason.

In management training, they talk about Strategic and Tactical plans. Strategic Plans are where you want to go.....Tactical are how do you get there.

The first and foremost....most important thing to have is a good Strategic plan. Without it, your Tactical plan simply defines how quickly you are going to fail.

With Jimbo, I think the Reds had a bad Strategic plan, but Jimbo had a great Tactical plan.....which meant that he failed very quickly.....or as they say in management class, he DIED very quickly. Since there was much change and even a few lucky flourishes involved, Jimbo stayed around and actually went through several Tactical plans before he finally flew into a mountainside and crashed.

With DanO, you have a guy who still has an awful (or no) Strategic plan, but who is also awful Tactically. This guy, in management class, is said to DIE slowly.....and the worse the plans, the slower the death.

Change in management may get rid of DanO, so maybe instead of 15 years of futility, it will only be a few......but make no mistake.....if Dano stayed as long as Jimbo did, it would be a long, slow, downward spiral of a death.

You simply have to hope that somehow, Castellini brings in a GOOD Strategic plan and hires a great tactician.

Cyclone792
01-13-2006, 12:12 AM
The plan is quite simple -- "rebuild" the franchise while attempting to keep the fans from labeling the team is being IN the "rebuilding" stage. The front office keeps the fans coming to the ballpark by making strategic acquisitions designed to give the team an appearence of competitiveness and an outside shot at respectability. Then, on the back end, draft lots of raw talent and wait for it to make it's way through the minor leagues.

Think of it as a modification of the same plan the Pirates and Brewers have been on for a decade -- except with the occaisonal bone thrown to the fans to keep them excited and buying tickets when ownerships sees intrest waning. Last year, team getting worse, fans getting apathetic -- bam, make a comparatively "big dollar" signing and get the buzz back up around the team before tickets go on sale.

Fire managers every so often to try and make it seem like winning is a priority -- that's why there's been no attempt to secure the services of a top name or winning manager. All of these guys (from Boone to Miley to Narron) are just fall guys, holding the place until they get fired, some new guy is named interim manager, promoted to manager, and fired only to have the process repeated. Keep costs under control. Keep interest in the product high. Hope that someday all of these drafts pan out.

That's the Reds plan. Being executed to perfection. But for Carl Linder selling the team, I expect Dan O'Brien would've stayed GM for another 3 or 4 years running this program and keeping the fans JUST interested enough to come out to the ballpark.

CE's got an excellent point here, and it just ties into my belief that O'Brien is out to just save his job, even at the expense of crippling the franchise in the long term.

Does O'Brien care about the long term development of Encarnacion? Sure, if O'Brien is still around. If Dan O'Brien gets fired sometime in 2006 then I highly doubt he'll care in 2008 if Encarnacion is an All-Star. Heck, O'Brien would probably just get thrown back into circulation when some other sorry team hires him in a lesser front office role, and then he'd be competing against the Reds. O'Brien can't afford to risk a full "developing" season in the majors from Encarnacion in the short term, regardless if it's best for Encarnacion and the franchise in the long term, because all that does is put O'Brien's job further in jeopardy. This belief that Rich Aurilia can help the team more in 2006 than Encarnacion can help is based entirely on the condition that it helps the Reds win more games in 2006 so O'Brien has a better chance at sticking around. The fact that Encarnacion has a chance to be a star in three seasons is a moot point for O'Brien personally if Dan loses his job.

Short term goals = worse for Reds in the long term, but better for O'Brien's chances at saving his job
Long term goals = better for Reds in the long term, but worse for O'Brien's chances at saving his job

And that's not just saying the Reds will be better off in the longterm if they fire O'Brien (they will). Like M2 said earlier in the thread, we need to start preparing the pipeline of youth so we actually have some legitimate shot to do something in 2007-2009. Resigning Aurilia for 2006 at the cost of a draft pick does nothing but hinder our chances at success in that 2007-2009 timeline. Sure, it gives the Reds a better chance to win a handful more games in 2006, but does nothing to help us after 2006. Do you think he signed him just to trade him for a prospect? Hardly. I'm very confident a decently polished college player could have been had for that draft pick or a high ceiling high school player that could be pawned off as trade bait (read: a better prospect than anybody Aurilia would net in a trade this season).

Folks, this GM is just looking to catch lightning in a bottle in 2006 just so he doesn't get canned. He's doing what he can to put a barely above .500 team out in the field in 2006, then proclaim that through an improvement over last season's 73 win total that he's leading the organization down the right path.

Don't believe him.

M2
01-13-2006, 12:34 AM
and I don't care about DanO. He is dead to me. It is the "plan" to get rid of these problems, which is critical now.

No, that isn't the "plan" now. We have no idea what sort of "plan" Castellini will seek to implement. We don't know whether he and those he intends to hire understand the fundamental problems the franchise faces or whether, like DanO, they've ignored the reality on the ground and intend to pursue more calamity.

I don't care about DanO either, but you can bet I care about the current state of affairs. A new broom does not sweep this franchise clean. You can have a wholesale turnover in leadership, but what's wrong with the franchise at the player level will remain. Identifying the mistakes that have been made and the gravity of the situation are essential to inventing the cure.

SteelSD
01-13-2006, 01:27 AM
Overall stellar post, Cyclone. Really good stuff, but I wanted to specifically highlight the following:



Short term goals = worse for Reds in the long term, but better for O'Brien's chances at saving his job
Long term goals = better for Reds in the long term, but worse for O'Brien's chances at saving his job

Yep. O'Brien has been working his five-year plan while on a three-year contract.

The totality of O'Brien's five year plan was to have an amateur entry draft each year. But it's kind of hard to implement that plan (even if he was good at it) while doing so poorly with the MLB product that years four and five are a fantasy.

And that's the problem I had with him in the first place. The guy has no track record of putting together a MLB product and was hired for a three-year looksee to determine how his five-year plan would be progressing.

In the case of Encarnacion, the irony is that O'Brien sold his plan based on the idea that once prospects started to pop up out of the pipeline, the team would get better. So the Reds have a prospect who's been developed and now it appears he's not willing to allow said prospect to continue his development unhindered. Unless we assume that he'd be more trusting of "his" guys when they're ready (which I concede is a possibility), I see no reason to believe that the five-year plan would be anything but a 10-year plan in disguise. And worse, even if it really were a five-year plan, all he'd be doing is plugging holes with those prospects because he can't identify a solid MLB contributor to save his life.

That's just mind-boggling. The guy comes in, sells Lindner and Co. on a complete blue sky "five-year" plan that can't possibly work in five years even if he were around to see it all come to fruition.

What a great job-perpetuation snow job. Do the bare minimum every year in the hope that a stupid team will continue to renew your contract while you continually tell everyone to keep looking forward to a date on the calendar you'll just continue to push back as it approaches.

Dan O'Brien is a living, breathing perpetuation of nothingness.

registerthis
01-13-2006, 02:11 PM
Great posts, Cyclone and Steel. I agree wholeheartedly. The continued incompetency of this team and its front office is mind blowing.

The point Steel made about continually pushing back the date when this team will be competitive is a good one. I remember, back in 1997, being told that the team was having to go "younger and cheaper" to rebuild the franchise. That was 9 years ago, and still the closest the Reds came to making the playoffs was in 1999, when they got career years out of guys like Steve Parris and Ron Villone.

From the insights of peopl ehere, it's apparent that the reds plan is...well, there really isn't a plan. Not to be competitive, anyway. Needs aren't addressed. prospects are rushed and not allowed to properly develop. The farm system is in shambles. The team has shown a complete inability to properly evaluate major league talent. And though the jury is still out, the O'brien regime appears woefully inadequate at being able to draft and produce quality younger players.

We don't know what Castellini will bring to the table--be it better or worse than the current Lindner regime. But i will say this: If Mr. Castellini looks at O'Brien's track record since joining the team, and qualifies it as anything other than an abysmal failure, then this franchise is doomed for the forseeable future.