PDA

View Full Version : What is reasonable?



RFS62
01-22-2006, 11:29 AM
What is reasonable?

It seems like we’ve been waiting forever for the ownership change. Once Castellini was announced as the winning bidder, the anticipation started to intensify.

5 years of dismal performance will do that to you. Some of those years, we were in contention for a while, only to fall off at the end, victim to the harsh reality of our Pythagorean shortcomings.

Last year, we didn’t have hope for any time at all once we broke camp in Sarasota. I’ve never seen such despair and apathy so early in the season.

So, the specter of a new ownership group gave us hope, something that’s been in short supply for far too long.

And for many of us, the starting point for that hope took shape in the idea that Dan O’Brien and John Allen would be removed from power. O’Brien and Allen personified the losing ways to which the Reds have become accustomed. They drew the ire of many here at RedsZone.

We’ve been talking for weeks now about their fate. We’ve even had threads to predict the date when they’d be removed. And I’ve noticed that we have several opinions on the subject.

Many of us wanted a bold move by Castellini, lopping off their heads in his opening press conference. We wanted him to come in roaring like a lion, putting the baseball world on notice that the dismal suckfest that Reds baseball has descended into will no longer be tolerated.

Others are happy enough with a measured approach. More suitable to Midwestern values and not ruffling the feathers of the prior administration.

Still others don’t think it will happen at all. They think that DanO will serve out his term and run the team all year.

So, after reading all the passionate appeals and sorting through the logic, I have to ask myself….. what is reasonable?

I’ve heard it put that it would be totally unprofessional to come in and make a big scene in the first press conference, that it would be better to wait and put some time between taking control and firing O’Brien.

I’ve been railing for weeks now that it should be the first thing he does. An immediate show that he understands just how bad DanO’s performance has been.

None of this is directed towards O’Brian personally. He may be the nicest guy on the block. But I’ve seen all I need to see, and I’ve heard all the corporate speak gobbledegook I want to hear.

The next person who makes the mistake of saying “Status Quo” around me may just get smacked upside the head. “Status Quo” has taken on a life of its own here, and it’s a sad, pitiful joke to accept the current state of affairs.

I’m trying to be reasonable in my expectations. I really am encouraged by the new ownership and the things they’re saying. I’m also scared a little by a few quotes, like the “glass is half full” line. The glass may be half full, but it’s half full of sludge. We need to filter out the contaminates and then add some new pitching. THEN we’ll have a nice little cocktail we can all enjoy and be proud of, instead of the liver and onion smoothie we’ve been force fed.

I’m trying to be reasonable, I really am. I’ve racked my brain going over scenarios that make sense, and I’m bending over backwards to give the Castellini administration the full benefit of the doubt.

DanO, I wish you well in your future life. I think that it would be the best for everyone if you got an early start on it.

I’m really trying to be reasonable.

TeamCasey
01-22-2006, 01:01 PM
I believe Dan OBrien will be gone at some point this season. I just never expected it to happen during Castellinis inaugural address.

(Fingers crossed tightly that the puppetmaster goes too.)

Maybe, just maybe ..... they don't have replacements in line yet.

Joseph
01-22-2006, 01:10 PM
Status Quo could be trademarked.

Status Quo™

dougflynn23
01-22-2006, 01:13 PM
:) Please don't take this the wrong way; I have no idea what everyone does for a living, but I am in upper management at the company I work for. The last thing a new CEO or high level manager does upon taking over is blow up the organization. That might be the grand plan, but if you do it as your first act of power you will spend the next year reconstructing.

Only a CEO wanting chaos and confusion would do something as irrational as what people seem to have wanted who post here. It's ok to fire Cal Levy in the marketing department, and ok to start putting some of your own people into the operations area, but Robert Castellini didn't become a multi-millionaire by doind irrational things. He wasn't about to start now.

creek14
01-22-2006, 01:16 PM
:) Please don't take this the wrong way; I have no idea what everyone does for a living, but I am in upper management at the company I work for. The last thing a new CEO or high level manager does upon taking over is blow up the organization. That might be the grand plan, but if you do it as your first act of power you will spend the next year reconstructing.

Only a CEO wanting chaos and confusion would do something as irrational as what people seem to have wanted who post here. It's ok to fire Cal Levy in the marketing department, and ok to start putting some of your own people into the operations area, but Robert Castellini didn't become a multi-millionaire by doind irrational things. He wasn't about to start now.
All of that is true, but in keeping DanO and John A, RCast still needs to spend the next (several) years reconstructing and looking back over the past few years, with DanO and John it has been an organization filled with chaos and confusion.

Joseph
01-22-2006, 01:22 PM
:) Please don't take this the wrong way; I have no idea what everyone does for a living, but I am in upper management at the company I work for. The last thing a new CEO or high level manager does upon taking over is blow up the organization. That might be the grand plan, but if you do it as your first act of power you will spend the next year reconstructing.

Only a CEO wanting chaos and confusion would do something as irrational as what people seem to have wanted who post here. It's ok to fire Cal Levy in the marketing department, and ok to start putting some of your own people into the operations area, but Robert Castellini didn't become a multi-millionaire by doind irrational things. He wasn't about to start now.

I don't think that's the case in all organizations. I too am in upper management at my company and we've recently, 3 years ago, did EXACTLY that. New president and owners came in and cleaned house, it's how I got my position, and in my professional opinion we are much better off for doing so.

MWM
01-22-2006, 01:31 PM
No one is wanting to blow up an entire organization. But rest assured that a struggling company coming under new ownership almost ALWAYS gets rid of the couple of people at the top. That's not irrational, it's called good business...getting rid of the people who put the company in that predicament.

The people new owners can't afford to get rid of is mid-level functional managers because they run the day to day operations. But the top couple of people can be replaed without any disruption to the business.

dougdirt
01-22-2006, 01:49 PM
MWM, well that is kind of what happened. Allen was reassigned to no longer have anything to do with baseball operations. Carl Lindner, no longer being in ownership means someone else is removed from previous position. Dan Obrien, contrary to what anyone else wants to belive on this site, seems to actually be able to do his own job now, without having to go through John Allen to get to the owner.

KronoRed
01-22-2006, 02:05 PM
Dan O has been able to do his job all along, having to run things by Allen was just Lindner keeping out of it, so basically it's the same as it was before, the new owner just having a more hands on approach.

He's not all of a sudden going to be a good gm.

WVRedsFan
01-22-2006, 02:19 PM
Like RFS62, I was ready for Castellini to come in like Roy Rogers with his gun blazing snuffing out every person within the Reds organization that I thought needed to go (O'Brien, Allen, Butcher, and many others). He didn't. I was disappointed, but I should have looked at the company I deal with.

I'm an independent contractor for a company located in Ohio. The philosophy of the company, like the Reds, has always been conservative and "proper" in its dealings with their employees. The Mid-Western way is not to shoot first and ask questions later.

My bunch has had two owner-leadership changes in the 20 years I have been with them. In both cases, there was much anticipation when the change was announced. Always a large group of us would say, "Now, this will get fixed," or "So-and-so is in big trouble." It never happened the first week. In fact, sometimes it was six months, but it did happen.

I took the first guy aside in an introductory meeting and asked him why what we wanted hadn't happened. His answer to me was, "because I'm not stupid. I don't even know where the men's room is yet. Yes, this and that needs to be done, but it will all happen in good time." And it did.

So apparently this is the way big corporations operate in Ohio (and probably a lot of other places). I still believe that one day we'll log on here and see that Allen and O'Brien and others have either been demoted, fired or have resigned. Maybe I'm stupid, but the man I saw on the podium two days ago didn't seem like the type who would keep incompetent people on the payroll so he wouldn't hurt the guy he bought the company from. Change is a comin'. Watch and wait.

Kc61
01-22-2006, 02:29 PM
We have to give new ownership some time. After all, the timing of this change is unfortunate -- late in the off-season, after the main player movement has taken place.

I was disappointed to hear the payroll estimate, which is unchanged. But I can live with that. I will be grossly disappointed if new baseball management (either instead of, or along with) DanO is not brought in soon.

Falls City Beer
01-22-2006, 02:51 PM
The problem with sitting on your hands is that you might get a thumb up your butt.

Hondo
01-22-2006, 02:58 PM
The funny thing about all this is that isn't Carl Linder a Millionaire?? He could have put some Money into the Roster and Received a return on fans going to the stadium and Playoff Revenues. It seems like he really isn't a Baseball man and decided after he Traded for Griffey, Status Quo would win...???

BCubb2003
01-22-2006, 03:24 PM
My guess says that the most likely event is that O'Brien and Allen will be gone at the end of this season, after the team fares marginally better, but still has a losing record. The new management team will be built around Lou Piniella, and won't be totally satisfactory to us, but it will improve performance. We'll complain that it's still too old school Cincinnati, but next season the team will emerge into the lower upper part of the division after years in the Pirates, Brewers cellar.

Next most likely is that O'Brien will be gone at the All-Star break, after a dismal first half, with a Kullman-Maddox type interim setup. Then Piniella comes in at the end of the season.

Less likely but still possible is that the team stumbles badly out of the gate, with Harang still good but not dominant, Claussen developing but not a consistent winner, and the rest of staff as dismal as always. The Reds sink to the bottom or near bottom of the race early on, and the townspeople get out the torches. Castellini gets out his torch and leads the way. O'Brien and Allen are gone early, but it's still an interim setup.

Next possibility is that Castellini's patience wears thin quickly, but the Williams crew takes over the interim instead of Kullman-Maddox types. They'll probably do some things we won't like, and we'll complain about the boss's nephew.

Next is that Castellini will act quickly and get a Krivsky type GM. He'll be better, but not much noticeably different from O'Brien.

Least likely is that Castellini will get a Paul DePodesta or a Kim Ng. If he did, Redszone would celebrate, but most of the Reds population would give the new school a hard time, especially when popular players are traded for less colorful but quality-stat guys. And Castellini won't have installed that top-to-bottom philosophy in the organization to back up the new school. We'd also find that Kim Ng isn't the Sabr-head we might assume, but could be an effective combination of skills, and a few knuckleheaded radio callers will embarrass themselves.

Falls City Beer
01-22-2006, 03:29 PM
My guess says that the most likely event is that O'Brien and Allen will be gone at the end of this season, after the team fares marginally better, but still has a losing record. The new management team will be built around Lou Piniella, and won't be totally satisfactory to us, but it will improve performance.


I agree with everything but the last sentence. Nothing in Lou's GMing tenure suggests that he knows what it takes to win in a small market.

RFS62
01-22-2006, 03:33 PM
Less likely but still possible is that the team stumbles badly out of the gate, with Harang still good but not dominant, Claussen developing but not a consistent winner, and the rest of staff as dismal as always. The Reds sink to the bottom or near bottom of the race early on, and the townspeople get out the torches. Castellini gets out his torch and leads the way. O'Brien and Allen are gone early, but it's still an interim setup.



If Castellini doesn't fire them both before the season starts, and if no new pitching is brought in, this is what I think will happen.

In fact, with no new pitching, I don't see how anyone can really think we'll be much better.

The sooner they're gone, the better.

But I'm trying to be reasonable.

:cool:

RFS62
01-22-2006, 11:09 PM
In reading all of the commentary about O'Brien, it occurs to me that I need to restate what should be obvious.

Nobody here has anything against Dan O'Brien as a man. This is all about his performance on the job.

This isn't personal. He's devoted his life to the game we all love. Getting hired as the Reds GM, as we witnessed in his very lenghty first press conference, was a huge moment in his life.

If we get our way, he'll lose the job of a lifetime. It will be a very sad day for him and his family.

This isn't personal. It's professional. It's business, just as surely as it was business when he cut Jimmy Haynes. Looking back on it, the similarities are pretty ironic. Except Haynes effort level was in question, and I've never really questioned the effort level of DanO.

It's about competence. It's not personal. I wish him well, personally. But that's not enough.

It's business.

KronoRed
01-23-2006, 12:58 AM
Agreed RFS

I'm sure he's a very nice fellow, just not a GM.

Nugget
01-23-2006, 01:26 AM
There were some bad signings last year. Some were gambles which the REDSZONE folks are looking at. Different mathematical analysis bit baseball aint all about maths. If it were just put the figures in wait til the computer finishes and you have your season. D'Lo was a shocker at 2B, but then Freel cuoldn't keep fit, in the end the REDS did have someone who played 2B at a MLB level. That was RA. Weber and Ortiz didn't work out but then Mosely aint in MLB either and there was not much pitching that could be had for that price. Imagine if the REDS take a flyer on Weaver this year and he turns out to be Milton and Ortiz rolled into one. The problem with the REDS pitching stems from way before the current management. The other problem is that the REDS don't have enough position talent to trade for quality pitching like Atlanta and St. Louis have. So on top of a small payroll and a depleted farm system the REDS have done pretty well.

MartyFan
01-23-2006, 01:43 AM
I think DanO will serve out the remainder of his contract, at least. Mybe get an additional year at the end of the season if he is meeting the objectives of the ownership.

They may want to evaluate how he does the job without Allen.

SteelSD
01-23-2006, 05:10 AM
There were some bad signings last year. Some were gambles which the REDSZONE folks are looking at.

Yes there were. And yes, I guess russian roulette can technically be considered "gambling".


Different mathematical analysis bit baseball aint all about maths. If it were just put the figures in wait til the computer finishes and you have your season.

Um...pretty much everything the "math people" told you was likely to happen, did actually happen in 2005.


D'Lo was a shocker at 2B, but then Freel cuoldn't keep fit, in the end the REDS did have someone who played 2B at a MLB level. That was RA.

Well, I guess that being able to stand at second base with a glove on your hand is technically playing 2B at the MLB level. And for gosh sakes, Rich Aurilia had to be somewhere on the field as often as possible. I know, because he told everyone who'd listen exactly that. Heck, Rich Aurilia wanted to be on the field for the Reds and also on the field for the Dodgers or any other team he considered a "contender".

There may be no crying in baseball, but Rich Aurilia sure as heck proved that whining is perfectly acceptable.


Weber and Ortiz didn't work out but then Mosely aint in MLB either and there was not much pitching that could be had for that price.

Eh...no. Bringing in crappy pitchers isn't a better option than not bringing in crappy pitchers.


Imagine if the REDS take a flyer on Weaver this year and he turns out to be Milton and Ortiz rolled into one.

No. I'd rather not.


The problem with the REDS pitching stems from way before the current management.

Hmn. Interesting take. The Reds came into the season with only two Starting Pitchers they didn't need to either re-sign, trade for, or sign as a Free Agent. Those two pitchers were Aaron Harang and Brandon Claussen. Aaron Harang and Brandon Claussen were the two best Reds starting pitchers in 2005. They were brought in before Dan O'Brien took over. Dan O'Brien's contribution was re-signing Paul Wilson, trading for Ramon Ortiz, and signing Eric Milton. His brilliant idea the year prior was to bring in Cory Lidle.

Now, Jim Bowden was teh suck as far as drafting and developing starting pitching, but the best two guys in the 2005 rotation was the result of previous management. "Current management", with all intent and purpose, did nothing but waste a fortune on the other three rotation slots.

How again does that insulate "current management" from blame?


The other problem is that the REDS don't have enough position talent to trade for quality pitching like Atlanta and St. Louis have.

Hmn. Best two starting pitchers on the Reds staff were acquired for position players during a 2003 season in which the offense scored 694 Runs AND while demanding large amounts of cash in return as well.


So on top of a small payroll and a depleted farm system the REDS have done pretty well.

I honestly don't have the words.