PDA

View Full Version : NY Post's take on the upcoming season (Reds mentioned)



max venable
03-30-2006, 08:59 AM
BEST TRADES: Pittsburgh gave up a nothing pitcher (Dave Williams) to gain competence at first base (Sean Casey). Omar Minaya received a lot of criticism for perhaps getting too little for Mike Cameron, Jae Seo and Kris Benson, but he added the lefty power bat the Mets craved in Carlos Delgado.



FIRST MANAGER FIRED: Jerry Narron, Reds - With Lou Piniella sitting off-stage to jump in if he does not want to wait for Joe Torre's demise. The Cubs' Dusty Baker and Phillies' Charlie Manuel also are on notice.

DON'T BE SURPRISED IF . . . Tom Glavine outperforms Pedro Martinez. Barry Bonds passes Babe Ruth in April, but his body will not let him play beyond May. The Marlins complete a total renovation by trading Miguel Cabrera (the Mets, A's, Angels, Red Sox) and Dontrelle Willis (Dodgers, Giants, Blue Jays, Rangers). The Reds lose 100 games in a year for the first time since 1982 and finally trade Ken Griffey, possibly to the White Sox if rookie Brian Anderson does not work in center field. Todd Helton finally grows frustrated with all the losing and accepts a trade (Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants).


Here's the link: http://www.nypost.com/sports/66266.htm

OldXOhio
03-30-2006, 09:07 AM
What's the value of "competence" in today's market? I'm guessing it's not 8 large a year.

KearnsyEars
03-30-2006, 09:16 AM
I would bet everything I own, we do NOT lose 100 games

OldXOhio
03-30-2006, 09:16 AM
I would bet everything I own, we do NOT lose 100 games

Hope springs eternal.

max venable
03-30-2006, 09:28 AM
I would bet everything I own, we do NOT lose 100 games
I agree. I honestly think that the Reds are better than they were last year. I really believe a .500 season is doable.

Milton cannot be as bad as he was last year.
Griffey is primed for a monster season.
Harang looks solid.
Claussen should improve.
Arroyo will give us innings.
Kearns is ready to breakout.
Dunn should hit 50 bombs.
FeLo should be even better than he was last year.
EdE is going to give us more offense than Randa did.

It could be a fun season.

paulrichjr
03-30-2006, 09:34 AM
It is fun to "jump" on the Reds because of their recent past. This team is one solid starting pitcher away from being a contender in my view. If Claussen and Harang were to step it up they could certainly be a contender into August instead of fading in June. I wish reporters would actually look at teams objectively before making remarks like that. Everything would have to fall apart for this team to lose 100 games. That 1982 team didn't have players like EdE, FeLo, Griffey, and Dunn at even one position. It want happen.

Chip R
03-30-2006, 09:41 AM
The good news about that article is you can't beleive what the Post says. ;)

traderumor
03-30-2006, 09:45 AM
Yea, it seems to be fashionable to pile on the Reds, much in the vein of the Bengals before Marvin, and not that its undeserved. They are a fickle lot, though, so don't hold them to the dire predictions if things turn out differently. They will never be mentioned again. I do not see a worst team than last year, and only injuries to Dunn, Griffey, Lopez, Encarnacion, and Harang for huge chunks of the season would likely lead to a 100 loss season. Even in our own division, I don't see a whole lot keeping the Pirates from fitting the bill more than we do. They are going to have to get great seasons yet again from their young pitchers, a rebound year from Perez and Wells to get healthy just to approach the mid 70s in wins.

westofyou
03-30-2006, 10:13 AM
That 1982 team didn't have players like EdE, FeLo, Griffey, and Dunn at even one position.It had league average pitching and a putrid offense.

This team has the opposite with the chance to blow the doors off a league average offense. But the Reds pitching is worse than the Reds hitting was in 1982.

Injuries could push this team to 100 losses quicker than we'd like to admit.

M2
03-30-2006, 10:17 AM
What's the value of "competence" in today's market? I'm guessing it's not 8 large a year.

If you can afford 8 large (and the Casey only cost the Pirates 5), then competence beats the snot out of nothing (which is what Williams is and what Pittsburgh had at 1B without Casey).

RFS62
03-30-2006, 10:21 AM
Injuries could push this team to 100 losses quicker than we'd like to admit.


Yeah, that's my fear too. Too many things have to go right.

The pitching and defense could improve a lot and still be putrid.

RedsManRick
03-30-2006, 10:28 AM
This team has more of a shot to be like 1999. That team scored 841 runs and had a team ERA of 3.99. The offense on that team was extremely balanced and ours could be similar this year. It was driven by Greg Vaughn (Adam Dunn) and Sean Casey (Ken Griffey). Man... Casey was awesome that year...

Harang and Claussen/Arroyo need to be Harnisch and Parris. Solid and reliable. And then we can't afford to have anybody suck at the Eric Milton level.

The biggest difference however is the bullepen. Graves, Sully, and Williamson soaked up innings at great ERAs. That won't happen with this crew, but if the whole bunch can keep an ERA around 4.50 -- that would be a major improvement.

Obviously we're not gonna win 96 games like we did in 99, but losing 100 is pretty drastic...

traderumor
03-30-2006, 10:33 AM
If you can afford 8 large (and the Casey only cost the Pirates 5), then competence beats the snot out of nothing (which is what Williams is and what Pittsburgh had at 1B without Casey).Craig Wilson is nothing? I'd take him over Casey, and am not sure why Pittsburgh has never seen it that way.

westofyou
03-30-2006, 10:33 AM
This team has more of a shot to be like 1999.

Or 1965 or 1956 or or 1969.

Three more years that played that hand... "If we have league average pitching we'll be in there."

traderumor
03-30-2006, 10:41 AM
Yeah, that's my fear too. Too many things have to go right.

The pitching and defense could improve a lot and still be putrid.I'd say that just as many things have to go right for any hope of contention, the same number of things have to go wrong to approach a 100 loss season. Factor in a high probability that Krivsky will do some roster shaking in-season and I'd say rash predictions will be hard to make.

princeton
03-30-2006, 10:43 AM
all publicity is good publicity

let's make some more bad deals, boys

Johnny Footstool
03-30-2006, 10:46 AM
Craig Wilson is nothing? I'd take him over Casey, and am not sure why Pittsburgh has never seen it that way.

Completely agree. Pittsburgh had a first baseman better than Casey, but they were too stupid to realize it.

I guess they value contact hitting and smilesmanship over OPS.

traderumor
03-30-2006, 10:50 AM
Completely agree. Pittsburgh had a first baseman better than Casey, but they were too stupid to realize it.

I guess they value contact hitting and smilesmanship over OPS.I would adjust my post to say that they did see it in 2004 when he played 155 games and put up outstanding numbers. I really don't see why the Reds don't jump all over Wilson unless the asking price is just too high. But since they have always seemed to undervalue him, I would think we could do something.

vaticanplum
03-30-2006, 10:51 AM
I would not call myself an optimist with regards to this present team, but I do not think we'll lose 100 games. Good grief.

Red Heeler
03-30-2006, 10:53 AM
That 1982 team didn't have players like EdE, FeLo, Griffey, and Dunn at even one position. It want happen.

The 2006 team won't have Mario Soto in his prime, either.

max venable
03-30-2006, 10:58 AM
The 2006 team won't have Mario Soto in his prime, either.
Just think if that '82 hadn't had him :eek:

Red Heeler
03-30-2006, 11:00 AM
Just think if that '82 hadn't had him :eek:

Just think if the '06 team had his equivalent.:beerme:

max venable
03-30-2006, 11:02 AM
Just think if the '06 team had his equivalent.:beerme:
That would be what, Like this year's Reds having Johan Santana? I could live with that. :thumbup:

M2
03-30-2006, 11:04 AM
Craig Wilson is nothing? I'd take him over Casey, and am not sure why Pittsburgh has never seen it that way.

I'd play him in RF.

Wilson and Casey shouldn't be an either/or choice. Add Casey to Bay and Wilson and you've got an offense on the upswing.

OldXOhio
03-30-2006, 11:33 AM
If you can afford 8 large (and the Casey only cost the Pirates 5), then competence beats the snot out of nothing (which is what Williams is and what Pittsburgh had at 1B without Casey).

Absolutely - good deal for the Bucs. But I will always be in the camp that the Reds were paying for more than the competence that SC did and will continue to provide and in the end, his salary off the books, even for just a year, could benefit this team more than the numbers he put up.

traderumor
03-30-2006, 11:53 AM
I'd play him in RF.

Wilson and Casey shouldn't be an either/or choice. Add Casey to Bay and Wilson and you've got an offense on the upswing.They could have done that, they decided to bring in Burnitz. Put the 8 bills in your pocket and Wilson at 1st and focus on something where there's an actual need. Of course, they also threw money at Jack Wilson, so it is obvious the Pirates are working very hard to keep from getting those basement steps fixed.

TeamBoone
03-30-2006, 11:54 AM
Injuries could push this team to 100 losses quicker than we'd like to admit.

True. But I think the writer meant lose 100 games due to the current roster, even if healthy!

I don't see it either.

Falls City Beer
03-30-2006, 11:59 AM
This team will not lose 100 games. The new regime literally can't allow that to happen.

RedsManRick
03-30-2006, 12:11 PM
Casey wasn't overpaid. He was underperforming. If he could regularly put up his 1999/2004 numbers, he'd be worth that salary. Arguably, his power was sapped from from a shoulder injury which he played through. That in turn led to more weakly hit balls and hence more double plays. I would not be surprised to see him rebound back to that level this year.

That Sean Casey hit .330/.390/.535 with 25 HR and 40 2B. Take away that power and double his GIDP and suddenly you're left with a vastly overpaid 1B. That said, in retrospect, seeing that Casey resulted in Dave Williams and Cash -- and that the cash resulted in Tony Womack... I would be very glad to undo that deal if given the choice.

Seriously, put Casey back at 1B and make Belisle our 5th starter and we're a better team. O'Brien really screwed the pooch on that one...

deltachi8
03-30-2006, 12:19 PM
I dont think the reds will lose 100 games thsi year, but would not be suprised one bit if they did.

WOY nailed it on the head.

KearnsyEars
03-30-2006, 12:19 PM
The NY POST is a liberal slanted paper. YUCK!

M2
03-30-2006, 12:19 PM
They could have done that, they decided to bring in Burnitz. Put the 8 bills in your pocket and Wilson at 1st and focus on something where there's an actual need. Of course, they also threw money at Jack Wilson, so it is obvious the Pirates are working very hard to keep from getting those basement steps fixed.

So they made bad choices after they made a good one. Casey does address an actual need on that team. The offense is particular short on OB, ranking next-to-last in the NL last season. Pittsburgh also play in LH hitter-friendly park and the team was ridiculously short on LH bats in the starting lineup.

westofyou
03-30-2006, 12:28 PM
This team will not lose 100 games. The new regime literally can't allow that to happen.Who loses 100 games?

Before initial expansion it most often were the teams that had limited income or were bogged down by lack of turnover in the front office, or they were the 2nd team in a 2 team town.

16 Team Era



LOSSES YEAR L L N_L W PCT ERA vs. the league average
1 A's 1916 117 117 91 36 .235 -1.09
2 Braves 1935 115 115 89 38 .248 -.91
3 Senators 1904 113 113 98 38 .252 -1.02
4 Pirates 1952 112 112 88 42 .273 -.91
T5 Browns 1939 111 111 91 43 .279 -1.39
T5 Red Sox 1932 111 111 83 43 .279 -.53
T5 Phillies 1941 111 111 90 43 .279 -.87
8 Senators 1909 110 110 91 42 .276 -.56
T9 Phillies 1928 109 109 88 43 .283 -1.59
T9 A's 1915 109 109 97 43 .283 -1.36
T9 Phillies 1942 109 109 89 42 .278 -.81
T12 Browns 1937 108 108 89 46 .299 -1.38
T12 Phillies 1945 108 108 87 46 .299 -.84
T12 Braves 1909 108 108 85 45 .294 -.61
T15 Browns 1910 107 107 87 47 .305 -.57
T15 Red Sox 1926 107 107 85 46 .301 -.71
T15 Browns 1911 107 107 86 45 .296 -.48
T15 Braves 1911 107 107 94 44 .291 -1.69
T15 Terrapins 1915 107 107 78 47 .305 -.93
T20 Phillies 1939 106 106 94 45 .298 -1.26
T20 A's 1920 106 106 81 48 .312 -.14
T22 Red Sox 1925 105 105 82 47 .309 -.57
T22 Red Sox 1906 105 105 88 49 .318 -.72
T22 Cardinals 1908 105 105 84 49 .318 -.29
T22 Phillies 1938 105 105 85 45 .300 -1.15
T22 A's 1946 105 105 79 49 .318 -.40
T22 A's 1943 105 105 88 49 .318 -.75
T28 Senators 1949 104 104 92 50 .325 -.90
T28 Dodgers 1905 104 104 92 48 .316 -.76
T28 Phillies 1923 104 104 79 50 .325 -1.31
T28 A's 1919 104 104 78 36 .257 -1.03
T28 Tigers 1952 104 104 86 50 .325 -.58
T28 Pirates 1953 104 104 84 50 .325 -.94
T34 Pirates 1917 103 103 84 51 .331 -.31
T34 Phillies 1921 103 103 82 51 .331 -.70
T34 A's 1954 103 103 97 51 .331 -1.45
T34 Braves 1928 103 103 85 50 .327 -.85
T34 Yankees 1908 103 103 94 51 .331 -.77
T34 Red Sox 1927 103 103 87 51 .331 -.56
T34 Phillies 1927 103 103 96 51 .331 -1.44
T34 Braves 1905 103 103 88 51 .331 -.53
T34 Phillies 1940 103 103 85 50 .327 -.55
T43 Braves 1906 102 102 84 49 .325 -.55
T43 Browns 1951 102 102 82 52 .338 -1.05
T43 Yankees 1912 102 102 82 50 .329 -.79
T43 Indians 1914 102 102 84 51 .333 -.48
T43 A's 1950 102 102 93 52 .338 -.91
T43 White Sox 1932 102 102 83 49 .325 -.35
T43 A's 1956 102 102 84 52 .338 -.71
T43 Phillies 1930 102 102 88 52 .338 -1.74
T43 Red Sox 1930 102 102 80 52 .338 -.04
T52 White Sox 1948 101 101 86 51 .336 -.61
T52 Braves 1912 101 101 79 52 .340 -.76
T52 Browns 1912 101 101 81 53 .344 -.36
T52 Cardinals 1907 101 101 82 52 .340 -.23
T52 Browns 1949 101 101 87 53 .344 -1.02
T52 Dodgers 1908 101 101 81 53 .344 -.12
T52 Pirates 1954 101 101 90 53 .344 -.85
T52 Senators 1955 101 101 91 53 .344 -.67
T60 A's 1921 100 100 75 53 .346 -.33
T60 Phillies 1904 100 100 90 52 .342 -.67
T60 Phillies 1936 100 100 76 54 .351 -.62
T60 Braves 1910 100 100 67 53 .346 -.19
T60 Braves 1922 100 100 82 53 .346 -.27
T60 Braves 1923 100 100 78 54 .351 -.23
T60 Braves 1924 100 100 86 53 .346 -.60
T60 A's 1936 100 100 82 53 .346 -1.03
T60 Browns 1953 100 100 76 54 .351 -.49
T60 Orioles 1954 100 100 81 54 .351 -.16
T60 A's 1940 100 100 88 54 .351 -.84

Expansion 1

After initial expansion it was the new guys and teams with stagnant ownership issues who lost 100 games



LOSSES YEAR L L N_L W PCT ERA
1 Mets 1962 120 120 90 40 .250 -1.10
2 Mets 1965 112 112 91 50 .309 -.52
3 Mets 1963 111 111 96 51 .315 -.83
4 Mets 1964 109 109 95 53 .327 -.71
5 Phillies 1961 107 107 87 47 .305 -.58
6 Senators 1963 106 106 91 56 .346 -.79
7 A's 1964 105 105 90 57 .352 -1.08
T8 Cubs 1962 103 103 82 59 .364 -.59
T8 Cubs 1966 103 103 92 59 .364 -.73
T8 A's 1965 103 103 97 59 .364 -.78
T11 Mets 1967 101 101 82 61 .377 -.36
T11 Senators 1962 101 101 82 60 .373 -.08
T13 Red Sox 1965 100 100 86 62 .383 -.78
T13 Senators 1964 100 100 84 62 .383 -.36
T13 Senators 1961 100 100 82 61 .379 -.21
T13 A's 1961 100 100 88 61 .379 -.72


Expansion 2

More expansion teams and teams with shaky managment (Rangers/CWS) and limited resources (Indians)



LOSSES YEAR L L N_L W PCT ERA
T1 Padres 1969 110 110 94 52 .321 -.64
T1 Expos 1969 110 110 92 52 .321 -.73
3 Expos 1976 107 107 90 55 .340 -.50
4 White Sox 1970 106 106 85 56 .346 -.84
5 Rangers 1973 105 105 94 57 .352 -.81
T6 Padres 1974 102 102 100 60 .370 -.98
T6 Padres 1973 102 102 94 60 .370 -.49
T6 Tigers 1975 102 102 85 57 .358 -.51
T6 Indians 1971 102 102 88 60 .370 -.81
T10 Rangers 1972 100 100 86 54 .351 -.46
T10 Padres 1971 100 100 74 61 .379 0.24


Expansion 3

Expansion teams and teams that went old and didn't get a quick enough rebuild (Reds/Tigers/O's) Resource starved teams (77 Braves, 83 M's, 80's Indians) and then the forever there Bad Owners (Giants, Pirates (cocaine aftermath) Maybe the 88 Braves, because after that Turner got real quiet)


LOSSES YEAR L L N_L W PCT ERA
1 Blue Jays 1979 109 109 84 53 .327 -.62
2 A's 1979 108 108 96 54 .333 -.55
T3 Blue Jays 1977 107 107 86 54 .335 -.51
T3 Orioles 1988 107 107 93 54 .335 -.58
5 Braves 1988 106 106 83 54 .338 -.64
6 Indians 1991 105 105 83 57 .352 -.14
T7 Mariners 1978 104 104 93 56 .350 -.94
T7 Pirates 1985 104 104 83 57 .354 -.37
T9 Tigers 1989 103 103 91 59 .364 -.65
T9 Mariners 1980 103 103 83 59 .364 -.34
T11 Indians 1985 102 102 96 60 .370 -.77
T11 Mariners 1983 102 102 81 60 .370 -.12
T11 Blue Jays 1978 102 102 91 59 .366 -.76
T11 Twins 1982 102 102 89 60 .370 -.68
T15 Braves 1977 101 101 84 61 .377 -.95
T15 Indians 1987 101 101 89 61 .377 -.81
T15 Reds 1982 101 101 78 61 .377 -.06
18 Giants 1985 100 100 85 62 .383 -.03

Expansion 4

Teams that got old quicker than they thought they would plus bad ML system.


LOSSES YEAR L L N_L W PCT ERA
1 Tigers 1996 109 109 97 53 .327 -1.38
2 Mets 1993 103 103 82 59 .364 0.00
3 Padres 1993 101 101 80 61 .377 -.18

Expansion 5

Poorly managed teams from the ownership/ML angle and expansion teams



LOSSES YEAR L L N_L W PCT ERA
1 Tigers 2003 119 119 96 43 .265 -.79
2 Diamondbacks 2004 111 111 85 51 .315 -.67
3 Marlins 1998 108 108 97 54 .333 -.97
T4 Devil Rays 2002 106 106 93 55 .342 -.83
T4 Brewers 2002 106 106 94 56 .346 -.64
T4 Royals 2005 106 106 97 56 .346 -1.20
T4 Tigers 2002 106 106 91 55 .342 -.47
8 Royals 2004 104 104 91 58 .358 -.53
T9 Devil Rays 2001 100 100 85 62 .383 -.48
T9 Pirates 2001 100 100 92 62 .383 -.68
T9 Royals 2002 100 100 76 62 .383 -.75

It looks like almost all of the teams that lose 100 games have one thing in common.

Below league average in ERA.

westofyou
03-30-2006, 12:29 PM
The NY POST is a liberal slanted paper. YUCK!
yes... liberals are the most evil force on the planet so you must have felt the need to try and hikjack the thread to stop their selfish ways.

Johnny Footstool
03-30-2006, 12:32 PM
I would adjust my post to say that they did see it in 2004 when he played 155 games and put up outstanding numbers. I really don't see why the Reds don't jump all over Wilson unless the asking price is just too high. But since they have always seemed to undervalue him, I would think we could do something.

According to Rotoworld.com, Pittsburgh is discussing trading Wilson to Seattle for Joel Pineiro.

princeton
03-30-2006, 12:42 PM
The NY POST is a liberal slanted paper

only if you're Benito Mussolini

pedro
03-30-2006, 01:02 PM
The NY POST is a liberal slanted paper. YUCK!

get out of the house much?

paintmered
03-30-2006, 01:05 PM
The NY POST is a liberal slanted paper. YUCK!

How does that pretain to this thread? :dunno:

Let's leave comments like this to ochre's forum.

Everyone else, please leave comments like these alone and don't draw attention to them. That's how threads end up closed.

Falls City Beer
03-30-2006, 01:06 PM
Injuries are the sword of Damocles for every team--it goes without saying that injury-depletion could send virtually any team to 100 losses.

But we have an owner that seems willing to turn his GM loose to fix the problem immediately. Which should prevent much sliding from last year's performance.

I'll concede that the Reds are a hair's breadth from losing 90 games this season, but it would take wholesale disaster for this club to lose 100, IMO.

M2
03-30-2006, 01:29 PM
Injuries are the sword of Damocles for every team--it goes without saying that injury-depletion could send virtually any team to 100 losses.

But we have an owner that seems willing to turn his GM loose to fix the problem immediately. Which should prevent much sliding from last year's performance.

I'll concede that the Reds are a hair's breadth from losing 90 games this season, but it would take wholesale disaster for this club to lose 100, IMO.

Agreed. The 2001 and 2004 teams, which were running out lineups that couldn't win the Midwest League at various points, didn't even lose 100 games.

KronoRed
03-30-2006, 02:46 PM
Agreed. The 2001 and 2004 teams, which were running out lineups that couldn't win the Midwest League at various points, didn't even lose 100 games.
Agreed, we'd need a lineup of "the old vet" 160 times to lose 100 games, even that is iffy.

MartyFan
03-30-2006, 07:11 PM
Agreed, we'd need a lineup of "the old vet" 160 times to lose 100 games, even that is iffy.

Very scrappy...

captainmorgan07
03-30-2006, 09:21 PM
and who believes anything in the ny post steinbrenner prolly runs the darn thing