PDA

View Full Version : 5/7/06 - Reds vs. Diamondbacks Game Thread



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

OldXOhio
05-07-2006, 10:32 PM
He's been down this road before -- potential, production, and then a slide off into mediocrity. Blame injuries and overweight LOOGYs all you want, but Austin Kearns has all but completely lost the luster that he had when he broke into the bigs a few seasons back. When the team could've used him to produce and be trade fodder for pitching, he was injured or non-productive (partly by the team's own doing when they sent him to AAA).

I agree with FCB -- get him out of town while he's hot and his value is high before pitch nicks him on the finger and he loses all ability to swing a bat for 2 months.

Yeah, Austin pretty much sealed his fate by the ripe old age of 24 I guess. Amazing, even when the guy's going good, some would rather still search for his warts.

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 10:45 PM
Yeah, Austin pretty much sealed his fate by the ripe old age of 24 I guess. Amazing, even when the guy's going good, some would rather still search for his warts.

No, it's called being steadfast in terms of knowing what the team needs and not letting a good month blind me to the fact that he played like a fat dog for three seasons.

Caveat Emperor
05-07-2006, 10:52 PM
Yeah, Austin pretty much sealed his fate by the ripe old age of 24 I guess. Amazing, even when the guy's going good, some would rather still search for his warts.

He's going good now -- and when you run a baseball team you can never let the singular instance of "now" blind you to the many tomorrows that you have to deal with.

The Reds have a winning record, but it isn't going to stay that way when the rotation features two guys currently who have no "out" pitch that can reliably retire major league hitters and two replacements on the DL who have no velocity.

edabbs44
05-07-2006, 10:53 PM
No, it's called being steadfast in terms of knowing what the team needs and not letting a good month blind me to the fact that he played like a fat dog for three seasons.

I'm somewhere in the middle here. I think AK will be, at a minimum, a solid RF for this team for a good amt of time. But this team needs pitching in the worst kind of way and if there is a buyer out there with excess young DIFFERENCE-MAKING pitching, then I am all "Ears".

VR
05-07-2006, 10:54 PM
No, it's called being steadfast in terms of knowing what the team needs and not letting a good month blind me to the fact that he played like a fat dog for three seasons.

Josh Hancock and his good month say hello.

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 10:56 PM
Sounds like good advice. Maybe you should consider heeding it.


Doctor, heal thyself.



Well, I didn't think it was very funny. I just thought it was disgusting, and I don't think that kind of "bathroom humor" is appropriate for this board.

But you likely don't really care what I think. And I don't really care whether you do or not. I just wanted to go on the record as to say that I found it to be disgusting.

See, you could have just stopped with the first paragraph, and I would certainly have apologized for offending you. But no, you had to push it and make it personal and take a shot at my person.

And frankly, I'm pushing it myself right now because these kinds of snipe attacks of yours break the rules of the board--as do my answering of them. So next time--take it private. Use the pm method.

BUTLER REDSFAN
05-07-2006, 10:58 PM
when we trade half our offense as most on this site seem to want to do and we get a pitcher all we are going to do is go from winning 10-8 games to losing 2-1 games...yes we need pitching but do we really need to trade 75% of our team away to get it????

DoogMinAmo
05-07-2006, 11:01 PM
No, it's called being steadfast in terms of knowing what the team needs and not letting a good month blind me to the fact that he played like a fat dog for three seasons.

Out of curiosity, what would it realistically take for you to "erase" said 3 seasons?

FWIW, Kearns I feel is and should the the next WMP for Arroyo guy on the team. I am just not dogging him for seeming to find his way back, no matter what the previous excuses may be. 1 week is easy to write off as a lucky streak, but a great month of .950 OPS and above average OBP could just be a guy everyone expected to be awesome finally getting it together (at an age younger than me I might add.)

Did you have it as much together as you demand of Kearns in your early twenties?

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 11:03 PM
Josh Hancock and his good month say hello.

Apple meet orange.

I'm not saying Josh Hancock is going to win any pitching awards, or that Josh Hancock should be preserved because he's going to be a fixture in the bullpen for years to come. I'm perfectly aware of Hancock's replaceability and limitations. My issue in the Hancock situation is not to stick to stupid arbitrary rules for the sake of the rule, and to keep the bird in the hand instead of trying to french-kiss the retarded bird in the bush.

But I can assure you, if Hancock were to bring in a commodity we needed more, he'd be the first one out the door.

pedro
05-07-2006, 11:03 PM
I think your stretching it a bit with the 3 season claim FCB. Kearns was pretty good in 2003 until he got hurt. last year was the one that really pissed me off, b/c I really think he was still hurt in 2004.

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 11:07 PM
Out of curiosity, what would it realistically take for you to "erase" said 3 seasons?



Nothing, at this point. The ship has sailed. Soon (very soon) his salary is going to well outpace his worth to the team. We needed him the last three seasons. He went AWOL.

Now it's time to cash him in.

VR
05-07-2006, 11:11 PM
Without knowing all the specifics of the Hancock situation....it's been stated pretty consistently that his lack of conditioning was considered the main culprit for his year off. The front office, Narron, whoever, had a heart to heart at the end of the year putting him on notice to drop 17 pounds by the time he got to ST. He showed up at ST without dropping A pound. If he had lost only 15 and they cut him, they yes, it was a stupid, arbitrary rule. He essentially flipped them and their rules the bird, and they acted as any employer should.

Kearns on the other hand, wasn't getting the conditioning lesson either, and was sent to AAA to think about it. He chose to lose some weight, not whine publicly, and instead show he was a team player. He then took the off-season to show up in the best condition of his life. Austin may have had the same attitude as Hancock in recent years, but he's proving he wants to be here. The fact that he is far and away the Reds best defender doesn't make me think we could trade 'up' with him right now anyway. LaRue is the guy that needs to go, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Falls City Beer
05-07-2006, 11:14 PM
Without knowing all the specifics of the Hancock situation....it's been stated pretty consistently that his lack of conditioning was considered the main culprit for his year off. The front office, Narron, whoever, had a heart to heart at the end of the year putting him on notice to drop 17 pounds by the time he got to ST. He showed up at ST without dropping A pound. If he had lost only 15 and they cut him, they yes, it was a stupid, arbitrary rule. He essentially flipped them and their rules the bird, and they acted as any employer should.

Kearns on the other hand, wasn't getting the conditioning lesson either, and was sent to AAA to think about it. He chose to lose some weight, not whine publicly, and instead show he was a team player. He then took the off-season to show up in the best condition of his life. Austin may have had the same attitude as Hancock in recent years, but he's proving he wants to be here. The fact that he is far and away the Reds best defender doesn't make me think we could trade 'up' with him right now anyway. LaRue is the guy that needs to go, but that's a whole 'nother story.


I think it's a very bad idea to miss out on a chance to acquire top-shelf pitching in order to keep around your "best" defender--Kearns is at best a slightly above-average defender. Not something you keep around when you have the chance to get pitching into this god-forsaken franchise.

But I agree that Larue should go too.

RedsMan3203
05-07-2006, 11:24 PM
Hey Falls, from most of your post i've seen tonight it looks like you want to win NOW... Who cares about the next 5-7 years... You want it this year...

Austin has had some bad luck the last few years... granted about everyone in Cincinnati has had it... But, we are looking at a GREAT baseball player in Kearns.

Maybe the ownership isn't lookin to trade Kearns this year, or even next year. They might just go ahead and land that huge starting pitcher FA that we've always wanted and we get to KEEP Kearns.

Austin is gonna be an above average major league right fielder. Even thou, his stats in the past don't support that... But he is gonna be a good guy to have around once we do make that playoff run, and seris run in the next 5-7 years bro.

Chip R
05-07-2006, 11:45 PM
He's going good now -- and when you run a baseball team you can never let the singular instance of "now" blind you to the many tomorrows that you have to deal with.

The Reds have a winning record, but it isn't going to stay that way when the rotation features two guys currently who have no "out" pitch that can reliably retire major league hitters and two replacements on the DL who have no velocity.

I would not actively shop Austin i.e. shopping him around for the next best Braves prospect, but I would like to see what is out there in return for him. It would be much better to trade him now or a month from now thn it would to wait till July when he lands on the DL again. I do not think he is going to regress back to last years numbers. I think he can keep this up for as long as he is healthy. But you do not know how long that is going to be. Everyone wants to hold on to a guy when he is putting up good numbers and is healthy. But when he slumps or gets hurt, the same people want to ship him out but they expect a lot more value in return for him than what he is really worth. If you believe Denorfia is the real thing, then you should not have a problem trading Kearns. Platoon him with Q if you dont feel he will have a tough time with righties. But you are going to have to make a decision about Kearns sooner or later. If you want to keep him around, be prepared to pay him $6 to 7M a year for 3 or 4 years. If you go year to year with him, there is no guarantee he will even stay here when he is eligible for free agency. Then you are bidding against 29 other teams and may have to over pay to keep him.

Big Klu
05-08-2006, 05:20 AM
See, you could have just stopped with the first paragraph, and I would certainly have apologized for offending you. But no, you had to push it and make it personal and take a shot at my person.

If you thought I was taking a shot at you personally, then I apologize. My entire issue was with the content of your original comment, not with the commentator. However, I have never been one to hide what I have to say, and I have never said anything that I wasn't willing to say in public. This is why I have responded as I have after reading your private comment, which I feel was completely inappropriate.

But that is all water under the bridge, so to speak. As far as I am concerned, this matter is a dead issue, and I think that it is in the best interests of all concerned to just let it go and move on.

OldXOhio
05-08-2006, 08:53 AM
I think it's a very bad idea to miss out on a chance to acquire top-shelf pitching in order to keep around your "best" defender--Kearns is at best a slightly above-average defender. Not something you keep around when you have the chance to get pitching into this god-forsaken franchise.



Your reasoning confuses me. Kearns is either a well regarded player that other teams are willing to discount the first few years of his young career in trading a top arm for or they will have an attitude like yours in that Kearns is scrap. If so, why would they possibly give up "top-shelf pitching"?

OnBaseMachine
05-08-2006, 09:21 AM
FWIW, Kearns had a .851 OPS in the second half of 2005 compared to just .700 in the first half. So he actually only had 1 1/2 bad years rather than two, and I think those struggles were caused by the injury to his shoulder. He actually showed signs of returning to the real Kearns in the second half of last season. Because of that, I went on record as saying that I thought he was turning the corner and he would put up an OPS in the .900 range this year. So far so good.

indyred
05-08-2006, 09:49 AM
Kearns trade value is not that high, some people on here way overvalue him..........he is a decent outfielder, with ok power playing in great dinger park....his type of player are not that difficult to find.......I highly doubt the Reds could get better than 3rd or 4th type starter for him......Reds are better off keeping him

westofyou
05-08-2006, 09:55 AM
Apple meet orange. And say hello to Jimmy Haynes, Josh Hancock of 2002

OnBaseMachine
05-08-2006, 09:57 AM
And say hello to Jimmy Haynes, Josh Hancock of 2002

Thief. ;) I made that same comparison in another thread a short while ago.

MWM
05-08-2006, 09:59 AM
Your reasoning confuses me. Kearns is either a well regarded player that other teams are willing to discount the first few years of his young career in trading a top arm for or they will have an attitude like yours in that Kearns is scrap. If so, why would they possibly give up "top-shelf pitching"?

Some teams are rich in pitching and poor in offense. It's a matter of finding the right organization with compatible needs.

PuffyPig
05-08-2006, 10:05 AM
Kearns trade value is not that high, some people on here way overvalue him..........he is a decent outfielder, with ok power playing in great dinger park....his type of player are not that difficult to find.......I highly doubt the Reds could get better than 3rd or 4th type starter for him......Reds are better off keeping him

not hard to find......?

Just ask the Cards who recently sported an OF of Spezio, Schumaker and Rodriquez against us. THere's a number of teams that could use a .300-30HR-100RBI RF with a strong arm.

OldXOhio
05-08-2006, 10:13 AM
Some teams are rich in pitching and poor in offense. It's a matter of finding the right organization with compatible needs.

Understood - I'm just saying he thinks Kearns is a dog, yet still expects he can yield a top flight arm in a trade.

indyred
05-08-2006, 10:15 AM
not hard to find......?

Just ask the Cards who recently sported an OF of Spezio, Schumaker and Rodriquez against us. THere's a number of teams that could use a .300-30HR-100RBI RF with a strong arm.

When has Kearns done that????

Falls City Beer
05-08-2006, 10:15 AM
Your reasoning confuses me. Kearns is either a well regarded player that other teams are willing to discount the first few years of his young career in trading a top arm for or they will have an attitude like yours in that Kearns is scrap. If so, why would they possibly give up "top-shelf pitching"?

Have you never heard of the concepts "sell high" and "greater fool?"


As long as baseball GMs continue to be human beings (and I suppose they will be), there will always be some idiot who gives up top-shelf pitching (or at least super-high potential) for the glimmer of hype surrounding a player or inflated numbers.

And I would also point to what MWM said--occasionally a team needs offense so desperately they'll roll the dice on a league average career right fielder like Kearns to send a guy like Taguchi to the bench. Kearns isn't total dogmeat; but his value to the team is not at all going to be in line with the salary he's going to be making next year.

edabbs44
05-08-2006, 10:24 AM
Maybe Kearns is overrated and a dog, but maybe he is just getting over the injury he sustained when Ray King earthquaked him on home plate. Don't forget, he was leading the NL in RBI at that time. So, again, I wouldn't give him up for a one or two year helper, but if we could get some immediate help for the pitching with youth on their side, I won't be complaining. The Dodgers, Florida and Minny are three teams I could see giving up some of their young pitching for a middle of the order type hitter.

Falls City Beer
05-08-2006, 10:24 AM
And say hello to Jimmy Haynes, Josh Hancock of 2002

One question only needs to be answered. Only one. Is Josh Hancock a better option than any member of the Reds' 2006 bullpen? If you answer yes to this question, then the move that Narron made was a mistake.

A separate issue. Point to any evidence that suggests that moves like Narron's ("you're cut because you arrived at camp overweight") have ever substantively improved a ball club. Give me evidence. You're the historian, you would know. When have fat farm policies improved the rosters of MLB teams?

And I'm not talking about cutting a player after his poor health has ACTUALLY AFFECTED HIS PERFORMANCE a la Jimmy Haynes. I'm talking about: "you're fat? Go home."

westofyou
05-08-2006, 10:46 AM
Give me evidence. You're the historian, you would know. When have fat farm policies improved the rosters of MLB teams?

Everybody's watching their weight these days, even me. Unlike last year, the early spring stories of players losing weight (Adrian Beltre down 15, Phil Nevin down 20, Armando Benitez down 20, Carlos Zambrano down 20) or putting it on (Andruw Jones up 20 and looking buff, Jack Wilson up 20 and looking more distant from an appendectomy, Ivan Rodriguez up 10 after last year's "shrinking," Cory Sullivan up 22) aren't immediately generating steroid rumors. Last year's inevitable mention of steroids hasn't happened this year, the best sign that the new policy is working, at least from a public relations standpoint. We don't know what weight gain or loss means in the long- or short-term, but we do know that players have long had dramatic swings on either side of the scale. It's another fact that's worth knowing, but hard to interpret without a lot more context.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4778

All teams give a health program to players when they leave for the winter. Hancock missed time last year with a back problem, weight is a major factor in back problems. The Resd cut the man because

A. He didn't follow team policy and still drew a check

B. A back injury could cause them to have to waste a spot on an injured player in the future.

c. He is a late 20's RH without *much* stuff in a world full of them.

Lots of teams have programs, lots of guys have been fat and gotten worse, it's the teams perogative to set policy and institute it, the surprise that they make and example out of players they see as fringe is almost as odd as the constant tracking of a guy who is essentially John Hudek.

westofyou
05-08-2006, 10:51 AM
One question only needs to be answered. Only one. Is Josh Hancock a better option than any member of the Reds' 2006 bullpen? If you only dwell in the here and now of the world of baseball then I guess that's your only question. Mine points more at the culture of the team as a whole not just in the wins and losses ledger. I think that the organiaztion has been a rudderless mess that nobody wanted to steer. Now that someone is steering there are more battles to win than on the field, good team culture is a deeper well to draw from then a 8th pitcher on a crummy staff.

Falls City Beer
05-08-2006, 10:54 AM
All teams give a health program to players when they leave for the winter. Hancock missed time last year with a back problem, weight is a major factor in back problems. The Resd cut the man because

A. He didn't follow team policy and still drew a check

B. A back injury could cause them to have to waste a spot on an injured player in the future.

c. He is a late 20's RH without *much* stuff in a world full of them.

Lots of teams have programs, lots of guys have been fat and gotten worse, it's the teams perogative to set policy and institute it, the surprise that they make and example out of players they see as fringe is almost as odd as the constant tracking of a guy who is essentially John Hudek.

Bureaucracies love to make rules and follow them for no other reason than to follow them, too.

But then this rule only applies to one player, in order to make an example. So it's not really a policy. It's just random. And if there's one thing that people who work below bosses disrespect more than a hardass, it's a capricious enforcer of the rules.

A rule should reflect all those behaviors that benefit the team's winning.

lollipopcurve
05-08-2006, 10:54 AM
Mine points more at the culture of the team as a whole

Yep. Probably needed to be done -- the team had the reputation of being soft.

And Hancock may have needed the wake-up call in order to pitch as well as he has.

Can't quantify this stuff, but people are people.

westofyou
05-08-2006, 11:01 AM
Bureaucracies love to make rules and follow them for no other reason than to follow them, too. Sports is a business, they thought he was fat and expendable.

What else is there to bellyache about?

If the Reds magic carpet ride this season only induces sour grapes about this move then have at it. It's like playing stoop ball, back and forth, back and forth...

lollipopcurve
05-08-2006, 11:04 AM
And if there's one thing that people who work below bosses disrespect more than a hardass, it's a capricious enforcer of the rules.

Yeah, I'm sure everybody in the Red organization is really upset about how things have gone under Castellini, Krivsky and Narron.

Talk about dysfunction.

Falls City Beer
05-08-2006, 11:06 AM
Yeah, I'm sure everybody in the Red organization is really upset about how things have gone under Castellini, Krivsky and Narron.

Talk about dysfunction.

My issue is not with Castellini or Krivsky. It's with Narron.

And if there's one thing in baseball more expendable than a chubby but effective reliever, it's a busybody field manager.

"We're not selling blue jeans here."

Falls City Beer
05-08-2006, 11:15 AM
What else is there to bellyache about?

If the Reds magic carpet ride this season only induces sour grapes about this move then have at it. It's like playing stoop ball, back and forth, back and forth...

Sour grapes?

While everyone else was busy predicting 66 wins for the club, I said 81 wins--largely because of the newfound faith I had in Krivsky after the Arroyo move. I still stand behind that prediction (and I'm hoping for more).

It's just that winning means making the right moves virtually all the time. There's very little room in this business for field manager ego.

westofyou
05-08-2006, 11:19 AM
It's just that winning means making the right moves virtually all the time.When perfection is achieved let me know.

traderumor
05-08-2006, 11:54 AM
Bureaucracies love to make rules and follow them for no other reason than to follow them, too.

But then this rule only applies to one player, in order to make an example. So it's not really a policy. It's just random. And if there's one thing that people who work below bosses disrespect more than a hardass, it's a capricious enforcer of the rules.

A rule should reflect all those behaviors that benefit the team's winning.How do you know its random? Are there other players that violated their workout/weight requirements and are still with the team? Isn't it possible that he was the only player cut for this specific reason? How would you or anybody else besides the one's that made the decision and the individual players know?