PDA

View Full Version : Hatteberg signed through '07



NJReds
07-26-2006, 02:13 PM
Per Marc's Blog (http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/2006/07/hatteberg-signed-through-07.asp):




Hatteberg signed through '07

HOUSTON -- Scott Hatteberg and the Reds have agreed to terms on a $1.5 million contract for 2007 that also includes a club option for 2008.

Hatteberg is making a base salary of $750,000 this year, plus up to $250,000 in bonuses based on plate appearances.

Jpup
07-26-2006, 02:14 PM
Sounds good to me. :thumbup:

Red Leader
07-26-2006, 02:15 PM
Well, I guess he won't be going anywhere.

Not a bad deal, IMO. I doubt he repeats his success of this year, but even if he doesn't that's not too much to pay for a role player.

toledodan
07-26-2006, 02:15 PM
i guess we won't be seeing joey votto anytime soon. not a bad signing but it makes you wonder what is going to happen with playing time for rich and edwin.

toledodan
07-26-2006, 02:17 PM
also it makes him easier to trade.

Marc D
07-26-2006, 02:20 PM
i guess we won't be seeing joey votto anytime soon. not a bad signing but it makes you wonder what is going to happen with playing time for rich and edwin.

One more year to be safe and keep it warm for Votto imo. I'm fine with it and you can't expect Votto to make that jump without a backup plan in place. If Votto takes 1B Hatte's still easily tradeable but with Narron still here we know that ain't happening. Hatte is the 1B bridge for '07 and its probably Votto's job in '08.

NJReds
07-26-2006, 02:21 PM
Even if Votto has a great spring and makes the big club, I have no problem with Hatteberg on the bench. Although we know Narron loves the scrappy veterans. ;)

Puffy
07-26-2006, 02:21 PM
Ugh. When Aurilia resigns it means another year for EdE to have to fight to get playing time with both Aurilia and Hatteberg, with vets having the early upper hand in Narron's mind.

lollipopcurve
07-26-2006, 02:27 PM
also it makes him easier to trade.

Yep -- though I imagine WK has Votto slated for some time in Louisville next year no matter what.

Krusty
07-26-2006, 02:31 PM
Reds are getting more bang with their buck with a platoon of Hatteberg and Aurilia than having Casey and his contract playing their full-time.

Gallen5862
07-26-2006, 02:34 PM
This contract also can make it easier to trade Aurilla. This way Krivisky knows that Hatteberg is locked up.

remdog
07-26-2006, 02:46 PM
A safe play for the Reds as far as the contract goes. $1.5M is relatively cheap. Heatteberg was supposed to be insurance off the bench this year, now he's signed on for that role again for next year at a reasonable cost.

Perhaps (hopefully) this will however, make it easier to trade Scott this season since he is signed at a workable contract.

Rem

BuckeyeRedleg
07-26-2006, 02:51 PM
Aurilia

2006:
1.110 OPS vs. LHP
.664 OPS vs. RHP

Career
.836 vs. LHP
.746 vs. RHP

Hatteberg

2006:
.763 OPS vs. LHP
.947 OPS vs. RHP

career:
.682 OPS vs. LHP
.795 OPS vs. RHP


To me, this should be a platoon situation at 1B, thru the rest of 2006, with Hatteberg probably recieving 2/3 of the starts (vs. RHP) and Aurilia getting the other third (vs. LHP).

That gives RA 20+ starts at 1B and he can spell EE occasionally (once a week?) at 3B and Phillips occasionally at 2B.

Hats starts off 2007 as the mentor for Votto and his tradeable contract is dealt by the deadline (if he has value at that time).

edabbs44
07-26-2006, 02:55 PM
Well, I guess he won't be going anywhere.

Not a bad deal, IMO. I doubt he repeats his success of this year, but even if he doesn't that's not too much to pay for a role player.
Actually that's a lot for a role player for Cincy. Maybe not in NY, but when your best starting pitchers are making $4 million per year and the BP is a revolving mess of DFAs, $1.5 mil is a lot.

I'm not liking this.

corkedbat
07-26-2006, 02:55 PM
I like it - Hat seems like a good clubhouse guy an di like him as a shortterm solution til Votto's ready. Now Votto takes first when he's ready, not because he's forced to. You'd prefer a RH bat to back up the LH Votto when he does come up, but Hat can still be valuable off the bench. And, as someone else said, it makes him easier to trade at the deadline.

I like this deal. Aurillia, if he keeps taking ABs from EdE, is a completely different matter.

registerthis
07-26-2006, 03:03 PM
Actually that's a lot for a role player for Cincy. Maybe not in NY, but when your best starting pitchers are making $4 million per year and the BP is a revolving mess of DFAs, $1.5 mil is a lot.

I'm not liking this.

Hatteberg hasn't been a role player this year, and there's certainly no guarantee that Votto makes the team next year or produces at an acceptable level. If you can't afford a solid player like Hatteberg at 1.5 mil, then you might as well pack up and head home. This is money well spent, IMO.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2006, 03:03 PM
I typically don't try to read too much into front office transaction behavior, but the timing of this move strikes me as awfully suspicious. I have to believe another move lurks beyond the horizon.

princeton
07-26-2006, 03:16 PM
I typically don't try to read too much into...

:laugh:

redsmetz
07-26-2006, 03:20 PM
i guess we won't be seeing joey votto anytime soon. not a bad signing but it makes you wonder what is going to happen with playing time for rich and edwin.

If Wayne sticks to what he's done thus far, we probably weren't seeing Votto until sometime next year, taking each step at a time. I guess it's possible he may see a promotion to Louisville before year's end (he's hitting .325 at AA with 19 HRs and 61 RBIs), but still I'd expect him to open next year at AAA and maybe come up sometime during the year.

I think the patience is going to pay off in the long run. I think we've short circuited some guys progress jumping levels.

redsmetz
07-26-2006, 03:21 PM
I wonder if Hatteberg had anything put in the contract that makes '08 automatic if he's traded or which raises the buyout if that happens.

smith288
07-26-2006, 03:22 PM
Im predicting a trade will go down that will coincide with Mays being DFA'd, Ross reactivated and a position player being moved for a pitcher along with Wise being shipped back down

But thats just a total shot in the dark in the hopes people will look at me with Team Clark type respect. :D

Falls City Beer
07-26-2006, 03:24 PM
:laugh:

What you think is "my reading into" is just "my correctly analyzing." The chiaroscuro is finely graded, admittedly....

edabbs44
07-26-2006, 03:26 PM
Hatteberg hasn't been a role player this year, and there's certainly no guarantee that Votto makes the team next year or produces at an acceptable level. If you can't afford a solid player like Hatteberg at 1.5 mil, then you might as well pack up and head home. This is money well spent, IMO.
I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by Red Leader
Well, I guess he won't be going anywhere.

Not a bad deal, IMO. I doubt he repeats his success of this year, but even if he doesn't that's not too much to pay for a role player.

Wayne got great value this year...maybe it's time to realize those gains and sell. Odds are Hatteberg won't be having the same season next year. He's really old. He wasn't a solid player last year. He probably won't be next year. Money well spent would be drafting non-value picks and getting free agents who aren't from the bottom of the trash heap. Who's going to be in the rotation next year? SS? Catcher? Closer? I'm sorry, but I would rather roll the dice on Votto next year than enter 2007 with Royce at SS, Guardado as closer, LaRue catching or Claussen in the rotation. And when it comes down to it, $1.5 million is a decent amt of money to go from one level of player to the next. 1b is the least of our concerns next season.

princeton
07-26-2006, 03:27 PM
Im predicting a trade will go down that will coincide with Mays being DFA'd, Ross reactivated and a position player being moved for a pitcher along with Wise being shipped back down

and the trade deadline looming, too?

no duh

flyer85
07-26-2006, 03:27 PM
I called that just a few hours earlier in the Angels/Hatteberg thread. I guess they think the 2006 Hatty is not going to be a one year fluke. A very big gamble IMHO.

RedsManRick
07-26-2006, 03:28 PM
This is good news if for no other reason than that it lessens the likelihood Aurilia resigns...

With Hatteberg on board for next year, we aren't forced to either hope Votto is really ready or cobble together people again. Votto is still really young, so saving him for perhaps a mid-late season call up (and dangling Hatteberg as trade bait next summer) makes a lot of sense.

As per the "1.5 Mil is too much for a role player", I disagree. 8 million is too much for a #5 starter or 1B who can't OPS over .800. 4 million is too much for a #4 starter with significant injury issues. When you don't waste a ton of money on the big signings, you can easily afford to spend more than the bare minimum on the supporting cast. However, you only have 25 spots on your roster and the skills that are allowing Hatteberg to thrive here aren't going to be greatly affected by another year under his belt. I don't think anybody expects him to put up a .922 OPS next year, but if he can hit .275/.375/.425 over a few hundred ABs and buy us time until Votto arrives, that's worth a million bucks.

flyer85
07-26-2006, 03:28 PM
I'll continue predicting Mays will pitch on Saturday.

flyer85
07-26-2006, 03:29 PM
This is good news if for no other reason than that it lessens the likelihood Aurilia resigns...I don't see that at all. I they would bring Hatty back I would think the next logical step is to bring Rich back as the starting 3b in 2007.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2006, 03:29 PM
and the trade deadline looming, too?

no duh

Yeah, because the scrutability of this FO is so high.

So far it's been all bedside manner and no diagnosis.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2006, 03:33 PM
I don't see that at all. I they would bring Hatty back I would think the next logical step is to bring Rich back as the starting 3b in 2007.

Yes.

flyer85
07-26-2006, 03:33 PM
Yeah, because the scrutability of this FO is so high.

So far it's been all bedside manner and no diagnosis.I feel like I'm watching a devolution.

edabbs44
07-26-2006, 03:38 PM
This is good news if for no other reason than that it lessens the likelihood Aurilia resigns...

With Hatteberg on board for next year, we aren't forced to either hope Votto is really ready or cobble together people again. Votto is still really young, so saving him for perhaps a mid-late season call up (and dangling Hatteberg as trade bait next summer) makes a lot of sense.

As per the "1.5 Mil is too much for a role player", I disagree. 8 million is too much for a #5 starter or 1B who can't OPS over .800. 4 million is too much for a #4 starter with significant injury issues. When you don't waste a ton of money on the big signings, you can easily afford to spend more than the bare minimum on the supporting cast. However, you only have 25 spots on your roster and the skills that are allowing Hatteberg to thrive here aren't going to be greatly affected by another year under his belt. I don't think anybody expects him to put up a .922 OPS next year, but if he can hit .275/.375/.425 over a few hundred ABs and buy us time until Votto arrives, that's worth a million bucks.
How many pitchers in the bullpen had a salary of $1.5 million or more going into 2006?

flyer85
07-26-2006, 03:38 PM
So will the FO be surprised when they get the Hatty that Oakland released in 2005?

Jocketty of StL has been one who has realized when he got a career season and the Cards quickly cut bait on those guys (Womack, Grudz, etc )

Matt700wlw
07-26-2006, 03:39 PM
Good signing....he's been a great pickup.


This should also put an end to the Sean Casey coming back to Cincy stuff......although there wasn't a lot of that, there was speculation.

Johnny Footstool
07-26-2006, 03:48 PM
The good news is that it's only one year and only $1.5 million.

The bad news is that is illustrates that this front office can't recognize a career year when it slaps them in the face. Just roll the dice and hope Hat can somehow repeat his performance at age 37.

flyer85
07-26-2006, 03:49 PM
Good signing....he's been a great pickup.That all depends on whether you get the 2005 Hatty or the 2006 Hatty. The probablility is the one the Reds get in 2007 will be a lot closer to the 2005 model than the 2006 one.

registerthis
07-26-2006, 03:53 PM
I'm sorry, but I would rather roll the dice on Votto next year than enter 2007 with Royce at SS, Guardado as closer, LaRue catching or Claussen in the rotation. And when it comes down to it, $1.5 million is a decent amt of money to go from one level of player to the next. 1b is the least of our concerns next season.

None of those players being in the lineup (and I'd be shocked if Clayton is still around) has anything to do with Hatte being there. $1.5 million on hatteberg is very little, particularly when you consider that one of the "plusses" in the kearns/Lopez deal was that we would save some cash. Salary considerations in this deal are pretty much last in my list of concerns.

By wishing the Reds would hand Votto the first base job next year with no backup contingrncy, you're placing a significant amount of weight on the shoulders of a player whom, six months ago, wasn't regarded as a top prospect for the club.

registerthis
07-26-2006, 03:54 PM
The good news is that it's only one year and only $1.5 million.

The bad news is that is illustrates that this front office can't recognize a career year when it slaps them in the face. Just roll the dice and hope Hat can somehow repeat his performance at age 37.

...or realize that a contract like this makes him tradeable, either in the offseason or midway through next. They realize that Hatte's value is high, and likely realized that a contract would make it only more so.

BRM
07-26-2006, 03:55 PM
I'll continue predicting Mays will pitch on Saturday.

I agree with that prediction. I think Mays will be pitching for the Reds on Saturday.

westofyou
07-26-2006, 03:56 PM
How many pitchers in the bullpen had a salary of $1.5 million or more going into 2006?
7

Patrick Bateman
07-26-2006, 03:57 PM
The good news is that it's only one year and only $1.5 million.

The bad news is that is illustrates that this front office can't recognize a career year when it slaps them in the face. Just roll the dice and hope Hat can somehow repeat his performance at age 37.

At worst he should be a solid bench player. It's not the worst way to spend 1.5M.

He wont really have another year like this, but he should be a solid .800 OPS platoon type guy. Not a bad signing IMO.

Strikes Out Looking
07-26-2006, 03:57 PM
More Good News: This signing indicates that the previous regimes "we don't discuss contracts during the season" policy is dead. Now, lock up Aaron for three-four more years.

flyer85
07-26-2006, 04:04 PM
At worst he should be a solid bench player. It's not the worst way to spend 1.5M.

He wont really have another year like this, but he should be a solid .800 OPS platoon type guy. Not a bad signing IMO.seeing as he had only 800 OPS thrice before this season, the last time in 2002 (his career high is 807), I would say he is a very good bet to go sub 800 in 2007.

I mentioned after last season that Jrs 2005 was likely a career season at this point and most did not take kindly to the suggestion(he is down well over 150 from last year). I would say a 150 to 200 point OPS drop for Hatty in 2007 is very likely.

princeton
07-26-2006, 04:05 PM
Yeah, because the scrutability of this FO is so high.

So far it's been all bedside manner and no diagnosis.

my Great-Aunt Gladys is a more self-aware patient

Johnny Footstool
07-26-2006, 04:07 PM
At worst he should be a solid bench player. It's not the worst way to spend 1.5M.

He wont really have another year like this, but he should be a solid .800 OPS platoon type guy. Not a bad signing IMO.

Narron would never bench Hatteberg, though. Veterans play, youngsters sit and watch.

At worst, he'll waste 300 ABs on a .650 OPS at 1B, giving Hat every chance in the world to "regain his stroke."

That said, the deal doesn't hurt the Reds financially. I do see great potential for it hurting the team on the field, though.

reds44
07-26-2006, 04:17 PM
To me the option year is simple. If Votto is ready at the end of next year we don't pick up his option. If he isn't then we do.

Kc61
07-26-2006, 04:18 PM
Hope this doesn't mean Votto is trade bait for a pitcher. It is one possible way to read this signing.

Red Leader
07-26-2006, 04:19 PM
To me the option year is simple. If Votto is ready at the end of next year we don't pick up his option. If he isn't then we do.

To me it's even simpler than that. We don't exercise the option no matter what, they just put it in there to make it seem like he's a guy the Reds like.

Cyclone792
07-26-2006, 04:29 PM
Narron would never bench Hatteberg, though. Veterans play, youngsters sit and watch.

At worst, he'll waste 300 ABs on a .650 OPS at 1B, giving Hat every chance in the world to "regain his stroke."

That said, the deal doesn't hurt the Reds financially. I do see great potential for it hurting the team on the field, though.

That's a 100 percent Jerry Narron problem, not a Scott Hatteberg problem unless Hatteberg is a guy that'll go Rich Aurilia on the team and twist the manager's arm to get himself in the lineup.

Hatteberg's home/road splits in Oakland are very telling; his OPS on the road from 2003-2005 was 40 points higher than at his former pitcher's haven of a home park. Additionally, his BABIPs in 2003 and 2005 were highly unlucky, but his BABIP in 2004 was just about league average. Hatteberg's BABIP lucky so far this season, but he is having an incredible season. If he puts up a league average BABIP in 2007, you can expect numbers in the range of .285/.370/.420.

There's nothing wrong with that line at a cost of less than $2 million for about 300-350 PAs in spot starts and pinch hitting duty, and the key is it's a workable bridge to Joey Votto ... provided Jerry Narron knows how to cross that bridge. Unfortunately, Narron's shown us through Rich Aurilia that he has no idea where that bridge crosses, and I know that's the gripe people have with this extension. But again, that's a Jerry Narron problem, and not a Scott Hatteberg problem. Narron's the guy that needs to either change his philosophy on young players or be shown the door.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2006, 04:37 PM
my Great-Aunt Gladys is a more self-aware patient

I don't object in the least to installing your Great-Aunt Gladys into the GMship.

I suspect she'd bring method, and not simply the mesmerism of the roulette wheel.

princeton
07-26-2006, 04:44 PM
I don't object in the least to installing your Great-Aunt Gladys into the GMship.

you'd object to Branch Rickey

Falls City Beer
07-26-2006, 04:45 PM
Branch Rickey

Jim Bowden.

edabbs44
07-26-2006, 04:55 PM
7
7? You sure about that? Or did you mean less than 1.5 mil?

westofyou
07-26-2006, 04:59 PM
7? You sure about that? Or did you mean less than 1.5 mil?
Espn has the list... it includes Wilson too.

edabbs44
07-26-2006, 04:59 PM
None of those players being in the lineup (and I'd be shocked if Clayton is still around) has anything to do with Hatte being there. $1.5 million on hatteberg is very little, particularly when you consider that one of the "plusses" in the kearns/Lopez deal was that we would save some cash. Salary considerations in this deal are pretty much last in my list of concerns.

By wishing the Reds would hand Votto the first base job next year with no backup contingrncy, you're placing a significant amount of weight on the shoulders of a player whom, six months ago, wasn't regarded as a top prospect for the club.
Prediction: Hatte will be a shell of his 2006 version next season. Just my opinion. And $1.5 million for a bench player (or below average starter) will seem like a lot when Jose Mesa, Jose Lima and Aaron Small are working the late innings.

Johnny Footstool
07-26-2006, 04:59 PM
That's a 100 percent Jerry Narron problem, not a Scott Hatteberg problem unless Hatteberg is a guy that'll go Rich Aurilia on the team and twist the manager's arm to get himself in the lineup.

Hatteberg's home/road splits in Oakland are very telling; his OPS on the road from 2003-2005 was 40 points higher than at his former pitcher's haven of a home park. Additionally, his BABIPs in 2003 and 2005 were highly unlucky, but his BABIP in 2004 was just about league average. Hatteberg's BABIP lucky so far this season, but he is having an incredible season. If he puts up a league average BABIP in 2007, you can expect numbers in the range of .285/.370/.420.

There's nothing wrong with that line at a cost of less than $2 million for about 300-350 PAs in spot starts and pinch hitting duty, and the key is it's a workable bridge to Joey Votto ... provided Jerry Narron knows how to cross that bridge. Unfortunately, Narron's shown us through Rich Aurilia that he has no idea where that bridge crosses, and I know that's the gripe people have with this extension. But again, that's a Jerry Narron problem, and not a Scott Hatteberg problem. Narron's the guy that needs to either change his philosophy on young players or be shown the door.

Actually, it's the Reds' problem. Narron and Krivsky are what they are -- Proven Veteran addicts. Narron will not change his approach, and Krivsky just provided him with more ammunition.

But like I said, I'm glad the deal doesn't hurt the Reds financially.

edabbs44
07-26-2006, 05:00 PM
Espn has the list... it includes Wilson too.
Bullpen? How many people were in the BP at the start of the year, 15? Hamm and White were under $1.5 million, and Burns had to be as well.

RedsManRick
07-26-2006, 05:02 PM
Regarding the bullpen statements, I would argue that a solid middle reliever (not what Weathers has been this year) is worth 1.5 mil as well. You should not confuse the strategy with it's execution. 2 young cheap long/middle relievers, 3 middle relievers at 1.5 mil and a closer at 5 mil is a 10 mil bullpen -- and that's quite reasonable if you spend it on the right guys.

I'm not sure who else you could get to fill a 1B/PH for 1.5 Mil that is better that Hatt. I'd much rather spend 10 million across 6 or 7 bench and relievers and get above replacement value than spent 8 Mil on a pitcher who is only marginally better than a reclamation project or young guy. If you don't make the big mistakes, the 1.5 million for a Hatteberg makes plenty of sense.

Cedric
07-26-2006, 05:03 PM
Actually, it's the Reds' problem. Narron and Krivsky are what they are -- Proven Veteran addicts. Narron will not change his approach, and Krivsky just provided him with more ammunition.

But like I said, I'm glad the deal doesn't hurt the Reds financially.

Huh? Because of Rich Aurilia?

These guys are proven defensive addicts, not veteran. The facts don't back up the veteran only arguement.

westofyou
07-26-2006, 05:04 PM
you'd object to Branch Rickey
Branch Rickey.... loaned the Reds 50K so they could buy Chick Hafey off of him, plus two pitchers.

Chick developed a sinus condition and lost his batting eye.. literally, he had to get glasses, that plus the huge expanse of outfield in Redland hurt both his fielding and his hitting.

The Reds had to pay Rickey the 50 K back too.

Magic.

Patrick Bateman
07-26-2006, 05:05 PM
Narron would never bench Hatteberg, though. Veterans play, youngsters sit and watch.

At worst, he'll waste 300 ABs on a .650 OPS at 1B, giving Hat every chance in the world to "regain his stroke."

That said, the deal doesn't hurt the Reds financially. I do see great potential for it hurting the team on the field, though.


Well that's not Hatteber's fault. That's narron's fault.


If you don't want that to be anissue, Krivsly better get some younger, better talent for nothing to make sure Narron can't use the vets.

And as a platton player he would be about an .800 OPS type of guy.

This year against righties: .960.

I'm guessing he wont drop that significantly from that level of play.

Cyclone792
07-26-2006, 05:06 PM
Actually, it's the Reds' problem. Narron and Krivsky are what they are -- Proven Veteran addicts. Narron will not change his approach, and Krivsky just provided him with more ammunition.

Well right, which is why Jerry Narron just needs to be shown the door, and I'm pretty sure you're at least in partial agreement with that.

However, we can't blame the ammunition for the firearm's faults in this case. Hatteberg, at his price and if utilized in a proper role, is a valuable piece of the active roster. Ditto Rich Aurilia. The problem is when the general manager supplies the manager with players designed for certain roles and the manager follows suit by failing to play those players in their proper roles.

Discarding useful player pieces because the manager is an idiot doesn't fix the situation. Replace Narron with a guy who will utilize players such as Hatteberg and Aurilia in their proper roles, and the problem is mostly solved.

registerthis
07-26-2006, 05:06 PM
But like I said, I'm glad the deal doesn't hurt the Reds financially.

So who does it harm? Votto? Let's see him actually play a ML game before we decry his blockage at first base.

registerthis
07-26-2006, 05:11 PM
However, we can't blame the ammunition for the firearm's faults in this case. Hatteberg, at his price and if utilized in a proper role, is a valuable piece of the active roster. Ditto Rich Aurilia. The problem is when the general manager supplies the manager with players designed for certain roles and the manager follows suit by failing to play those players in their proper roles.

Discarding useful player pieces because the manager is an idiot doesn't fix the situation. Replace Narron with a guy who will utilize players such as Hatteberg and Aurilia in their proper roles, and the problem is mostly solved.

Completely agree with this.

edabbs44
07-26-2006, 05:11 PM
Regarding the bullpen statements, I would argue that a solid middle reliever (not what Weathers has been this year) is worth 1.5 mil as well. You should not confuse the strategy with it's execution. 2 young cheap long/middle relievers, 3 middle relievers at 1.5 mil and a closer at 5 mil is a 10 mil bullpen -- and that's quite reasonable if you spend it on the right guys.

I'm not sure who else you could get to fill a 1B/PH for 1.5 Mil that is better that Hatt. I'd much rather spend 10 million across 6 or 7 bench and relievers and get above replacement value than spent 8 Mil on a pitcher who is only marginally better than a reclamation project or young guy. If you don't make the big mistakes, the 1.5 million for a Hatteberg makes plenty of sense.
Let's see how the lineup shapes up next year. If RA is re-signed, then I will be really upset. If the BP has 40 year old bums making up key roles, I'll be really upset. If the SS position is filled by a guy named Royce, I might cry.

edabbs44
07-26-2006, 05:12 PM
Well that's not Hatteber's fault. That's narron's fault.


If you don't want that to be anissue, Krivsly better get some younger, better talent for nothing to make sure Narron can't use the vets.

And as a platton player he would be about an .800 OPS type of guy.

This year against righties: .960.

I'm guessing he wont drop that significantly from that level of play.
The guy is getting older and in 2005 he was useless. Next year is no guarantee.

Sabo Fan
07-26-2006, 05:15 PM
Because I've got my heart set on it, I want to believe that this points to a trade of Aurilia. I have a feeling that he's being showcased right now and Krivsky hopes to flip him for something of value in the next couple of days. Signing Hatteberg now means that going into next year you're left with one veteran role player who can start a few days a week and pinch-hit.

edabbs44
07-26-2006, 05:15 PM
So who does it harm? Votto? Let's see him actually play a ML game before we decry his blockage at first base.
Sometimes you have to take a chance, and IMO, I would be willing to wager there would not be a significant dropoff from Hatte to Votto in 2007. That $ can be better spent elsewhere. If Bob starts shelling out $$$ this year on FAs, then I won't care about this signing. But if there are 45 FA pitching invitees to spring training and a Castro/Clayton fight at SS, then this signing will look even worse. I'll reserve judgement until next year.

Puffy
07-26-2006, 05:27 PM
Well that's not Hatteber's fault. That's narron's fault.


If you don't want that to be anissue, Krivsly better get some younger, better talent for nothing to make sure Narron can't use the vets.

And as a platton player he would be about an .800 OPS type of guy.

This year against righties: .960.

I'm guessing he wont drop that significantly from that level of play.

I agree with all this - but I'm not so sure that if Krivsky did get Narron some younger, better talent that he still wouldn't play Hatteberg and Aurilia over them. Exhibit A is EdE.

But I really like Hatteberg and all he has done this year and 1.5 that he will get next year is well deserved.

As Cyclone said - its not Hatteberg's problem, its a Narron problem.

Puffy
07-26-2006, 05:30 PM
If the SS position is filled by a guy named Royce, I might cry.

How bout by a guy named Juan?

Cause that will make me cry. Well that, and watching Old Yeller. Always. Gets. To. Me.

westofyou
07-26-2006, 05:48 PM
Cause that will make me cry. Well that, and watching Old Yeller. Always. Gets. To. Me.Remember how Old Yeller ended... expect the same.

Puffy
07-26-2006, 05:50 PM
Remember how Old Yeller ended... expect the same.

Dude, I don't want Castro put to sleep! Maybe we could just "wing em"

CougarQuest
07-26-2006, 05:56 PM
I'll continue predicting Mays will pitch on Saturday.
Will you now please predict that the Reds won't win the World Series the next 3 years?! :thumbup:

registerthis
07-26-2006, 06:03 PM
Sometimes you have to take a chance, and IMO, I would be willing to wager there would not be a significant dropoff from Hatte to Votto in 2007. That $ can be better spent elsewhere. If Bob starts shelling out $$$ this year on FAs, then I won't care about this signing. But if there are 45 FA pitching invitees to spring training and a Castro/Clayton fight at SS, then this signing will look even worse. I'll reserve judgement until next year.

This isn't a money issue. With all of the money the club supposedly "saved" by jettisoning Kearns and Lopez, $1.5 million to sign a reliable insurance policy is an inconsequential amount.

KronoRed
07-26-2006, 06:29 PM
I don't think any further move is being planned, they don't want EE at 3rd so why would they trade Aurilia when he's the starter?

1.5 mill for the Hat next year? if he repeats this year..great..if not..and the odds say he won't..ugh.

Kc61
07-26-2006, 06:49 PM
Hatte has a .923 OPS in 275 at bats. Has 44 walks and only 22 strikeouts. OBP of .417. He's the only legitimate first baseman on the roster with a young replacement still at AA with no major league experience. Reds just signed Hatte for $1.5 million, less than one fifth of what they were paying Casey. And the team gets the option, at $1.85 million, for 2008 if it wants.

Great deal. Hope they keep Votto for a transition in 2008.

PuffyPig
07-26-2006, 08:05 PM
$1.5M for a firstbaseman with an OPS above .900?

What's not to like?

We were willing to pay that to Casey on the basis that he once hit .900.

It's a steal even if he OPS's .800.

registerthis
07-26-2006, 08:22 PM
$1.5M for a firstbaseman with an OPS above .900?

What's not to like?

We were willing to pay that to Casey on the basis that he once hit .900.


Shoot, we were paying 5x that for Casey.

Crash Davis
07-26-2006, 09:38 PM
Raise your hand if you think Votto will be dealt at peak value for pitching this weekend.

:wave:

I think Hatteberg's signing points to a few things:

1] He's being rewarded for an excellent 2006. The same people who said he was washed up in March will say he's washed up again this offseason (or now). At 1.65M, it's certainly not a bad allocation of resources. No, I don't expect him to keep up the .320 avg & .900+ OPS, but I do expect him to OPS over .800, continue on with the best eye in baseball and provide a tough out in the 6 hole.

2] Votto had a monster first half. His trade value is at an all time high. Firstbase prospects aren't exactly tough to find...while talented pitchers are. And if you happen to be one of those 1B prospects, you better mash when you get to the big leagues. Not just hit enough to get by, but mash. Is there concern over a swing that was called long and a bit slow heading into this season? Even though he's killing the ball this season, he's still striking out a ton too.

3] Dunn will have to move to 1B at some point...especially if he keeps putting on 5 pounds and a chin each year. Votto would block the team's best hitter at 1B.

KronoRed
07-26-2006, 09:57 PM
$1.5M for a firstbaseman with an OPS above .900?

What's not to like?

At his age it's tough to see him repeating a .900 ops.

We'll see :)

edabbs44
07-26-2006, 11:20 PM
$1.5M for a firstbaseman with an OPS above .900?

What's not to like?

We were willing to pay that to Casey on the basis that he once hit .900.

It's a steal even if he OPS's .800.
A walk down memory lane...

2005 OPS: .677
2004: .787
2003: .726
2002: .807

Just like FeLo was the people's choice last year, Hatte could turn around and crap the bed in '07. And judging by Narron's lineup mastery this year, Hatte will see most of the time at 1st, no matter who else is on the roster.

redsmetz
07-26-2006, 11:23 PM
So who does it harm? Votto? Let's see him actually play a ML game before we decry his blockage at first base.

I keep saying this. Krivsky has shown no propensity of moving players multiple levels. Votto's at AA, might find himself at AAA by season's end, but probably not. If that's the case, he finishes in Chattanooga and goes to Louisville next spring. Then if he masters that, he moves to the big club during the season. Hatteberg isn't going to hold that back, despite the delusions folks have that Narron's in love with the vets.

PuffyPig
07-27-2006, 09:46 AM
Sometimes you have to take a chance, and IMO, I would be willing to wager there would not be a significant dropoff from Hatte to Votto in 2007.

You think Votto will hit a .900+ OPS in 2007?

Or are you saying that you don't think that 2007 Votto would be any worse than 2007 Hatteberg?

Johnny Footstool
07-27-2006, 10:19 AM
I keep saying this. Krivsky has shown no propensity of moving players multiple levels. Votto's at AA, might find himself at AAA by season's end, but probably not. If that's the case, he finishes in Chattanooga and goes to Louisville next spring. Then if he masters that, he moves to the big club during the season. Hatteberg isn't going to hold that back, despite the delusions folks have that Narron's in love with the vets.

Narron IS in love with veterans who have a *reputation* for defensive prowess -- Clayton, Castro, Aurilia, Hatteberg, Griffey. Unfortunately, most of them earned that reputation in 1998 and are now below average or worse defensively. They can make routine plays, but struggle when they have to move more than a step.

registerthis
07-27-2006, 10:29 AM
Narron IS in love with veterans who have a *reputation* for defensive prowess -- Clayton, Castro, Aurilia, Hatteberg, Griffey.

But who are those players blocking? We know the Aurilia - Encarnacion situation, but beyond that I can't find an example of a "scrappy vet" who's blocking the path of some more deserving younger player. You could mention the fact that Griffey's still in centerfield, but there's likely more going on with that than simply Narron's affinity for elder players.

puca
07-27-2006, 10:31 AM
I don't have a problem with the signing, only with the guy calling the on-the-field shots. Who knows if Votto will continue to progress, but one thing is for sure, as long as Narron is running the show and Hatteberg is healthy and on the roster Votto (or any other young 1b) has no chance of seeing playing time for the Reds. It will be Aurilia/Encaracion all over again.

I'm okay with Hatteberg on the roster, just like I'm okay with Aurilia on the roster. I just want a manager that will have the guts/patience/whatever to give a young player the chance to win a position and grow at the major league level instead of finding any excuse to play the veteran instead.
Small budget teams are never 'just playing for this year', they need to be perpetually grooming their young players.

puca
07-27-2006, 10:43 AM
But who are those players blocking? We know the Aurilia - Encarnacion situation, but beyond that I can't find an example of a "scrappy vet" who's blocking the path of some more deserving younger player. You could mention the fact that Griffey's still in centerfield, but there's likely more going on with that than simply Narron's affinity for elder players.

You are right in that the Reds don't have a lot of major league ready talent in their farm system. Hopefully the tide is turning in that regard. However looking at the way EE has been treated this year I don't think this a good nurturing environment.

Do you like how EE has been handled? Do you think this has been a year of progression or regression for EE? He certainly proved he can rake major league pitching, however instead of focusing on EE positives and sticking with him through his throwing problems Narron has him sitting on the bench most nights.

Gee, I wonder what goes through EE's mind when he does get a chance to play....and I wonder if that is a good thing.

registerthis
07-27-2006, 11:13 AM
Do you like how EE has been handled? Do you think this has been a year of progression or regression for EE? He certainly proved he can rake major league pitching, however instead of focusing on EE positives and sticking with him through his throwing problems Narron has him sitting on the bench most nights.

Personally, I don't like how the E_E situation has been handled. I'd prefer to see him getting the bulk of the ABs since--presumably--he's going to be with the team for some time. However, I can also understand *why* it's playing out the way it is. For one, Aurilia is playing very well. I don't think think the Reds are losing an awful lot by having his bat in the lineup rather than Encarnacion's. And he's played better defense than E_E, and that is something that carries a lot of weight with this management staff and front office.

What the Reds ARE losing is important development time for Encarnacion, which is likely largely a result of the team being in the playoff race. If the Reds were 20 games out and not playing for "this year" I highly suspect that Aurilia would have been jettisoned by now and Encarnacion would be entrenched at third, errors and all. But that's just my opinion.

edabbs44
07-27-2006, 11:14 AM
You think Votto will hit a .900+ OPS in 2007?

Or are you saying that you don't think that 2007 Votto would be any worse than 2007 Hatteberg?
I think the 2007 Votto would be in the range of the 2007 Hatteberg...and then the excess money goes elsewhere, making other spots of the 2007 team better.

registerthis
07-27-2006, 11:15 AM
I think the 2007 Votto would be in the range of the 2007 Hatteberg...and then the excess money goes elsewhere, making other spots of the 2007 team better.

At $3 or $4 million, I could understand money being a factor.

I can't at $1.5.

westofyou
07-27-2006, 11:21 AM
At $3 or $4 million, I could understand money being a factor.

I can't at $1.5.
What's 1.5?

2.5% of 60 million bucks?

2.1% of 70 million bucks?

Too much of a gamble for Hatteberg?

Maybe in the 80's... now?

Much to do about nothing.

puca
07-27-2006, 11:21 AM
Personally, I don't like how the E_E situation has been handled. I'd prefer to see him getting the bulk of the ABs since--presumably--he's going to be with the team for some time. However, I can also understand *why* it's playing out the way it is. For one, Aurilia is playing very well. I don't think think the Reds are losing an awful lot by having his bat in the lineup rather than Encarnacion's. And he's played better defense than E_E, and that is something that carries a lot of weight with this management staff and front office.

What the Reds ARE losing is important development time for Encarnacion, which is likely largely a result of the team being in the playoff race. If the Reds were 20 games out and not playing for "this year" I highly suspect that Aurilia would have been jettisoned by now and Encarnacion would be entrenched at third, errors and all. But that's just my opinion.

Definitely losing development time with EE. That is my point. Unless the Reds are suddenly going to go big budget they MUST develop their young players.

Even worse they may be damaging him. I'm not sure he should be worrying about making errors when he does get the chance to play, yet I don't see how he can not.

redsmetz
07-27-2006, 11:22 AM
Do you like how EE has been handled? Do you think this has been a year of progression or regression for EE? He certainly proved he can rake major league pitching, however instead of focusing on EE positives and sticking with him through his throwing problems Narron has him sitting on the bench most nights.

Gee, I wonder what goes through EE's mind when he does get a chance to play....and I wonder if that is a good thing.

I'm not sure I know the particulars of this, but is EE situation perhaps somewhat similar to Davey Concepcion's start with the Reds? Or perhaps Tony Perez? Another possible similar player might be George Foster? None of them played regularly during their first couple of seasons, although in some of the cases, they played the most at their various position. I know that Concepcion was transitioned with Woody Woodward and we all know the Foster story.

Just some food for thought.

westofyou
07-27-2006, 11:25 AM
I'm not sure I know the particulars of this, but is EE situation perhaps somewhat similar to Davey Concepcion's start with the Reds? Or perhaps Tony Perez? Another possible similar player might be George Foster? None of them played regularly during their first couple of seasons, although in some of the cases, they played the most at their various position. I know that Concepcion was transitioned with Woody Woodward and we all know the Foster story.

Just some food for thought.
Mmmm..... thought... Tommy Harper, Alex Johnson..and on and on and on....

puca
07-27-2006, 11:26 AM
I'm not sure I know the particulars of this, but is EE situation perhaps somewhat similar to Davey Concepcion's start with the Reds? Or perhaps Tony Perez? Another possible similar player might be George Foster? None of them played regularly during their first couple of seasons, although in some of the cases, they played the most at their various position. I know that Concepcion was transitioned with Woody Woodward and we all know the Foster story.

Just some food for thought.


But Encarnacion was the starting thirdbasemen and now he is not. He lost his job...obviously due to his defense. And apparently Narron has not even talked with him about it. That is a much different situation than Concepcion, Perez or Foster. There seemed to be a plan in place from the start for those guys. That is called developing a young player. What Narron is doing to Encaracion is called "yanking around". Much different.

KronoRed
07-27-2006, 05:38 PM
But Encarnacion was the starting thirdbasemen and now he is not. He lost his job...obviously due to his defense.
Maybe, IMO he was going to lose his job anyway because Rich and Hat were both doing well.

edabbs44
07-27-2006, 05:53 PM
Maybe, IMO he was going to lose his job anyway because Rich and Hat were both doing well.
Rich doesn't do well vs RHPs. Period.