View Full Version : How quickly should success happen?

07-29-2006, 01:07 PM
One of DanO's big mantra's was following his mystical plan of rebuilding. If I remember he had the Reds slated to be competitive again in 2067.

BC and Kriv have made it clear that they want to win now, and for the first 4 months of the season they have done so. Whether you love them or hate them, you have to give them credit for that. Will it last till the end? That's the $64,000 question.

I'm still impressed of where we are considering the damage to the orginzation inflicted by Schott, Bowden, Linder, Allen and OBrian. And it's only been 7 months since that era ended. That's not a free pass for ownership/FO but I think it should be recognized.

If the team stays competitive till the end but falls into 2nd place will people be devistated and feal that we've made no improvement over previous years? If we stay competitive, win the WC but get kicked out right away will that be considered a failure and the season a waste? If we win the division but not the LCS is that mean Kriv is a failure as a GM?

These are serrious questions. I'm not being a smart alec, I'm genuinley currious if competing down to the wire but falling just short would be viewed as a complete failure and no better than the Reds of the past 5 years?

Obviously I want to win the division, and frankly think we have a shot at it (assuming some key elements fall into place). I'm not happy with 2nd place in 2007, but would you be unhappy with 2nd place in 2006?

07-29-2006, 01:47 PM
Good post - I have thought a lot about this regarding the recent trade.

I am glad to hear the new owner and GM want to win, a wonderful change for fans.

But I can delay gratification. I really can. I have, for God's sake, waited 10 years for the reds to get in the playoffs, I can wait one or two more. Especially if winning now means giving up too much (e.g., Kearns and Lopez) to try to win too quickly.

I am satisfied (although would be elated if playoffs made) to show improvement and could certainly accept coming close to the playoffs. I will sign on the dotted line today for Krivsky to slowly mold this into a competitive team more seasons than not and get the Reds into the playoffs occasionally.

07-29-2006, 02:07 PM
Fortunately, the Reds had some talent to work with. Most teams, I think, usually spend the first season getting rid of bad players, attitudes, etc. You then usually have a good idea of what players you have to work with and a year's worth of draft picks. You might have even been able to get some talent when you got rid of the chaff earlier. You then start signing free agents and your second season you hope for .500. More draft picks, more trades, and time to build the minors up should be occuring now. I think for most teams real success should start occuring the third season.

07-29-2006, 02:11 PM
The state of baseball today is such that unless you are one of the mega teams with nearly unlimted resources, fate often picks your time to compete for championships. The best most organizations can do is to get themselves into position to be competitive and then when fate seems to be smiling on them, grab the oppurtunity with both hands and run with it.

I think that exactly what Krivsky is trying to do right now, on both counts, building a strong org and grabbing at the oppurtuinity now available. Bailey stays in development in the minors becasue he is the base of the future. Lopez and Kearns go because that was what was necessary to better chase the prize available now.

07-29-2006, 02:27 PM
We all want more but I think all we can ask for, given the current state of the game is to have games that matter in September, all of September. Do that year in and year out and you'll get in the postseason from time to time. We haven't been there since 95. And other than 99, how often have we been close, since then?

I want a play-off berth. It would be fun. But I'll start small and be happy with games that matter come September.