PDA

View Full Version : Phillips & Olney Agree on Reds



Mario-Rijo
07-31-2006, 07:12 PM
They are the biggest winners at the deadline, because they "fixed their biggest defiencies" the pen. Basically they "overpaid a bit" but with so many flawed teams in the NL we addressed our only glaring weakness.

Col_ IN Reds fan
07-31-2006, 07:15 PM
I will reserve judgement until after the season. I like the trades but to call the Reds "winners" is more hype than anything.

M2
07-31-2006, 07:15 PM
They are the biggest winners at the deadline, because they "fixed their biggest defiencies" the pen. Basically they "overpaid a bit" but with so many flawed teams in the NL we addressed our only glaring weakness.

I beg to differ. The Reds had/have a lot more than one glaring weakness.

Cyclone792
07-31-2006, 07:19 PM
Cormier should help out the bullpen a little bit, or at least help out by cutting down our HR/9 rate. Whether Lohse is any better than what we already had remains to be seen. There's a good reason Twins fans wanted to get rid of the guy, and I'm not at all thrilled to now get to see why they wanted him gone.

One thing I do know is that there's a glaring weakness at shortstop that can be fixed internally with what we've got on our roster, or could have been fixed externally by acquiring somebody.

The latter didn't happen, and I'm betting the former doesn't happen, either.

PuffyPig
07-31-2006, 07:25 PM
I would call them winners in the sense that they actually improved the bullpen (how much will be determined). The rest of the wild card contenders did little to nothing.

OldXOhio
07-31-2006, 07:30 PM
Interesting the mild about-face that Phillips is now doing - was he not part of the crowd claiming the Reds had killed their playoff chances with the Kearns/Lopez trade?

could have sworn the rotation as well as SS were still glaring weaknesses?

guttle11
07-31-2006, 07:36 PM
Cormier should help out the bullpen a little bit, or at least help out by cutting down our HR/9 rate. Whether Lohse is any better than what we already had remains to be seen. There's a good reason Twins fans wanted to get rid of the guy, and I'm not at all thrilled to now get to see why they wanted him gone.

One thing I do know is that there's a glaring weakness at shortstop that can be fixed internally with what we've got on our roster, or could have been fixed externally by acquiring somebody.

The latter didn't happen, and I'm betting the former doesn't happen, either.

Would removing Clayton for Aurilia and putting Edwin at third really mean more runs though, or is that just something you want?

I'm betting the latter. There's simply no way of knowing what could be. We know what we have, and what we have has worked to this point. No need to change it. Jeez, I know it's fun to play armchair manager, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Fact is, the Reds addressed their biggest weakness, the bullpen. They're a better team now. Could they be better without Clayton? Possibly. I'll take the known, though.

dougdirt
07-31-2006, 07:39 PM
I think the Reds took a big step forward in helping their chances to make the playoffs with the trades today. What I think about the trades is irrelevant at this point in time. The NL is just bad overall and the Reds are a decent team with what now appears to be quite a good bullpen. If they can get even decent starting pitching (Arroyo, Harang, Ramirez) then they have a good shot at the playoffs.

Cyclone792
07-31-2006, 07:42 PM
Would removing Clayton for Aurilia and putting Edwin at third really mean more runs though, or is that just something you want?

I'm betting the latter. There's simply no way of knowing what could be. We know what we have, and what we have has worked to this point. No need to change it. Jeez, I know it's fun to play armchair manager, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Fact is, the Reds addressed their biggest weakness, the bullpen. They're a better team now. Could they be better without Clayton? Possibly. I'll take the known, though.

Getting Clayton out of the lineup for more productive hitting would be a massive asset to the offense. Replacing awful OBP/SLG marks with respectable offensive punch would lead to more run scoring. That'd be about as much of a known as anything.

guttle11
07-31-2006, 07:45 PM
Getting Clayton out of the lineup for more productive hitting would be a massive asset to the offense. Replacing awful OBP/SLG marks with respectable offensive punch would lead to more run scoring. That'd be about as much of a known as anything.

There is no way you could say that Ediwn's offensive numbers would be any better than Clayton's if he played everyday. He's never played everyday. That's the unknown. Not to mention Clayton at SS is a much better option than Aurilia, defensively speaking.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-31-2006, 07:46 PM
There is no way you could say that Ediwn's offensive numbers would be any better than Clayton's if he played everyday. He's never played everyday. That's the unknown. Not to mention Clayton at SS is a much better option than Aurilia, defensively speaking.

Guttle.

What?

OldXOhio
07-31-2006, 07:48 PM
Would removing Clayton for Aurilia and putting Edwin at third really mean more runs though, or is that just something you want?

I'm betting the latter. There's simply no way of knowing what could be. We know what we have, and what we have has worked to this point. No need to change it. Jeez, I know it's fun to play armchair manager, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Fact is, the Reds addressed their biggest weakness, the bullpen. They're a better team now. Could they be better without Clayton? Possibly. I'll take the known, though.

You know what else is known - the Reds are a slightly above average team right now that still has a few holes abound. Look, I'm all for applauding the team's success to this point and you won't hear the "Narron sucks" chants from me, but if members of this board simply "want" to see the best possible team fielded each night, then what's wrong with that? I don't know about the Rich vs. Edwin argument at this point b/c as much as I like EE's future, RA has done a nice job for us all season. I'm also not advocating RA be the starting SS due to his defensive limitations. That said, what is it about "Royce Clayton starting SS", from an offensive and defensive standpoint fits the description "fielding your best". Personally, I'd like to see Phillips be given the shot - I don't think the move is that far of a stretch for the guy. 2B would seemingly be a much easier slot to fill with either RA or RF.

M2
07-31-2006, 07:49 PM
There is no way you could say that Ediwn's offensive numbers would be any better than Clayton's if he played everyday. He's never played everyday. That's the unknown. Not to mention Clayton at SS is a much better option than Aurilia, defensively speaking.

Well I suppose you could just look at the numbers Edwin put up as an everyday player before his injury and that would eliminate this mysterious unknown that seems to be plaguing your mind.

dougdirt
07-31-2006, 07:49 PM
There is no way you could say that Ediwn's offensive numbers would be any better than Clayton's if he played everyday. He's never played everyday. That's the unknown. Not to mention Clayton at SS is a much better option than Aurilia, defensively speaking.

Edwin played nearly every day the first half of the season before getting hurt. At that time I believe he was either 1st or 2nd on the team in RBI, he still leads the team in hitting with runners on and runners in scoring position, but you are probably right, I bet Clayton would outhit Edwin.....:bang:

Cyclone792
07-31-2006, 07:53 PM
There is no way you could say that Ediwn's offensive numbers would be any better than Clayton's if he played everyday. He's never played everyday. That's the unknown. Not to mention Clayton at SS is a much better option than Aurilia, defensively speaking.

Edwin's offensive numbers would absolutely dwarf Clayton's; they wouldn't even be close. Secondly, removing Clayton from SS is not necessarily an endorsement for Aurilia to play SS, but it would be an endorsement for the guy who played over 100 games at SS last season to be moved there.

Highlifeman21
07-31-2006, 07:55 PM
Would removing Clayton for Aurilia and putting Edwin at third really mean more runs though, or is that just something you want?

I'm betting the latter. There's simply no way of knowing what could be. We know what we have, and what we have has worked to this point. No need to change it. Jeez, I know it's fun to play armchair manager, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Fact is, the Reds addressed their biggest weakness, the bullpen. They're a better team now. Could they be better without Clayton? Possibly. I'll take the known, though.

You really think Clayton has a better stick than Edwin? You can't seriously doubt that we'd produce more runs with Edwin @ 3B and Aurilia @ SS, can you?

Jerry Narron has had "success" this year due to smoke and mirrors, and two Krivsky trades paying off. Arroyo and Phillips improved this ballclub more than any of us really imagine or can fathom. On the same note, Narron's mismanaged the hell out of this ballclub. He doesn't know when to pull his starters, much less manage a bullpen, and his handling of the "Edwin situation" is atrocious at best. The players have gotten us here, no thanks largely to Jerry Narron. The Reds would be MUCH better with a different manager. It is broke, fix it.

The Reds for most of the year prior to the Bray deal had a horrible bullpen minus Todd Coffey. Narron tried to screw that up by making Coffey the closer, when his natural role is set up man. Krivsky went out and got us Everyday 81, so now Coffey returns to the set up role. Majewski and Bray help us immensely, and the additions of Cormier and Lohse should also strengthen the bullpen as well, but we need to put the best 8 position players out there to score runs for the pitching, and that's something Jerry Narron is incapable to do. We are winning in spite of Jerry Narron. Lemme repeat that.

We are winning in spite of Jerry Narron.

As for Royce Clayton, we've known him for less than a month, and I'm ready to pass judgment saying we are definitely better without him, and I hope for the sake of this organization he finds his way to the waiver wire no rush, tomorrow.

This 2006 Reds club doesn't know its potential b/c Jerry Narron's too blind or too stupid to realize what could be.

oregonred
07-31-2006, 07:55 PM
They are the biggest winners at the deadline, because they "fixed their biggest defiencies" the pen. Basically they "overpaid a bit" but with so many flawed teams in the NL we addressed our only glaring weakness.

Of the three other teams of immediate concern to the Reds playoff hopes (Cards, Dbacks and Giants) none of them did anything to fix their flaws (Beliiard seemed a short term wash at best). Neither did the Astros, Marlins or Braves. Mets surprised me the most with their inactivity, I thought they'd go for the WS Championship and come away with Zito/Schmidt or Willis.

Reds continued to stockpile pen arms for the dog days mainly for the price of taking on some salary considerations over the last 1/3 season.

The Dodgers made the most interesting deadline noise with Lugo/Betemit/Maddux.

The National League and the NL WS rep is still wide open...

Mario-Rijo
07-31-2006, 08:30 PM
Posted by OldXOhio
Interesting the mild about-face that Phillips is now doing - was he not part of the crowd claiming the Reds had killed their playoff chances with the Kearns/Lopez trade?

Yeah he was the one I qouted saying we gave up A BIT MUCH? Thought that was interesting.


Posted by OldXOhio
could have sworn the rotation as well as SS were still glaring weaknesses?

When I look at the rest of the W/C rotations and in fact all NL rotations, I don't find ours to be that bad even with Claussen. SS is likely to be a sore spot until next season it just cannot be helped now.

Claussen: 14 GS
ER by Game
0 ER: 1 Game
1 ER: 1 Game
2 ER: 1 Game
3 ER: 5 Games
4 ER: 3 Games
5 ER: 1 Game
6,7,8 ER: 0 Games
9 ER: 2 Games

The 5 ER game and 2 9 ER games were MIL (9 ER 4-22 and 5 ER on 5-24-Who owns him, but we don't play again this year) And CWS (9 ER on last start 6-16, who we also do not play against). In every game except the two 9 ER appearances, he went at least 5 innings. So he effectively had 9 QS out of 14 games, got hammered only twice and had 3 so-so games. That's pretty daggone good for a 5th starter albeit he is mainly a 5 inning starter unless he has his best stuff, of course that's why we went out and strengthened the pen. Granted a 5 inning 3 run game is not construed as a QS, I'll take it.

Show me a better NL 5th starter and I'll show you a team w/o an offense or pen as good as ours. Of course we have to play better defensively, if we do that we are in very good shape.

Hubba
07-31-2006, 09:22 PM
Yep you know more than any one else and you have a way of lettingall know it.
I beg to differ. The Reds had/have a lot more than one glaring weakness.

Marty and Joe
07-31-2006, 09:22 PM
Based on what didn't happen, I like what the Reds (and Yankees) actually did as far as the contenders go, however, the big winners this year were..imo.....drum roll please....not a contender....never thought I'd say it....the KC Royals.

Deals:
Ryan Shealy (plus some reliever thrown in) for Affeldt and Denny Bautista
Odalis Perez (plus 2 minor leaguers AND cash) for Elmer Dessens
Tyler Lumsden and Daniel Cortes for Mike MacDougal
Jorge DeLaRosa for Tony Graffanino

The only recent deal they made that I didn't really like recently was Gathright for JP Howell. But, I understand why they did it and it has a chance to turn out well also.

Getting Shealy and a bunch of arms that could turn out decent is the right way to go for an organization like this. Compare what they did to the Pirates...no contest. The Royals got more, with less.

I agree that the Reds/Yankees were the winners of the contenders.

M2
07-31-2006, 09:27 PM
Yep you know more than any one else and you have a way of lettingall know it.

No, but, unlike you, I can grasp the obvious.

SirFelixCat
07-31-2006, 09:58 PM
What I don't understand is why Narron doesn't put Hatte at 1B, Aurilia at 2B, Phillips at SS, and EdE at 3B. That is the best 4 that we could put out there and it eliminates Clayton from the equation...seems so easy....

guttle11
07-31-2006, 10:01 PM
What I don't understand is why Narron doesn't put Hatte at 1B, Aurilia at 2B, Phillips at SS, and EdE at 3B. That is the best 4 that we could put out there and it eliminates Clayton from the equation...seems so easy....

But would it mean more wins? No one can possibly know. THAT is the unknown. The fact is, they're winning games right now, why change it because it could be better the other way. You simply don't do that when your in the playoffs as we speak.

Personally, I think that your idea makes sense on paper, but I can't fathom wanting Narron to change something that is winning. You don't do that.

wheels
07-31-2006, 11:20 PM
Yep you know more than any one else and you have a way of lettingall know it.

:rolleyes:

edabbs44
07-31-2006, 11:21 PM
But would it mean more wins? No one can possibly know. THAT is the unknown. The fact is, they're winning games right now, why change it because it could be better the other way. You simply don't do that when your in the playoffs as we speak.

Personally, I think that your idea makes sense on paper, but I can't fathom wanting Narron to change something that is winning. You don't do that.
Are you kidding? You actually think Clayton has had anything to do with the team winning anything?

Cedric
07-31-2006, 11:23 PM
Are you kidding? You actually think Clayton has had anything to do with the team winning anything?

No, I don't think he's kidding.

Clayton has actually done something good in a few games we've won. I don't see how you can say "are you kidding".

Yeah he probably isn't the best option right now, but he didn't go 0-100.

Again I'm not arguing that Clayton is the best option or even a decent option, but I doubt he's not helped us win one game.

Virginia Beach Reds
07-31-2006, 11:30 PM
Clayton had a TERRIBLE, I'm out of it game on Sat. I was appalled as I'm sure most of you were. However, I'm willing to give him at least one more shot. He is giving us at least the ABs that Lopez was doing.

edabbs44
07-31-2006, 11:32 PM
No, I don't think he's kidding.

Clayton has actually done something good in a few games we've won. I don't see how you can say "are you kidding".

Yeah he probably isn't the best option right now, but he didn't go 0-100.

Again I'm not arguing that Clayton is the best option or even a decent option, but I doubt he's not helped us win one game.
Odds are, in the 9 games he's appeared in for the Reds when they've won, he would have did something positive. Here's his stats in those 9 wins:

8-31 with 3 RBI and 3 run scored. 2 walks. 2 XBHs. Not really too spectacular. And a few errors to boot.

Mario-Rijo
08-01-2006, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by M2
No, but, unlike you, I can grasp the obvious.

Actually M2 I have too disagree with you or maybe we agree on some level of which has not yet been discovered. Relative to the other NL W/C and Central contenders I think that we all have spots on our respective teams that are not ideal. Of course Clayton/Castro are one of those positions, and the rotation is not filled with stars or even a Legitimate Ace.

But let's break it down a bit here and just see once and for all just how bad we really are at those positions and while we are at it why not look at where we might just be better than our competition. Of course the big thing here is we are going to have to assume that people are going to do what is career norms or what the majority feels a person can/will do if they don't have a ML record to speak of.

I don't know any better way to figure this out than to 1st figure out who the contenders really are, some might be "in it" right now but may not have the staying power. So I'll list mine and then start to dissect the remaining teams and feel free to list yours as well. I will use a simple approach because I don't know any other way to be fair and unbias. Pitching + Defense + Timely Hitting = Playoffs. I may use some stats but mainly my eye will tell me the obvious, hopefully we can all agree on what the obvious is if not we may have to agree to disagree.

The Reds have 57 games left so I will use this as the bar because everyone is different right now.

Who are the current contenders who realistically have too big of a percieved weakness to compete?

Milwaukee: 5 games Back of W/C, 8.5 GB of Central
Pros- Enough Offense, Enough starting pitching (Assuming Sheets stays Healthy)
Cons- Defense improved moving Lee but still not good with a NL worst .978 Fldg%.

Bullpen is the worst in the NL that I have seen to date ERA is currently 5.14 (again a NL worst). The pen is devoid of any consistently proven arm except maybe the Loogy Shouse. Cordero (AL 4.81 era), Kolb (5.63) and Turnbow (6.00) could turn it around but not likely as they would All have too. I say Pretender

'Zona: 1.5 GB of W/C
Pros- Enough Offense, Enough defense
Cons- Brandon Webb 2.64 era, every other starter 4.71 and above
10th in Bullpen era @ 4.54, w/o the benefit of acquiring any significant arms. I say Pretender

S.F.: 4 GB of W/C
Pros- Enough defense, Borderline Pitching but perhaps enough.
Cons- Tied for 2nd worst BA (.260) in the NL. Bonds/Alou cannot stay healthy and Bonds isn't very productive if he is. Pretenders

Fla.: 6 GB of W/C
Pros- Tied for 4th best team era in the NL so pitching is plenty.
Cons- .979 Fldg pct. 2nd worst in the NL, 12th in BA .260
Plus the youth factor says they fall short. I say Pretender

Col.: 4.5 GB of the W/C
Pros- The stats say they are good enough in every category to compete
Cons- A good majority of this roster is young, and my gut say alot of these career years they are having (Atkins, several pitchers) are gonna take a nosedive. Either way I think they finish 2nd or 3rd in the west and the 2-4 in the W/C. I say Pretenders

The Contenders
---------------------
S.D., L.A., Atl., Houston, Cincy, St. Louis

Too be broke down in the very near future.

M2
08-01-2006, 12:22 AM
Actually M2 I have too disagree with you or maybe we agree on some level of which has not yet been discovered.

I'll take a stroll out on a limb and guess you think the Reds had more than one glaring weakness. Others may have more or more greivous weaknesses, but I doubt you buy into the Olney/Phillips contention that the Reds were hunky-dory outside of the bullpen.

That and the notion that Edwin Encarnacion has shown himself to be a productive hitter have been the only two things I've said in this thread.

MWM
08-01-2006, 12:22 AM
But would it mean more wins? No one can possibly know. THAT is the unknown. The fact is, they're winning games right now, why change it because it could be better the other way. You simply don't do that when your in the playoffs as we speak.

Personally, I think that your idea makes sense on paper, but I can't fathom wanting Narron to change something that is winning. You don't do that.

You keep hanging onto this "there's no way to know if they win more games", yet you also claim the bullpen is improved making the Reds better. Can you prove that this improved bullpen will lead to more wins? Nope, according to you, "no one can possibly know." If the Reds started Castro and Clayton every game and replaced Harang and Arroyo with Joe Mays and Kyle Lohse, could you prove that they wouldn't win more games. According to you, "no one can possibly know." But I bet you believe that keeping Harang and Arroyo in the rotation will lead to more wins. Why? Because better players lead to more wins. Throwing out the old "you can't prove the unknown" is basically denying that better players lead to more wins. And we all know that better players DO lead to more wins. So we can please lay to rest the "no on can possibly know" line? I do know that playing better players will lead to more wins.

Oh, and they were winning MORE games when EdE was playing everyday early in the season.

Cedric
08-01-2006, 12:26 AM
I'll take a stroll out on a limb and guess you think the Reds had more than one glaring weakness. Others may have more or more greivous weaknesses, but I doubt you buy into the Olney/Phillips contention that the Reds were hunky-dory outside of the bullpen.

That and the notion that Edwin Encarnacion has shown himself to be a productive hitter have been the only two things I've said in this thread.

To be fair they said "one glaring weakness"

That sounds to me like they are saying we shored up the only gigantic hole on this roster, not that everything is perfect.

Just the way I read it.

TRF
08-01-2006, 10:56 AM
But would it mean more wins? No one can possibly know. THAT is the unknown. The fact is, they're winning games right now, why change it because it could be better the other way. You simply don't do that when your in the playoffs as we speak.

Personally, I think that your idea makes sense on paper, but I can't fathom wanting Narron to change something that is winning. You don't do that.

yes it would. by every metric and definition, putting your best players on the field increases your probability for wins. Clayton hurts this team far more than FeLo ever did. But that is water under the Washington Monument now.

EE at 3B has more range than RA. Phillips brings a better game than Clayton offensively and defensively.

So really it should be would you rather have EE's bat or Claytons? Phillips glove or Clayton's?

This is no-brainer stuff.

M2
08-01-2006, 12:51 PM
To be fair they said "one glaring weakness"

That sounds to me like they are saying we shored up the only gigantic hole on this roster, not that everything is perfect.

Just the way I read it.

I read it that way too and it don't see how you can't call the overall lousy team defense a gigantic hole or 2/5 of the rotation being manned by punching bags or the SS position being manned by two of the worst hitters in history neither of whom is any good with the leather.

In short, it's the kind of over-simplistic meaningless drivel I'd expect from Olney and Phillips. There's still some profound gaps on this team. It might overcome them. Other teams might be worse off, but I assume that most every poster on this site recognizes the Reds still have a number of faults which could croak them.

Cedric
08-01-2006, 01:02 PM
Countless.

I'm odd, I'm not really that worried about Royce Clayton at this point.

Milton, Ramirez, and the unknown are what completely unnerves me. I don't have the confidence that some do in Elizardo.

TRF
08-01-2006, 01:12 PM
Let me say this: I love watching Elizardo pitch. smooth as buttah. And he's progressing. He throws as hard as Harang, and that change is becoming a real out pitch.

If he keeps progressing this year, he could be a force for quite a while.

Cedric
08-01-2006, 01:16 PM
Elizardo might be close to Harang in terms of velocity, but he doesn't have near the late action that Harang does. We've seen that Elizardo's stuff is extremely location dependent. Harang can get away with not having a great feel for his breaking pitches, Elizardo has no room.

TheBigLebowski
08-01-2006, 01:50 PM
But would it mean more wins? No one can possibly know. THAT is the unknown. The fact is, they're winning games right now, why change it because it could be better the other way. You simply don't do that when your in the playoffs as we speak.

Personally, I think that your idea makes sense on paper, but I can't fathom wanting Narron to change something that is winning. You don't do that.

Napoleon: This is pretty much the worst video ever made.
Kip: Napoleon, like anyone could even know that.
Uncle Rico: You know what, Napoleon? You can leave!
http://images.zap2it.com/ltvimages/images/240/napoleondynamite_240_001.jpg

gonelong
08-01-2006, 02:24 PM
Napoleon: This is pretty much the worst video ever made.
Kip: Napoleon, like anyone could even know that.
Uncle Rico: You know what, Napoleon? You can leave!
http://images.zap2it.com/ltvimages/images/240/napoleondynamite_240_001.jpg

Is this picture flipped? I seem to remember Rico and Kip being on the opposite sides of the couch.

GL

GAC
08-01-2006, 02:32 PM
Edwin's offensive numbers would absolutely dwarf Clayton's;

I think Castro's would dwarf Clayton's! :lol:

I firmly believe that the reason why they haven't "juggled" players in this INF - as suggested on here, and which I agree with - EE (3rd), BP (SS), Aurilia/Freel (2B) - and by the way, I think Deno is getting a raw deal as far as RF goes ;) - is the fear of shaking it up too much when we are in the thick of it. I don't know of very many teams that would make that many moves past the halfway mark when they still have a strong shot going into August.

TheBigLebowski
08-01-2006, 02:49 PM
Is this picture flipped? I seem to remember Rico and Kip being on the opposite sides of the couch.

GL

They were in the scene in which the dialogue I posted took place.

This is just a general pic of the three.

You may recall Uncle Rico wore that sweet-ass shirt when he took Napoleon shopping and scolded Napoleon in front of Summer Wheatley for buying the 12 pack. Money doesn't grow on trees in that family.

registerthis
08-01-2006, 02:56 PM
Someone actually wondered who would be the more productive offensive player--Clayton or Encarnacion?

This is up for debate? Seriously?

TRF
08-01-2006, 03:10 PM
Elizardo might be close to Harang in terms of velocity, but he doesn't have near the late action that Harang does. We've seen that Elizardo's stuff is extremely location dependent. Harang can get away with not having a great feel for his breaking pitches, Elizardo has no room.

Harang is also 28, and in his 5th season as a starter. Ramirez is developing right in front of us, and right now has some similar numbers harang had in 2004. Harang was 26 then. Elizardo is 23 right now, and has better control than Harang had in 2004. Their K/9 numbers are close 6.00 for EZ, 6.99 for Harang 2004.

So yeah, I like what I see in Elizardo Ramirez.

guttle11
08-01-2006, 03:13 PM
Someone actually wondered who would be the more productive offensive player--Clayton or Encarnacion?

This is up for debate? Seriously?

No one's stated that at all. If you're talking about me, GAC pretty much summed up my thoughts.



I think Castro's would dwarf Clayton's! :lol:

I firmly believe that the reason why they haven't "juggled" players in this INF - as suggested on here, and which I agree with - EE (3rd), BP (SS), Aurilia/Freel (2B) - and by the way, I think Deno is getting a raw deal as far as RF goes ;) - is the fear of shaking it up too much when we are in the thick of it. I don't know of very many teams that would make that many moves past the halfway mark when they still have a strong shot going into August.

Matt700wlw
08-01-2006, 03:37 PM
I got a good laugh from Buster Olney basically calling out Steve Phillips during the Deadline show yesterday. Phillips kind of avoided it, like he usually does, and got on the Reds side.

I used to get on Buster, but he really is the only one who has looked at the Reds moves based more on the move and more objectively than the "names" they got back.

Phillips said the Yanks were the winners, which they very well could be, but it's more because of the name "Bobby Abreu" than anything else.

Eric_Davis
08-01-2006, 05:10 PM
Phillips agreed with Olney because Olney embarrassed the bejulies out of him.

Philips is the perfect example that General Managers can be and are idiots, and it also proves that they can have very little knowledge of baseball.

I have more knowledge of how to put together a winning organization in my little pinky than Phillips will ever know in his entire life.

I could randomly take the fan sitting in Section 116, Row HH, seat 5 from the next REDS' game and find that person having a greater ability to run a franchise than Steve Phillips has.

Mario-Rijo
08-01-2006, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by M2
I'll take a stroll out on a limb and guess you think the Reds had more than one glaring weakness. Others may have more or more greivous weaknesses, but I doubt you buy into the Olney/Phillips contention that the Reds were hunky-dory outside of the bullpen.

That and the notion that Edwin Encarnacion has shown himself to be a productive hitter have been the only two things I've said in this thread.


1st off I agree with EE, he is a solid hitter for his age. In fact He would be playing a majority of the games if it were up too me.

And now to the next topic. Yes I do feel that we have more than one glaring weakness and you are correct to some extent about a few things that you have posted on this topic. One, Castro/Clayton at SS are nowhere near Felipe Lopez offensively and that hurts our versatility at the plate alot and our effectiveness a great deal. Defensively they are not a huge upgrade at either well at least Clayton (the starter) isn't, or at least hasn't shown to be yet. However we were winning at about a .500 clip with those difficiences, but offense wasn't a problem most often, defense was. So even a nominal improvement on the defensive side of the ball was enough to improve the Team and it's record. Plus you add Freel/Deno's range in RF over Austins it goes up yet another tick. Granted we won't be confused with a GG defense but we are not nearly as bad as early in the year.

Look too me it's really simple, what we have overall now is greater than the collective individuals before. Yeah I wouldn't call us dominate in any area, the pen, the offense, the lineup, or the defense. But like I said before when stacking up this team to the other "contenders", we have what it takes to make it to the playoffs and that is a great 1st step. Now beyond that things get iffy. But if we falter, those weaknesses that you speak of will give Krivsky something to do in his 1st full offseason as the GM of the '06 Central Champion Reds. ;)

And BTW by the looks of some of those rumors we have heard it sounds like he might just be aiming pretty high to fill those weaknesses with $$$, instead of using Bailey, Bruce & Votto as bait.