PDA

View Full Version : Watching Hancok Today



redsupport
10-07-2006, 03:10 PM
He is thinner than half of the Reds
His stuff moves and is all below the stomach
He escaped a 1-3 jam with one out
But I am sure we could not have used him because he ate too much. What a pasquinade, a farce, a feuilloton, a complete disgrace. He is better than ANY of our relievers.

joshnky
10-07-2006, 03:15 PM
Season's over and this has been discussed a million times.

Matt700wlw
10-07-2006, 03:21 PM
Call it a hunch...but Josh Hancock wouldn't have taken the Reds over the hump...

Patrick Bateman
10-07-2006, 04:04 PM
He is thinner than half of the Reds
His stuff moves and is all below the stomach
He escaped a 1-3 jam with one out
But I am sure we could not have used him because he ate too much. What a pasquinade, a farce, a feuilloton, a complete disgrace. He is better than ANY of our relievers.

That clinches it, FCB and redsupport are actually related. :laugh:

MartyFan
10-07-2006, 05:10 PM
The point remains that he did not do what the team asked him to do in the off season and for that he was released.

If he would have stayed in Cincy would he have pitched as well? Would he have been a "team" guy? Would the others on the team who needed the same sort of message he got by his release have responded?

I see as much minus to keeping him as I do plus only because we don't know how he and the rest of the team would have responded to the management and FO had he not been called into account.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2006, 05:28 PM
The point remains that he did not do what the team asked him to do in the off season and for that he was released.

.

Yep.

Keep beating that drum.

Wayne should be severely censured by his boss for even allowing Jerry Narron to make that call.

You can't let a nobody like Narron to make important roster decisions like that.

That's the point.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2006, 05:29 PM
Call it a hunch...but Josh Hancock wouldn't have taken the Reds over the hump...

Who cares? That's not the point.

WMR
10-07-2006, 05:44 PM
The point remains that he did not do what the team asked him to do in the off season and for that he was released.

If he would have stayed in Cincy would he have pitched as well? Would he have been a "team" guy? Would the others on the team who needed the same sort of message he got by his release have responded?

I see as much minus to keeping him as I do plus only because we don't know how he and the rest of the team would have responded to the management and FO had he not been called into account.

Yeah, all those 'team guys' have sure helped us out so much the past few years.

Who else got any sort of message? I don't think it made Dunn or Valentin pass up seconds or thirds at the buffet table. Oh wait, those guys are the image of Adonis himself, the Reds didn't tell them to lose any weight. At least that's what I'm forced to assume since neither was non-tendered for reporting to camp fat.

So...
they either actually believe Dunn is in peak physical condition
or
they don't think being in peak physical condition is important for your best player in an OF position
or
They did tell Dunn to lose weight, he ignored them, and they didn't do/say a damn thing b/c he makes 9 million dollars a year

MWM
10-07-2006, 05:53 PM
Josh Hancock would have made a HUGE difference in the first half of the season when the offense was clicking and the bully was blowing games. Getting rid of him for nothing was and still is one of the more silly things the Reds have done in last decade, IMO.

Matt700wlw
10-07-2006, 05:53 PM
Who cares? That's not the point.

What's the point?

Matt700wlw
10-07-2006, 05:55 PM
Josh Hancock would have made a HUGE difference in the first half of the season when the offense was clicking and the bully was blowing games. Getting rid of him for nothing was and still is one of the more silly things the Reds have done in last decade, IMO.

Didn't seem to be such an unpopular move when it happened...he wasn't exactly setting the world on fire the previous season.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2006, 06:17 PM
Hindsight is a beautiful thing.

Except when, in my case, it was foresight.

And the point is you keep players who perform, regardless of weight or whatever idiotic arbitrary rule you impose on the ballclub.

redsfanmia
10-07-2006, 06:27 PM
Dunn is like 35 lbs over weight now I wonder if Krivsky has set a weight for him to be in the spring? I hope that the entire team comes into spring training in much better condition.

Slyder
10-07-2006, 07:01 PM
Dunn is like 35 lbs over weight now I wonder if Krivsky has set a weight for him to be in the spring? I hope that the entire team comes into spring training in much better condition.


Muscle weighs more than fat. That is all I wish to contribute to this thread. :thumbup:

paulrichjr
10-08-2006, 12:32 AM
With Hancock we win our division. That is my belief and I am sticking with it. Anyone who believes that Hancock wouldn't have added a few extra wins over the junk that we sent out most of the season just didn't watch the same team that I did.

This is my biggest gripe with waynek. He made some really bad decisions that costs us big.

MWM
10-08-2006, 12:39 AM
Didn't seem to be such an unpopular move when it happened...he wasn't exactly setting the world on fire the previous season.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing.

Can't say that to those who thought it was a bad move at the time. Token gestures are only necessary if you aren't confident in your ability to lead. And in many cases, you end up losing more respect than you gain because there's no way you're gonig to apply the same principles that led to Hancock's dismissal to all players on the team. It was a bonehead move when it happened and was proven to be even more costly than anyone thought it would be. It accomplished absolutely nothing but makes fools of the Reds, IMO.

mth123
10-08-2006, 02:48 AM
Can't say that to those who thought it was a bad move at the time. Token gestures are only necessary if you aren't confident in your ability to lead. And in many cases, you end up losing more respect than you gain because there's no way you're gonig to apply the same principles that led to Hancock's dismissal to all players on the team. It was a bonehead move when it happened and was proven to be even more costly than anyone thought it would be. It accomplished absolutely nothing but makes fools of the Reds, IMO.

And worse yet it was a move that was born in the ill advised "vet love" signings of Rick White and Chris Hammond. The Dano crush on Mike Burns contributed as well. In Spring Training 2006 the Reds had a glut of mediocre in the pen and not enough roster spots or innings to go around. The Reds had no intention of keeping Hancock or Luke Hudson IMO. This was just a convenient way to get rid of him, pare the roster and make more innings for the others in Spring Training. W/O those signings this "token gesture" (perfect description BTW) never occurs. I can't really say I was sorry to see these guys go but some on here did question releasing these guys (especially Hancock IIRC) when we needed pitching. Wayne K was pretty new at the time and the Reds were on this path before he got here, even if it was carried out after he arrived. I think I put this one on Narron.

Aceking
10-08-2006, 10:42 AM
I heard a great NFL kicker once say, that you'll never be a successfull kicker until you've been cut by someone. That feeling of having it taken away and then having to fight to keep your job.

I've dubbed that theory, the Neil Rackers theory.

I think this may be the case with Hancock. Without that wake up call, would he have turned it around? None of us can ever know.

Betterread
10-08-2006, 10:46 AM
And worse yet it was a move that was born in the ill advised "vet love" signings of Rick White and Chris Hammond. The Dano crush on Mike Burns contributed as well. In Spring Training 2006 the Reds had a glut of mediocre in the pen and not enough roster spots or innings to go around. The Reds had no intention of keeping Hancock or Luke Hudson IMO. This was just a convenient way to get rid of him, pare the roster and make more innings for the others in Spring Training. W/O those signings this "token gesture" (perfect description BTW) never occurs. I can't really say I was sorry to see these guys go but some on here did question releasing these guys (especially Hancock IIRC) when we needed pitching. Wayne K was pretty new at the time and the Reds were on this path before he got here, even if it was carried out after he arrived. I think I put this one on Narron.

I agree. I thought there was a move toward having a bullpen of "savvy veterans" that started in 2005. My opinion is that this was a reaction to the inconsistent bullpen efforts of the younger, developing pitchers. Instead of swinging between theories of what what comprises a good bullpen, I think the Reds should look at talent, and how that talent fits together. Hancock, while perhaps not a difference-maker, still possessed enough talent to help the Reds bullpen, given an appropriate role and proper use by his field manager. After watching his decisions for a while, I think Narron's ability to evaluate talent and how to use that talent needs to be improved or upgraded through providing him with staff who can help him OR through replacing him with a different field manager with greater abilities.

mth123
10-08-2006, 12:33 PM
I agree. I thought there was a move toward having a bullpen of "savvy veterans" that started in 2005. My opinion is that this was a reaction to the inconsistent bullpen efforts of the younger, developing pitchers. Instead of swinging between theories of what what comprises a good bullpen, I think the Reds should look at talent, and how that talent fits together. Hancock, while perhaps not a difference-maker, still possessed enough talent to help the Reds bullpen, given an appropriate role and proper use by his field manager. After watching his decisions for a while, I think Narron's ability to evaluate talent and how to use that talent needs to be improved or upgraded through providing him with staff who can help him OR through replacing him with a different field manager with greater abilities.

I think many of the bullpen's issues were due to misuse by Narron. I understand that Coffey and Weathers were overworked and Mercker got hurt, but using Shack against anything but lefties in a close game and pitching some of the roster filler in high leverage situations contributed to the collapse. Many of these misuses were necessitated by using Coffey or Weathers when the team was up by 7 or down by 5 the day prior. I think we are on the same page here. These guys in the 2006 pen aren't/weren't world beaters by any stretch, but putting guys in position to succeed is a big part of the Mgrs. job. I defended Narron a lot but starting somewhere in the 2nd half, he made me want to poke myself in the eye with a hot stick.

Anyone think the Pen would have been better in the 1st half with Hancock and Shack instead of White and Hammond? To be fair, Hammond did have a fairly decent stretch for a while in May IIRC.

PuffyPig
10-08-2006, 07:17 PM
Hancock had a DIPS ERA of 4.30 this year.

He certainly wouldn't have made much of a difference.

Will M
10-16-2006, 07:32 PM
J Hancock 0 IP & 5 earned runs

George Foster
10-16-2006, 07:45 PM
Didn't seem to be such an unpopular move when it happened...he wasn't exactly setting the world on fire the previous season.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing.

Exactly! I'm sure there are GM's all over the majors that wished they would of signed RA to a contract last year and they passed over him and he resigned with the Reds.

Hancock just had a good year...

TeamBoone
10-17-2006, 01:51 PM
And yeah, he's thin NOW!

Chip R
10-17-2006, 01:56 PM
Perhaps Hancock's results were due more to the Cardinals' coaching staff than anything. If he had not been cut, there was no guarantee he'd have made the Opening Day roster. That's not to say he wouldn't have been called up at some point but he wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire here and there's no reason to believe that if he had stayed here, he would have been any better than the other slugs that inhabited the bullpen. If you don't think that StL's staff may have been the difference, I give you Jeff Weaver.

redsupport
10-17-2006, 02:10 PM
good point

SultanOfSwing
10-17-2006, 02:15 PM
Perhaps Hancock's results were due more to the Cardinals' coaching staff than anything. If he had not been cut, there was no guarantee he'd have made the Opening Day roster. That's not to say he wouldn't have been called up at some point but he wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire here and there's no reason to believe that if he had stayed here, he would have been any better than the other slugs that inhabited the bullpen. If you don't think that StL's staff may have been the difference, I give you Jeff Weaver.
I agree. I am not quite sure whether it is the Cardinals, per se, but I do think it is the result of being on another team. I think a change-of-scenery/wake-up-call really helped. If Hancock does continue to pitch decent, that is probably why. I just don't think he would have done it for the Reds no matter what.
If Ryan Wagner turns into a decent to good reliever for his career, I'm sure there will be plenty to whine about it. But does anyone truly believe he was going to be successful as a Red?

P.S.-- Will redsupport please change to title to Hancock instead of Hancok. :) I do a double-take every time I see it.

traderumor
10-17-2006, 04:23 PM
For "middle relievers" being a dime a dozen and of so little value, there sure has been a lot of discussion about the release of a middle reliever and the difference that middle reliever would have made in the bullpen.