PDA

View Full Version : Chaos and how to lose 105 games.



Cooper
10-14-2006, 10:32 PM
There's been a large amount of change in the organization.

Made the point in another post that you could make the case they don't have 1 position solidified and figured out.

When there's this much change without and organizational philosophy on how to solve problems ...bad things can happen.

1. It makes it tough to analyze what you really got. Your sample sizes are small and people aren't comfortable in their changing positions. (there's a fair amount of data that supports the idea that player performance decreases when they change positions).

2. No one in the organization knows how to offer solutions because there is no organiztional idea on how to solve them.

3. There's so much chaos -that folks don't know where to start. At times an organization will pay 3 times more than something is worth -just to have some peace of mine...a stake in the ground on which to build.

With this much chaos --bad things can happen quick.

Solidify some Wayne.

Falls City Beer
10-15-2006, 12:47 AM
I agree. All I heard all season was how Wayne was laying the groundwork, clearing out space, blowing it up, etc.

I feel like he bought a fixer-upper and brought over some posters and inflatable furniture and called it restored. It's totally random, desperate, and downright weird how messed up this roster/coaching staff/organization is right now. It's almost as though he's done nothing at all but make it harder on himself to make deals this offseason.

I've asked a bunch of people smarter than I am to tell me what they see in Wayne's method, and I still don't see what they're seeing.

traderumor
10-15-2006, 09:55 AM
I can neither agree or disagree as I am still trying to figure out what exactly was said.

GAC
10-15-2006, 10:39 AM
"Blow it up Wayne, and make it yours" - rfs62

Out of chaos came order.

Falls City Beer
10-15-2006, 11:39 AM
I can neither agree or disagree as I am still trying to figure out what exactly was said.

Without method and without plan, there is no way to effectively execute. Certainties breed more certainties. Uncertainties breed kneejerk adjustments. It's a pretty macro observation, but it was well worth saying.

What's troubling is that Wayne's a posteriori posturing about "cutting down on strikeouts" seems like so much covering his ass for dumping Kearns and Lopez for nothing. If he hates strikeouts so much, why did he give Dunn his expensive contract? Why did he acquire Phillips? If he values defense so much, why is Griffey still playing center? Dunn still playing left? Aurilia playing short? Ross playing catcher?

Say one thing; do another.

M2
10-15-2006, 12:55 PM
Without method and without plan, there is no way to effectively execute. Certainties breed more certainties. Uncertainties breed kneejerk adjustments. It's a pretty macro observation, but it was well worth saying.

What's troubling is that Wayne's a posteriori posturing about "cutting down on strikeouts" seems like so much covering his ass for dumping Kearns and Lopez for nothing. If he hates strikeouts so much, why did he give Dunn his expensive contract? Why did he acquire Phillips? If he values defense so much, why is Griffey still playing center? Dunn still playing left? Aurilia playing short? Ross playing catcher?

Say one thing; do another.

Krivsky will go a long way toward self-definition this offseason. Certainly the Arroyo and Phillips moves made him look like a genius because both were cases of the guy going out and getting exactly what the team needs. The Lopez/Kearns trade was a disaster, but perhaps the silver lining is that it fits in with Arroyo and Phillips as part of an effort to rebuild the team up the middle. If Krivsky adds meaningful pitching talent this offseason, addresses the CF situation and comes up with a quality SS then I'd say he's a man with a plan. Obviously he can't afford another mistake like the deadline disaster, but that would address the pitching and defense in a direct fashion.

Yet if the plan is built around collecting guys with the undefinable quality of "knows how to play the game" then we're in for a real long drip into the abyss. The Twins never were able to find that kind of guy. What they've done is develop guys who play the game the way they want it played. That's a fine long term goal, define what Reds baseball should look like and have all the kids in the system versed in it. Yet Krivsky needs to be more pragmatic in the short term.

WVRedsFan
10-15-2006, 06:46 PM
"Blow it up Wayne, and make it yours" - rfs62

Out of chaos came order.

I used that brilliant quote from RFS62 as my signature from the first time I heard it. After the Narron extension and the trade, I dropped it. Krivsky is so confusing. He goes out and makes moves like getting Arroyo and Phillips, but...well, the confusing things have all been mentioned except the pouring in of pitchers this summer who did not do well because they were done when they were acquired. Who can rationalize Cormier, Mays, or Franklin? Who can rationalize keeping three catchers when you have a guy who just signed a gargantuan contract just months before sitting on the bench? Madness, i say.

Everyone says this winter we'll see the plan. All I've seen so far is a lot of luck combined with a lot of throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it works. Along with the weeding out of a lot of offense in return for middle relief pitching. The pitching was needed, but oh the cost. If Wayne were to indeed blow it up and make it his, I imagine RedsZone would be up in arms.

I look forward to the plan but shake in fear at the results of it.

Cooper
10-15-2006, 11:16 PM
There are some other factors working toward this organization. Things i don't they see.

1. The plexiglass principle is working against them.
-they finished poorly in the 2nd half.
-their pythag. record was lower than real record.
-the AAA team is not real good.
-team age is on the high side.

2. I doubt they can adjst for park factor in any real substantial way. This year the park played at 107/108 or 1036 depending on which formula you use. What's most important is how the PF relates in terms relative to other parks. By my calculations the Reds played in the 4th most offensive environment in the mlb. That really impacts the way in which you review and analyze your team. This is a bad hitting team and i could see it getting worse by this time next year. Do they know that?

It really bothers me that not one position has been settled. He had all year to get something stable and build on that.

marcshoe
10-15-2006, 11:23 PM
I think M2 nailed this. I'm nervously waiting to see what the offseason brings.

Falls City Beer
10-15-2006, 11:29 PM
I think M2 nailed this. I'm nervously waiting to see what the offseason brings.

He may turn this thing around in the offseason. I don't know. But he's made the job a lot harder on himself over the course of the season by not dumping a bunch of dead weight or making the tough decisions that lead to stability.

RFS62
10-15-2006, 11:37 PM
I look forward to the plan but shake in fear at the results of it.



Yeah, but doesn't that beat the collective snore Reds fans have produced during DanO's reign?

I don't think it's going to be boring this offseason.

mth123
10-15-2006, 11:48 PM
Yeah, but doesn't that beat the collective snore Reds fans have produced during DanO's reign?

I don't think it's going to be boring this offseason.

Being held at gunpoint isn't boring either. Doesn't mean I like the experience.

Krivsky has been working during the season so its a little unfair to conclude anything, but all of his acquisitions so far have been for guys who were unwanted. Even his good ones. He's traded some major pieces of the team he inherited and only received unwanted pieces back. Seems like he should have been able to get a few guys his trading partners valued a little. Bray may be the closest to that.

Scares me about making major moves.

Cooper
10-15-2006, 11:54 PM
I don't see it. He's had 8 months and there are many more questions than answers....that's not a sign of competence.

edabbs44
10-16-2006, 12:06 AM
I'm scared of what Wayne will do with this team. I have not been impressed since the acquisitions of Ross, BA and Phillips. I have a feeling that there will be some unhappy campers on RedsZone this winter.

http://www.hiresphotos.com/Photos/Children%20Photos/Unhappy%20camper%20web.jpg

Spitball
10-16-2006, 12:08 AM
Yeah, but doesn't that beat the collective snore Reds fans have produced during DanO's reign?

I don't think it's going to be boring this offseason.

...and that should keep this board buzzing...let the fun begin. :thumbup:

WVRedsFan
10-16-2006, 03:43 AM
Yeah, but doesn't that beat the collective snore Reds fans have produced during DanO's reign?

I don't think it's going to be boring this offseason.

Yes, it beats the snore, Dave, but it also really sucks to look back at August and September, 2006. It was very frustrating to see what he brought to the team and what he gave up--and got fleeced in the process. I also see too many similarites in what he did (bringing in retreads and have-to-miss players) to JimBo. Yep, the activity is good, but the end result is...losing.

It won't be boring, but I shudder to think what this team may look like by February 1st. More Minnesota Twins? More mediocre or horrible pitchers? More Jerry Narron!?!

All my confidence in one Wayne Krivsky was lost with all of that. Sorry, but what started out good went to Hades in late July and the result cannot be disputed.

As I've said many times, he had better have a tremendous winter because if not, he'll go down like the other GM's we cuss about here.

RANDY IN INDY
10-16-2006, 10:16 AM
As far as last season, the trade was a bust, but it is still yet to be seen how it will play out, long term. I'm willing to give Krivsky some time. The team model from the last few years has not been working. Things should start happening after the World Series.

Ltlabner
10-16-2006, 10:19 AM
Yes, it beats the snore, Dave, but it also really sucks to look back at August and September, 2006. It was very frustrating to see what he brought to the team and what he gave up--and got fleeced in the process. I also see too many similarites in what he did (bringing in retreads and have-to-miss players) to JimBo. Yep, the activity is good, but the end result is...losing.

I guess I don't understand the complexity in understanding the difference between short term and long term moves. Most of the players that recieve the most scorn here are short term, stop gap players (Franklin, Mayes, Kim, Clayton) that were brought in to play short role and yes, "see what sticks". Almost every team in baseball does this so I'm not sure why some act as if Krivsky is an idiot for doing so. Ponsone to the Yankees? White to the Philies? Weaver to the Cards? All teams pick up other teams chaff in hopes they will contribute some small level of production to the team.

If Krivsky turns around and signs the Kims, Franklins and Claytons of the world, then yes, he is making horrible moves and I'll join right in with those who lost faith in Krivsky (some only after 1/2 a season). But people act as if he is building a team around these players when they are clearly short term stop-gaps. I guess you could make the argument that we should only bring the best and brightest to town, but I would like an explination on how that is too happen with (1) our current budget and (2) since we "traded away all of our valuable chips". (3) factor in the albatross contracts of Milton, Jr and LaRue.

I know there are some exceptions to this. I really don't care for signing Cormier to a 2 year deal sight unseen. But mostly, the dreadfull dreck was brought in short term.

Additionally, people harp on the last two months of the year, yet the biggest collapse was by players already in a Reds uniform since nearly the begining of the year: Dunn, EE, Philips, Ross, Hatteburg, Jr (+ injuries), Freel (+ injuries), etc. I know that some lay the total blame for this on the trade, but I while I agree that it will effect the offense negativley to change it's makeup, I just can't swallow a complete offesensive collapse being laid at the feet of a trade made a month and 1/2 prior.

GAC
10-16-2006, 10:33 AM
But he's made the job a lot harder on himself over the course of the season by not dumping a bunch of dead weight or making the tough decisions that lead to stability.

But in his very first year he did dump/ate some contracts. So he has shown he is not afraid to do so.

Personally, I don't think we really saw the "real" Krivsky. it's his first job as a GM, and I think he knda got "caught up" in the fact that this team was winning and competing up until the last month of the season. And he was somehow trying to maintain that "momentum", which caused he to make some good trades, as well as some that may be ill-advised.

But to say that the guy has no plan and is wondering aimlessly about, after only his first year on the job, is, IMO, expecting too much too soon.

Do all these "forum GMs" actually think they could have accomplished more and done a far better job?

The off-season will be telling.

RANDY IN INDY
10-16-2006, 10:56 AM
Do all these "forum GMs" actually think they could have accomplished more and done a far better job?

There is no doubt in my mind that they think they could have done a better job than Krivsky.

M2
10-16-2006, 11:35 AM
There is no doubt in my mind that they think they could have done a better job than Krivsky.

There's no doubt in my mind that you've got no idea of what you're talking about on this subject.

GAC
10-16-2006, 12:33 PM
Yes, it beats the snore, Dave, but it also really sucks to look back at August and September, 2006.

Key players "tanking it" (or slumping as some state) over those two months is not the fault of Krivsky IMO.

registerthis
10-16-2006, 01:19 PM
Key players "tanking it" (or slumping as some state) over those two months is not the fault of Krivsky IMO.

I guess that goes back to the question of how much production can/should be expected from some of the Reds "regulars." Dunn's struggles have been debated ad nauseum here, but the slumps of Hatteberg, Ross, Encarnacion, Phillips and Freel played a similar, if not greater, role.

True, Krivsky can't play the game for his players, but he's the one responsible for making the Reds dependant on the production of players such as Ross, Hatteberg et al. And when you are depending on players such as those to carry your team to the playoffs, perhaps it isn't all that surprising when they're unable to continue the playing-above-their-head results from earlier in the season.

Johnny Footstool
10-16-2006, 02:14 PM
Didn't we all have the very same discussion about DanO after his first season? Some were remarking about how terrible he was, and others were saying we should give him more time.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

RANDY IN INDY
10-16-2006, 03:40 PM
There's no doubt in my mind that you've got no idea of what you're talking about on this subject.

Classy as usual.:beerme:

marcshoe
10-16-2006, 03:41 PM
Didn't we all have the very same discussion about DanO after his first season? Some were remarking about how terrible he was, and others were saying we should give him more time.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I don't think that anyone was pointing to DanO's 20,314 moves and debating as to whether the offseason moves would be similar. People were wondering whether DanO would ever make a significant move. Istm that this is quite a different debate.

M2
10-16-2006, 03:42 PM
Classy as usual.:beerme:

Always classy baby. Way classier than the disapproving mind reader routine.

RANDY IN INDY
10-16-2006, 03:46 PM
It isn't mind reading when it is so clearly obvious.

Now that you mention it, I can think of other things that are surely more appropriate than classy. Try the mind reading routine.

M2
10-16-2006, 04:02 PM
It isn't mind reading when it is so clearly obvious.

Oh, something's obvious all right. It's just not the thing you think it is.

RANDY IN INDY
10-16-2006, 04:05 PM
Enough, man. Get past it. You and I rarely agree, although I did throw you some rep the other day. You see it yours, I see it mine. I don't have a problem with it.

M2
10-16-2006, 04:10 PM
Enough, man. Get past it. You and I rarely agree, although I did throw you some rep the other day. You see it yours, I see it mine. I don't have a problem with it.

I've got a problem with anyone who assumes they're privy to what other posters here think inside their own heads and, no, I'm not getting past that. Other people aren't being as petty as you're accusing. Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to imagine that other people might not be as petty as what goes on in your head.

Johnny Footstool
10-16-2006, 04:13 PM
I don't think that anyone was pointing to DanO's 20,314 moves and debating as to whether the offseason moves would be similar. People were wondering whether DanO would ever make a significant move. Istm that this is quite a different debate.

The details were different, but the viewpoints are the same. One side didn't like the man or his moves, the other side defended him, said to give him more time, and said "at least he's better than the last GM."

traderumor
10-16-2006, 04:15 PM
Didn't we all have the very same discussion about DanO after his first season? Some were remarking about how terrible he was, and others were saying we should give him more time.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.That's pretty much the MO of a message board. I'm not sure I would hang my hat on "we said this about DanO too, ergo Wayne = DanO. Especially considering at this point in the game there was not one feather in the cap of DanO, not one. At least Wayne has won a deal already with Arroyo. As has already been pointed out, there is a short and long-term impact of the Kearns/Lopez deal that can still work in the Reds favor. Even if one takes the position that it was not a good trade, there are still chances to learn and grow. To me, it comes down to whether or not his core values are strong, not whether or not he scored 100% on his deals in the first season on the job. And even the most knowledgeable posters on this board do not have enough data on WK to evaluate his core values. But, as Fay stumbled through trying to make the point yesterday, it is probably safe to say that he will be going about his business in a similar manner to his mentor, hopefully with some slight tailoring to fit his club to the park they play half of their games in.

Falls City Beer
10-16-2006, 04:34 PM
I'm sure I don't know more than Wayne Krivsky. But I know I'd do things differently from him. That's all anyone's saying. And that is a perfectly legitimate position to espouse.

RANDY IN INDY
10-16-2006, 04:51 PM
I'm sure I don't know more than Wayne Krivsky. But I know I'd do things differently from him. That's all anyone's saying. And that is a perfectly legitimate position to espouse.

That's fair. :beerme:

GAC
10-16-2006, 04:51 PM
I guess that goes back to the question of how much production can/should be expected from some of the Reds "regulars." Dunn's struggles have been debated ad nauseum here, but the slumps of Hatteberg, Ross, Encarnacion, Phillips and Freel played a similar, if not greater, role.

True, Krivsky can't play the game for his players, but he's the one responsible for making the Reds dependant on the production of players such as Ross, Hatteberg et al. And when you are depending on players such as those to carry your team to the playoffs, perhaps it isn't all that surprising when they're unable to continue the playing-above-their-head results from earlier in the season.

Ture reg. But that is why I placed the team's late season flop job, not on any one player, but a collective (or team) failure at a most inopportune time. Two players (Hatte and Ross) does not a team make either. I don't see where those player's slumps played an lesser or greater role then Dunn's (and visa versa).

Would we have even gotten as far as we did or came as close without the contributions of acquisitions such as Hatte and/or Ross?

There isn't a team out there that does acquire bit/role players, year to year... the Reggie Sanders, Juan Encarnacions, etc.... to help bolster a team in any given year. No great investment is made in these types of players. They can be discarded easily without much harm to a team.

Ross' production fell off in September for sure. But while disappointed, I don't measure a player by one month, or half a year; but what they did for the entire season.

You look at Ross' overall numbers in '06. September is the only month of question. He was consistently putting the numbers up all year, and in 247 A/Bs ended with a....

.353 OB% .579 SLG% .932 OPS for the season.

29 yrs old, $500,000/year.... I'll take it.

And another advantage of these types of contracts is they are very, very tradeable and can help teams if traded at the right times.

But Kriv just finished up his first year on the job, and many are claiming that should be more then enough time to make the necessary changes and get it together. 1 year??

If that is all the time any GM is gonna get in Cincy, then [GAC counting fingers and toes] we'll be out of GM candidates in the next 7-8 years! :lol:

But I think it is a huge stretch and a level of absurdity to say that this team (and FO) is in chaos, with no type of plan/objectives.

WVRedsFan
10-16-2006, 04:59 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that they think they could have done a better job than Krivsky.

Not in the slightest, Randy. Just looking at the results after he made his moves. It's not pretty. And I've said all along, we can judge him better next year after he has a full 20 months under his belt and that this winter is crucial.

I hope he has a plan and I hope he's successful. If he's successful we're all happy and that's what we all want.

Ltlabner
10-16-2006, 05:04 PM
This is a post by Terminator from a thread in Reds Live, but I think it fits here very nicely.


Sometimes I really just wish the Reds would have picked a philosophy and then hired a GM and manager for ten years a few years ago. The lack of continuity of ownership, GM and manager may not have sunk us for the last seven years, but it sure hasn't helped either. Why go two years into a five year plan and then blow it up?

For that reason, for better or worse, I hope Krivsky is given free reign to do what he wants for at least five years. Far better to go the whole distance and see if something works than to quit halfway and know it isn't going to work.

People are certinally entitled to call for a GM's head no matter how soon into their reign if they don't like the moves he has made. But I think such a mindset of evaluating the GM on a move-by-move basis and calling for his ouster if you don't like the first moves can be myopic because it doesn't allow any time for a GM's "vision" to be implemented. He's not able to truely rebuild a franchise from the ground up as he would have it built. And I mean the whole franchise: minor leagues, scouting, front office, etc etc.

I'm not suggesting you can't oust a bumb who is incompetent or you have to give everybody 5 years before criticising him. But I am suggesting that if you are going to unravel the origizational rot that has been festering since the 1980's you better sign on with a GM and let him really have a chance to implement his system. Of course you may not agree with every last move, and perhaps you don't agree with a particular "system" but honest evaluation can not be expected until enough time has lapsed for real orginizational change to take place.

Of course, I realize that such a view simply doesn't doesn't exisit in most MLB franchises where the GM position is a revloving door because results are expected now. It's a tightrope but I wish more owners and perhaps more importantly fans could think beyond the win/loss column of the previous season before rejecting the direction the GM is taking.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 05:06 PM
I'm sure I don't know more than Wayne Krivsky. But I know I'd do things differently from him. That's all anyone's saying. And that is a perfectly legitimate position to espouse.That is one reason I don't engage much in the move by move evaluation of GMs, because it seems that most of the objections come from "that is not what I would do given what I know" (which is usually much less information than the person actually responsible for the decision). I do not see that as a valid basis for legitimate criticism.

I'd also like to understand how "I'd do things differently from someone who knows more than me" fits into rational thought :confused:

traderumor
10-16-2006, 05:20 PM
This is a post by Terminator from a thread in Reds Live, but I think it fits here very nicely.



People are certinally entitled to call for a GM's head no matter how soon into their reign if they don't like the moves he has made. But I think such a mindset (fire the bum right away) can be myopic because it doesn't allow any time for a GM's "vision" to be implemented. He's not able to truely rebuild a franchise from the ground up as he would have it built.

I'm not suggesting you can't oust a bumb who is incompetent or you have to give everybody 5 years before criticising him. But I am suggesting that if you are going to unravel the origizational rot that has been festering since the 1980's you better sign on with a GM and let him really have a chance to implement his system. Of course you may not agree with every last move, and perhaps you don't agree with a particular "system" but honest evaluation can not be expected until enough time has lapsed for real orginizational change to take place.

Of course, I realize that such a view simply doesn't doesn't exisit in most MLB franchises where the GM position is a revloving door because results are expected now. It's a tightrope but I wish more owners and perhaps more importantly fans could think beyond the win/loss column of the previous season before rejecting the direction the GM is taking.

With that in mind, here is a good example. Terry Ryan took over in September, 1994 for Andy MacPhail. That would have been during the last strike. He inherited Tom Kelly, a modest budget in a small market, and a non-producing farm system.

The team's record from 1995-2001:
1995 56-88
1996 78-84
1997 68-94
1998 70-92
1999 63-97
2000 69-93

Add to that MacPhail's last two seasons after winning the World Series in 1991 were a disaster, and they were staring 8 losing seasons in the face and Minny had pretty much fallen off the baseball map.

Here are the records from 2001-2006:
2001 85-77
2002 94-67
2003 90-72
2004 92-70
2005 83-79
2006 96-66

So, what changed between 1995-2000 that all of a sudden took hold and is still producing in 2006? Did the light all of a sudden come on for Ryan, so now he is one of the more highly respected GMs in the business? How far ahead is Krivsky on the learning curve having tenured during the good times and bad times, or are we simply going to have to stomach 5 years of losing to put together a minor league system full of the type of players that Krivsky wants on his baseball team? Those are the types of questions I wish people who have the background and tools to answer such questions would ask and answer instead of "he made a bad trade (in the opinion of some), Krivsky sucks."

An interesting aside here. In a little bit of research I did last night, there was an indication that part of Ryan's early dilemma's was Tom Kelly wanting "guys who knew how to play the game the right way" and an unwillingness to provide OJT to some youngsters while taking lumps. Sounds eerily familiar. If true, that is an interesting note in light of Krivsky's unwavering support of the manager. With the limited knowledge I have of his true opinion of Narron and only the one that has appeared in print (which will usually be politically correct, even when they're getting ready to can a manager), I would say he should know better on that one. Of course, I don't think Narron and Kelly are a good comparison because Kelly was iconic for the two world series wins and would wield some influence that Narron should not, but it certainly sent up a red flag for me.

GAC
10-16-2006, 05:29 PM
honest evaluation can not be expected until enough time has lapsed for real orginizational change to take place.

That statement says it all.

Has Wayne Krivsky had sufficient time to begin to effect those changes needed?

You don't judge a GM because of supposedly one bad trade. There isn't a GM in existence that hasn't made a bad trade at some point or another.

And not to go all Lloyd Benson, but I don't think Wayne Krivsky is Dan O'Brien.

What is each individual's resume?

My hope/desire is that Krivsky came from (tutored with) an organization, similar to the Reds, that has developed a pretty successful/winning tradition over the last several years.

I hope he can bring some of that "expertise" to Cincy... which has been a "trainwreck" of an organization for the last 6-7 years.

Alot of radical moves are going to have to be made, top to bottom, that may give the appearance of chaos. Doesn't mean it's so.

And to evaluate Krivsky, what he has done and what he can/cannot accomplish in the near future, based solely on what some call "the trade", is being unfair and not very objective IMO.

Personally, I think some have had a "bur up their butt" about Krivsky lonnng before he was hired as the Red's GM. So no matter what he does, it will be placed under their microscope and dissected. Because when he has done something good, the "blind squirrel" or "got lucky" reasoning has been thrown out there. He will get very litle credit... and that is because his philosophy/approach maybe IS somewhat different from theirs. ;)

M2
10-16-2006, 05:35 PM
That is one reason I don't engage much in the move by move evaluation of GMs, because it seems that most of the objections come from "that is not what I would do given what I know" (which is usually much less information than the person actually responsible for the decision). I do not see that as a valid basis for legitimate criticism.

I'd also like to understand how "I'd do things differently from someone who knows more than me" fits into rational thought :confused:

I reject the notion that baseball is uber-complex. It's not. It's wonderfully multifaceted and full of surprises (both pleasant and unpleasant), but it's not rocket science.

Tens of millions of people understand the game. Sure, there's an almost endless amount of information out there on the subject of baseball and obviously the pros get to see more of it than we do. Yet not all of it is good information and I've seen no shortage of good ideas coming from folks not running baseball teams. Frankly, if the game didn't lend itself to that sort of fan involvement, it wouldn't be much of a draw. Other major sports offer continuous action and almost superhuman athletes. The beauty of baseball is it lets you inside of it. You don't just watch baseball. You think along with baseball.

To Wayne Krivsky's credit, he seems to get that. i could be wrong, but he strikes me as the kind of guy who, if he sat next to you on a bus, he'd be interested to hear what you think of the moves he's made, good or bad. You probably wouldn't change his mind about anything, but I bet he'd give you a good listen. The good ones in the business, certainly the best ones in the business, surely know enough to know they don't have it all figured out and that good ideas can come from anywhere (John Fay may even have one someday). As such, I think that puts a value in each fan's two cents.

It doesn't mean you're always right or that all opinions have equal value ... and it's perfectly fine to haggle over those matters.

Yet I don't think anyone has to be apologetic about just being a baseball fan. IMO it's a damn fine thing to be.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 05:43 PM
I reject the notion that baseball is uber-complex. It's not. It's wonderfully multifaceted and full of surprises (both pleasant and unpleasant), but it's not rocket science.

Tens of millions of people understand the game. Sure, there's an almost endless amount of information out there on the subject of baseball and obviously the pros get to see more of it than we do. Yet not all of it is good information and I've seen no shortage of good ideas coming from folks not running baseball teams. Frankly, if the game didn't lend itself to that sort of fan involvement, it wouldn't be much of a draw. Other major sports offer continuous action and almost superhuman athletes. The beauty of baseball is it lets you inside of it. You don't just watch baseball. You think along with baseball.

To Wayne Krivsky's credit, he seems to get that. i could be wrong, but he strikes me as the kind of guy who, if he sat next to you on a bus, he'd be interested to hear what you think of the moves he's made, good or bad. You probably wouldn't change his mind about anything, but I bet he'd give you a good listen. The good ones in the business, certainly the best ones in the business, surely know enough to know they don't have it all figured out and that good ideas can come from anywhere (John Fay may even have one someday). As such, I think that puts a value in each fan's two cents.

It doesn't mean you're always right or that all opinions have equal value ... and it's perfectly fine to haggle over those matters.

Yet I don't think anyone has to be apologetic about just being a baseball fan. IMO it's a damn fine thing to be.

That is a fine soapbox you are standing on, but I think you missed my point. "That's not what I would do," as a basis for criticism is not an argument.

M2
10-16-2006, 05:48 PM
That is a fine soapbox you are standing on,

You like it? I made it out of words.

Johnny Footstool
10-16-2006, 05:49 PM
That's pretty much the MO of a message board. I'm not sure I would hang my hat on "we said this about DanO too, ergo Wayne = DanO. Especially considering at this point in the game there was not one feather in the cap of DanO, not one. At least Wayne has won a deal already with Arroyo. As has already been pointed out, there is a short and long-term impact of the Kearns/Lopez deal that can still work in the Reds favor. Even if one takes the position that it was not a good trade, there are still chances to learn and grow. To me, it comes down to whether or not his core values are strong, not whether or not he scored 100% on his deals in the first season on the job. And even the most knowledgeable posters on this board do not have enough data on WK to evaluate his core values. But, as Fay stumbled through trying to make the point yesterday, it is probably safe to say that he will be going about his business in a similar manner to his mentor, hopefully with some slight tailoring to fit his club to the park they play half of their games in.


It's more a comparison of the attitudes of individual RedsZoners than a comparison of Wayne to DanO.

Some of us jump all over the new guy when he makes moves we disagree with. Some of us defend the new guy and say he needs time.

It doesn't matter who the new guy is -- we're still who we are, and in general, we rarely change.

Johnny Footstool
10-16-2006, 05:51 PM
That is a fine soapbox you are standing on, but I think you missed my point. "That's not what I would do," as a basis for criticism is not an argument.

It certainly is if you can give logical reasoning to support your position.

Ltlabner
10-16-2006, 05:52 PM
I reject the notion that baseball is uber-complex. It's not. It's wonderfully multifaceted and full of surprises (both pleasant and unpleasant), but it's not rocket science.

I'd say a baseball orgization of say, a couple of hundred people (FO, players, scouts, farm system, player development, spring training people) is no more complex than any other business that is in the 100 to 200 employee range. That is, to say, very complex.

Baseball as a sport is pretty simple. Baseball as an organization is increadibly complex. Maybe I am not understanding your point M2, but to suggest that orgizational change in a business of that size is a simple matter (and consequently should be acomplished pronto) is a faulty notion IMO.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 05:54 PM
You like it? I made it out of words.Notice I said I do not engage in such things, which makes my approach to being a fan just as valid, does it not? Choosing not to criticize GMs on a move by move basis is not my thing because...it did not then say "all should go and do likewise."

M2
10-16-2006, 05:58 PM
Notice I said I do not engage in such things, which makes my approach to being a fan just as valid, does it not? Choosing not to criticize GMs on a move by move basis is not my thing because...it did not then say "all should go and do likewise."

I agree. Though you tend to make good points. There's times I'd like to know what you think about a given move.

Anyway, I was feeling all soapboxy so I let it fly. I didn't actually have any issue with anything you said, it just sort of got my brain rolling.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 05:58 PM
It certainly is if you can give logical reasoning to support your position.Which is obviously different than "this move does not fit within the parameters of a move I would make with the information that I know," as a basis for critique. That would necessitate that the only available parameters are those of the one making the critique.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 06:01 PM
I agree. Though you tend to make good points. There's times I'd like to know what you think about a given move.

Anyway, I was feeling all soapboxy so I let it fly. I didn't actually have any issue with anything you said, it just sort of got my brain rolling.No problem. Honestly, I am very linear sequential in my thinking processes and not real visionary, so I usually just try to figure out why the person who made the move did what he did. That is how I enjoy analyzing this stuff.

wheels
10-16-2006, 06:05 PM
So can someone please tell me if I should or should not level opinions about baseball moves?

I'm starting to get light headed.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 06:12 PM
So can someone please tell me if I should or should not level opinions about baseball moves?

I'm starting to get light headed.Rip away if that helps you enjoy the game. One thing I would add is that, in fairness, I should not rip on FCB, M2, Steel, and others who do derive enjoyment from the game with their more predictive critiques that sometimes sound warnings that we quite honestly don't want to hear. M2 is feeling soapboxy, I am in a "can't we all just get along" kind of mood. Run with it, they don't come very often.

WVRedsFan
10-16-2006, 06:20 PM
Personally, I think some have had a "bur up their butt" about Krivsky lonnng before he was hired as the Red's GM. So no matter what he does, it will be placed under their microscope and dissected. Because when he has done something good, the "blind squirrel" or "got lucky" reasoning has been thrown out there. He will get very litle credit... and that is because his philosophy/approach maybe IS somewhat different from theirs. ;)

Not the case at all, GAC. In fact, although I don't know if I stated it on this board or not, I was hoping Krivsky was going to be the GM. After hearing Bobby C go on and on about Reds traditions, I was so enthusiastic. Then the success came and then the fertilizer hit the air conditioner:

1. Narron was extended, which I felt was unwarranted especially since Narron was only a caretaker left behind by Miley and the owner had "talks" with Lou earlier, giving us hope.

2. The trade.

3. Bringing on Castro and extending him for 2007

4. Other moves...

and I lost confidence. He can regain that this winter. I hope he does.

registerthis
10-16-2006, 06:24 PM
But I think it is a huge stretch and a level of absurdity to say that this team (and FO) is in chaos, with no type of plan/objectives.

I don't question that, overall, the seasons that guys like hatte, Phillips, Ross, EE et al. had look good. Certainly the best seasons of any of their careers. And I'm also not laying the fault for the team's late-season tank at the feet of our GM, who can only do so much.

But what I am saying is that Krivsky hitched his horse to the wagon that said all of the players that I named would continue to produce at a level far surpassing their career norms (except EE's case). And when you couple that with "the trade", Cormier's signing, etc. it leads to genuine questions about Krivsky's ability to identify talent. People like to point to the Arroyo, Ross and Phillips acquisitions as evidence that Krivsky is good at picking up bargain players who are poised to break out. I considered that earlier in the season, but as Krivsky continued to pick up more and more players who never amounted to anything for the team, I'm not convinced that the Ross and Phillips acquisitions were indicative of anything other than the broken clock being right twice a day (Arroyo is legit, so I'll give Krivsky his due for that one.)

I'm all for giving krivsky more time to assemble his team--Rome wasn't built in a day blah blah blah. But I'd like to see something that tells me he has a clear vision and strategy of where he wants to take this team. Right now I'm not seeing that.

Ltlabner
10-16-2006, 06:34 PM
But what I am saying is that Krivsky hitched his horse to the wagon that said all of the players that I named would continue to produce at a level far surpassing their career norms (except EE's case). And when you couple that with "the trade", Cormier's signing, etc. it leads to genuine questions about Krivsky's ability to identify talent. People like to point to the Arroyo, Ross and Phillips acquisitions as evidence that Krivsky is good at picking up bargain players who are poised to break out. I considered that earlier in the season, but as Krivsky continued to pick up more and more players who never amounted to anything for the team, I'm not convinced that the Ross and Phillips acquisitions were indicative of anything other than the broken clock being right twice a day (Arroyo is legit, so I'll give Krivsky his due for that one.).

But I think you have to differentiate between people brought in for the short term to see what would stick and people who are brought in as long term solutions. If a GM brings in another teams castoff in hopes of some marginal controbution and it doesn't work out does that mean he doesn't know how to evaluate tallent for the long term.

I don't think we can look at the players that were brought in as obvious stop gaps and use that as any sort of measuring stick for Krivskys skills for evaluating tallent that he is assembling into a long-term team.

Long term I think Arroyo, Phillips and Ross are good. Cormier being signed long term is definately a poor choice. Castro being brought back falls squarley in the who cares department IMO. Leaving Jr in CF will definatley be a bad thing if that comes to pass. My guess is that Hatteburg and Valentine were signed for next year as more stop-gaps until Votos or other moves can be made. For the price and with the options available, not bad moves.

All the Clayton, Yan, Mayes, and other assorted moves don't figure into the long term plans and thus shouldn't be used to guage his "plan" , "vision" or "direction".

M2
10-16-2006, 06:35 PM
Baseball as a sport is pretty simple. Baseball as an organization is increadibly complex. Maybe I am not understanding your point M2, but to suggest that orgizational change in a business of that size is a simple matter (and consequently should be acomplished pronto) is a faulty notion IMO.

Well, I wasn't talking about organizational change. Though, and I've seen this in action, that isn't as hard as you think. I know a guy who makes his living as CIO-for-hire in massive corporations. He always goes in with a small team and he always gets big results. He's told me in the past that one of the keys is not to make things harder than they have to be. Be fair, communicate clearly, give the people under you a legitimate reason to get excited about the changes and you're mostly there.

Anyway, I digress. Clearly, it's a higher degree of difficulty to address team-level issues. I'll add that Krivsky's got a tough puzzle to solve this offseason (not helped by not having bats like Felipe Lopez and Austin Kearns as trade fodder). There's probably some winning combinations to be played, but there's probably a lot calamity out there as well.

registerthis
10-16-2006, 06:49 PM
But I think you have to differentiate between people brought in for the short term to see what would stick and people who are brought in as long term solutions. If a GM brings in another teams castoff in hopes of some marginal controbution and it doesn't work out does that mean he doesn't know how to evaluate tallent for the long term.

I wish that was all it was, Ltlabner, but I see things like the Kearns/Lopez trade, the Cormier trade, the Castro extension...and I just really don't know what to think. Those weren't simply deals made to see "what sticks", there was (presumably) significant thought behind them. That's my cause for concern.

Ltlabner
10-16-2006, 06:59 PM
I wish that was all it was, Ltlabner, but I see things like the Kearns/Lopez trade, the Cormier trade, the Castro extension...and I just really don't know what to think. Those weren't simply deals made to see "what sticks", there was (presumably) significant thought behind them. That's my cause for concern.

I agree that those moves would fall in the "long term" category which I why I called them out as such. And if you are going to look at those "long term" moves (and consider them bad) you also have to consider Arroyo, Philips and Ross as part of the grading process. I'd also include signing Dunn long term, and frankly, keeping Homer Bailey on a set development schedule in the "good" category. I'd also consider making it clear that EE is a part of the future as a good thing

registerthis
10-16-2006, 07:03 PM
I agree that those moves would fall in the "long term" category which I why I called them out as such. And if you are going to look at those "long term" moves (and consider them bad) you also have to consider Arroyo, Philips and Ross as part of the grading process. I'd also include signing Dunn long term, and frankly, keeping Homer Bailey on a set development schedule in the "good" category. I'd also consider making it clear that EE is a part of the future as a good thing

I'm not sold on either Phillips or Ross yet, particularly considering their late-season plunge. Krivsky either made a great find, or "got lucky". Arroyo, as I said earlier, was a good move. And I agree on Bailey and EE's handling. But for every move that could be considered "good", I'm seeing at least one that's a real head scratcher. that's why I'm not sold on what krivsky brings to the table. I suppose all any of us can do is wait until next season, but I'm getting a little bit tired of that. If we arrive at next season, and the Reds are put together with the same mumble-jumble set of roster moves that they are currently comprised of, what then?

Ltlabner
10-16-2006, 07:04 PM
I'm not sold on either Phillips or Ross yet, particularly considering their late-season plunge. Krivsky either made a great find, or "got lucky". Arroyo, as I said earlier, was a good move. And I agree on Bailey and EE's handling. But for every move that could be considered "good", I'm seeing at least one that's a real head scratcher. that's why I'm not sold on what krivsky brings to the table. I suppose all any of us can do is wait until next season, but I'm getting a little bit tired of that. If we arrive at next season, and the Reds are put together with the same mumble-jumble set of roster moves that they are currently comprised of, what then?

So the alternative is finding a GM who can come in an produce a winner season 1? Is that even realistic considering the state of the Reds?

Falls City Beer
10-16-2006, 07:21 PM
That is one reason I don't engage much in the move by move evaluation of GMs, because it seems that most of the objections come from "that is not what I would do given what I know" (which is usually much less information than the person actually responsible for the decision). I do not see that as a valid basis for legitimate criticism.

I'd also like to understand how "I'd do things differently from someone who knows more than me" fits into rational thought :confused:

So there's only one "way" to do things?

Now that's not rational.

I'm sure Wayne knows a lot more than I do because I assume that of people who are older than I am. I always have. Respect your elders, etc.

I know what I know--I try to be objective, but know that I'm not always. But I trust that I know a thing or two, and that I know things differently from others. As they know things differently from me. But there's often not a clear right or wrong in these matters. Surely you understand that.

ochre
10-16-2006, 07:30 PM
So the alternative is finding a GM who can come in an produce a winner season 1? Is that even realistic considering the state of the Reds?
What would you say Krivsky tried to do this season?

I'm most disappointed with the fact that they decided to go all in this year. I was comfortable, looking at the pieces already assembled, with an earnest building for the future approach. The problems, as I see them, with this team the last few years seem to swirl around the toilet bowl of not being able to clearly define what the organizational goals and direction are. That takes a top to bottom management commitment. I see, much as with past regimes here, static. A move, or a comment, here, or there indicating that the team has teh future in sight. A knee jerk reaction over there that says contend now. Other than pretty words and glossier pictures, I haven't seen a whole lot, substantively, different from this current junto than what has been offered up. Substitute frenetic activity for torpid slumber, the numbers still come up the same. There still is a supernovic glare coming from the lack of a tangible organizational direction.

oh, let this offseason be the watershed; let this river of ineptitude we've sailed for so long plunge us into the sea of success.

I just hope the bilge pumps are in working condition. Maybe we can find a Johan Santana down there.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 07:56 PM
So there's only one "way" to do things?

Now that's not rational.

I'm sure Wayne knows a lot more than I do because I assume that of people who are older than I am. I always have. Respect your elders, etc.

I know what I know--I try to be objective, but know that I'm not always. But I trust that I know a thing or two, and that I know things differently from others. As they know things differently from me. But there's often not a clear right or wrong in these matters. Surely you understand that.Hmmm, not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I believe that was my point, that a critique based on "not what I would do" assumes that "what I would do" is the superior model. Oh well.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 08:00 PM
What would you say Krivsky tried to do this season?

I'm most disappointed with the fact that they decided to go all in this year. I was comfortable, looking at the pieces already assembled, with an earnest building for the future approach. The problems, as I see them, with this team the last few years seem to swirl around the toilet bowl of not being able to clearly define what the organizational goals and direction are. That takes a top to bottom management commitment. I see, much as with past regimes here, static. A move, or a comment, here, or there indicating that the team has teh future in sight. A knee jerk reaction over there that says contend now. Other than pretty words and glossier pictures, I haven't seen a whole lot, substantively, different from this current junto than what has been offered up. Substitute frenetic activity for torpid slumber, the numbers still come up the same. There still is a supernovic glare coming from the lack of a tangible organizational direction.

oh, let this offseason be the watershed; let this river of ineptitude we've sailed for so long plunge us into the sea of success.

I just hope the bilge pumps are in working condition. Maybe we can find a Johan Santana down there.

I would say that Krivsky tried to fill gaps on the fly with what he considered expendable parts (and soon to be expensive parts) for what he thought was a reasonable value to win this year without sacrificing any top level prospects.

ochre
10-16-2006, 08:09 PM
what top level prospects?

traderumor
10-16-2006, 09:48 PM
what top level prospects?Bailey, Votto, Bruce, Wood, Cueto

ochre
10-16-2006, 10:13 PM
I guess you didn't see it the way I saw it. To me "top level prospects" means very advanced, in addition to having a decent ceiling. You know, the type one might plug in to replace the departing commodities. At the beginning of the year not one of those players you list fit that category. Now, maybe, Votto and Bailey do. In the scheme of things, the Reds gave up their top level prospects, Kearns and Lopez (both fairly young still, virtually the same age as Denorfia the other "top leveler") in that deal.

Those prospects you mentioned are exactly the type to move to contend now. Instead we got to see the inevitable hedging we are so accustomed to as Reds fans. Bailey's the only one on that list that even approaches no-trade status. And he likely would have been a better bullpen option than any of the arms acquired. This wasn't the year to try to make substantial moves in an attempt to contend, regardless of the nl landscape. I'm not sure that can be pinned on Krivsky, as he likely was responding to ownership entreaties, but in the end what has changed?

We all sit around pining for our own Johan.

Aronchis
10-16-2006, 10:28 PM
I guess you didn't see it the way I saw it. To me "top level prospects" means very advanced, in addition to having a decent ceiling. You know, the type one might plug in to replace the departing commodities. At the beginning of the year not one of those players you list fit that category. Now, maybe, Votto and Bailey do. In the scheme of things, the Reds gave up their top level prospects, Kearns and Lopez (both fairly young still, virtually the same age as Denorfia the other "top leveler") in that deal.

Those prospects you mentioned are exactly the type to move to contend now. Instead we got to see the inevitable hedging we are so accustomed to as Reds fans. Bailey's the only one on that list that even approaches no-trade status. And he likely would have been a better bullpen option than any of the arms acquired. This wasn't the year to try to make substantial moves in an attempt to contend, regardless of the nl landscape. I'm not sure that can be pinned on Krivsky, as he likely was responding to ownership entreaties, but in the end what has changed?

We all sit around pining for our own Johan.

Bailey and Votto are advanced. When you start succeeding in AA over a few months, that is a advanced prospect.

ochre
10-16-2006, 11:06 PM
...at the beginning of the year...

GAC
10-17-2006, 06:10 AM
So can someone please tell me if I should or should not level opinions about baseball moves?

M2 said this....


Yet I don't think anyone has to be apologetic about just being a baseball fan. IMO it's a damn fine thing to be.

And I agree. Baseball fans come in many shapes and sizes. I reckon it to people going to an art gallery and looking at a painting. Art "lovers" are looking at that painting from various different angles, deriving differing opinions on what they feel the painting is expressing or "saying to you". And they won't all agree.

There is a passion there.

I've said this before... just as that art lover derives their enjoyment from that painting in different ways, it is so with the baseball fan.

When I was a kid playing sandlot ball, I idolized and visualized being Pete Rose or Jim Maloney on that field. When I played football, I was Johnny Unitas.

When it comes to sports, we do not want to be seen simply as fans sitting on the sidelines merely as observers. We have that desire to be a "participant" in the game and wanting to be involved. We will not settle for anything else.

Many of us have been on this forum since it's inception. It's filled with a diversity of philisophical opinions and thoughts.

No one, especially me, wants to see any of those thought suppressed. It's what makes this forum fun, interesting, and unique. It's why so many of us keep coming back.

I don't want a forum where everyone "goosesteps" in line with no dissent. That breds stagnation (of ideas) IMO.

Fans have always been critical of every aspect of the game of baseball since the beginning.... from the owner on down to the bench player. That is the participation aspect.

Disagreement among fans, over philosophy or whatever, is healthy and fine. We're all a bunch of hardheads when we really think about it. ;)

So no one is saying that one cannot critique, analyze, or even be critical of the "shape" of an organization, the owner, management, or players.

Again - that is what fans do.

It has always boiled down to how, and with what attitude (or demeanor) that argument is presented. It has always came down to that on this forum.

Disagree all we want.

Disagree with respect and the understanding we are all FANS trying to work for the same common goal/purpose. Just don't look down your nose at me (speaking in generalities here) as if somehow you've attained a loftier position of knowledge, and you feel it's your job to educate everyone else, and attempt to raise them to your level.

But just because guys like Krivsky and/or Narron has forgotten more abut baseball then many have ever learned, does not mean they should never be criticized.

I just personally feel that regardless of the knowledge that we the fans attain, and continue to aspire to grow in, it does not somehow qualify us to be better GMs and/or managers.

RFS62
10-17-2006, 08:33 AM
Great post, GAC

:beerme:

RANDY IN INDY
10-17-2006, 09:09 AM
I'll second that. Really good post.

Johnny Footstool
10-17-2006, 10:31 AM
I would say that Krivsky tried to fill gaps on the fly with what he considered expendable parts (and soon to be expensive parts) for what he thought was a reasonable value to win this year without sacrificing any top level prospects.

You could say that, but you should also mention his poor judgement of market value, his poor judgement of the pieces the Reds received in return, and his lack of a plan for filling the holes left by said "expendable" parts.

traderumor
10-17-2006, 11:40 AM
I guess you didn't see it the way I saw it. To me "top level prospects" means very advanced, in addition to having a decent ceiling. You know, the type one might plug in to replace the departing commodities. At the beginning of the year not one of those players you list fit that category. Now, maybe, Votto and Bailey do. In the scheme of things, the Reds gave up their top level prospects, Kearns and Lopez (both fairly young still, virtually the same age as Denorfia the other "top leveler") in that deal.

Those prospects you mentioned are exactly the type to move to contend now. Instead we got to see the inevitable hedging we are so accustomed to as Reds fans. Bailey's the only one on that list that even approaches no-trade status. And he likely would have been a better bullpen option than any of the arms acquired. This wasn't the year to try to make substantial moves in an attempt to contend, regardless of the nl landscape. I'm not sure that can be pinned on Krivsky, as he likely was responding to ownership entreaties, but in the end what has changed?

We all sit around pining for our own Johan.

Yes, perhaps "top level" implied minor league level in the organization. Highly rated and top performing was the idea I intended to convey. And sorry, in our sad sack minor leagues, those five are pretty easy to identify and say "most likely to reach the majors." And considering Kearns and Lopez as "prospects" is a very loose definition of the term as it is commonly used. They are in their mid 20s and have been in the majors for 3-4 years each. They are not prospects, they are major leaguers with a track record.

traderumor
10-17-2006, 11:46 AM
You could say that, but you should also mention his poor judgement of market value, his poor judgement of the pieces the Reds received in return, and his lack of a plan for filling the holes left by said "expendable" parts.I should, huh? Duly noted, but I don't see it as an absolute as your "should" implies it is.

M2
10-17-2006, 01:17 PM
GAC, where I think you go off the rails is when you assume that because someone might have an opinion on a move the Reds made or the current state of the Reds, it inevitably means he/she thinks he/she can "do a better job" than the folks running the Reds if he/she happens to take a position contrary to the team's. In other words, you're confusing a baseball opinion with a self opinion.

I can't speak for anyone else on this matter, but when I have a baseball opinion, that's all it is, a baseball opinion. Frankly I think it's silly to assume that anyone has their self opinion tied up in the workings of the Cincinnati Reds or this board. I find it so silly in fact that I assume no one does.

Every few months someone around here will make insistences to the contrary and all I ever think when I read it is, "Boy, that's one diseased view of your fellow human you've got there."

Though for the record, I think most mammals, many birds, some reptiles and a few amphibians could have done a better job than Dan O'Brien.

Johnny Footstool
10-17-2006, 01:18 PM
I should, huh? Duly noted, but I don't see it as an absolute as your "should" implies it is.

Only if you're interested in presenting two sides of the discussion.

Johnny Footstool
10-17-2006, 01:27 PM
GAC, where I think you go off the rails is when you assume that because someone might have an opinion on a move the Reds made or the current state of the Reds, it inevitably means he/she thinks he/she can "do a better job" than the folks running the Reds if he/she happens to disagree. In other words, you're confusing a baseball opinion with a self opinion.

I can't speak for anyone else on this matter, but when I have a baseball opinion, that's all it is, a baseball opinion. Frankly I think it's silly to assume that anyone has their self opnion tied up in the workings of the Cincinnati Reds or this board. I find it so silly in fact that I assume no one does.

Every few months someone around here will make insistances to the contrary and all I ever think when I read it is, "Boy, that's one diseased view of your fellow human you've got there."

Though for the record, I think most mammals, many birds, some reptiles and a few amphibians could have done a better job than Dan O'Brien.

Similarly, we all have the right to an opinion about Falco's albums even if we ourselves can't read music or play an instrument (although I doubt Falco could, either).

RFS62
10-17-2006, 01:36 PM
Similarly, we all have the right to an opinion about Falco's albums even if we ourselves can't read music or play an instrument (although I doubt Falco could, either).



Indeed. And I always liked to talk to musicians and hear their point of view about music I liked. They know more about it. We can all appreciate the art, but they know way more about the subject since they're professionals and teachers of their craft.

I give the same respect to players and coaches in sports. Not talking about front office decisions here. I'm talking about playing the game, and not snickering when you hear someone talk about playing the game "the right way".

traderumor
10-17-2006, 01:40 PM
Only if you're interested in presenting two sides of the discussion.
Oh, it seemed to me that "you should..." implied that I should hold that position, although I was answering Ochre's question to another poster

What would you say Krivsky tried to do this season?

which would seem to lead to presenting one's own opinion without the necessity of rhetorically taking on the other side. I must learn your posting rules, JF.

M2
10-17-2006, 01:44 PM
I'm talking about playing the game, and not snickering when you hear someone talk about playing the game "the right way".

I think the disconnect is that far too many people who talk about playing the game the right way, don't. "Plays the game the right way" and "knows how to win" have almost become code for their opposites. We've seen a lot of Robert Conrad moments ("Go ahead. I dare you to knock it off.") in recent years revolving around statements like those.

RANDY IN INDY
10-17-2006, 01:50 PM
The way some of our fellow humans are personally addressed and the profane and ugly things that are leveled because of differing opinions on a message board is quite enlightening and a disease in itself.

M2
10-17-2006, 01:52 PM
The way some of our fellow humans are personally addressed and the profane and ugly things that are leveled because of differing opinions on a message board is quite enlightening and a disease in itself.

Drama much?

RANDY IN INDY
10-17-2006, 01:53 PM
You would know.

M2
10-17-2006, 02:00 PM
You would know.

Brilliant riposte! Oh sir, you slay me with your wit.

Seriously, this is a baseball board and we'd all be a lot better off if we got back to hashing around the game of baseball instead of making baseless assumptions about the personal nature of our fellow posters and acting like a pack of china dolls.

There's a place for the personal stuff and it's not here on the public board. This was an interesting thread back when we were talking about baseball.

RANDY IN INDY
10-17-2006, 02:48 PM
GAC, where I think you go off the rails is when you assume that because someone might have an opinion on a move the Reds made or the current state of the Reds, it inevitably means he/she thinks he/she can "do a better job" than the folks running the Reds if he/she happens to take a position contrary to the team's. In other words, you're confusing a baseball opinion with a self opinion.

I can't speak for anyone else on this matter, but when I have a baseball opinion, that's all it is, a baseball opinion. Frankly I think it's silly to assume that anyone has their self opinion tied up in the workings of the Cincinnati Reds or this board. I find it so silly in fact that I assume no one does.

Every few months someone around here will make insistences to the contrary and all I ever think when I read it is, "Boy, that's one diseased view of your fellow human you've got there."

Though for the record, I think most mammals, many birds, some reptiles and a few amphibians could have done a better job than Dan O'Brien.

Maybe, "we all" should get back to talking baseball.

GAC initially posed the question, "Do some of the forum GM's believe that they could have accomplished more than Krivsky?

My answer and opinion was that there is no doubt in my mind that many believe that they could have done a better job. I based that on the constant bashing of Krivsky and the suggestions that many keep offering up as a better route to take. The consistency of these types of posts leads me to believe what I do. It is my opinion. Nothing else. It was met with a response that a certain poster believed that I no idea what I was talking about on the subject. That's OK. Opinion.

Don't want to open the worm can, keep the thinly veiled statements quiet.

ochre
10-17-2006, 02:54 PM
forum gms? Is that thinly veiled, or veil ripped of in a mob of Miami Hurricanes?

RANDY IN INDY
10-17-2006, 02:56 PM
Didn't make the statement. Just commented on it.

M2
10-17-2006, 03:00 PM
Don't want to open the worm can, keep the thinly veiled statements quiet.

Thinly veiled? Man, that was overt. It was also four posts back and you already responded to it once.

Now, I'm willing to get back to baseball if you are. In fact, I'd really like to.

RANDY IN INDY
10-17-2006, 03:03 PM
Have at it.

Raisor
10-17-2006, 03:15 PM
Though for the record, I think most mammals, many birds, some reptiles and a few amphibians could have done a better job than Dan O'Brien.

What about spiders? They're scary.

GAC
10-17-2006, 03:21 PM
forum gms? Is that thinly veiled, or veil ripped of in a mob of Miami Hurricanes?

I made the statement ochre. Maybe it wasn't the best choice of words/terminology, but I used the term anyway.

Why did I use the term?

When I hear people (fans) daily and consistently call Narron and/or Krivsky...

idiots
buffons
someone who has no idea what to do or has no clue
should be fired

...and a melee of various other "titles" and observations,

I first look at the individual saying it (obviously). Are they simply expressing their opinion? Or is there more to it (perception)?

Johnny said this....


Similarly, we all have the right to an opinion about Falco's albums even if we ourselves can't read music or play an instrument (although I doubt Falco could, either).

And what Johnny says is very true.

I can say that the Rolling Stone's music sucks, even though I don't know a lick about music, because I am presenting it, not as one who is superior in the field of music, but simply as personal opinion- which really carrys very little weight when we think about it; but it's acceptable.

But that is far different then me making that statement, and then leaving the impression that's it's not simply an opinion, but coming from the position that I think I do possess greater knowledge and understanding of music, even though I am not in the music industry... how it works, what needs to be done... and therefore, if given the opportunity (that's all I lack) I could produce better music.

I think people have been on this forum long enough to peceive which of the above two psitions some individuals are coming from.

But I could be wrong. It's just my opinion. ;)

M2
10-17-2006, 03:47 PM
GAC, the impression isn't being left. You're jumping to it.

I'll add that the vast majority of folks you painted with the "forum gms" brush haven't made statements about Krivsky like those you listed.

That doesn't mean folks agree with every move he's made. I've supported the lion's share of his moves, but in July he got the wrong DNA sample of his team and it led to some regrettable choices. It makes him fascinating coming into the offseason. He's clearly shown an ability to get deals done, something his predecessor lacked in spades. He's done great and horrible things during his first season on the job. Like RFS said, he's made himself into a bit of thrill ride and that's it's own kind of fun.

To go back to Cooper's initial post, the Reds have chaos. Krivsky even embraced it this season. Now comes the time for some systematic changes. Is Krivsky really a pitching and defense guy? Does he understand how to put together a quality defense while still having a quality offense?

I'll dredge up something we did with DanO on the board. For Krivsky's first season of work (admittedly he didn't have the luxury of a full year on the job), I'd give him a B-. He was working on an A from me until the Kearns/Lopez trade. IIRC, I gave DanO a D- and an F. He was working on a XXX when he brought in Dave Williams and Tony Womack, but Castellini mercifully fired him.

Anyway, the Reds need Krivsky to be an A student. Less than that isn't going to get the job done.

redsmetz
10-17-2006, 03:56 PM
I think far to many assumptions are made in the original post (I'm late to this conversation). It assumes that they have no idea what they have. I think they're well aware of what they and what they need. It's a complex process and there are no easy answers.

I saw an item in a Pittsburgh paper, a Q&A with Wayne Krivsky. This guy has spent this season doing his homework. This is going to be an exciting offseason:


Q. I know, too, you admired Terry's preparation for making a trip to the minor leagues.

Krivsky: That was one thing I really learned from Terry. When you go to a minor-league park, you've done your homework statistically. You know the backgrounds of all the players, whether they're eligible for the Rule Five draft, if they're going to be a six-year minor-league free agent. You have that information at hand. It's not just showing up. You've done statistical work and background work on both rosters -- particularly your own, but also the opposing team. It puts you in a better position to make decisions at the end of the year.

Q. That would seem to be a difficult thing to do -- keeping track of all those minor-leaguers.

Krivsky: No, it's not. It's just sitting down and carving out time in your day to do it. We had a game card that Terry developed that helps you with that and, with the Internet as far as getting statistics, it's a lot easier than it ever was.

Johnny Footstool
10-17-2006, 04:37 PM
Indeed. And I always liked to talk to musicians and hear their point of view about music I liked. They know more about it. We can all appreciate the art, but they know way more about the subject since they're professionals and teachers of their craft.

I give the same respect to players and coaches in sports. Not talking about front office decisions here. I'm talking about playing the game, and not snickering when you hear someone talk about playing the game "the right way".

Sure, but even the people "in the know" can do things that are shockingly, bewilderingly bad, and even Joey Tonedeaf can recognize how awful it is.

Led Zeppelin wrote some pretty lousy, dense songs about hobbits and trolls. They don't get a pass just because they're Led Zeppelin.

traderumor
10-17-2006, 04:40 PM
I think far to many assumptions are made in the original post (I'm late to this conversation). It assumes that they have no idea what they have. I think they're well aware of what they and what they need. It's a complex process and there are no easy answers.

I saw an item in a Pittsburgh paper, a Q&A with Wayne Krivsky. This guy has spent this season doing his homework. This is going to be an exciting offseason:
Do you have a link to this?

Ltlabner
10-17-2006, 04:48 PM
Led Zeppelin wrote some pretty lousy, dense songs about hobbits and trolls. They don't get a pass just because they're Led Zeppelin.


What, was Jimmy's OPS too low for you?

redsmetz
10-17-2006, 05:19 PM
Do you have a link to this?

Yeah, sorry: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06275/726734-63.stm

Cyclone792
10-17-2006, 05:34 PM
I saw an item in a Pittsburgh paper, a Q&A with Wayne Krivsky. This guy has spent this season doing his homework. This is going to be an exciting offseason:


Q. I know, too, you admired Terry's preparation for making a trip to the minor leagues.

Krivsky: That was one thing I really learned from Terry. When you go to a minor-league park, you've done your homework statistically. You know the backgrounds of all the players, whether they're eligible for the Rule Five draft, if they're going to be a six-year minor-league free agent. You have that information at hand. It's not just showing up. You've done statistical work and background work on both rosters -- particularly your own, but also the opposing team. It puts you in a better position to make decisions at the end of the year.

Q. That would seem to be a difficult thing to do -- keeping track of all those minor-leaguers.

Krivsky: No, it's not. It's just sitting down and carving out time in your day to do it. We had a game card that Terry developed that helps you with that and, with the Internet as far as getting statistics, it's a lot easier than it ever was.


You're labeling that as an example of Wayne Krivsky doing his homework, and it's coming off as a sort of implication that the above is a type of added bonus and a reason to be excited. However, my label for that is Wayne Krivsky doing his job, and I would certainly hope he knows that information at hand when scouting any number of players.

There's no added bonus for Krivsky knowing that information; if he doesn't know that information, then he's not doing that part of his job adequately.

redsmetz
10-17-2006, 05:38 PM
You're labeling that as an example of Wayne Krivsky doing his homework, and it's coming off as a sort of implication that the above is a type of added bonus and a reason to be excited. However, my label for that is Wayne Krivsky doing his job, and I would certainly hope he knows that information at hand when scouting any number of players.

There's no added bonus for Krivsky knowing that information; if he doesn't know that information, then he's not doing that part of his job adequately.

I'm not saying it's a bonus either (I don't think I did). I agree completely it shows he does his job and I thought the assumption to start with was that these are people who didn't have a handle on the complexity of the their jobs. I think they do. We're going to see a lot I think over the coming months.

westofyou
10-17-2006, 05:42 PM
I'll you one thing about Wayne Krivsky, I sure understand him a hell of a lot more now that I have read "Dollar Sign on the Muscle (http://www.amazon.com/Dollar-Sign-Muscle-Baseball-Scouting/dp/080327789X)"

Johnny Footstool
10-17-2006, 06:13 PM
What, was Jimmy's OPS too low for you?

Jimmy was too busy playing guitar with a violin bow to learn how to take a walk.

Falls City Beer
10-17-2006, 06:18 PM
Jimmy was too busy playing guitar with a violin bow to learn how to take a walk.

He certainly couldn't throw a strike between the antennae of his theremin.

Ltlabner
10-17-2006, 06:19 PM
He certainly couldn't throw a strike between the antennae of his theremin.

Yea, but John Paul Jones was "clutch" and Bonham was sold D.

redsmetz
10-17-2006, 06:41 PM
I'll you one thing about Wayne Krivsky, I sure understand him a hell of a lot more now that I have read "Dollar Sign on the Muscle (http://www.amazon.com/Dollar-Sign-Muscle-Baseball-Scouting/dp/080327789X)"

Can you splain?

westofyou
10-17-2006, 06:59 PM
Can you splain?

There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face.

Macbeth: 1

WVRedsFan
10-17-2006, 10:17 PM
I'll you one thing about Wayne Krivsky, I sure understand him a hell of a lot more now that I have read "Dollar Sign on the Muscle (http://www.amazon.com/Dollar-Sign-Muscle-Baseball-Scouting/dp/080327789X)"


Good grief. Someone's selling that book used for nearly $80 at Amazon?

I don't need to know anymore about Wayno--not for $80 anyway.

traderumor
10-17-2006, 10:19 PM
Good grief. Someone's selling that book used for nearly $80 at Amazon?

I don't need to know anymore about Wayno--not for $80 anyway.
There are used paperback copies for under $10. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671666495/ref=lp_g_1/102-8699862-0734545?ie=UTF8)

gonelong
10-17-2006, 11:23 PM
There are used paperback copies for under $10. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671666495/ref=lp_g_1/102-8699862-0734545?ie=UTF8)

Thanks, didn't think to look for paperback version of this book ... I have been wrestling with myself not to spend $80+ for this book. Bought one of the paperbacks for $12 shipped.

GL

RFS62
10-17-2006, 11:29 PM
It's required reading.

harangatang
10-17-2006, 11:59 PM
It's required reading.When's the test going to be?

Cooper
10-18-2006, 09:04 AM
Is Wayne K. mentioned in the book?

Cooper
10-18-2006, 09:22 AM
a quick response to redmetz:

I can know for certain if Wayne knows what he has --surely he does. Knwing what he has isn't the problem ...the problem is the inability to make rational well thought out decisions.

As mentioned in orginal post: well thought out decisions require the manager to have good, sound data and then the manager must have the will to make the decision.

He needs to get some things figured out so he doesn't have to pay 3 times the going rate.

He needs to have an approach to solving problems and the organizatin needs to be on board with that approac (the will to follow through)...if not then things will go south quickly because he has to move what some people say is "the greatest CFer of all-time"....and if everyone ain't on board for that move things get ugly.

A parts collector can very well know his parts, but may still not be able to build a good running car.

RANDY IN INDY
10-18-2006, 09:26 AM
Particularly only in a couple of hours.

redsmetz
10-18-2006, 10:38 AM
a quick response to redmetz:

I can know for certain if Wayne knows what he has --surely he does. Knwing what he has isn't the problem ...the problem is the inability to make rational well thought out decisions.

As mentioned in orginal post: well thought out decisions require the manager to have good, sound data and then the manager must have the will to make the decision.

He needs to get some things figured out so he doesn't have to pay 3 times the going rate.

I've snipped your response to highlight these portions. I'm just curious as to how you're privvy to knowing that WK is not making "rational well thought out decisions"? How are in on whether the manager has "sound data" or whether the manager has "the will to make a decision". In fact, I think I can say quite certainly that the manager had "the will to make the decision" - he made loads of them.

And you claim that the Reds paid "3 times the going rate" and yet it has been said time and time again that it was clear that the market for pitching, any pitching, was tight. We might have overpaid (Krivsky acknowledged that from the get go), but we paid in an extremely tight market. And we probably achieved a number of various things in the trade (e.g. we're not dealing with two arbitration cases) and "the trade" still has the potential of panning out - both Bray and a healthy Maj can ultimately prove to be servicable parts in a revamped bullpen. Remember, someone noted that every dumped pitcher throughout the majors was snapped up by somebody, even our rejects.

With all due respect, your argument sort of falls apart, in my opinion.

registerthis
10-18-2006, 10:56 AM
And you claim that the Reds paid "3 times the going rate" and yet it has been said time and time again that it was clear that the market for pitching, any pitching, was tight. We might have overpaid (Krivsky acknowledged that from the get go), but we paid in an extremely tight market. And we probably achieved a number of various things in the trade (e.g. we're not dealing with two arbitration cases) and "the trade" still has the potential of panning out - both Bray and a healthy Maj can ultimately prove to be servicable parts in a revamped bullpen. Remember, someone noted that every dumped pitcher throughout the majors was snapped up by somebody, even our rejects.

Where the argument in supprot of krivsky's bomb falls apart for me is when people attempt to convince me that it could still work out in the Reds favor if Bray and majewski turn things around next season. Excuse me, but was the trade not made because the Reds needed reliable pitching right now (July 2006)? If the trade was only made so the Reds could dismiss arb-eligible players, and an immediate boost to this team in talent was not truly needed, then why not wait until the offseason, when the price for pitching would have gone down and more options would be available?

I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that leads me to believe that Krivsky pulling the trigger on this flop of a deal was anything other than an act of desperation from a GM who saw his team's fortunes heading down the drainpipe and felt a need to do something--anything--that might right the ship. He gave up a lot of run production, created two gaping holes in the Reds' lineup, and got pitifully little in return. Bray and Majewski could each have Cy Young-caliber seasons next year and the ultimate goal of this trade still would not have been accomplished--that is, an immediate improvement of the bullpen and this team's fortunes in 2006. He got fleeced, pure and simple.

Now, the question going forward is whether or not he can learn from that mistake. No GM is perfect, and every single one will unleash a clunker of a deal at one time or another. The good GMs are able to step back, understand what they did wrong, and take great pain to ensure such mistakes don't happen again. The bad ones either ignore the problem, or attempt to spin it to show that the deal really wasn't all *that* bad. I hope that krivsky is the former, and I suppose by next spring we'll have a pretty good idea.

Johnny Footstool
10-18-2006, 01:17 PM
I'd also like to point out that while the trade still has the potential to "pan out" for the Reds, it also still has the potential to turn into even more of a disaster as Lopez and Kearns (each only 26) hit their prime years. They could each feasibly post .850 or higher OPSs over the next three seasons.

redsmetz
10-18-2006, 02:49 PM
Where the argument in supprot of krivsky's bomb falls apart for me is when people attempt to convince me that it could still work out in the Reds favor if Bray and majewski turn things around next season. Excuse me, but was the trade not made because the Reds needed reliable pitching right now (July 2006)? If the trade was only made so the Reds could dismiss arb-eligible players, and an immediate boost to this team in talent was not truly needed, then why not wait until the offseason, when the price for pitching would have gone down and more options would be available?

I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that leads me to believe that Krivsky pulling the trigger on this flop of a deal was anything other than an act of desperation from a GM who saw his team's fortunes heading down the drainpipe and felt a need to do something--anything--that might right the ship. He gave up a lot of run production, created two gaping holes in the Reds' lineup, and got pitifully little in return. Bray and Majewski could each have Cy Young-caliber seasons next year and the ultimate goal of this trade still would not have been accomplished--that is, an immediate improvement of the bullpen and this team's fortunes in 2006. He got fleeced, pure and simple.

Now, the question going forward is whether or not he can learn from that mistake. No GM is perfect, and every single one will unleash a clunker of a deal at one time or another. The good GMs are able to step back, understand what they did wrong, and take great pain to ensure such mistakes don't happen again. The bad ones either ignore the problem, or attempt to spin it to show that the deal really wasn't all *that* bad. I hope that krivsky is the former, and I suppose by next spring we'll have a pretty good idea.

Why the need for it to be an "either/or" situation. Clearly, as has been rehashed on this board time and again, the Reds needed immediate help. For 2006, that did not pan out. But at the same time, the pick up of these pitchers was not solely for the hear and now. At their ages, the belief would have to be that these pitchers are going to be longer term solutions in the bullpen. The jury remains out on that question. Likewise, another part of the equation was the upcoming contract situation of the two players we sent over. Was it completely determinative? No, I don't think so, but I don't think it was an accident that two arbitration eligible players were sent. Again, time may show this trade to be a disaster. I don't think it's at that point. But you're kidding yourself if you think Wayne Krivsky is a desperate idiot running about helter skelter. It's clear we other than the Nationals trade, we did not rob the cookie jar picking up players this year. We are position to grow as a team and as an organization.

traderumor
10-18-2006, 03:04 PM
Why the need for it to be an "either/or" situation. Clearly, as has been rehashed on this board time and again, the Reds needed immediate help. For 2006, that did not pan out. But at the same time, the pick up of these pitchers was not solely for the hear and now. At their ages, the belief would have to be that these pitchers are going to be longer term solutions in the bullpen. The jury remains out on that question. Likewise, another part of the equation was the upcoming contract situation of the two players we sent over. Was it completely determinative? No, I don't think so, but I don't think it was an accident that two arbitration eligible players were sent. Again, time may show this trade to be a disaster. I don't think it's at that point. But you're kidding yourself if you think Wayne Krivsky is a desperate idiot running about helter skelter. It's clear we other than the Nationals trade, we did not rob the cookie jar picking up players this year. We are position to grow as a team and as an organization.

Krivsky made that same point in his apologetic for the trade. I did a little searching for the exact discussion, but could not seem to find it. I think he said it in the press conference.

GAC
10-18-2006, 04:28 PM
Krivsky made that same point in his apologetic for the trade. I did a little searching for the exact discussion, but could not seem to find it. I think he said it in the press conference.

He said this right after the trade....

"We paid a steep price," Reds general manager Wayne Krivsky said. "I'm sure this will be a controversial trade. I know a lot of people will be leaving nasty messages on my voicemail, and I'll have some who think it's great."

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=108242&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=66&sid=747841c6e8d3e1557dec83d28335af74

I listened to Krivsky a few times in the weeks after the trade when he made himself available for pre-game interviews on Fox. He fully acknowledged the risk, while also looking at the urgency of the worst BP in MLB. He also talked about our pitching staff's Runs Allowed and other pertinent pitching stats that were "shadowing" this pitching staff like writing on the wall.

You look at Bray and Majewski's stats. Even BP gave them favorable reviews as far as individual performance.

For all the numbers put up by Kearns and Lopez, the Reds would not be measurably better with both or either still in the lineup. With the two of them playing regularly for the season's first three months, Cincinnati stood 45-44, four games behind the Cardinals and 3½ short of San Diego (which led the wild-card race).

GAC
10-18-2006, 04:30 PM
Why the need for it to be an "either/or" situation. Clearly, as has been rehashed on this board time and again, the Reds needed immediate help. For 2006, that did not pan out. But at the same time, the pick up of these pitchers was not solely for the hear and now. At their ages, the belief would have to be that these pitchers are going to be longer term solutions in the bullpen. The jury remains out on that question. Likewise, another part of the equation was the upcoming contract situation of the two players we sent over. Was it completely determinative? No, I don't think so, but I don't think it was an accident that two arbitration eligible players were sent. Again, time may show this trade to be a disaster. I don't think it's at that point. But you're kidding yourself if you think Wayne Krivsky is a desperate idiot running about helter skelter. It's clear we other than the Nationals trade, we did not rob the cookie jar picking up players this year. We are position to grow as a team and as an organization.

Here's a good article on the situation that contains some of the elements you mention....

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5305

Falls City Beer
10-18-2006, 05:02 PM
He said this right after the trade....

"We paid a steep price," Reds general manager Wayne Krivsky said. "I'm sure this will be a controversial trade. I know a lot of people will be leaving nasty messages on my voicemail, and I'll have some who think it's great."
).

Great, he acknowledges the move could be a flop. Kudos. Now maybe this offseason he'll resist the temptation to drop his man-junk on that 20,000 volt livewire.

Johnny Footstool
10-18-2006, 05:25 PM
For all the numbers put up by Kearns and Lopez, the Reds would not be measurably better with both or either still in the lineup. With the two of them playing regularly for the season's first three months, Cincinnati stood 45-44, four games behind the Cardinals and 3 short of San Diego (which led the wild-card race).

I don't see how that makes your point. Without Kearns and Lopez, the team was under .500. The bullpen improved *without positive contributions from Majewski and Bray*, but the offense went to pot. It's reasonable to assume the offense would have been better with Kearns and Lopez and the bullpen could have been improved without dealing those two.

Saying they wouldn't have made a difference is rationalization to a high degree.

Cyclone792
10-18-2006, 05:43 PM
Here's some post All-Star Break splits for most of our relievers ...

Coffey + Weathers = 65 innings, 19 earned runs, and a 2.63 ERA.
Franklin + Cormier + Guardado + Schoeneweis = 65.2 innings, 22 earned runs, and a 3.02 ERA.
Bray + Majewski = 42.2 innings, 27 earned runs, and a 5.70 ERA
Coffey + Weathers + Guardado + Schoeneweis = 83.1 innings, 19 runs, and a 2.05 ERA.
Coffey + Weathers + Guardado + Schoeneweis + Franklin + Cormier = 130.2 innings, 41 earned runs, and a 2.82 ERA. Right there is your post-ASB bullpen improvement.

What I see is Todd Coffey and David Weathers anchoring the bullpen heavily, and they were with the team all along. Also, other additions such as Eddie Guardado, Scott Schoeneweis, Rheal Cormier, and Ryan Franklin - all of whom were acquired at a fraction of the cost of Bray/Majewski - solidified four bullpen spots after the Coffey/Weathers bullpen anchor.

Bill Bray was decent, but Gary Majewski was flat out horrible. He was so horrible that the total contribution from the Bray/Majewski relief package hurt this team, not helped.

I think people are seeing an improvement in our collective bullpen ERA after the All-Star Break, but are also failing to recognize that Todd Coffey, David Weathers, Eddie Guardado, Scott Schoeneweis, Rheal Cormier, and Ryan Franklin are six relief pitchers we had in our bullpen at one time after the All-Star Break, and they all combined for 130.2 innings with a 2.82 ERA.

flyer85
10-18-2006, 06:02 PM
Now, the question going forward is whether or not he can learn from that mistake. No GM is perfect, and every single one will unleash a clunker of a deal at one time or another. However, that was one of the bigger clunkers in recent memory and that is not in hindsight.

Cooper
10-18-2006, 07:37 PM
Do folks really believe Wayne has solidified some things re: the non-pitchers? Is there one position that he can hang hat on and say "player X will play this position next year."

I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks the bullpen needs re-configured.

Ltlabner
10-18-2006, 07:47 PM
Do folks really believe Wayne has solidified some things re: the non-pitchers? Is there one position that he can hang hat on and say "player X will play this position next year."

I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks the bullpen needs re-configured.

Hatte will be at 1B, hopefully platooned with player X.

EE will be at 3B.

Phillips will be at either 2b or SS. Not sure which but he's going to be at one of them.

So it seems that there's at least three positions that have been locked down.

RANDY IN INDY
10-18-2006, 08:13 PM
Unless bowled over in a trade, Dunn will be the starting left fielder.

Chip R
10-18-2006, 10:08 PM
EE will be at 3B.


Or at 1st or LF or on the bench.

Ron Madden
10-19-2006, 05:45 AM
Hatte will be at 1B, hopefully platooned with player X.

EE will be at 3B.

Phillips will be at either 2b or SS. Not sure which but he's going to be at one of them.

So it seems that there's at least three positions that have been locked down.

Unless Wayne can get a good young middle reliever in exchange for Edwin and Phillips. :D

GAC
10-19-2006, 06:43 AM
Great, he acknowledges the move could be a flop. Kudos. Now maybe this offseason he'll resist the temptation to drop his man-junk on that 20,000 volt livewire.

He didn't mention the word "flop" anywhere? Nor imply it. But you obviously have. He said they paid a steep price. Over paying for something does not mean that what you bought is junk. It would be a flop IF those two YOUNG pitching arms (Majewski and Bray) don't pan out.

But again, go to the BP link I provided above, with the review on these two young arms. Not a bad review at at. They say Bray could be the next Norm Charlton?

GAC
10-19-2006, 07:36 AM
I don't see how that makes your point. Without Kearns and Lopez, the team was under .500. The bullpen improved *without positive contributions from Majewski and Bray*, but the offense went to pot. It's reasonable to assume the offense would have been better with Kearns and Lopez and the bullpen could have been improved without dealing those two.

The offense was 1 game over .500 when they were in there, and when we traded them. We finished the season 2 games under.

Sure, the offense went to pot. And as a team, comparing the 1st half production vs the 2nd half, we definitely saw a drop off in such areas as TBs, RBIs, and OPS.

But its as you say - it's more of an assumption that it was due to losing Lopez/Kearns. Unless you can show that not having those two in the lineup is what caused several key players (Dunn, EE, Hatte, Phillips) to basically tank it in the last two months, as well as losing Jr and Freel to injury, then I am not that convinced that trade was the main culprit.

Losing Kearns probably had a far greater impact then losing Lopez IMO.

We had Clayton, Castro, and then Aurilia playing SS in the July, August, September, inwhich they collectively put up....

.321 OB% .428 SLG% .769 OPS

Lopez (same months)...

.359 OB% .354 SLG% .713 OPS


Kearns (same months).... .380 OB% .453 SLG% .833 OPS

Freel/Deno.... .342 OB% .358 SLG% .700 OPS


Saying they wouldn't have made a difference is rationalization to a high degree.

I believe what I've shown above is rational. ;)

But I never said they wouldn't make a difference. Looking at their peformance in the 1st half (especially Lopez), and then their performance in the 2nd half... I think that impact would have been too slight to overcome our pitching woes, and then key players "slumping" at the end.

And understand.... I'm not throwing this out there to justify or say that this was a good trade. Since this trade came down I have basically been a "fence rider". But I said before this trade ever surfaced, and people were screaming about fixing this awful bullpen THIS YEAR and before we fall out of contention, that it would probably be more beneficial to "suck it up" and wait till the off-season.

Johnny Footstool
10-19-2006, 10:27 AM
The offense was 1 game over .500 when they were in there, and when we traded them. We finished the season 2 games under.

Sure, the offense went to pot. And as a team, comparing the 1st half production vs the 2nd half, we definitely saw a drop off in such areas as TBs, RBIs, and OPS.

But its as you say - it's more of an assumption that it was due to losing Lopez/Kearns. Unless you can show that not having those two in the lineup is what caused several key players (Dunn, EE, Hatte, Phillips) to basically tank it in the last two months, as well as losing Jr and Freel to injury, then I am not that convinced that trade was the main culprit.

Losing Kearns probably had a far greater impact then losing Lopez IMO.

We had Clayton, Castro, and then Aurilia playing SS in the July, August, September, inwhich they collectively put up....

.321 OB% .428 SLG% .769 OPS

Lopez (same months)...

.359 OB% .354 SLG% .713 OPS


Kearns (same months).... .380 OB% .453 SLG% .833 OPS

Freel/Deno.... .342 OB% .358 SLG% .700 OPS



I believe what I've shown above is rational. ;)

But I never said they wouldn't make a difference. Looking at their peformance in the 1st half (especially Lopez), and then their performance in the 2nd half... I think that impact would have been too slight to overcome our pitching woes, and then key players "slumping" at the end.

And understand.... I'm not throwing this out there to justify or say that this was a good trade. Since this trade came down I have basically been a "fence rider". But I said before this trade ever surfaced, and people were screaming about fixing this awful bullpen THIS YEAR and before we fall out of contention, that it would probably be more beneficial to "suck it up" and wait till the off-season.

Cyclone showed how the trade hurt both the offense AND the bullpen.

And you can't assume Lopez and Kearns would have put up the same numbers playing half their games in GABP as they did in that cavern in Washington.

Lopez at RFK - .677 OPS; at GABP - .799 OPS

Kearns at RFK - .750 OPS; at GABP - .827 OPS

It looks pretty clear that keeping Kearns and Lopez would have had a significant positive impact on the Reds. Keeping Kearns alone would have made a difference.

registerthis
10-19-2006, 10:32 AM
Why the need for it to be an "either/or" situation. Clearly, as has been rehashed on this board time and again, the Reds needed immediate help. For 2006, that did not pan out. But at the same time, the pick up of these pitchers was not solely for the hear and now. At their ages, the belief would have to be that these pitchers are going to be longer term solutions in the bullpen. The jury remains out on that question. Likewise, another part of the equation was the upcoming contract situation of the two players we sent over. Was it completely determinative? No, I don't think so, but I don't think it was an accident that two arbitration eligible players were sent. Again, time may show this trade to be a disaster. I don't think it's at that point. But you're kidding yourself if you think Wayne Krivsky is a desperate idiot running about helter skelter. It's clear we other than the Nationals trade, we did not rob the cookie jar picking up players this year. We are position to grow as a team and as an organization.

I don't think I'm kidding myself at all when I look at that deal and think "desperation." It has all the hallmarks of it--a bullpen that was imploding and needed to be fixed if the Reds had any hope of contending, a new GM who wants to prove to the fans and ownership that he has the guts to pull the trigger on a controversial deal that might help the team, and a market that dictated an inflated price for mediocre pitching talent. mix those situations together, and you get a recipe for disaster.

I've read/heard all of Krivsky's explanations for the deal--both immediately after the deal was made, and long after it became apparent that it was a flop. They all sound to me like the explanations of a GM who know he was fleeced and yet is trying to paint the silver lining on the cloud--"There's a risk I overpaid..." "We hope these pitchers will be with us a long time..." etc. I DO look at it as an either/or situation, however, because of the timing of the deal. It is foolish to make trades looking at "next year" when you're trying to plug an immediate need at a time when practically every other club is doing the same thing and the price is inflated.

So, again, the deal was a situation where the pitchers were obtained in order for them to have an immediate impact on the team, and if they end up being long term contributors out of the pen, so much the better. It failed miserably at Part A, thus the disaster that it became.

SteelSD
10-19-2006, 10:52 AM
Cyclone showed how the trade hurt both the offense AND the bullpen.

And you can't assume Lopez and Kearns would have put up the same numbers playing half their games in GABP as they did in that cavern in Washington.

Lopez at RFK - .677 OPS; at GABP - .799 OPS

Kearns at RFK - .750 OPS; at GABP - .827 OPS

It looks pretty clear that keeping Kearns and Lopez would have had a significant positive impact on the Reds. Keeping Kearns alone would have made a difference.

Even assuming that both Kearns and Lopez would have performed for the Reds as they did for Washington (a huge assumption considering the difference in parks), the Reds most likely lost about 30 Runs in that swap.

traderumor
10-19-2006, 11:05 AM
It is foolish to make trades looking at "next year" when you're trying to plug an immediate need at a time when practically every other club is doing the same thing and the price is inflated.That is quite a load of a statement, since it seems to imply that the principles in this trade were involved only with "immediate need" in play. A trade is much more dynamic than that. Cyclone has posted an enormous amount of data that proves what many posters feared of the immediate impact of the trade. Again, that's risk, some say that it was inevitable. But then you suggest that the going-forward aspect of a trade does not enter into the entire cost-benefit analysis. Sorry, but I do not want a GM not considering the impact on next year when making a deal such as the Kearns/Lopez deal.

Obviously, Krivsky disagreed on the expected immediate impact, and the worst case scenario happened. And I'm sure that as long as RZ exists, that those who predicted the worst case scenario will remind us all of their wisdom and foresight.

registerthis
10-19-2006, 11:17 AM
That is quite a load of a statement, since it seems to imply that the principles in this trade were involved only with "immediate need" in play. A trade is much more dynamic than that. Cyclone has posted an enormous amount of data that proves what many posters feared of the immediate impact of the trade. Again, that's risk, some say that it was inevitable. But then you suggest that the going-forward aspect of a trade does not enter into the entire cost-benefit analysis. Sorry, but I do not want a GM not considering the impact on next year when making a deal such as the Kearns/Lopez deal.

My issue is in the timing, TR. I certainly agree that any deal involving players such as kearns or Lopez should be done with an eye on the following years. But the failure of this trade is that it was done at a time when it was practically impossible for Krivsky to maximize the value he received in return for Kearns and Lopez. He backed himself into a corner by making the trade at time when other teams knew the Reds were desperate for pitching help, and at a time when at least 20 other teams still considered themselvesto be in the race and thus were competing to acquire the same talent. Considering those circumstances, it was a virtual certainty that Krivsky was going to overpay for the players he received in return--and overpay he did, by a considerable margin.

Johnny Footstool
10-19-2006, 11:34 AM
Obviously, Krivsky disagreed on the expected immediate impact, and the worst case scenario happened. And I'm sure that as long as RZ exists, that those who predicted the worst case scenario will remind us all of their wisdom and foresight.

Very little wisdom and foresight was required to recognize that train wreck.

M2
10-19-2006, 11:44 AM
Obviously, Krivsky disagreed on the expected immediate impact, and the worst case scenario happened. And I'm sure that as long as RZ exists, that those who predicted the worst case scenario will remind us all of their wisdom and foresight.

Most of the non-Reds-fan baseball universe had that wisdom and foresight. It's really more a matter of Reds fans coming to grips with the ramifications of the deal. As I mentioned way back at the start of this thread, if the deal is emblematic of a commitment to improve the team up the middle, then hopefully Krivsky can draw from his successes (Arroyo and Phillips) rather than suffer another bout of Bowden's Revenge.

The team's talent situation is what it is. Krivsky's got less raw material to work with than he did at the start of July. The Reds can't afford to trade production for non-production. They've been doing it for the entire span of the 21st century and it's got to stop.

traderumor
10-19-2006, 12:18 PM
Very little wisdom and foresight was required to recognize that train wreck.Yup, when one engages in moves involving risk, there will always be folks who will get to say I told you so. Sort of like your Arroyo position that was dead wrong. Haven't heard much out of that group for quite some time though. Wonder why that is?

Johnny Footstool
10-19-2006, 12:58 PM
Yup, when one engages in moves involving risk, there will always be folks who will get to say I told you so. Sort of like your Arroyo position that was dead wrong. Haven't heard much out of that group for quite some time though. Wonder why that is?

Yeah, the Arroyo deal worked out better than I thought. I'm not afraid to admit that I underestimated Arroyo in expecting him to perform close to his career norms.

I did a search, but couldn't find the post in which you predicted he'd have a WHIP under 1.20 and be among the league leaders in ERA. Could you post a link?

traderumor
10-19-2006, 01:13 PM
Yeah, the Arroyo deal worked out better than I thought. I'm not afraid to admit that I underestimated Arroyo in expecting him to perform close to his career norms.

I did a search, but couldn't find the post in which you predicted he'd have a WHIP under 1.20 and be among the league leaders in ERA. Could you post a link?You make predictions in generalities, so I'm not sure why you would require specifics of someone else. Arroyo also exceeded my expectations, as he did for most of those who were in favor of the trade. Pretty cool, huh? But if I recall, you had a pretty high degree of certainty that Arroyo would be more likely to do worse than last year, yet the one who made the decision obviously had a different set of assumptions that led him to believe this player was more likely to improve over last year. So things are not always cut and dried, no matter how vigorously one can defend their position.

registerthis
10-19-2006, 01:32 PM
But if I recall, you had a pretty high degree of certainty that Arroyo would be more likely to do worse than last year, yet the one who made the decision obviously had a different set of assumptions that led him to believe this player was more likely to improve over last year.

There is a substantial difference between a trade made in March and one made in July.

Johnny Footstool
10-19-2006, 01:48 PM
You make predictions in generalities, so I'm not sure why you would require specifics of someone else. Arroyo also exceeded my expectations, as he did for most of those who were in favor of the trade. Pretty cool, huh? But if I recall, you had a pretty high degree of certainty that Arroyo would be more likely to do worse than last year, yet the one who made the decision obviously had a different set of assumptions that led him to believe this player was more likely to improve over last year. So things are not always cut and dried, no matter how vigorously one can defend their position.

This is an amusing little red herring.

Some of my specifics included pointing out how he was a flyball pitcher (slight, but he still allowed 31 HR in 2006) and how his K/9 had declined for three seasons to a dangerously low rate in 2005 (pretty general, I know). Those look like legitimate things to be worried about, wouldn't you say? He proved me wrong.

Still waiting for your specifics.

traderumor
10-19-2006, 02:12 PM
This is an amusing little red herring.

Some of my specifics included pointing out how he was a flyball pitcher (slight, but he still allowed 31 HR in 2006) and how his K/9 had declined for three seasons to a dangerously low rate in 2005 (pretty general, I know). Those look like legitimate things to be worried about, wouldn't you say? He proved me wrong.

Still waiting for your specifics.Hmmm, where's the red herring? What you stated above did not predict the number of homeruns or provide a K/9 rate, yet you want me to show you where I predicted his exact WHIP, or where he would place among league leaders in some area. Come on, JF, just sounds like you want to have the last word. Fine, you had it.

traderumor
10-19-2006, 02:16 PM
There is a substantial difference between a trade made in March and one made in July.With respect to making assumptions that attempt to predict how players will perform as a part of assigning value in a trade? That is the point of analogy, and I think it needs to be done no matter what time of year the deal is taking place.

registerthis
10-19-2006, 02:30 PM
With respect to making assumptions that attempt to predict how players will perform as a part of assigning value in a trade?

As I believe that the kearns/Lopez deal was an I-must-do-something deal done more out of desperation than because of any in-depth analysis as to the long term value of the players being received, yes. I think the timing played a large role in the analysis of the value of the return, which is one of my biggest problems with it.

traderumor
10-19-2006, 02:55 PM
As I believe that the kearns/Lopez deal was an I-must-do-something deal done more out of desperation than because of any in-depth analysis as to the long term value of the players being received, yes. I think the timing played a large role in the analysis of the value of the return, which is one of my biggest problems with it.That gets back to the integrity of a decision maker, and motivations and all of that. I think he got burnt by a worst case scenario with those two pitchers moreso than attributing bad results to a panicked executive. I mean, you could be right, but there is a lot of contrary evidence to that line of reasoning. Krivsky has not given off panic signals other than the one's being created by pundits.

registerthis
10-19-2006, 03:11 PM
That gets back to the integrity of a decision maker, and motivations and all of that. I think he got burnt by a worst case scenario with those two pitchers moreso than attributing bad results to a panicked executive. I mean, you could be right, but there is a lot of contrary evidence to that line of reasoning. Krivsky has not given off panic signals other than the one's being created by pundits.

I think the throw-anything-out-there-and-see-what-sticks mentality adopted towards the end of the season was more panic and less thoughtful. But perhaps the Kearns/Lopez deal was an aberration. I certainly hope so...and while many of Krivsky's moves had a negligible effect on the team's fortunes, they werent irreparably damaging either. We'll see, I suppose.

Johnny Footstool
10-19-2006, 03:53 PM
Come on, JF, just sounds like you want to have the last word. Fine, you had it.

Trying to channel Bill O'Reilly?

SteelSD
10-19-2006, 06:58 PM
That gets back to the integrity of a decision maker, and motivations and all of that. I think he got burnt by a worst case scenario with those two pitchers moreso than attributing bad results to a panicked executive. I mean, you could be right, but there is a lot of contrary evidence to that line of reasoning. Krivsky has not given off panic signals other than the one's being created by pundits.

tr, if those two pitchers arrived and produced a combined 60 to 80 Innings at a 3.00 ERA, they wouldn't have come close to getting back the Run value lost by the trade itself.

When a best case scenario for a trade actually projects an almost 100% certainty of run value loss, that's a huge problem. Krivsky didn't just get burned by the worst case scenario. He got burned because the trade was first, and above all else, poorly conceived. Was it a panic move? I dunno, but if it wasn't there's really only one other alternative answer and it's not a good one.

GAC
10-20-2006, 07:38 AM
Cyclone showed how the trade hurt both the offense AND the bullpen.

That's true Johnny. And Cyclone did a darn good job. But didn't he also say, in his response, that it would have probably translated into 4-5 more wins? Maybe I'm wrong (and I can't find the thread), but I thought that was part of his conclusion.

If that is/was true.... then that is not a huge boost (or disparity) in this offense.

We go from a slightly below .500 team, to a slightly above .500 team. Improvement? Yes. But very slight.

Johnny Footstool
10-20-2006, 10:32 AM
That's true Johnny. And Cyclone did a darn good job. But didn't he also say, in his response, that it would have probably translated into 4-5 more wins? Maybe I'm wrong (and I can't find the thread), but I thought that was part of his conclusion.

If that is/was true.... then that is not a huge boost (or disparity) in this offense.

We go from a slightly below .500 team, to a slightly above .500 team. Improvement? Yes. But very slight.

4-5 wins in half a season is a big swing. It would have taken the Reds from 80-82 to 84-78. The Cardinals won the division with a record of 83-78.

SteelSD
10-20-2006, 10:37 AM
That's true Johnny. And Cyclone did a darn good job. But didn't he also say, in his response, that it would have probably translated into 4-5 more wins? Maybe I'm wrong (and I can't find the thread), but I thought that was part of his conclusion.

If that is/was true.... then that is not a huge boost (or disparity) in this offense.

We go from a slightly below .500 team, to a slightly above .500 team. Improvement? Yes. But very slight.

If 4-5 Wins is the number, it's almost unfathomable to lose that many over 73 games as the result of a single trade. That projects out to a Run Diff hit of about 100 Runs (or more) over a full season. That's the exact opposite of "very slight".

registerthis
10-20-2006, 12:54 PM
If 4-5 Wins is the number, it's almost unfathomable to lose that many over 73 games as the result of a single trade. That projects out to a Run Diff hit of about 100 Runs (or more) over a full season. That's the exact opposite of "very slight".

I'd also like to add that 4 wins would have had us in the playoffs this year.