PDA

View Full Version : Alex Gonzalez to the Reds



Pages : 1 [2]

Chip R
11-18-2006, 09:04 PM
I hate to be pessimistic but if Freel doesn't start, I'll bet our newest acquisition hits leadoff.

Falls City Beer
11-18-2006, 09:08 PM
I hate to be pessimistic but if Freel doesn't start, I'll bet our newest acquisition hits leadoff.

Jerry's so infinitely stupid, the leadoff spot will go to the fastest member of the team. I'm assuming Phillips.

Falls City Beer
11-18-2006, 09:09 PM
EE and Phillips? Maybe you can be wrong about Hatteberg two years running?

EE is the only plus offensive player on the infield.

Chip R
11-18-2006, 09:14 PM
Jerry's so infinitely stupid, the leadoff spot will go to the fastest member of the team. I'm assuming Phillips.

I'll bet you a 12 pack of your favorite beer that Gonzo bats leadoff at least 5 times next season. Phillips is the fastest but he doesn't have that veteranly goodness that Gonzo posseses.

Aronchis
11-18-2006, 09:15 PM
Narron had Deno batting leadoff at the end of the year consistantly. That isn't a issue and even Gary Jerry Narron couldn't mess that up.............;)

blumj
11-18-2006, 09:16 PM
Jerry's so infinitely stupid, the leadoff spot will go to the fastest member of the team. I'm assuming Phillips.
That might be a good thing, because Gonzo's pretty slow, so he shouldn't be at all tempted to put him anywhere near the top of the lineup.

vaticanplum
11-18-2006, 11:01 PM
Originally Posted by Clears Cleaver
AGon is a solid player, but I hated his approach at the plate and his demeanor. The guy never looked happy on the field

I'm guessing that Clears Cleaver would not be a fan of the sauntering Adam Dunn.

Falls City Beer
11-18-2006, 11:40 PM
That might be a good thing, because Gonzo's pretty slow, so he shouldn't be at all tempted to put him anywhere near the top of the lineup.

It is good in the sense that Phillips would be a better option than Gonzo. But Freel's an even better option, provided he's healthy.

M2
11-18-2006, 11:43 PM
One other historical perspective to toss into the arena here: If the Cincinnati Reds franchise has any one outstanding trait, dating back to the 1800s in fact, it's defense. From Bid McPhee to Edd Roush to Billy Werber to Roy McMillan to Vada Pinson to Cesar Geronimo to Eric Davis to Pokey Reese, the Reds were, until the 21st century, built on a foundation of defense. You only have to go back to 1999 to find a spectacular defensive Reds team.

So a pure glove man at SS certainly harkens back to players like McMillan and Eddie Miller.

To echo what others are saying, putting Gonzalez, Phillips and Denorfia up the middle certainly would give the club a much better defense than what we've seen of late. Now the key is maximizing the offense on the corners. Scott Hatteberg's suddenly become a square peg. I happen to think Aubrey Huff could be a steal this offseason. I don't worry about the left-handed tilt. Eight decades of Yankee dominance have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that there's no such thing as being overly left-handed at the plate. What you don't see is too many overly right-handed teams going anywhere.

I'd also like to see the Reds get off the Jr. treadmill. Productive fragility can work for a big market club, but it can cripple a small market team to be without a key contributor for at least a quarter of every season. I'd love to know what the Devil Rays want for Elijah Dukes. Jason Kubel over in Minnesota is another kid who'd be a nice pluck.

gm
11-19-2006, 12:43 AM
Clears Cleaver
AGon is a solid player, but I hated his approach at the plate and his demeanor. The guy never looked happy on the field.

Felo and Clayton were pretty stone-faced, as well. OTOH, Phillips has enough smiles for two MiF's

cincyinco
11-19-2006, 12:54 AM
Ignore offense at your peril.

On a side note, though, I don't think Wayne Krivsky's shown any kind of ability to emulate the Ryan-constructed Twins in Cincinnati so far. Krivsky has virtually no eye for pitching, as the lion's share of his trades for pitching have been total disasters and his draft of pitchers was one of the worst in recent memory.
Strangely, what Krivsky's shown he CAN do is find offense.

Where on earth are you getting this from FCB ?

He did pretty well piciking up Arroyo, when most on here were saying it would be a disaster.

I also think you need to take a better look and re-evaluate some of the arms taken in this years draft... I think there's some big protypical pitching bodies and arms taken in the draft, a lot at the college level - and the HS one's seem very projectable.

Watson seems like he could move quick, and has good stuff. Ravin looks great from all accounts.. Jordan Smith had a solid debut. Lutz looks like a very good draft and follow.

I see a lot of knee jerk reaction to krivsky's moves. Defense, seemingly, is rarely considered around these parts. Well, consider the following:

"The Reds had a .979 fielding percentage and committed 128 errors in 2006 -- second-worst in the NL behind the Nationals in both categories."

Defense is defenitely a problem for the Reds. Granted, there are other issues with this team - but lets take it one step at a time. Gonzalez will bring strong D up the middle, at the most important defensive position on the diamond - and keeps Brandon Phillips at 2b. I dont think the money is a big issue.

westofyou
11-19-2006, 01:06 AM
He did pretty well piciking up Arroyo, when most on here were saying it would be a disaster. You mean the player who led the team in Win Shares?

Making him the first Reds starter in 13 years to do the feat.

Pretty good deal for a guy with no eye for pitching.

M2
11-19-2006, 01:28 AM
The thing I think folks can come away liking from this signing is that the team needs defensive improvement and this directly addresses that. The problem a lot of us had with the Lopez/Kearns deal was that it didn't address the pitching and defense like it was supposed to, all it really did was subtract offense.

If Krivsky addresses everything else on the team's checklist of things to do in the same direct fashion, then I'll be pretty pleased. Of course we don't know what Wayne's checklist actually is. Hopefully throwing money at a "proven closer" isn't on there.

mbgrayson
11-19-2006, 03:01 AM
Alex Gonzalez stats from the Hardball Times: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/stats/players/index.php?playerId=520&firstName=Alex&lastName=Gonzalez

Alex Gonzalez SS - Boston Red Sox

Bats:RThrows:RBorn:2/15/1977Salary:$3,000,000
Career Stats (http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?search=Alex%20Gonzalez) |Player Graphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=520&position=SS&page=0&type=full)

Win Shares

Year Tm Batting Fielding Total
2004 FLA 7.40 7.5 15
2005 FLA 6.90 6.2 13
2006 BOS 3.00 5.9 9


Fielding
From The Fielding Bible, published in February 2006 by John Dewan:
"Gonzalez is an underrated defender. His range and athleticism are top notch, he has a powerful arm and can make throws from deep in the hole and from his knees. He is excellent on the double play. Over the past few years, he and Luis Castillo have formed one of the best double play tandems in baseball"

Caveat Emperor
11-19-2006, 04:10 AM
Glove man at a glove position... the horror.... the horror.

The game swings back and forth.

BTW: he can hit crappy pitching, he's .294/.324.449 in 136 ab's against the Reds in his career.

Which begs the rhetorical question -- is SS really a "glove" position on a team where 2 of the 3 "penciled in" starters for next year skew more to being fly-ball pitchers?

I'm really ambivalent towards this deal. I recognize the importance of good defense up the middle, but I the idea of playing a guy who makes an out in over 70% of his PAs gives me unpleasent feelings.

Wheelhouse
11-19-2006, 04:46 AM
My point is that every time a player is mentioned, OPS is immediately utilized to quantify whether the player is worth it, or simply fodder.

I'm not disagreeing that OPS isn't a "quick reference" to give a basic feel about a player. Only that when evaluating a player, looking at OB% and SLG% only is not giving a complete picture when evaluating a player and/or what they might contribute.

What about defense? If this guy can bring a solid upgrade, at a reasonable price, to this middle INF, is that of any value and/or should be considered?

Concepcion played 19 season with a sub-700 OPS. ;)

How many games did our defense lose for us last year? Would Gonzalez possibly help to improve on that?

And what other viable alternatives are out there and available right now as far as SS/2B?

Good courage GAC. We can only hope that you would not be attacked if you didn't put a smiley next to the Concepcion sentencen about OPS, but I'm not sure that would soften the Maoist wrath of those who bring their sliderules to the ballpark. The answer is, OPS can describe, at most, 1/3 of a players value--another 1/3 being defense, and the other 1/3 being intangibles. But, of course, anything being intangible in the game is an enormous threat to those who think the game is wholly definable in numbers.

GAC
11-19-2006, 05:33 AM
I like the signing. It fills a dire need on this team - solid middle INF defense.

To those that hate this signing I simply ask....

"What else, as far as SSs was out there and available? Are you saying you would have passed? What then was your solution for the Red's middle INF in '07?"

Signing Gonzo does not financially strap this organization. Or is it going to prevent them from still dealing in the market and/or making a trade for other pressing needs (pitcher, run producer).

The market itself COULD prevent that. ;)

But again... IMHO, they filled a dire need on this team.

Now if we can just get them to put Deno in CFer (since he is our ONLY alternative at this point), we'd really go along way to improving this defense.

Kriv's next step though HAS to be addressing either issue of runs allowed and/or runs produced.

GAC
11-19-2006, 05:48 AM
Which begs the rhetorical question -- is SS really a "glove" position on a team where 2 of the 3 "penciled in" starters for next year skew more to being fly-ball pitchers?

I'm really ambivalent towards this deal. I recognize the importance of good defense up the middle, but I the idea of playing a guy who makes an out in over 70% of his PAs gives me unpleasent feelings.

When the Dam has alot of holes, you plug one at a time IMO. ;)

Ravenlord
11-19-2006, 06:01 AM
this should knock down the runs against by a couple dozen. Gonzalez hits a lot more flyballs than groundballs, so that bodes well for him as well.

i'm projecting him out to a 730ish OPS, and thusly around 75 runs created for 600 PAs. FWIW, that's about 15 runs more than Clayton can reasonably be expected for, and about 30 runs more than Castro can be reasonably expected for.

all in all a nice net gain as long as Krivsky doesn't make this his cornerstone.

GAC
11-19-2006, 06:04 AM
Krivsky won't be GM long with these types of moves. Overpaying marginal players isn't cutting it.

Marginal how?

The Question we need to ask ourselves is WHY or what role/dire need is Gonzo here to fill?

Offense? No.

Defense? Yes. Where he is not marginal.

Most who like this signing also agree and understand that MORE needs to be done, and other issues MUST be addressed.

But this signing addresses one of them.

I would love to have had a SS that filled both needs - solid bat and stellar defense. But where is that player available at? And the cost for such a player would probably hamstring the Reds financially from addressing other needs in this off-season.

This signing IMO doesn't do that.

RANDY IN INDY
11-19-2006, 07:53 AM
:beerme:

lollipopcurve
11-19-2006, 08:07 AM
You have to like the fact they acted quickly to lock up a player that had other teams interested. They closed the deal very early in free agency. On to the next thing.

A word about Gonzo's demeanor. I saw him play quite a bit up here in Massachusetts last year, and he is not the type of guy whose forehead is bursting veins just because he has a uniform on. He appears impassive, rarely changing expression, like EdE. I hope Reds fans and the high and mighty media voices surrounding the team don't assume this means Gonzo is incapable of "playing the game the right way."

membengal
11-19-2006, 08:08 AM
One gets the impression that the Reds could sign a bag of compost and there would be a number on this board who would immediately defend it.

RFS62
11-19-2006, 08:15 AM
One gets the impression that the Reds could sign a bag of compost and there would be a number on this board who would immediately defend it.


And likewise, a number on this board would hammer it unmercifully, even if it were the best bag of compost in the world.

Then there are those who would search out thoughtful analysis and listen to it before jumping off a cliff.

guttle11
11-19-2006, 08:17 AM
Good signing. The money's not that big of a deal. If Juan Pierre is getting offers for $10 mil a year, the money we're paying AGon is pretty well spent.

If he can lock down the SS defense, he's worth it. Any offense is just a bonus.

GAC
11-19-2006, 08:19 AM
And likewise, a number on this board would hammer it unmercifully, even if it were the best bag of compost in the world.

Then there are those who would search out thoughtful analysis and listen to it before jumping off a cliff.

:thumbup:

redsmetz
11-19-2006, 08:24 AM
One gets the impression that the Reds could sign a bag of compost and there would be a number on this board who would immediately defend it.

When you're gardening, compost is very helpful, an essential part of a multi-layered approach to producing the fullest bounty from your garden. My guess is you're confusing compost with manure, but then again, manure can have its job in gardening too.

Perhaps another analogy?

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 09:00 AM
Then there are those who would search out thoughtful analysis and listen to it before jumping off a cliff.

I see this on this thread more than overt hammering or slavish praise. I have no idea why this needs to get personal. I think the ideas in this thread have been well- and diplomatically-stated.

Boss-Hog
11-19-2006, 09:16 AM
Let's keep this thread on topic, please.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 09:21 AM
Where on earth are you getting this from FCB ?

He did pretty well piciking up Arroyo, when most on here were saying it would be a disaster.

I also think you need to take a better look and re-evaluate some of the arms taken in this years draft... I think there's some big protypical pitching bodies and arms taken in the draft, a lot at the college level - and the HS one's seem very projectable.

Watson seems like he could move quick, and has good stuff. Ravin looks great from all accounts.. Jordan Smith had a solid debut. Lutz looks like a very good draft and follow.
.

I acknowledged the Arroyo pickup--I was one of a small confederacy of posters who really liked that deal.

And I've looked at the pitching he drafted--I'm not excited by any of it. Looks like a bunch of middle relief candidates at best.

And I don't need to even talk about all the garbage he threw against the wall to try to shore up the bullpen last season.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 09:47 AM
Here's the first murmur of moaning about money from the Krivsky/Castellini junta. Let's hope this doesn't become a habit.

(Though to be fair, Krivsky seemed to hide his consternation well between his clenched teeth).


Big spenders driving market
Reds insider: GM Krivsky won't share plans for revamping Reds just yet
BY JOHN FAY | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

If Wayne Krivsky left the general managers meetings with a severe case of sticker shock, he isn't letting on.

"I can't say I'm surprised," Krivsky said.

Surprised by the kind of money that's being tossed around, that is.
ADVERTISEMENT

"It's always difficult to put together a team that wins on a year-to-year basis; that's what we're trying to do," Krivsky said.

But based on the early free-agent signings, the cost of putting together a team is getting steeper at an alarming rate. To wit:

The Chicago Cubs re-signed Aramis Ramirez to a five-year, $75 million deal. The New York Mets re-upped Orlando Hernandez to a two-year, $12 million deal. Frank Thomas got $18 million for two years from the Toronto Blue Jays.

And, of course, the Boston Red Sox spent $51.1 million to obtain the rights to Japanese pitcher

Daisuke Matsuzaka.

Fiscal responsibility and the above cash splashes don't exactly go together.

The Reds' payroll is sure to go up - the guess here is into the $75 million range. That should give Krivsky some money to spend.

But when a middle reliever with a career 3.95 ERA like Jamie Walker gets $12 million over three years from Baltimore, the Reds aren't going to be able to spend their way into contention.

"Every team has their set of parameters," Krivsky said. "What other teams do doesn't affect that."

True, Baltimore spending a lot of money on Walker doesn't change what the Reds have to spend. But it will drive up the market.

Last year when the Cubs gave Bob Howry a three-year, $12 million deal and Scott Eyre a three-year, $11 million deal, it forced the Reds to move down a place or two on the free-agent reliever food chain. That's how they ended up with Chris Hammond as their top setup man.

Krivsky is too good a judge of talent to end up with Hammond in his bullpen.

But it's impossible to say what Krivsky's plans are. He won't share whom he's talking to - much less what he has to spend.

The rumor out there is the Reds are making a run at shortstop Alex Gonzalez, and some reports have the club agreeing to a three-year, $14 million deal for the career .246 hitter better known for his defense. Krivsky would neither confirm nor deny the Gonzalez talk.

Krivsky is quick to point out that free agency is only one route to revamp the club.

"There are a lot of factors at work - trades, signings," he said. "We'll do whatever it takes to make the club better."

The general managers meetings just ended. Deals that are finished at the Dec. 4-7 Winter Meetings typically get started there.

"We talked to a lot of teams," Krivsky said. "You see where you might match up. We're not going to have a fit for all 29 other teams."

Matt700wlw
11-19-2006, 09:52 AM
The market is nuts.....it's going to get worse year by year by year.

Baseball needs to do something about this, which won't happen.

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 10:04 AM
You mean the player who led the team in Win Shares?

Making him the first Reds starter in 13 years to do the feat.

Pretty good deal for a guy with no eye for pitching.

Wins: Arroyo

Ties: Guardado (until surgery)

Losses: Franklin, Lohse, Yan, Cormier, etc etc etc

Kc61
11-19-2006, 10:13 AM
Wins: Arroyo

Ties: Guardado (until surgery)

Losses: Franklin, Lohse, Yan, Cormier, etc etc etc

Sorry if I don't agree with this list.

Guardado -- in exchange for nothing -- was a tie (until surgery)? A tie?

Shoenweis. Oddly not mentioned in the list.

Arroyo, Shoenweis, Guardado. No eye for pitching?

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 10:15 AM
Guardado -- in exchange for nothing -- was a tie?

How about Schoenweis? Strangely missing from the list.

Dude. He threw 14 innings! And Krivsky knew he was hurt. I'd say a "tie" is generous.

Kc61
11-19-2006, 10:19 AM
Dude. He threw 14 innings! And Krivsky knew he was hurt. I'd say a "tie" is generous.

Hurt or not, he was the best closer the Reds have had in years. Saved 8 of 10 games, had very low ERA in 16 outings. Sorry, but Mariano Rivera and Rollie Fingers were not available last mid-season.

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 10:24 AM
Marginal how?

The Question we need to ask ourselves is WHY or what role/dire need is Gonzo here to fill?

Offense? No.

Defense? Yes. Where he is not marginal.

Most who like this signing also agree and understand that MORE needs to be done, and other issues MUST be addressed.

But this signing addresses one of them.

I would love to have had a SS that filled both needs - solid bat and stellar defense. But where is that player available at? And the cost for such a player would probably hamstring the Reds financially from addressing other needs in this off-season.

This signing IMO doesn't do that.

MY opinion will change if they go and get some serious help in the way of pitching and hitting. And the kind of help that wins you championships, not stopgaps. If they have the resources to go and get some good pitching, then this signing will look a lot better. But I am just not believing yet that this will take place.

If this doesn't happen, then this signing will look a lot worse. AGon is a perfect fit for a team like Boston, who has Manny, Ortiz, Schilling, etc etc. He is a nice player when you need to just plug a hole with a guy who won't hurt you. This team, at this point, needs more help than non-hurt. If there a LARGE moves coming down the pike, then this will look a lot better for me. If therer are more guys who "know how to win", then this is just flushing $$$ down the toilet.

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 10:26 AM
Hurt or not, he was the best closer the Reds have had in years. Saved 8 of 10 games, had very low ERA in 16 outings. Sorry, but Mariano Rivera and Rollie Fingers were not available last mid-season.

Give me a break. If there were whispers about Mariano having a hurt elbow and WK got him for nothing, he saved 8 out of 10 games and then had TJ surgery, you would call this anything more than a tie?

paulrichjr
11-19-2006, 10:33 AM
I have disagreed with virtually 100% of the things that Krivs has done besides the Phillips deal and the EddieG deal. (I was wrong on the Arroyo deal and admit it) I have not been happy at all with WayneK but I like this deal. I think in this market it was reasonable and I am tired of poor defense leading to worse pitching than we already have. WayneK has a long way to go to impress me but so far this offseason he gets a B in my book. (The semester is far from over though so he still has time to get an F)

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 10:34 AM
Sorry if I don't agree with this list.

Guardado -- in exchange for nothing -- was a tie (until surgery)? A tie?

Shoenweis. Oddly not mentioned in the list.

Arroyo, Shoenweis, Guardado. No eye for pitching?

Forgot about Schoenweis. You can mark him down for a win, though 14 1/3 innings isn't really something that would make me jump for joy. But look at all the losses....look at them. If you don't agree with my assessment, how many wins did he get and how many pitchers did he acquire? It wasn't like he got 3 good pitchers and only acquired 5.
Oh, forgo about Mays, Gosling, the Wash debacle, J Johnson.

And Guardado wasn't exactly for nothing. Chick did have some potential.

Krusty
11-19-2006, 11:05 AM
If I'm Krivisky, I look at the B-type players. Players like OFs Frank Cattanatolo, David Delucci or even Trot Nixon might be easily affordable and give the Reds decent offensive production either in RF or off the bench.

People might say I'm crazy but signing RHP Eric Gagne to a one year deal (loaded with incentives) and an option for 2008 might be worth the risk.

Starting pitchers? Pitchers like RHP Adam Eaton, RHP Jason Marquis and LHP Randy Wolf will have something to prove since coming off injuries or a sub-par season and they might be worth the risk. Look at their careers and not just the 2006 season.

There are bargains out there. It is a matter of how much Krivisky wants to pay.

PuffyPig
11-19-2006, 11:18 AM
Hurt or not, he was the best closer the Reds have had in years. Saved 8 of 10 games, had very low ERA in 16 outings.

I liked the Guardado signing.

But saving 8 out of 10 games is actually less than what Graves was doing for us, even during the "dark years".

BTW, both of Guardado's blown saves were the result of unearned runs.

buckeyenut
11-19-2006, 11:30 AM
Here's the first murmur of moaning about money from the Krivsky/Castellini junta. Let's hope this doesn't become a habit.

(Though to be fair, Krivsky seemed to hide his consternation well between his clenched teeth).

Also to be fair, these are Krivsky's quotes from the article. There is NOTHING here that to me sounds like complaining about money. The author is taking a common theme this offseason across baseball and spinning some Krivsky quotes into it. Not to say he might not have money issues, but we don't know whether this $$ concern is coming from Special K or the author based on the quotes.

"I can't say I'm surprised," Krivsky said.

"It's always difficult to put together a team that wins on a year-to-year basis; that's what we're trying to do," Krivsky said.

"Every team has their set of parameters," Krivsky said. "What other teams do doesn't affect that."

"There are a lot of factors at work - trades, signings," he said. "We'll do whatever it takes to make the club better."

"We talked to a lot of teams," Krivsky said. "You see where you might match up. We're not going to have a fit for all 29 other teams."

westofyou
11-19-2006, 11:35 AM
Here's the first murmur of moaning about money from the Krivsky/Castellini junta. Let's hope this doesn't become a habit.

Shoot, Brian Cashman was moaning about it in todays Times too.

The market is fraught with this stuff, and it's well aimed... because it's tough to build a baseball team and even tougher when you have to spend to get there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/sports/baseball/19yankees.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


“The method to the madness is, the more players you can develop, the more you can keep from being desperate on the free-agent market,” Cashman said. “You don’t want to be desperate on the free-agent market, because you end up paying dearly.

“You almost never get fair value on a free agent, so you try to put yourself in a position where you don’t have to go shopping in the free-agent market.”

Matt700wlw
11-19-2006, 11:35 AM
People might say I'm crazy but signing RHP Eric Gagne to a one year deal (loaded with incentives) and an option for 2008 might be worth the risk.



That's a gamble I'd be willing to take.

If he doesn't work out...you don't have to pay him a ton (because he won't reach his incentives)....if he returns to form, you have the biggest steal in Free Agency.

vaticanplum
11-19-2006, 01:12 PM
This is finally "almost" official on reds.com (I don't know what they were waiting for):

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061119&content_id=1743296&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

Krivsky: "I have nothing to announce," Krivsky said. "When we do, we'll announce it. It's the same thing I've told everyone else."

No matter how one may feel about Wayne Krivsky as a GM, something tells me he'd be a kick to have dinner with. "Ooh Wayne, doesn't the lobster look good?" "I have nothing more to say. I told you I wanted steak. Stop asking me questions, dammit!!"

He is a very straightforward speaker. I like that in my humans.

M2
11-19-2006, 01:59 PM
The answer is, OPS can describe, at most, 1/3 of a players value--another 1/3 being defense, and the other 1/3 being intangibles.

Bah, intangibles are at least 2/5 and probably closer to 5/9, though I'll now have to confess the sin of having attributed a contraction to the Holy Intangible. Also defense is FAR more important than offense and no one has ever found anything to the contrary on that.

pedro
11-19-2006, 02:44 PM
Good courage GAC. We can only hope that you would not be attacked if you didn't put a smiley next to the Concepcion sentencen about OPS, but I'm not sure that would soften the Maoist wrath of those who bring their sliderules to the ballpark. The answer is, OPS can describe, at most, 1/3 of a players value--another 1/3 being defense, and the other 1/3 being intangibles. But, of course, anything being intangible in the game is an enormous threat to those who think the game is wholly definable in numbers.


[evil voice]
Yes grasshopper, my evil plan to get men on base and drive up the oppossing teams pitch count will soon come to fruition. Then we can dispose of those who worship batting average and scrappiness once and for all..

[/evil voice]

http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/tm/images/mao.jpg

RedsManRick
11-19-2006, 03:09 PM
The market is nuts.....it's going to get worse year by year by year.

Baseball needs to do something about this, which won't happen.

I'm curious about this statement. The fact is that the owners aren't going to act in ways that lose them money. They are seeing both operational and valuation profit. It's only natural that in a system absolutely flush with cash, that it would filter down to the players.

As for the cost to attend a game, which is often cited as the reason why high salaries are bad, ticket, parking, and food prices are almost completely a function of demand, not a reaction to player salaries.

Everybody has to pay these inflated salaries and as the Twins, A's, and Marlins have shown is that the FA Market is only one way to build a team. If you can't afford to play in that market with the big boys, corner a different market -- be it player development, superior drafting, or simply finding those inefficiencies you can exploit.

Even if a league where everybody has the exact same resources (NFL), there are teams who are usually good and teams who are usually bad. Sure, money helps -- but at the end of the day, it's ownership and management.

bigredmachine1976
11-19-2006, 08:38 PM
Shouldn't that be:

<evil voice>

Yes grasshopper, my evil plan to get men on base and drive up the oppossing teams pitch count will soon come to fruition. Then we can dispose of those who worship batting average and scrappiness once and for all..

</evil voice>

I'm pretty sure with the HTML you used you'll just get a regular voice not an evil one.

pedro
11-19-2006, 08:43 PM
Shouldn't that be:

<evil voice>

Yes grasshopper, my evil plan to get men on base and drive up the oppossing teams pitch count will soon come to fruition. Then we can dispose of those who worship batting average and scrappiness once and for all..

</evil voice>

I'm pretty sure with the HTML you used you'll just get a regular voice not an evil one.

My bad.

Now I will be forced to cut you to the quick with my trusty slide rule.

Insolent fool. ;)

WMR
11-19-2006, 09:14 PM
[evil voice]
Yes grasshopper, my evil plan to get men on base and drive up the oppossing teams pitch count will soon come to fruition. Then we can dispose of those who worship batting average and scrappiness once and for all..

[/evil voice]

http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/tm/images/mao.jpg

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/Kim%20Jong%20Il%20Team%20America%20publicity%20sho t.jpg

EKURed
11-20-2006, 08:33 AM
I liked the Guardado signing.

But saving 8 out of 10 games is actually less than what Graves was doing for us, even during the "dark years".

BTW, both of Guardado's blown saves were the result of unearned runs.


And a result of an arm that was shot.

TRF
11-20-2006, 09:28 AM
You mean the player who led the team in Win Shares?

Making him the first Reds starter in 13 years to do the feat.

Pretty good deal for a guy with no eye for pitching.

He also signed:

Joe freaking Mays.

Lohse

Yan

Majewski

Ryan Franklin.


Yup... great eye. blind squirrel, etc. etc.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 09:32 AM
This line from the article was heee-larious:


Krivsky is too good a judge of talent to end up with Hammond in his bullpen.

I submit edabbs44's list as evidence to the contrary.

westofyou
11-20-2006, 09:34 AM
He also signed:

Joe freaking Mays.

Lohse

Yan

Majewski

Ryan Franklin.


Yup... great eye. blind squirrel, etc. etc.

Yeah, degrade the big pick with little ones... been down that road before, all those AA pitchers ect, ect....

redsmetz
11-20-2006, 09:51 AM
This is finally "almost" official on reds.com (I don't know what they were waiting for):

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061119&content_id=1743296&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

Krivsky: "I have nothing to announce," Krivsky said. "When we do, we'll announce it. It's the same thing I've told everyone else."

No matter how one may feel about Wayne Krivsky as a GM, something tells me he'd be a kick to have dinner with. "Ooh Wayne, doesn't the lobster look good?" "I have nothing more to say. I told you I wanted steak. Stop asking me questions, dammit!!"

He is a very straightforward speaker. I like that in my humans.

And it's a marked contrast between the yackiness of Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien. Bowden liked to talk about nearly everything he was doing. I know I'm probably seen as a Krivsky apologist, but I like this guy's method. He knows we're all chomping at the bit for some action. He also knows it's a long off-season. The same is true of development within the organization. We're all anxious for young players to get here and to get here now (if not sooner!). And yet, he seems to hold value in players progressing in incremental steps. Move up, suceed there, move up again etc. I think in the long run, this team will be the better for it.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 09:57 AM
Yeah, degrade the big pick with little ones... been down that road before, all those AA pitchers ect, ect....

It's amazing. I've never seen anything like the vultures out for Krivsky at this point. He inherited one of the worst pitching staffs I've ever seen and had VERY little value to try and trade to make it better.

Do you guys really think he had envisions of Joe Mays or Esteban Yan turning into all stars? No, but they were the only options and there was no reason to risk it.

Would I have went for Mays? No, but it was in his comfort level and it failed. What dare I say did we lose for the future? Nobody expected us to compete last year anyway.

M2
11-20-2006, 10:28 AM
I think that Nats trade freaked out a lot of people. It was a thoroughly awful deal from the get go. It wasn't good in theory, it didn't work in practice and it's put the team two steps back heading into the offseason (where there'd be a burgeoning market for guys like Lopez and Kearns).

IMO that put a taint on Krivsky's other spastic, but harmless attempts to mine some player talent to keep the team in the hunt. Without the Nats trade, guys like Mays and Yan would be largely forgotten. Now they're emblematic of a deep seated problem to some folks.

I still take comfort in the fact that Krivsky did more good in his first two months than DanO did in two years. He's certainly aggressive and active, which is good because he's got a lot to do. I like the Gonzalez signing (though I'm queasy about the third year) because it directly addresses something that desperately needed to be addressed. Gonzalez wouldn't have been my first choice, but I'm not going to fault Krivsky for getting a primo glove man when what he needed was a primo glove man.

I understand it offers no comfort to those who have been (justifiably) worried about the offense, but it's possible Krivsky choked during his first in-season test as a GM and that he'll get back to making the Reds a better-rounded ballclub (and that includes offense) during the offseason.

TRF
11-20-2006, 10:45 AM
Yeah, degrade the big pick with little ones... been down that road before, all those AA pitchers ect, ect....

yeah you can also ignore all the empirical evidence you want too.

Arroyo was a great acquisition to the reds. I grudgingly admit that. It was a gamble for both teams as Arroyo had exactly one good season and one "meh" season as a starter. WMP had about the same, probably even less experience though. the results were great for the reds, not so much for the sox.

Had Krivsky stopped in April He'd have looked like a genius.

But the list of ABYSMAL pitchers he acquired after that is too much even for you to ignore. And yes I have no doubt Calvin Medlock, David Shafar, Brad Salmon, Tom Shearn and even Tyler Pelland could have done as well as the total DRECK that Krivsky brought in.

Nearly every move he made after April hurt the reds. Schoenweiss and MAYBE Guardado bein the exceptions. He is overly fascinated with aging veterans with questionable skills. And those skills were questionable when they were in their prime! How long was Q on the 25 man roster?

So let's see.

He has no eye WHATSOEVER for finding decent reliefe pitching.
He has no eye WHATSOEVER for finding decent bench players.
And of the 4 pitchers he acquired for the rotation, one was OUTSTANDING, and three flat out sucked.

but hey pithy one liners make me change my mind all the time. Instead of, you know actually looking at the big picture. I have learned more about baseball from you, it's history and trends than any other poster. But you have an air about you that can be rather off-putting at times.

According to you, there was no way the guys in AA or AAA could have performed as well as the total crap that Krivsky brought to the pen, because the Reds talent evaluators didn't think they could. That's the flaw in your argument. Those same talent evaluators helped Krivsky form the opinion that Joe Freaking Mays could salvage his career after KC threw him away. And Franklin and Yan and Kim and Lohse and Majewski....

and now lookee what he signs. Mike Stanton. 39 year old Mike Stanton to a two year deal with an option for a third year. There are at least 3 guys (Medlock, Shearn and Salmon) that I'd rather see get a shot at the bullpen. Especially Medlock as all he ever does is produce. And since he is of diminutive stature, your own research has told me that his window is probably 5-7 years before his effectiveness disappears. I'm not saying Stanton won't perform well. I'm saying when the Reds MOST pressing need is quality SP, signing a Mike Stanton is treading water. Especially if you really believe Bray and Majewski will start performing next year the way you thought they would this year. And I actually think they could. Bray more than Maj. He still overpaid to get them though.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 10:46 AM
I still take comfort in the fact that Krivsky did more good in his first two months than DanO did in two years.

I see what you're saying, but that's like giving Krivsky credit for being able to breathe and feed himself.

westofyou
11-20-2006, 10:51 AM
yeah you can also ignore all the empirical evidence you want too.

Reds pitchers 2006 in Runs Saved Above Average


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
2006

RSAA RSAA
1 Bronson Arroyo 41
2 Aaron Harang 28
T3 David Weathers 11
T3 Todd Coffey 11
5 Scott Schoeneweis 7
T6 Matt Belisle 6
T6 Eddie Guardado 6
T8 Bill Bray 2
T8 Kyle Lohse 2
T8 Jason Johnson 2
T8 Esteban Yan 2
T8 Kent Mercker 2
T13 Rheal Cormier 1
T13 Ryan Franklin 1
T15 Chris Michalak 0
T15 Jason Standridge 0
T15 Justin Germano 0
T15 Sun Woo Kim 0
19 Mike Gosling -1
T20 Rick White -4
T20 Brian Shackelford -4
T22 Mike Burns -6
T22 Eric Milton -6
T22 Gary Majewski -6
T22 Elizardo Ramirez -6

Arroyo's was the 7th best in franchise history.

TRF
11-20-2006, 10:53 AM
Yep And I already stated he was an outstanding acquisition.

Now offset that with Mays, Kim and Lohse.

And that was just the rotation additions.

And why didn't Mays make your list? or did the program blue screen when you put in his numbers?

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 11:02 AM
Reds pitchers 2006 in Runs Saved Above Average


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
2006

RSAA RSAA
1 Bronson Arroyo 41
2 Aaron Harang 28
T3 David Weathers 11
T3 Todd Coffey 11
5 Scott Schoeneweis 7
T6 Matt Belisle 6
T6 Eddie Guardado 6
T8 Bill Bray 2
T8 Kyle Lohse 2
T8 Jason Johnson 2
T8 Esteban Yan 2
T8 Kent Mercker 2
T13 Rheal Cormier 1
T13 Ryan Franklin 1
T15 Chris Michalak 0
T15 Jason Standridge 0
T15 Justin Germano 0
T15 Sun Woo Kim 0
19 Mike Gosling -1
T20 Rick White -4
T20 Brian Shackelford -4
T22 Mike Burns -6
T22 Eric Milton -6
T22 Gary Majewski -6
T22 Elizardo Ramirez -6

Arroyo's was the 7th best in franchise history.

The question is, what did Krivsky see in Arroyo that made him realize how well he would perform for the Reds? What did he know that Theo Epstein and most other people on the planet didn't know?

And why didn't that special wisdom help Krivsky recognize the difference between Arroyo and the likes of Mays, Majewski, et al?

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 11:03 AM
What is that chart telling us? That WK made a great acquisition with Arroyo and that's it? It takes more than one good move to get my buy in.

westofyou
11-20-2006, 11:06 AM
The question is, what did Krivsky see in Arroyo that made him realize how well he would perform for the Reds? What did he know that Theo Epstein and most other people on the planet didn't know?

And why didn't that special wisdom help Krivsky recognize the difference between Arroyo and the likes of Mays, Majewski, et al?

I'd ask his scouting staff, but there's an old baseball adage, "If you don't have a few failures here and there then you aren't really trying." Big wins and little losses don't bother me, and the jury is not done concerning the mid season trade yet, that has to play out more IMO. But that of course is my opinion.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 11:07 AM
What is that chart telling us? That WK made a great acquisition with Arroyo and that's it? It takes more than one good move to get my buy in.

The real meat and potatoes with a GM is how he does in the offseason. All this hand wringing about mid season flyers is just overly dramatic, IMO.

If you wanna debate about Majewski injury and Felipe trade that's a different story. But arguing that Krivsky somehow has no eye for talent because of Esteban Yan over Mike Burns than so be it.

westofyou
11-20-2006, 11:08 AM
Reds had more then 25 pitchers and that was the default.



T26 Chris Hammond -7
T26 Joe Mays -7
28 David Williams -10
29 Brandon Claussen -12

TRF
11-20-2006, 11:17 AM
Reds had more then 25 pitchers and that was the default.



T26 Chris Hammond -7
T26 Joe Mays -7
28 David Williams -10
29 Brandon Claussen -12


Ok. Again, I stated Arroyo was an outstanding acquisition. but add up the rest and his over all value is diminished. The pen killed him in July and August. Mays killed the reds every time he pitched except for his 1st game. Franklin, awful. Maj, abysmal. Guardado benefited from switching leagues and was done in 2 weeks.

Krivsky has done a few things right. some were even fantastic. But taken as a part of his overall body of work you see that his MO is to make as many transactions as possible in the hope that someone pans out.

How very Bowdenish.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 11:19 AM
Ok. Again, I stated Arroyo was an outstanding acquisition. but add up the rest and his over all value is diminished. The pen killed him in July and August. Mays killed the reds every time he pitched except for his 1st game. Franklin, awful. Maj, abysmal. Guardado benefited from switching leagues and was done in 2 weeks.

Krivsky has done a few things right. some were even fantastic. But taken as a part of his overall body of work you see that his MO is to make as many transactions as possible in the hope that someone pans out.

How very Bowdenish.

The pen killed him in July and August and that was because of Krivsky how? He inherited a miserable pitching staff.

You can't improve a pitching staff that bad in mid season. The best you can do is take flyers on certain pitchers and hope for the best.

I seriously doubt Wayne had visions of dominating relief pitching when he dealt for Yan.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 11:22 AM
I'd ask his scouting staff, but there's an old baseball adage, "If you don't have a few failures here and there then you aren't really trying." Big wins and little losses don't bother me, and the jury is not done concerning the mid season trade yet, that has to play out more IMO. But that of course is my opinion.

The Kearns/Lopez deal is looking worse by the minute. Based on the kind of scratch guys like Mark Derosa are pulling down this offseason, it looks like Krivsky really shot himself in the spine by giving away two prime trading chips for average bullpen arms.

The question is still unanswered, though. If Krivsky's scouting staff is so wise that they could foresee Arroyo's turnaround, shouldn't they be able to make more acquistions like that one?

Or did Krivsky simply hit the lottery?

westofyou
11-20-2006, 11:23 AM
Ok. Again, I stated Arroyo was an outstanding acquisition. but add up the rest and his over all value is diminished. The pen killed him in July and August. Mays killed the reds every time he pitched except for his 1st game. Franklin, awful. Maj, abysmal. Guardado benefited from switching leagues and was done in 2 weeks.

Krivsky has done a few things right. some were even fantastic. But taken as a part of his overall body of work you see that his MO is to make as many transactions as possible in the hope that someone pans out.

How very Bowdenish.

From what I can tell the only pitchers with negatives on that list that belong to Krivsky are Mays and Maj. Most are hovering around the average level, about what one would expect from dumpster diving in the midst of a season fraught with parity.

Heath
11-20-2006, 11:24 AM
I think that Nats trade freaked out a lot of people. It was a thoroughly awful deal from the get go. It wasn't good in theory, it didn't work in practice and it's put the team two steps back heading into the offseason (where there'd be a burgeoning market for guys like Lopez and Kearns).

IMO that put a taint on Krivsky's other spastic, but harmless attempts to mine some player talent to keep the team in the hunt. Without the Nats trade, guys like Mays and Yan would be largely forgotten. Now they're emblematic of a deep seated problem to some folks.

I still take comfort in the fact that Krivsky did more good in his first two months than DanO did in two years. He's certainly aggressive and active, which is good because he's got a lot to do. I like the Gonzalez signing (though I'm queasy about the third year) because it directly addresses something that desperately needed to be addressed. Gonzalez wouldn't have been my first choice, but I'm not going to fault Krivsky for getting a primo glove man when what he needed was a primo glove man.

I understand it offers no comfort to those who have been (justifiably) worried about the offense, but it's possible Krivsky choked during his first in-season test as a GM and that he'll get back to making the Reds a better-rounded ballclub (and that includes offense) during the offseason.

Bingo.


BTW, what's the topic anyway? Alex Gonzalez to the Reds or the same hash that's been dissected more than your turkey carcass from last Thanksgiving?

WK made a trade he thought would help the ballclub. It didn't give the immediate satisfaction, so it must be a failure. :rolleyes:

Yikes, give the guy a break. It's not even DECEMBER yet.

westofyou
11-20-2006, 11:25 AM
The question is still unanswered, though. If Krivsky's scouting staff is so wise that they could foresee Arroyo's turnaround, shouldn't they be able to make more acquistions like that one?

Or did Krivsky simply hit the lottery?

Tune in and find out... I certainly don't know.

But I'm not too worried about it myself.

GAC
11-20-2006, 11:25 AM
MY opinion will change if they go and get some serious help in the way of pitching and hitting. And the kind of help that wins you championships, not stopgaps. If they have the resources to go and get some good pitching, then this signing will look a lot better. But I am just not believing yet that this will take place.

What good pitching is out there? Even if they had the money to throw at a Zito he wouldn't come here IMHO.

Even the teams with the resources are out there looking with little luck, and even their resources cannot cause good pitching to appear out of thin air.


If this doesn't happen, then this signing will look a lot worse.

Not IMO.

Gonzo is here, because of his defensive abilities, to vastly improve one area that killed this team last year?

He is simply a piece of the puzzle.

Question: Would you have signed Davey Concepcion who had a career OPS of sub-700?

If I were to put Davey's numbers up here, without identifying the player, alot of people on here would scream "marginal player. Pass!"



AGon is a perfect fit for a team like Boston, who has Manny, Ortiz, Schilling, etc etc.

He's a perfect fit for any team that needs a solid defensive SS.

People agree that we needed a SS, and that our middle INF defense needed improvement. But they wanted Krivsky to somehow go out and sign a guy who is both solid offensively and defensively.

OK. Where is that guy? Jeter and Arod are signed, and the cost for that calibre of a player would sap what financial resources we have and prevent us from addressing other areas of need.

Face it! We're not the Yank, Sox, Cubs, or Mets.


He is a nice player when you need to just plug a hole with a guy who won't hurt you. This team, at this point, needs more help than non-hurt.

So you're saying there is no advantage, nor improvement, over what we had at SS? I respectfully disagree.

He is not here for his bat.


We need pitching. I've been looking at this market as far as pitching goes, and it is going to be awfully hard at this time for the Reds to acquire a solid SP.

Where are all the teams running up to the Weavers, Suppans, Marquis, and Mulders, and in a rush to sign them?

The Reds may be able to swing a deal and get a capable, as some call them, second tier guy; but even then, at what cost? It's going to come down to either overpaying in $$$$$, or maybe overpaying in player(s) in a trade.

And Krivsky got nailed for one of those type trades this past summer. ;)

That is why I want them to exercise caution, and if it even comes down to it - say "pass".

And if you're expected to swing a trade with another GM(s) in these meetings for pitching, then you first better have something to trade in return.

That is the other problem.

On this team, as far as established players with any kind of resume of performance who are marketable/tradeable, who do we have?

Dunn and a couple pitchers (Arroyo, Harang). Young players like EE and PHillips aren't going to fetch you much, and these are the kinds of players the Reds need to hold on to.


If there a LARGE moves coming down the pike, then this will look a lot better for me.

There has to be those "larger" moves at some point in the immediate future. But that immediate future may not be THIS off-season. And define what you mean by larger moves?

IMHO, it's not gonna be like the Cubs-Soriano signing.

This is what simply amazes me.... and I'm not saying that fans cannot be critical of GMs and the decisons they make.... and this is not necessarily directly addressed at you 44....but I get the impression on this forum that some seem to think that Krivsky is an inept idiot, with no knowledge of statistical analysis, what runs allowed and run production is, and that they, the fan, know more.

Statistical analysis is an important part of the game. But there are so many other variables involved in a GM's duties/responsibilities, and I think some forget that. It's not a Yahoo Fantasy League were one doesn't have to worry about the economic factors such as salary, budget, contracts, free agency, arbitration, etc.

I believe Wayne does possess that knowledege. I think Wayne knows full well what our offensive numbers were in 2006, and all the other important variables/correlations.

But it's one thing to understand it, and know what needs to be done... and quite another in going out and trying to acquire those players.

I think he does have a plan. I don't believe he has to be completely open about it in a public way, and lay it out for the fans in a Cincinnati Enquirer article. He has the competition to also worry about.

I'm just willing to give him (and Castellini) that opportunity.

But they are not going to right this ship in one off-season.

TRF
11-20-2006, 11:25 AM
The pen killed him in July and August and that was because of Krivsky how? He inherited a miserable pitching staff.

You can't improve a pitching staff that bad in mid season. The best you can do is take flyers on certain pitchers and hope for the best.

I seriously doubt Wayne had visions of dominating relief pitching when he dealt for Yan.

Then why deal for him? or Mays? Or Franklin?

What exactly did they offer that Salmon or Medlock didn't?

By July, that pen was pretty much molded in Krivsky's image. He knew what he wanted and went and got it. It was a different pen than April, May, June when Arroyo was racking up wins. That pen needed help, not what Krivsky brought in, but actual help.

Why deal for a Cody Ross then trade him in order to keep Q or Hollandsworth?

This goes to the throw it against the wall pattern he has shown thus far.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 11:32 AM
Then why deal for him? or Mays? Or Franklin?

What exactly did they offer that Salmon or Medlock didn't?

By July, that pen was pretty much molded in Krivsky's image. He knew what he wanted and went and got it. It was a different pen than April, May, June when Arroyo was racking up wins. That pen needed help, not what Krivsky brought in, but actual help.

Why deal for a Cody Ross then trade him in order to keep Q or Hollandsworth?

This goes to the throw it against the wall pattern he has shown thus far.

I tend to agree.

If Krivsky's deals were based on some kind of methodology, be it scouting or statistical analysis, you'd expect some kind of consistency. Thusfar, he's been all over the place.

Granted, he does seem to be following an overall philosophy -- pitching and defense. Unfortunately, he hasn't shown much consistency in identifying either of those.

M2
11-20-2006, 11:32 AM
I see what you're saying, but that's like giving Krivsky credit for being able to breathe and feed himself.

I don't know, landing Arroyo and mining Phillips was no mean feat. Put it this way, four more scores like that and the Reds would be a hell of team.

Those aren't cases of Krivsky managing to avoid damaging the franchise (which is what I'd classify as being able to breathe and feed himself), those are cases of him giving the franchise a decided push forward.

I'm hoping that what went down this summer was an overreaction to what was happening on the field. I'm also hoping Krivsky learns from it. Surely Krivsky noticed his team couldn't buy a run later in the season and hopefully he noticed the stark difference between the team that wore out opposing pitchers early in the season and the one that flailed helplessly in the final two months of the year.

Given his demonstrated ability to do good things, I'm not willing to put up an epitaph on him at the moment. I'm not convinced Krivsky's got as bad a compass as some fear. This offseason's going to tell us a lot about him. I like that he took the team's defensive issues seriously enough to actually do something about it, but I'm confused by the Stanton signing.

Since I maintained that it was going to take a pile of moves for the Reds to get to where they need to be (and since Krivsky's shown himself to be an active GM), I'm not viewing the first moves as necessarily the most important ones. As opposed to past winters, I expect the Reds to be exceedingly busy. The real key will be whether Krivsky can be busy like JimBo in the 98-99 winter instead of DanO in 04-05 winter.

PuffyPig
11-20-2006, 11:36 AM
The Kearns/Lopez deal is looking worse by the minute. Based on the kind of scratch guys like Mark Derosa are pulling down this offseason, it looks like Krivsky really shot himself in the spine by giving away two prime trading chips for average bullpen arms.



Not to underscore the intention of your post (which I agree with), but the market for those same average bullpen arms has also shot through the roof (see Speier, Walker etc.). And one might suggest that the cost of bullpen arms is actually rising faster than other positions.

TRF
11-20-2006, 11:36 AM
From what I can tell the only pitchers with negatives on that list that belong to Krivsky are Mays and Maj. Most are hovering around the average level, about what one would expect from dumpster diving in the midst of a season fraught with parity.

Except even the list doesn't tell the whole story.

Acquiring Guardado KNOWING he was hurt, is IMO a negative value move. The ERA is deceptive, as that was likely due to the change in leagues. I mean he was pitching in Safeco! It doesn't get much friendlier for pitchers.

By what metric is Ryan Franklin close to league average?

And how many times does a GM have to acquire ingured players before we get to question his abilities?

Bowden once was pretty good at dumpster diving. He made it into an art in fact. It didn't make him a good GM, just like Krivsky's lack of that ability doesn't make him a bad GM.

But as a fan I get to point it out when he makes a bad move. And he's made a LOT of them in his short tenure.

I'll say it right now. His move to get Arroyo put the reds in the wildcard race.

And nearly every move he made after April kept them from that wildcard spot.

Always Red
11-20-2006, 11:36 AM
My guess is that Krivsky is not as good as the Arroyo deal, and not as bad as the Lopez/Kearns deal. As a GM, he'll probably wind up in between. I know, I went out on a limb there, didn't I?:laugh:

He sold off a good chunk of offense, in retrospect, for a mediocre bullpen, in order to try to keep the Reds in the race. We hashed and rehashed that, no need to do it again!:(

I don't have a problem at all with this acquisition; SS has been a glaring hole defensively, and now it's not.

One problem fixed. On to the next ones.

I don't expect the FO to be able to overhaul this entire team in this offseason; there's too much to do, and too many problems with long term contracts. Add some more pitching (starters, relievers, whatever!), go talk with Junior about moving to RF, stick Deno in CF, move Freel back to supersub (oh, he'll be in there soon enough) and decide on 2 of the 3 catchers, and soon enough it'll be time for Sarasota.

Heath
11-20-2006, 11:37 AM
Tune in and find out... I certainly don't know.

But I'm not too worried about it myself.

I would hope that they would look at WayneK as a TV show with multiple storylines over a full season than some one time "Charlie Brown Christmas Special".

Sometimes the storylines are more interesting than some one hour special with immediate statisfaction.

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 11:38 AM
GAC, I agree with you, but I think this team needs to take a step back and say "Do we honestly have a shot at October with who is on our team and with who we honestly have a shot at getting through trades and FA?"

If yes, then go for it. Don't half-ass it. Go and get some pitching. It doesn't matter where from, b/c w/o pitching this team is headed nowhere.

If not (which is where I believe they are right now), then don't throw $5 mil per at a no hit SS. Save that money for the draft and international FA signings. Start to rebuild.

I don't love AGon, but I'm not totally against him. But is this a guy which will bring this team to the postseason? If WK is honestly looking at the FA pitching pool and saying "None of these guys are worth it", then does he actually think the current intact staff will make it out of June? Then what is the point of signing this guy?

For a team with this payroll size, I think $5 mil per is a good chunk of money. Again, if this is the first of a multitude of moves to BETTER this team, then I'll be cool with it. But if the off-season is littered with Merckers, then this will be a complete waste of money.

GAC
11-20-2006, 11:40 AM
Yep And I already stated he was an outstanding acquisition.

Now offset that with Mays, Kim and Lohse.

And that was just the rotation additions.

And why didn't Mays make your list? or did the program blue screen when you put in his numbers?

OK. What else was out there for him to inquire/acquire?

We all agree that the bullpen, going into the AS break needed big time help or we were sunk.

I thoroughly agree with what Cedric stated.....


The pen killed him in July and August and that was because of Krivsky how? He inherited a miserable pitching staff.

You can't improve a pitching staff that bad in mid season. The best you can do is take flyers on certain pitchers and hope for the best.

I seriously doubt Wayne had visions of dominating relief pitching when he dealt for Yan.



It's amazing. I've never seen anything like the vultures out for Krivsky at this point. He inherited one of the worst pitching staffs I've ever seen and had VERY little value to try and trade to make it better.

Do you guys really think he had envisions of Joe Mays or Esteban Yan turning into all stars? No, but they were the only options and there was no reason to risk it

The vast majority of those arms were very low risk and could be easily disposed of.

Heck! Look at all the teams that were scrambling to sign our castoffs last year in a desperate attempt to somehow improve their staffs?

They were simply "shots in the dark". Lets throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks.

I don't believe for a second that Krivsky had any grander visions or expectations for some of those guys. ;)

westofyou
11-20-2006, 11:40 AM
By what metric is Ryan Franklin close to league average?



I guess that chart above is what I'd say makes him average.


RSAA--Runs saved against average. It's the amount of runs that a pitcher saved vs. what an average pitcher would have allowed. It's the same stat as Total Baseball's Pitching Runs, except

(1) both have different ways of park adjustments

(2) they added a procedure to take into account the amount of decisions (W+L) the pitcher had, while RSAA doesn't have that.

M2
11-20-2006, 11:42 AM
WK made a trade he thought would help the ballclub. It didn't give the immediate satisfaction, so it must be a failure. :rolleyes:

I think we can fairly say the trade was a failure. It needed to pay immediate dividends and it might have cost the Reds the division. I don't get too bent out of shape about that last part because there was no way of knowing the Cardinals would disintegrate in September before they did. Had Krivsky known that what he needed was 84 wins, he might have concluded that it was a safer bet to bang his way there and try smaller moves to fix the pen.

That trade has hurt, it still hurts now that the Reds have less value to move in this hot market and it's likely going to hurt down the road too.

That said, I agree that one bad trade, even one that qualifies as one of the two worst trades in recent memory (on par with the Padres-Rangers deal from last winter), isn't a reason to bury a guy who's got some clear positives on his resume as well.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 11:44 AM
I don't know, landing Arroyo and mining Phillips was no mean feat. Put it this way, four more scores like that and the Reds would be a hell of team.

Arroyo turned out better than I or anyone else ever imagined. I still think that's a case of the blind squirrel finding a nut.

Phillips for a PTBNL was a no-brainer. I can't give Krivsky much credit for making a low-risk move like that.


Surely Krivsky noticed his team couldn't buy a run later in the season and hopefully he noticed the stark difference between the team that wore out opposing pitchers early in the season and the one that flailed helplessly in the final two months of the year.

He fired the hitting coach whose mantra was patience and working the count. If he did notice, he has a funny way of showing it.

That said, I'm happy he brought in an honest-to-goodness defensive SS and a decent (albeit well-worn) reliever without ravaging the already wafer-thin talent pool. Hopefully, he'll figure out how to get a decent #3 starter the same way.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 11:45 AM
Phillips for a PTBNL was a no-brainer. I can't give Krivsky much credit for making a low-risk move like that.


A no brainer that 29 other teams passed on.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 11:45 AM
What exactly did they offer that Salmon or Medlock didn't?


There are very, very few minor leaguers who have what it takes. These are two AA ballers and the chances of them doing anything but coming up to the major leagues and getting rocked is very slim. The divide between average and below average major league relievers and prospects is most often night and day. Major league hitters are that good. It takes a pretty special prospect to jump to the majors, esp from AA, and have success at the major league level. I appreciate this more each year I watch not only the Reds, but the rest of the league struggle to find guys that can get major league hitters out.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 11:46 AM
Not to underscore the intention of your post (which I agree with), but the market for those same average bullpen arms has also shot through the roof (see Speier, Walker etc.). And one might suggest that the cost of bullpen arms is actually rising faster than other positions.

There are more average bullpen arms available than young, above-average everyday players.

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 11:49 AM
The real meat and potatoes with a GM is how he does in the offseason. All this hand wringing about mid season flyers is just overly dramatic, IMO.

If you wanna debate about Majewski injury and Felipe trade that's a different story. But arguing that Krivsky somehow has no eye for talent because of Esteban Yan over Mike Burns than so be it.

The Washington trade is obviously in the equation. But if this is how it is, then he shouldn't get much credit for Phillips and Ross. They were as much of flyers as Yan, Kim and the rest of them.

But I don't think all of his mid-season trades were flyers. Not Lohse. Not Cormier. Not Guardado. Those were trades, no matter when they were made.

GAC
11-20-2006, 11:49 AM
GAC, I agree with you, but I think this team needs to take a step back and say "Do we honestly have a shot at October with who is on our team and with who we honestly have a shot at getting through trades and FA?"

Not without more being done. I agree.


If yes, then go for it. Don't half-ass it. Go and get some pitching. It doesn't matter where from, b/c w/o pitching this team is headed nowhere.

I agree. But again.... it's easier said than done. What's available? And at what cost?


If WK is honestly looking at the FA pitching pool and saying "None of these guys are worth it"

Alot of them, as far as pitchers go, simply aren't worth it. We already over paid for a Milton. Learn from our mistakes.


then does he actually think the current intact staff will make it out of June?

No Wayne doesn't. But the market is dictating the demands. I simply don't want our GM throwing alot of money at pitchers w/ gauranteed contracts, and who have a history of mediocre to average performance.


Then what is the point of signing this guy?

Fills a very dire need. We have quite a few of those on this team. This is one less IMO.

Are you saying we should ignore one need because we may have a hard time filling another?


For a team with this payroll size, I think $5 mil per is a good chunk of money. Again, if this is the first of a multitude of moves to BETTER this team, then I'll be cool with it. But if the off-season is littered with Merckers, then this will be a complete waste of money.

That is what we'll have to wait and see 44. And it's why I still continue to believe that it's not gonna be fixed in one off-season, and has to be done incrementally.

TRF
11-20-2006, 11:49 AM
I guess that chart above is what I'd say makes him average.

I thought W/L was a bad metric by which to measure a pitcher's effectiveness?

How many runners did he allow? what was his OPSA?

Here were his numbers:

BA .285 OBP .359 SLG .507 OPS .865

In other words, he made every hitter look like a borderline HOFer.

And that's league average?

Kc61
11-20-2006, 11:51 AM
I'm reading a lot of Krivsky bashing with which I cannot agree.

He made a lot of marginal to bad acquisitions last year trying, in mid-season, to get a workable combination of relievers and back-of-the-rotation starters. He knew what he was getting, but didn't think the Reds could make the playoffs with the existing group. These were not long term acquisitions and are not a basis for judgment.

He doesn't value 580 foot home runs as much as some but believes in a defensive oriented team. And whether or not you agree, it is inarguable that the Reds' home run lineup has resulted in nothing but losing seasons the past number of years.

Krivsky's pickup of Arroyo was one of the best moves by a Reds GM in years. Phillips, Schoenweis, Ross were other good moves. Lohse wasn't terrible. In order to make these kinds of moves, you can't be gun shy. You have to be willing to fail and Krivsky did in some cases. No GM only hits the jackpot; all take risks that don't pan out.

As for the "trade" the only issue I see is Majewski. If he returns to competent status even that will be ok because the Reds will replace Lopez and Kearns. They have already replaced Lopez with Gonzalez. If you prefer Lopez, fine, but it is obvious to me that Krivsky never had any intention of keeping him because of his subpar defense.

As for those who feel that guys like Medlock were a better answer in 2005, the guy hasn't even pitched that well in the Arizona Fall League. Krivsky obviously believes that a player needs a certain level of experience in most cases. And if Medlock had been called up and failed, as is likely, we would have heard that this is another Brian Reith situation. You can't win.

Let's just let the off-season play out. I believe that Krivsky will convert the Reds into a sounder baseball team. It may not work, but it's better than the losing combo of home runs and a team ERA of 5.20.

M2
11-20-2006, 11:55 AM
Arroyo turned out better than I or anyone else ever imagined. I still think that's a case of the blind squirrel finding a nut.

While Arroyo did better than I thought he would, I did think 200+ IP with an ERA in the high 3.00s was in the offing for him. The dude can pitch.


Phillips for a PTBNL was a no-brainer. I can't give Krivsky much credit for making a low-risk move like that.

What Ced said. I'll add that finding more guys like Phillips is something that the Reds need a GM to do.


He fired the hitting coach whose mantra was patience and working the count. If he did notice, he has a funny way of showing it.

I liked Chambliss too, but hitting coaches never stick around for too long. I've been surprised that Chambliss hasn't worked his way up to manager status yet.


That said, I'm happy he brought in an honest-to-goodness defensive SS and a decent (albeit well-worn) reliever without ravaging the already wafer-thin talent pool. Hopefully, he'll figure out how to get a decent #3 starter the same way.

I'll toast to that.

westofyou
11-20-2006, 11:56 AM
I thought W/L was a bad metric by which to measure a pitcher's effectiveness?And RSAA doesn't take account for that.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 11:56 AM
A no brainer that 29 other teams passed on.

He didn't pass through waivers. He was designated for assignment.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 11:57 AM
There are more average bullpen arms available than young, above-average everyday players.What above average everyday players did we have that we do not have now? :evil:

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 11:58 AM
I'd like to see two starters come in and unceremoniously unseat the two Pretenders to the Throne: Lohse and Milton.

WVRedsFan
11-20-2006, 11:59 AM
I think that Nats trade freaked out a lot of people. It was a thoroughly awful deal from the get go. It wasn't good in theory, it didn't work in practice and it's put the team two steps back heading into the offseason (where there'd be a burgeoning market for guys like Lopez and Kearns).

IMO that put a taint on Krivsky's other spastic, but harmless attempts to mine some player talent to keep the team in the hunt. Without the Nats trade, guys like Mays and Yan would be largely forgotten. Now they're emblematic of a deep seated problem to some folks.

I still take comfort in the fact that Krivsky did more good in his first two months than DanO did in two years. He's certainly aggressive and active, which is good because he's got a lot to do. I like the Gonzalez signing (though I'm queasy about the third year) because it directly addresses something that desperately needed to be addressed. Gonzalez wouldn't have been my first choice, but I'm not going to fault Krivsky for getting a primo glove man when what he needed was a primo glove man.

I understand it offers no comfort to those who have been (justifiably) worried about the offense, but it's possible Krivsky choked during his first in-season test as a GM and that he'll get back to making the Reds a better-rounded ballclub (and that includes offense) during the offseason.

I'll give yoiu that. As I've said before, this winter will tell the tale. And everyone is entitled to a mistake now and then.

What bothers me is we keep getting these signals from Castilinni and Krivsky that "we're going to spend what is neeed" in improve the club and instead we get Joe Mays and Alex Gonzalez.

I know it's only been a few days since free agency, but it's time to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

TRF
11-20-2006, 12:03 PM
And RSAA doesn't take account for that.

Ah. I misunderstood.

And how does it reconcile with the numbers I posted, or are those league average too? I'm asking because I don't know.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 12:04 PM
What above average everyday players did we have that we do not have now? :evil:

We've been down that road many times.

Kearns and Lopez were both in the MLB top 10 in OPS at their respective positions at the time of the trade.

I know Kearns was fat and wasn't Joe Dimaggio and Lopez couldn't field and had tattoos and all the other reasons some Reds fans hated them, but the fact remains that they were above average performers on offense.

westofyou
11-20-2006, 12:09 PM
Ah. I misunderstood.

And how does it reconcile with the numbers I posted, or are those league average too? I'm asking because I don't know.

I don't know, but here's what TB formula arises from (and that's what RSAA is based on)


League ERA
PITCHING RUNS = Innings Pitched x ----------- - ER.
9

The factor (League ERA/9) measures the average runs allowed per inning for all teams in the league. This value is multiplied by the number of innings pitched by that pitcher --- this product represents the number of runs that pitcher would allow over the season if he was average. Last, one subtracts the actual earned runs (ER) the pitcher allowed for that season. If the pitching runs is larger than 0, then this pitcher is better than average. This new measure appears to be useful in measuring the efficiency and durability of a pitcher.

TRF
11-20-2006, 12:09 PM
As for those who feel that guys like Medlock were a better answer in 2005, the guy hasn't even pitched that well in the Arizona Fall League. Krivsky obviously believes that a player needs a certain level of experience in most cases. And if Medlock had been called up and failed, as is likely, we would have heard that this is another Brian Reith situation. You can't win.

Salmon and Shearn were also available.

Kc61
11-20-2006, 12:13 PM
Salmon and Shearn were also available.


I don't have handy a copy of BA's handbook from last year. Were either Salmon or Shearn among the Reds' top 30 prospects?

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 12:21 PM
GAC, I think we agree up until this point. This franchise is at a stage where they either need to get some front line players to make a push or to basically start from scratch. If there isn't anyone available that will get this team to the next level, then don't sign Gonzalez. Use that money elsewhere. Put it in the bank until next year. Draft the best player available next season, no matter what their demands are. Start expanidng the international scouting and drop millions there.

It's like the Royals going out and getting Zito this season. What difference does it make? A few more wins?

Puffy
11-20-2006, 12:26 PM
Question: Would you have signed Davey Concepcion who had a career OPS of sub-700?

If I were to put Davey's numbers up here, without identifying the player, alot of people on here would scream "marginal player. Pass!"




Thats a bad analogy GAC.

Would you admit that baseball today is different today than 20 years ago? How bout 30 years ago? Are stadiums today different than 30 years ago?

The simple fact is that in the 70's a team could win with black holes at certain positions because of the game. Today that might not be true. And, even if it were true, these Reds don't have Foster, Morgan, Bench, Perez, Griffey, Sr and Rose to offset a black hole or two.

Not that saying this is a good signing or a bad signing (although anyone with an OBP under .300 even from the 8th spot in the lineup makes me lean towards the bad siging part, but I'll wait until I see what else Mr. Minnestoa Twins baseball does beforehand before I pass ultimate judgment), but what i am saying is that is a bad analogy.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 12:29 PM
We've been down that road many times.

Kearns and Lopez were both in the MLB top 10 in OPS at their respective positions at the time of the trade.

I know Kearns was fat and wasn't Joe Dimaggio and Lopez couldn't field and had tattoos and all the other reasons some Reds fans hated them, but the fact remains that they were above average performers on offense.

You just did a bait and switch. Your previous post said "above average everyday players." Now, you are referring to "above average performers on offense." Which is it, since "everday players" entails when these guys take the field as well, which we know drags the value of Lopez down to "average," at best. Then, you define "above average everyday players" based on half a season of offensive performance? There is no data that you can provide for those two, on a historical basis, that qualifies them by some measure of "above average everyday players." You sure do have me confused as to what the criteria are for an "above average everyday player." I never was very good at shooting those moving duckies.

Ltlabner
11-20-2006, 12:35 PM
GAC, I think we agree up until this point. This franchise is at a stage where they either need to get some front line players to make a push or to basically start from scratch. If there isn't anyone available that will get this team to the next level, then don't sign Gonzalez. Use that money elsewhere. Put it in the bank until next year. Draft the best player available next season, no matter what their demands are. Start expanidng the international scouting and drop millions there.

It's like the Royals going out and getting Zito this season. What difference does it make? A few more wins?

Edabbs, I think I understand where you are comming from, but would Cincinnati fandom, especially Redszone, sit idley by for the length of time it would take to invest millions in scounting and the farm systems and endoure how many ever more years of crappy teams until the effects started to show?

Unfortuntaley having to play baseball, and win some games while rebuilding makes is (1) much more difficult and (2) much more lengthy process.

I don't think it's feasable for them to announce a "5 year plan" sort of thing and then sit back for 4 more years of dreck.

Ga_Red
11-20-2006, 12:45 PM
2/09/07

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 12:48 PM
Edabbs, I think I understand where you are comming from, but with Cincinnati
fandom, especially Redszone, sit idley by for the length of time it would take to invest millions in scounting and the farm systems and endoure how many ever more years of crappy teams until the effects started to show?

Unfortuntaley having to play baseball, and win some games while rebuilding makes is (1) much more difficult and (2) much more lengthy process.

I don't think it's feasable for them to announce a "5 year plan" sort of thing and then sit back for 4 more years of dreck.

I know I would. I would rather have the Reds tank it for a few years while loading up on prospects than sit in baseball purgatory while signing low-tier players. And anyway you slice it, that is all the team has done over the past few years. Look at Florida. They tore up their team last winter and were neck and neck with Cincy all season...a few months later. Not years. Months. That's what happens when a small mkt team drafts pitching, pitching, pitching and are active in the international mkts. I would have taken the $14 million given to AGon and used it all for draft picks and international bonuses. Gonzalez will not make this team into a playoff team and he will not be the difference btw October and golfing. $14 million worth of young players will help a lot more than he will.

Kc61
11-20-2006, 12:54 PM
There is one person available in this market whom
WK will get that WILL put the Reds into playoff
contention, imo.

(btw this is not a scoop of any kind, just am opinion of what he will do, even if overpaying to do so.)

Hint?

a NL starter, perfect for the GAB.

Who is he?

A free agent?

Ga_Red
11-20-2006, 01:01 PM
2/09/07

M2
11-20-2006, 01:01 PM
There is one person available in this market whom
WK will get that WILL put the Reds into playoff
contention, imo.

(btw this is not a scoop of any kind, just am opinion of what he will do, even if overpaying to do so.)

Hint?

a NL starter, perfect for the GAB.

Who is he?

Jason Jennings and Dontrelle Willis leap to mind. Brandon Webb too. Though I'd be surprised if any of the above got traded.

Kc61
11-20-2006, 01:11 PM
Not a free agent pitcher.

A Brave?

M2
11-20-2006, 01:18 PM
tr, Felipe ranked 13th among MLB shortstops in Win Shares last season. Kearns also ranked well among RFs. I'd be more specific, but the Hardball Times WS page is crawling today and kicking up a ton of errors.

Anyway, that's a holistic rating and both of those guys finished in the upper half of the rankings.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 01:26 PM
tr, Felipe ranked 13th among MLB shortstops in Win Shares last season. Kearns also ranked well among RFs. I'd be more specific, but the Hardball Times WS page is crawling today and kicking up a ton of errors.

Anyway, that's a holistic rating and both of those guys finished in the upper half of the rankings.Career to date and projections? Average everyday players is how I believe history will view these players, which is also the opinion I believe Krivsky was operating on when he considered the deal. He had to or he would not have done the deal. Now, here I go getting in on a discussion of the trade again. :laugh:

NJReds
11-20-2006, 01:44 PM
Not a free agent pitcher.

The only two NL starters (FAs) at a position that we need that I could find were:
Shea Hillenbrand
Cliff Floyd

TRF
11-20-2006, 01:50 PM
There are very, very few minor leaguers who have what it takes. These are two AA ballers and the chances of them doing anything but coming up to the major leagues and getting rocked is very slim. The divide between average and below average major league relievers and prospects is most often night and day. Major league hitters are that good. It takes a pretty special prospect to jump to the majors, esp from AA, and have success at the major league level. I appreciate this more each year I watch not only the Reds, but the rest of the league struggle to find guys that can get major league hitters out.

I'd agree except that Bill Bray didn't exactly have a ton of big league experience. In fact he had a total of 23 innings. Now aside from the fact that he's left handed what was it he offered that Salmon didn't? Is it just that he's LH?

Sorry, but not at that price.

And no, they weren't AA pitchers. they were AAA pitchers.

M2
11-20-2006, 02:00 PM
Career to date and projections? Average everyday players is how I believe history will view these players, which is also the opinion I believe Krivsky was operating on when he considered the deal. He had to or he would not have done the deal. Now, here I go getting in on a discussion of the trade again. :laugh:

Felipe was WAAAY above average in 2005. I've never been sold on him staying at SS for long (I think he's an OF and potentially a good one), but you're talking about a kid who can get on base pretty well and who'll probably collect 50+ extra base hits a few more times in his career. Over the next three or four years, he projects to be a pretty good offensive player. His newfound prowess on the bases doesn't hurt either.

Kearns is a Tom Brunansky type, not as good as you wanted, but not a bad guy to have around in the final analysis (and Bruno had character issues too).

Felipe's probably looking at another 1,000 hits. Kearns, dependent on his health (always a crap shoot) is probably looking at five years or so as a production regular in the OF.

They aren't superstars, but in a world where Juan Pierre and Sarge Jr. are seeking $10M a year, those are two pretty nifty players to have in your hip pocket.

Obviously neither of these guys are going to the Hall of Fame, but they're both good enough to help out a large number of teams. They were certainly the two best players in that trade in 2006 and, unless Bray has himself a really good career, they stand to be the two best players in that trade when the historians look back at is as well.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 02:04 PM
Felipe was WAAAY above average in 2005. I've never been sold on him staying at SS for long (I think he's an OF and potentially a good one), but you're talking about a kid who can get on base pretty well and who'll probably collect 50+ extra base hits a few more times in his career. Over the next three or four years, he projects to be a pretty good offensive player. His newfound prowess on the bases doesn't hurt either.

Kearns is a Tom Brunansky type, not as good as you wanted, but not a bad guy to have around in the final analysis (and Bruno had character issues too).

Felipe's probably looking at another 1,000 hits. Kearns, dependent on his health (always a crap shoot) is probably looking at five years or so as a production regular in the OF.

They aren't superstars, but in a world where Juan Pierre and Sarge Jr. are seeking $10M a year, those are two pretty nifty players to have in your hip pocket.

Obviously neither of these guys are going to the Hall of Fame, but they're both good enough to help out a large number of teams. They were certainly the two best players in that trade in 2006 and, unless Bray has himself a really good career, they stand to be the two best players in that trade when the historians look back at is as well.

Felipe is a good player, but he can only be useful for a winning team if he's at another position, IMO.

I'm not sure about his attitude or his temperate, but I don't know if Felipe would be willing to move away from SS. If he wasn't willing or going to be moved by Krivsky than I am glad he's not a part of this team.

I do wish Krivsky could have netted more in return though.

Heath
11-20-2006, 02:04 PM
Not a free agent pitcher.

The only FA hitters that could have a field day in GABP would be Aubrey Huff and maybe Jose Guillen.

But, we don't DH around these parts.

How many guesses, Ga_Red before you give up the answer?

traderumor
11-20-2006, 02:08 PM
I'd agree except that Bill Bray didn't exactly have a ton of big league experience. In fact he had a total of 23 innings. Now aside from the fact that he's left handed what was it he offered that Salmon didn't? Is it just that he's LH?

Sorry, but not at that price.

And no, they weren't AA pitchers. they were AAA pitchers.

Medlock pitched the entire year at Chattanooga. He did OK and he is still young, but he also spent his first year in pro ball as a reliever. He was the last guy I considered out of what appear to be legit prospects that I thought would get a shot. I would imagine he gets a look at AAA this year and his year will be 2008 if he is ever gonna make it.

Salmon was promoted to Louisville and pitched 2/3 of his year at AAA, and did very well. His K/9 went up, his WHIP went down, but he's also 26. I would expect him to get his last shot to make the club this year, and I'd say he deserves it.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 02:11 PM
Felipe was WAAAY above average in 2005. I've never been sold on him staying at SS for long (I think he's an OF and potentially a good one), but you're talking about a kid who can get on base pretty well and who'll probably collect 50+ extra base hits a few more times in his career. Over the next three or four years, he projects to be a pretty good offensive player. His newfound prowess on the bases doesn't hurt either.

Kearns is a Tom Brunansky type, not as good as you wanted, but not a bad guy to have around in the final analysis (and Bruno had character issues too).

Felipe's probably looking at another 1,000 hits. Kearns, dependent on his health (always a crap shoot) is probably looking at five years or so as a production regular in the OF.

They aren't superstars, but in a world where Juan Pierre and Sarge Jr. are seeking $10M a year, those are two pretty nifty players to have in your hip pocket.

Obviously neither of these guys are going to the Hall of Fame, but they're both good enough to help out a large number of teams. They were certainly the two best players in that trade in 2006 and, unless Bray has himself a really good career, they stand to be the two best players in that trade when the historians look back at is as well.Agreed on Lopez v.05, but I also think that was a career year. We have a second baseman. The only question on him is if we got a fair return for an overall average major leaguer getting ready to get a paycheck. But then, did we gain with a good field, no hit version getting $5M a year?

TRF
11-20-2006, 02:17 PM
Medlock pitched the entire year at Chattanooga. He did OK and he is still young, but he also spent his first year in pro ball as a reliever. He was the last guy I considered out of what appear to be legit prospects that I thought would get a shot. I would imagine he gets a look at AAA this year and his year will be 2008 if he is ever gonna make it.

Salmon was promoted to Louisville and pitched 2/3 of his year at AAA, and did very well. His K/9 went up, his WHIP went down, but he's also 26. I would expect him to get his last shot to make the club this year, and I'd say he deserves it.

Medlock had been a starter until hitting AA. As a starter all he did was produce. He gets a deserved promotion to AA and they convert him to relief. Now, I think that was a mistake, but once again, all he did was produce in that role.

dude can pitch.

Salmon was ready to at least get a look. He had as much chance to succeed as Yan/Maj/Franklin

And all he cost was a roster spot. Same with Shearn.

M2
11-20-2006, 02:18 PM
Felipe is a good player, but he can only be useful for a winning team if he's at another position, IMO.

I'm not sure about his attitude or his temperate, but I don't know if Felipe would be willing to move away from SS. If he wasn't willing or going to be moved by Krivsky than I am glad he's not a part of this team.

I do wish Krivsky could have netted more in return though.

I'd like to have him right now, as potential trade bait.

Since I have no idea as to whether anybody seriously broached the notion of a position switch with him, I'm not going to speculate on what his response may or may not have been. Though in these cases I generally subscribe to the notion that when the team says "You're not cutting defensively where you are and we're moving to another position where we think you'll be better," the player tends to move. The team controls the lineup card, the bench and the roster (including the suspension list).

Plus, Felipe played multiple positions in each of his first three seasons with the Reds without complaint.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 02:23 PM
Medlock had been a starter until hitting AA. As a starter all he did was produce. He gets a deserved promotion to AA and they convert him to relief. Now, I think that was a mistake, but once again, all he did was produce in that role.

dude can pitch.

Salmon was ready to at least get a look. He had as much chance to succeed as Yan/Maj/Franklin

And all he cost was a roster spot. Same with Shearn.

Shearn is a career minor leaguer for a reason, apparently. Medlock will likely have his day and he has done nothing but perform. I just don't see his jump from AA as being helpful last year. Salmon is one who probably deserved a shot last year, but I imagine he has some sort of wart holding him back since he is 26 and had a really good year at AAA according to the basic numbers.

TRF
11-20-2006, 02:29 PM
Shearn is a career minor leaguer for a reason, apparently. Medlock will likely have his day and he has done nothing but perform. I just don't see his jump from AA as being helpful last year. Salmon is one who probably deserved a shot last year, but I imagine he has some sort of wart holding him back since he is 26 and had a really good year at AAA according to the basic numbers.

Again, this is flawed logic.

The Reds talent evaluators hold back Salmon and Shearn because they have flaws, but then they don't recognize said flaws in the players they acquire?

Salmon doesn't get a promotion, but the Reds trade for Ryan Franklin.

Shearn doesn't get a promotion, but the Reds gave Mays 4 starts, and 7 appearances overall?

IF Shearn can't cut it, then at least we know that if he gets the opportunity. Mays couldn't cut it with KC. We already KNEW he was done.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 02:41 PM
I'd like to have him right now, as potential trade bait.

Since I have no idea as to whether anybody seriously broached the notion of a position switch with him, I'm not going to speculate on what his response may or may not have been. Though in these cases I generally subscribe to the notion that when the team says "You're not cutting defensively where you are and we're moving to another position where we think you'll be better," the player tends to move. The team controls the lineup card, the bench and the roster (including the suspension list).

Plus, Felipe played multiple positions in each of his first three seasons with the Reds without complaint.

I have no idea if Felipe would have moved easily, I won't speculate on a players attitude unless there is some info, I agree with you there. I do think it's a little harder for a player to move after he get's settled into a position and wins a berth in the all star game. Something like that can change a players perception, and maybe rightfully so.

Kc61
11-20-2006, 02:48 PM
Again, this is flawed logic.

The Reds talent evaluators hold back Salmon and Shearn because they have flaws, but then they don't recognize said flaws in the players they acquire?

Salmon doesn't get a promotion, but the Reds trade for Ryan Franklin.

Shearn doesn't get a promotion, but the Reds gave Mays 4 starts, and 7 appearances overall?

IF Shearn can't cut it, then at least we know that if he gets the opportunity. Mays couldn't cut it with KC. We already KNEW he was done.

In a pennant race, the Reds opted for experience. They knew some of these players weren't great, but they valued their experience and thought they could perform, at least for a short time.

I don't think this is flawed logic.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 02:48 PM
Jason Jennings and Dontrelle Willis leap to mind. Brandon Webb too. Though I'd be surprised if any of the above got traded.

I imagine a go-getter GM like Schuerholz or Jocketty pockets Jason Jennings for minor league redundancies.

It is O'Dowd after all.

M2
11-20-2006, 02:52 PM
I have no idea if Felipe would have moved easily, I won't speculate on a players attitude unless there is some info, I agree with you there. I do think it's a little harder for a player to move after he get's settled into a position and wins a berth in the all star game. Something like that can change a players perception, and maybe rightfully so.

Agreed. Certainly Felipe's focus, rightly so, was on trying to succeed as a SS. I think the media and fans sometimes mistake that for a refusal to move. Lopez has to put all of his mental energy into making it as a SS. He can't afford to think about whether he really ought to play at another position. He'd never succeed with that sort of mindset.

It's the team's job to think about whether he ought to play somewhere else and it ought to recognize that while players may find positional shifts uncomfortable, they'll probably apply that singular focus to their new position once they realize the change has become inevitable.

Puffy
11-20-2006, 02:55 PM
I imagine a go-getter GM like Schuerholz or Jocketty pockets Jason Jennings for minor league redundancies.

It is O'Dowd after all.

I agree - its gonna be one of the smart GM's that grab Jennings. I would think Mazzone in Baltimore is probably lobbying his GM for a chance at Jennings as well.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 02:56 PM
Again, this is flawed logic.

The Reds talent evaluators hold back Salmon and Shearn because they have flaws, but then they don't recognize said flaws in the players they acquire?

Salmon doesn't get a promotion, but the Reds trade for Ryan Franklin.

Shearn doesn't get a promotion, but the Reds gave Mays 4 starts, and 7 appearances overall?

IF Shearn can't cut it, then at least we know that if he gets the opportunity. Mays couldn't cut it with KC. We already KNEW he was done.Again? I don't recall any uses of flawed logic thus far. As someone has pointed out, Ryan Franklin has been a career average major league pitcher. From what I can see, he has a plus slider and a good enough fastball to set it up that has allowed him to make the show and stick. His "flaws" still make him an average major league pitcher.

The Reds talent evaluators are looking at minor leaguers and trying to project their "flaws" into some level of major league success and thus far have been unable to arrive at that conclusion. Shearn is really hard to argue since he has spent considerable time in two orgs and still been unable to crack even a cup of coffee.

It seems that you are failing to realize that even an average major league pitcher is so much better than an average minor league pitcher that to look in the Reds system and see someone putting up what are above average numbers if they were compiled at the major league level really only translate to average numbers at the minor league level.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 02:59 PM
Again? I don't recall any uses of flawed logic thus far. As someone has pointed out, Ryan Franklin has been a career average major league pitcher. From what I can see, he has a plus slider and a good enough fastball to set it up that has allowed him to make the show and stick. His "flaws" still make him an average major league pitcher.

The Reds talent evaluators are looking at minor leaguers and trying to project their "flaws" into some level of major league success and thus far have been unable to arrive at that conclusion. Shearn is really hard to argue since he has spent considerable time in two orgs and still been unable to crack even a cup of coffee.

It seems that you are failing to realize that even an average major league pitcher is so much better than an average minor league pitcher that to look in the Reds system and see someone putting up what are above average numbers if they were compiled at the major league level really only translate to average numbers at the minor league level.

Ryan Franklin, for his career, is WELL BELOW a major league average pitcher. WELL BELOW.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 03:04 PM
You just did a bait and switch. Your previous post said "above average everyday players." Now, you are referring to "above average performers on offense." Which is it, since "everday players" entails when these guys take the field as well, which we know drags the value of Lopez down to "average," at best. Then, you define "above average everyday players" based on half a season of offensive performance? There is no data that you can provide for those two, on a historical basis, that qualifies them by some measure of "above average everyday players." You sure do have me confused as to what the criteria are for an "above average everyday player." I never was very good at shooting those moving duckies.

Sorry I confused you. It wasn't intentional.

As for there being "no data...that qualifies them by some measure of 'above average everyday players,'" well, you're clearly wrong on that count. M2 pretty much covered this.

Ga_Red
11-20-2006, 03:10 PM
2/09/07

westofyou
11-20-2006, 03:13 PM
Ryan Franklin, for his career, is WELL BELOW a major league average pitcher. WELL BELOW.


RYAN FRANKLIN

YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA
1999 Mariners 26 -1 1 0 -1 2 1 0 -3 -2 0.11
2001 Mariners 28 1 3 0 -4 5 11 8 4 4 0.92
2002 Mariners 29 0 2 -1 -3 4 2 6 21 -18 0.45
2003 Mariners 30 -1 -1 0 0 20 23 23 14 -45 0.96
2004 Mariners 31 -7 -5 1 0 -15 -4 -6 13 -40 -0.26
2005 Mariners 32 -3 -4 1 0 -16 -10 -16 2 -38 -0.74
2006 Phillies 33 -2 -2 0 -3 -5 1 -1 3 -15 -0.09
Reds 33 4 -1 0 -1 -2 -1 0 -7 0 0.06
TOTALS 2 -3 0 -5 -7 0 0 -4 -15 -0.04
TOTALS -9 -7 2 -12 -6 22 15 47 -152 0.15


YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL
1999 Mariners -1 1.71 -1.36 -1.47 -2.63 -0.93 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0
2001 Mariners -3 0.55 0.98 0.45 0.48 0.51 0 1 -2 0 4 0
2002 Mariners 0 0.32 1.91 -1.33 1.59 1.03 0 5 2 0 18 0
2003 Mariners -8 0.85 1.44 -1.91 0.57 -0.31 1 6 2 0 40 -1
2004 Mariners -7 -0.66 -0.11 -1.78 0.60 -0.22 1 7 4 -1 3 -2
2005 Mariners -5 -0.77 -0.63 -1.77 0.09 -0.54 1 4 0 1 -12 0
2006 Phillies -3 -0.78 -0.55 -2.47 0.50 -0.51 0 1 -2 -2 -2 0
Reds 0 -0.75 -2.87 -0.06 -2.53 -0.85 0 0 -5 1 -4 0
TOTALS -3 -0.77 -1.28 -1.71 -0.45 -0.68 0 1 -7 -1 -6 0
TOTALS -27 -0.07 0.40 -1.54 0.47 -0.22 2 23 -1 -1 47 -3

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 03:19 PM
sorry guys, I should have been clearer,
When I wrote *starter* I meant to be
making it clear I was refering to a starting
pitcher.

Anyway, I was thinking of Jason Jennings.

My bet is w/o giving up Dunn, Bailey, Cueto, Votto,
or Wood, WK gets JJ.

I'd love to see that happen.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 03:20 PM
Ryan Franklin, for his career, is WELL BELOW a major league average pitcher. WELL BELOW.The Emperor has no clothes. I quoted WOY for a reason.

M2
11-20-2006, 03:21 PM
My bet is w/o giving up Dunn, Bailey, Cueto, Votto,
or Wood, WK gets JJ.

More power to him if Wayne can pull that off, though I'd gladly deal Votto for Jennings.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 03:22 PM
Sorry I confused you. It wasn't intentional.

As for there being "no data...that qualifies them by some measure of 'above average everyday players,'" well, you're clearly wrong on that count. M2 pretty much covered this.Fine if M2 reflects your position, but I'm not sure he did anything other than point out that FeLo had a great 2005, which I agreed with. That does not make him an "above average everyday player" by definition. Anyhow, I'm not sure they got value for the trade, I just object to the overstating of what we gave up.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 03:34 PM
The Emperor has no clothes. I quoted WOY for a reason.

I don't consider a reliever with a career .777 OPSA "average" anything. That's crap you find on the side of the road.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 03:41 PM
I don't consider a reliever with a career .777 OPSA "average" anything. That's crap you find on the side of the road.
7 year career, composite league ERA is 4.35, his ERA is 4.36. Career WHIP is 1.345, again a WHIP representing an average pitcher. Hey, I rode him hard in his stint with the Reds because he was awful, but his career has been "average" by various measures.

Puffy
11-20-2006, 03:44 PM
More power to him if Wayne can pull that off, though I'd gladly deal Votto for Jennings.

me too.

M2
11-20-2006, 03:48 PM
Fine if M2 reflects your position, but I'm not sure he did anything other than point out that FeLo had a great 2005, which I agreed with. That does not make him an "above average everyday player" by definition. Anyhow, I'm not sure they got value for the trade, I just object to the overstating of what we gave up.

I thought I also pointed out that he had a solid, above average 2006. Two years running of being above average for a kid headed into his prime sure counts as being above average to me.

I don't think "above average" overstates Lopez and Kearns in the least. They most definitely fill the bill. Perennial All-Star or top tier would be overstatements, but pointing that guys who are better than the average bear are better than the average bear is simply an act of definition. IMO, you're understating their value in portraying them as negligible, easily replaced talents. They aren't and, more to the point, they weren't.

What happened with them is something I've objected to multiple times over the years. I had no problem trading Lopez or Kearns. In fact, I was probably one of the first folks in these parts to be for trading both of them. The problem is that the Reds got so little for them. I find far too often we tend to undervalue a guy once he becomes the nominal guy the team should trade. For instance, I always maintained Sean Casey would be an awfully useful guy for a playoff caliber team. That has a value. The Reds got rid of him like he was oozing Hep C. These aren't players you want to get rid of, they're players you want to get something for.

RFS62
11-20-2006, 03:58 PM
What happened with them is something I've objected to multiple times over the years. I had no problem trading Lopez or Kearns. In fact, I was probably one of the first folks in these parts to be for trading both of them. The problem is that the Reds got so little for them. I find far too often we tend to undervalue a guy once he becomes the nominal guy the team should trade. For instance, I always maintained Sean Casey would be an awfully useful guy for a playoff caliber team. That has a value. The Reds got rid of him like he was oozing Hep C. These aren't players you want to get rid of, they're players you want to get something for.


I think a salary dump for next season was a major factor in Krivsky's trading Kearns and Lopez. He saw around 8 or 9 million coming on the books next season between them.

Also, I can't help but think he decided to move Kearns to get him away from Adam as well. All we have is hearsay, but I've always thought he had a sense of entitlement beyond what he's produced thus far. Lopez too has been the subject of many remarks of that nature. I know it's not anything we can verify unless you talk to front office or clubhouse people, but it's just an impression I have.

Once he decided to move them, then it's a matter of what does he get. And what he got, or settled for, as many critics of the trade would put it, was relative to where we were at the time of the deal..... contending for the division.

Keeping the promise Castellini made in his first press conference had to play into that trade in ways that just can't be measured, IMO.

How do you determine the value of staying in contention, even though we fell short? It's a much more complex equation than simple numbers can reflect.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 03:58 PM
Fine if M2 reflects your position, but I'm not sure he did anything other than point out that FeLo had a great 2005, which I agreed with. That does not make him an "above average everyday player" by definition. Anyhow, I'm not sure they got value for the trade, I just object to the overstating of what we gave up.

I object to you saying the data doesn't exist when it clearly does. It shows that Kearns is an above average everyday player (both offensively and defensively), and that FeLo is at least average, and performed well above average just one year ago.

If you'd like to further deconstruct the term "above average everyday player", go right ahead.

M2
11-20-2006, 04:12 PM
I think a salary dump for next season was a major factor in Krivsky's trading Kearns and Lopez. He saw around 8 or 9 million coming on the books next season between them.

Also, I can't help but think he decided to move Kearns to get him away from Adam as well. All we have is hearsay, but I've always thought he had a sense of entitlement beyond what he's produced thus far. Lopez too has been the subject of many remarks of that nature. I know it's not anything we can verify unless you talk to front office or clubhouse people, but it's just an impression I have.

Once he decided to move them, then it's a matter of what does he get. And what he got, or settled for, as many critics of the trade would put it, was relative to where we were at the time of the deal..... contending for the division.

Keeping the promise Castellini made in his first press conference had to play into that trade in ways that just can't be measured, IMO.

How do you determine the value of staying in contention, even though we fell short? It's a much more complex equation than simple numbers can reflect.

Well, I don't have any kind words for a salary dump in the middle of a pennant chase. Beyond that, given where the market's gone, it was an incredibly short-sighted move if that was indeed Krivsky's intent.

I also think simple numbers make a stark and compelling case that the trade cost the Reds a lot more on the contention front than they gained. I don't really see much of a hook to hang the contrary position on. The offense collapsed and the trade didn't improve the pitching/defense.

I don't doubt that Krivsky made the move because he thought he was improving his team for the stretch run. He just turned out to be wrong about it (a combination of undervaluing what he had and overvaluing what he got in return, particularly Majewski, says me). I don't think he settled. I think it was a simple case of wrong idea at the wrong time.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 04:12 PM
I thought I also pointed out that he had a solid, above average 2006. Two years running of being above average for a kid headed into his prime sure counts as being above average to me.

I don't think "above average" overstates Lopez and Kearns in the least. They most definitely fill the bill. Perennial All-Star or top tier would be overstatements, but pointing that guys who are better than the average bear are better than the average bear is simply an act of definition. IMO, you're understating their value in portraying them as negligible, easily replaced talents. They aren't and, more to the point, they weren't.

What happened with them is something I've objected to multiple times over the years. I had no problem trading Lopez or Kearns. In fact, I was probably one of the first folks in these parts to be for trading both of them. The problem is that the Reds got so little for them. I find far too often we tend to undervalue a guy once he becomes the nominal guy the team should trade. For instance, I always maintained Sean Casey would be an awfully useful guy for a playoff caliber team. That has a value. The Reds got rid of him like he was oozing Hep C. These aren't players you want to get rid of, they're players you want to get something for.
M2,
With all due respect, I went back and read that post, and there were several comments, but nothing that I construed as "a solid, above average 2006." Several generic statements about his future, but nothing specific to 2006.

JF,
Regardless, I don't see a boatload of data coming from either side, so I'm not sure what getting indignant is based on. You used the first half of 2006 as your basis, I am evaluating based on career numbers and where they go from here, and so has M2. I smell average, you smell above average. Fine. Guess we'll see how it plays out from here.

RFS62
11-20-2006, 04:19 PM
Well, I don't have any kind words for a salary dump in the middle of a pennant chase. Beyond that, given where the market's gone, it was an incredibly short-sighted move if that was indeed Krivsky's intent.



I'm not suggesting it was a pure salary dump. I'm just of the opinion that a lot of factors played into the deal. First and foremost, I think he decided that both guys weren't in his long term plans and he knew that next season they got a big raise.

M2
11-20-2006, 04:24 PM
M2,
With all due respect, I went back and read that post, and there were several comments, but nothing that I construed as "a solid, above average 2006." Several generic statements about his future, but nothing specific to 2006.

Except for his Win Shares ranking, which was above average (16 total) and quite solid. I could have also included his EQA, VORP or runs above position, but it seemed you wanted something with his glove factored into it.

traderumor
11-20-2006, 04:30 PM
Except for his Win Shares ranking, which was above average (16 total) and quite solid. I could have also included his EQA, VORP or runs above position, but it seemed you wanted something with his glove factored into it.You're right, my mistake.

M2
11-20-2006, 04:35 PM
I'm not suggesting it was a pure salary dump. I'm just of the opinion that a lot of factors played into the deal. First and foremost, I think he decided that both guys weren't in his long term plans and he knew that next season they got a big raise.

I never viewed them as long-term guys either. Yet just because they aren't long-term guys doesn't mean you rush them out the door. Again, this is a mistake the Reds have made repeatedly over the years. If a guy isn't necessarily the solution that doesn't make him nearly worthless. It's lousy card playing and it gets you into binds like being in an exploding market with minimal trade equity at your disposal.

I don't doubt that you've accurately divined Krivsky's mindset on the trade, but that doesn't make him less wrong. He blew that one and blew it hard. He can't say it out loud because he's still got Bray and Majewski on the roster, but I hope he recognizes it and has come away from it the wiser.

IslandRed
11-20-2006, 04:36 PM
Now that it's official... BP's Joe Sheehan thought Gonzalez was a good "stealth sign" even if the dollars were higher than originally projected, as pretty much every other free agent will be. In particular, I thought it interesting that (1) he thinks the defensive systems that rate Gonzalez as excellent are more accurate than BP's own Davenport numbers and (2) Gonzo will really help the Reds because the team doesn't strike out a lot of guys and the bullpen is groundball-oriented. How true is that latter point, I wonder? (The part about the bullpen, I mean, the low K figures are obvious enough.)

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5718

Cedric
11-20-2006, 04:55 PM
Getting back to Gonzo trade for a second with a simple thought.

The Krivsky era started with arguably the worst defense up the middle in baseball. Now 50% of that equation is now arguably the best in baseball.

Turning this organization around was always going to be an arduous task, but I think we got some legs.

RFS62
11-20-2006, 04:56 PM
Getting back to Gonzo trade for a second with a simple thought.

The Krivsky era started with arguably the worst defense up the middle in baseball. Now 50% of that equation is now arguably the best in baseball.

Turning this organization around was always going to be an arduous task, but I think we got some legs.



I agree.

:beerme:

Puffy
11-20-2006, 05:00 PM
I think a salary dump for next season was a major factor in Krivsky's trading Kearns and Lopez. He saw around 8 or 9 million coming on the books next season between them.

Also, I can't help but think he decided to move Kearns to get him away from Adam as well. All we have is hearsay, but I've always thought he had a sense of entitlement beyond what he's produced thus far. Lopez too has been the subject of many remarks of that nature. I know it's not anything we can verify unless you talk to front office or clubhouse people, but it's just an impression I have.

Once he decided to move them, then it's a matter of what does he get. And what he got, or settled for, as many critics of the trade would put it, was relative to where we were at the time of the deal..... contending for the division.

Keeping the promise Castellini made in his first press conference had to play into that trade in ways that just can't be measured, IMO.

How do you determine the value of staying in contention, even though we fell short? It's a much more complex equation than simple numbers can reflect.

But Dave, as we see so far this offseason, players like Kearns and Lopez have more value in the offseason then a month before the trade deadline.

Thats really what people like myself were objecting to - not that Kearns and Lopez were untouchable - rather that it was a bad time to move them and that they got less value than I/we felt they could have.

If Krivsky caried them into the offseason, put them on the market, let it be known that he was "testing the waters" but nothing more (wink, wink) he most likely could have gotten more for them. Again, like I stated at the time of the trade, it was the bundling plus the return that I hated. Trade Lopez for Bray and I'd have been fine with it. Then you'd have Kearns as a chip this offseason.

As for the stay in contention part, well I never felt the Reds had a shot. Yes, I was in the minority, and the way things fell I will concede I was wrong (but who could have predicted 80 wins would keep them in contention until the final week) but I thought the Reds could make other moves that would have keep them in "contention" while still keeping trading chips.

After all, you and I agree that this being Krivsky's first offseason, this is where he craps or gets off the pot. I'm sure we'd both like it if he had more ammo.

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 05:01 PM
Getting back to Gonzo trade for a second with a simple thought.

The Krivsky era started with arguably the worst defense up the middle in baseball. Now 50% of that equation is now arguably the best in baseball.

Turning this organization around was always going to be an arduous task, but I think we got some legs.

Look at the flip side, though.

Krivsky took over an offensive juggernaut and is working on turning them into a third-tier unit.

I agree that the defense and pitching needed to be improved. I just don't think it would have been that hard to do it without tearing down the offense.

RFS62
11-20-2006, 05:08 PM
But Dave, as we see so far this offseason, players like Kearns and Lopez have more value in the offseason then a month before the trade deadline.

Thats really what people like myself were objecting to - not that Kearns and Lopez were untouchable - rather that it was a bad time to move them and that they got less value than I/we felt they could have.

If Krivsky caried them into the offseason, put them on the market, let it be known that he was "testing the waters" but nothing more (wink, wink) he most likely could have gotten more for them. Again, like I stated at the time of the trade, it was the bundling plus the return that I hated. Trade Lopez for Bray and I'd have been fine with it. Then you'd have Kearns as a chip this offseason.

As for the stay in contention part, well I never felt the Reds had a shot. Yes, I was in the minority, and the way things fell I will concede I was wrong (but who could have predicted 80 wins would keep them in contention until the final week) but I thought the Reds could make other moves that would have keep them in "contention" while still keeping trading chips.

After all, you and I agree that this being Krivsky's first offseason, this is where he craps or gets off the pot. I'm sure we'd both like it if he had more ammo.


Yeah, I know. I get it that most folks weren't objecting to getting rid of them, but rather the timing and the return.

I still don't begrudge him for the move. It took a lot of guts to pull the trigger, and the reward if it went the way he thought it would could have been considerable.

Remember, the offense went in the tank in the second half for more reasons than those two leaving.

I'm not trying to start another discussion over the trade. I respect the well thought out and well expressed opinions of both sides, oddly enough, yours included. :evil:

I think you have to try to discern the motivation and mindset behind the move from every possible angle to really rate it. Also, let's see how the players traded on both side perform this year too.

But I definitely see the point of anyone who thinks we got too little for Kearns and Lopez. To me, it's more than that, it's the potential opportunity that was slipping through our fingers when the deal went down. We were a sinking ship, and the bullpen was the main culprit, IMO.

oneupper
11-20-2006, 05:15 PM
While I agree with many here that the Kearns/Lopez deal wasn't a good deal, doing it when Krivsky did...has given him more flexibility in the offseason.

True, they were chips...but at $4mm+ that Lopez is likely to get in arb or $3mm + Kearns will be getting..."how valuable are these chips?"

Maybe the "trade" wasn't LaRue for Gonzalez...

Maybe it was Lopez and Kearns for Gonzalez... and WK still has LaRue's cash to "continue shopping".

Puffy
11-20-2006, 05:15 PM
I'm not trying to start another discussion over the trade. I respect the well thought out and well expressed opinions of both sides, oddly enough, yours included. :evil:

I think you have to try to discern the motivation and mindset behind the move from every possible angle to really rate it. Also, let's see how the players traded on both side perform this year too.

But I definitely see the point of anyone who thinks we got too little for Kearns and Lopez. To me, it's more than that, it's the potential opportunity that was slipping through our fingers when the deal went down. We were a sinking ship, and the bullpen was the main culprit, IMO.

That really hurt, didn't it :laugh:

Yeah, I see your side too - and oddly, I agree with everything up to the execution. Again, if it was only one of the two we would probably be in complete agreement.

Thankfully, we are not in complete agreement!! Cause you suck and i don't like agreeing with you :mooner:

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 05:45 PM
Maybe the "trade" wasn't LaRue for Gonzalez...

Maybe it was Lopez and Kearns for Gonzalez... and WK still has LaRue's cash to "continue shopping".

If that's the case, then the trade is even worse now than it was then.

$5 million plus two *above average everyday players* for a glove-only SS is ridiculous.

M2
11-20-2006, 06:02 PM
While I agree with many here that the Kearns/Lopez deal wasn't a good deal, doing it when Krivsky did...has given him more flexibility in the offseason.

True, they were chips...but at $4mm+ that Lopez is likely to get in arb or $3mm + Kearns will be getting..."how valuable are these chips?"

In this market, where far lesser players will be making far more money? I'll pick exceedingly valuable. More valuable than ever before in fact.

And I couldn't disagree more about the offseason flexibility. The Reds aren't rebuilding this team through free agency. That's a dead end. They can get some filler there, but that's not where the Reds are going to make their most important moves.

The trade market is, was and will be the place where the Reds have to score. Kearns and Lopez in hand would give you tons more flexibilty there because you'd have something to trade instead of Bray and Majewski, neither of whom is going to have much of a market. I'm talking multiple orders of magnitude more flexiblity here. The cost of Lopez and Kearns in this market is neglible and the value of Bray and Majewski is minimal.

The worst part about it is that the trade's failure to improve the club and the bind created by having less talent available to move for this offseason was an easy read.

Nugget
11-20-2006, 06:55 PM
I haven't scoured the whole thread but I think one point that is being missed about the acquisition is that in improving the defense it will help attract better pitchers. If you know that you are coming to a team with a top SS and 2B and a GM who is working on improving the defense it will be just as sweet as extra cash.

vaticanplum
11-20-2006, 07:06 PM
My head is spinning; there are actually a lot of wonderful points in this thread.


While Arroyo did better than I thought he would, I did think 200+ IP with an ERA in the high 3.00s was in the offing for him. The dude can pitch.

This is a valid point that I think a lot of people overlook. This year, Arroyo performed above expectations, to be sure. But I think that the gap of HOW much better he performed than he was expected to is exaggerated among Reds fans. This is not to belittle Wayne's trade here. He made a good trade because he gave away something rather extraneous on the Reds and got something the team needed. And he also happened to get that player locked up for a few years at a very good price. That's the definition of a good trade. What he did NOT do is pull a diamond from the rough. Beyond the stats that were decent enough to show that Arroyo's relatively poor 2005 was probably an aberration, and his obvious health and focus as a pitcher, I do believe that popular opinion in the AL was far more favorable than what I saw on this board when he was traded. I say this mostly from my experience as a Yankees fan. I can tell you that every Yankee fan I know ALWAYS viewed him as a formidable pitcher, and that is, of course, against a pretty formidable lineup. Frankly I remember being quite surprised at the amount of people on this board who disliked this trade and only didn't say so in so many words because I was still new to the board and didn't want to seem stupid or ignorant. I assumed that any of that hate would have come from love of Pena, but most people seemed to think that Arroyo was a genuinely bad pitcher, which floored me.

I don't think that Wayne and spying scouting staff were able to fritter Arroyo away in the dead of night because Theo Epstein didn't see Arroyo's potential. I believe that the reason Theo gave him up was because a) he overestimated the capabilities and durability of his own pitching staff, and b) he needed another great hitter. In this sense it was a good trade, by the above definition, for the Red Sox too, though Theo's expectations didn't pan out the way he hoped.

Now, I'm becoming more impressed bit by tiny bit every day by Krivsky and I'm definitely erring on the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point. And don't get me wrong, if all of his trades were this cut-and-dry I'd be thrilled. But it was just that: a good trade, cut-and-dry. He did not defy the pitching gods by acquiring a mediocre pitcher who blossomed under his scouting and tutelage. He got a good pitcher who had a particularly good year when he was in a city that allowed him to shine.

re: the Kearns discussion; that trade is actually reason #412 why I believe that Krivsky is holding onto Dunn. If Krivsky was that willing to sacrifice a bit of offense for defense, I see no reason why would have given up Kearns, who has enough pop in his bat and is better than Dunn defensively plus cheaper, rather than pawning off Dunn for pitching.

GAC
11-20-2006, 09:02 PM
Thats a bad analogy GAC.

Would you admit that baseball today is different today than 20 years ago? How bout 30 years ago? Are stadiums today different than 30 years ago?

Today's "retro" stadiums today are getting smaller again like the older ones. They are becoming more hitter parks, with some exceptions.

Sure. The BRM was built for artificial turf. They had power, but was more geared for speed and defense IMO.

So I guess with the GAB we need to gut our OF and get guys who are specialists at over the wall catches? :evil:


The simple fact is that in the 70's a team could win with black holes at certain positions because of the game. Today that might not be true. And, even if it were true, these Reds don't have Foster, Morgan, Bench, Perez, Griffey, Sr and Rose to offset a black hole or two.

I don't think it was a bad analogy and here's why Puffy. My point is that Davey Concepcion's contribution to the team was far more defensive than offensive. He was only one of 9 players on that field who filled a specific role. His contribution at defense, not his bat, was invaluable. It's what Davey was known for.

If you're going to always use offensive matrix's soley to gauge players today, then Concepcion would be considered a marginal player by alot of fans, and wouldn't fit into the '07 Reds lineup.

Gonzalez is here to fill that role as Davey did. No one denies that other players need to be added/brought in to also address the runs allowed and/or run production issue. But does the signing of Alex help this team address runs allowed to some extent?

The Gonzalez trade IMHO is not the "hallmark" of Krivsky's tenure so far, yet some seem to be treating it that way. It's simply addressing and filling one important need. It's not the "end of all", and I think Krivsky knows that also.

If not Gonzalez at SS, then who? I also like it because it keeps Philips at 2B, where I think he is better suited.

And look at the bright side... we'll probably see far less of Castro! :evil:

He (Krivsky) still has some issues, on both the offensive and defensive end that need to be addressed. It's just not going to be done in one off-season.

And getting back to the BRM.... it's a very good example of an organization bringing up players through the system (Rose, Perez, Bench, Concepcion, Griffey, Gullett), and also going out and acquiring other key components (Morgan, Foster, Billingham, Norman).

There's balance there.

That formula hasn't (or shouldn't) change.

But free agency makes it alot harder in today's game for sure. And a majority of organization's have to lean more heavily on drafting and player development.

This year's market, as far as the Reds filling needs in the areas of pitching, is one of the worst I've seen in quite awhile.

mth123
11-20-2006, 09:43 PM
The question is, what did Krivsky see in Arroyo that made him realize how well he would perform for the Reds? What did he know that Theo Epstein and most other people on the planet didn't know?

And why didn't that special wisdom help Krivsky recognize the difference between Arroyo and the likes of Mays, Majewski, et al?

I think he saw a guy who had no role in Boston and was very available. He picked him up because it was easy. The rest was good pitching by Arroyo and good fortune for WK. There was no special wisdom. He picked-up a very available arm for a team that needed one. Anyone could have made that deal. He traded the guy who was his starting LF at the time for a guy that was completly on the outs. In that context he should have gotten more. Boston was just happy to move his contract.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 09:46 PM
I think he saw a guy who had no role in Boston and was very available. He picked him up because it was easy. The rest was good pitching by Arroyo and good fortune for WK. There was no special wisdom. He picked-up a very available arm for a team that needed one. Anyone could have made that deal. He traded the guy who was his starting LF at the time for a guy that was completly on the outs. In that context he should have gotten more. Boston was just happy to move his contract.

Yep, it's that easy.

Give me a break.

mth123
11-20-2006, 09:59 PM
sorry guys, I should have been clearer,
When I wrote *starter* I meant to be
making it clear I was refering to a starting
pitcher.

Anyway, I was thinking of Jason Jennings.

My bet is w/o giving up Dunn, Bailey, Cueto, Votto,
or Wood, WK gets JJ.

That would be fantastic. I think it can be done as well. How are you so sure of this?

mth123
11-20-2006, 10:13 PM
Yep, it's that easy.

Give me a break.

Last spring Arroyo was 7th in line for starts at Boston behind Beckett, Schilling, Clement, Wells, Wakefield and Papelbon - and Lester was gaining on him. He was being offered around to anyone who would take his contract. Krivsky gave his starting LF for him and hit the lottery as some one said. I'm glad it worked out and it was a deal that made sense, but it was no great genius move.

He made similar easy moves for Phillips and Ross. He picked up Ross because Larue was hurt and had no idea the offense was coming. I do give him more credit for Phillips because it would have been easy to pass with his crowded infield.

IMO he has only made one real bold move "trade." That was the disaster with Washington. The rest was just picking up unwanted guys from the back of some one else's roster. Arroyo's performance afterward doesn't change the situation at the time he was acquired. Giving up Pena meant more to the Reds than giving up Arroyo did to Boston. The Reds traded Pena reluctantly. Boston gave up Arroyo willingly.

Ga_Red
11-20-2006, 10:14 PM
.2/09/07

Cedric
11-20-2006, 10:17 PM
Last spring Arroyo was 7th in line for starts at Boston behind Beckett, Schilling, Clement, Wells, Wakefield and Papelbon - and Lester was gaining on him. He was being offered around to anyone who would take his contract. Krivsky gave his starting LF for him and hit the lottery as some one said. I'm glad it worked out and it was a deal that made sense, but it was no great genius move.

He made similar easy moves for Phillips and Ross. He picked up Ross because Larue was hurt and had no idea the offense was coming. I do give him more credit for Phillips because it would have been easy to pass with his crowded infield.

IMO he has only made one real bold move "trade." That was the disaster with Washington. The rest was just picking up unwanted guys from the back of some one else's roster. Arroyo's performance afterward doesn't change the situation at the time he was acquired. Giving up Pena meant more to the Reds than giving up Arroyo did to Boston. The Reds traded Pena reluctantly. Boston gave up Arroyo willingly.

I get your drift. Wayne Krivsky just wins the lottery alot.

The other times he is a clueless, clumsy bum.

Right?

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 10:20 PM
I get your drift. Wayne Krivsky just wins the lottery alot.

Right?

I think Krivsky liked what he saw in Arroyo. But I think mth123 is exactly right in that Boston was going to surrender him to the first team who offered even decent offense in return.

I doubt the whole thing was much of a sweaty negotiation. In fact, it was a perfect match. Sure, give Krivsky credit for targetting the right guy, but that deal was something M2 mentioned on a lark well before the season started. It really wasn't rocket science.

vaticanplum
11-20-2006, 10:21 PM
I get your drift. Wayne Krivsky just wins the lottery alot.

The other times he is a clueless, clumsy bum.

Right?

Cedric, he just gave a thoughtful analysis of a number of moves on a case-by-case basis. Without putting words in his mouth, I think that a black-and-white, good vs. bad judgment is exactly the thing he's trying to avoid.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 10:21 PM
I think Krivsky liked what he saw in Arroyo. But I think mth123 is exactly right in that Boston was going to surrender him to the first team who offered even decent offense in return.

I doubt the whole thing was much of a sweaty negotiation. In fact, it was a perfect match. Sure, give Krivsky credit for targetting the right guy, but that deal was something M2 mentioned on a lark well before the season started. It really wasn't rocket science.

What does it taking rocket science have to do with anything? It's a far cry from wanting someone and then having the cajones and foresight to get the job done.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 10:23 PM
Cedric, he just gave a thoughtful analysis of a number of moves on a case-by-case basis. Without putting words in his mouth, I think that a black-and-white, good vs. bad judgment is exactly the thing he's trying to avoid.

I call it like I see it.

He has Krivsky winning the lottery all the time. Anything wrong with me forming that opinion from his own words?

Cedric
11-20-2006, 10:25 PM
Why would he have picked up David Ross if he hadn't seen any potential in his approach and swing? For David's stellar defense?

It just doesn't make sense to take away a guys scouting ability and vision because you don't like his later moves. It reeks of bias.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 10:25 PM
What does it taking rocket science have to do with anything? .

I don't know. You tell me. You seem to be the one staunchly defending Wayne's intelligence against any and all detractors.

vaticanplum
11-20-2006, 10:25 PM
I call it like I see it.

He has Krivsky winning the lottery all the time. Anything wrong with me forming that opinion from his own words?

No, but I'm expressing mine. that's just not how I read it. He is saying (I think) that Wayne was filling needs in those trades, not working miracles. That doesn't make them bad trades; quite the opposite in fact, as filling needs is what a GM is supposed to do.

I personally would rather have smart moves than miracles. Miracles can blow up in your face. And I also think that's the point relating to the Washington trade: that was an overambitious, uneven trade that created needs rather than filling them, so it blew up.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 10:26 PM
I don't know. You tell me. You seem to be the one staunchly defending Wayne's intelligence against any and all detractors.

By defending his scouting and vision.

That's not rocket science FCB. Nice try though.

Wheelhouse
11-20-2006, 10:27 PM
Last spring Arroyo was 7th in line for starts at Boston behind Beckett, Schilling, Clement, Wells, Wakefield and Papelbon - and Lester was gaining on him. He was being offered around to anyone who would take his contract. Krivsky gave his starting LF for him and hit the lottery as some one said. I'm glad it worked out and it was a deal that made sense, but it was no great genius move.

He made similar easy moves for Phillips and Ross. He picked up Ross because Larue was hurt and had no idea the offense was coming. I do give him more credit for Phillips because it would have been easy to pass with his crowded infield.

IMO he has only made one real bold move "trade." That was the disaster with Washington. The rest was just picking up unwanted guys from the back of some one else's roster. Arroyo's performance afterward doesn't change the situation at the time he was acquired. Giving up Pena meant more to the Reds than giving up Arroyo did to Boston. The Reds traded Pena reluctantly. Boston gave up Arroyo willingly.

Very poor post. Claiming chance success on one hand, and poor skill on the other. Irrational. Disheartening.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 10:28 PM
No, but I'm expressing mine. that's just not how I read it. He is saying (I think) that Wayne was filling needs in those trades, not working miracles. That doesn't make them bad trades; quite the opposite in fact, as filling needs is what a GM is supposed to do.

I personally would rather have smart moves than miracles. Miracles can blow up in your face. And I also think that's the point relating to the Washington trade: that was an overambitious, uneven trade that created needs rather than filling them, so it blew up.

Again, why is saying someone showed good vision and scouting ability akin to producing miracles?

Please point out where I said that. If I did I apologize before hand.

mth123
11-20-2006, 10:34 PM
I get your drift. Wayne Krivsky just wins the lottery alot.

The other times he is a clueless, clumsy bum.

Right?

Well I never said clueless, clumsy or bum. That's you putting words in my mouth. No need to get so confrontational.

I think he's better than DanO and Bowden. Given the timing of his takeover he still deserves an offseason to show what he can do. But his moves that worked out were not the result of having a great plan or pulling off some fantastic move. He was opportunistic and some of the moves worked. That's better than passing I suppose.

I don't really fault him for Mays, Franklin and Cormier. By then he was in deep and took a shot. But I don't like the Castro deal, I'm on the fence on Gonzalez (but I think Phillips was a better alternative with more options to fill 2B) and really think the Stanton signing was pouring money down a hole unless a trade of Cormier comes behind it to bring something. He's just more of the same. Trading Larue was a good move. Signing Crosby was a nothing and I don't understand all the angst about it. Jerry Gil may end up a real good move and if not, well nothing really lost.

He's made a lot of moves so I may have missed a couple but that's pretty much where I stand. Nothing to really impress me so far, 1 really bad move made in the heat of a penant race and really not enough time in the job to say he stinks. But I don't have to automatically think he's great either.

vaticanplum
11-20-2006, 10:37 PM
Ok, to be fair, Cedric, you didn't. The original post I'm talking about is this one:


I think he saw a guy who had no role in Boston and was very available. He picked him up because it was easy. The rest was good pitching by Arroyo and good fortune for WK. There was no special wisdom. He picked-up a very available arm for a team that needed one. Anyone could have made that deal. He traded the guy who was his starting LF at the time for a guy that was completly on the outs. In that context he should have gotten more. Boston was just happy to move his contract.

But you responded to this curtly and with no information, so I didn't infer "good vision and scouting ability" from that. Maybe this is semantics. I agree with mth here on the Arroyo pickup for the most part, but I also agree that good vision and scouting ability are a part of that. He used the phrase "special wisdom" which to me implies something loftier or a unique ability not possessed by most GMs, something beyond vision and scouting.

Look, I really do agree with most of Krivsky's moves, but like I said a couple of pages back, I think that sometimes we overhail the Arroyo trade -- or, more accurately, we hail it in the wrong way. It was a very smart and even-handed move. It wasn't the surprising gift of wisdom that some seem to think it was. A lot of people knew how good Bronson Arroyo was; Krivsky just happened to come up with the right thing to deal for him at the right time. That's not belittling what he did; that's just to say that it was a good baseball move and not "rocket science" as the kids say.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 10:39 PM
Ok, to be fair, Cedric, you didn't. The original post I'm talking about is this one:



But you responded to this curtly and with no information, so I didn't infer "good vision and scouting ability" from that. Maybe this is semantics. I agree with mth here on the Arroyo pickup for the most part, but I also agree that good vision and scouting ability are a part of that. He used the phrase "special wisdom" which to me implies something loftier or a unique ability not possessed by most GMs, something beyond vision and scouting.

Look, I really do agree with most of Krivsky's moves, but like I said a couple of pages back, I think that sometimes we overhail the Arroyo trade -- or, more accurately, we hail it in the wrong way. It was a very smart and even-handed move. It wasn't the surprising gift of wisdom that some seem to think it was. A lot of people knew how good Bronson Arroyo was; Krivsky just happened to come up with the right thing to deal for him at the right time. That's not belittling what he did; that's just to say that it was a good baseball move and not "rocket science" as the kids say.

That's all it was. I agree.

I don't think it was a miracle or "rocket science".

It was just a damn good job. Getting a pitcher of Arroyo's quality for an oft injured player like Wily Mo was niec.

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 10:41 PM
Why would he have picked up David Ross if he hadn't seen any potential in his approach and swing? For David's stellar defense?

It just doesn't make sense to take away a guys scouting ability and vision because you don't like his later moves. It reeks of bias.

Cedric..look at it this way. You have to feel the same about all of Wayne's moves if you think that he really liked Ross and Phillips. It is more biased to say "He must have liked Ross, but not Kim, Franklin, Lohse, Mays, Yan, Cormier, etc etc etc because those were just desperation trades and pickups." Ross and Phillips were gotten for pennies on the dollar like the others and we can't look back months later and say the ones that worked out were b/c of WK's keen scouting eye and those that didn't were just desperation moves. If he saw potential in Ross, then he saw potential in the stiffs also.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 10:48 PM
Cedric..look at it this way. You have to feel the same about all of Wayne's moves if you think that he really liked Ross and Phillips. It is more biased to say "He must have liked Ross, but not Kim, Franklin, Lohse, Mays, Yan, Cormier, etc etc etc because those were just desperation trades and pickups." Ross and Phillips were gotten for pennies on the dollar like the others and we can't look back months later and say the ones that worked out were b/c of WK's keen scouting eye and those that didn't were just desperation moves. If he saw potential in Ross, then he saw potential in the stiffs also.

It might be more right than a bias.

Obviously Kim, Michalak, and Yan were desperation moves. How in the hell could you not be desperate after watching the bullpen he inherited? Hell I would have tried you.

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 10:52 PM
It might be more right than a bias.

Obviously Kim, Michalak, and Yan were desperation moves. How in the hell could you not be desperate after watching the bullpen he inherited? Hell I would have tried you.

Obviously I agree, but Phillips and D Ross could have flunked like C Ross and the others. They were all no-risk moves. A few panned out really well. But the others? Not so well. I compare them all b/c they were all low risk. Except Lohse. Still wondering what he was smoking when he dreamed that one up. Especially since he didn't get any cash in the deal.

Mario-Rijo
11-20-2006, 10:58 PM
I think too many posters assume that the Washington trade was/is a disaster, frankly I'm not convinced. I still believe he made a solid deal for a host of reasons the most of which is that Majewski and Bray haven't necc. yet reached their potential (Bray for sure). Not too mention Darrell Thompson and Brendan Harris. Royce Clayton obviously was a guy who we asked for to give us a steady guy for the rest of the season.

Bottom line we won't know just how good we got it or how bad we got it for quite some time. I could understand the criticism if it was blatantly obvious that the 2 main chips we got back didn't have the type of talent to warrant giving up on Kearns and Felo, but I think they do.

And I feel that when you can get pitchers for hitters of equal (or close to) talent then you must do it, unless of course you are stacked with it and frankly no one is that stacked.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying we got a better deal than everyone is stating. What I am saying is don't try to feed me that it's not a successful trade just because it hasn't worked out yet. On the other hand it doesn't necc. mean that some cannot rave about getting Phillips, Arroyo, Ross and the like because they have had some degree of success already. Perhaps they will not continue to have success and at some point you might be able to say hey trading off that beast Wily Mo for that Bronson guy was a really bad deal for us. And you might be right!

But for now I think Krivsky deserves the benefit of the doubt, not because I or anyone says so but just because it's the right thing to do! Have some daggon patience people, the Big Red Machine wasn't built in a day. :thisyear:

vaticanplum
11-20-2006, 11:02 PM
22 pages on Alex Gonzalez. Cripes, November, it drives me bananas. The offseason brings out the worst in all baseball fans: intellect and analysis.

Where did that Opening Day countdown go?

Highlifeman21
11-20-2006, 11:15 PM
22 pages on Alex Gonzalez. Cripes, November, it drives me bananas. The offseason brings out the worst in all baseball fans: intellect and analysis.

Where did that Opening Day countdown go?

Well, in all fairness, not all 22 pages have been on AGon. There's been a virtual multitude of topics within these magical pages.

The real question, how many times has Dunn been mentioned in these 22 pages?

mth123
11-20-2006, 11:17 PM
22 pages on Alex Gonzalez. Cripes, November, it drives me bananas. The offseason brings out the worst in all baseball fans: intellect and analysis.

Where did that Opening Day countdown go?

Talking baseball is all in fun. Most on here are more knowledgeable than the people we see in our real lives. We don't have to have the same opinions to enjoy talking about it. But everyone's knowledge on the subject makes it worthwhile.

:beerme:

Wheelhouse
11-20-2006, 11:21 PM
I think too many posters assume that the Washington trade was/is a disaster, frankly I'm not convinced. I still believe he made a solid deal for a host of reasons the most of which is that Majewski and Bray haven't necc. yet reached their potential (Bray for sure). Not too mention Darrell Thompson and Brendan Harris. Royce Clayton obviously was a guy who we asked for to give us a steady guy for the rest of the season.

Bottom line we won't know just how good we got it or how bad we got it for quite some time. I could understand the criticism if it was blatantly obvious that the 2 main chips we got back didn't have the type of talent to warrant giving up on Kearns and Felo, but I think they do.

And I feel that when you can get pitchers for hitters of equal (or close to) talent then you must do it, unless of course you are stacked with it and frankly no one is that stacked.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying we got a better deal than everyone is stating. What I am saying is don't try to feed me that it's not a successful trade just because it hasn't worked out yet. On the other hand it doesn't necc. mean that some cannot rave about getting Phillips, Arroyo, Ross and the like because they have had some degree of success already. Perhaps they will not continue to have success and at some point you might be able to say hey trading off that beast Wily Mo for that Bronson guy was a really bad deal for us. And you might be right!

But for now I think Krivsky deserves the benefit of the doubt, not because I or anyone says so but just because it's the right thing to do! Have some daggon patience people, the Big Red Machine wasn't built in a day. :thisyear:

Well stated. Bravo! :thumbup:

Wheelhouse
11-20-2006, 11:29 PM
Here's the picture of Alex Gonzalez from the Enquirer:
http://cmsimg.enquirer.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=AB&Date=20061120&Category=SPT04&ArtNo=311200017&Ref=V1&Profile=1071&MaxW=315&border=1
Nice typo. Gonzalez, Rodriguez, whatev...

Johnny Footstool
11-20-2006, 11:40 PM
I think too many posters assume that the Washington trade was/is a disaster, frankly I'm not convinced. I still believe he made a solid deal for a host of reasons the most of which is that Majewski and Bray haven't necc. yet reached their potential (Bray for sure). Not too mention Darrell Thompson and Brendan Harris. Royce Clayton obviously was a guy who we asked for to give us a steady guy for the rest of the season.

Every time I hear this argument, I like to point out that Kearns and Lopez are 26 years old and have yet to reach their peak years. So the deal could be even worse.


Bottom line we won't know just how good we got it or how bad we got it for quite some time. I could understand the criticism if it was blatantly obvious that the 2 main chips we got back didn't have the type of talent to warrant giving up on Kearns and Felo, but I think they do.

The criticism is based on value at the time of the deal. Krivsky made a desperation move and undersold.

I can see Bray having a lot of value, but what about Majewski makes you think he'll be worth an *above average everyday player*? He looks like a middle reliever at best, and there are plenty of those guys around. If Krivsky's scouting eye is as keen as some people think, he shouldn't have any problem finding three or four more Majewskis that don't cost the Reds nearly as much talent.


And I feel that when you can get pitchers for hitters of equal (or close to) talent then you must do it, unless of course you are stacked with it and frankly no one is that stacked.

The problem is that Bray and Majewski aren't above average at their positions, but Kearns and Lopez are.


Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying we got a better deal than everyone is stating. What I am saying is don't try to feed me that it's not a successful trade just because it hasn't worked out yet.

If it wasn't designed to produce an immediate return, why did Krivsky make the deal mid-season?

Krivsky made the deal for two reasons: to help the Reds in 2006 and in the future. Phase One of that plan failed miserably. Phase Two has yet to play out, but Phase One was the main reason behind the timing of the deal. So yes, we are justified in criticizing it.


On the other hand it doesn't necc. mean that some cannot rave about getting Phillips, Arroyo, Ross and the like because they have had some degree of success already. Perhaps they will not continue to have success and at some point you might be able to say hey trading off that beast Wily Mo for that Bronson guy was a really bad deal for us. And you might be right!

But for now I think Krivsky deserves the benefit of the doubt, not because I or anyone says so but just because it's the right thing to do! Have some daggon patience people, the Big Red Machine wasn't built in a day. :thisyear:

Krivksy has worn my patience thin. He has to earn my trust at this point. The Gonzalez deal helps him a little bit. Let's see how he does over the next few months.

M2
11-20-2006, 11:48 PM
I think too many posters assume that the Washington trade was/is a disaster, frankly I'm not convinced. I still believe he made a solid deal for a host of reasons the most of which is that Majewski and Bray haven't necc. yet reached their potential (Bray for sure). Not too mention Darrell Thompson and Brendan Harris.

Krivsky made the deal to address immediate needs that the deal ended up not addressing. Worse than that, it created new problems that buried the club in the second half of the season. Worse even than that is now the Reds find themselves holding a largely empty bag with Bray and Majewski when Kearns and Lopez would be prime targets in the trade market.

How much worse does a trade get than that?

Even if Bray and Majewski deliver something better in the future, it doesn't make up for the miss in 2006 or the fact that Kearns and Lopez are worth a whole lot more than Bray and Majewski at the moment. The deal's immediate failure is a historical fact and the opportunity missed this offseason is something the team is never going to get back.

What we're left hoping for is a salvage. If Bray can be good for a few years and Majewski can be serviceable then at least the return will have netted something.

But it would absolutely be better to have Felipe and Austin on hand today. The Reds would have all kinds of trade options open to them and there's no doubt in my mind Krivsky could do a lot better than the light return he got from the Nats.

Harris is a reserve IF and Thompson was a C prospect whose arm is being rebuilt. I doubt anyone in the organization holds out much hope for them to be impact players.

vaticanplum
11-20-2006, 11:50 PM
Hey, as a side note, when reviewing Krivsky's deals as GM, why does no one ever mention Hatteberg? I know that everybody's bracing for him to hit about .170 this year, but his career as it stands with the Reds to date involved him doing a fine job in Sean Casey's place for about a squillionth of Casey's salary. That was a great pickup.

Highlifeman21
11-21-2006, 12:09 AM
Hey, as a side note, when reviewing Krivsky's deals as GM, why does no one ever mention Hatteberg? I know that everybody's bracing for him to hit about .170 this year, but his career as it stands with the Reds to date involved him doing a fine job in Sean Casey's place for about a squillionth of Casey's salary. That was a great pickup.

I'm 50/50 with you about Hatteberg. While I like what he offered us in 2006, it was the addition of Hatteberg that derailed the Dunn to 1B transition. Conversely, it was keeping Dunn in the OF along with Griffey and Kearns that allowed Wily Mo Pena to be shipped to Boston for Bronson Arroyo.

So, in a roundabout way, adding Hatteberg allowed us to obtain Arroyo.

I just hope Hatteberg comes close to his 2006 numbers for 2007, or else I fear Joey Votto will get rushed to the show.

redsmetz
11-21-2006, 05:35 AM
I'm 50/50 with you about Hatteberg. While I like what he offered us in 2006, it was the addition of Hatteberg that derailed the Dunn to 1B transition. Conversely, it was keeping Dunn in the OF along with Griffey and Kearns that allowed Wily Mo Pena to be shipped to Boston for Bronson Arroyo.

So, in a roundabout way, adding Hatteberg allowed us to obtain Arroyo.

I just hope Hatteberg comes close to his 2006 numbers for 2007, or else I fear Joey Votto will get rushed to the show.

Folks keeping saying things like your last paragraph, but I honestly think we're in a new day. I think when it comes to player development, Wayne is not into rushing players up. I probably say this enough that folks eyes fall back into the back of your head, but I think the "new Reds" are about step by step - you start in rookie ball, go to Low A, go to High A, and so on. Succeed at each level. I think the days of rushing a guy up from Chattanooga are over. Wayne has said on numerous occasions that we have AAA for a reason (and it's not just keep the Reserves on). I think it's possible Votto will be up next year if he shows success at Louisville, otherwise not, Hatteberg's performance notwithstanding.

registerthis
11-21-2006, 08:23 AM
it was the addition of Hatteberg that derailed the Dunn to 1B transition.

What do you base this on?

I think a far more convincing argument could be made that the Hatteberg signing enabled the Reds to sign Dunn to his contract extension, because Dunn has publicly stated that he would prefer not to play first base. At no time during the past year have you heard talk from the Reds FO about moving Dunn to first--his rejection of that idea essentially nixed any plans the FO may have had to put him there, because they want to keep the big guy happy.

The very next day after Hatteberg was signed, Dunn was inked to his contract extension. You may or may not like Scott Hatteberg, but faulting him (or the decision to sign him) as the reason that Dunn isn't playing first base right now just isn't accurate.

RFS62
11-21-2006, 08:25 AM
I think a far more convincing argument could be made that the Hatteberg signing enabled the Reds to sign Dunn to his contract extension, because Dunn has publicly stated that he would prefer not to play first base. At no time during the past year have you heard talk from the Reds FO about moving Dunn to first--his rejection of that idea essentially nixed any plans the FO may have had to put him there, because they want to keep the big guy happy.

The very next day after Hatteberg was signed, Dunn was inked to his contract extension. You may or may not like Scott Hatteberg, but faulting him (or the decision to sign him) as the reason that Dunn isn't playing first base right now just isn't accurate.



Dunn isn't playing first base because he doesn't want to. By his own account, he didn't even pick up a glove last offseason.

That doesn't sound to me like a guy who's anxious to prepare for a new position.

Highlifeman21
11-21-2006, 08:56 AM
Folks keeping saying things like your last paragraph, but I honestly think we're in a new day. I think when it comes to player development, Wayne is not into rushing players up. I probably say this enough that folks eyes fall back into the back of your head, but I think the "new Reds" are about step by step - you start in rookie ball, go to Low A, go to High A, and so on. Succeed at each level. I think the days of rushing a guy up from Chattanooga are over. Wayne has said on numerous occasions that we have AAA for a reason (and it's not just keep the Reserves on). I think it's possible Votto will be up next year if he shows success at Louisville, otherwise not, Hatteberg's performance notwithstanding.

I hope you're right.

That being said, I'd like to see one of 3 things happen concerning Votto in 2007.

1. Hatteberg puts up numbers similar to 2006, letting Votto continue to enjoy the minors.
2. Votto develops and enjoys some AAA success to warrant a Sept. call-up.
3. Votto has a great ST and he makes the team when they come North (the least likely of my 3).


What do you base this on?

I think a far more convincing argument could be made that the Hatteberg signing enabled the Reds to sign Dunn to his contract extension, because Dunn has publicly stated that he would prefer not to play first base. At no time during the past year have you heard talk from the Reds FO about moving Dunn to first--his rejection of that idea essentially nixed any plans the FO may have had to put him there, because they want to keep the big guy happy.

The very next day after Hatteberg was signed, Dunn was inked to his contract extension. You may or may not like Scott Hatteberg, but faulting him (or the decision to sign him) as the reason that Dunn isn't playing first base right now just isn't accurate.

I guess it must be early, or my memory completely escapes me, but I thought Dunn was a 1B experiment in ST last year, and that contributed to him not playing on Team USA for the WBC. I thought once Hatteberg was a Red, Dunn went back to LF to enjoy that greener pasture.

I like Hatteberg. I think he has one of the best plate approaches on the Reds, and I wish more of his teammates (Brandon Phillips immediately jumps to mind) could follow suit. I wasn't faulting Hatteberg, but merely trying to point out what I saw as cause and effect.

Ltlabner
11-21-2006, 08:57 AM
I like Hatteberg. I think he has one of the best plate approaches on the Reds, and I wish more of his teammates (Brandon Phillips immediately jumps to mind) could follow suit. I wasn't faulting Hatteberg, but merely trying to point out what I saw as cause and effect.

He's got a pretty groovy on-deck warm up routine too. Looks like he's going to screw himself into the ground.

RedsBaron
11-21-2006, 09:02 AM
Krivsky made the deal to address immediate needs that the deal ended up not addressing. Worse than that, it created new problems that buried the club in the second half of the season. Worse even than that is now the Reds find themselves holding a largely empty bag with Bray and Majewski when Kearns and Lopez would be prime targets in the trade market.

How much worse does a trade get than that?

Even if Bray and Majewski deliver something better in the future, it doesn't make up for the miss in 2006 or the fact that Kearns and Lopez are worth a whole lot more than Bray and Majewski at the moment. The deal's immediate failure is a historical fact and the opportunity missed this offseason is something the team is never going to get back.

What we're left hoping for is a salvage. If Bray can be good for a few years and Majewski can be serviceable then at least the return will have netted something.

But it would absolutely be better to have Felipe and Austin on hand today. The Reds would have all kinds of trade options open to them and there's no doubt in my mind Krivsky could do a lot better than the light return he got from the Nats.

Harris is a reserve IF and Thompson was a C prospect whose arm is being rebuilt. I doubt anyone in the organization holds out much hope for them to be impact players.

I agree. Some of Krivsky's early moves, such as acquiring Arroyo, Phillips, Ross and Hatteberg, put the Reds in position to contend, but with with the NL Central ready to be taken, Krivsky blew 2006 with tthe Lopez/Kearns trade, and he no longer has them as trading chips now.
I'm okay with the Gonzalez acquisition. If he is really an A+ fielder, I like that in a shortstop. The Reds need another A+ fielder in centerfield. They also need some bats, and another starting pitcher.
One of the things that drives me crazy is the idea that the Reds cannot ask Junior to play somewhere other than centerfield or bat somewhere other than third in the order, or that Dunn cannot be asked to play somewhere other than leftfield. If it improved the Reds chances of winning, I'd put Dunn at shortstop or bat Harang cleanup--whatever it took.

Highlifeman21
11-21-2006, 09:05 AM
Well, in all fairness, not all 22 pages have been on AGon. There's been a virtual multitude of topics within these magical pages.

The real question, how many times has Dunn been mentioned in these 22 pages?

36 Dunn mentions before my question. 7 since.

Just reporting the facts.

Ltlabner
11-21-2006, 09:09 AM
I dissagree with the notion that we have no trading chips left post Lopez and Kearns. With them we'd certinally have more trading chips, but I in today's market I wouldn't say we are out trading power. I'm not saying Krivsky forsaw this, or it was part of the plan, I'm just commenting on the conicidental uptick in the market.

If Juan Pierre can get a big time contract, and LaRue can be unloaded, I'd say players like Freel, Hatte, Jr, and the cast of thousands in AAA can all be considered trading chips (as sad as some of those cases might be).

Highlifeman21
11-21-2006, 09:16 AM
I dissagree with the notion that we have no trading chips left post Lopez and Kearns. With them we'd certinally have more trading chips, but I in today's market I wouldn't say we are out trading power. I'm not saying Krivsky forsaw this, or it was part of the plan, I'm just commenting on the conicidental uptick in the market.

If Juan Pierre can get a big time contract, and LaRue can be unloaded, I'd say players like Freel, Hatte, Jr, and the cast of thousands in AAA can all be considered trading chips (as sad as some of those cases might be).

I think Jr is our most difficult chip to move. Hands down. While I'd like to see that happen, unfortunately I believe Griffey will play out his current contract in Cincy.

Anyone of our players should be available for the right price. I'm not convinced we got the right price for LaRue, considering we got the good ol PTBNL. I definitely think we didn't get the right price for Lopez and Kearns. I'm just wondering how Krivsky's determining the value and worth of our current players.

Johnny Footstool
11-21-2006, 09:32 AM
Isn't it kind of strange that people on this board are so keen on management moving Junior to a corner spot whether he likes it or not, but Dunn gets to avoid moving to 1B simply because he doesn't like it?

registerthis
11-21-2006, 10:00 AM
Isn't it kind of strange that people on this board are so keen on management moving Junior to a corner spot whether he likes it or not, but Dunn gets to avoid moving to 1B simply because he doesn't like it?

I think the difference there is people would actually LIKE to see Dunn on this team for another 4 or 5 years, whereas most would jump at the chance to trade Junior away somewhere.

paulrichjr
11-21-2006, 10:10 AM
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=law_keith#20061120

Mike Stanton reportedly has agreed to a two-year deal to pitch in Cincinnati. It's interesting to see the Reds spending what cash they have on spare parts like a left-handed reliever and a backup shortstop (Alex Gonzalez, who can field but can't hit) when their rotation includes just two capable starters.

TRF
11-21-2006, 10:11 AM
Why would he have picked up David Ross if he hadn't seen any potential in his approach and swing? For David's stellar defense?

It just doesn't make sense to take away a guys scouting ability and vision because you don't like his later moves. It reeks of bias.

And what did he see in Cody Ross? cuz he changed his mind quick in favor of keeping Q.

It has never been that Krivsky can't make a good deal. It's that there is no rhyme or reason to his moves. no pattern, and he gets pantsed a lot.

Guardado. Injured.
Maj. Injured.
Franklin was coming off a steroid controversy I believe.
Schoenweis. injured.

Now, a simple google search got me all of the above the day the trades were made.

Did he see something in David Ross? There were numbers there that suggested he COULD break out offensively. Of course a cardboard cut out would be better behind the plate. As for Phillips, how much of a risk is it to go after a hot shot prospect that has fallen out of favor? Well 29 teams thought it was too great a risk. But then Tony Womack didn't play for those 29 teams, did he.

All of this brings me to Adam Dunn and KGJ.

Dunn to 1B, Jr. to RF. Everyone on this board sees that. It's addition by shuffling. Had the trade not been made the OF should have been Jr. LF, Freel CF, Kearns RF, Deno the 4th OF, with an infield of EE 3B, BP at SS, FeLo at 2B and Dunn at 1B. Defense up the middle, Solid. Maybe not as great as what AGon/BP bring, but certainly better offensively, and solid defensively.

But that would require leading the team, and not letting the inmates run the asylum.

Back to the question of the bullpen. Well, Standridge is a Met now. But except for an ERA that was a tick higher, he was FAR superior to Ryan Franklin.

Shackelford. Boy talk about a guy that was used ALL WRONG last year. He screams LH specialist, and he obliterated lefties to a tune of a .517 OPSA. Compare that to Krivsky's big acquisition: Bill Bray and his .804 OPS against LH. wanna guess who got more innings? Bray or Shack? Standridge or Franklin?

Once again, Krivsky never realized what he had. I'm not saying Shack and Standridge were end all be all kinds of guy, but a RH pitcher that dominates LH hitters like Standridge did are worth keeping. I'll gouge out my eyes if I see Franklin in a Reds uni again.

Krivsky traded Kearns and FeLo for two guys that didn't pitch as well as two guys he had in his system, and one had an injury cloud over his head.

blech.

Redsland
11-21-2006, 10:18 AM
I haven't scoured the whole thread but I think one point that is being missed about the acquisition is that in improving the defense it will help attract better pitchers. If you know that you are coming to a team with a top SS and 2B and a GM who is working on improving the defense it will be just as sweet as extra cash.
I'm skeptical of that.

I really don't think pitchers give much thought to how many grounders are going to get scooped up. I think they consider two things:

1. What's their offer (years/dollars)?
2. Can they win?

A few also claim to want to play near home, but in an age of airplanes, I'm not so sure they aren't full of it.

All I know is that I've never heard a pitcher talk about taking less money so he could watch Orlando Hudson work.

Johnny Footstool
11-21-2006, 10:22 AM
I think the difference there is people would actually LIKE to see Dunn on this team for another 4 or 5 years, whereas most would jump at the chance to trade Junior away somewhere.

That's very likely.

I like to think it's because Dunn is an 800 lb. gorilla, and thus can sit (or play) anywhere he wants to.

Redsland
11-21-2006, 10:29 AM
I can see Bray having a lot of value, but what about Majewski makes you think he'll be worth an *above average everyday player*? He looks like a middle reliever at best, and there are plenty of those guys around. If Krivsky's scouting eye is as keen as some people think, he shouldn't have any problem finding three or four more Majewskis that don't cost the Reds nearly as much talent.
Wayne proved that he overpaid for Majewski twice in the next month. First by getting Ryan Franklin for a PTBNL, then by getting Scott Schoeneweis for cash.

westofyou
11-21-2006, 10:46 AM
what about Majewski makes you think he'll be worth an *above average everyday player*? He looks like a middle reliever at best, and there are plenty of those guys around.My belief is that Krivsky completely wrapped up Gary's value in his low HR allowed numbers, with the HR's being allowed by the Reds he wanted to find one pitcher who stopped that bleeding part of the BP.

Of course a bad defense makes it worse for a guy who doesn't give up HR's but allows the ball to be hit, and then there was that arm problem and the stink he emitted. However there is no reason to think that he can't provide capable middle relief in the style of Scott Sullivan.

M2
11-21-2006, 11:11 AM
My belief is that Krivsky completely wrapped up Gary's value in his low HR allowed numbers, with the HR's being allowed by the Reds he wanted to find one pitcher who stopped that bleeding part of the BP.

Of course a bad defense makes it worse for a guy who doesn't give up HR's but allows the ball to be hit, and then there was that arm problem and the stink he emitted. However there is no reason to think that he can't provide capable middle relief in the style of Scott Sullivan.

Sullivan had a 7.59 K/9 and 1.29 WHIP for his career (1.20 in his better seasons). Majewski's got a 5.33 K/9 and 1.455 WHIP. Sullivan was hard to hit (.244 opponent's BA). Majewski's relatively easy to hit (.274 opponent's BA).

They're about as different as two animals get. Majewski's a rope-a-dope reliever, the kind that almost never goes on to have any sort of sustained success.

Falls City Beer
11-21-2006, 11:13 AM
Sullivan had a 7.59 K/9 and 1.29 WHIP (dragged up by some of his lesser seasons) for his career. Majewski's got a 5.33 K/9 and 1.455 WHIP. Sullivan was hard to hit (.244 opponent's BA). Majewski's relatively easy to hit (.274 opponent's BA).

Their about as different as two animals get. Majewski's a rope-a-dope reliever, the kind that almost never goes on to have any sort of sustained success.

And I'd add that Sullivan's ERAs in the highwater of offense in the last 40 years ranged between a run and a run and a half below league average.

The comparison is apples and jetliners.

westofyou
11-21-2006, 11:17 AM
And I'd add that Sullivan's ERAs in the highwater of offense in the last 40 years ranged between a run and a run and a half below league average.

The comparison is apples and jetliners.

And Maj's 2005 one was 1.30 better then the league average and his 2006 Nats was .096 better. While Sully was a stud, he only posted better then 1.35 vs the league twice.

Zoooommmmm

westofyou
11-21-2006, 11:19 AM
Their about as different as two animals get. Majewski's a rope-a-dope reliever, the kind that almost never goes on to have any sort of sustained success.Good defense makes those guys look better though, much better.

Falls City Beer
11-21-2006, 11:25 AM
And Maj's 2005 one was 1.30 better then the league average and his 2006 Nats was .096 better. While Sully was a stud, he only posted better then 1.35 vs the league twice.

Zoooommmmm

Yeah, and Majewski pitched in the second-best park for suppressing offense in the league in 2005.

We can go on and on--but your battle in comparing Majewski to Sully is an uphill one.

Highlifeman21
11-21-2006, 11:27 AM
Good defense makes those guys look better though, much better.

So what will the net result of AGon and BP up the middle be?

Do we drastically improve runs allowed?

How much does team ERA go down?

westofyou
11-21-2006, 11:28 AM
Yeah, and Majewski pitched in the second-best park for suppressing offense in the league in 2005.

We can go on and on--but your battle in comparing Majewski to Sully is an uphill one.
Yet his road era was .74 better then his home one.

westofyou
11-21-2006, 11:31 AM
So what will the net result of AGon and BP up the middle be?

Do we drastically improve runs allowed?

How much does team ERA go down?

I would bet most of the IF defense that saves runs will be applied more to the 4.38 BP ERA. With the majority of the starters being FB pitchers.

registerthis
11-21-2006, 11:33 AM
Good defense makes those guys look better though, much better.

If defense makes the pitcher, why did WyaneK feel he had to break the bank to bring in Bray and Maj? Franklin and Schoeneweis were as effective, even with the shoddy D playing behind them.

I don't believe majewski and Bray are worthless, I just fail to see the justification for trading what we did to get them.

M2
11-21-2006, 11:34 AM
Good defense makes those guys look better though, much better.

Good defense makes everyone look better. It still doesn't change the fact that Majewski's easy-to-hit and allows way too much contact.

Sullivan had the ability to shut down the opposition. Majewski attempts to survive, wait out the opposition. That's exactly the type of guy I don't want to see brought in to pitch crucial innings late in a ballgame.

Highlifeman21
11-21-2006, 11:35 AM
I would bet most of the IF defense that saves runs will be applied more to the 4.38 BP ERA. With the majority of the starters being FB pitchers.

So in a roundabout way, I should get excited that with AGon and BP, we might actually be able to turn leads over to the pen now?

All I ask from Narron is that we only see AGon in the 7th or 8th hole (preferably 8).

Puffy
11-21-2006, 11:38 AM
All I ask from Narron is that we only see AGon in the 7th or 8th hole (preferably 8).

Or 9th if Arroyo is pitching that day and Rusch is pitching for the other team.

M2
11-21-2006, 11:40 AM
Yet his road era was .74 better then his home one.

Yet his road OPS 79 points higher. Basically he was unlucky at home in 2005 and lucky on the road. His ERA splits were exactly backwards from what they should have been.

westofyou
11-21-2006, 11:41 AM
If defense makes the pitcher, why did WyaneK feel he had to break the bank to bring in Bray and Maj?

Beats me, personally I'm done rehashing the trade. I have my own ideas about part of it that have nothing to do with baseball.



Sullivan had the ability to shut down the opposition. Majewski attempts to survive, wait out the opposition. That's exactly the type of guy I don't want to see brought in to pitch crucial innings late in a ballgame.

I guess we should get used to it for this season... unless they deal him, the boy had some deer in the headlight moments after he became a Red.

redsupport
11-21-2006, 11:48 AM
I whish Majewski's career with reds was as short as Al Jackson's or Dennis Ribant's

M2
11-21-2006, 11:59 AM
I guess we should get used to it for this season... unless they deal him, the boy had some deer in the headlight moments after he became a Red.

I hold out hope that Krivsky intends to push Majewski to the edge of the bullpen or possibly even out of it.

Based on the team's actions last year, I'm fairly comfortable in stating that if Majewski rehashes his master of disaster routine, you won't be seeing much of him in 2007 (at least not in a Reds uniform). The Krivsky regime showed little patience for relievers who can't get the job done.

TRF
11-21-2006, 12:02 PM
I hold out hope that Krivsky intends to push Majewski to the edge of the bullpen or possibly even out of it.

Based on the team's actions last year, I'm fairly comfortable in stating that if Majewski rehashes his master of disaster routine, you won't be seeing much of him in 2007 (at least not in a Reds uniform). The Krivsky regime showed little patience for relievers who can't get the job done.

yet great acumen for acquiring them.

kind of an odd combination.

M2
11-21-2006, 12:32 PM
yet great acumen for acquiring them.

kind of an odd combination.

Agreed, though I still think he might have learned a lesson from the 2006 bullpen follies. Krivsky can be refreshingly direct to a problem (e.g. the Gonzalez signing goes right at one of the team's two chief defensive hangups). If he can identify what his bullpen most needs (right-handed octane) I think we can count on him to gallop in another direction.

Surely he must have noticed how few of his relievers were able to whiff the opposition.

I'd say Krivsky's best moves have come as the result of him making things simple -- identifying reasonable fixes to clear problems. His worst moves have come as a result of him making things overly complex -- hoping that some nebulous form of baseball voodoo will take hold.

TRF
11-21-2006, 12:51 PM
Well The Trade was a perfect example of overly complicating things.

The one thing I have really enjoyed, pretty much from the time of the trade on is the discussion surrounding it. Almost everyone agrees that neither player the Reds surrendered was untouchable. So if that's the case, then the argument is the return. Nobody can defend the return, but their are different perspectives on why.


Some feel the return was too little based on the return for WMP.
I feel that the players returned were no better than what was in house.
Some feel the loss of offense cost the reds a wildcard spot.
Some feel it shows Krivsky has no real plan in place to make the team better.


To me it seems all those arguments have some merit to them, that it is likely a combination of all four, and more. I am hoping that in a more relaxed atmosphere Krivsky can make the moves needed to make this team better. AGon wil certainly help with the defense, Especially if Deno is the starting CF. But if he is, Jr. better be in LF, with Dunn at 1B, or it's moot. Freel must be the starting RF. He must lead off. He is a force on the basepaths. He can change the game just by reaching 1B. He wreaks havoc. Go back to the game he stole 5 bases against the Dodgers to see what I mean. It isn't just "scrappiness". He is an actual difference maker. He can bring the crowd into the game. And he is an absolute joy to watch.

So Krivsky has to step up. He has to tell Jr. his time in CF is over, that his best chance for the post season as a red is to move to a corner OF spot. Dunn has to move to 1B. his OF defense is bad, and that's being generous.

Sometime being a great GM is recognizing the flaws in the parts you have, yet maximizing their potential. KGJ and AD's defensive liabilities can be masked somewhat. A simple position switch is all it needs.

M2
11-22-2006, 09:55 AM
You know, I hadn't even thought of the best part of the Gonzalez signing until right now.

This deal will quash all talk about Jerry Gil being the Reds' starting SS. That was a bizarre concept that only going to get weirder as the offseason wore on, a cousin to the staff ace Luke Hudson chatter from a few years back.

IslandRed
11-22-2006, 10:27 AM
You know, I hadn't even thought of the best part of the Gonzalez signing until right now.

This deal will quash all talk about Jerry Gil being the Reds' starting SS. That was a bizarre concept that only going to get weirder as the offseason wore on, a cousin to the staff ace Luke Hudson chatter from a few years back.

Minor correction: The best part of the Gonzalez signing is, it kills all talk about Juan Castro possibly being the Reds' starting shortstop.

But yes, Gil can go back to being the no-risk flyer he was presumed to be.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-22-2006, 10:31 AM
Due to the events of last weekend (cough..cough) I have been out of the loop with the Reds and am just getting around to this thread. Anyway, if I could say one thing about this pick up, it's ho-hum. This deal does not excite me, but it's okay.

I look at his lack of bat like this..... I'm trying to be positive here:

Just pretend he has the OPS and bat of David Ross, and Ross has Gonzo's.

We trade a lot of bat for defense with Gonzalez and a lot of defense for bat with Ross. I mean, if Ross was the one OPS'ing .690 with a great glove and Gonzo was putting up .800+ with an average glove, we could live with it, right?

Does that make sense? Forgive me if it does not as my brain is still mushy from Saturday.

RedsManRick
11-22-2006, 12:07 PM
Due to the events of last weekend (cough..cough) I have been out of the loop with the Reds and am just getting around to this thread. Anyway, if I could say one thing about this pick up, it's ho-hum. This deal does not excite me, but it's okay.

I look at his lack of bat like this..... I'm trying to be positive here:

Just pretend he has the OPS and bat of David Ross, and Ross has Gonzo's.

We trade a lot of bat for defense with Gonzalez and a lot of defense for bat with Ross. I mean, if Ross was the one OPS'ing .690 with a great glove and Gonzo was putting up .800+ with an average glove, we could live with it, right?

Does that make sense? Forgive me if it does not as my brain is still mushy from Saturday.

Interesting perspective BR. Regardless of his "true" ability, we got 191 AB of .663 OPS from Jason LaRue last year that will presumably go to Dave Ross. I don't think anybody sees a repeat of his Piazza-esque line from '06, but 350-400 AB of .800 OPS isn't unreasonable. A lot rides of Ross' shoulders however of sustaining a solid offensive pace. If he drops in to the .330/.400 type territory, we're in trouble.

Puffy
11-23-2006, 09:32 AM
What Gammons wrote on his blog (about the Red Sox potentially signing Lugo and the perceived improvement):

"To repeat, Gonzalez was so undependable that he played too few games at shortstop to qualify for the defensive sortable statistics, and his 6-for-58 with runners in scoring position and two outs tells you all you need you know about when pitchers had to make pitches to him"