PDA

View Full Version : Roush's Change in Philosophy



Edd Roush
12-09-2006, 01:11 AM
Gloom and doom.

Read any Redszone thread these days and you will be sure to catch this sentiment. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. I'm done with this thinking. I am ready to embrace the understanding that anything can and will happen in baseball.

For some fans on this board, nothing but a World Championship is enough to keep them from calling for Krivsky/Narron/Catellini's head. Heck, a four-game losing streak will send some on here into depression. I think I can reasonably say that while the Reds winning a World Series would be fantastic, I think the best part of watching the Reds is eating a brat with some buddies and hoping to see something special.

I guess the point I'm trying to convey is Redszone is reverting into a place where people come to vent in anger about the coming season, rather than collectively dreaming of what's possible. Any thread of a team signing another player to a reasonable contract turns into stupid Krivsky, we should have got him. We have to understand that despite what we think, the Reds aren't the greatest team in the minds of some free agents.

We have to learn to enjoy the players we have, rather than bash them into oblivion. I love dreaming about the past and dreaming of what could be. I love looking back to June 30th of last year when Dunner hit a walk-off grand slam. The Reds had knocked off their rival and I can honestly say that was one of the greatest sports' moments of my life. I love thinking back to the game I was at later in the season when Ross hit the game-winning home run off the batter's eye.

I wish I could come to Redszone and learn about those talented individuals who are lucky enough to don the Cincinnati red. I love learning about OPS and Win Shares from the great baseball minds who frequent these boards. However, I wish we could keep from being so negative.

We are lucky to be reading about such a great game and sharing in a common interest. I wish we could recognize that baseball is a game of dreams and possibilites and that anything is possible in this game. You can use your Run Scored vs Run Against to vaguely gauge how our team is going to do next year, but you will never be able to truly fortel whether David Ross will be the next Mike Piazza or fade into oblivion.

Let's cheer up, we have a good team, it may not be the Yankees, but frankly I'm happy it's not. Let's recognize that we're talking about baseball here and not anything more serious. Hell, baseball is just a game, right? We are talking about a shared love and not something that truly decides the fate of our lives.

sixfigure
12-09-2006, 02:37 AM
I agree with you and it is so so negative....all the time. I won't name names but some posters are closet Cardinal fans with a man love anything Larussa...lol!!!

I think it is time for those people to be honest with themselves and come out of the closet so to speak........

Topcat
12-09-2006, 03:11 AM
You guys are going to get gutted for this for sure :eek: . But know I feel the same so maybe I will take some of the hit for ya.

sixfigure
12-09-2006, 03:15 AM
Great I appreciate that.......now take it for the TEAM....lol!!

sixfigure
12-09-2006, 03:16 AM
:beerme:
Great I appreciate that.......now take it for the TEAM....lol!!

Jpup
12-09-2006, 07:37 AM
everyone has the right to give their own opinion. you have a right to your's and the negative posters have that right as well. I am a little of both sometimes. We all get different things out of the game, so it's not just to say how someone should enjoy or discuss it. Those posts that agree with everything the FO does are just as annoying as those that disagree with everything.

One one hand, I agree with where you are coming from, but on the other, I am not and will never be satisfied with a .500 ball club. Some are, that's just not me. :thumbup:

mth123
12-09-2006, 08:07 AM
Edd,

I feel the way you do sometimes, but lately I've been one of the more negative posters on the board. I really haven't liked much that has gone on since July with these moves.

I think the team lacks power, a 3rd starter and a closer. Going into the offseason I was somewhat hopeful that these needs would be addressed. I certainly understand the task facing a small market team like the Reds and I have been saying consistently that there isn't much decent pitching on the market and everything costs a lot of money. But none of that explains what we've seen this offseason.

The Reds have signed 2 mediocre relievers who really don't offer much improvement from the fodder on hand, a dime a dozen defensive SS with no stick and anounced the intention to bring back Kyle Lohse in the rotation (at a probable cost of $6 Million). These things cost about $16 Million toward the 2007 payroll and haven't adequately addressed any of the needs IMO.

I understand not having the money and that is reality. But the Reds spent enough money to at least improve in some areas and really haven't. I guess the defense is better with Gonzalez but that directly made the offense worse so what is really gained?

Most of the negativity you read seems like a reflection of people's hopes being dashed. Everyone was waiting for a regime change to get this team out of its losing rut and most we're looking to this offseason to see that progress. Now that the winter meetings have come and gone, many are disillusioned. I know that I am. The winter isn't over, but, with the money committed in the way that it has been, the opportunity seems lost to me.

But it won't stop me from paying attention and hoping for better. I'll also continue to comment about what has transpired or could transpire.

redsmetz
12-09-2006, 10:28 AM
While I understand your position, MTH123, I agree with the OP on this one. I think too often we forget it's a GAME. While these types of discussions used to take place down at the tavern in days gone by, now it's in the cyber-tavern and we get ourselves so heated up and no buddies at the bar to say "Johnny, calm down" or "Take it outside" etc. etc.

There's a beauty to this game that no other gives. I think this team is still being put together like a puzzle. It may end up looking like something done by Picasso, but then, he was genius too and it worked.

I think the folks that note that we're just a bit off from competing in this division are correct. Wayen's work isn't done - and the final product may not end up being a masterpiece, but let's enjoy it.

M2
12-09-2006, 11:10 AM
Let's cheer up, we have a good team

By what measure? The Reds were worse in the second half of last season than the first and they look to be a losing club in 2007 if some changes aren't made.

We all love baseball and think it's fun to talk about the game, that's not the issue here. Yet the Reds aren't a good team as currently constituted and haven't been for years. Historically the divide we get around here is that a lot of folks need to say/believe/pretend the team is better than it is during the winter and spring in order to face the upcoming season while others don't care for that kind of artiface (I'm sure there's some who'd be perpetually unhappy, but I can't believe that's anything more than a fraction of a sliver of the posters around here). I get the false bravado. It's not easy to adopt the point of view that the team's got some stink on it and that you'll be rooting for it anyway. For a lot of people, following baseball is more about falling in love with the possibility that something groovy might happen in warmer months than of it actually happening.

Yet it really doesn't leave you much to talk about.

Poster A: I think the Reds could win 90 games next year! I don't know why exactly, it's just a feeling I get.

Poster B: I've done some analysis where everyone has a career year and all the starting pitchers win at least a dozen games and I project them to win 95 games.

Poster A: They definitely ought to be win the division. :beerme: :party: :clap:

That's, at best, a short conversation. Also, when you're in a massive online community you have to expect that a healthy number of folks are going to be more interested in figuring how good the Reds actually are rather than acting like there's smooth sailing ahead.

Anyway, if the front office makes a few key improvements to the current mix, I think you'd see most people around here posting that the 2007 model looks to be the best Reds team of the 21st century. A #8 hitting defensive specialist, an old reliever and a Rule 5 pick fall well short of the sort of progress the team needs to make in order to get over the hump and claim "good team" status.

Falls City Beer
12-09-2006, 11:22 AM
Obviously, I'm no fan of Wayne Krivsky. That's been made abundantly clear. But even I don't think that Wayne is particularly happy with the moves he's made thus far; I think he recognizes that more needs to be done. I truly think the guy has been reined in by Castellini. So adding the two components together--a currently penurious owner and a GM whose predilections are toward defense, weak sticks, and veteran presence--and you're looking at a lethal cocktail. So even if Wayne somehow struck on the right combo of vets to contend in the division, I believe he'd be undercut by payroll restrictions. I think that working under severe payroll constraints is going to require a GM with less of a sweet-tooth for the oldsters. Just a bad match between GM and owner, it seems, right now, unless Bob decides to open up the wallet. Wayne and some money could maybe get some interesting things done; Wayne on a budget has been, and likely will be, a disaster.

VR
12-09-2006, 11:30 AM
Optimism typically isn't about a situation, it's usually about the person optimizing. The danger is saying all optimists or pessimists' take on a situation is wrong to start with just because of who they are.

I'm somewhat optimistic about the team's chances next year, but still glad to have a team to talk about the process of getting better, bit by bit.

The fact that we go into this season with an established top of the rotation, defined starters at all but one position, greatly improved defense and an owner that is wanting to win, and spend more liberally to get there has me more optimistic about the team than any year since 2000.

That said, there's still work to do. But we've been trying to turn #4 starters into our #1 guy for an eternity, now our top two are solid and established. I like that.

Ltlabner
12-09-2006, 11:32 AM
I'm currious. Many folks seem to have come to the belife that BCast has limited the payroll to some "low ball" figure. Is there some factual basis for these claims or is it mearly conjecture based on what info we get from the news papers, dealings, BCast comments, etc?

I'm not busting anyones chops. Just currious if it's been established what the payroll amount is, might be or if it's still a source of wild conjecture.

If it hasn't been established, does it follow that because they didn't hand out a stupid contract to a FA that the overall payroll will be low/constrained? I'm not sure one is proof of the other.

Falls City Beer
12-09-2006, 11:33 AM
Optimism typically isn't about a situation, it's usually about the Reds. The danger is saying all optimists or pessimists' take on a situation is wrong to start with just because of who they are.

I'm somewhat optimistic about the team's chances next year, but still glad to have a team to talk about the process of getting better, bit by bit.

The fact that we go into this season with an established top of the rotation, defined starters at all but one position, greatly improved defense and an owner that is wanting to win, and spend more liberally to get there has me more optimistic about the team than any year since 2000.

That said, there's still work to do. But we've been trying to turn #4 starters into our #1 guy for an eternity, now our top two are solid and established. I like that.


Besides "cost-of-operating" boosts in the payroll, where do you see Castellini having spent more liberally so far on this team? Where do you see this?

It's an honest question.

Falls City Beer
12-09-2006, 11:36 AM
I'm currious. Many folks seem to have come to the belife that BCast has limited the payroll to some "low ball" figure. Is there some factual basis for these claims or is it mearly conjecture based on what info we get from the news papers, dealings, BCast comments, etc?

I'm not busting anyones chops. Just currious if it's been established what the payroll amount is, might be or if it's still a source of wild conjecture.

If it hasn't been established, does it follow that because they didn't hand out a stupid contract to a FA that the overall payroll will be low/constrained? I'm not sure one is proof of the other.

The fact that the payroll has not gone up a bit since Castellini took over tells me a bunch.

The only thing promising a payroll boost has been the language of "win now," but that's just not happened yet. That's a fact. So between siding with "fact" and "faith," I'm going with "fact" every time, till proven otherwise. It's just my method. I don't believe in promises; I believe in actions.

Ltlabner
12-09-2006, 11:39 AM
The fact that the payroll has not gone up a bit since Castellini took over tells me a bunch.

The only thing promising a payroll boost has been the language of "win now," but that's just not happened yet. That's a fact. So between siding with "fact" and "faith," I'm going with "fact" every time, till proven otherwise. It's just my method. I don't believe in promises; I believe in actions.

One area that would be interesting to see payroll increases is in the scouting and player development departments. Those don't get the press of a +$10mil boost to player payroll but over time can have much longer lasting and dramatic results. Has there been any reports of spending increases in the "hidden" departments.

None of that changes the player payroll issue, however.

I can understand holding pat on payroll in the first year or so as they figure out what they have, what is possible and what makes sense for the business. But I agree, the further they get away from that 1st year "learning curve" period, while not changing payroll does cast doubt.

Of course, the other issue may be they might be looking at areas to more smartly spend their money, instead of just jacking payroll right out of the gate. Why not streach the current dollars as far as they will go, spend them more effeciently inside the originization and then look at an overall boost. Not saying that is what they are doing, or should do, just something to consider.

westofyou
12-09-2006, 11:44 AM
The fact that the payroll has not gone up a bit since Castellini took over tells me a bunch.

Payroll is a figure that is derived from yearly operating costs, the man hasn't even been operating the team for a year, he doesn't even have 12 months on the books yet.

I think your expectations are wrapped up in a wet blanket that doesn't exist in a real world business scenario, you want improvement without marketing, you want improvement without considering the reality of time, and you want improvement right away in the less then stable world of the baseball business.

You want it yesterday and well, it just ain't that frigging easy.

Falls City Beer
12-09-2006, 11:52 AM
Payroll is a figure that is derived from yearly operating costs, the man hasn't even been operating the team for a year, he doesn't even have 12 months on the books yet.

I think your expectations are wrapped up in a wet blanket that doesn't exist in a real world business scenario, you want improvement without marketing, you want improvement without considering the reality of time, and you want improvement right away in the less then stable world of the baseball business.

You want it yesterday and well, it just ain't that frigging easy.

I want improvement. You're right. And it's not happened. That's where we differ--you see improvement and I don't.

And keep your little snipey "you don't get business" comments to yourself--my father ran his own business for nearly 50 years. I do understand the components of time and marketing, but I also know what improving the model looks like, and what indicators tell you is moving in the right direction. It doesn't all have to be sexy, true, but you know what improvement is, and go from there. There should already be signs of not just "change," (which we've clearly seen), but "improvement."

M2
12-09-2006, 11:52 AM
Given the amount of league money swimming around in recent years, money the Reds haven't yet spent, I think it's fair to say the team could give the payroll a significant boost. I care more about the specific areas the team addresses and the players it brings in than the dollar figures, so the payroll isn't an issue for me. Though if Castellini, like Lindner, refuses to invest in talent as part of his greater business plan then I'm not going to have nice things to say about it.

Anyway, I think there's a lot shoes that will dropping before the season starts throughout baseball. For instance, the Cardinals will be making an impact move or two, count on it.

As such, I'm not taking the current mix to represent any sort of final state. If the Reds head into spring training without having made any other significant changes, then I'll consider it to be a fit in with the detestable stasis that's plagued the club in other recent offseasons.

westofyou
12-09-2006, 11:57 AM
I want improvement. You're right. And it's not happened. That's where we differ--you see improvement and I don't.

And keep your little snipey "you don't get business" comments to yourself--my father ran his own business for nearly 50 years. I do understand the components of time and marketing, but I also know what improving the model looks like, and what indicators tell you is moving in the right direction. It doesn't all have to be sexy, true, but you know what improvement is, and go from there. There should already be signs of not just "change," (which we've clearly seen), but "improvement."

Yeah I'm "snipey" :laugh:

Read what you want in between the lines, that's obviously going to happen anyway.

Edd Roush
12-09-2006, 11:59 AM
Another thing I left out of my original post, that I think is still prevalent, is that as much as I want the Reds to go out and sign the first baseman plattoon that we have all been clamoring for due to Hatte's weak OPS against lefties and also that third starter who will push Milton/Lohse down in the rotation, I'm not going to allow a week without any moves by Krivsky to give me an ulcer. Who knows, Krivsky could already have deals with Craig Wilson or Eduardo Perez and he's just going to wait to announce it.

I think I have personally taken this off-season too seriously, getting mad any time Krivsky does anything against what I or Redszone in general thinks is best for the Reds. I'm sure Krivsky has a better reality of the Reds and he has an agenda that we won't see take shape until March or maybe even later. Maybe with all of his talk at the winter meetings, Krivsky found a match in another organization for a third starter, rather than having to dole out 10 million dollars a year for a minor upgrade.

All I'm saying is, I'm not going to get mad from here on out, whether the Reds get Player X or not, it really isn't going to effect my passion for the Reds. I guess that shows my youth and the fact that I wasn't able to enjoy the Big Red Machine or really even the 1990 team. Whatever happens, I figure it's better to be an informed optimist rather than a disgusted pessimist. Seems more fun to me.

Falls City Beer
12-09-2006, 12:00 PM
Yeah I'm "snipey" :laugh:

Read what you want in between the lines, that's obviously going to happen anyway.

Then what was up with that "academia" quip yesterday?

Like I'm some cloistered rube who's never seen a double-entry book before.

Falls City Beer
12-09-2006, 12:02 PM
All I'm saying is, I'm not going to get mad from here on out, whether the Reds get Player X or not, it really isn't going to effect my passion for the Reds. I guess that shows my youth and the fact that I wasn't able to enjoy the Big Red Machine or really even the 1990 team. Whatever happens, I figure it's better to be an informed optimist rather than a disgusted pessimist. Seems more fun to me.

That seems like a really good idea. And healthy.

But let me wring my hands, if you don't mind?

M2
12-09-2006, 12:04 PM
Whatever happens, I figure it's better to be an informed optimist rather than a disgusted pessimist. Seems more fun to me.

Easily the most pointless discussions on this board have revolved around optimism/pessimism. Most of the time neither have anything to do with what's going on.

westofyou
12-09-2006, 12:05 PM
Then what was up with that "academia" quip yesterday?

Like I'm some cloistered rube who's never seen a double-entry book before.

Probably emulated from the same place that created this statement


All that marketing for an empty cause.

Falls City Beer
12-09-2006, 12:06 PM
Probably emulated from the same place that created this statement

As I said, the marketing itself is fine (and necessary). But if your product sucks, who cares?

westofyou
12-09-2006, 12:27 PM
But if your product sucks, who cares?

Me... 2,377 miles away, and you evidently, and you're probably 700 miles from the GAB

Shut off the tap and likely when you are gone no one will, Marge already killed the satellite areas draw, Carl didn't do a thing to improve it.

Marketing is should be the skin to this franchise, it should be all encompassing, not thought of as an afterthought.

kaldaniels
12-09-2006, 12:35 PM
everyone has the right to give their own opinion. you have a right to your's and the negative posters have that right as well. I am a little of both sometimes. We all get different things out of the game, so it's not just to say how someone should enjoy or discuss it. Those posts that agree with everything the FO does are just as annoying as those that disagree with everything.

One one hand, I agree with where you are coming from, but on the other, I am not and will never be satisfied with a .500 ball club. Some are, that's just not me. :thumbup:


Sorry about the Titans then. :evil:

Ltlabner
12-09-2006, 01:33 PM
As I said, the marketing itself is fine (and necessary). But if your product sucks, who cares?

How bout because if you wait around for the product to be great to build a solid marketing orginization it will be too late to capatalize on the the good product?

There is more to building an orginization than the players on the field. While that is certinally the main thrust and use of resources in a baseball orginization you need all of the various departments working well to build a great business. Putting time and the miniscule (compared to payroll) amount of money into resurecting Redsfest is a wise and good first step towards rebuilding this important Reds supporting function. Next up should be rebuilding the fringe markets long sense abandoned.

Falls City Beer
12-09-2006, 01:42 PM
How bout because if you wait around for the product to be great to build a solid marketing orginization it will be too late to capatalize on the the good product?

There is more to building an orginization than the players on the field. While that is certinally the main thrust and use of resources in a baseball orginization you need all of the various departments working well to build a great business. Putting time and the miniscule (compared to payroll) amount of money into resurecting Redsfest is a wise and good first step towards rebuilding this important Reds supporting function. Next up should be rebuilding the fringe markets long sense abandoned.

As I said--I'll say it again--why do the marketing and not build the product at the same time? Why do one and not the other?

Ltlabner
12-09-2006, 01:53 PM
As I said--I'll say it again--why do the marketing and not build the product at the same time? Why do one and not the other?

That is where we dissagree. You belive they have done nothing at all to improve the product. I believe they have made some progress (certinally not nearly enough, but definatley not "none").

TRF
12-09-2006, 02:08 PM
I get what woy and FCB are saying. I agree 100% with woy.

funny thing is, I agree 100% with FCB too.

See I think Krivsky has improved the team in certain areas, but it seems as though that was blind luck more than anything else. All his best moves came before the end of April. Just about everything else was awful. cascadingly awful. Even his good moves like Guardado have to be tempered with the fact that the pitcher came over from the AL, and was injured. Even Lohse got a bump coming from the AL. He just couldn't sustain it like Arroyo did.

But you have to get the people talking. You have to get the Reds mentioned on sportscenter in the offseason. Redsfest generates ticket sales. And a packed house is good for the team during the season. It takes away the excuse of not being able to increase payroll.

But the buzz has to be real. It can't be fluff. make a splash, even if the splash is in the minors. Acquire some REAL talent. Announce Jr. is moving to LF and Dunn is moving to 1B. Get a third QUALITY starter. Stop signing 39 year old relief pitchers. Promote your young talent. Why aren't the Reds promoting EE? He should be one of the centerpieces of their promotions. Tradition my butt. It's the future they need to focus on. And the present.

westofyou
12-09-2006, 02:43 PM
And a packed house is good for the team during the season. It takes away the excuse of not being able to increase payroll.

Actually it feeds the Reds main revenue source, the stadium and the 81 games there a season.

That in turn will increase payroll.

No fannies in the seats, no payroll increase.

Without local money in the form of patrons, all the other money the game generates goes into running the system and trying to make up for the lost revenue from the biggest piece of the pie.

Falls City Beer
12-09-2006, 02:48 PM
Actually it feeds the Reds main revenue source, the stadium and the 81 games there a season.

That in turn will increase payroll.

No fannies in the seats, no payroll increase.

Without local money in the form of patrons, all the other money the game generates goes into running the system and trying to make up for the lost revenue from the biggest piece of the pie.

That still doesn't explain why the Reds have spent NONE of the newfound revenue that is literally flowing into their coffers.

westofyou
12-09-2006, 02:56 PM
That still doesn't explain why the Reds have spent NONE of the newfound revenue that is literally flowing into their coffers.

Maybe because they don't like the crappy FA market and the off season is hardly underway?

Falls City Beer
12-09-2006, 02:57 PM
Maybe because they don't like the crappy FA market and the off season is hardly underway?

Sure the FA signings have been dubious to say the least, but I'd hardly call the offseason just underway.

westofyou
12-09-2006, 03:02 PM
Sure the FA signings have been dubious to say the least, but I'd hardly call the offseason just underway.

43 days since the world series ended, there are 114 days until Opening Day. The Reds have a new SS and some relievers. I look at it as the off season is going as planned for most teams. The FA market has encompassed the trade market prior to January, it used to be that teams traded more in December, well not so much. 114 days is a lot longer the 43.

Hubba
12-09-2006, 03:33 PM
I agree with you and it is so so negative....all the time. I won't name names but some posters are closet Cardinal fans with a man love anything Larussa...lol!!!

I think it is time for those people to be honest with themselves and come out of the closet so to speak........You didn't have to name names they opened the door.:D :laugh:

VR
12-09-2006, 04:39 PM
Easily the most pointless discussions on this board have revolved around optimism/pessimism. Most of the time neither have anything to do with what's going on.

You're right...if the arguments are about superiority on either side. Let's face it. There is a lot of trying to change viewpoints for a half full/ half empty perspective....and the pointless part is thinking one way is right or superior. We're different, and that's not only OK, it's why RZ is the best place going.

The discussions on this board affect not one single thing about the Reds, nothing. It may change the way people think (and are educated) about the Reds and baseball, but the discussions really are pointless to any outcome, because nothing positive or negative will come out of it for the Reds franchise.

I do think it's important that there's a great diversity of optimists & pessimists, passionate & passive fans, local and international fans. It gives us all a broad brush of this team we all love (most of us with plenty of bitterness).

FCB is perhaps a 'pessimist'. Ltlabner is an 'optimist'. RZ would really be a lesser place without either of them.

Jpup
12-09-2006, 04:45 PM
Sorry about the Titans then. :evil:

yeah, I've got two words for you.

Vince Young.:cool:

VR
12-09-2006, 04:47 PM
Besides "cost-of-operating" boosts in the payroll, where do you see Castellini having spent more liberally so far on this team? Where do you see this?

It's an honest question.

Scouting. Coaches salaries. Willingness to cut bait with the Tony Womacks of the world. Committing to 2 yr deals. Signing a Dunn to an appropriate contract.

He's still a lot of talk....and 2007 will be his chance to walk the walk. I think the Winter meetings are and for the most part always have been hype. The real work is from now to opening day. We'll see.

M2
12-09-2006, 05:22 PM
Actually it feeds the Reds main revenue source, the stadium and the 81 games there a season.

That in turn will increase payroll.

No fannies in the seats, no payroll increase.

Without local money in the form of patrons, all the other money the game generates goes into running the system and trying to make up for the lost revenue from the biggest piece of the pie.

Each team gets roughly $15 million extra in league revenues as compared to two years ago thanks to Internet and satellite radio income.

The Reds also saw attendance increase last year by about 200,000 and the team has raised ticket prices each year.

IIRC it's also now making more scratch off its local TV and radio deals.

That doesn't even take into account any potential increases in promotional, merchandising, concession and parking revenues (don't know if those are there or not).

In other words, don't try telling me the Reds can't spend more than $60-$65 million.

M2
12-09-2006, 05:24 PM
You're right...if the arguments are about superiority on either side. Let's face it. There is a lot of trying to change viewpoints for a half full/ half empty perspective....and the pointless part is thinking one way is right or superior. We're different, and that's not only OK, it's why RZ is the best place going.

The discussions on this board affect not one single thing about the Reds, nothing. It may change the way people think (and are educated) about the Reds and baseball, but the discussions really are pointless to any outcome, because nothing positive or negative will come out of it for the Reds franchise.

I do think it's important that there's a great diversity of optimists & pessimists, passionate & passive fans, local and international fans. It gives us all a broad brush of this team we all love (most of us with plenty of bitterness).

FCB is perhaps a 'pessimist'. Ltlabner is an 'optimist'. RZ would really be a lesser place without either of them.

Good points. I'll just add that the overwhleming majority of what gets called "optimism" around here isn't optimism and the overwhelming majority of what gets called "pessimism" around here isn't pessimism.

westofyou
12-09-2006, 05:46 PM
In other words, don't try telling me the Reds can't spend more than $60-$65 million.

I agree, but the key in my point was the bulk of the wagon will always be in the fannies portion of the equation, and that means bringing in the fringe and that means marketing the brand, as well as building the brand. Turn your back on that and it's an uphill battle.

redsmetz
12-09-2006, 05:58 PM
Obviously, I'm no fan of Wayne Krivsky. That's been made abundantly clear. But even I don't think that Wayne is particularly happy with the moves he's made thus far; I think he recognizes that more needs to be done. I truly think the guy has been reined in by Castellini. So adding the two components together--a currently penurious owner and a GM whose predilections are toward defense, weak sticks, and veteran presence--and you're looking at a lethal cocktail. So even if Wayne somehow struck on the right combo of vets to contend in the division, I believe he'd be undercut by payroll restrictions. I think that working under severe payroll constraints is going to require a GM with less of a sweet-tooth for the oldsters. Just a bad match between GM and owner, it seems, right now, unless Bob decides to open up the wallet. Wayne and some money could maybe get some interesting things done; Wayne on a budget has been, and likely will be, a disaster.

I'm late to this conversation again and only have a minute, but I think our FO is like a number of others. The market is in complete upheaval and I think folks are waiting to see where it settles. I doubt Bob's reined Wayne in, but it feels like an offseason where care should be taken. Gotta run.

Ltlabner
12-09-2006, 09:34 PM
Scouting. Coaches salaries. Willingness to cut bait with the Tony Womacks of the world. Committing to 2 yr deals. Signing a Dunn to an appropriate contract.

He's still a lot of talk....and 2007 will be his chance to walk the walk. I think the Winter meetings are and for the most part always have been hype. The real work is from now to opening day. We'll see.

You raise a great point VR. There was a lot of money "spent" with all those DFA contracts last year. It's not the same as an increase in payroll, and it's not nearly as effective as spending the money to get a solid player, but to spend the money to get rid of a drag is an improvement none the less. (and yes, I know that some of that DFA money was for players Wayne brought in.)

Ltlabner
12-09-2006, 09:51 PM
FCB is perhaps a 'pessimist'. Ltlabner is an 'optimist'. RZ would really be a lesser place without either of them.

No perhaps? :laugh:

But I agree that the pessimist and optimist lables do get tossed around, often in an attempt to marginalize the arguments of others. People just have different outlooks is all. Yes, it's irritating to me that some tend to assume all the worst will happen until things actually go well. Just as it's irritating to others that some tend to assume that all will go well until things actually go bad. No camp has the market corned on truth and all baseball wisdom.

Ltlabner
12-09-2006, 10:01 PM
In other words, don't try telling me the Reds can't spend more than $60-$65 million.

How did payroll suddenly get pegged at $60million? I thought the rough estimates were in the $70 to $75 million range just a few weeks ago.

VR
12-09-2006, 10:12 PM
I'll just add that the overwhleming majority of what gets called "optimism" around here isn't optimism and the overwhelming majority of what gets called "pessimism" around here isn't pessimism.

you've hit the screw on the head

Topcat
12-10-2006, 05:34 AM
Good points. I'll just add that the overwhleming majority of what gets called "optimism" around here isn't optimism and the overwhelming majority of what gets called "pessimism" around here isn't pessimism.

Actually to "quote" you I do believe we are called Pom-Pom wavers is that not correct oh superior one ?

Hubba
12-10-2006, 01:37 PM
Actually to "quote" you I do believe we are called Pom-Pom wavers is that not correct oh superior one ?UH-OH you messed with a all knowing RZ god. Now you will pay.:eek:

jojo
12-10-2006, 01:57 PM
I think part of the pessimism stems from several things:

1. Last season was a golden opportunity for some October magic squandered. The NL was down and the cards were ripe for the taking. Several players had unpredictably good years that probably can't be reasonably expected to be repeated (Arroyo,Hatteberg, Aurilia, Ross). Several guys who needed to pony up were miserable (Dunn, Griffey, Larue). Several guys who generally were expected to be turds didn't disappoint (Milton, Claussen).

2. Several teams in their division have made themselves better for the near future even though they probably have hurt themselves in the long run. The long run doesn't effect next season. the bar for status quo has probably went up for '07..... 84 games probably isn't going to win the division.

3. The Reds so far are '06 status quo even though they really needed to not only address weaknesses but probably needed to replace some of the production from those who had *unpredictably good years that probably can't be reasonably expected to be repeated*........

4. Payroll optimistically will be $70M.

Patience is wearing thin because patience requires at least a little hope. So far this off season the FO has failed miserably in that regard-giving the fans hope.

I admire those that can get excited about next season. I'm kinda "low energy" about the '07 reds right now...

M2
12-11-2006, 01:42 AM
Actually to "quote" you I do believe we are called Pom-Pom wavers is that not correct oh superior one ?

I've got nothing against pom-pom wavers. Dated a fair number of cheerleaders back in the day.

Topcat
12-11-2006, 04:12 AM
I've got nothing against pom-pom wavers. Dated a fair number of cheerleaders back in the day.

Good for you and knowing what "I Know" you know that I know its become apparently obvious you have the backing to gut me for calling you out.:beerme:

Be proud maybe now in future we can create a board for just your opinion. Ps. out of respect to members of this board this has been edited. You do not want to know my true thoughts.

Jpup
12-11-2006, 08:11 AM
Good for you and knowing what "I Know" you know that I know its become apparently obvious you have the backing to gut me for calling you out.:beerme:

Be proud maybe now in future we can create a board for just your opinion. Ps. out of respect to members of this board this has been edited. You do not want to know my true thoughts.

can we keep this nonsense private? there is no place for it.

Hubba
12-11-2006, 10:53 AM
can we keep this nonsense private? there is no place for it.Not nice

M2
12-11-2006, 11:13 AM
This thread has officially jumped the shark.

westofyou
12-11-2006, 11:16 AM
This thread has officially jumped the shark.

I'll lighten it up with a look at the work of the Wizard Walt down in St. Louis.


The Cardinals have asked to view Carl Pavano's expansive medical records, according to a report in yesterday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a sign that the Yankees might be able to get out from under that albatross of a contract.

The Rockies previously expressed interest in the righthander, but talks broke down because they wanted the Yankees to eat most of the $22.95 million left in the final two years of his four-year, $39.95-million deal, a person familiar with the talks said.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spyanks115011855dec11,0,1731635.story

Jpup
12-11-2006, 03:57 PM
I'll lighten it up with a look at the work of the Wizard Walt down in St. Louis.



http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spyanks115011855dec11,0,1731635.story

I think Pavano is done.