PDA

View Full Version : Would burning it down work?



Ltlabner
12-11-2006, 06:50 PM
It's been commented on and talked about in other treads. Might as well hash it out in one convienent spot.

Do you thinking burning it down would work? That is, trading off all of our big names for prospects in hopes of rebuilding the farm system and hopefully being ready to compete in a few years when Bailey, Bruce and Votto are in place and have some experience.

I don't think it would in our case for a number of reasons

* It bets that all of our current assets will return a crop of "almost ready" prospects. What usually happens is some portion of those "almost ready" prospects turn into "never will be ready" prospects. So now you've basically given away your asset for no return (it was bad for "the trade" but and ok risk to take now?) I'd rather build on what we have now instead of giving it away in hopes of something better down the road. Something about a bird in hand...

* It bets that Bailey, Bruce and Votto will be able to deliver. They likely will be the real deal, but it's a gamble none the less.

* This isn't south Flordia where you expect this behavior. I think people will read this as yet another "rebuilding" plan and continue to stay away. Without a massive PR campaign I doubt fans would "get excited about seeing a young team come together" a few years from now. They want to see a winning team, and win for more than a few months at a time. That means you don't see real attendence gains (and increased revenues) till some time past when the team is slated to "really compete". So get ready for crappy baseball to continue for yet another 5 year plan.

* After talking so much about winning now, it might paint BCast into a bad PR corner if he suddenly gives up on competing so early into his ownership. This is a minor effect, but one none the less.

Just my take. Your thoughts?

StillFunkyB
12-11-2006, 07:05 PM
IMO it would work if the FO told the fan base what they planned on doing, truthfully.

AND...

If BCast was willing to lose money for a couple of season.

I have a feeling neither of those will happen.

RedsManRick
12-11-2006, 07:16 PM
It worked for the Marlins because they had Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis already there as a core. I'm not sure EE and Harang or Arroyo would quite match that, but I'd run with it. Frankly, if we don't make any bigs moves, we need to make a LOT of marginal gains in the small ones and I'm not seeing it so far.

That said, I think that model is smart and it works IF you make the right moves. The key to it, in my opinion, is that once your young core is ready, you supplement it with a few big FA signings. Because you aren't wasting cash on mediocre supporting cast (it's all youth), you can afford a 12-15MM starter or huge bat. Otherwise, you just end up with a decent, but very cheap team. In order to win with this model, you have to do it from both ends.

As for the fans side of it, I think fans respond to action. Will they come out to support a 60 win team? Probably not. However, I think more fans will support a 65-70 win team with a clear and well executed plan to advance to higher win totals than they will a 75-80 win team bumbling around aimlessly hoping for a miracle.

The other trick is either getting not just potential but volume. If you get only 2 guys with a 50% chance of being as good as the guy you're trading, you have a 25% to "win" the deal, a 50% chance to break even, and a 25% to lose out big time. Don't make deals with a 75% chance of not helping your club. When you go the volume route, your odds increase, so long as you still take quality prospects.

PuffyPig
12-11-2006, 07:31 PM
It worked for the Marlins because they had Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis already there as a core. I'm not sure EE and Harang or Arroyo would quite match that, but I'd run with it.

I thing buring it down means that Arroyo and Harang will be part of the fire sale.

RedsManRick
12-11-2006, 08:07 PM
Well, my implied point is that you can't burn it down and get rid of absolutely everything... or at least you shouldn't.

Joseph
12-11-2006, 08:07 PM
If you could trade Dunn for 3 players; a ML ready arm, a ML ready OF bat, and a prospect....

If you could trade Griffey for salary relief and or a prospect....

If you could trade Arroyo for a ML ready arm and a prospect....

If you can trade Milton for a solid prospect....

If you could trade Ross for a prospect or solid bullpen arm...

I wouldn't trade Harang, I'd sign him to a 3 or 4 or even 5 year deal.

Now granted my propositions would trade all our 'star' power, but if those ML ready players perform half way, then WK will have saved money and reset the future of the franchise.

So burning it down isn't as needed as simply managing what we have already. All the rest of the players not listed are either young enough not to need to dump, or irrelevant enough not to matter.

Degenerate39
12-11-2006, 08:29 PM
I'd rather try to win right now. I've never witnessed a Reds world series win since I was born in '90 so the sooner we get there the better.

RedsManRick
12-11-2006, 08:39 PM
I'd rather try to win right now. I've never witnessed a Reds world series win since I was born in '90 so the sooner we get there the better.

Burning it down may actually be the faster path

remdog
12-11-2006, 08:45 PM
IMO it would work if the FO told the fan base what they planned on doing, truthfully.

AND...

If BCast was willing to lose money for a couple of season.

I have a feeling neither of those will happen.

Castellini has already said that he wants to 'break even'. In other words, he's continueing in Carl Lindner's path regarding that part of the equation.

Rem

edabbs44
12-11-2006, 09:06 PM
http://www.getprepared.org/photos/burning_house-fema.jpg

This team will not spend the money to do it the NY way...so there are no other options. I'll help pour the gasoline.

Falls City Beer
12-11-2006, 09:08 PM
Burning it down may actually be the faster path

Only if it's done with pinpoint accuracy and zero missteps. I think people get drunk on the notion of a Marlins-esque turnaround, but fail to realize the stunning combination of luck (Willis) and brilliant front office execution that was behind it. I don't see that kind of minor league infrastructure or baseball wiliness in this FO. I see a much more straightforward approach here, conducive to patching holes and stumbling across gems through trade; I call it the Jim Bowden approach. And for a while it can work.

Now, change the culture of the FO, and it might be different. But as long as I've been a Reds' fan, this organization just hasn't been the kind to "tear it down" and start over.

remdog
12-11-2006, 09:10 PM
IMO it would work if the FO told the fan base what they planned on doing, truthfully.

AND...

If BCast was willing to lose money for a couple of season.

I have a feeling neither of those will happen.

There needs to be a third part added to the equation: the Front Office needs to be able to judge talent correctly. Are you comfortable that they are? At this point, I can't say I am. They need to show me more in that area.

Rem

edabbs44
12-11-2006, 09:36 PM
Only if it's done with pinpoint accuracy and zero missteps. I think people get drunk on the notion of a Marlins-esque turnaround, but fail to realize the stunning combination of luck (Willis) and brilliant front office execution that was behind it. I don't see that kind of minor league infrastructure or baseball wiliness in this FO. I see a much more straightforward approach here, conducive to patching holes and stumbling across gems through trade; I call it the Jim Bowden approach. And for a while it can work.

Now, change the culture of the FO, and it might be different. But as long as I've been a Reds' fan, this organization just hasn't been the kind to "tear it down" and start over.

They had a fire sale last off-season. Willis had a 4.31 ERA. I think pitchers like Olsen and Johnson had more to do with their turnaround than Willis did.

edabbs44
12-11-2006, 09:37 PM
There needs to be a third part added to the equation: the Front Office needs to be able to judge talent correctly. Are you comfortable that they are? At this point, I can't say I am. They need to show me more in that area.

Rem

We're screwed either way then.

RedsManRick
12-11-2006, 09:38 PM
They had a fire sale last off-season. Willis had a 4.31 ERA. I think pitchers like Olsen and Johnson had more to do with their turnaround than Willis did.

Not to mention the amazing performances they got out of Hanley Ramirez and Dan Uggla. I didn't say it would be quick FCB, but I think this current approach has about a 0% chance of taking us to a WS.

Falls City Beer
12-11-2006, 09:39 PM
They had a fire sale last off-season. Willis had a 4.31 ERA. I think pitchers like Olsen and Johnson had more to do with their turnaround than Willis did.

I meant the one that culminated in the 2003 WS.

Falls City Beer
12-11-2006, 09:43 PM
I think this current approach has about a 0% chance of taking us to a WS.

If anyone can accurately tell me what "this approach" is the Reds are currently employing I'd love to hear it.

The problem with teardowns is that you can easily end up with no tradeable commodities at the MLB level. You must get quantity and quality in every trade of the things being firesold, something Wayne's shown no ability to do thus far.

I'm telling you, if a firesale's your game (and it's not a bad game necessarily), this FO isn't the one to do it.

edabbs44
12-11-2006, 09:51 PM
If anyone can accurately tell me what "this approach" is the Reds are currently employing I'd love to hear it.

The problem with teardowns is that you can easily end up with no tradeable commodities at the MLB level. You must get quantity and quality in every trade of the things being firesold, something Wayne's shown no ability to do thus far.

I'm telling you, if a firesale's your game (and it's not a bad game necessarily), this FO isn't the one to do it.

Maybe the fire sale should start a little higher up than the players...:)

Reds Nd2
12-11-2006, 10:19 PM
I'd rather try to win right now. I've never witnessed a Reds world series win since I was born in '90 so the sooner we get there the better.

I understand that feeling and I want to see them win another W.S., but I want the Reds to build this thing from the ground up and be a very strong franchise for years to come.


Castellini has already said that he wants to 'break even'. In other words, he's continueing in Carl Lindner's path regarding that part of the equation.

Rem

There's nothing wrong with a business wanting to break even.


Only if it's done with pinpoint accuracy and zero missteps. I think people get drunk on the notion of a Marlins-esque turnaround, but fail to realize the stunning combination of luck (Willis) and brilliant front office execution that was behind it.

We aren't shooting down incoming asteroids here. Even low budget teams can afford mistakes, as long as they aren't too costly. You have to maximize your successes and minimize your mistakes. And yea', it takes just a little bit of luck too.


Not to mention the amazing performances they got out of...Dan Uggla.

Now that was one sweet Rule V pick.

IslandRed
12-11-2006, 10:21 PM
Only if it's done with pinpoint accuracy and zero missteps. I think people get drunk on the notion of a Marlins-esque turnaround, but fail to realize the stunning combination of luck (Willis) and brilliant front office execution that was behind it.

Wise words. Regardless of one's opinion of our current front office, it's good to remember that total rebuilds fail more often than they succeed, and if a team isn't careful it can spend the better part of a decade recovering. Blow the rebuild more than once, and you're the Royals or Pirates.

A successful complete rebuild comes down to a couple of key points:

1. The trades of veterans for prospects should be timed to get the maximum return of talent, not the quickest dump of the salaries.

2. The front office has to be at least above average in evaluating young players. Not just because the team has to target the right guys in trades, but the team has to be simultaneously drafting well. The fire sale by itself isn't going to bring in all the young talent needed.

Reds Nd2
12-11-2006, 10:37 PM
The front office has to be at least above average in evaluating young players. Not just because the team has to target the right guys in trades, but the team has to be simultaneously drafting well. The fire sale by itself isn't going to bring in all the young talent needed.

If you want to find diamonds, you have to be willing to kick over a whole lot of rocks. What the Reds need are more rock kickers.

edabbs44
12-11-2006, 10:52 PM
Wise words. Regardless of one's opinion of our current front office, it's good to remember that total rebuilds fail more often than they succeed, and if a team isn't careful it can spend the better part of a decade recovering. Blow the rebuild more than once, and you're the Royals or Pirates.

A successful complete rebuild comes down to a couple of key points:

1. The trades of veterans for prospects should be timed to get the maximum return of talent, not the quickest dump of the salaries.

2. The front office has to be at least above average in evaluating young players. Not just because the team has to target the right guys in trades, but the team has to be simultaneously drafting well. The fire sale by itself isn't going to bring in all the young talent needed.

There's a difference here. Cast is already assuming $70 million in payroll. So when Griffey and Milton are off the books (:party:) there will be money to spend. Look at it this way:

Sign Harang to a long term contract.
Bailey coming in by the latest next year.
Deal Arroyo before he tanks for prospect(s) (including at least one decent pitcher.)
Use Griffey and Milton $$$ over the next 2 years for pitching and hitting.

Voila! Starting rotation success.

Obviously I am leaving a lot of unsettled areas here (SS will have a need in a few years [or months], 1b, C, OF.) But those are a lot easier to fill than solid starting pitching.

Falls City Beer
12-11-2006, 11:18 PM
We aren't shooting down incoming asteroids here.


You're right. It's even more difficult than that.

Unless you've got the insanest eye for unblossomed talent, you're screwed if you try to pull off a total and complete rebuild. The Marlins and Braves are the only examples anyone's able to point to in the last 30 years or so. And the Braves don't really count. They built up from nothing without the firesale. The failures are legion and well-documented: Montreal, Pitt, Milwaukee, KC.

If building piecemeal takes a chiropractor, rebuilding post firesale takes a brain surgeon.

All the while, as you scramble to fix the problem of your bad team, you're hemorrhaging fans.

Falls City Beer
12-11-2006, 11:23 PM
If you want to find diamonds, you have to be willing to kick over a whole lot of rocks. What the Reds need are more rock kickers.

They don't need more rock kickers. They just need the best.

Always Red
12-11-2006, 11:26 PM
There's a difference here. Cast is already assuming $70 million in payroll. So when Griffey and Milton are off the books (:party:) there will be money to spend. Look at it this way:

Sign Harang to a long term contract.
Bailey coming in by the latest next year.
Deal Arroyo before he tanks for prospect(s) (including at least one decent pitcher.)
Use Griffey and Milton $$$ over the next 2 years for pitching and hitting.

Voila! Starting rotation success.

Obviously I am leaving a lot of unsettled areas here (SS will have a need in a few years [or months], 1b, C, OF.) But those are a lot easier to fill than solid starting pitching.

The way salaries are rising, having Milty and Junior off the books is not really going to make that much difference, because everyone else is just going to cost you that much more.

BTW, I do agree with your other proposals, and especially in dealing Arroyo now (actually, I'd do it at the trade deadline to maximize profit), since it's apparent (at least to me :( ) we're not going to compete in 2007.

jbran1114
12-12-2006, 12:20 AM
Burn it down.
stockpiling young arms via draft etc. and spend money on pro hitters when young arms show MLB readiness. With enough young pitching they're likley to strike gold every know and then. When the pitching does come through they'd have the offensive production to back up the inevitable inconsistency of young pitchers. Its that easy! (who am i fooling?)

westofyou
12-12-2006, 01:17 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501443.html

Nats' Risky Business

By Thomas Boswell
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; Page E01


The Nationals live in the future, not the present. They wish you would, too. It'd make their lives much easier. And cheaper, too.

After losing 21 percent of their attendance last season, their second in Washington, the Nats now want to roll the dice with the affections of their paying public. It's a big gamble, one that may be more dangerous than they seem to suspect.

At the same time the District is spending $611 million on a new ballpark, due to open in '08, the Nats plan to field a low-budget team next season, with a payroll of perhaps $45 million, or less than three-quarters of the one in '06. Even though they lost Alfonso Soriano, who made $10 million last season, to the Cubs, the Nats do not plan to use his salary slot. They will spend top dollar, they say, on every aspect of player development. That's judicious, both in a baseball and a business sense. But it's also conveniently economical because, each week, major league salaries obliterate all previous standards for profligacy.

This week in Florida at the winter meetings, the Nats are wallflowers. More important, between now and Opening Day, it is unlikely the team will spend -- or in their view, waste -- a dime on the kind of humble pitchers who prevent a vulnerable franchise from suddenly dissolving into a 50-games-under-.500 joke. Every season, low-rent veteran pitchers such as Esteban Loaiza, Ramon Ortiz, Brian Lawrence and Pedro Astacio are available. All have baggage. Some pan out. Some blow out.

For the past two winters, when the Nats were run by Major League Baseball, such stopgap pitchers were bought, not as part of any long-term plan to be contenders, but simply to give Washington fans a major league product. And it worked. Last year, at 71-91, the Nats were a poor team, not a lousy one. They were better than five others, including the Orioles.

But what will the Nationals be next year? Livan Hernandez was traded for pitching prospects in August. Ortiz and Tony Armas, the team leaders in innings, were not offered arbitration; there's almost no chance they'll return. Of the returning Nats pitchers, Mike O'Connor got the most work -- 105 innings, three wins. John Patterson, if he's healthy, is the ace. After that, you hand the ball to an assortment including Beltran Perez, Shawn Hill and Tim Redding until their arms fall off. At least they'll be able to tell their grandchildren they got an honest shot at the big leagues. But what do you tell the fans?

"I don't think the Tigers are crying about '03," team president Stan Kasten said yesterday, referring to the Detroit team that went 43-119, the second most losses in history, as they rebuilt before reaching the World Series this season.

"Clearly, we are concerned. We are very mindful that people who paid their money are mostly concerned with what they're going to see that night, even the ones who appreciate that there is good stuff happening beneath the surface," Kasten said. However, he also knows attendance will be helped by fans who look on '07 as little more than reserving a place in line to buy tickets for the new park. Season ticket sales are already up. Is that best business practices or cynicism?

General Manager Jim Bowden has also dropped references to 100 or more losses in '07 and the supposed benefit of the high draft picks that go with very bad records. However, when we've discussed his examples, from the recent Twins and A's back to the '80s Mets, the case for being Absolutely Awful isn't compelling to me. If you're rebuilding, it helps to lose 90. Worse than that serves no purpose. And, once you've made your peace with such losing, it's hard to calibrate how low you'll fall. It's a dangerous game.

The Nats' new owners may not fully appreciate the risk they are taking. Baseball has many levels of "bad." How lousy can a Nats team be, and for how long, before the potential fan base, which seemed huge when 33,708-a-game turned out in '05, starts to dwindle? Can that shrinkage become permanent? For that matter, does Kasten understand the depth of ill will that Washington harbors toward baseball after 33 years of being played for suckers? By August there might be more people watching the stadium construction than are watching the Nationals.

The Nats' brass seems too confident by half. A winning team in a beautiful park in a market as big and rich as Washington will solve everything, they believe. Only that ultimate prize -- a contending team in '09 or '10 -- matters a whit. Everything else will quickly be forgiven and forgotten. So why waste an extra $5 million to $10 million now just to avoid being an eyesore in '07? Does anybody really care if the Nats replace Ortiz and Armas with pitchers like the Orioles' Jaret Wright?

Few in baseball have more experience or a better track record than Kasten. He's probably right to believe that if you win and provide a good "fan experience," tons of people will come. And if you don't, they won't. In either case, '07 won't matter.

But what if he's wrong? The proper analysis of any plan includes focus on worst-case possibilities. Never assume victory.

So far, the new owners have kept faith with their new fans. Improvements at RFK, especially in food quality, were promised and delivered. When trade offers for Soriano at the July 31 deadline were unpromising, the Nats grasped that their fans would appreciate watching him play out his amazing season. Manny Acta made a fine first impression as the new manager.

Few in Washington blame the Nats for not competing on Soriano's $136 million contract. However, for one-twentieth that amount, the Nats could shore up their pitching. If they don't, the Nats are playing a high-stakes game in which they bet that Washington fans are sophisticated or patient enough -- or gullible enough -- to embrace a horrible team that didn't have to be bad. The Nats have a respectable everyday lineup and a solid bullpen. If the Nats go 56-106, it was a war of choice.

In the long view, would such signings be a one-season-only waste of millions? Yes, you might as well build a cash bonfire. On the other hand, would a town that is spending $611 million appreciate such an act of civic good behavior? Absolutely. Would Nats fans grasp that the Lerner family pumped money into the '07 team even though the new park virtually ensured massive attendance in '08? Without a doubt.

The Nationals should rethink what now appears to be their plan for radical inactivity in '07. You don't damage a team's fundamental morale or ruin your relationship with your fans by losing 91 games. But there is some number of defeats -- and it's a lot less than 119 -- that may cause the Nats far more damage than they imagine possible. When you're building -- long-term or short -- penny-wise is almost always pound-foolish.

Yachtzee
12-12-2006, 01:18 AM
Wise words. Regardless of one's opinion of our current front office, it's good to remember that total rebuilds fail more often than they succeed, and if a team isn't careful it can spend the better part of a decade recovering. Blow the rebuild more than once, and you're the Royals or Pirates.

A successful complete rebuild comes down to a couple of key points:

1. The trades of veterans for prospects should be timed to get the maximum return of talent, not the quickest dump of the salaries.

2. The front office has to be at least above average in evaluating young players. Not just because the team has to target the right guys in trades, but the team has to be simultaneously drafting well. The fire sale by itself isn't going to bring in all the young talent needed.

My thoughts exactly. Fire sales usually work best when a team has a lot of good talent in the farm system and knows what it needs in the way of prospects from other teams to fill in what they don't have.

Reds Nd2
12-12-2006, 01:32 AM
You're right. It's even more difficult than that.
No, it really isn't.


They don't need more rock kickers. They just need the best.

How many teams have the best scouts/performance analysis though? Teams just need a balanced approach between the two. I suppose it's always been that way.

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2006, 01:35 AM
If you're going to lose Arroyo, Harang, Dunn, Freel, and Griffey in 2008 anyway (or 2007 in Freel's case), why not trade those pieces when their value is high? Who cares if it's a year early? Maximize your return.

Jpup
12-12-2006, 03:52 AM
you pour the gas and I will light the match. burn it to the ground.

Ltlabner
12-12-2006, 07:48 AM
There's a difference here. Cast is already assuming $70 million in payroll. So when Griffey and Milton are off the books (:party:) there will be money to spend. Look at it this way:

Sign Harang to a long term contract.
Bailey coming in by the latest next year.
Deal Arroyo before he tanks for prospect(s) (including at least one decent pitcher.)
Use Griffey and Milton $$$ over the next 2 years for pitching and hitting.

Voila! Starting rotation success.

Obviously I am leaving a lot of unsettled areas here (SS will have a need in a few years [or months], 1b, C, OF.) But those are a lot easier to fill than solid starting pitching.

Your plan assumes that (1) Bailey can cut it in the big leagues. So far he looks good, but he hasn't thrown pitch one in AAA much less the bigs. A lot can go wrong before then. (2) Arroyo will "tank". I'm not sure that's a likely outcome. I don't think he'll be cy young, but tanking doesn't seem likely either. (3) All those prospects you get for Arroyo will in fact become top flight pitchers. It's far more likely that most of the prospects will wash out and we'll end up with 2 decent starting pitchers. Right where we are now.


Voila! Starting rotation success. .

Actually, we are one good #3 pitcher away from "starting rotation" success. See RMR's post in ORG for more details. It's that close. Open the purse (wisely) and bring someone to town so Milton and Loshe are pushed down in the rotation (if Krivsky is dead set on having both of them). Yes, this assumes Arroyo will continue at the same level as 2006, but I think that's just as likely an outcome as him "tanking".

My point is that burning it down is fraught with danger and many, many, many things can go wrong. That begats another "rebuilding" plan which often begats another one. Pretty soon we're the Pirates.

I'd rather seem them push the envolope now with some extra spending then hope, pray and dream that every last aspect of a "burn it down" goes right to have any chance of success.

elfmanvt07
12-12-2006, 08:41 AM
Am I the only person who thinks that this team is only a small step away from the playoffs, as is? I think we're a number 3 guy away from the playoffs, as is. I don't expect St. Louis to be dominant next year, and neither should anyone else. You guys make it sound like we're the Royals. There were times last year where teams feared GABP, and rightly so. The pithching was going, the bats were going, Freel pretty much eliminated 3/4's of the outfield.

IF you want to see improvement, why not concentrate on what we have. Someone needs to give Adam a good kick in the hindquarters. Get him running, and work with him on his hitting judgment. Move Griffey to a corner. We already have one of the best defensive infields in baseball, when you think about it. I'm looking forward to this season.

Falls City Beer
12-12-2006, 08:58 AM
No, it really isn't.



How many teams have the best scouts/performance analysis though? Teams just need a balanced approach between the two. I suppose it's always been that way.

Well that was thorough. It pretty obviously is difficult, as the number of success stories is completely outnumbered by the failures.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-12-2006, 09:10 AM
If you're going to lose Arroyo, Harang, Dunn, Freel, and Griffey in 2008 anyway (or 2007 in Freel's case), why not trade those pieces when their value is high? Who cares if it's a year early? Maximize your return.
Oh I didn't realize that an announcement was made about not resigning any of these guys. Oh thats right there wasn't. I don't see how some of you are willing to accept a tear down or rebuild, being the unpatient attitude during the winter meetings. If you can't wait two months to sign a pitcher or outfielder, then how are you going to wait for a rebuild. I agree that some guys like Griffey, and well out of the 5 above mentioned just Griffey because of age and the amt of salary it would free up. But those other guys I feel are a must for this team to to make it. Arroyo should be locked up as well as Harang, Arroyo throws alot of junk and does it effectively, this should add up to a longevity. Harang is an ace, period. I think we have all seen that Dunn is a bargain right now, and unless there is a number one pitcher dangled should be locked up long term . Freel is the only other out of this list that I could see letting go, but if he stays affordable, why not keep him around.

edabbs44
12-12-2006, 09:17 AM
Oh I didn't realize that an announcement was made about not resigning any of these guys. Oh thats right there wasn't. I don't see how some of you are willing to accept a tear down or rebuild, being the unpatient attitude during the winter meetings. If you can't wait two months to sign a pitcher or outfielder, then how are you going to wait for a rebuild. I agree that some guys like Griffey, and well out of the 5 above mentioned just Griffey because of age and the amt of salary it would free up. But those other guys I feel are a must for this team to to make it. Arroyo should be locked up as well as Harang, Arroyo throws alot of junk and does it effectively, this should add up to a longevity. Harang is an ace, period. I think we have all seen that Dunn is a bargain right now, and unless there is a number one pitcher dangled should be locked up long term . Freel is the only other out of this list that I could see letting go, but if he stays affordable, why not keep him around.

My view is based on my personal predictions using what I have seen over the past year. Since I do not think the FO will seriously consider spending the money it will take to get to the playoffs, I would rather see a rebuild. I'd rather take this stance now than wait 2 years to realize that October can't happen the way it is going right now.

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2006, 11:27 AM
Oh I didn't realize that an announcement was made about not resigning any of these guys. Oh thats right there wasn't. I don't see how some of you are willing to accept a tear down or rebuild, being the unpatient attitude during the winter meetings. If you can't wait two months to sign a pitcher or outfielder, then how are you going to wait for a rebuild. I agree that some guys like Griffey, and well out of the 5 above mentioned just Griffey because of age and the amt of salary it would free up. But those other guys I feel are a must for this team to to make it. Arroyo should be locked up as well as Harang, Arroyo throws alot of junk and does it effectively, this should add up to a longevity. Harang is an ace, period. I think we have all seen that Dunn is a bargain right now, and unless there is a number one pitcher dangled should be locked up long term . Freel is the only other out of this list that I could see letting go, but if he stays affordable, why not keep him around.

Based on the current market value of starting pitchers and the projected future market value of same, Arroyo and Harang will each be worth roughly $20 million per year after 2008.

Do you honestly think the Reds will re-sign them for that amount? Do you think they love Cincinnati so much that they'd be willing to sacrifice $5 million per year and sign for "only" $15 million per? Would the front office even sign them at that "discounted" rate? No, no, and no.

And would they be worth that kind of money over the duration of a 4-5 year contract? I'd have to say no.

Reality is harsh, I know, but sometimes you have to face it.

That said, I'd love for the Reds to go out and sign a #3 starter, a power bullpen arm, and a RH bat and make a run at the playoffs. It wouldn't take much, just cash. And if they come up short, they'll have a couple more tradeable commodities.

But I think the reality of this front office is that they're satisfied with scraping together a .500 ballclub.

HokieRed
12-12-2006, 11:57 AM
Consider the possibility that Dan O had been allowed to make the Griffey deal. 2007 lineup: WMP in right, Chris Young in CF, Austin Kearns, RF, Adam Dunn, 1b, Freel/Olmedo, 2b; Lopez, SS; EE, 3b, Larue/LLM C. Rotation Harang, #2 starter purchased with savings from Griffey, Casey, Graves, Jimenez; #3 Milton; #'s 4 and 5: 2 from Ramirez, Claussen, Germano, Belisle, Hancock. Bullpen: Weathers, Coffey, 3 from the 5 names above, 2 to be added. He had the kerosene poured on and the matches lit; too bad somebody decided not to let him light the fire.

Falls City Beer
12-12-2006, 11:58 AM
But I think the reality of this front office is that they're satisfied with scraping together a .500 ballclub.

I actually don't think this is true. I think they want to win; I just think they're overwhelmed and suddenly deliberating which path to take: the teardown or the contention on the cheap. The longer they wait without decision the longer it's going to take to get better. Time's a-wastin'.

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2006, 12:15 PM
I actually don't think this is true. I think they want to win; I just think they're overwhelmed and suddenly deliberating which path to take: the teardown or the contention on the cheap. The longer they wait without decision the longer it's going to take to get better. Time's a-wastin'.

They want to win, but they don't want to have to do what it takes to actually accomplish that goal. They want to stay cheap and get lucky, like a guy playing nickel slots.

BRM
12-12-2006, 12:16 PM
They want to stay cheap and get lucky, like a guy playing nickel slots.

Isn't that roughly what Bowden attempted?

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2006, 12:30 PM
Isn't that roughly what Bowden attempted?

Every year.

BRM
12-12-2006, 12:34 PM
Grabbing other team's castoffs and hoping to get lucky is fine and all but I really hope it doesn't become Wayne and Bob's primary strategy.

terminator
12-12-2006, 12:46 PM
They want to win, but they don't want to have to do what it takes to actually accomplish that goal. They want to stay cheap and get lucky, like a guy playing nickel slots.
I would put it a little less harshly -- they want to win but realize there are no viable options that will allow them to win NOW. They can't afford free agents, they can't make the difference with Rule V pickups, they can't magically make up the large run differential of 2006 via trades without giving up their minor league studs and they can't make up the difference in 2007 by bringing up Bailey and Votto. What realistic options do they have other than to let Krivsky tinker and try to improve a little here and a little there?

Realistically, for the money we aren't going to sign any difference-making FAs, Josh Hamilton isn't likely to be our savior in 2007, and (thankfully) it doesn't look likely that they'll trade away our future in Bailey, Votto, Bruce, Cueto, etc. So, I predict we'll see Bailey as our #5 starter in 2007 because that's the only realistic option we have that could make the team better in 2007.

Whether now or in a year, I'd resign Harang long term for whatever the market rate is, pray Homer pans out and if we're not in the playoff race in 2008 trade Arroyo at the deadline for some young pitching talent.

I don't think we need to blow it up when we appear to have two of the best pitchers in the N.L., a couple mediocre guys (Milton & Lohse) who are better than most team's back-end options, and a guy with superstar potential (Bailey). I don't think 2007 is our year b/c the offense has been hurt badly, but 2008 might be reasonable.

What makes me frustrated is that we could have had an offense of Dunn, Griffey, Kearns, EE, Lopez, Phillips, Casey, LaRue/Ross with Freel, Hatteberg and Deno as backups AND a pitching staff of Harang, Arroyo, Lohse, Milton and Bailey. (And we could have replaced Lopez with Gonzo if we wanted.) Anyway, we could have had that offense and that pitching . . . none of those players/trades were mutually exclusive. None of that would have broken the bank. That would have been a top offense and a top pitching staff and would have been a legitimate playoff contender IMHO.

Always Red
12-12-2006, 01:04 PM
What makes me frustrated is that we could have had an offense of Dunn, Griffey, Kearns, EE, Lopez, Phillips, Casey, LaRue/Ross with Freel, Hatteberg and Deno as backups AND a pitching staff of Harang, Arroyo, Lohse, Milton and Bailey. (And we could have replaced Lopez with Gonzo if we wanted.) Anyway, we could have had that offense and that pitching . . . none of those players/trades were mutually exclusive. None of that would have broken the bank. That would have been a top offense and a top pitching staff and would have been a legitimate playoff contender IMHO.

That is the frustrating part of it, isn't it? good post.

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2006, 01:34 PM
I would put it a little less harshly -- they want to win but realize there are no viable options that will allow them to win NOW. They can't afford free agents, they can't make the difference with Rule V pickups, they can't magically make up the large run differential of 2006 via trades without giving up their minor league studs and they can't make up the difference in 2007 by bringing up Bailey and Votto. What realistic options do they have other than to let Krivsky tinker and try to improve a little here and a little there?

See, I think there were (and are) viable options. Options that will represent an improvement over Milton/Lohse in the rotation, over Weathers as the closer, and over the current RH 1B power hitter (nobody).

The problem is, they'll fall back on the "we're too poor, and the market is too crazy" argument yet again. They won't go for Zito at all, and they'll probably pass on weaker but still viable starters like Mark Redman or Tony Armas, who would be upgrades over Milton/Lohse.

Octavio Dotel was signed to a very reasonable contract -- by the Royals. The Reds couldn't come up with a better offer? Joe Borowski was even cheaper. Scott Williamson? Less than $1 million. None of these guys are sure things, but then again, are ancient relievers Rheal Cormier, Mike Stanton, and David Weathers sure things either? Do any of those guys have as much upside as Dotel or Williamson, or even a guy like Dave Riske (still available)? Not at all.

Craig Wilson is still available and could fill a huge need for the Reds. Will they sign him? I doubt it.

There are options available. I just think the Reds FO would rather stay cheap than risk some precious cash on them.

Spring~Fields
12-12-2006, 03:55 PM
See, I think there were (and are) viable options. Options that will represent an improvement over Milton/Lohse in the rotation, over Weathers as the closer, and over the current RH 1B power hitter (nobody).

The problem is, they'll fall back on the "we're too poor, and the market is too crazy" argument yet again. They won't go for Zito at all, and they'll probably pass on weaker but still viable starters like Mark Redman or Tony Armas, who would be upgrades over Milton/Lohse.

Octavio Dotel was signed to a very reasonable contract -- by the Royals. The Reds couldn't come up with a better offer? Joe Borowski was even cheaper. Scott Williamson? Less than $1 million. None of these guys are sure things, but then again, are ancient relievers Rheal Cormier, Mike Stanton, and David Weathers sure things either? Do any of those guys have as much upside as Dotel or Williamson, or even a guy like Dave Riske (still available)? Not at all.

Craig Wilson is still available and could fill a huge need for the Reds. Will they sign him? I doubt it.

There are options available. I just think the Reds FO would rather stay cheap than risk some precious cash on them.

Good points.
The Reds just haven't shown a lot of indication that they are doing anything but a slow burn down.

As you have shown there have been other options that might have improved the team and so far they passed.

RedsManRick
12-12-2006, 04:00 PM
Mark Redman put up a 5.71 ERA and 1.59 WHIP last year. That is not better than Lohse or Milton.

edabbs44
12-12-2006, 04:03 PM
Mark Redman put up a 5.71 ERA and 1.59 WHIP last year. That is not better than Lohse or Milton.

What were Lohse's numbers from 2007 when they were in the same division?

RedsManRick
12-12-2006, 04:10 PM
Point taken -- Lohse had a bad 2006 in MN.

Loshe, 29 career: 4.86 ERA, 1.44 WHIP
Redman, 33 career: 4.65 ERA, 1.40 WHIP

Fine, Lohse isn't "Better". In any case, Redman is just a different version of the crap we already have, only with less upside. Unless of course you think that 4.1 K/9 portends great future success.

We get the crap that is Lohse on a 1 year deal for ~6MM. Redman is going to cost about the same but you're going to have to give him a few years of it. I'll pass. Give me Belisle and Ramirez for cheap.

RANDY IN INDY
12-12-2006, 04:17 PM
I like Lohse's stuff and the fact that he has a "live arm" that is not the same old soft toss stuff that the Reds continually run out to the mound. If, and it's a "big if", he can get his head on straight, he has the ability to put up some decent numbers.

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2006, 04:30 PM
Point taken -- Lohse had a bad 2006 in MN.

Loshe, 29 career: 4.86 ERA, 1.44 WHIP
Redman, 33 career: 4.65 ERA, 1.40 WHIP

Fine, Lohse isn't "Better". In any case, Redman is just a different version of the crap we already have, only with less upside. Unless of course you think that 4.1 K/9 portends great future success.

We get the crap that is Lohse on a 1 year deal for ~6MM. Redman is going to cost about the same but you're going to have to give him a few years of it. I'll pass. Give me Belisle and Ramirez for cheap.

Redman isn't my first, second, or even fifth choice for a free agent signing, but in the past couple of years he has become a decent groundball pitcher with a decent HR rate. Milton is an extreme flyballer, and both he and Lohse give up tons of home runs.

So as miserable as it makes me to argue *in favor* of Mark Redman, I'd rather have him than either Milton or Lohse.

registerthis
12-12-2006, 04:33 PM
What were Lohse's numbers from 2007

I think we'd all like to know the answer to this question.

terminator
12-12-2006, 04:48 PM
See, I think there were (and are) viable options. Options that will represent an improvement over Milton/Lohse in the rotation, over Weathers as the closer, and over the current RH 1B power hitter (nobody).

The problem is, they'll fall back on the "we're too poor, and the market is too crazy" argument yet again. They won't go for Zito at all, and they'll probably pass on weaker but still viable starters like Mark Redman or Tony Armas, who would be upgrades over Milton/Lohse.

Octavio Dotel was signed to a very reasonable contract -- by the Royals. The Reds couldn't come up with a better offer? Joe Borowski was even cheaper. Scott Williamson? Less than $1 million. None of these guys are sure things, but then again, are ancient relievers Rheal Cormier, Mike Stanton, and David Weathers sure things either? Do any of those guys have as much upside as Dotel or Williamson, or even a guy like Dave Riske (still available)? Not at all.

Craig Wilson is still available and could fill a huge need for the Reds. Will they sign him? I doubt it.

There are options available. I just think the Reds FO would rather stay cheap than risk some precious cash on them.
I agree all of the options you present would make us better, but IMHO they would be marginal improvements that wouldn't make a material impact on our -50 run differential. I can't think of any combination of realistic moves that would erase our -50 run differential (and thereby get us back to reasonably expecting to be a .500 team) without spending a lot more money or trading away our stud minor leaguers. I just don't think Redman, Armas, Dotel, Borowski, Williamson and Wilson would make us a .500 team over Milton, Lohse, Stanton, Weathers, Cormier and Hatteberg/whoever. Both lists are pretty much middle of the road guys who if we were playing fantasy baseball would be available on the waiver wire throughout the season I think.

Spring~Fields
12-12-2006, 04:54 PM
but IMHO they would be marginal improvements that wouldn't make a material impact on our -50 run differential. I can't think of any combination of realistic moves that would erase our -50 run differential (and thereby get us back to reasonably expecting to be a .500 team)

-50 run differetial and trying to get back to being .500 team. I can see why some are very concerned over the direction of the team.

Why some consider blowing it up and remaking the minor leagues so that they can supply the Reds with ready talent someday, if they actually developed good talent in their minors.

Aronchis
12-12-2006, 04:56 PM
Krivsky's "burning it down" is what I would call "Transitional Progress"(sorta like Krivsky's "Dialectical Materialism"). Moving out the old with the younger and cheaper when they are deemed fit and ready by management. For example, Weathers was resigned because they felt Medlock wasn't ready yet. Shafer on the otherhand, may replace Matt Belisle if he is traded, cut, turns to starting ete.

Another part of "Transitional Progress" is the need of claiming draft picks for players bolstering the farm system. Aurilla and Shoewie this year, Arroyo after his contract runs out for example. Once the player has reached his performance and money ratio peek, they are let go for a cheaper similiar talent or if the low bargain player has done his required job(Shoewie), they are let go in favor of the returning compensation(draft picks, improve Farm System).

Trades are the "X-factor" in Transitional Progress. Most of them will be low risk moves with possible high reward upsides that turn into production and maybe more importantly, draft picks or youth who could be future transitional property replacing veterens. FA is also another X-factor if money is available, but management has not deemed the high risk contracts overly rewarding while the budget leaves modest wiggle room.

Lets summarize Transitional Progress:
1.Slow movement out of veteren players if no such youth can replace him.
2.Once the veteren can be replaced, the young player is methodically moved in.
3.Players giving compensation(Aurilla) that provides possible bolstering to the farm system is more valuable field production if that production can be produced by a cheaper source or more likely "sources" of new talent. Lohse may be in a similiar condition if he puts up a decent year in 2007 for example.
4.A strong farm system: The core of Transitional Progress. Without it, progress could not be achieved.
5.No rapid changes: No boat rocking, firesales or other undesirable functions that could disrupt the constant flow of the team and its fans. For example, when the Reds fall out of contention in 2007, they will only trade veterens that they deem have no future or offer rewards(draft picks) in the future Ex: Medlock is ready by summer, replaces Weathers who is traded for prospects.

RedsManRick
12-12-2006, 04:57 PM
Redman isn't my first, second, or even fifth choice for a free agent signing, but in the past couple of years he has become a decent groundball pitcher with a decent HR rate. Milton is an extreme flyballer, and both he and Lohse give up tons of home runs.

So as miserable as it makes me to argue *in favor* of Mark Redman, I'd rather have him than either Milton or Lohse.

That Redman keeps the ball on the ground and in the park and STILL sucks scares me even more. At this point in his career, he's the near definition of "no upside". 202 hits, 76 K, 63 BB in 167 IP . I'll take Loshe. Maybe he sucks it up -- but at least there's that chance he performs like a #3. No need to pay 6-8MM over multiple years for a guy who's ceiling is as a decent #4.

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2006, 05:01 PM
That Redman keeps the ball on the ground and in the park and STILL sucks scares me even more.

Playing for the Royals will do that.

I don't like Redman either, but I like Lohse less, and Milton a whole lot less.

RedsManRick
12-12-2006, 05:05 PM
Good stuff Aronchis. However, I'm going to need to see about 2 more years worth of transactions from WK before I belief that that's his actual approach.

I think perhaps we all get distracted by what we hear from GM's and Managers vs. what they actually do. Some GMs and Managers talk about "desire to win" and "playing the right way" because it's how they really think. Other's talk that way because they can get away with it and they don't want to tip their hand by going in to the real details in public. I'm not sure which one WK is yet.

His talk suggests that he thinks we can win with a bullpen full of low risk, low reward 40 year olds and a lineup that would score more runs if it only struck out less. Let's see that process you described play out before we give him to much credit for being dumb like a fox.

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2006, 05:11 PM
I just don't think Redman, Armas, Dotel, Borowski, Williamson and Wilson would make us a .500 team over Milton, Lohse, Stanton, Weathers, Cormier and Hatteberg/whoever.

That's where we'll have to disagree, then.

Ravenlord
12-12-2006, 05:18 PM
Playing for the Royals will do that.

I don't like Redman either, but I like Lohse less, and Milton a whole lot less.



Lohse
Age ERA IP K/BB BB/9 K/9 H/9 HR/9 WHIP BABIP
27 5.34 194 1.46 3.53 5.15 11.13 1.30 1.63 321
28 4.18 178.2 1.95 2.22 4.33 10.63 1.11 1.43 311
29 5.83 126.2 2.20 3.13 6.89 10.66 1.07 1.53 334

Milton
Age ERA IP K/BB BB/9 K/9 H/9 HR/9 WHIP BABIP
28 4.75 201 2.15 3.36 7.21 8.78 1.93 1.35 263
29 6.47 186.1 2.37 2.51 5.94 11.45 1.93 1.55 311
30 5.19 152.2 2.14 2.48 5.31 9.61 1.71 1.34 270

Redman
Age ERA IP K/BB BB/9 K/9 H/9 HR/9 WHIP BABIP
31 4.71 191 1.50 3.20 4.81 10.27 1.32 1.50 303
32 4.90 178.1 1.80 2.83 5.10 9.49 0.91 1.37 296
33 5.71 167 1.21 3.40 4.10 10.89 1.02 1.59 319

TeamSelig
12-12-2006, 05:48 PM
Didn't realize Redman was that old. Definitely no thanks to getting him, even if he came cheap.

terminator
12-12-2006, 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by terminator
I just don't think Redman, Armas, Dotel, Borowski, Williamson and Wilson would make us a .500 team over Milton, Lohse, Stanton, Weathers, Cormier and Hatteberg/whoever.


That's where we'll have to disagree, then.

I'm a stats novice, but since we're comparing pitchers and batters I assume using win shares is a reasonable method of comparing groups of players when using WSAB to account for playing time differences? If so, what I found for 2006 shows the Reds' group of players as a +21 WSAB (Milton +4, Lohse +2, Stanton +4, Weathers +4, Cormier +3, Hatteberg +3) and the other six non-Reds as +1 WSAB (Redman +2, Armas -1, Dotel -2, Borowski +2, Williamson -1 and C. Wilson +1).

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2006, 06:28 PM
I'm a stats novice, but since we're comparing pitchers and batters I assume using win shares is a reasonable method of comparing groups of players when using WSAB to account for playing time differences? If so, what I found for 2006 shows the Reds' group of players as a +21 WSAB (Milton +4, Lohse +2, Stanton +4, Weathers +4, Cormier +3, Hatteberg +3) and the other six non-Reds as +1 WSAB (Redman +2, Armas -1, Dotel -2, Borowski +2, Williamson -1 and C. Wilson +1).

Acquiring Borowski, Dotel, and Williamson wouldn't have automatically excluded acquiring Stanton or resigning Cormier and Weathers.

We're talking about upside with Dotel and Williamson. I think they're decent bets to be worth a lot more than they were in 2006. Armas is a decent rebound candidate as well.

Wilson's WSAB in the NL was +4 -- better than Hatteberg.

And I'm not confident Hatteberg, Cormier, and Weathers can repeat their 2006 numbers. They're at the tail ends of their careers, and a dropoff is likely.