PDA

View Full Version : Reds move up on BA's organization report cards



mbgrayson
12-16-2006, 10:49 AM
Last year, the Reds rated a letter grade "D" on Baseball America's organization report cards. THis placed them 27th out of 30, with only the Pirates, Devil Rays, and Royals lower.

This year, Baseball America's latest issue rates them a "C+", which moves them up to 15th.

Under the overall grade, there are a number of sub-categories. Below these are listed, with a comparison of last year and this year's rankings.


1. Major Leagues 2005: D 2006: C
2. Minor Leagues 2005: D 2006: B
3. Talent Level 2005: D 2006: B
4. Player Procurement 2005: B 2006: C
5. Organization Direction 2005: D 2006: B

I don't think I should quote all of the one sentence narratives for each sub-category, since BA is fussy about having their content copied. Under team direction is the overall summary; "With improved ownership, things are suddenly looking up in Cincinnati, but team still needs more good players to make a serious playoff push."

TOBTTReds
12-16-2006, 10:52 AM
I think we had a pretty good draft and with another solid one in 07 we should continue moving up.

MrCinatit
12-16-2006, 11:56 AM
5. Organization Direction 2005: D 2006: B
[/I]."

That there - that tiniest of threads - is enough to give me hope to grab onto.

texasdave
12-16-2006, 01:13 PM
Johnny Almarez must have done something right in 2006. I would think since he was in charge of Player Development that #2 (Minor League) was his main concern. And that area jumped up from a D to a B in one season.

LoganBuck
12-16-2006, 04:30 PM
texas, that is all likely attributed by the four individual performances of Bailey, Bruce, Votto, and Cueto, as a collective improvement.

Eric_Davis
12-16-2006, 08:47 PM
Last year, the Reds rated a letter grade "D" on Baseball America's organization report cards. THis placed them 27th out of 30, with only the Pirates, Devil Rays, and Royals lower.

This year, Baseball America's latest issue rates them a "C+", which moves them up to 15th.

Under the overall grade, there are a number of sub-categories. Below these are listed, with a comparison of last year and this year's rankings.


1. Major Leagues 2005: D 2006: C
2. Minor Leagues 2005: D 2006: B
3. Talent Level 2005: D 2006: B
4. Player Procurement 2005: B 2006: C
5. Organization Direction 2005: D 2006: B

I don't think I should quote all of the one sentence narratives for each sub-category, since BA is fussy about having their content copied. Under team direction is the overall summary; "With improved ownership, things are suddenly looking up in Cincinnati, but team still needs more good players to make a serious playoff push."


This is the kind of report I'm looking for while observing the job our new G.M. is doing for the organization...not some what-have-you-done-for-me-lately kind of results that get some fans wondering why we didn't do anything during the winter meetings.

I guarantee you. A lot of things were done during the winter meetings. Conversations were held and groundwork was laid for all future negotiations.

Great Job!

This organization is in the best hands it's been in for the last 20 years. We can say goodbye to two decades of funk.

Spike
12-16-2006, 11:08 PM
This is the kind of report I'm looking for while observing the job our new G.M. is doing for the organization...not some what-have-you-done-for-me-lately kind of results that get some fans wondering why we didn't do anything during the winter meetings.

I guarantee you. A lot of things were done during the winter meetings. Conversations were held and groundwork was laid for all future negotiations.

Great Job!

This organization is in the best hands it's been in for the last 20 years. We can say goodbye to two decades of funk.

I may be in a minority, but I am a Wayne Krivsy fan. I like his moves and although the Kearns/Lopez trade was tough, I think we will see Bray and Majewski shine in time.

TRF
12-18-2006, 10:18 AM
This is the kind of report I'm looking for while observing the job our new G.M. is doing for the organization...not some what-have-you-done-for-me-lately kind of results that get some fans wondering why we didn't do anything during the winter meetings.

I guarantee you. A lot of things were done during the winter meetings. Conversations were held and groundwork was laid for all future negotiations.

Great Job!

This organization is in the best hands it's been in for the last 20 years. We can say goodbye to two decades of funk.

If that's true, You must have at least liked Dan O'Brien.

Because he drafted a helluva lot better than Krivsky did. at least so far. He infused the minors with more talent than Krivsky has as well. Now a lot of what he brought in is gone, but he recognized the GLARING weakness that was the Reds farm system. Krivsky went all JimBo on the draft and picked Stubbs first.

All I am saying, is if you want to praise Krivsky for what he has accomplished, use the same criteria for previous regimes. I don't think DnO was a good GM. I do think he is a good baseball man though. And I think he has a very defined role that he can excel in. I'm thinking Krivsky might be the same animal. Good in a very defined role. Maybe he'll grow into more. DanO didn't, but it's possible Krivsky will. He showed remarkable restrain at the winter meetings. I commend him for that.

Eric_Davis
12-18-2006, 10:29 AM
If that's true, You must have at least liked Dan O'Brien.

Because he drafted a helluva lot better than Krivsky did. at least so far. He infused the minors with more talent than Krivsky has as well. Now a lot of what he brought in is gone, but he recognized the GLARING weakness that was the Reds farm system. Krivsky went all JimBo on the draft and picked Stubbs first.

All I am saying, is if you want to praise Krivsky for what he has accomplished, use the same criteria for previous regimes. I don't think DnO was a good GM. I do think he is a good baseball man though. And I think he has a very defined role that he can excel in. I'm thinking Krivsky might be the same animal. Good in a very defined role. Maybe he'll grow into more. DanO didn't, but it's possible Krivsky will. He showed remarkable restrain at the winter meetings. I commend him for that.

All of my previous posts always supported DanO, mainly because I'm not going to judge a G.M. on just two years of service, especially when the minor leagues is where the organization needed it's biggest improvement. Just like I do now, I try to temper those who want to hang the G.M. before six months have passed, one year has passed, or two years have passed. This is baseball, where it takes 5-7 years to judge the effect a General Manager has on an organization.

I'm probably making too early of a thumbs up call myself, but I like the type of moves that he makes and from my viewpoint, the reason that he makes them.

No one has a clue what type of draft results Wayne has had yet, as it has only been six months since his first draft!!!!!!!! (TRF, not referencing this to your comment on "going JimBo"....I know you meant that he went for power early in the draft....at least he didn't intentionally draft someone whom he couldn't sign.)

What I like most about Wayne is that he's always looking to make improvements at all levels of the organization. I love the trade with Washington. In 2008 and 2009 it will really show itself to be a good trade.

Heath
12-18-2006, 10:45 AM
Well, I would hope that the Reds move up. They obviously couldn't get much worse.

TRF
12-18-2006, 11:29 AM
When I posted "going JimBo" I meant drafting a "toolsy" player. Stubbs may end up being the better pick, but I personally wanted the Reds to take Tim Lincecum. Having your minors stocked with pitching can allow you to trade for hitting. The other way around, not so much.

I liked a lot of what DanO did. I just disliked a lot too. Same with Krivsky. I don't think either man works the 25 or 40 man rosters very well. But DanO did see the value in keeping WMP on the roster. Value that Krivsky cashed in on. I'm thinking that Krivsky is hoping to stay with the reds long enough to see both Stubbs (his pick) and Bruce (DanO pick) in the OF for the Reds. Their combined version of Kearns/Dunn.

Falls City Beer
12-18-2006, 11:34 AM
I don't think either man works the 25 or 40 man rosters very well.

Now you're being too generous.

TRF
12-18-2006, 01:08 PM
ok, stupid take the first pitch aside, I liked the tandem starter idea. Problem is DanO let his underlings bully him into dropping it. Truth is after it was instituted, Surgeries were on the decline. In that regard, it worked. That doesn't mean that just regular pitch limits won't, but at least it was outside the box thinking. I can't fault that too much.

Taking the first pitch though... Why would you broadcast that? And why for every AB? Maybe first time facing a pitcher it might have some merit, but AB's 2,3 and 4? just silly.

But DanO did draftat least 2 potential stars in Bailey and Bruce. Also his regime produced Wood, Cueto, and LeCure. And no major league contracts to minor league players. another plus.

So far, Krivsky has had a pheh draft and a good March and April on the trade/FA front. I'm patient, but there seems to be no real discernable method to his moves. He seems to be adding defense, but all the defense is just going to make horrible pitchers a little less horrible. There is no Number 3 starter, or number 1 if you prefer. Bailey won't get more than a cup of coffee in September. And there is nobody at AA or AAA ready to be a starter for the Reds.

The lower minors is looking better, But that is because of DanO, not Krivsky.

How odd it is to type that.

M2
12-18-2006, 01:35 PM
I don't know that the lower minors looks all that great. It's certainly not deep. Essentially, in two years of DanO the Reds have three arms (Bailey, Wood and Cueto) and a bat (Bruce) to dream on.

When isn't that the case?

Go back in time four years ago and folks thought the organization was swimming in pitching (Gruler, Basham, Moseley and Howington being the top-rated guys) with Pena and Encarancion around to boot.

IMO, what happened in 2006 was that, unlike many past seasons, a number of the team's top prospects had good seasons. Instead of doing a hot prospect reshuffle, 2006 reinforced the prospect status of many of the Reds' top kids. There wasn't a lot in the way of depth, though. If the top prospects ultimately miss, there isn't much beyond that that profiles as any sort of help. Even if the bulk of the top prospects ultimately make it, the Reds still have to do some serious fishing outside the organization in order to round out a good future team.

A number of Krivsky's draft picks performed well in Billings so we'll see if anything approaching depth comes of it in 2007.

Anyway, while I agree the Reds' system looks better than it did a year ago, I think it's mostly because the farm system managed not to implode for the first time in a number of years, at least in terms of the top prospects. That might be because the Reds now have better top prospects, but that doesn't equate to a turnaround. It's just a good first step with many more needed before anyone proclaims it to be a new direction. At least that's my take.

PuffyPig
12-18-2006, 01:47 PM
I'd suggest that having many of the top propsects having good seasons is an absolute turnaround. As opposed to having many of the top prospects flop. It validates the top prospects ratings.

M2
12-18-2006, 02:24 PM
I'd suggest that having many of the top propsects having good seasons is an absolute turnaround. As opposed to having many of the top prospects flop. It validates the top prospects ratings.

My definition of absolute turnaround is having a farm system that consistently spits out quality major leaguers. Most likely, none of the Reds top prospects will be a quality major leaguer in 2007.

They've got three top arms (Bailey, Cueto, Wood) and two top bat (Bruce and Votto). Say two of the arms get injured in 2007 and the two bats struggle a bit the next league up. Would that then be an absolute negative turnaround?

That's why I try to resist the notion that everything's suddenly horrible/wonderful. The Reds have increased the top end value in their farm system over the past year. That's a good thing. It needs to continue. The rest of the system needs to delevop much better depth and prospects at some point will need to make the jump to being capable major leaguers (and that might be two to three years off).

The Reds's affiliates generally struggled on the field, Chattanooga and Billings were the only two to post winning records for the year. The system certainly didn't feature prospect-laden teams. We've seen handful of prospects have a good year before, 2001 leaps to mind. IMO it would far more encouraging and indicative of a turnaround if 2007 builds on 2006. Right now we've got one year that stands in isolation waiting, hopefully, on an exciting future.

mbgrayson
12-18-2006, 03:55 PM
"The Reds's affiliates generally struggled on the field, Chattanooga and Billings were the only two to post winning records for the year. The system certainly didn't feature prospect-laden teams. We've seen handful of prospects have a good year before, 2001 leaps to mind. IMO it would far more encouraging and indicative of a turnaround if 2007 builds on 2006. Right now we've got one year that stands in isolation waiting, hopefully, on an exciting future.

This is simply not true. Here are the 2005 minor league records compared to 2006:

2006 v 2005 Reds minor league system comparison
In the past, one of the big hits on the Reds farm system was that their farm teams were losing more than winning, at many different levels. One way to compare overall strength of systems is to look at win-loss records of the various teams.

2006 records
AAA Louisville 75-68 (+9 wins)
AA Chattanooga 81-59 (+28 wins)
High A Sarasota 66-73 (+1 win)
A Dayton 67-73 (+7 wins)
Rookie Billings 51-25 (+8 wins)
GCL Reds 18-34 (-4 wins)
2006 Overall 358-332 (+49 wins) (.519 winning %)

2005 records
AAA Louisville 66-78
AA Chattanooga 53-83
High A Sarasota 65-67
A Dayton 60-79
Rookie Billings 43-33
GCL Reds 22-32
2005 Overall totals 309-372 (.454 winning %)

Overall, winning 49 more games, and having winning records at 3 of 6 levels, including AA and AAA, is a real improvement. Also it is worth noting that 5 of the 6 teams had better records than 2005.

TRF
12-18-2006, 03:58 PM
Exactly one thing changed under DanO. Health. It's that simple.

Had Bowden's drafts been healthy, who knows where the Reds would be right now. Swimming in a pitching rich system I think. Just the top names of the last 5-6 years include Pauly, Gardner, Howington, Gruler, Basham and Aramboles. Add them to the current crop of HEALTHY minor leaguers and what you have is a solid foundation to feed MLB. Not just the Reds, but all of baseball as potential trade chips.

DanO, if nothing else brought health to the minor leaguers. Now that may have been serendipitous, or a result of his very conservative nature, regardless, the minors were healthy under his watch for the first time in a long time.

Krivsky SAYS that he doesn't want players skipping levels, and yet both Cueto and Bailey spent only a half season at the level they started at in '06.

Cueto went from pitching 50 innings in 2005 to 140 in 2006. That's quite a jump.

LeCure skipped the Midwest League altogether. Now while I think he's the type of pitcher, age and development, that could handle the jump, it goes to pattern. Krivsk says no skipping, then he starts having players skip levels or spend only a short time there. And don't get me started on Pelland. Kid has been handled completely wrong his entire career thus far. He should have spent 2006 repeating High A.

Now this approach isn't nearly as aggressive as one Bowden might employ. (remember when Aramboles nearly made the team out of ST?) But it is aggressive nonetheless. And I'm not saying it's a bad idea. just pointing out what I have observed. I do not think Krivsky will be remembered for the 2006 draft. But then it was supposed to be a weak class. But 2007 is supposed to be better. And he needs to do something on the international front. So far, he's shown nothing on that front.

M2
12-18-2006, 04:04 PM
This is simply not true. Here are the 2005 minor league records compared to 2006:

2006 v 2005 Reds minor league system comparison
In the past, one of the big hits on the Reds farm system was that their farm teams were losing more than winning, at many different levels. One way to compare overall strength of systems is to look at win-loss records of the various teams.

2006 records
AAA Louisville 75-68 (+9 wins)
AA Chattanooga 81-59 (+28 wins)
High A Sarasota 66-73 (+1 win)
A Dayton 67-73 (+7 wins)
Rookie Billings 51-25 (+8 wins)
GCL Reds 18-34 (-4 wins)
2006 Overall 358-332 (+49 wins) (.519 winning %)

2005 records
AAA Louisville 66-78
AA Chattanooga 53-83
High A Sarasota 65-67
A Dayton 60-79
Rookie Billings 43-33
GCL Reds 22-32
2005 Overall totals 309-372 (.454 winning %)

Overall, winning 49 more games, and having winning records at 3 of 6 levels, including AA and AAA, is a real improvement. Also it is worth noting that 5 of the 6 teams had better records than 2005.

My bad on forgetting that Louisville had a winning record. So that's still losing teams in High A, Low A and the GCL (half the affiliates). Mixed bag would have been a fairer statement. We're still not talking prospect-laden teams here.

I agree that progress was made, but it's far from where the organization needs to go.

VR
12-18-2006, 06:06 PM
My bad on forgetting that Louisville had a winning record. So that's still losing teams in High A, Low A and the GCL (half the affiliates). Mixed bag would have been a fairer statement. We're still not talking prospect-laden teams here.

I agree that progress was made, but it's far from where the organization needs to go.


I think that's a fair assessment. Perhaps it's more reasonable for the original statement to say they've managed to put a tourniquet around the hemoraghing torso, and it seems to have stopped the bleeding....only time will tell if it's going to heal itself however

dougdirt
12-18-2006, 06:07 PM
I could care less if our system has teams that win. I want the system to produce players.

M2
12-18-2006, 06:34 PM
I could care less if our system has teams that win. I want the system to produce players.

Ultimately yes, though the ideal would be producing players who've been brought up through a winning atmosphere.

The two cases that resonate most with me for caring about minor league team records (which shouldn't necessarily matter) are that it generally means you're doing well on the talent end (at least in terms of depth) and that your prospects are being brought along in a strong team concept system. I think it's important to make kids concentrate as much on winning games as they do on advancing their individual skills.

dougdirt
12-18-2006, 07:18 PM
I will agree with that M2, but I think, especially in younger guys, that they just want to win. Older Vets sometimes just want that big payday regardless of whether its in KC or not, but I think especially with younger guys they want to win.

Willy
12-18-2006, 07:53 PM
I'm not saying anyone is trying to judge Wayne's first draft, but let's not even think about going there. I remember a lot of people upset at the Homer pick, and the Bruce pick. It is way to early to tell if any of these guys are going to pan out or even stay healthly.

mbgrayson
12-28-2006, 10:33 AM
For anyone who has access to Baseball America's premium content, the organization report ccards are now online HERE (http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/majors/features/263011.html). (Subscription required.)