PDA

View Full Version : Arroyo speaks again?



klw
12-19-2006, 12:22 PM
Link to a thread on SOSH. No direct link to any quotes so take it with as many grains of salt as you wish. No real new ground.
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=13567

Caseyfan21
12-19-2006, 12:29 PM
It was a Boston affiliated person interviewing him.

Boston Interviewer: Bronson, do you want to come back to the Red Sox?

Arroyo: Hell no, Cincinnati has a chance to win the world series. We sell out every game and have a playoff atmosphere night in and night out.

I think if that had been the course of the interview we would all know he was BS'ing. I'm glad he's honest but he also is probably keeping Red Sox fans happy by playing them up. I'm sure if a Cincinnati person interviewed him (officially) he would have great quotes about how he loves Cincinnati.

dabvu2498
12-19-2006, 12:37 PM
One of the posters there makes a good point:


Imagine the outcry around here if, for example, Josh Beckett went on some radio station in south Florida and gushed about a future return to the Marlins.


BTW, the Red Sox play "Sweet Caroline" in the 8th inning, not the 7th, as "Arroyo" allegedly said.

Caseyfan21
12-19-2006, 12:40 PM
BTW, the Red Sox play "Sweet Caroline" in the 8th inning, not the 7th, as "Arroyo" allegedly said.

:laugh:

I didn't even catch that. He should at least know what inning it's played in if he loves the city so much.

Joseph
12-19-2006, 12:49 PM
One of the posters there makes a good point:



BTW, the Red Sox play "Sweet Caroline" in the 8th inning, not the 7th, as "Arroyo" allegedly said.

Clearly that was a veiled acknowledgment of the fact he hates Boston, but is afraid to say so in public.

Wheelhouse
12-19-2006, 12:50 PM
Who wouldn't want to play in Boston. And if you pitched your heart out and had the season of your life and and after an absolutely GOLDEN opportunity to make the playoffs your team folded as badly as the Reds would you want to stay here? He's also selling tickets to his concerts he's doing in New England right now.

vaticanplum
12-19-2006, 12:57 PM
I don't know what his problem is. Cincinnati is hott like tabasco.

Falls City Beer
12-19-2006, 01:19 PM
Cincinnati is hott like tabasco.

Hott like half-cooked sausage links.

marcshoe
12-19-2006, 01:34 PM
Who wouldn't want to play in Boston. And if you pitched your heart out and had the season of your life and and after an absolutely GOLDEN opportunity to make the playoffs your team folded as badly as the Reds would you want to stay here?

There is some great irony in this post that I can't quite put my finger on....;)

Roy Tucker
12-19-2006, 03:29 PM
It sounds like gehrig38 has man-love for Arroyo.

http://p086.ezboard.com/fsonsofsamhornfrm44.showMessageRange?topicID=257.t opic&start=1&stop=20

blumj
12-19-2006, 05:29 PM
It sounds like gehrig38 has man-love for Arroyo.

http://p086.ezboard.com/fsonsofsamhornfrm44.showMessageRange?topicID=257.t opic&start=1&stop=20

Who gets to start the RedsZone game thread if the Reds make the playoffs, Harang or Arroyo?

Spring~Fields
12-19-2006, 07:47 PM
Surely “wiggle room” Castellini and the “pitching and defense kind of a guy” Krivsky has gotten the memo by now.

MartyFan
12-20-2006, 01:29 AM
Can you blame the guy?

Before he went to BoSox he was with the Pirates...then he got a taste of a franchise that may not win everything every year (of for decades) but is always comeptitive...Isn't that the fun of playing baseball...then add to that the city life in Boston...it's pretty hard to beat.

I mean, the Cards are doing well for the last several years and players are not beating down the door to play there either....the only guys who play in Houston are hometown guys...the only guys who play for the reds....welll...you see who plays here.

This ownership has a chance to turn it around but what Arroyo wants is what I want for Cincy as a fan. I want players who LUST to be here the way it was in the mid 70's...when a player went tot he Reds...they went there to win. Now it is just another destination on a MLB roster.

blumj
12-20-2006, 12:24 PM
Boston can be tough place for players who don't perform up to expectations or who want to be able to live a normal, relatively anonymous, life. Bronson didn't have to deal with high expectations there, and I think it's probably safe to say he'd rather live like a rock star/college kid than a mature adult. It's not that the Red Sox win, it's that they get treated like they do, even when they don't. They're the biggest fish in a relatively small pond, and they get to live like it. And he experienced only the best of it at its absolute height.

LINEDRIVER
12-21-2006, 05:42 AM
Anyone agree that Arroyo's preference of Boston over Cincinnati has more to do with the 'nightlife' in Boston than anything else?

macro
12-21-2006, 10:05 AM
I feel like the Reds are the Patrick Dempsey character in the movie "Can't Buy Me Love". They only have the priviledge of "dating" Arroyo because he owes them two more years of a contractual agreement.

Maybe the Reds will get lucky and Arroyo will change his mind and decide to ride the Reds' lawnmower into the sunset. Either way, I get tired of his constantly answering this question in the way he does. Couldn't he just diplomatically sidestep the question? Must he keep hammering the point home that he'd rather be in Boston?

Spring~Fields
12-21-2006, 01:19 PM
Wouldn’t a really sharp proactive general manager see the writing on the wall with Arroyo and his desire to play elsewhere. Wouldn't that same wise GM be trying to find a team that has several good pieces that would help his team through either a straight up trade of Arroyo or package him in a deal that would bring back some young cheap promising players.

Especially since the Reds are short on talent and just don’t have the money to acquire talent.

If K would make some wise and shrewd trades perhaps by 2010 he could have several of the pieces together to put a fine product on the field.

MrCinatit
12-22-2006, 09:02 AM
I feel like the Reds are the Patrick Dempsey character in the movie "Can't Buy Me Love". They only have the priviledge of "dating" Arroyo because he owes them two more years of a contractual agreement.
Maybe the Reds will get lucky and Arroyo will change his mind and decide to ride the Reds' lawnmower into the sunset. Either way, I get tired of his constantly answering this question in the way he does. Couldn't he just diplomatically sidestep the question? Must he keep hammering the point home that he'd rather be in Boston?

I was thinking the same thing last night.
Arroyo is like that pretty hot girl you are dating - you know you are on borrowed time before she finally dumps you.
Your only hope is that, when she gets out there, she will find out you weren't so bad after all.

reds44
12-22-2006, 01:37 PM
Wouldn’t a really sharp proactive general manager see the writing on the wall with Arroyo and his desire to play elsewhere. Wouldn't that same wise GM be trying to find a team that has several good pieces that would help his team through either a straight up trade of Arroyo or package him in a deal that would bring back some young cheap promising players.

Especially since the Reds are short on talent and just don’t have the money to acquire talent.

If K would make some wise and shrewd trades perhaps by 2010 he could have several of the pieces together to put a fine product on the field.
Why would you do that now when he had 2 years left on his deal?

That's a decision that will need to be made in July of 2008.

Spring~Fields
12-22-2006, 01:42 PM
Why would you do that now when he had 2 years left on his deal?

That's a decision that will need to be made in July of 2008.

Because the Reds are short on talent at the MLB and minor league level, they are not going to contend, and WK has not shown any significant skill level to acquire talent. Someday he will have to show that ability, this season would be a good time to build for the future.

If he waits, then he stands the greater chance of one of his only few bullets leaving. Arroyo knows that he got burned on that contract and will be wanting to get his, and the Reds are already crying that they can't afford those outrageous contracts that he and Harang will be getting if they have any kind of agent.

reds44
12-22-2006, 01:53 PM
Because the Reds are short on talent at the MLB and minor league level, they are not going to contend, and WK has not shown any significant skill level to acquire talent. Someday he will have to show that ability, this season would be a good time to build for the future.

If he waits, then he stands the greater chance of one of his only few bullets leaving. Arroyo knows that he got burned on that contract and will be wanting to get his, and the Reds are already crying that they can't afford those outrageous contracts that he and Harang will be getting if they have any kind of agent.
We contended last year. It was because the NL Central was pathetic, but we contended last year. I would say the talent level today on this team is higher then it was last year.

Spring~Fields
12-22-2006, 02:20 PM
We contended last year. It was because the NL Central was pathetic, but we contended last year. I would say the talent level today on this team is higher then it was last year.

I hope that you are right, I just can't see that myself.

dsmith421
12-22-2006, 03:30 PM
I would say the talent level today on this team is higher then it was last year.

How do you figure that?

reds44
12-22-2006, 08:29 PM
How do you figure that?
Who did we lose? We lost RA, that's it. He was a guy that most people on this board wanted us to let go. We added Gonzalez, who will be an upgrade in every way over Clayton. Stanton is an upgrade over alot of the bums we trotted out of the pen last year. Conine is a guy we needed to replace Rich. How do we know what GABP will do to his numbers? His last 2 years were much better then the 2 years Rich put up before he came here. I think most on here would agree Dunn's numbers will go up this year. If you move Griffey out of CF, there is an automatic upgrade.

We lost 1 guy who meant anything on last year's team. I'm not sure how you can look at it and say we are any worse. If we are any better is the question.

dsmith421
12-22-2006, 08:50 PM
Who did we lose? We lost RA, that's it. He was a guy that most people on this board wanted us to let go. We added Gonzalez, who will be an upgrade in every way over Clayton. Stanton is an upgrade over alot of the bums we trotted out of the pen last year. Conine is a guy we needed to replace Rich. How do we know what GABP will do to his numbers? His last 2 years were much better then the 2 years Rich put up before he came here. I think most on here would agree Dunn's numbers will go up this year. If you move Griffey out of CF, there is an automatic upgrade.

We lost 1 guy who meant anything on last year's team. I'm not sure how you can look at it and say we are any worse. If we are any better is the question.

Offensively, the only two position players I see who can be expected to improve are Dunn and Encarnacion. Ross and Hatteberg will likely regress to career norms. Griffey is completely unreliable. Gonzalez can't hit. Phillips has to demonstrate he can repeat his production from last season. Denorfia has proved nothing in the bigs. From the excellent offense that began 2006, we gave away Lopez and Kearns; now, we've replaced Aurilia with Jeff Conine, a less versatile guy five years older that frankly can't hold Rich's jock. From the end of 2006, that's a slight downgrade. From the beginning of 2006, that's a catastrophic downgrade.

Defensively, on paper we should improve but it depends mightily on Narron's managerial acumen, in which I have minimal trust.

The pitching is virtually identical. We have a bunch of overpaid old junkballers who can't strike anyone out in the bullpen. We have no closer. We have no reliable long man. We have no fifth starter. Kyle Lohse and Eric Milton are starting 40% of the games. Bailey could one day be a stud but he's not going to come up and immediately post a 125 ERA+, at least not this year. It's a mess.

Maybe talentwise it's about the same as the back half of 2006. Of course, that team was 12 under .500 after May 1st.

As constituted, this team is somewhere around 74-88, as far as I can tell. Older AND worse is no way to turn a ballclub around.

Marge'sMullet
12-22-2006, 10:49 PM
Offensively, the only two position players I see who can be expected to improve are Dunn and Encarnacion. Ross and Hatteberg will likely regress to career norms. Griffey is completely unreliable. Gonzalez can't hit. Phillips has to demonstrate he can repeat his production from last season. Denorfia has proved nothing in the bigs. From the excellent offense that began 2006, we gave away Lopez and Kearns; now, we've replaced Aurilia with Jeff Conine, a less versatile guy five years older that frankly can't hold Rich's jock. From the end of 2006, that's a slight downgrade. From the beginning of 2006, that's a catastrophic downgrade.

Defensively, on paper we should improve but it depends mightily on Narron's managerial acumen, in which I have minimal trust.

The pitching is virtually identical. We have a bunch of overpaid old junkballers who can't strike anyone out in the bullpen. We have no closer. We have no reliable long man. We have no fifth starter. Kyle Lohse and Eric Milton are starting 40% of the games. Bailey could one day be a stud but he's not going to come up and immediately post a 125 ERA+, at least not this year. It's a mess.

Maybe talentwise it's about the same as the back half of 2006. Of course, that team was 12 under .500 after May 1st.

As constituted, this team is somewhere around 74-88, as far as I can tell. Older AND worse is no way to turn a ballclub around.


It is a mess, maybe that's why some of us like it so much in some sick twisted way. We love to digress over the problem of the Cincinnati REDS.

marcshoe
12-23-2006, 01:45 AM
Not me. I grew up in the seventies, and much preferred fielding an all-star team that was always in contention. There's no comparison.

Right now, though, I would settle for a roster with a median age under 35.

blumj
01-01-2007, 02:42 PM
Ordinarily, I wouldn't want to dredge this back up, but I just heard a replay of one of his recent Boston radio interviews, and I thought it was important to point out that he was promoting several upcoming musical performances in the area. I'm no music critic, but you'd think it would be in his best interest to play up whatever tenuous Red Sox connection he has left and talk up the local fans in order to drum up an audience. I kind of doubt he's all that big of a draw just because of his music.

RedsManRick
01-01-2007, 07:40 PM
Please don't tell me the argument is "we can compete because we won 80 games last year and replaced Rich Aurilia with Alex Gonzalez".

Shooting for a .500 season playoff push is a great way to never actually make the playoffs. Show me who on the Reds is likely to get better and who is likely to get worse. This is a team with a ceiling of about 84-85 wins.

If the argument for holding on to Arroyo is that the current roster could 85 games and the NL Central could be so horrible as for that to constitute a playoff berth, then call me a downer, because I think that's the perfect way to build a mediocre team. At this point, the only way to make this team better is to acquire more talent which will still be here when the overall talent level is sufficient to actually be competitive. Sitting on our current 25 man and praying for suckitude from every other team isn't the way I'd go about building an organization capable of sustained success.

Falls City Beer
01-01-2007, 07:56 PM
This is a team with a ceiling of about 84-85 wins.


And that's only if Bailey's ready to come up and throw 180 innings with a 3.5-4.00 ERA.

Absent that, I'd say the team as currently constructed is about a 75 win-ceiling team.

RedsManRick
01-01-2007, 09:11 PM
And that's only if Bailey's ready to come up and throw 180 innings with a 3.5-4.00 ERA.

Absent that, I'd say the team as currently constructed is about a 75 win-ceiling team.

That's not really fair. The ceiling implies every thing goes right. If everything goes right, Dunn rebounds, EE & Phillips improve, AGone helps secure the infield defense, Arroyo & Harang repeat, the bullpen is improved, etc. -- we'll be a .500 ish team again. Is that likely to happen? Of course not. But it's possible. Likely win total is surely in the 70's, but there's some upside on the roster.

Falls City Beer
01-01-2007, 09:19 PM
That's not really fair. The ceiling implies every thing goes right. If everything goes right, Dunn rebounds, EE & Phillips improve, AGone helps secure the infield defense, Arroyo & Harang repeat, the bullpen is improved, etc. -- we'll be a .500 ish team again. Is that likely to happen? Of course not. But it's possible. Likely win total is surely in the 70's, but there's some upside on the roster.


Whether it's fair or not, that's how I see it. I think Dunn and EE could both have MVP-caliber seasons and this team is still going to struggle to reach the 80 wins they accomplished last season. I think the team (the Pythag team) is worse than it was at the beginning of last season. They're godawful, in every important quadrant: offense, defense, bullpen, starting. The team can't claim one "above average" quadrant.

redsupport
01-01-2007, 10:18 PM
they above average in the arcane, esoteric quality designated as scrappiness. They are connaisseurs of "how to play and lose" the game

RedsManRick
01-02-2007, 01:36 AM
Whether it's fair or not, that's how I see it. I think Dunn and EE could both have MVP-caliber seasons and this team is still going to struggle to reach the 80 wins they accomplished last season. I think the team (the Pythag team) is worse than it was at the beginning of last season. They're godawful, in every important quadrant: offense, defense, bullpen, starting. The team can't claim one "above average" quadrant.

FCB, how can you call the pitching "godawful"? Do I think both Arroyo and Harang will repeat their 2006 success? Maybe not -- but they "can". The fact of the matter is that the Reds had a team ERA of 4.51, 7th of 16 in the NL. Reds starters were 6th with a 4.58 ERA. The bullpen was 10th with a 4.38 ERA. After the all-star break, our team ERA was 4.19. This is not bad. I know it's hard to accept. However, Reds pitching is no longer horrible. It just isn't.

Meanwhile, in 2007, our defense at SS will be much better. EE will probably improve at 3B. If Griffey moves to RF and Deno/Freel play CF, that's improved too. In any case our defense is at least slightly better or break even.

Offensively, yikes. I agree the current team doesn't look good. However, Dunn had an off year as did Junior. I expect Hatt and Ross to regress big time. However, the talent is there for a league average offense if people all perform.

Perhaps it's just semantics. My "ceiling" number of 85 is a 1% kind of chance. It's the tip of a bell curve. That said, your post highlights a common misperception about what decent pitching looks like. Again, I have no illusions that a 4.51 ERA will lead us to the playoffs. But it's not "bad", let alone godawful.

There are plenty of reasons for us to be pessimistic about the upcoming season while still being honest and not exaggerating our faults.

Ltlabner
01-02-2007, 12:25 PM
Intrestingly (to me, anyway) I was watching hours and hours of "I love the 80's" on VH1 on my vacation. Bronson showed up in several of them giving comment on various pop culture items from the 80's.

They were taped a while back so he was listed as "Red Sox Pitcher".

westofyou
01-02-2007, 12:48 PM
The team can't claim one "above average" quadrant.
Infield defense, better middle relief, very unsexy stuff, but above average and better then last years take on those two aspects of the game.

Falls City Beer
01-02-2007, 12:57 PM
FCB, how can you call the pitching "godawful"? Do I think both Arroyo and Harang will repeat their 2006 success? Maybe not -- but they "can". The fact of the matter is that the Reds had a team ERA of 4.51, 7th of 16 in the NL. Reds starters were 6th with a 4.58 ERA. The bullpen was 10th with a 4.38 ERA. After the all-star break, our team ERA was 4.19. This is not bad. I know it's hard to accept. However, Reds pitching is no longer horrible. It just isn't.

Meanwhile, in 2007, our defense at SS will be much better. EE will probably improve at 3B. If Griffey moves to RF and Deno/Freel play CF, that's improved too. In any case our defense is at least slightly better or break even.

Offensively, yikes. I agree the current team doesn't look good. However, Dunn had an off year as did Junior. I expect Hatt and Ross to regress big time. However, the talent is there for a league average offense if people all perform.

Perhaps it's just semantics. My "ceiling" number of 85 is a 1% kind of chance. It's the tip of a bell curve. That said, your post highlights a common misperception about what decent pitching looks like. Again, I have no illusions that a 4.51 ERA will lead us to the playoffs. But it's not "bad", let alone godawful.

There are plenty of reasons for us to be pessimistic about the upcoming season while still being honest and not exaggerating our faults.

My take is this: Arroyo will likely be a half run worse this year; Milton will be worse (closer to 2005, what with the surgery and all); Lohse will be worse than Elizardo's 95 innings; the fifth spot will likely be an insane mess.

Harang will probably reproduce last year's numbers.

I see this year's middle relief as nearly a carbon copy of last year's.

westofyou
01-02-2007, 01:09 PM
I see this year's middle relief as nearly a carbon copy of last year's.
Mr. Magoo?

Dom Heffner
01-02-2007, 01:20 PM
We contended last year. It was because the NL Central was pathetic, but we contended last year. I would say the talent level today on this team is higher then it was last year.

There are a few issues with this. First of all, the Reds weren't the same team the entire year. They traded away Lopez and Kearns around half way through the season.

Secondly- the Reds front office seems a bit schizophrenic: obsessed with infield defense (Lopez was dealt, Encarnacion benched, they signed Alex Gonzales) and then they go out and build a pitching staff filled with fly ball pitchers with an outfield of Griffey (37 years old with no hammies left), Dunn (not the fleetest of foot), and the artist formerly known as Jeff Conine.

The right hand doesn't recognize the left in the front office.

RedsManRick
01-02-2007, 01:26 PM
My take is this: Arroyo will likely be a half run worse this year; Milton will be worse (closer to 2005, what with the surgery and all); Lohse will be worse than Elizardo's 95 innings; the fifth spot will likely be an insane mess.

Harang will probably reproduce last year's numbers.

I see this year's middle relief as nearly a carbon copy of last year's.

I understand FCB. My comment about a ceiling wasn't talking about what is likely to happen. I agree that this team, as it's currently constructed, is likely win a number of games in the low 70's. But a ceiling is based on everything going right -- not a projection of what you think will happen.

I think that the Reds will likely win 72-75 games. I think that if Dunn & EE have all-star seasons, if AGone has a .725+ OPS, if Arroyo and Harang repeat, we'd win 85 games or so. Is that likely, heck no. Is it "possible", yes. If the Reds could play the 2007 1,000 times, they might break .500 a few dozen times. But the vast majority of the time, they'd be a 2nd division team not in striking distance of .500.

redsupport
01-02-2007, 01:39 PM
Because the right hand represents Bob Sebra
and the left hand represents the antithesis, i. e. Andy MacGaffigan

Falls City Beer
01-02-2007, 03:35 PM
I understand FCB. My comment about a ceiling wasn't talking about what is likely to happen. I agree that this team, as it's currently constructed, is likely win a number of games in the low 70's. But a ceiling is based on everything going right -- not a projection of what you think will happen.

I think that the Reds will likely win 72-75 games. I think that if Dunn & EE have all-star seasons, if AGone has a .725+ OPS, if Arroyo and Harang repeat, we'd win 85 games or so. Is that likely, heck no. Is it "possible", yes. If the Reds could play the 2007 1,000 times, they might break .500 a few dozen times. But the vast majority of the time, they'd be a 2nd division team not in striking distance of .500.

I know what a ceiling is--the Reds bumped theirs last season winning 80. I see their ceiling being 75 wins, more likely 70.