PDA

View Full Version : Reds pick up Conine



Pages : 1 [2]

Mario-Rijo
12-25-2006, 09:22 AM
All this back and forth over "The Trade" makes for great conversation and debate over philosphy. But the bottom line for most is results. And most on here wanna give Krivsky crap for making that deal, but go look at what he dealt. Sure when the deal was made initially I was surprised, I felt Bowden and the Nats got the better end of the deal. And to some extent I still do, they got the far superior talent. But talent doesn't win ballgames or championships unless it's accompanied by something more and I'm not so sure they got anyone who will ever be a complete player. But Instead of taking the wait see approach, like I like to do myself i'll call it at the time of the trade.

We all felt Felipe would never be a major league SS, and we were right as proof by his move to 2nd base just recently. Sure he looks like he will always be a nice solid top of the order hitter who is pretty complete in that aspect. But how soon some forget just how frequently he would have a bonehead play either fielding the ball or on occasion running the bases. He just didn't seem to have it between the ears and although I expect him to improve greatly over the years especially since he has moved to 2nd, he's got GOAT written all over him and I don't mean Greatest Of All Time. How many actually remember what Bill Buckners career looked like besides that ball that rolled under his glove? Go take a look he was a pretty integral part of his teams. Fans are not very kind to guys who do not make those pivotal plays in the clutch no matter how important he was to the team getting there.

Kearns has the ability we all know that, that's why he had value. But so did Raul Mondesi, Juan Gonzales and the like. I'm not saying he is like those types of guys who waste their talent due to attitude/laziness etc. But he is as close to them as he is to anyone of significance.

And Ryan Wagner, oh my what to say here. Let's just leave that where it is, he has enough problems with out me giving him crap.

So it's not like we lost the 2 missing ingredients to a championship run there, sure Lopez did okay after he left here about the same as before he left. Kearns also did okay after a while. But if I remember correctly even with a far superior offense to ours Soriano, Nick Johnson, Vidro, AK, Lopez, Zimmerman they still finished with a 71-91 record (38 of those W's coming before the deal and 33 after).

So IMO it's going to be wait see for both teams, as none of those involved have yet to get their feet under them fully yet. But I still like our odds if Bray, Majewski and Thompson pan out. No one can say that they won't.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 09:26 AM
And some of your positions FCB shift more then the tectonic plates. You're one of the "Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" posters on here! ;)

I'd rather have a clearly defensible position that changes after new evidence comes in than no position at all.

And really, when you boil my basic positions down, they don't change often at all. And like the tectonic plates of your metaphor, they move very slowly and sensibly. In other words, I'm not stupidly rigid in my beliefs either.

RFS62
12-25-2006, 09:30 AM
Randy, the point is that what you're saying is not evaluating a trade. It's waiting to see. I think a trade can be evaluated when it happens. Actually, that's the best time to evluate it. Sometimes bad trades work out in the long run, sometimes great trades wind up as awful. If two players traded suffer career ending injuries in their first game with a new team, does that mean that it was a great trade for the team trading them away because of the result? How something works out doesn't always justify a move that made.

As far as not taking a rocket scientist, it takes even less intellect to look at a trade three years after it happens to determine if it was the right move. Again, why even talk about it if we're not allowed to form opinions until after everything plays out over the long haul. If that's the case, maybe now we can start calling the Rob Bell trade to Texas a success because EdE made a contribution last year. Nice trade, Jimbo! :evil:


Is it possible that some of us simply wanted to see the players involved play a few innings before deciding? I prefer that to taking other people's word on things.

I want to know all that the stat based evaluators come up with, but I'll still watch the guys play before I pass judgment.

How many innings had all you guys who immediately panned the trade seen of the Washington guys before you decided they sucked?

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 09:35 AM
How many innings had all you guys who immediately panned the trade seen of the Washington guys before you decided they sucked?

Too many.

I get to see the Phils play the Nats a bunch on TV here up in Philly. I've seen a ton of Maj, and I've never liked at all what I've seen.

And the couple of times I saw Bray as a Nat, I saw that he had middlin stuff and a decent slider. Neither pitcher caused me to raise an eyebrow and say, "Hmm, that's some good stuff," like, say, a Chad Cordero.

I've seen them, I've looked at their stats, my judgment's not ill-formed.

RFS62
12-25-2006, 09:45 AM
Too many.

I get to see the Phils play the Nats a bunch on TV here up in Philly. I've seen a ton of Maj, and I've never liked at all what I've seen.

And the couple of times I saw Bray as a Nat, I saw that he had middlin stuff and a decent slider. Neither pitcher caused me to raise an eyebrow and say, "Hmm, that's some good stuff," like, say, a Chad Cordero.

I've seen them, I've looked at their stats, my judgment's not ill-formed.



Fair enough. I hadn't had that experience when the trade went down.

How about anyone else who immediately panned the deal? Wonder what the percentage was between those who evaluated strictly on stats and other peoples opinions vs. those who had seen them as much as you had?

GAC
12-25-2006, 09:47 AM
I'd rather have a clearly defensible position that changes after new evidence comes in than no position at all.

I find it to be more like the Ali "rope a dope" position. :D

GAC
12-25-2006, 09:51 AM
Fair enough. I hadn't had that experience when the trade went down.

How about anyone else who immediately panned the deal? Wonder what the percentage was between those who evaluated strictly on stats and other peoples opinions vs. those who had seen them as much as you had?

And you bring up a very good point dave.

Alot of people, including myself, were not very familiar with those guys. So why isn't a "wait and see" position, which is a position of evaluation, sensible to those that don't know, which also helps them to form a valued and objective opinion? Not a rush to judgment. ;)

We're suppose to take someone's else's word on it? Then that is not allowing me to form my own opinion. And it's not that I don't listen to or respect other's opinions on here. Some are quite valuable. I just don't allow it to be the final word. I'm from Missouri.

vaticanplum
12-26-2006, 09:32 AM
I don't think the ends always justify the means. If Majewski and Bray would have come to the Reds and torn things up, ended up with a sub-3 ERA apiece, I still would not consider that a good trade, because I am 95% confident that Kearns and Lopez could have fetched better. Players and results aside, trades are judged by getting a market value result for what you gave up. That didn't happen for the Reds. Had the relievers been stellar for the Reds, that would not have changed my mind. I'd be thrilled, of course, but logic and even a basic amount of baseball knowledge would prove to me that it would be likely to be a fluke. And if they contined as such, it would be luck. The trade itself would still be a bad one.

By that same token, I maintain, and have always maintained, that Griffey's signing was a good one. That was an incredible deal for someone who was widely considered one of the best if not the best position players in baseball at the time, and at that time the Reds were borderline contenders. What happened next, that was bad luck. But the signing itself was a great deal. The odds on him being so injured and this team being so bad at the time of the signing were much smaller than they turned out to be.

You can judge a move itself, deem it good, have that move backed by logic and popular opinion, and still have it backfire on you. The converse is true as well. That's why GMs aren't perfect. But you can still judge the move as an individual thing.

RANDY IN INDY
12-26-2006, 10:30 AM
And some desire a little more time than a half-season to pass judgement. All depends on the individual.

RFS62
12-26-2006, 10:40 AM
I don't think the ends always justify the means. If Majewski and Bray would have come to the Reds and torn things up, ended up with a sub-3 ERA apiece, I still would not consider that a good trade, because I am 95% confident that Kearns and Lopez could have fetched better. Players and results aside, trades are judged by getting a market value result for what you gave up. That didn't happen for the Reds. Had the relievers been stellar for the Reds, that would not have changed my mind. I'd be thrilled, of course, but logic and even a basic amount of baseball knowledge would prove to me that it would be likely to be a fluke. And if they contined as such, it would be luck. The trade itself would still be a bad one.

By that same token, I maintain, and have always maintained, that Griffey's signing was a good one. That was an incredible deal for someone who was widely considered one of the best if not the best position players in baseball at the time, and at that time the Reds were borderline contenders. What happened next, that was bad luck. But the signing itself was a great deal. The odds on him being so injured and this team being so bad at the time of the signing were much smaller than they turned out to be.

You can judge a move itself, deem it good, have that move backed by logic and popular opinion, and still have it backfire on you. The converse is true as well. That's why GMs aren't perfect. But you can still judge the move as an individual thing.



You can definitely break a trade or acquisition down to just who is moved. But that ignores all the ancillary factors that both sides consider in the big picture.

westofyou
12-26-2006, 10:47 AM
Players and results aside, trades are judged by getting a market value result for what you gave up.

I don't believe that 100%

Case in point Keith Hernandez for Neil Allen.

Sometimes talent funneling is made for many reasons that don't even sit on the surface and sometimes they are dictated as much by personalities and human elements as it is by talent.

Note:That doesn't mean it applies to "The Trade"TM

But let's not try and paint baseball with a giant brush that only looks at talent in acquiring players, there are other factors that play in deals and trades, it's a game of personalities and belief systems that entrap both real world and baseball world realities and those reasons often supersede any logic that only focuses on the players performance.

flyer85
12-26-2006, 11:04 AM
Krivsky can talk about playing the game the right way, but he keeps throwing money in the paper shredder. On paper right now, the Reds look worse than the 2006 version. and it's not even close

flyer85
12-26-2006, 11:05 AM
Bray could end up being the better of the 2.faint praise.

flyer85
12-26-2006, 11:10 AM
I get to see the Phils play the Nats a bunch on TV here up in Philly. I've seen a ton of Maj, and I've never liked at all what I've seen.

And the couple of times I saw Bray as a Nat, I saw that he had middlin stuff and a decent slider. Neither pitcher caused me to raise an eyebrow and say, "Hmm, that's some good stuff," like, say, a Chad Cordero.
... those kind of guys rarely pitch in middle relief, unless the team has a stacked bullpen. Instead the Reds acquired guys from a team that had a not very good bullpen.

vaticanplum
12-26-2006, 12:48 PM
You can definitely break a trade or acquisition down to just who is moved. But that ignores all the ancillary factors that both sides consider in the big picture.

I should restate, because I agree with this. I just don't think that all those ancillary factors ALONE are enough by which to judge a trade, particularly for a team like the Reds which has to be very careful with its money. They could flip a great, say, hitter when they have an abundance of great hitters on the team for a pitcher whose services they desperately need: a need is filled and a surplus is dwindled. But if that pitcher is largely believed to have a far, far lower market value than the hitter, I'm not going to think it's a good trade. Because then the hitter likely could have fetched more. And I give the FO a lot of leeway; I know there are things that we can't possibly know. But that is the one trade that has happened in the last year that I am sure those two player could have gotten a better return; that we, perhaps, could have gotten a similar return from another team for one of the players we gave up, not three. Hence it was a knee-jerk move with uneven returns, and hence in my mind a bad trade.

There are two schools of thought on this, I'd bet, and they're both perfectly valid and both can work or fail. The first school believes that you do what you can to win, and if it gets you closer right now, then you do it, hopefully win, and fix remaining shortcomings later. The latter has a more set, objective view of trades and their individual values, I think, regardless of the specifics of the teams involved and their needs, and will sacrifice immediate -- sometimes even surer -- success for a longer-lasting picture. Most of the time, I belong to the second school. This no doubt comes partly from being a Yankee fan through the last several years.

RedsManRick
12-26-2006, 02:00 PM
Let's say that you have 2 all-star caliber 1B, both incapable of playing anywhere else. You need a #3 starter. Let's also say you have two options: trade him for 70 cents on the dollar or you keep him.

If you sit on your hands, one of the 1B plays bench and your rotation stays weak. There might be a better trade down the road, but in the meantime that all-star caliber bat is not help you win games.

If you trade him, you lose value from an absolute perspective. However, from a real on the field perspective, you gain value. While it's certainly not ideal, the better player only helps you win if you can play him.

Would I advise making trades where you lose value from the absolute perspective? Not usually. Certainly not when you're already asset poor and the realized on-the-field value is not significant. However, you have to always be aware of the difference between market value and realized value. At the end of the day, realized value is all that matters. Sure, winning all deals (and FA signings, etc.) in terms of good market value will eventually lead to more realized value. But sometimes, a sub-optimal market decision can improve the value you are able to realize.

M2
12-26-2006, 02:24 PM
How many innings had all you guys who immediately panned the trade seen of the Washington guys before you decided they sucked?

I'd seen a bunch of Majewski before the trade. He's constantly in trouble and his stuff, as we've seen, is thoroughly pedestrian. I was stunned anyone thought he was worth an everyday player.

I'll add that it seemed that in the wake of the deal it was those in the media who were familiar with Majewski who were most adamant about how big the Reds got robbed.

RedsFan75
12-26-2006, 02:30 PM
While the discussion is excellent I've been wanting to use this image. :)

So... http://img428.imageshack.us/img428/742/beatdeadhorseii7.gif

Ok Back to the topic at hand. :D

RANDY IN INDY
12-26-2006, 02:32 PM
I'd like to see that camel spit on that fellow.:D

Jpup
12-27-2006, 12:53 AM
Fair enough. I hadn't had that experience when the trade went down.

How about anyone else who immediately panned the deal? Wonder what the percentage was between those who evaluated strictly on stats and other peoples opinions vs. those who had seen them as much as you had?

I didn't mind that trade for the first couple of hours until I realized the Reds offense went into the gutter. If you are going to trade away your sticks, you have to be on the verge of getting some great arms. There is my problem with Krivsky. He hasn't brought in anything else since the trade.

While I think the Majewski will be a pretty good guy to have, the Reds need some starters. Again, and I've said this before, besides Majewski having the arm problems, I don't understand why every one is so down on him. Kearns is gone and there is nothing we can do about it, but Gary Majewski has been a pretty darn good reliever in his career and he's only 26. Those are guys that the Reds need.

Majewski has pitched 2 full years in the majors. He was hurt for, at least, 1/2 of one of them. He pitched a little in the World Baseball Classic and that may have been part of his problems with his arm. It's a little soon to tag the guy as terrible. He had a good 2005 in which he may have been a little overworked because Washington didn't have much else besides him in the setup role. He was terrible for the Reds in 2006 because he was hurt. He's 26 with 2 seasons under his belt, give the guy a break.

Reds1
12-27-2006, 08:24 AM
So this is what it comes down to? Arroyo and Harrang are chopped liver, no better than a #4? Hogwash! I agree we need a true #3, but our top two pitchers stand shoulder to shoulder with most other team's top two pitchers.

Why is the perception so common around here that every other teams' pitchers will excell and our's will stink up the universe? That every other pitcher out there will not regress, but our's will?

Our's is not a perfect team and I assume more moves remain between now and Opening Day, but whining and crying about a work in progress seems useless to me. When folks here were children, did you cry like this when your folks were assembling a bicycle? "Mommy, it's not going to work! Daddy, it's a crummy bike, I don't even want it! Tear it apart and make me another one!".

Oy Vey!

I think he's just saying he is hoping that these little signings make way for a bigger one that truly helps the team. Maybe he is hoping everyone else runs out of money and we can land a decent starter, but right now I don't think that's going to happen. :(

lollipopcurve
12-27-2006, 09:32 AM
How many innings had all you guys who immediately panned the trade seen of the Washington guys before you decided they sucked?

I saw Majewski a few times in 05 -- but only against the Reds. He pitched well in those games. He threw hard (94-95), and his slider was decent. Last year, he wasn't as good. Velocity down, ball up. If he can return to 05 form (I find it strange -- and not hopeful -- that no public claims have been made about this), then I think he'll be a very solid middle reliever. His overall 05 numbers bear that out, too. I haven't given up hope for him, but the fact that no one's saying they expect him to be better after a winter of rest (that I've heard) does not bode particularly well.

flyer85
12-27-2006, 10:01 AM
I'd seen both of Majewski and Bray and was sure the Majewski would be bad and was lukewarm on Bray. Any reliever that walks too many, Ks too few and is BABIP lucky is heading for a correction and that is exactly what Majweski was when coming to Cincy(same thing with Cormier, deal which I also detested).

Bray's stuff is good, when he has command, but it is nothing special. These guys were at best your basic run-of-the-mill middle relievers, and the Reds paid way too high of a price for their acquisition. What bothered me so much was why WK wanted those two in the first place and on what basis he actually thought they would succeed. It's why I am leery of him making any big deal.

MartyFan
12-29-2006, 01:57 PM
I read in USA Today their updates of The Reds and thought this was interesting.


Conine was a National League All-Star in 1994 and 1995 and was a member of the Marlins' World Series championship teams in 1997 and 2003.

The first thing he did when he heard about the trade was call up the Reds' roster on the Internet to acquaint himself with his new teammates. "I played with Alex Gonzalez in Florida, the best shortstop I ever played with," he said.

Didn't he just play with MEGA-MILLIONS MIGUEL?

camisadelgolf
04-16-2007, 05:43 AM
http://www.readingphillies.com/press_stats.htm

Javon Moran is hitting .436 in 39 at-bats in AA. He's seven-for-eight on stolen base attempts, too. I still like the Conine deal, but I'm wondering who the Reds could have traded in place of Moran.

Bradley Key, a 24-year-old in A-ball, is hitting .267 with two errors over five games.

By the way, on the home page of the Reading Phillies' site, you can see a video of 'von Moran introducing the Reading Phillies' promotions for 2007.

membengal
04-16-2007, 06:42 AM
I am happier now than I was then about Conine, not because of his good start, but because he has simply been the right-handed part of the 1b platoon. As long as he stays in that role, and doesn't drift to the OF, it will be better than I thought it was going to be.

registerthis
04-16-2007, 09:25 AM
I am happier now than I was then about Conine, not because of his good start, but because he has simply been the right-handed part of the 1b platoon. As long as he stays in that role, and doesn't drift to the OF, it will be better than I thought it was going to be.

Indeed. And if he continues to be used appropriately (as a RH platoon with Hatte) my guess is he'll put up pretty respectable numbers this year. I don't mind seeing him 2-3 times a week at first base. Seeing him 4-5 times a week at 1B and the OF is where I start getting frustrated.

Caveat Emperor
04-16-2007, 02:47 PM
Indeed. And if he continues to be used appropriately (as a RH platoon with Hatte) my guess is he'll put up pretty respectable numbers this year. I don't mind seeing him 2-3 times a week at first base. Seeing him 4-5 times a week at 1B and the OF is where I start getting frustrated.

You can thank the emergence of Josh Hamilton for that. Hamilton is, in all likelihood, stealing what would've been Conine's OF PAs.

smith288
04-16-2007, 11:24 PM
Thought I would put my little bit of work during the game here

http://ejsmithweb.com/fr/ConineBarbarian.jpg

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 08:16 AM
You can thank the emergence of Josh Hamilton for that. Hamilton is, in all likelihood, stealing what would've been Conine's OF PAs.

Excellent point. Didn't really think about it that way.

I dumped all over Conine when we picked him up. If Narron can restrain himself and keep Jeff at 1B and it's a platoon situation only, it might turn out to be a smart pickup.

It's way to early to tell but I might have to fire up the grill to roast some crow if Jeff continues to produce as he is and continues to be use in the correct role.

redsmetz
04-17-2007, 08:45 AM
Excellent point. Didn't really think about it that way.

I dumped all over Conine when we picked him up. If Narron can restrain himself and keep Jeff at 1B and it's a platoon situation only, it might turn out to be a smart pickup.

It's way to early to tell but I might have to fire up the grill to roast some crow if Jeff continues to produce as he is and continues to be use in the correct role.

I think any playing time in the outfield will be purely incidental - double switch, injury - that sort of thing. I like how he's working the 1B platoon and it looks like we're the better for having the two heads down there at first.

Eric_Davis
04-18-2007, 12:56 AM
Krivsky just continues to prove time and time again that he knows more than any of us on this board.

The Cincinnati REDS are in great hands.

The Twins way of winning is the only thing that will work for Cincinnati, being a small-market team.

FWIW, Ramon Ortiz is 3-0. Some thought that was supposed to be a bad move. But, you can't say enough about a guy who will give you 200 innings and win you 10-15 games. Ben Sheets, Mark Prior, and Kerry Wood can't even do that. And, that's all Tom Glavine's given the Mets in his 5 years there.

So, if Lohse gives us 190-200 innings and wins 10-15 games, he got us what we hoped for from a #3 pitcher.

I've never felt better about the REDS since before 1992.

Patrick Bateman
04-18-2007, 01:08 AM
FWIW, Ramon Ortiz is 3-0. Some thought that was supposed to be a bad move.

It was a bad move. 3 games doesn't change that. Guaranteed that he will get worse and be a very bad pitcher. We have years of evidence to show us this. We Reds fans in fact got to watch it up close and personal. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind about how effective Ortiz will be for the remainder of the season.

Ron Madden
04-18-2007, 02:31 AM
As long as Narron uses Conine the way he has so far, I can live with it.

KronoRed
04-18-2007, 10:44 AM
It was a bad move. 3 games doesn't change that. Guaranteed that he will get worse and be a very bad pitcher. We have years of evidence to show us this. We Reds fans in fact got to watch it up close and personal. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind about how effective Ortiz will be for the remainder of the season.

Well said.