PDA

View Full Version : Don't like who we got, then who did you want us to get?



reds44
12-24-2006, 08:00 PM
Jeff Suppan got $42 mil. today.
Marquis got $28 mil.
Lilly got $40 mil.
Soriano got an insane amount of money.
Gange got $8 mil.
Wells got $126M
Dice-K cost over $100M including posting price.
Pettite got $16M.
Payton got $10M.
Meche got $40M.
Mota got $5M.
Dotel got $7M.
Schmidt got $47M.
Luis Gonzalez got $7M.
Lugo got $36M.
Maddux got $10M.

Pick me out a contract and tell me it was a "good signing." If I remember correctly the Indians signed an OF cheap (his name escapes me), buy the Reds were the other finalist for him. I am sure there are more names that I left out.

I'm not doing backflips over signing Seabass and Stanton, or trading for Conine, or re-signing Weathers. However, Krivsky filled needs. We needed a SS, Seabass got the 2nd best one available. We needed a RH 1B/OF, he got Conine. Now Craig Wilson may have been a better option, but we will see how much cash he gets. Weathers was our best relief pitcher last year, and we signed him pretty cheaply.

Sometimes, it's not about the contracts you do sign, but the ones you do not. As I have said before, if we can get another SP I will be satisfied with the offseason.

redsmetz
12-24-2006, 09:06 PM
Jeff Suppan got $42 mil. today.
Marquis got $28 mil.
Lilly got $40 mil.
Soriano got an insane amount of money.
Gange got $8 mil.
Wells got $126M
Dice-K cost over $100M including posting price.
Pettite got $16M.
Payton got $10M.
Meche got $40M.
Mota got $5M.
Dotel got $7M.
Schmidt got $47M.
Luis Gonzalez got $7M.
Lugo got $36M.
Maddux got $10M.

Pick me out a contract and tell me it was a "good signing." If I remember correctly the Indians signed an OF cheap (his name escapes me), buy the Reds were the other finalist for him. I am sure there are more names that I left out.

I'm not doing backflips over signing Seabass and Stanton, or trading for Conine, or re-signing Weathers. However, Krivsky filled needs. We needed a SS, Seabass got the 2nd best one available. We needed a RH 1B/OF, he got Conine. Now Craig Wilson may have been a better option, but we will see how much cash he gets. Weathers was our best relief pitcher last year, and we signed him pretty cheaply.

Sometimes, it's not about the contracts you do sign, but the ones you do not. As I have said before, if we can get another SP I will be satisfied with the offseason.

I think you've accurately portrayed the situation. I honestly think WK is working on having a [I]nominally[I] competitive team. I can't say for certain that he is succeeding, but I think he's trying. Other than "The Trade", he gave up not much last year or this off-season. i.e. he's not sacrificing the future for the present. And certainly, as I think you're intimating, he's not saddling us with ridiculous contracts that we'll rue having signed (ala Milton - I don't include Griffey's in that - at the time, it seemed like a good deal, albeit one which fate has made a problem).

redsrule2500
12-24-2006, 10:10 PM
Zito

Kc61
12-24-2006, 10:41 PM
Zito

Schmidt

reds44
12-25-2006, 12:33 AM
I think you've accurately portrayed the situation. I honestly think WK is working on having a [I]nominally[I] competitive team. I can't say for certain that he is succeeding, but I think he's trying. Other than "The Trade", he gave up not much last year or this off-season. i.e. he's not sacrificing the future for the present. And certainly, as I think you're intimating, he's not saddling us with ridiculous contracts that we'll rue having signed (ala Milton - I don't include Griffey's in that - at the time, it seemed like a good deal, albeit one which fate has made a problem).
The Griffey trade/signing was an example of a good move gone horridly bad. You can't blame Bowden (I think he was the GM at the time. Sorry, that was when I was first becoming a Reds fan) for what happend to Griffey.

reds44
12-25-2006, 12:40 AM
Schmidt
He signed for 3 years, $47M. That is $15M per year. Let's say the Reds payroll is $80M this year. You would then have (roughly) $36M tied up in Griffey, Milton, and Schmidt. That is 45 percent of the payroll. If you include Dunn's $11M (roughly), that is 59 percent of your payroll. Can you name me a team that has nearly 60% of their payroll tied up in 4 players that is competitive? It would allow you no flexibility when you need to add a piece during the season.

George Foster
12-25-2006, 12:56 AM
I think they have made the decision about another starter.......Bailey!:thumbup:

George Foster
12-25-2006, 12:58 AM
The Griffey trade/signing was an example of a good move gone horridly bad. You can't blame Bowden (I think he was the GM at the time. Sorry, that was when I was first becoming a Reds fan) for what happend to Griffey.

your right, it was a great trade on paper. It just has not worked out.:cry:

Ltlabner
12-25-2006, 01:08 AM
I liked the Gonzo signing very much. I don't care much for Livingston, Stanton and Weathers but I'm not too upset about them since they are so-so arms at a reasonable cost in a wild market for pitching.

However, I'd rather they did nothing than sign Moller, Crosby and Conine. With players such as Hopper, Harris, Deno, Freel, etc around these moves were really unneccessary and an unwise use of resources. That's money that could be packaged players to trade for another solid starting arm.

I agree they'd be unwise to sign one of these overpriced FA types to a Milton-esque contract, but I'd rather they would have waited till the end of the offseason or even durring spring training if they felt they needed some spare parts instead of running right out and scooping them up.

GAC
12-25-2006, 03:55 AM
The Griffey trade/signing was an example of a good move gone horridly bad. You can't blame Bowden (I think he was the GM at the time. Sorry, that was when I was first becoming a Reds fan) for what happend to Griffey.

No, but Bowden made plenty of other blunders to add to his resume. The Griffey contract turned into a mistake. Some of the others were mistakes and terrible planning from the get-go. ;)

IMHO, the Griffey signing is a perfect example of why a team like the Reds, and many others, due to market size and having to live under financial restraint, has to be very careful as to who/how they hand out long term, multi-year contracts.

There is no room for error if something goes awry.

When I look at the list of players signed above - at least Jr was an established talent. Those above? Not so much. At least not worth what they were signed for.

I'm not that hot on some of the players signed by the Reds.

But I would be far more upset, and shaking my head in disbelief, if this FO had jumped in this ridiculous market and signed further marginal players to bad contracts that hamstrung this team for the next several years, and then kept us from retaining players like Dunn, Harang, Arroyo, and a few younger players. You're getting a double whammy from those bad contracts....

stuck under a guaranteed money for several years to a marginal player

Due to that guaranteed contract, you're then prevented from signing solid younger core players when it's their time. You either have to trade them away, or let them walk.

Some of these organizations, IMO, will regret their investment at some point. And some, due to the fact they can "throw money around", will be able to overcome some of those contracts. Some won't, and will be looking to try and unload them over the next year or so.

Kc61
12-25-2006, 09:30 AM
He signed for 3 years, $47M. That is $15M per year. Let's say the Reds payroll is $80M this year. You would then have (roughly) $36M tied up in Griffey, Milton, and Schmidt. That is 45 percent of the payroll. If you include Dunn's $11M (roughly), that is 59 percent of your payroll. Can you name me a team that has nearly 60% of their payroll tied up in 4 players that is competitive? It would allow you no flexibility when you need to add a piece during the season.


For the first time in ages the Reds have two good starting pitchers. By not building a solid rotation from that nucleus, the Reds are wasting these guys. What good is having two good starters if you don't fix the other three slots? Right now, a majority of Reds starts are made by guys who are not consistent starters.

Adding a top of the line starter, I feel, is the quickest way to contention. If they had a Schmidt, Harang, Arroyo big three, it makes them formidable most nights.

I know, it costs too much. Instead, we can hope that Bailey will be ready -- and will be effective in the majors (which can take some time) -- before the other guys leave. Or maybe we can bank on Cueto staying healthy, progressing, and being good with Harang and Arroyo standing by. You just can't bank on some A-ball prospect saving your franchise.

I think the Reds needed one big acquisition this off-season. So far, they haven't made it.

As for in-season flexibility, it doesn't much matter if you fall out of the race by the All Star break. Right now, the Reds don't have much offense (Phillips or Ross will likely be hitting sixth) and their rotation includes Milton, Lohse and ??? Hard to be optimistic.

Reds1
12-25-2006, 09:34 AM
I know he's not on your list, but Carpenter was a big signing and I thought cheap.

dsmith421
12-25-2006, 09:55 AM
Oh, poor Reds, forced by the evil invisible hand of the market to spend $24M on 12 guys who suck at baseball.

I am so sick of people making excuses for this joke of a franchise.

GAC
12-25-2006, 09:58 AM
Oh, poor Reds, forced by the evil invisible hand of the market to spend $24M on 12 guys who suck at baseball.

I am so sick of people making excuses for this joke of a franchise.

I don't see where one is making excuses for this organization by stating that they're glad we didn't sign/give out ridiculously bad contracts to those players on 44's list.

And I'm not sure that I'd go as far to say that ALL those players the Reds signed SUCK at baseball.

wheels
12-25-2006, 10:27 AM
I don't see where one is making excuses for this organization by stating that they're glad we didn't sign/give out ridiculously bad contracts to those players on 44's list.

And I'm not sure that I'd go as far to say that ALL those players the Reds signed SUCK at baseball.

It might be hyperbole, but in context he's right on.

The "Who did you want them to sign, nobody will come here" argument gets used quite often as a counter to those unhappy with player additions.

It's a tired excuse. Good executives find good players. They have the ability to seek them out and they have the ability to sell the team, and the plan to said players.

Good executives make players want to play for them.

redsandrails
12-25-2006, 10:34 AM
I personally want the Reds to target some guys that haven't signed yet. A lot of the big spenders are silenced by now... obviously someone is going to throw a lot of money at Zito and another team will satisfy their pitching needs with Mulder, but anyways there's still some useful players out there.

The following players will likely not make over 5-6M/year and would greatly help out our club:

Tomo Ohka- Would fit nicely as the #3 starter for the REds.
Trot Nixon- Would be a good starting OF and subsequently Freel or Donorfia could be dealt for some solid talent.
Keith Foulke- Good closer option.. He had a bad year recently but he was lights out a few years back... might not be too expensive either.
Craig Wilson- Could platoon in RF/1B and occasionally C or 3B. Conine should be on the bench and Wilson should still be acquired.
Cliff Floyd- Same as Wilson, could play 1B and RF. When healthy he can be a .300, 30, 100, .900 some OPS kinda guy.
Aubrey Huff- Probably not the best fit for the Reds but he'd be pretty good at 1B or a corner OF spot and Hatteburg could be dealt subsequently or platooned.


A couple more might be worth bringing back to smaller deals or MLC's even:

Victor Zambrano- He was a decent middle of the rotation option a few years back... he's worth 3M or so maybe.
John Thomson- He was excellent a few years ago... some health woes but not a bad #4 starter at all.
Paul Wilson- he might be toast but a mlc wouldn't hurt.
Brandon Claussen- MLC would be ideal for him.
Tony Armas Jr.-Not too bad for 1-2M or so.
Jerome Williams- Still young, worth a shot at a sub-1M deal.
Brian Lawrence- Worth 1M or so.
Mark Redman- He's not too bad... He was bad last year but he is a lefty... 3M or so for him is not bad at all... he did excellent a few years ago for the Marlins.
Shawn Estes- Not a bad investment in the 1M range... innings eater when healthy.
Jorge Sosa- Been passed around a lot lately but he might be a solid pen option and worth a MLC.

There are a lot of pen and bench guys that I didn't mention that could help out a lot.

I mean I'm not saying the Reds get these guys but these are guys still in their price range and might be able to help.

Spitball
12-25-2006, 11:14 AM
Good executives make players want to play for them.

Please elaborate. How do you suggest that Krivsky should do this???

Saying, "Good executives make players want to play for them," is like saying, "He knows how to play the game." It really doesn't say anything.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 11:19 AM
Please elaborate. How do you suggest that Krivsky should do this???

Saying, "Good executives make players want to play for them," is like saying, "He knows how to play the game." It really doesn't say anything.

It says about as much as people asking "Well, who would YOU get?" when they've been told a thousand times who some would go after.

This "FA contracts are ridiculous" excuse is the lamest crap that's gripped this site in a very long time, and that's saying something.

But I'm delighted that our new owner is using that excuse ad nauseam. That's always a good sign.

redsandrails
12-25-2006, 11:34 AM
I agree with FCB as while signing mainstream free agents might not be the best approach for a ballclub such as ours, Wayne should find more creative ways to get the same type of results or better. There's no excuse for not following through with signing Dellucci types (signed 3 yr. 11M). And there's also no excuse for not making trades... His early season/offseason moves were very successful and hopefully he'll not stop here because if they do that is beyond pathetic.

I am hoping Wayne will wait til the free agents are thinning out almost completely, the big spenders satisfied and then make some last minute jumps. There are no real potential "Miltons" anymore so it's a lot safer to start playing the FA game now. Hopefully he'll snatch some more Rosses or Hatteburgs or better but still, I wouldn't count on it.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 11:38 AM
I agree with FCB as while signing mainstream free agents might not be the best approach for a ballclub such as ours, Wayne should find more creative ways to get the same type of results or better. There's no excuse for not following through with signing Dellucci types (signed 3 yr. 11M). And there's also no excuse for not making trades... His early season/offseason moves were very successful and hopefully he'll not stop here because if they do that is beyond pathetic.

I am hoping Wayne will wait til the free agents are thinning out almost completely, the big spenders satisfied and then make some last minute jumps. There are no real potential "Miltons" anymore so it's a lot safer to start playing the FA game now. Hopefully he'll snatch some more Rosses or Hatteburgs or better but still, I wouldn't count on it.

But that's the thing about Hattes and Rosses, he lucked into two of maybe five of those kinds of players on the market. The chances of him picking one, much less two, again is next to zero. Luck is great, but it's highly variable.

RANDY IN INDY
12-25-2006, 11:58 AM
It says about as much as people asking "Well, who would YOU get?" when they've been told a thousand times who some would go after.

This "FA contracts are ridiculous" excuse is the lamest crap that's gripped this site in a very long time, and that's saying something.

But I'm delighted that our new owner is using that excuse ad nauseam. That's always a good sign.

Still doesn't answer the question.

Ron Madden
12-25-2006, 12:00 PM
I would've liked Wayne to stay away from Moeller, Stanton and Conine type players.

I would try to sign Wilson to start at 1B and spot start in RF. Move Hatt to the bench and try everything possible to get a #3 starter.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 12:01 PM
Still doesn't answer the question.

I didn't make the statement that Spitball responded to. But my guess is that Krivsky can convince people to come to Cincinnati by building a winner--trading for talented players, building a buzz around the team. Somehow I don't think that includes picking up Jeff Conine and Mike Stanton.

RANDY IN INDY
12-25-2006, 12:03 PM
I know that a lot of folks like Craig Wilson, but at the dollars that he is still likely to command, I don't know if I would want to spend it on him. I still think a #3 starter is the top priority.

RANDY IN INDY
12-25-2006, 12:05 PM
I didn't make the statement that Spitball responded to. But my guess is that Krivsky can convince people to come to Cincinnati by building a winner--trading for talented players, building a buzz around the team. Somehow I don't think that includes picking up Jeff Conine and Mike Stanton.

That is a good answer,:beerme: but not likely to happen soon enough to cause players in this market to want to play for the Reds.

RANDY IN INDY
12-25-2006, 12:06 PM
Tossing around $$$$$$$$$"s seems to be what is affecting the signings in this market.

Ron Madden
12-25-2006, 12:06 PM
If Wayne would stop spending money and players to bring in garbage, we could afford better players. :)

westofyou
12-25-2006, 12:08 PM
This "FA contracts are ridiculous" excuse is the lamest crap that's gripped this site in a very long time, and that's saying something.

But it's true, prior to the off season everyone claimed that this was a bad off season for free agents, search RZ, search BP, HBT, BTF, ESPN and the newspapers and you'll find the same sentiments.

Bad year for talent.

So what happened then?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/baseball/mlb/san_francisco_giants/16285002.htm


The average salary shot up 9 percent this year to $2,699,292, according to final figures released Wednesday by the Major League Baseball Players Association. The increase was the highest since a 12.8 percent rise in 2001 and makes it likely the $3 million mark will be broken next year or in 2008.

Even Jocketty finds the market crap, imagine if WK said this.


"There just isn't much available. So, why use our bullets now? Then we'd get to spring training or the trade deadline and wish we hadn't spent the money.

That would put his head on a pike outside the GAB.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 12:19 PM
But it's true, prior to the off season everyone claimed that this was a bad off season for free agents, search RZ, search BP, HBT, BTF, ESPN and the newspapers and you'll find the same sentiments.

Bad year for talent.

So what happened then?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/baseball/mlb/san_francisco_giants/16285002.htm



Even Jocketty finds the market crap, imagine if WK said this.



That would put his head on a pike outside the GAB.

:rolleyes:

You don't have to play the FA market. That's my point.

westofyou
12-25-2006, 12:22 PM
:rolleyes:

You don't have to play the FA market. That's my point.

Then what do you use for currency?

Players in the development cycle?

BTW happy freaking holidays to you to. :laugh:

RANDY IN INDY
12-25-2006, 12:23 PM
But you do have to find willing trade partners that match up with what you have and what you need. Not always easy when you have a farm system that has been badly mismanaged for years.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 12:24 PM
Then what do you use for currency?

Players in the development cycle?

BTW happy freaking holidays to you to. :laugh:

Hey, you gentiles do whatcha do, this is matinee day for this Jewish lad.

RANDY IN INDY
12-25-2006, 12:25 PM
Trades always are easy when all you have to do is cook them up here on Redszone and not deal with rival GM's who have other ideas.

No, offense, Krusty.

RANDY IN INDY
12-25-2006, 12:27 PM
Hey, you gentiles do whatcha do, this is matinee day for this Jewish lad.

Hey, he did say happy holidays.;)

westofyou
12-25-2006, 12:29 PM
Hey, you gentiles do whatcha do, this is matinee day for this Jewish lad.

And everyday is kvetsh day eh?

Don't worry I'm just utzing you, continue gazing at your pupik and contemplating the Reds getting riches for their khazeray.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 12:32 PM
And everyday is kvetsh day eh?

Don't worry I'm just utzing you, continue gazing at your pupik and contemplating the Reds getting riches for their khazeray.

Wayne Krivsky, inveterate collector of tchotchke.

RANDY IN INDY
12-25-2006, 12:35 PM
Can y'all translate that to "Southern?";) :laugh:

RedFanAlways1966
12-25-2006, 12:40 PM
Wayne Krivsky, inveterate collector of tchotchke.

MLB... a professional sports league that is out of control. A league that is run by dumb owners, a selfish player's union and a puppet commish. A league that has the same 8-10 teams vying for the title year-in and year-out. A league that will once in a blue moon get a FLA Marlins champ that causes some to drink the peach kool-aid that tells them everything is peachy. A league that causes loyal fans to spew hatred about GMs who have their hands tied worse than men on death row that are being escorted to their 1 hour of exercise each day.

Level playing field? This offseason proves the major league slant even more.

redsandrails
12-25-2006, 01:54 PM
I'm just mad because WK spent $ on players without much upside on the downturn of their careers. Only four types of players get signed relatively cheap (less than 7M+/yr.) on the market;

1. players who have shown they are good but are coming off injuries or have horrible health history (although the Wolf and Gagne signings show that even this concept is getting expensive), 2. very inconsistent players coming off dry spells, 3. mediocre players who are old and about to collapse, and 4. just downright below average players who never have shown promise.

This offseason WK got Stanton (#3 type), Alex Gonzalez (#4 type), Conine (kind of a little #3 and #4), Moeller (#4 type) and Crosby (#4 type). For a small or mid market team, you must get #1 or #2 types.... You have a chance of catching "lightning in a bottle", not these old washed up guys who AT BEST will stay the same as the previous year.

For instance... The Bucs signed Reggie Sanders a few years ago to a 1 yr. 1M deal. Of course in today's market he'd get 4-5M... look what they got- .285, 31, 87, .912 OPS. That's top notch production for 130 games... Sanders was coming off a .779 OPS year when they signed him but OPSed .886 two seasons before. This is a good example of a cheap #2 type player that paid off.

GAC
12-25-2006, 02:23 PM
This "FA contracts are ridiculous" excuse is the lamest crap that's gripped this site in a very long time, and that's saying something.

There's nothing lame or crap about not wanting to pay exaggerated prices for marginal talent. I hear you griping and complaining about these very 1 yr deals for marginal players, which you feel are ridiculous. Yet you call it lame crap and excuse making for not signing marginal players.... and their history of performance shows that.... to stupid multi-year, guaranteed contracts.

For the last two years you've railed on the Milton contract and how stupid it was when this FO signed him. Now you're upset because they aren't repeating that mistake.

What pitchers, signed in this FA class, do YOU FEEL this FO management missed the boat on? It's obvious you feel that they have. So lets hear who they are?

PuffyPig
12-25-2006, 02:28 PM
I know he's not on your list, but Carpenter was a big signing and I thought cheap.


Carpenter wasn't on the list becasue he wasn't a FA. He was under contract with the Cards for 2 more years, and they extended him a an extra 3 years at about $50M.

GAC
12-25-2006, 02:29 PM
First this....


This "FA contracts are ridiculous" excuse is the lamest crap that's gripped this site in a very long time, and that's saying something.

Then this....


You don't have to play the FA market. That's my point.


I need an Excedrin and shot of Crown Royal! :lol:

Mario-Rijo
12-25-2006, 02:51 PM
You are confusing and this is exactly what I gripe about on here.


I'm just mad because WK spent $ on players without much upside on the downturn of their careers. Only four types of players get signed relatively cheap (less than 7M+/yr.) on the market;

1. players who have shown they are good but are coming off injuries or have horrible health history (although the Wolf and Gagne signings show that even this concept is getting expensive), 2. very inconsistent players coming off dry spells, 3. mediocre players who are old and about to collapse, and 4. just downright below average players who never have shown promise.

This offseason WK got Stanton (#3 type), Alex Gonzalez (#4 type), Conine (kind of a little #3 and #4), Moeller (#4 type) and Crosby (#4 type). For a small or mid market team, you must get #1 or #2 types.... You have a chance of catching "lightning in a bottle", not these old washed up guys who AT BEST will stay the same as the previous year.

For instance... The Bucs signed Reggie Sanders a few years ago to a 1 yr. 1M deal. Of course in today's market he'd get 4-5M... look what they got- .285, 31, 87, .912 OPS. That's top notch production for 130 games... Sanders was coming off a .779 OPS year when they signed him but OPSed .886 two seasons before. This is a good example of a cheap #2 type player that paid off.


You make light of the players Krivsky signed and then in the same breath you post this. The grass isn't always greener my friend, just because Krivsky did not sign them somehow they are magically better options? Come on man do your homework.



I personally want the Reds to target some guys that haven't signed yet. A lot of the big spenders are silenced by now... obviously someone is going to throw a lot of money at Zito and another team will satisfy their pitching needs with Mulder, but anyways there's still some useful players out there.

The following players will likely not make over 5-6M/year and would greatly help out our club:

Tomo Ohka- Would fit nicely as the #3 starter for the REds. Never Had 200 IP in his career, had 3 decent seasons in '02, '03 & '05 but not a #3 starter for anyone
Trot Nixon- Would be a good starting OF and subsequently Freel or Donorfia could be dealt for some solid talent. Can't stay healthy
Keith Foulke- Good closer option.. He had a bad year recently but he was lights out a few years back... might not be too expensive either. Has a worse version of Miltons Knee
Craig Wilson- Could platoon in RF/1B and occasionally C or 3B. Conine should be on the bench and Wilson should still be acquired. Wants to be a full time starter yet had .710 OPS VS. RH last year, although if he would take to some coaching I might still be inclined to give it a shot.
Cliff Floyd- Same as Wilson, could play 1B and RF. When healthy he can be a .300, 30, 100, .900 some OPS kinda guy. Health & Age issues
Aubrey Huff- Probably not the best fit for the Reds but he'd be pretty good at 1B or a corner OF spot and Hatteburg could be dealt subsequently or platooned. Not a bad option, but like you mention hardly a fit


A couple more might be worth bringing back to smaller deals or MLC's even:

Victor Zambrano- He was a decent middle of the rotation option a few years back... he's worth 3M or so maybe.
John Thomson- He was excellent a few years ago... some health woes but not a bad #4 starter at all.
Paul Wilson- he might be toast but a mlc wouldn't hurt.
Brandon Claussen- MLC would be ideal for him.
Tony Armas Jr.-Not too bad for 1-2M or so.
Jerome Williams- Still young, worth a shot at a sub-1M deal.
Brian Lawrence- Worth 1M or so.
Mark Redman- He's not too bad... He was bad last year but he is a lefty... 3M or so for him is not bad at all... he did excellent a few years ago for the Marlins.
Shawn Estes- Not a bad investment in the 1M range... innings eater when healthy.
Jorge Sosa- Been passed around a lot lately but he might be a solid pen option and worth a MLC.

There are a lot of pen and bench guys that I didn't mention that could help out a lot.

I mean I'm not saying the Reds get these guys but these are guys still in their price range and might be able to help.


Not bustin your chops so much as everyone who has something to say about Krivskys signings yet has no or very few real alternatives. And it takes 2 to tango, you could overpay for a Craig Wilson or maybe a Mark Redman to get them to sign here but why would you? Until people come up with clear solutions I will continue to stand my ground on the fact that Wayne hasn't done a bad job. Of course he hasn't been ideal either but again it takes 2 to make a trade or a signing work.

pedro
12-25-2006, 02:56 PM
First this....



Then this....




I need an Excedrin and shot of Crown Royal! :lol:

no kidding.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 03:25 PM
Okay. Real slow.

The excuse seems to be: "the FA are so expensive, I don't blame Wayne for doing nothing."

My position: who cares how expensive the FAs are or how bad they are, there are other routes for acquiring players than the FA route (trades, for instance).

Why must the false dilemma be: either acquire an expensive FA or do nothing?

Why can't the Reds trade for talent?

Why has the expensive FA excuse become a shield for doing nothing????!!!!

(passes on the Crown Royal, for a stiff gulp of The Glenlivet, straight).

pedro
12-25-2006, 03:32 PM
Okay. Real slow.

The excuse seems to be: "the FA are so expensive, I don't blame Wayne for doing nothing."

My position: who cares how expensive the FAs are or how bad they are, there are other routes for acquiring players than the FA route (trades, for instance).

Why must the false dilemma be: either acquire an expensive FA or do nothing?

Why can't the Reds trade for talent?

Why has the expensive FA excuse become a shield for doing nothing????!!!!

(passes on the Crown Royal, for a stiff gulp of The Glenlivet, straight).

The question being who exactly are the Reds supposed to trade for this talent? It isn't as if their minor league system is stocked or that they have a bunch of guys on the roster that they can afford to trade. Freel is about the only tradeable commodity on the major league roster that the Reds could afford to give up at this time. And before you jump in with teh woulda/shoulda/coulda about the trade with the Nats, that ship has sailed and I'm not all that convinced that Kearns and Lopez were really worth that much anyway.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 03:42 PM
The question being who exactly are the Reds supposed to trade for this talent? It isn't as if their minor league system is stocked or that they have a bunch of guys on the roster that they can afford to trade. Freel is about the only tradeable commodity on the major league roster that the Reds could afford to give up at this time. And before you jump in with teh woulda/shoulda/coulda about the trade with the Nats, that ship has sailed and I'm not all that convinced that Kearns and Lopez were really worth that much anyway.

I'm done talking about the "trade." It's past.

I would have given the Rockies Cueto or Wood up to Bailey for Jennings.

Freel for a reliever.

John Tompson would have been a decent flyer.

There are so many moves that I could go on forever. The main thrust is that Wayne's not even being creative. He's just being weird with his pickups: he thinks he's getting the next Hatteberg in guys like Stanton, Cormier, Conine and every other fossil he's collected, but that's just a lesson that reality's going to have to teach Wayne--for every one Hatteberg, there are a million Chris Hammonds.

If he's going to play the dumpster-diver a la Bowden, he could try to go a little younger and more interesting. At least Bowden knew how to dumpster dive.

Marc D
12-25-2006, 03:44 PM
Okay. Real slow.

The excuse seems to be: "the FA are so expensive, I don't blame Wayne for doing nothing."

My position: who cares how expensive the FAs are or how bad they are, there are other routes for acquiring players than the FA route (trades, for instance).

Why must the false dilemma be: either acquire an expensive FA or do nothing?

Why can't the Reds trade for talent?

Why has the expensive FA excuse become a shield for doing nothing????!!!!

(passes on the Crown Royal, for a stiff gulp of The Glenlivet, straight).

This gets to the heart of what bothers me the most about the Reds.

-They can't trade because they are so thin on talent at both the MLB and ML levels. Anything they trade just cripples the team on the opposite side of the ledger the trade was trying to fix(sound familiar?).

-They can't compete for decent FA's.

So how are we supposed to get talent in the pipeline? I'm sorry but treading water with the Conine's of the world while waiting 2-3 years for the few legit prospects we have to pan out is asinine to me. Everyone of those guys have to pan out, and in a big way, for that plan to have a shred of hope.

So I keep ignoring the words and new catch phrases and watching what Kriv does to answer the fundamental issue facing the organization-Where's the influx of talent coming from? His actions tell me that he feels Jeff Conine and company along with the draft are the answer. Thats a plan worthy of one of Dan O's best binders imo.

pedro
12-25-2006, 03:49 PM
Personally I think he's stocking up on the middling vets (especially the fleet of late 50's model lefty relievers) to accumulate trading chips for this years deadline. There really isn't any risk in doing this and outside of trading Dunn, Encarnacion or Bailey it's probably the best shot the Reds have at adding some depth to the organization in the short term, other than the FA market, which doesn't seem to be that good this year.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 03:52 PM
Personally I think he's stocking up on the middling vets (especially the fleet of late 50's model lefty relievers) to accumulate trading chips for this years deadline. There really isn't any risk in doing this and outside of trading Dunn, Encarnacion or Bailey it's probably the best shot the Reds have at adding some depth to the organization in the short term, other than the FA market, which doesn't seem to be that good this year.

Those vet relievers will bring back crap at the deadline. Serious crap. I suspect that several of those relievers will be cut from the team by the end of May, a la Hammond.

Marc D
12-25-2006, 03:58 PM
Those vet relievers will bring back crap at the deadline. Serious crap. I suspect that several of those relievers will be cut from the team by the end of May, a la Hammond.


Agreed. There is no way to cheat this, a price must be paid to ever get this organization back to consistent winning. If they are unwilling to pay that price then winning again is more of an "if" than a "when."

I'm basically to the point where it's wake me up when they trade Dunn, Arroyo, Harang or anyone else to start the talent influx. Untill then its groundhog day again with zippo hope for the future. We aren't to Clipperdom yet but you can see it from here.

reds44
12-25-2006, 04:13 PM
FCB,

Who did you want us to sign in the offseason that has already been signed? Simple question.

pedro
12-25-2006, 04:20 PM
Those vet relievers will bring back crap at the deadline. Serious crap. I suspect that several of those relievers will be cut from the team by the end of May, a la Hammond.

Perhaps, but it's still low risk. It's not like those guys are blocking talent from the minors.

Spitball
12-25-2006, 04:46 PM
Here is the ESPN transaction tracker:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2661581

Exactly which players could or should the Reds have acquired? And don't throw Jennings out there unless you can absolutely prove to everyone that he could be signed beyond next season. And, if he could signed, show evidence that he won't revert back to the pitcher he's been most of his career.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 04:56 PM
FCB,

Who did you want us to sign in the offseason that has already been signed? Simple question.

There are a few in my post above.

Jennings

Raphael Soriano

Donnelly

Davis

I'm sorry if you don't approve of trade talk, but I refuse to play the game of "free agents only." That's a false premise; has been since the beginning. I haven't once clamored for one player on that FA list besides Zito, who it is an absurd joke to think we'd acquire.

Oops, I forgot one: Russ Springer for 1.75 million may be the steal of the offseason.

Roberto Hernandez for 3.5 million is an excellent insurance pickup.

Spitball
12-25-2006, 05:10 PM
There are a few in my post above.

Jennings

Again prove he could be signed and that he won't revert to the awful pitcher he has been most of his career, or this one doesn't wash with me.


Raphael Soriano

I don't see the logic. His contract would leave few dollars for pitching.


Donnelly

Donnelly was acquired for a 28 year old double A pitcher who has had reconstructive elbow surgery. His velocity disappeared as suddenly as it "magically" appeared. Is he on Jason Grimsley's list?


Davis

Which Davis, again?

I really don't think you have made a strong case here.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 05:15 PM
Again prove he could be signed and that he won't revert to the awful pitcher he has been most of his career, or this one doesn't wash with me.



I don't see the logic. His contract would leave few dollars for pitching.



Donnelly was acquired for a 28 year old double A pitcher who has had reconstructive elbow surgery. His velocity disappered as suddenly as it "magically" appeared. Is he on Jason Grimsley's list?



Which Davis, again?

I really don't think you have made a strong case here.


Oh, so I have the burden of proof for signing Jennings? Really? Not only do you get to ask the questions you get to judge how they're answered. Uh-uh.

Sure, I'd try to sign, but I'd be fine with the draft picks when he walks, too. I'm answering here, pal, you're listening, not making the "rules" up as you go along.

Doug Davis, the pitcher from the Brewers is a starter I would have targeted.

Soriano, the relief pitcher from the Mariners, not the Cubs' acquisition.

Donnelly's a gamble, but I hardly see him as any more of a gamble than Stanton, Weathers, or Cormier, guys that Wayne gave multiple year contracts to.

That's what I'd have tried to do. And if you don't like it, take it elsewhere.

Spitball
12-25-2006, 05:57 PM
Oh, so I have the burden of proof for signing Jennings? Really? Not only do you get to ask the questions you get to judge how they're answered. Uh-uh.

Sure, I'd try to sign, but I'd be fine with the draft picks when he walks, too. I'm answering here, pal, you're listening, not making the "rules" up as you go along.

Sorry, but I get tired of hearing the whining about Krivsky then seeing Jennings' name pushed out there. The time to acquire Jennings was before last season. He has been a crap-awful pitcher who is coming off a career year and the Rockies were wise to unload him when they did. I don't think good GM's buy one year of a Jennings for their better pitching prospects. A Jennings might put the Reds into a battle for third but that might be optimistic. Jennings is a lose-lose situation. If you sign him, you get a number three/four starter for at least a Suppan-type contact. If you lose him, you take steps backward because Wood or Cueto would be major league ready while you're starting the development process with newly signed prospects.


Doug Davis, the pitcher from the Brewers is a starter I would have targeted.

I like Davis a lot more than Jennings, but he is also in his walk year and would probably be a one year rental. AAlso, the Reds didn't have a .300 hitting, former all-star catcher to trade nor the power arms to sweeten the pot. The Brewers probably wouldn't send him in the division to press them for fourth place anyway.


Soriano, the relief pitcher from the Mariners, not the Cubs' acquisition.

I'll give you this one, though he isn't a real difference maker.


Donnelly's a gamble, but I hardly see him as any more of a gamble than Stanton, Weathers, or Cormier, guys that Wayne gave multiple year contracts to.

If he isn't any more of a gamble then he isn't significant enough to merit mention.


That's what I'd have tried to do. And if you don't like it, take it elsewhere.

:confused:

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 06:37 PM
:confused:

I'm not fond of disingenuous questioning tactics.

MWM
12-25-2006, 07:38 PM
Well, if they can't play in this absorbitant free agent market, and they don't have anything to trade (or they can't get what they need with a trade), then you're basically saying we're up a creek without a paddle and nothing can be done about it. That might just be the case, but if it is, then you can't blame Wayne once this team loses 90+ games next year. Actually, if that's truly the case, the franchise might as well just not have a GM and save that money.

I'm sure the team will be different in March than it is now, because the team as it stands at this moment is a 90+ loss team, IMO. I sure hope there's something that can be done and that Krivsky does something. But listening to some people on here you'd think the Reds have no options at all and are simply stuck where they are. If that's the case, then you better find a way to enjoy losing for another 10 years, because the economics of baseball ain't changing any time soon.

Spitball
12-25-2006, 08:22 PM
I'm not fond of disingenuous questioning tactics.

There is nothing disingenuous about my intent. There is simply little substance to your argument.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 09:00 PM
There is simply little substance to your argument.

Sure there is. It certainly outpaces the do-nothingness of yours. You load your questions for those with ideas, slam them, then offer nothing in their place. It's argument by negation--shifting the burden of proof to someone other than yourself so you don't have to offer an opposing position.

My ideas would make the Reds better. Maybe not better the way you want them "better," but better in the way I see fit--better at any rate than flushing $24 million on total uselessness, as Wayne has done.

So great mastermind, let's hear your unassailable genius scheme to vaunt the Reds to greatness--and you cannot say: "Whatever Wayne Krivsky decides to do is what's best."

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 09:16 PM
[QUOTE=Spitball;1217363]Sorry, but I get tired of hearing the whining about Krivsky then seeing Jennings' name pushed out there. The time to acquire Jennings was before last season. He has been a crap-awful pitcher who is coming off a career year and the Rockies were wise to unload him when they did. I don't think good GM's buy one year of a Jennings for their better pitching prospects. A Jennings might put the Reds into a battle for third but that might be optimistic. Jennings is a lose-lose situation. If you sign him, you get a number three/four starter for at least a Suppan-type contact. If you lose him, you take steps backward because Wood or Cueto would be major league ready while you're starting the development process with newly signed prospects.

I think Jennings at sea level will be quite a bit like Darryl Kile at sea level. Very good. Last year's amped-up humidor numbers give you a sneak peek at such.



I like Davis a lot more than Jennings, but he is also in his walk year and would probably be a one year rental. AAlso, the Reds didn't have a .300 hitting, former all-star catcher to trade nor the power arms to sweeten the pot. The Brewers probably wouldn't send him in the division to press them for fourth place anyway.

Maybe they don't have what it takes to get both Davis and Jennings, but getting just one makes the team much better than just about any team in the Central vis. starting pitching. Plus you're not manacled to a huge contract with either man. Win-win, as I see it, especially if all you have to give up is minor leaguers or just one major leaguer.

.


I'll give you this one, though he isn't a real difference maker.

Yeah, Soriano had 65 Ks and 44 hits in 60 innings. No difference-maker, here, folks.



If he isn't any more of a gamble then he isn't significant enough to merit mention.

Uncontestable logic.



:confused:

Indeed.

edabbs44
12-25-2006, 09:57 PM
I would have rather had Dotel over Weathers and Stanton.

Spitball
12-25-2006, 10:01 PM
Sure there is. It certainly outpaces the do-nothingness of yours. You load your questions for those with ideas, slam them, then offer nothing in their place. It's argument by negation--shifting the burden of proof to someone other than yourself so you don't have to offer an opposing position.

My ideas would make the Reds better. Maybe not better the way you want them "better," but better in the way I see fit--better at any rate than flushing $24 million on total uselessness, as Wayne has done.

So great mastermind, let's hear your unassailable genius scheme to vaunt the Reds to greatness--and you cannot say: "Whatever Wayne Krivsky decides to do is what's best."

Hey, read the thread title. You've been one of the main critics of the front office without offering any truly viable, nor better, options. This was suppose to be your chance. Now, you point a finger at me. :rolleyes:

The point is that I have not been griping. I recognize there are limits to what this front office can do. I also recognize that there are logical moves that should be made, but that doesn't mean those moves can be consumated. For example, the Reds may want a Craig Wilson, but he is not going to come to a team that wants to platoon him at first and give him some starts in right field.

Also, I have stated my ideas many times during this off season as to how I'd improve the Reds. I'd be willing to deal any position player in a package that would upgrade our top three starters.

Falls City Beer
12-25-2006, 10:28 PM
Hey, read the thread title. You've been one of the main critics of the front office without offering any truly viable, nor better, options. This was suppose to be your chance. Now, you point a finger at me. :rolleyes:

The point is that I have not been griping. I recognize there are limits to what this front office can do. I also recognize that there are logical moves that should be made, but that doesn't mean those moves can be consumated. For example, the Reds may want a Craig Wilson, but he is not going to come to a team that wants to platoon him at first and give him some starts in right field.

Also, I have stated my ideas many times during this off season as to how I'd improve the Reds. I'd be willing to deal any position player in a package that would upgrade our top three starters.

My ideas are stated and viable. You just don't like them. Let's leave it at that.

You've not been griping. Cheerio. Then status quo is what you shall receive. Enjoy.

George Foster
12-25-2006, 10:42 PM
This is how I see it. We have a mediocre starting pitching 3-5, and a mediocre offense. You are not going to win anything with this team the way it is. I'm inclined to follow the Braves blueprint of the 90's and go with a very good starting 5, and a very average offense. I'd trade Dunn, and a good prospect for Penny who is cheap at 8.5 million next year. Give Bailey a chance at the 4 spot. Harrang, Arroyo, Penny, Bailey is the best starting 4 in the National League. You hope that the below average starting pitching in the National League will keep you in the game.

Do I want to trade Dunn's offense...no. However we have not won anything with him. Pitching wins ball games. I'd rather win 3-2 than lose 8-6. You can argue if I'm right or wrong, but I would not be afraid to pull the trigger.
We have several arms that can fight for the 5th starter role.

redsandrails
12-26-2006, 01:17 AM
You are confusing and this is exactly what I gripe about on here.

You make light of the players Krivsky signed and then in the same breath you post this. The grass isn't always greener my friend, just because Krivsky did not sign them somehow they are magically better options? Come on man do your homework.

Not bustin your chops so much as everyone who has something to say about Krivskys signings yet has no or very few real alternatives. And it takes 2 to tango, you could overpay for a Craig Wilson or maybe a Mark Redman to get them to sign here but why would you? Until people come up with clear solutions I will continue to stand my ground on the fact that Wayne hasn't done a bad job. Of course he hasn't been ideal either but again it takes 2 to make a trade or a signing work.

Sorry... My wording was horrible. I meant to say that the types of players WK signed did not have much upside and were the wrong types of cheap FA's to target. WK should buy low, paying for a player's downside. For instance, Stanton gets well over 2M/yr.... He's not ever going to be worth much more than that, thus his trade value will never net any decent prospect. 2M is paying for his upside. As FCB said, there's even a good chance that he could pull off a Rick White or Chris Hammond and collapse entirely. Stanton also was not an essential "final piece" that even made us contenders and it accomplishes very little.

We need to go after guys who even have the slightest chance of netting top notch talent. If say Cliff Floyd or Trot Nixon or whoever was pacing for a .300, 30, 100, .915 OPS campaign nearing the deadline, most teams would give up some pretty good players. Floyd or Nixon for example could be had in the 6-7M/yr. range but could produce like J.D. Drew in the 14M range. Even if Floyd or Nixon was struggling, a desperate team would likely pay more than Stanton for them. Again, buy low.. sell high... I say it so often but it is so true in business.

GAC
12-26-2006, 05:07 AM
Agreed. There is no way to cheat this, a price must be paid to ever get this organization back to consistent winning. If they are unwilling to pay that price then winning again is more of an "if" than a "when."

I agree Marc. But can that "price" be found in this current FA market? We all have scoffed and laughed at the ridiculous money/multi-year contracts that teams have given out this off-season to marginal pitchers, and even some position players. Yet this is just how desperate some of these teams are.

Look at what the Brewers just traded away, and then who they replaced them with, yet for more money out of their pocketbook. Jeff Suppan? I'd have hung onto Davis.

Looking at the dire needs of this organization right now, a need that would really go a long ways to improving this team and making it competitive - it's primarily another frontline starter. Where in this current market are they to get that? Who is available? Who did they drop the ball on (so to speak)?

Some have said you don't have to "play" this FA market - trade for it. Fair enough.

We really have no tradeable commodities for a top notch pitcher. Most teams right now don't, due to the high asking price. That is why teams are panic signing the Marquis and Lilys.

If I have missed it then I apologize; but where has any team traded a quality SP this winter? Everyone is holding on to it, and a majority of desperately seeking it.

I'm following right now where teams are scrambling for a 40+ Randy Johnson who has been injury prone as of late. And they will pay for it. Either playerwise or financially. It's absurd.

I just read where Zito has basically rejected the Rangers, who made a top dollar offer for him, while he is still talking with the Mets, and that now the M's and Giants have entered the bidding war, and that Zito is considering one of those offers (which is less in years) because, as rumored, he prefers the west coast.

You made a very valid point in an earlier post Marc....


They can't trade because they are so thin on talent at both the MLB and ML levels.

I fully agree. Is that Castellini/Krivsky's fault that they inherited a farm system that was mismanaged and low ranked for talent? No, it wasn't completely devoid of any talent, but I think we could all agree that it's overall "health" is not where a team like the Reds need it to be, who have to rely more on scouting/developing young players.

And not just for their own roster, but also as trading chips.

And the hard truth is - that takes time to build that. And I know Red fans are going to say "We've been told that for the last several years!" Absolutely true! And might I add - by a previously incompetent and inept owner and FO team.

The Reds FO may have saw the "writing on the wall" a few years ago, as far as player development (farm system) goes; but IMO, the people running the show didn't possess the knowledge/skills (or the heart) to implement it. They were still more concerned about ticket sales, keeping the fans coming (and happy), which is why we saw several really bad contracts to so-called fan favorites.

The "sins of the fathers" have been passed on to Castellini/Krivsky. Is that fair? And I'm not saying these guys are going to be successful either. Only that I am willing to give them that chance. And that is based simply on two things....

Castellini, IMO, has a baseball "mind" (unlike Lindner), which he got from working within/learning in the Card's organization. That has to be a plus in my book. I believe (at this stage anyway) that he will spend. But he is not gonna throw it around carelessly into a terrible market.

Krivsky spent alot of years learning and being mentored under the Ryan system in Minnesota. A system that has been very successful over the last 8-9 years thanks to Terry Ryan. A system I deeply respect. Ryan was hired in 1994, and endured losing seasons until 2001 (7 years), while he implemented his system which relies heavily on constant scouting and sabermetric analysis of every player in major and minor league baseball.

But he turned it around, and has provided a consistent winner for a market/franchise that is very similar to the Reds as far as financial constraints/limitations.

Is that a viable model for this organization?

IMHO, guys like Beane and Ryan are somewhat like "visionaries" because they saw the evolution of the economics of baseball, where the financial insanity of the FA market was going, and implemented systems that have been very workable, and also models for everyone else.

And both of these men are well-known for their "gift" of evaluating talent.

Does Krivsky possess that gift? Can it be taught/learned? That is yet to be seen.

But I don't expect this team to ever be BIG FA market spenders. Not in the sense of another Jr contract anyway. This organization does need to identify and retain those players who have shown they are building blocks. Guys like Dunn, EE, Harang, Arroyo, and maybe Phillips. And also continue (or start) to re-stock the farms.

remdog
12-26-2006, 09:08 AM
G-man: You said, "We all have scoffed and laughed at the ridiculous money/multi-year contracts that teams have given out this off-season to marginal pitchers, and even some position players. Yet this is just how desperate some of these teams are."

I would argue that the Reds are just as desperate and are throwing ridiculous money/contracts around as well---just on a lower level. In another thread Redsland compiled an excellent list of the money that Krivsky has spent on questionable talent (I hope you don't mind if I borrow it Redsland):

"Here's what Wayne has added to the '08 roster since the deadline:

Rheal Cormier - Extended at $2.25 million
Kyle Loshe - Will tender at about $6 million
Juan Castro - Extended at $.925 million
Scott Hatteberg - Extended at $1.5 million
Javier Valentin - Extended at $1.25 million
Bubba Crosby - Signed for $.400 million
Chad Moeller - Signed for $.750 million (also, pay $3 million for LaRue to go away)
Alex Gonzalez - Signed for $3.5 million
Josh Hamilton - Will sign for about $.400 million
Jared Burton - Will sign for about $.400 million
David Weathers - Signed for $2.5 million
Mike Stanton - Signed for $2 million
Jeff Conine - Signed for $2 million"


That's a total of almost $27M given out to 'marginal pitchers and even some position players'.

I'm neutral with the Gonzalez signing. We need an upgrade in defense at SS. If it was a matter of simply replacing Lopez it would be one thing but it's tough to carry a 'black hole' in the batting order with the lack of offensive punch we have.

As for the rest of these guys you could make an argument that each and every one of them is a waste. If you have Gonzo do you need Castro? If you have Castro do you need Gonzo?

The LaRue/Moeller trade ('cause that's what it was) makes me crazy. LaRue made $3.9M last year. You paid KC $3M plus are paying Moeller $750K so you're saving $150K over lst year. I'd certainly keep LaRue even with the raise he was due. In the spring tell Jason to grab a 1st baseman's mitt 'cause he's gonna see some time as a right-handed bat at 1st this year.

I was against giving Hatteberg an extension last summer and I'm still of that vein. I would have preferred to see if the M's would take a couple of minor leaguers for Ben Broussard. He'd be my lefty platoon guy. (The M's are rumored to be making him available.) He'd cost about $1M more than Hatteberg but he'd have more value at the trade deadline and he'll be around for '08 in case Votto bombs.

Cormier, Weathers and Stanton account for $6.75M and are all over-the-hill, living-on borrowed-time, no up-side pitchers that only have value if you expect to win this year and are looking for a specialist. The Reds aren't that team so I would rather have tossed a couple of the kids from the minors into the water and see if any of them can swim. I might have signed one of the above three but that's about it. (Weathers being the best bet.)

Do you really need all three of Crosby, Hamilton and Burton? Crosby is a waste of a roster spot. Hamilton is an interesting roll of the dice and, since I don't expect the Reds to compete this year, might as well try to win a million dollars on the nickle slots 'cause that's exactly what this bet is. Burton I know nothing about but I would say just one of these three would be sufficient.

Conine would be an OK pick-up as a utility player but I have the feeling that he will be pretty much a starter in the OF. Normally, for $2M that's a reasonable price to pay for a starting OFer but, in this case, I don't expect Conine, at his age, to be anything to write home about. Additionally, you are basiclly asking him to replace Arullia's numbers for last year---numbers which you had budgeted $8M for. Rather than Conine I would have rather had the Phillies choice of Jason Werth ($875K) or David Dellucci ($4M/year).

I would not have extended Valentin, I would have either tried to trade him last year or let him walk.

As for Loshe, that's a tough call for me. Paying him $6M for that kind of dismal performance sticks in my craw even though he supplosedly has very good stuff. I forget his exact situation but wasn't he arb elligible or something? If you keep him you're hopeing for Jimmy Haynes, part Deux.

So, of the above list, I would keep (excluding Loshe since I'm not sure of his situation) Gonzalez, Hamilton, Weathers and LaRue. I would have tried to add Ben Broussard and Jason Werth. Between the additions and subtractions (excluding Loshe) I'd save about $5.75M. Add the $4M set aside for Arullia and that's almost $10M. Adding 3-4 minor league additions like Harris, Hopper, etc take out $1-$1.5M and you've got about $8.5-$9M plus the budgeted increased payroll that Castellini promised. Add $6M if Loshe goes away.

Greg: You also said this about Castellini and Krivsky:

"Castellini, IMO....will spend. But he is not gonna throw it around carelessly into a terrible market."

"Krivsky spent alot of years learning and being mentored under the Ryan system in Minnesota. Ryan....endured losing seasons until 2001 (7 years),...."

My take on those two statements:

Castellini: Based upon the money already spent he seems to be already thowing money around carelessly----terrible market or not.

Krivsky: If it takes Wayne another 6 years to field a winning team that will mean that he will have exceeded the current time span without a winning record. That would mean 12 years of losing teams---a Reds record. Are you willing to wait that long?

Sorry to be so long winded. :)

Rem

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 09:35 AM
I agree Marc. But can that "price" be found in this current FA market? We all have scoffed and laughed at the ridiculous money/multi-year contracts that teams have given out this off-season to marginal pitchers, and even some position players. Yet this is just how desperate some of these teams are.

Look at what the Brewers just traded away, and then who they replaced them with, yet for more money out of their pocketbook. Jeff Suppan? I'd have hung onto Davis.

Looking at the dire needs of this organization right now, a need that would really go a long ways to improving this team and making it competitive - it's primarily another frontline starter. Where in this current market are they to get that? Who is available? Who did they drop the ball on (so to speak)?

Some have said you don't have to "play" this FA market - trade for it. Fair enough.

We really have no tradeable commodities for a top notch pitcher. Most teams right now don't, due to the high asking price. That is why teams are panic signing the Marquis and Lilys.

If I have missed it then I apologize; but where has any team traded a quality SP this winter? Everyone is holding on to it, and a majority of desperately seeking it.

I'm following right now where teams are scrambling for a 40+ Randy Johnson who has been injury prone as of late. And they will pay for it. Either playerwise or financially. It's absurd.

I just read where Zito has basically rejected the Rangers, who made a top dollar offer for him, while he is still talking with the Mets, and that now the M's and Giants have entered the bidding war, and that Zito is considering one of those offers (which is less in years) because, as rumored, he prefers the west coast.

You made a very valid point in an earlier post Marc....



I fully agree. Is that Castellini/Krivsky's fault that they inherited a farm system that was mismanaged and low ranked for talent? No, it wasn't completely devoid of any talent, but I think we could all agree that it's overall "health" is not where a team like the Reds need it to be, who have to rely more on scouting/developing young players.

And not just for their own roster, but also as trading chips.

And the hard truth is - that takes time to build that. And I know Red fans are going to say "We've been told that for the last several years!" Absolutely true! And might I add - by a previously incompetent and inept owner and FO team.

The Reds FO may have saw the "writing on the wall" a few years ago, as far as player development (farm system) goes; but IMO, the people running the show didn't possess the knowledge/skills (or the heart) to implement it. They were still more concerned about ticket sales, keeping the fans coming (and happy), which is why we saw several really bad contracts to so-called fan favorites.

The "sins of the fathers" have been passed on to Castellini/Krivsky. Is that fair? And I'm not saying these guys are going to be successful either. Only that I am willing to give them that chance. And that is based simply on two things....

Castellini, IMO, has a baseball "mind" (unlike Lindner), which he got from working within/learning in the Card's organization. That has to be a plus in my book. I believe (at this stage anyway) that he will spend. But he is not gonna throw it around carelessly into a terrible market.

Krivsky spent alot of years learning and being mentored under the Ryan system in Minnesota. A system that has been very successful over the last 8-9 years thanks to Terry Ryan. A system I deeply respect. Ryan was hired in 1994, and endured losing seasons until 2001 (7 years), while he implemented his system which relies heavily on constant scouting and sabermetric analysis of every player in major and minor league baseball.

But he turned it around, and has provided a consistent winner for a market/franchise that is very similar to the Reds as far as financial constraints/limitations.

Is that a viable model for this organization?

IMHO, guys like Beane and Ryan are somewhat like "visionaries" because they saw the evolution of the economics of baseball, where the financial insanity of the FA market was going, and implemented systems that have been very workable, and also models for everyone else.

And both of these men are well-known for their "gift" of evaluating talent.

Does Krivsky possess that gift? Can it be taught/learned? That is yet to be seen.

But I don't expect this team to ever be BIG FA market spenders. Not in the sense of another Jr contract anyway. This organization does need to identify and retain those players who have shown they are building blocks. Guys like Dunn, EE, Harang, Arroyo, and maybe Phillips. And also continue (or start) to re-stock the farms.

If it took Ryan 7 years to see success, then he's not a "visionary." A hard worker, maybe, but not a visionary. Give half the GMs in baseball 7 years, and they'll likely produce some kind of a winner at the end of that lengthy string. But the fact is that most GMs would have gotten canned by that time; fans deserve better than waiting seven years to see success, particularly on the heels of 6 years of futility and embarrassment. And there are GMs who can get the job done quicker--I hope Wayne is one of them, but I doubt it.

GAC
12-26-2006, 10:19 AM
If it took Ryan 7 years to see success, then he's not a "visionary." A hard worker, maybe, but not a visionary. Give half the GMs in baseball 7 years, and they'll likely produce some kind of a winner at the end of that lengthy string.

7 years is not that long when it comes to scouting, developing young players, implementing that system, and getting them to the ML level. It really depends on where your organization's starting point is to begin with.

And where are these GMs you speak of? They have had at least a decade(mid-late 90s) when salaries really started escalating out of most teams feasibility. And I'm referring to the scores of smaller-to-mid market teams that are unable to participate in this FA market madness.

Why is it, for the most part, that guys like Beane and Ryan have made such a consistent impact with those smaller market teams? They don't participate in the FA market to much extent, work on limited budgets, yet are putting a consistent winner on the field.

It has more to do with what you imply.... hard work. Alot of GM are hard workers, yet still suck. ;)


And there are GMs who can get the job done quicker

Where are they? Again - those with limited payrolls/resources.

Marc D
12-26-2006, 10:38 AM
I agree Marc. But can that "price" be found in this current FA market? We all have scoffed and laughed at the ridiculous money/multi-year contracts that teams have given out this off-season to marginal pitchers, and even some position players. Yet this is just how desperate some of these teams are.

Look at what the Brewers just traded away, and then who they replaced them with, yet for more money out of their pocketbook. Jeff Suppan? I'd have hung onto Davis.

Looking at the dire needs of this organization right now, a need that would really go a long ways to improving this team and making it competitive - it's primarily another frontline starter. Where in this current market are they to get that? Who is available? Who did they drop the ball on (so to speak)?

Some have said you don't have to "play" this FA market - trade for it. Fair enough.

We really have no tradeable commodities for a top notch pitcher. Most teams right now don't, due to the high asking price. That is why teams are panic signing the Marquis and Lilys.

If I have missed it then I apologize; but where has any team traded a quality SP this winter? Everyone is holding on to it, and a majority of desperately seeking it.

I'm following right now where teams are scrambling for a 40+ Randy Johnson who has been injury prone as of late. And they will pay for it. Either playerwise or financially. It's absurd.

I just read where Zito has basically rejected the Rangers, who made a top dollar offer for him, while he is still talking with the Mets, and that now the M's and Giants have entered the bidding war, and that Zito is considering one of those offers (which is less in years) because, as rumored, he prefers the west coast.

You made a very valid point in an earlier post Marc....



I fully agree. Is that Castellini/Krivsky's fault that they inherited a farm system that was mismanaged and low ranked for talent? No, it wasn't completely devoid of any talent, but I think we could all agree that it's overall "health" is not where a team like the Reds need it to be, who have to rely more on scouting/developing young players.

And not just for their own roster, but also as trading chips.

And the hard truth is - that takes time to build that. And I know Red fans are going to say "We've been told that for the last several years!" Absolutely true! And might I add - by a previously incompetent and inept owner and FO team.

The Reds FO may have saw the "writing on the wall" a few years ago, as far as player development (farm system) goes; but IMO, the people running the show didn't possess the knowledge/skills (or the heart) to implement it. They were still more concerned about ticket sales, keeping the fans coming (and happy), which is why we saw several really bad contracts to so-called fan favorites.

The "sins of the fathers" have been passed on to Castellini/Krivsky. Is that fair? And I'm not saying these guys are going to be successful either. Only that I am willing to give them that chance. And that is based simply on two things....

Castellini, IMO, has a baseball "mind" (unlike Lindner), which he got from working within/learning in the Card's organization. That has to be a plus in my book. I believe (at this stage anyway) that he will spend. But he is not gonna throw it around carelessly into a terrible market.

Krivsky spent alot of years learning and being mentored under the Ryan system in Minnesota. A system that has been very successful over the last 8-9 years thanks to Terry Ryan. A system I deeply respect. Ryan was hired in 1994, and endured losing seasons until 2001 (7 years), while he implemented his system which relies heavily on constant scouting and sabermetric analysis of every player in major and minor league baseball.

But he turned it around, and has provided a consistent winner for a market/franchise that is very similar to the Reds as far as financial constraints/limitations.

Is that a viable model for this organization?

IMHO, guys like Beane and Ryan are somewhat like "visionaries" because they saw the evolution of the economics of baseball, where the financial insanity of the FA market was going, and implemented systems that have been very workable, and also models for everyone else.

And both of these men are well-known for their "gift" of evaluating talent.

Does Krivsky possess that gift? Can it be taught/learned? That is yet to be seen.

But I don't expect this team to ever be BIG FA market spenders. Not in the sense of another Jr contract anyway. This organization does need to identify and retain those players who have shown they are building blocks. Guys like Dunn, EE, Harang, Arroyo, and maybe Phillips. And also continue (or start) to re-stock the farms.


Agree with you almost completely. I know the FA route is not for us so that isn't what upsets me.

I guess I'd just like to speed up that 7 year model a bit and go ahead and have a 100 loss season or two as we trade off what MLB talent we do have for near major league ready prospects. If you have excellent talent evaluators, its a risk you must run. Help isn't coming from anywhere else.

IslandRed
12-26-2006, 10:52 AM
Sorry to be so long winded. :)

Nice post anyway.

I don't have a problem with some of the moves. Gonzalez will earn his keep with the glove. Stanton and Weathers make about what veteran middle relievers make and they're the sort of guys who can be painlessly flipped at the deadline if we're not in it. Lohse? Hold the nose, but if $10-12 million is the new going rate for not-quite-average rotation guys, I guess he can earn $6 million. If Krivsky's going to turn around this ballclub over the long haul, we'll need young starters ready to break in rather than forking over for back-end types like this, but for now we don't have them. Hatteberg's a stopgap for Votto, I can live with that. I'd have preferred someone else over Conine but the 1B/OF bench guy isn't going to make or break us, and it's a further indictment of our farm system that we can't even produce one of these.

Crosby, Hamilton and Burton are non-factors to me. They don't have guaranteed contracts, they'll make the minimum if they're with the big club and less if they don't. That doesn't represent opportunity cost money-wise. As for clogging up the 40-man roster, Wayne kicks guys off the 40 at the drop of a hat if he thinks he can upgrade, so I don't think that's a real factor either.

The moves I didn't like at all -- I'm not saying I'm a big fan of all the above moves, but I can see the logic behind them -- are Castro's extension, Cormier's extension (given when it was) and Valentin's extension. And giving Moeller a guaranteed contract.

As for the overall direction, I guess it's how you look at it. Viewpoint A is, he spent too much on marginal upgrades and doesn't have the money for the big fish. Viewpoint B is, he figured out quickly he wasn't going to win the bidding wars for the big fish so he's focusing on incremental upgrades where he can. "B" is what I think he's doing, and it's a defensible strategy, I just don't think it's been executed as well as it could have been.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 11:04 AM
7 years is not that long when it comes to scouting, developing young players, implementing that system, and getting them to the ML level. It really depends on where your organization's starting point is to begin with.

And where are these GMs you speak of? They have had at least a decade(mid-late 90s) when salaries really started escalating out of most teams feasibility. And I'm referring to the scores of smaller-to-mid market teams that are unable to participate in this FA market madness.

Why is it, for the most part, that guys like Beane and Ryan have made such a consistent impact with those smaller market teams? They don't participate in the FA market to much extent, work on limited budgets, yet are putting a consistent winner on the field.

It has more to do with what you imply.... hard work. Alot of GM are hard workers, yet still suck. ;)



Where are they? Again - those with limited payrolls/resources.


Beane turned Oakland around more quickly than in 7 years; Jocketty turned St. Louis around more quickly; Schuerholz turned Atlanta around more quickly; Shapiro got Cleveland competing more quickly; Dombrowski in Detroit.

IslandRed
12-26-2006, 11:07 AM
Where are they? Again - those with limited payrolls/resources.

The obvious example is up in Detroit -- 43 wins to the World Series in three years. Now, obviously, that sort of thing is the exception to the rule. Huge exception. And Detroit's not exactly a small market, although their payroll wasn't huge this past year.

There's no easy answer. A team can spend a lot of years looking for the quick fix, cycling through GMs that don't produce instant results. It can also spend years discovering the tortoise isn't going to win the race at the end.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 11:10 AM
The obvious example is up in Detroit -- 43 wins to the World Series in three years. Now, obviously, that sort of thing is the exception to the rule. Huge exception. And Detroit's not exactly a small market, although their payroll wasn't huge this past year.

There's no easy answer. A team can spend a lot of years looking for the quick fix, cycling through GMs that don't produce instant results. It can also spend years discovering the tortoise isn't going to win the race at the end.

Which means you should identify benchmarks that point to a clear and successful direction. No, results aren't always going to be immediate, but identifying the right kinds of talent through drafts and trades usually gives a fan something to go on. I can wait if I see signs of intelligent life. I am patient--I am a Reds' fan after all.

There's pretty obviously no set plan right now; that could change, but I want to start seeing signs pretty soon.

westofyou
12-26-2006, 11:15 AM
Beane turned Oakland around more quickly than 7 years;

He had a full cupboard and a culture that Jocketty left.

His first 2 years


1997 4th 65 97 .401 25
1998 4th 74 88 .457 14



Schuerholz turned Atlanta around more quickly

He came on board with the 3 pitchers already in the system, he came on board as the old GM moved to the dugout, in fact Cox should get most of the props for the turn around there... but it did not come without any pain, because Cox was a GM of some bad teams.


1987 5th 69 92 .429 20.5
1988 6th 54 106 .338 39.5
1989 6th 63 97 .394 28
1990 6th 65 97 .401 26

Shapiro? Yeah they didn't have any assets or a healthy farm system eh?



Pre Shapiro
1995 1st 100 44 .694 +30 AL CHAMPIONS
1996 1st 99 62 .615 +14.5 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS
1997 1st 86 75 .534 +6 AL CHAMPIONS
1998 1st 89 73 .549 +9 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS
1999 1st 97 65 .599 +21.5 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS
2000 2nd 90 72 .556 5
2001 1st 91 71 .562 +6 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS

Post Shapiro
2002 3rd 74 88 .457 20.5
2003 4th 68 94 .420 22
2004 3rd 80 82 .494 12
2005 2nd 93 69 .574 6
2006 4th 78 84 .481 18

As for Detroit, I'd love to here the kudos for a man that did this to the Reds prior to winning.



2003 5th 43 119 .265 47
2004 4th 72 90 .444 20
2005 4th 71 91 .438 28

Then there's the Reds new GM


2006 3rd 80 82 .494 3.5

Looks like the rope is a bit longer for other teams GM's.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 11:22 AM
He had a full cupboard and a culture that Jocketty left.

His first 2 years


1997 4th 65 97 .401 25
1998 4th 74 88 .457 14




He came on board with the 3 pitchers already in the system, he came on board as the old GM moved to the dugout, in fact Cox should get most of the props for the turn around there... but it did not come without any pain, because Cox was a GM of some bad teams.


1987 5th 69 92 .429 20.5
1988 6th 54 106 .338 39.5
1989 6th 63 97 .394 28
1990 6th 65 97 .401 26

Shapiro? Yeah they didn't have any assets or a healthy farm system eh?



Pre Shapiro
1995 1st 100 44 .694 +30 AL CHAMPIONS
1996 1st 99 62 .615 +14.5 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS
1997 1st 86 75 .534 +6 AL CHAMPIONS
1998 1st 89 73 .549 +9 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS
1999 1st 97 65 .599 +21.5 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS
2000 2nd 90 72 .556 5
2001 1st 91 71 .562 +6 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS

Post Shapiro
2002 3rd 74 88 .457 20.5
2003 4th 68 94 .420 22
2004 3rd 80 82 .494 12
2005 2nd 93 69 .574 6
2006 4th 78 84 .481 18

As for Detroit, I'd love to here the kudos for a man that did this to the Reds prior to winning.



2003 5th 43 119 .265 47
2004 4th 72 90 .444 20
2005 4th 71 91 .438 28

Then there's the Reds new GM


2006 3rd 80 82 .494 3.5

Looks like the rope is a bit longer for other teams GM's.


I don't care what anyone says, Wayne inherited some very, very nice MLB talent. Yeah, the farm was (and is) a shambles, but there was some serious talent on the pre-2006 roster. I dislike that revisionist history that says he inherited a really bad MLB team. He didn't.

Again, though, look at what each of my above GMs did with their first drafts, and the moves they were making to set the rebuild in motion. I'll give you a hint--they didn't involve the kind of drafting Krivksy did, nor did they involve collecting 40-something relief pitchers and pinch-hitters that no one would possibly want, and they certainly didn't bid against themselves for said 40 year olds.

I'm not necessarily arguing results in the win-loss column, I'm talking about direction.

redsandrails
12-26-2006, 11:30 AM
I don't agree with the "lack of trading chips", however. Obviously we should hold on to the "crown jewels" of our farm system in Bruce and Bailey, but as long as we keep a good amount of the fringe guys (guys like Janish, etc.) I think it's ok to trade a handful of prospects. Votto for instance is coming off a career year, and is ranked higher than ever. He would semingly have some decent trade value... Wood or Cueto probably as well. 1B is an easy position to fill; maybe even Dunn would be a good choice to move over in the future. Likewise, there are always decent "Stopgap" or even decent FA options. 1B is by far the easiest position to fill with decent offensive production.

Freel I'd also say is a decent trading chip... We really don't need him for 2B anymore so another bench acquisition would solve that, and Donorfia is showing that he is ML ready. I'd also consider trading Ross and starting Valentin. Might sound crazy but as much as people here hate him, he's done excellent offensively lately. Cormier might have a little value as a throw in as would Hatteburg possibly.

I think between Votto, Wood, Ross, Freel, Cormier, and Hatteburg we could net some useful talent back.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 11:33 AM
I don't agree with the "lack of trading chips", however. Obviously we should hold on to the "crown jewels" of our farm system in Bruce and Bailey, but as long as we keep a good amount of the fringe guys (guys like Janish, etc.) I think it's ok to trade a handful of prospects. Votto for instance is coming off a career year, and is ranked higher than ever. He would semingly have some decent trade value... Wood or Cueto probably as well. 1B is an easy position to fill; maybe even Dunn would be a good choice to move over in the future. Likewise, there are always decent "Stopgap" or even decent FA options. 1B is by far the easiest position to fill with decent offensive production.

Freel I'd also say is a decent trading chip... We really don't need him for 2B anymore so another bench acquisition would solve that, and Donorfia is showing that he is ML ready. I'd also consider trading Ross and starting Valentin. Might sound crazy but as much as people here hate him, he's done excellent offensively lately. Cormier might have a little value as a throw in as would Hatteburg possibly.

I think between Votto, Wood, Ross, Freel, Cormier, and Hatteburg we could net some useful talent back.


Cormier and Hatteberg are worthless--to us, and to other teams.

westofyou
12-26-2006, 11:34 AM
I'm not necessarily arguing results in the win-loss column, I'm talking about direction.

yeah, but you allow everyone of your blueprints to have poor seasons, plus you want to judge his first draft already (not to mention a weak draft year) against those that have had years to bare fruit.


I dislike that revisionist history that says he inherited a really bad MLB team. He didn't.

Revisionist?

Crack me up.

Yeah all those W's the years before he even showed up back that statement up. Poor Defense, historically bad pitching and a bad ML system with limited revenue.

Bad is a pretty wide path to trod, just because the team had a couple of good offensive years does not make them a good baseball team, it makes them a good hitting team in a hitters park.

The fact is you give all your aforementioned GM's a pass for the stink that they took part on, but you don't want to extend the same courtesies to the Reds or their GM.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 11:39 AM
yeah, but you allow everyone of your blueprints to have poor seasons, plus you want to judge his first draft already (not to mention a weak draft year) against those that have had years to bare fruit.



Revisionist?

Crack me up.

Yeah all those W's the years before he even showed up back that statement up. Poor Defense, historically bad pitching and a bad ML system with limited revenue.

Bad is a pretty wide path to trod, just because the team had a couple of good offensive years does not make them a good baseball team, it makes them a good hitting team in a hitters park.

The fact is you give all your aforementioned GM's a pass for the stink that they took part on, but you don't want to extend the same courtesies to the Reds or their GM.


Dombrowski and Schuerholz inherited awful teams, much worse than the Reds' 2005 squad. Shapiro did a full-scale rebuild.

Inheriting Dunn, Kearns, Lopez, EE, Freel, Denorfia, Harang, Pena, Bailey, and Bruce means he inherited some very nice talent, certainly talent that could be flipped for other, better talent.

And maybe the central point is that the team at the end of the calendar year of 2006 is worse than the team at the beginning of the same year. And that says quite a bit, unfortunately.

westofyou
12-26-2006, 11:44 AM
Dombrowski and Schuerholz inherited awful teams, much worse than the Reds' 2005 squad. Shapiro did a full-scale rebuild.

Dombroski had 3 seasons before he produced a .500 record, I guess the Reds don't get that time frame eh?

As I stated before Cox was responsible for the 1991 Braves in a large part, of the top 10 players in Win Shares for the 1991 Braves only 3 were obtained by JS and only one was in the top 5.

pedro
12-26-2006, 12:07 PM
The major team Schuerholz inherited in 1991 was much better than the Reds and their farm system was better too.

here are just the pitchers that they had on their 40 man roster. To say that Krivsky got dealt a better hand is ludicrous.



33 Steve Avery 6-04 190 Left Left 1970-04-14
48 Juan Berenguer 5-11 215 Right Right 1954-11-30
36 Mike Bielecki 6-03 195 Right Right 1959-07-31
36 Tony Castillo 5-10 188 Left Left 1963-03-01
18 Jim Clancy 6-04 220 Right Right 1955-12-18
40 Marvin Freeman 6-07 222 Right Right 1963-04-10
47 Tom Glavine 6-01 190 Left Left 1966-03-25
32 Charlie Leibrandt 6-03 200 Left Right 1956-10-04
42 Rick Mahler 6-01 202 Right Right 1953-08-05
50 Kent Mercker 6-02 195 Left Left 1968-02-01
49 Jeff Parrett 6-03 193 Right Right 1961-08-26
26 Alejandro Pena 6-01 205 Right Right 1959-06-25
46 Dan Petry 6-04 200 Right Right 1958-11-13
42 Armando Reynoso 6-00 196 Right Right 1966-05-01
43 Doug Sisk 6-02 210 Right Right 1957-09-26
25 Pete Smith 6-02 200 Right Right 1966-02-27
29 John Smoltz 6-03 210 Right Right 1967-05-15
46 Randy St. Claire 6-02 190 Right Right 1960-08-23
30 Mike Stanton 6-01 190 Left Left 1967-06-02
43 Mark Wohlers 6-04 207 Right Right 1970-01-23

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 12:15 PM
The major team Schuerholz inherited in 1991 was much better than the Reds and their farm system was better too.

here are just the pitchers that they had on their 40 man roster. To say that Krivsky got dealt a better hand is ludicrous.



33 Steve Avery 6-04 190 Left Left 1970-04-14
48 Juan Berenguer 5-11 215 Right Right 1954-11-30
36 Mike Bielecki 6-03 195 Right Right 1959-07-31
36 Tony Castillo 5-10 188 Left Left 1963-03-01
18 Jim Clancy 6-04 220 Right Right 1955-12-18
40 Marvin Freeman 6-07 222 Right Right 1963-04-10
47 Tom Glavine 6-01 190 Left Left 1966-03-25
32 Charlie Leibrandt 6-03 200 Left Right 1956-10-04
42 Rick Mahler 6-01 202 Right Right 1953-08-05
50 Kent Mercker 6-02 195 Left Left 1968-02-01
49 Jeff Parrett 6-03 193 Right Right 1961-08-26
26 Alejandro Pena 6-01 205 Right Right 1959-06-25
46 Dan Petry 6-04 200 Right Right 1958-11-13
42 Armando Reynoso 6-00 196 Right Right 1966-05-01
43 Doug Sisk 6-02 210 Right Right 1957-09-26
25 Pete Smith 6-02 200 Right Right 1966-02-27
29 John Smoltz 6-03 210 Right Right 1967-05-15
46 Randy St. Claire 6-02 190 Right Right 1960-08-23
30 Mike Stanton 6-01 190 Left Left 1967-06-02
43 Mark Wohlers 6-04 207 Right Right 1970-01-23



That's after the fact--and yet, they went to the World Series in year one of his tenure. Yeah, that's probably more Cox than Schuerholz, but Schuerholz in his first three years kept the machine rolling in Atlanta. Plus, he aided the turnaround in the always-lose mentality of the franchise. He inherited some interesting parts, but put them over the top, and changed the culture almost overnight, and as I said, kept it changed.

They won 65 games in 1990--that's a bad team. A real bad team. But he was smart enough to stick with the winners and add the necessary parts to get the job done.

Wayne took a mediocre team with some very interesting talent and has made that team worse.

pedro
12-26-2006, 12:19 PM
Come on FCB, that's more than twice the pitching talent that the Reds have in their system. All of whom TTBOMK were inherited by Schuerholz. That isn't a knock on John S. either, he's a fantastic GM, he really is.

redsandrails
12-26-2006, 12:19 PM
Cormier and Hatteberg are worthless--to us, and to other teams.

I wouldn't go that far.... They won't fetch top notch talent but a team with a hole that has a massive surplus in a certain area might give up serviceable talent for them. Keep in mind that Hatteburg had a .825 OPS (.389 OBP) and he's signed very cheaply. If he starts off the season like that again, a contender in need of a 1B (maybe b/c of an injury) could use a player like that. Kearns's OPS was only .005 higher. Cormier wasn't bad either... he only pitched 14 IP with us (did have 25 baserunners) but had a 4.50 ERA, which is not good but not horrible. He finished the season with a 2.44 ERA in 48 IP... not bad for a lefty short reliever. Overall, he's not a bad reliever dispite his inconsistent career.

These two would not net premiere starting talent but maybe a young player with a little promise who has lost his starting job.

Spring~Fields
12-26-2006, 12:23 PM
Castellini, IMO, has a baseball "mind" (unlike Lindner), which he got from working within/learning in the Card's organization. That has to be a plus in my book. I believe (at this stage anyway) that he will spend. But he is not gonna throw it around carelessly into a terrible market.

Krivsky spent alot of years learning and being mentored under the Ryan system in Minnesota. A system that has been very successful over the last 8-9 years thanks to Terry Ryan. A system I deeply respect. Ryan was hired in 1994, and endured losing seasons until 2001 (7 years), while he implemented his system which relies heavily on constant scouting and sabermetric analysis of every player in major and minor league baseball.

But he turned it around, and has provided a consistent winner for a market/franchise that is very similar to the Reds as far as financial constraints/limitations.



If Castellini has a baseball mind, and Ryan was the master, then Castellini should have hired the master Ryan and not the under study Krivsky. Then again Castellini did not hire a master at the manager position, at the pitching coach position and apparently not at the hitting coach position, looks like the owner goes cheap to me.

7 years? Now GAC, your telling us we are going to take 7 years to rebuild, I thought that the Reds were rebuilding for 2003, now your saying 2013? This Krivsky needs 7 years to make a trade here and there to add a player or two to upgrade the Reds? Just to win more games than they lose?

Was Castellini willing to tell the fans that it will take 7 years for him to turn this franchise into a winner Greg?

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 12:23 PM
Come on FCB, that's more than twice the pitching talent that the Reds have in their system. All of whom TTBOMK were inherited by Schuerholz. That isn't a knock on John S. either, he's a fantastic GM, he really is.

Schuerholz inherited a dog of an offense and a lame bullpen.

2005 Reds' wins: 73

1990 Atlanta wins: 65

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 12:24 PM
I wouldn't go that far.... .

I would. I fully anticipate Cormier pulling a Chris Hammond, and Hatteberg reverting to his .660 OPS self.

westofyou
12-26-2006, 12:25 PM
Wayne took a mediocre team with some very interesting talent and has made that team worse.

Talk about revisionist history.

Well in reality he took a team with a .451 winning percentage and they finished with a .494 winning percentage.

The rest is yet to happen, I prefer to read the book rather then get Cliffs Notes from someone who hasn't read it either. While I'm a skeptic I'm also not a soothsayer.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 12:27 PM
Talk about revisionist history.

Well in reality he took a team with a .451 winning percentage and they finished with a .494 winning percentage.

The rest is yet to happen, I prefer to read the book rather then get Cliffs Notes from someone who hasn't read it either. While I'm a skeptic I'm also not a soothsayer.

Outside of the move I know you like, the Gonzalez pickup, give me a list of moves that Wayne's made since "the trade" that have helped right the ship.

westofyou
12-26-2006, 12:33 PM
Schuerholz inherited a dog of an offense and a lame bullpen.

2005 Reds' wins: 73

1990 Atlanta wins: 65

That Dog scored only 11 less runs then the World Champs that season, weak hitting year all around, Mets led the league with 775 Runs, the 2nd place team had 733. the Braves played in a park that had a 109 PF in 1990 and a 129 the next year, their Runs jumped 10% that year, but was still only 750. In 1991 only 2 NL teams topped 700 runs, the Braves also had 15 pitchers under the age of 29 pitch for them in 1990, that's a lot of horses to pick from, young horses.


STRIKEOUTS/9 IP SO/9 IP AGE SO/9 IP GS
1 Dwayne Henry 7.98 28 7.98 0
2 Charlie Kerfeld 7.92 26 7.92 0
3 Tony Castillo 7.51 27 7.51 3
4 Kent Mercker 7.26 22 7.26 0
5 Marvin Freeman 6.89 27 6.89 0
6 Mark Grant 6.88 26 6.88 1
7 Steve Avery 6.82 20 6.82 20
8 John Smoltz 6.61 23 6.61 34
9 Pete Smith 6.55 24 6.55 13
10 Jeff Parrett 5.67 28 5.67 0
11 Tom Glavine 5.42 24 5.42 33
12 Derek Lilliquist 4.96 24 4.96 11
13 Marty Clary 3.90 28 3.90 14
14 Paul Marak 3.46 24 3.46 7
15 Tommy Greene 2.92 23 2.92 2

westofyou
12-26-2006, 12:38 PM
Outside of the move I know you like, the Gonzalez pickup, give me a list of moves that Wayne's made since "the trade" that have helped right the ship.

Phillips
Arroyo
Ross (nice small P/U)
Held back Bailey
Fired and chased away flotsam
Dumped dead weight unlike the prior regime (Womack, Hammond, Williams)
Hatteberg was a nice P/U last year, at a manageable cost and if he stinks, he's dumpable, since he's not expensive.

Anyway, I don't believe that he's perfect by any stretch, but I also don't believe that a system change is a 10 month deal. So the jury's still out.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 12:52 PM
Phillips
Arroyo
Ross (nice small P/U)
Held back Bailey
Fired and chased away flotsam
Dumped dead weight unlike the prior regime (Womack, Hammond, Williams)
Hatteberg was a nice P/U last year, at a manageable cost and if he stinks, he's dumpable, since he's not expensive.

Anyway, I don't believe that he's perfect by any stretch, but I also don't believe that a system change is a 10 month deal. So the jury's still out.

Well, the question was since the "trade," but then, I'm fairly used to people not accurately reading my posts.

pedro
12-26-2006, 12:54 PM
Well, the question was since the "trade," but then, I'm fairly used to people not accurately reading my posts.

OTOH, he hasn't IMO done anything to hurt the Reds since then either. Unless you're worried about spending Bob's money, which I'm not.

pedro
12-26-2006, 12:56 PM
he certainly hasn't squandered any player resources since the "trade"

vaticanplum
12-26-2006, 12:57 PM
he certainly hasn't squandered any player resources since the "trade"

No, he hasn't. i'm still largely happy with Krivsky outside of the trade. Any move he's pulled that I don't like is pretty negligible in the greater scheme of things.

Spring~Fields
12-26-2006, 01:04 PM
When his "moves" put a winning product on the field I will be happy with him. Until then it will be very difficult to tell him apart from the past general mangers since none of them ever won anything in sixteen years.

Spring~Fields
12-26-2006, 01:06 PM
Unless you're worried about spending Bob's money, which I'm not.

No need to worry about "Bob" spending any money, we have seen that to date. Of course Krivsky has nickeled and dimed him a lot.

westofyou
12-26-2006, 01:08 PM
Well, the question was since the "trade," but then, I'm fairly used to people not accurately reading my posts.
Making that window of success smaller and smaller with each post.

"Since" the trade.. Ok... I liked the Schoeneweis P/U, letting Aurilia walk, not dumping Dunn at a lowered price, not buying into another weak market like O'Brien did.

But then again I don't think the season starts tomorrow, and you obviously do.

pedro
12-26-2006, 01:11 PM
No need to worry about "Bob" spending any money, we have seen that to date. Of course Krivsky has nickeled and dimed him a lot.

They resigned Dunn and since then there hasn't been much worth spending money on.

RANDY IN INDY
12-26-2006, 01:18 PM
Making that window of success smaller and smaller with each post.

"Since" the trade.. Ok... I liked the Schoeneweis P/U, letting Aurilia walk, not dumping Dunn at a lowered price, not buying into another weak market like O'Brien did.

But then again I don't think the season starts tomorrow, and you obviously do.

:beerme: You've made quite a case with all your aguments. Good posts, westofyou.:thumbup:

Sea Ray
12-26-2006, 01:36 PM
your right, it was a great trade on paper. It just has not worked out.:cry:


It was not a great trade on paper since the Reds decided to go with $50mill payrolls for years to come after that. The only way that trade works is if management decides to increase payroll. Otherwise Griffey is a drain on the franchise.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 02:34 PM
"Since" the trade.. Ok... I liked the Schoeneweis P/U, letting Aurilia walk, not dumping Dunn at a lowered price, not buying into another weak market like O'Brien did.


Where I'm from, they call this list a "stretcher."

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 02:37 PM
No, he hasn't. i'm still largely happy with Krivsky outside of the trade. Any move he's pulled that I don't like is pretty negligible in the greater scheme of things.

Not making positive strides towards a goal really hurts. Taking steps back hurts most of all, but remaining inert hurts too, don't let anyone fool you. This team has a TON of work to do, and it's done none of it this offseason.

Hoosier Red
12-26-2006, 02:47 PM
Not making positive strides towards a goal really hurts. Taking steps back hurts most of all, but remaining inert hurts too, don't let anyone fool you. This team has a TON of work to do, and it's done none of it this offseason.

They got a SS who can pick it. And who's pop may play well in GABP.
They got a number of relievers, who despite your prostest, have not sucked eggs for the last two years and aren't necessarily pre-destined to do so this year.

One thing that has aggravated me is the assumption that the bullpen arms signed will produce absolutely nothing despite the fact most have been relatively productive recently.

I can understand not liking the signings, and there are definately concerns, but let's not overstate the case here. Cormier before he was traded to the Reds had the lowest ERA in the majors. Weathers has been slightly inconsistent but was a solid reliever the last few months last year. Stanton pitched very well last year in closing for the Giants.

Obviously they could all fall off the ledge. At their age it's more than possible, but let's not act as if its a forgone conclusion.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 02:51 PM
Obviously they could all fall off the ledge. At their age it's more than possible, but let's not act as if its a forgone conclusion.

It is a foregone conclusion that the majority will fall off the ledge. Sure, one of them may still be dipping his toe in the fountain of youth, but they ALL are trending the wrong way vis. peripherals and age. Looking at ERA alone tells you about as much about their ability as the color of their uniforms does.

pedro
12-26-2006, 02:56 PM
Not making positive strides towards a goal really hurts. Taking steps back hurts most of all, but remaining inert hurts too, don't let anyone fool you. This team has a TON of work to do, and it's done none of it this offseason.

You like to claim that Wayne inherited a team that was very close to contention.

You spent the entire season until Kearns was traded ripping him b/c you said he sucked.

Now you claim that Wayne has destroyed the team.

The only reason I can think that you over value Lopez so much is that you didn't watch very many games.

Honestly, I can understand not being enamored with a lot of Krivsky's moves but you can't have it both ways. He can't have inherited a good team, traded one player you said sucked and another who was incapable of fielding his position and yet ruined the teams chances.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 02:59 PM
You like to claim that Wayne inherited a team that was very close to contention.

You spent the entire season until Kearns was traded ripping him b/c you said he sucked.

Now you claim that Wayne has destroyed the team.

The only reason I can think that you over value Lopez so much is that you didn't watch very many games.

Honestly, I can understand not being enamored with a lot of Krivsky's moves but you can't have it both ways. He can't have inherited a good team, traded one player you said sucked and another who was incapable of fielding his position and yet ruined the teams chances.


I'm not having it both ways. Kearns (despite my disliking his ethic) had VALUE; and Lopez did as well.

pedro
12-26-2006, 03:02 PM
I'm not having it both ways. Kearns (despite my disliking his ethic) had VALUE; and Lopez did as well.



Oh come on, you ripped him wide open and said the Reds should dump him for next to nothing. The Reds tried to trade that guy for over a year and half and as far as I can tell no one offered crap for him. But now he has VALUE. I'm just not buying that from you, you are trying to have it both ways whether you want to admit it or not.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 03:04 PM
Oh come on, you ripped him wide open and said the Reds should dump him for next to nothing. The Reds tried to trade that guy for over a year and half and as far as I can tell no one offered crap for him. But now he has VALUE. I'm just not buying that from you, you are trying to have it both ways whether you want to admit it or not.

I said, and I'm nearly quoting: "trade him soon, before his value goes through the floor." So I did understand that he had value leftover, and the way some GMs operate, I can see others believing in that perceived value.

pedro
12-26-2006, 03:07 PM
I said, and I'm nearly quoting: "trade him soon, before his value goes through the floor." So I did understand that he had value leftover, and the way some GMs operate, I can see others believing in that perceived value.


So what you're saying is that YOU knew the guy sucked but that Krivsky should have been able to extract value from him because the other 29 guys doing the same job as him didn't know as much as you did?

Ok.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 03:08 PM
So what you're saying is that YOU knew the guy sucked but that Krivsky should have been able to extract value from him because the other 29 guys doing the same job as him didn't know as much as you did?

Ok.

Yep. That's pretty much the description of the Machiavellian, which is what you must be to be a GM in MLB.

RANDY IN INDY
12-26-2006, 03:09 PM
So what you're saying is that YOU knew the guy sucked but that Krivsky should have been able to extract value from him because the other 29 guys doing the same job as him didn't know as much as you did?

Ok.

:beerme: I'm enjoying this. :laugh:

pedro
12-26-2006, 03:14 PM
Yep. That's pretty much the description of the Machiavellian, which is what you must be to be a GM in MLB.

So you're saying that you, who IIRC follows games through gametracker and the box scores, have better evaluation skills and know more about what is going on with certain players than all the GM's in baseball (and their entire staffs) with the possible exception of Jim Bowden?

M2
12-26-2006, 03:14 PM
Oh come on, you ripped him wide open and said the Reds should dump him for next to nothing. The Reds tried to trade that guy for over a year and half and as far as I can tell no one offered crap for him. But now he has VALUE. I'm just not buying that from you, you are trying to have it both ways whether you want to admit it or not.

That's not what I recall FCB's position on Kearns being. Yes, he bemoaned Kearns' lethargy, but I don't recall him ever asserting that Kearns (or anyone for that matter) should be given away for next to nothing. FCB's reliably (and properly I might add) greedy.

I also never got the sense the Reds were trying to trade Kearns during the DanO era. In fact I never got the sense the Reds were trying to do more than deceive the broader fanbase into pay a small amount of attention to the club during the DanO regime.

pedro
12-26-2006, 03:17 PM
That's not what I recall FCB's position on Kearns being. Yes, he bemoaned Kearns' lethargy, but I don't recall him ever asserting that Kearns (or anyone for that matter) should be given away for next to nothing. FCB's reliably (and properly I might add) greedy.

I also never got the sense the Reds were trying to trade Kearns during the DanO era. In fact I never got the sense the Reds were trying to do more than deceive the broader fanbase into pay a small amount of attention to the club during the DanO regime.


FCB called for the Reds to dump Kearns EVERY DAY. If he sucked fine, but don't sit there and claim that you were the only one that knew it and that Krivsky should have been able to fool someone who does this professionally. Either he's good and has value or not. It's as simple as that.

westofyou
12-26-2006, 03:22 PM
Where I'm from, they call this list a "stretcher."

Don't like the answer?

Sorry.

RANDY IN INDY
12-26-2006, 03:27 PM
Don't like the answer?

Sorry.

Come on westofyou, those "stretcher's" can only be used by the inventor.;)

M2
12-26-2006, 03:35 PM
FCB called for the Reds to dump Kearns EVERY DAY. If he sucked fine, but don't sit there and claim that you were the only one that knew it and that Krivsky should have been able to fool someone who does this professionally. Either he's good and has value or not. It's as simple as that.

Again, I remember FCB consistently voicing his disappointment in Kearns. That's a different animal than saying the team should trade the guy for some used fungo bats.

As for value, a RF with an .843 OPS has value. He ranked among the top 10 RFs in MLB last year. A lot of teams could have used that. I don't think there's a question that he had value, even if someone argued that he was a bad fit for the team or that they didn't like him for aesthetic reasons.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 03:36 PM
FCB called for the Reds to dump Kearns EVERY DAY. If he sucked fine, but don't sit there and claim that you were the only one that knew it and that Krivsky should have been able to fool someone who does this professionally. Either he's good and has value or not. It's as simple as that.

GMs, if nothing else, are a prideful bunch: they believe they will be the ones to finally turn around a player's career when they acquire that player. I'm sure a decent number of GMs would have given more than Bowden gave to get Kearns. It's your job to exploit the remainder of a player's perceived value and get as much as possible in return.

Incidentally, I NEVER once said, "Dump him for nothing."

pedro
12-26-2006, 03:41 PM
Again, I remember FCB consistently voicing his disappointment in Kearns. That's a different animal than saying the team should trade the guy for some used fungo bats.

As for value, A RF with an .843 OPS has value. He ranked among the top 10 RFs in MLB last year. A lot of teams could have used that. I don't there's a question that he had value, even if someone argued that he was a bad fit for the team or that they didn't like him for aesthetic reasons.


I never said Kearns didn't have value. If you read FCB's own post on the matter in this thread you'd see that he himself said that the Reds needed to trade the guy before his OPS tanked. That, to me, says that FCB thinks he knew something about Kearns that the other GM's apparently shouldn't have known. So, in the end, there are only two conclusions that can be drawn 1) FCB thinks he's smarter than guys who do this professionally or he engaging in revisionist history doublespeak. Take your pick.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 03:44 PM
I never said Kearns didn't have value. If you read FCB's own post on the matter in this thread you'd see that he himself said that the Reds needed to trade the guy before his OPS tanked. That, to me, says that FCB thinks he knew something about Kearns that the other GM's apparently shouldn't have known. So, in the end, there are only two conclusions that can be drawn 1) FCB thinks he's smarter than guys who do this professionally or he engaging in revisionist history doublespeak. Take your pick.

I know who's revising. And I know who's creating a false dilemma.

pedro
12-26-2006, 03:46 PM
I know who's revising. And I know who's creating a false dilemma.


yeah, me too. :)

reds44
12-26-2006, 04:31 PM
There are a few in my post above.

Jennings

Raphael Soriano

Donnelly

Davis

I'm sorry if you don't approve of trade talk, but I refuse to play the game of "free agents only." That's a false premise; has been since the beginning. I haven't once clamored for one player on that FA list besides Zito, who it is an absurd joke to think we'd acquire.

Oops, I forgot one: Russ Springer for 1.75 million may be the steal of the offseason.

Roberto Hernandez for 3.5 million is an excellent insurance pickup.

Oh yeah you wanted us to trade Homer for a guy with a 4.74 career ERA. Good plan. 3 of the last 4 years he has posted ERA's noerth of 5.

Just for fun, you're whipping boy Kyle Lohse has a 4.86 career ERA.

After readin through more of the thread, you said Krivsky inherited some nice major league talent. The 5 years prior to Wayne, we posted win totals of 66, 78, 69, 76, and 73. Some talent.

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 04:32 PM
Oh yeah you wanted us to trade Homer for a guy with a 4.74 career ERA. Good plan. 3 of the last 4 years he has posted ERA's noerth of 5.

Just for fun, you're whipping boy Kyle Lohse has a 4.86 career ERA.

Part of being a smart GM is knowing when to predict a guy will improve. I'd say coming down off the mountain is about the #1 best indicator of immediate improvement.

reds44
12-26-2006, 04:34 PM
Part of being a smart GM is knowing when to predict a guy will improve. I'd say coming down off the mountain is about the #1 best indicator of immediate improvement.
Oh, but when guys like Phillips, Arroyo, and Ross improve it's just a career year right?

Falls City Beer
12-26-2006, 04:36 PM
Oh, but when guys like Phillips, Arroyo, and Ross improve it's just a career year right?

Arroyo? No. The guy's had a handful of very good seasons. Remember: I was one of a very few who really liked the Arroyo deal. How many times do I have to bring that up?

Phillips? Maybe. It's tough to say right now.

Ross? Very likely.

reds44
12-26-2006, 04:37 PM
Arroyo? No. The guy's had a handful of very good seasons. Remember: I was one of a very few who really liked the Arroyo deal. How many times do I have to bring that up?

Phillips? Maybe. It's tough to say right now.

Ross? Very likely.

Fair enough. I actually would probably agree with that assesment.

GAC
12-27-2006, 03:47 AM
Agree with you almost completely. I know the FA route is not for us so that isn't what upsets me.

I guess I'd just like to speed up that 7 year model a bit and go ahead and have a 100 loss season or two as we trade off what MLB talent we do have for near major league ready prospects. If you have excellent talent evaluators, its a risk you must run. Help isn't coming from anywhere else.

The highlighted sentence is the key, and one yet to be determined concerning Krivsky. The "yet to be seen" determining factor to me, concerning Krivsky's talent evaluation skills, is those players he acquires to re-stock the farm system, and not the low risk, disposable, Crosby, Hamilton, and Moeller acquisitions.

GAC
12-27-2006, 04:23 AM
Beane turned Oakland around more quickly than in 7 years

Beane was hired as GM in 1997. But he also mentored under a GM (Sandy Alderson), from '93 to '97, who was already utilizing that system of tools. So Beane got to learn from one of the more respected sabermetricians. It wasn't that way when Ryan took over for McPhail in Minnesota.

In the mid/late 90's, those teams that were perennially well respected winners during the 70's and 80s - teams like the Royals, Pirates, Twins, A's, and yes, Reds - were now considered the "wastelands" of MLB because of their market and inability, due to financial constraints, to consistently retain quality players and compete in the FA market. For the most part, nobody wanted to play there. They were being left behind.

Yet of those group of like teams/organizations, the As and Twins instituted very similar systems of evaluation and development that have kept them as consistently winning, competitive teams.

I look at some of the young players consistently coming up through the Twins system - Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Johan Santana, the list goes on....

and you are going to try and convince me FCB that this organization isn't doing something right??


Jocketty turned St. Louis around more quickly; Schuerholz turned Atlanta around more quickly; Shapiro got Cleveland competing more quickly; Dombrowski in Detroit.

What were the payrolls of those teams during that turnaround, as compared to an Oakland and Twins? I know that in the late 90's the Braves and Indian's yearly payroll was in the low 90's... the Cards in the low 80's.

They turned these teams around and won because they spent, and spent big time. Then it caught up to them (as it always does). Now, over the last couple of years, we have seen the Braves start to slide because of growing financial restraints. Jacobs sold the Indians for that very same reason, and the new owner (Dolan) came in and gutted the team of high salaried players, cut payroll down into the high 30's, and started a rebuild. And Shapiro saw the "writing on the wall" and exited for Texas (where he has simply done a bangup job).

And the Indians have been rebuilding for the last 5 years in Cleveland, relying primarily on their strong farm system and player development, with only a limited, occasional "jump" into the FA market. And the Indians are a team on the rise too. Accomplishing it with a modest payroll, while relying on a very strong farm system, while also utilizing the FA market occasionally to pinpoint and acquire that established impact player.

There is a balance, a mix there FCB.

GAC
12-27-2006, 04:41 AM
If Castellini has a baseball mind, and Ryan was the master, then Castellini should have hired the master Ryan and not the under study Krivsky.

That's if Ryan were available.... but he is not.

Everyone has to be given that chance. Ryan got one when McPhail stepped down. ;)


7 years? Now GAC, your telling us we are going to take 7 years to rebuild

Did I say that? I didn't. I was simply showing FCB that it takes times, depending on the "condition" of the organization you inherit. In Ryan's case, it took 7 years. Others, such as Beane have done it in less; but he also had some of the "foundational blocks" in place, thanks to a guy named Alderson.


I thought that the Reds were rebuilding for 2003

Then you need to yell at, and be furious with, the previous ownership group that was as inept as inept could be. As I stated earlier SF....

How can you point a team in the right direction when your own head is up your collective butt and you can't see the light of day?

Why are you holding the current ownership accountable for their "sins" and missteps?

All I am saying SF is that when I look at some of the teams today that were perennial winners in the 70s and 80s.... team like the Reds, As, KC, Twins, Royals.... what has happened in MLB that has forced these teams/markets to basically become the has-beens and/or "wasteland" of MLB where quality players do not want to play for the most part?

M-O-N-E-Y

Look at the quality players that have vacated the As over these last few years? Yet they seem to have a pool of talent they can draw on and remain consistently competitive.

We, as Red fans, are talking about how devastating it would be if we lose one player in Adam Dunn. And it would. Yet the As lost a Giambi and continued without missing a step.

Those organization (above) that are perennial struggler's/bottom feeders - Is it something that is solely their own fault, or evolving conditions within MLB that are out of their control OR have made it far harder on them to compete?

One can't simply say (or rely on) - it's just bad management and a refusal to spend because spending does not equate into winning. This current market madness may be very evidence of that.

Yes, it is A factor. But has the economic structure (playing field) within MLB radically changed in the last 8-10 years that has prevented these teams from actively participating and competing within that market, unless they find a way/means to adapt within that changing market?

Organizations like the As, Twins, and even the Indians have.

Teams like the Reds, Pirates, KC, and a few others, have not.

They seem to be trudging aimlessly along like a stray dog rummaging through the neighborhood trash trying to find a bone.

If the system is deemed unfair, then inventively find a way, if it is possible, to overcome those pitfalls inherent within that current system.

Again - it seems to me that some of the above teams, in like markets and with similar payroll constraints as the Reds, have found that way.

The entire reality of the situation IMHO SF is that it is far harder now, then what it was for teams 15-20 years ago, to maintain a consistent competitiveness when that competitiveness is mainly based on spend, spend spend. The quality players go to the highest bidders.

It's why guys like Bonds leave Pittsburgh for SF, Arod ends up in NY, and a majority of established "stars" jump from one big market winner to simply another while the rest of MLB teams sit around and dream about it.

You say 7 years is a long time? I agree. But how long have you been waiting on the Reds now SF? 16 years since their last WS appearance..... and counting. Has what they have done up to this point worked (other then sell tickets)?

A change of direction, a change of philosophy and approach to the game, because of the financial insanity that pervades MLB, and shows no signs of getting any better because no one wants to do anything about it, is what is needed by markets like the Reds.

When are they going to wake up when similar teams like the As, Twins, Indians, and even Florida, have been utilizing it and showing that it does work? And to do this with payrolls less (or comparable to) the Reds?

Yeah - we just need to fork out the dough for a couple more Jr type contracts, and throw in a Jeff Weaver to shore up that rotation, and we'll be set. :mooner:

mth123
12-27-2006, 06:49 AM
OTOH, he hasn't IMO done anything to hurt the Reds since then either. Unless you're worried about spending Bob's money, which I'm not.

Like it or not Bob's money is the primary resource for acquiring and keeping talent whether through the draft/farm system, free agent maket or through trades. Moves that waste a lot of his money on junk directly hurts the team about as much as anything and Krivsky has made a bunch of those bad moves.

In rough numbers a third of the payroll will go to Griffey and Milton not much WK can do about that. Another third will go to Dunn, EE, Harang, Phillips, Coffey and Arroyo with WK only responsbile for Phillips and Arroyo. The other 3rd goes to WKs junk. Given the situation some junk would be necessary. But every move doesn't need to be for junk. Smart lower dollar moves were out there. There were/are cheaper or higher upside (or both) alternatives to Conine, Weathers, Stanton, Lohse and even Gonzalez.

membengal
12-27-2006, 08:45 AM
I was hoping they might be able to get Dave Delucci.

I think Trot Nixon might be a decent fit.

Raffy Soriano would have been sweet.

What they have done has left me, well, let's just say "not looking forward to spring training" captures it. There were moves to make between not participating in the worst of this market and what they have done.

Jeff Conine...(shakes head).

wheels
12-27-2006, 09:10 AM
If you can look up and down the roster, and you actually like what you see, and it makes sense to you, Wayne's done his job.

If not, you're where I am.

I've had no idea what to make of Wayne's club since July.

Maybe it's because they're going to stink in ways I've yet to envision.:D

IslandRed
12-27-2006, 09:48 AM
What were the payrolls of those teams during that turnaround, as compared to an Oakland and Twins? I know that in the late 90's the Braves and Indian's yearly payroll was in the low 90's... the Cards in the low 80's.

They turned these teams around and won because they spent, and spent big time. Then it caught up to them (as it always does). Now, over the last couple of years, we have seen the Braves start to slide because of growing financial restraints. Jacobs sold the Indians for that very same reason, and the new owner (Dolan) came in and gutted the team of high salaried players, cut payroll down into the high 30's, and started a rebuild. And Shapiro saw the "writing on the wall" and exited for Texas (where he has simply done a bangup job).

A couple of comments.... it's Hart that went from Cleveland to Texas, not Shapiro, and I'm not sure "bang-up job" applies, really. The Rangers had one winning season out of four in Hart's GM stint, and Jon Daniels is now the GM.

Also, the Braves weren't a big-payroll team when they started their run in 1991. They were doing it with kids and retreads. It wasn't until they signed Maddux in 1993 that they started acting like a big-money team.

GAC
12-27-2006, 10:57 AM
I was one of a very few who really liked the Arroyo deal.

You're kidding right? That deal was liked/approved by alot on here. I can't remember how many threads/discussions were on here about dangling Pena (that extra OFer who sucks in the field) for pitching (and even top prospects).


How many times do I have to bring that up?

Do we have to ask? :mooner:

GAC
12-27-2006, 11:28 AM
A couple of comments.... it's Hart that went from Cleveland to Texas, not Shapiro

You're absolutely right. Thanks for correcting me.


and I'm not sure "bang-up job" applies, really. The Rangers had one winning season out of four in Hart's GM stint, and Jon Daniels is now the GM.

That's what I was imply while using sarcasm. Again - sorry.


It wasn't until they signed Maddux in 1993 that they started acting like a big-money team.

Which goes along with what I said in that previous post....


I know that in the late 90's the Braves and Indian's yearly payroll was in the low 90's... the Cards in the low 80's.

They turned these teams around and won because they spent, and spent big time.

Ted Turner can be thanked for that too.

gonelong
12-27-2006, 11:58 AM
You're kidding right? That deal was liked/approved by alot on here. I can't remember how many threads/discussions were on here about dangling Pena (that extra OFer who sucks in the field) for pitching (and even top prospects).

That sentiment was indeed popular, however, the execution of said sentiment (WMP for BA) was not.

Those that liked/approved the deal were heavily outweighed by those that either outright hated the deal or those that had a milquetoast reaction to it.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44013


GL

IslandRed
12-27-2006, 12:00 PM
Which goes along with what I said in that previous post....

My bad. When you said:


"What were the payrolls of those teams during that turnaround, as compared to an Oakland and Twins? I know that in the late 90's the Braves and Indian's yearly payroll was in the low 90's... the Cards in the low 80's. They turned these teams around and won because they spent, and spent big time. Then it caught up to them (as it always does)."

(Emphasis mine)

To my reading, you were trying to paint the cause-and-effect as, 1. Spend 2. Turnaround. At least in the case of the Indians and Braves, it was the opposite. They started winning on the cheap and only spent AFTER they were winning in an attempt to keep winning. They didn't finance their turnarounds with the checkbook any more than the A's or Twins did. The difference lies in what happened after the teams started winning -- Atlanta and Cleveland were able to reap big revenues from their success and act like big-market clubs for awhile. Minnesota and Oakland were never able to do that. But again, that's about how to sustain success, not how to become successful.

Spring~Fields
12-27-2006, 12:11 PM
Did I say that? I didn't. I was simply showing FCB that it takes times, depending on the "condition" of the organization you inherit. In Ryan's case, it took 7 years. Others, such as Beane have done it in less; but he also had some of the "foundational blocks" in place, thanks to a guy named Alderson.

I think that FCB sees quite well, and that he has been showing you and the others, but that ole denial is a tough issue to get over with some, some apparently forget that sports teams need to win. When I see a lot of fine words and more losses than wins, I think of doting grandmothers who always see little Johnny or Susie as going to be just fine regardless of the truth. I appreciate FCB posts, he is the flag bearer for reality on Redszone after years of having to read the Polly Anna’s and the optimist club with their rose colored glasses on Redszone, only to see the Reds lose more games than they win every season. FCB isn’t pessimistic he is correct. The win loss column will support him, verify and confirm. Why get upset with him for being honest?

What makes you think or better yet, can you support that Krivsky and staff has the talent and skills to do what Ryan, Beane and other gm's have done? What has Krivsky done to date to even make you imagine that he can do what they have done?



Then you need to yell at, and be furious with, the previous ownership group that was as inept as inept could be.

We need to live in the present with an eye toward the season to come, and what I have read by many on here that eat, drink, and sleep baseball stats and finance is that this Krivsky is wasting money, time and personnel. So to date this man is no better than the past smoke and mirror artist hoping to hang on to their dream job.

You keep wanting to give him credit for what he hasn't earned yet, and then when that doesn't fly, you want to play the time card, when he has had more moves than most gms that have been nothing but waste moves and junk. Krivsky better hope that Arroyo, Ross and Phillips don't regress and chances are just as good that they will vs improve.



How can you point a team in the right direction when your own head is up your collective butt and you can't see the light of day?

That would be a very good question for Castellini, Allen, and Krivsky, you should email them and ask them just that. :) Because most of us are trying to figure that out ourselves. Ask them this too, why are huge capital expenditures a priority in Sarasota and center field at the GABP vs improving their on field product first.



Why are you holding the current ownership accountable for their "sins" and missteps?

Accountability is necessary for all of us. I am holding WK accountable for not being able to upgrade the Reds to win more games than they lose, is 82-80 too much to ask? If it is then Krivsky is in over his head, maybe he should hire a good manager too while he is at it.



All I am saying SF is that when I look at some of the teams today that were perennial winners in the 70s and 80s.... team like the Reds, As, KC, Twins, Royals.... what has happened in MLB that has forced these teams/markets to basically become the has-beens and/or "wasteland" of MLB where quality players do not want to play for the most part?

M-O-N-E-Y

Look at the quality players that have vacated the As over these last few years? Yet they seem to have a pool of talent they can draw on and remain consistently competitive.

Those teams had some very good fortune with building up their minor league systems that brought them some pitching that the Reds could only dream of. They also had other fine players from using their intelligence to build up that farm system and to draft or trade wisely. Something that all of you Jim Bowden fans could not see, because each of you were so enamored with the homerun and the next five tool rhetoric that he lived by. Plus he had one of the highest payroll to cover his mistakes for awhile.

Again what makes you think, how can you support that Allen, Castellini and Krivsky will do any better in drafts, trades to improve the minor league system. Is Moeller, Crosby, Livingston, Hamilton, Yan indicators ?



We, as Red fans, are talking about how devastating it would be if we lose one player in Adam Dunn. And it would.

Speak for yourself on Adam Dunn, many fans have changed their mind on Mr. Dunn, and he will change even more minds when he reaches 13 million a year. I for one think that if he has value to the other organizations out there Krivsky, if, he had the negotiating skills and talent recogniztion skills would be wise to try to trade Dunn for quality near major league ready players who can pitch or take his and Griffeys place in the near future. That would be like what Bean, or Ryan has done correct? Or would you go for those high risk, long term contracts of over 13 million a year, and even longer years on the old contract? Have you changed your mind regarding those?



Those organization (above) that are perennial struggler's/bottom feeders - Is it something that is solely their own fault, or evolving conditions within MLB that are out of their control OR have made it far harder on them to compete? Poor planning, inability to adapt to the changing environment, poor management.



One can't simply say (or rely on) - it's just bad management and a refusal to spend because spending does not equate into winning. This current market madness may be very evidence of that. You're hung up on that spending.

Let's look at your Milton and Griffey phobia first. Those two players from the start were high risk because of prior leg problems. Milton a fly ball pitcher has what chance of success at the GABP? So those two should have been redflag to begin with and are not indications that the next contract to a player will turn out like those two, yet, you seem to blanket all potential free agents as another Griffey/Milton and give no remedy for the Reds lacking player talent other than time.

Then again you will say, "spend the money on Harang, Arroyo and Dunn", as if your changing your position on risk and long term contracts, tying up the operations budget in two to three players. Is Harang, Arroyo, and Dunn anymore less risky than Lilly, Carlos Lee, or even Suppan? Are you now advocating signing Harang and Arroyo for 13 mil for six years? Dunn will get 13mil in 08, are you now saying that he will be a low risk option at 16 mil for six years, when any player can suffer an injury?



Yes, it is A factor. But has the economic structure (playing field) within MLB radically changed in the last 8-10 years that has prevented these teams from actively participating and competing within that market, unless they find a way/means to adapt within that changing market? Adaptation and adjustment, just like we have said before. The management team that could do that with vision would be the ones to stay alive, that is good management and leadership. The Reds have not had that, and so far they don't now.



Organizations like the As, Twins, and even the Indians have. Teams that have adjusted and adapted, good management.



They seem to be trudging aimlessly along like a stray dog rummaging through the neighborhood trash trying to find a bone. That is exactly what many of us have seen in Krivsky to date, while others, not naming names, er um GAC seem to dismiss the moves that he has made as leading indicatiors. ;)



Again - it seems to me that some of the above teams, in like markets and with similar payroll constraints as the Reds, have found that way. They should have spent their last ten years building up that farm system, but then again they chose not to, wait that isn't true, they did draft many players, and where are they? That is where your theory is high risk with low return. Your betting time and the minor league system will improve the Reds, and you fail to mention that the competion will be out there every step of the way trying to do the same and taking on MLB talent to improve their teams over the Reds.



The entire reality of the situation IMHO SF is that it is far harder now, then what it was for teams 15-20 years ago, to maintain a consistent competitiveness when that competitiveness is mainly based on spend, spend spend. The quality players go to the highest bidders.

That is why I think that you don't see that Krivsky is in trouble. His highest quality players Harang, Arroyo, and Dunn last year, maybe not this year, will be on the move, and he can't fill that void, and Castellini will not spend big dollars on high risk contracts to replace them. You imply that Milton and Griffey will be gone and that will create payroll flex in the future, but Castellini isn't one to spend on what would be a contradiction for you on long term high risk contracts, so how are the Reds going to be better?


You say 7 years is a long time? I agree. But how long have you been waiting on the Reds now SF? 16 years since their last WS appearance..... and counting. Has what they have done up to this point worked (other then sell tickets)? You patient guys forget, that it is 7 years in addition to having already waited 16 years, and Krivsky's dumpster crew won't be changing that anytime soon.



When are they going to wake up when similar teams like the As, Twins, Indians, and even Florida, have been utilizing it and showing that it does work? And to do this with payrolls less (or comparable to) the Reds?

Hows come you keep leaving out the lowly Cards in that poor market that they are in ? You mean that Castellini cannot follow that model that the Cards have followed, don't they win more games than they lose? Aren't they in a similiar market as the Reds? Notice that the Cards do something different than Castellini, they go out and hire quality manager, pitching coach, and general manager, they did not dumpster dive when it comes to quality people.



Yeah - we just need to fork out the dough for a couple more Jr type contracts, and throw in a Jeff Weaver to shore up that rotation, and we'll be set. :mooner:

There is that GAC phobia again, rearing its head like old time Communist propaganda. All contracts will turn out bad like Juniors and Miltons, so lets just keep going cheap and turning over low risk, low return players until, unitl, until, until. ? Your implying with those risk adverse contract comments that the present management, scouting, medical team, and financial people for the Reds are no better than the ones before.

Personally I like you, you can do no wrong. But I have a real problem with your being willing to lose every year and just enjoy the old ballgame. The ones that produce the product are obligated to their patrons to produce quality. The fans deserve better than what they are getting in Cincy.

GAC
12-28-2006, 04:05 AM
My bad. When you said:



(Emphasis mine)

To my reading, you were trying to paint the cause-and-effect as, 1. Spend 2. Turnaround. At least in the case of the Indians and Braves, it was the opposite. They started winning on the cheap and only spent AFTER they were winning in an attempt to keep winning. They didn't finance their turnarounds with the checkbook any more than the A's or Twins did. The difference lies in what happened after the teams started winning -- Atlanta and Cleveland were able to reap big revenues from their success and act like big-market clubs for awhile. Minnesota and Oakland were never able to do that. But again, that's about how to sustain success, not how to become successful.

Yeah, the Indians took the "risk", in the 90's and to coincide with the opening of the Jake, and signed alot of their young ballplayers to longterm deals. It paid off for them in the short term until those players hit free agency.

GAC
12-28-2006, 08:11 AM
edit

I was told (by a friend) that I was boring and too long-winded, so I will simply say I have no further revelations at this time. My crystal ball is on empty.

I'll see ya all this spring because this place gets way too crazy during the off-season with all the accusations and speculations.

Baseball is fun for me. This isn't.

Reds1
12-28-2006, 09:05 AM
Oh, poor Reds, forced by the evil invisible hand of the market to spend $24M on 12 guys who suck at baseball.

I am so sick of people making excuses for this joke of a franchise.


Yes, it's making excuses, but the dynamics of baseball suck right now. How can we compete with the likes of the Yanks, Boston, etc. with a payroll 3 times ours. It's the biggest joke in baseball. Football in a much better place now. I love to see how our GM makes the lower salary work and tries to make us competative and we were close last year. IF we don't have that 9 game road streak we bump the Cardinals out of the playoff and thus take away their WS ring. You have to get to the playoffs to have a chance and we are getting close. These insane salaries are making it difficult for us to go get the players we need.

Spring~Fields
12-28-2006, 10:48 AM
I think someone is trying to dethrone me as the most "long-winded". So I guess I must defend my title! :evil:

That is the longest pro management and pro investor speech that I have ever read on Redszone.
The JP Morgan’s, Vanderbilt’s, Firestones and Rockefellers would be proud.

I was going to respond, but, after reading all of that pro management and pro investor leanings, I was totally worn out.


2001 66-96 .407 5th
2002 78-84 .481 3rd
2003 69-93 .426 5th
2004 76-86 .469 4th
2005 73-89 .451 5th
2006 80-82 .494 3rd

:thisyear:

Curiously though I did not see anything in the report there for the fans. What's in it for the fans GAC? When do the fans get what they are paying for? Will the Reds win more games than they lose this coming season? I did read somewhere that they were going to get higher ticket prices.

So when the dreaded month of July once again visits upon the Reds and we the fans, and optimism blooms at the thought of another trade deadline, while the team wilts, and the August disabled list grows, GAC, what's in it for the paying fans?

I know, they get to wait and see right? ;)

Krivsky had time to make 46 moves to date, isn't that telling through time?

Reds1
12-28-2006, 10:51 AM
Carpenter wasn't on the list becasue he wasn't a FA. He was under contract with the Cards for 2 more years, and they extended him a an extra 3 years at about $50M.

I see. Just an extention! Still a cheap extention compared to the FA signings.

GAC
12-28-2006, 11:15 AM
Curiously though I did not see anything in the report there for the fans. What's in it for the fans GAC? When do the fans get what they are paying for? Will the Reds win more games than they lose this coming season? I did read somewhere that they were going to get higher ticket prices.

If the fans are that upset, and feel it's same-o same-o, a lost cause, and that frustrating to them, then those paying fans should quit supporting them and going to the games.

I'm not living in denial SF. Maybe you are. But I simply look at the progressively growing economic disaster that exists in MLB, and how it is creating a further void between the haves and have nots, with no end in sight.

And you seem to be oblivious to that reality.

You want to refer to that as being "pro management" then have at it.

Spring~Fields
12-28-2006, 11:20 AM
If the fans are that upset, and feel it's same-o same-o, a lost cause, and that frustrating to them, then those paying fans should quit supporting them and going to the games.

I'm not living in denial SF. Maybe you are. But I simply look at the progressively growing economic disaster that exists in MLB, and how it is creating a further void between the haves and have nots, with no end in sight.

And you seem to be oblivious to that reality.

You want to refer to that as being "pro management" then have at it.

I think the fans should demand a better product. We'll see in July if they get it.

gonelong
12-28-2006, 01:30 PM
If the fans are that upset, and feel it's same-o same-o, a lost cause, and that frustrating to them, then those paying fans should quit supporting them and going to the games.

I am attending less Reds games than I was several years ago.


I'm not living in denial SF. Maybe you are. But I simply look at the progressively growing economic disaster that exists in MLB, and how it is creating a further void between the haves and have nots, with no end in sight.

Its not created a void. It has not created barriers to success, just obstacles. Obstacles that some clubs have been able to overcome..


And you seem to be oblivious to that reality.

The reality is that the Reds have accepted their small market status and have been consistenly using it as a crutch while other clubs in similar situations have embraced the challange and found a way to be successful.


You want to refer to that as being "pro management" then have at it.

If your local schoolboard had these types of results I'd bet you'd not be as patient with them as you have been with the Reds over the last 4 or 5 years.

Its your perogative to be patient. I realize you can't rebuild a franchise overnight, but I'd sure like to see some indication that we are headed in the right direction. Now maybe Wayne can build something respectable by spring training, but it sure isn't looking good to me at this point.

GL

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 01:33 PM
If your local schoolboard had these types of results I'd bet you'd not be as patient with them as you have been with the Reds over the last 4 or 5 years.


GL

Excellent analogy.

pedro
12-28-2006, 01:36 PM
I'm not sure if equating the success of the Reds to the success of your child's education is teh best analogy, but hey, they're your kids. ;)

westofyou
12-28-2006, 01:37 PM
Excellent analogy.

Right, because children's education and winning pro baseball teams go hand and hand on the list of things a community should get all riled up about.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 01:38 PM
I'm not sure if equating the success of the Reds to the success of your child's education is teh best analogy, but hey, they're your kids. ;)

It is if the comparison is what you expect from something you're heavily invested in. Sure, there's a difference in degree (kids are more important than a baseball team), but it's not different in kind.

So let's change the analogy just a bit: let's say "the timeliness of waste removal."

pedro
12-28-2006, 01:41 PM
It is if the comparison is what you expect from something you're heavily invested in. Sure, there's a difference in degree (kids are more important than a baseball team), but it's not different in kind.

what we really want to know is "can your kids pitch"?

gonelong
12-28-2006, 01:46 PM
Right, because children's education and winning pro baseball teams go hand and hand on the list of things a community should get all riled up about.

All I was trying to say is that patience has its limits ... and we choose what those limits are ... often heavily weighted against the level of involvement we perceive ourselves to have.

I can be content with wait and see myself. Its just that my length of wait might be shorter or longer than someone elses based on what I see or don't see.

GL

Spring~Fields
12-28-2006, 04:43 PM
Its not created a void. It has not created barriers to success, just obstacles. Obstacles that some clubs have been able to overcome..

The reality is that the Reds have accepted their small market status and have been consistenly using it as a crutch while other clubs in similar situations have embraced the challange and found a way to be successful.

GL
Exactly,

GAC
12-29-2006, 04:27 AM
Its not created a void. It has not created barriers to success, just obstacles. Obstacles that some clubs have been able to overcome

I agree 100% GL. And IMO, those "some clubs" are teams like the A's (Beane) and Ryan (Twins). Their payrolls are comparable (or less) then ours. How have they been able to compete consistently, even when losing marquee players? - and in what many believe is a stronger league right now.

That is all I am trying to illustrate. Not make excuses for the FO.


The reality is that the Reds have accepted their small market status and have been consistenly using it as a crutch while other clubs in similar situations have embraced the challange and found a way to be successful.

True. They are a small market team. They cannot spend (throw money around) at the levels of a NY, Boston, LA, and larger markets.

And I agree they have used that as a crutch. My position is simply that I hope this new ownership will, as you state, "embrace the challenge and find a way to win." I simply believe they should be given more time to do so then what some fans are unwilling to give them.




If your local schoolboard had these types of results I'd bet you'd not be as patient with them as you have been with the Reds over the last 4 or 5 years.

Two different worlds. I may love the game of baseball; but I put my children's education at a different level.

All I've said GL is that we have had a change of ownership, and it has only been "in power" for less then a year. It is not the fault of Castellini and/or Krivsky that the previous ownership badly fumbled the ball for the last 5 years. But it is their job to correct it and get us pointed in the right direction. And some expect an immediate turnaround.

I am not thrilled one bit with the Moellers, Crosbys, Conines. But IMO, these acquisitions is not what is going to keep this team from possibly competing. The inability, due to the market and/or short supply, in acquiring starting pitching help will. And when I see what some of these average to mediocre pitchers are getting, then I hope we boost our investment in scouting because there has to be better talent out there.


All I was trying to say is that patience has its limits

Absolutely GL. I thoroughly agree. My point, and position is, should we be giving this current, new ownership (and GM) that opportunity, and not judging/evaluating them by Lindner & Co. (which some are)? They've been "in power" less then a year. And they have taken some positive steps, as well as some very questionable one, I agree.

GAC
12-29-2006, 04:54 AM
It is if the comparison is what you expect from something you're heavily invested in.

How are you (or me for that matter) heavily invested in the Reds as we are with our local schools?

Now I could understand the argument somewhat if I was a Cincy local; but then, how are even the people of Hamilton Co. (Cincinnati) as heavily invested in the Reds as they are their local schools? They pay far more taxes to their local schools then that half-cent sales tax they approved for two stadiums. They pay far more taxes to local government then their investment in the Reds/Bengals. Talk about not getting the bang for your buck. ;)

I can see the argument if I was a season ticket holder. But if I was that furious, and feel I was getting shafted because this ownership doesn't want to win, then I'd quit buying them for cryin' out loud.

The Reds are raising ticket prices. How much? I got this from Marc's blog....

The Reds released their ticket prices for next season, with a couple of increases, but not too drastic

The Cincinnati Reds today announced ticket prices for individual games at Great American Ball Park during the 2007 regular season.

Depending on seat location, ticket prices for non-premium seating categories will increase from $1 to $4. Some seating categories have been combined and renamed for convenience to fans in selecting seating options.

The popular outer view level seats will remain $5 and next season will be sold in advance of game day. Approximately 38 percent of the ballpark seats will be priced at $19 or less.

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/2006/11/ticket-prices-announced.asp

Now how does that compare to the rest of MLB, because I was always under the impression that Reds kept their ticket prices relatively low in comparison to the rest of MLB?

I go down to 4-5 games a year. I'd get seats in the 400 section which are good seats IMO. They cost $15. And alot of times we'd go down and get the $5 seats at the ticket window, and those are not atrocious seats either. Nothing like the "nose bleed" section at Riverfront.

But anywhere from $5-15 a seat is not bad IMHO.

RedsManRick
12-29-2006, 11:51 AM
Regarding the school analogy, baseball is a zero sum game. The composite records of major league baseball teams will always be .500. Thus, improvement always comes at the expense of someone else within the fixed system of major league baseball. By definition, somebody else has to lose every extra game we win.

When it comes to education, there are real gains that can be realized by EVERYBODY and it doesn't come at the expense of other people's educational attainment. Yes, it requires investment, planning, and hard work. However, if every school district in the state both increased funding by 20%, every single district could see test scores improve from an absolute perspective. If every baseball team spent twice as much tomorrow, they'd still net out to .500. There is less of an excuse in education or any public policy because if you choose to make it a financial priority, a failure to improve education is simply a failure to understand how to educate better. In baseball, you can make a lot of good choices and simply due to bad luck not improve as quickly as you'd hope -- or at all.

I want the Reds to succeed too. I think that improvement should be shown or the methods need to be called in to question. However, the failures of Bowden and O'Brien should not change the length of the leash given to Krivsky and Co. It takes a certain amount of time to build a winning organization, even with the best management in the world -- particularly given market limitations.

The Reds can win in this market. But we can't do it as quickly or as easily as other teams. It shouldn't be an excuse for failure because other organizations have done much more with less, but it is completely valid as a reason for a taking a more methodical approach towards building a consistent winner. Again though, given sufficient opportunity, failure cannot be chalked up to limited resources.

westofyou
12-29-2006, 11:55 AM
It takes a certain amount of time to build a winning organization, even with the best management in the world -- particularly given market limitations.

I'm betting it ain't 10 1/2 months myself, but I'm a obviously either making excuses or I'm unrealistic.

DoogMinAmo
12-29-2006, 12:16 PM
Regarding the school analogy, baseball is a zero sum game. The composite records of major league baseball teams will always be .500. Thus, improvement always comes at the expense of someone else within the fixed system of major league baseball. By definition, somebody else has to lose every extra game we win.

When it comes to education, there are real gains that can be realized by EVERYBODY and it doesn't come at the expense of other people's educational attainment. Yes, it requires investment, planning, and hard work. However, if every school district in the state both increased funding by 20%, every single district could see test scores improve from an absolute perspective. If every baseball team spent twice as much tomorrow, they'd still net out to .500. There is less of an excuse in education or any public policy because if you choose to make it a financial priority, a failure to improve education is simply a failure to understand how to educate better. In baseball, you can make a lot of good choices and simply due to bad luck not improve as quickly as you'd hope -- or at all.

I want the Reds to succeed too. I think that improvement should be shown or the methods need to be called in to question. However, the failures of Bowden and O'Brien should not change the length of the leash given to Krivsky and Co. It takes a certain amount of time to build a winning organization, even with the best management in the world -- particularly given market limitations.

The Reds can win in this market. But we can't do it as quickly or as easily as other teams. It shouldn't be an excuse for failure because other organizations have done much more with less, but it is completely valid as a reason for a taking a more methodical approach towards building a consistent winner. Again though, given sufficient opportunity, failure cannot be chalked up to limited resources.

Wow, an excellent post, top to bottom.

Falls City Beer
12-29-2006, 12:32 PM
There is less of an excuse in education or any public policy because if you choose to make it a financial priority, a failure to improve education is simply a failure to understand how to educate better. In baseball, you can make a lot of good choices and simply due to bad luck not improve as quickly as you'd hope -- or at all.



Wow. This is very wrong. There are great choices made all the time in public policy that fail because of unforeseen and changing circumstances.

Okay. So maybe it wasn't such a good analogy.

Gonelong's point was good insofar as it illustrates the need in the press, the fan base, the buying public to leverage an organization to do right by their dollar, in the way a citizen would with his or her elected officials. While a corporation and public office are different, the vote per se still exists, be it ballot or dollar. However, the difference is that in MLB, the consequences for failing to field an excellent product are nil, as MLB doesn't really follow the true rules of capitalism.

gonelong
12-29-2006, 12:47 PM
How are you (or me for that matter) heavily invested in the Reds as we are with our local schools?

What about the investment of time?

Many of us spend 100's of hours a year watching, listening, attending, discussing, and following the Reds and their games. Now multiple that over 30 years.

What is the opportunity cost? Lets say I decided to quite following the Reds entirely and became a Wal-Mart greater for those 30 years.

500 hours a year x 30 years = 15,000 hours

15,000 x $5/hr = $75,000

I'd say I have heavily invested in the Reds over the years.

GL

RFS62
12-29-2006, 01:39 PM
What about the investment of time?

What is the opportunity cost? Lets say I decided to quite following the Reds entirely and became a Wal-Mart greater for those 30 years.




Yep, I can really see FCB as a Wal-Mart greeter.

:cool:

RedsManRick
12-29-2006, 03:53 PM
Well, you are getting return on your investment in the Reds. They play ball, you watch, you enjoy. If you don't feel your return is sufficient, feel free to stop at anytime.

However, how does your investment over the past 30 years help the Reds any more today than my investment over the last 15, or over some kid's 1 year? Just because you've invested 30 years doesn't mean that's something the Reds can use to build their team today. I can understand how you because emotionally more involved based on the legnth of your fandom, but unfortunately, unless you're willing to pay more for a ticket based on how long you've been watching, your increased attachment relative to the 6 year olds isn't really relevent.

GAC
12-29-2006, 04:34 PM
What about the investment of time?

Many of us spend 100's of hours a year watching, listening, attending, discussing, and following the Reds and their games. Now multiple that over 30 years.

What is the opportunity cost? Lets say I decided to quite following the Reds entirely and became a Wal-Mart greater for those 30 years.

500 hours a year x 30 years = 15,000 hours

15,000 x $5/hr = $75,000

I'd say I have heavily invested in the Reds over the years.

GL

I'm sorry GL; but respectfully, the above illustration is a huge stretch to say the least. And I'm not sure anyone would have taken those hours saved watching the Reds to be a WalMart greeter or do any other type of job. One probably would have "wasted" it in some other pleasure, but certainly not work.

And how can one relegate (translate) time invested watching and enjoying the game of baseball (one's emotional involvement) in financial/monetary terms as you're trying to illustrate, while also leaving out any type of return they may have gotten in that time. Your equation shows nothing but personal sacrifice with no return at all. Now is that true or accurate?

Shouldn't you also attempt to also show where in that span of time you've ever gotten any type of return? Return in the sense of enjoyment and satisfaction.

I've been watching the Reds, and baseball in general, for over 40 years. And in that expanse of time I've enjoyed very few winning Red teams, as far as won-loss records go, post season appearances. So if one defines (or measures) that return solely in the terms of winning (won-loss record), then I guess I've wasted 40+ years, and should have been a better steward of my life/time?


I wouldn't agree though. Because in that span of time (growing up), I got to see some darn good ballplayers who I admired and idolized, saw some excellent games played, had some fantastic times and memories with family and friends.

And in those 40 years Ive attended alot of baseball games. And I can also safely assume that in that time too, my won-loss record is sub .500. So why did I go? Had to be something else compelling me in which I felt I was getting a "return". ;)

How do you assign a monetary value to that?

RANDY IN INDY
12-29-2006, 05:59 PM
I'm sorry GL; but respectfully, the above illustration is a huge stretch to say the least. And I'm not sure anyone would have taken those hours saved watching the Reds to be a WalMart greeter or do any other type of job. One probably would have "wasted" it in some other pleasure, but certainly not work.

And how can one relegate (translate) time invested watching and enjoying the game of baseball (one's emotional involvement) in financial/monetary terms as you're trying to illustrate, while also leaving out any type of return they may have gotten in that time. Your equation shows nothing but personal sacrifice with no return at all. Now is that true or accurate?

Shouldn't you also attempt to also show where in that span of time you've ever gotten any type of return? Return in the sense of enjoyment and satisfaction.

I've been watching the Reds, and baseball in general, for over 40 years. And in that expanse of time I've enjoyed very few winning Red teams, as far as won-loss records go, post season appearances. So if one defines (or measures) that return solely in the terms of winning (won-loss record), then I guess I've wasted 40+ years, and should have been a better steward of my life/time?


I wouldn't agree though. Because in that span of time (growing up), I got to see some darn good ballplayers who I admired and idolized, saw some excellent games played, had some fantastic times and memories with family and friends.

And in those 40 years Ive attended alot of baseball games. And I can also safely assume that in that time too, my won-loss record is sub .500. So why did I go? Had to be something else compelling me in which I felt I was getting a "return". ;)

How do you assign a monetary value to that?

Good post, GAC.

gonelong
12-29-2006, 09:23 PM
I'm sorry GL; but respectfully, the above illustration is a huge stretch to say the least.

Did you ask about my return on investment or did you ask about my investment?

I have roughly 15,000 hours invested in the Reds ... whether its monitized or not makes no difference IMO.

If anything the monetization of my hours are highly understated. I haven't even bothered to add in the cost of attending games, merchandise, etc.


And I'm not sure anyone would have taken those hours saved watching the Reds to be a WalMart greeter or do any other type of job. One probably would have "wasted" it in some other pleasure, but certainly not work.

I do it all the time. I have a side business I run from my house. I can assure you that I make much more than $5/HR. During the summer I often have to decide if I'd rather take on a client or do other things, including following the Reds.


And how can one relegate (translate) time invested watching and enjoying the game of baseball (one's emotional involvement) in financial/monetary terms as you're trying to illustrate, while also leaving out any type of return they may have gotten in that time. Your equation shows nothing but personal sacrifice with no return at all. Now is that true or accurate?

Obviously I am receiving something in return or I wouldn't be doing it. When you invest, you expect some sort of return. How does that nullify my investment of time?


Shouldn't you also attempt to also show where in that span of time you've ever gotten any type of return? Return in the sense of enjoyment and satisfaction.

1. You didn't ask about my return, you asked about my investment.
2. I think the return is obvious to all.


I've been watching the Reds, and baseball in general, for over 40 years. And in that expanse of time I've enjoyed very few winning Red teams, as far as won-loss records go, post season appearances. So if one defines (or measures) that return solely in the terms of winning (won-loss record), then I guess I've wasted 40+ years, and should have been a better steward of my life/time?

1. I didn't even mention W/Ls, you did.
2. Its up to you to determine if your time is well spent, not me.


I wouldn't agree though. Because in that span of time (growing up), I got to see some darn good ballplayers who I admired and idolized, saw some excellent games played, had some fantastic times and memories with family and friends.

You won't be disagreeing with me, I didn't state anything of the sort.


And in those 40 years Ive attended alot of baseball games. And I can also safely assume that in that time too, my won-loss record is sub .500. So why did I go? Had to be something else compelling me in which I felt I was getting a "return". ;)

How do you assign a monetary value to that?

Any way you'd like, or not at all.

You've put so many words into my mouth with your post that my jaw hurts too badly to continue the conversation. :mooner:

GL

GAC
12-30-2006, 04:25 AM
I apologize then GL, because I wasn't attempting to put words in your mouth. I have way too much respect for you then that. I was just disagreeing with your illustration (or attempt) to place a monetary value on watching/following the Reds, and using that as a defense for being "heavily invested", and therefore feeling that position gives one a right to say how the Reds should run their organization.

Being a fan myself, I still don't think that my emotional involvement, which is strictly voluntary regardless of how I want to define/label that investment, gives me the right or places me in a position to say I am deserving, or how that organization owes me.

Yes, I understand that such things as me buying a ticket and purchasing merchandise is utilized by that organization in varying means to run the business. So in that sense then - does making product purchases at any local retailer give me the right to say I'm "invested heavily" in you, and therefore should have a say in how you conduct your business?

I'll try that at my local WalMarts or Krogers because my wife spends way too much there! ;)

But with the Reds, you're seeing the product upfront, and know what you're getting. And whether one likes it or not, their only choice is to simply buy it or refuse to do so.

Even if one wanted to use the term "shareholder" to define their involvement as a Reds fan, even a shareholder understands the risk in buying stock, and realizes they have no say whatsover in that stock's performance (up or down).

Maybe you could have taken that client to a game. Then you could have wrote it off of your taxes as a business expense.... or maybe even a capital loss seeing the Reds recent performance these last few years. :mooner:

redsmetz
12-30-2006, 10:28 AM
I caught the following quoted in GL's message, so I don't know who said it originally:


I've been watching the Reds, and baseball in general, for over 40 years. And in that expanse of time I've enjoyed very few winning Red teams, as far as won-loss records go, post season appearances. So if one defines (or measures) that return solely in the terms of winning (won-loss record), then I guess I've wasted 40+ years, and should have been a better steward of my life/time?

I think this is where we lose the forest for the trees. Since 1960 (which would be approximately my 40+ - I was five the season of 1960 - but it's a nice dividing line), the reds have had 28 winning seasons (over .500). They had one .500 season in that time period which leaves 18 losing seasons. That means about two-thirds of the time in that period, we had a winning team. Now during that time period, we were division champs eight times, National League champs, six times and won three World Series.

Compare that to the Cardinals, who in the same time period, they had 33 winning seasons (the big difference here is since the turn of the century - a time period in the Reds history we all lament). They won four World Series, were NL champs eight times, Division chmaps nine times and had one Wild Card. It's a step up from the Reds, but mainly because of the seasons since 2000 (1 WS, 2 NL titles, Div Champ 5 times and 1 WC).

To say we haven't had a winning team often in those 40+ years is hyperbole, even when counting championships. Certainly the last ten years have seen a dearth of winning, but when looked at in the perspective of a lifetime of rooting for our team, we stand with most other teams.

With the exception of the Yankees who have won the World Series eight times since 1960, only the Dodgers, the A's and the Cards have won more World Series than us. We stand at three along with the Pirates and the Orioles. Clearly, rooting for the Reds for 40+ years has not been a waste and we've seen some terrific ballplayers and teams during that time period.

By the way, you can see the history of World Series champs at MLB's site

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/history/postseason/mlb_ws.jsp?feature=club_champs

westofyou
12-30-2006, 11:25 AM
I caught the following quoted in GL's message, so I don't know who said it originally:



I think this is where we lose the forest for the trees. Since 1960 (which would be approximately my 40+ - I was five the season of 1960 - but it's a nice dividing line), the reds have had 28 winning seasons (over .500). They had one .500 season in that time period which leaves 18 losing seasons. That means about two-thirds of the time in that period, we had a winning team. Now during that time period, we were division champs eight times, National League champs, six times and won three World Series.

Compare that to the Cardinals, who in the same time period, they had 33 winning seasons (the big difference here is since the turn of the century - a time period in the Reds history we all lament). They won four World Series, were NL champs eight times, Division chmaps nine times and had one Wild Card. It's a step up from the Reds, but mainly because of the seasons since 2000 (1 WS, 2 NL titles, Div Champ 5 times and 1 WC).

To say we haven't had a winning team often in those 40+ years is hyperbole, even when counting championships. Certainly the last ten years have seen a dearth of winning, but when looked at in the perspective of a lifetime of rooting for our team, we stand with most other teams.

With the exception of the Yankees who have won the World Series eight times since 1960, only the Dodgers, the A's and the Cards have won more World Series than us. We stand at three along with the Pirates and the Orioles. Clearly, rooting for the Reds for 40+ years has not been a waste and we've seen some terrific ballplayers and teams during that time period.

By the way, you can see the history of World Series champs at MLB's site

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/history/postseason/mlb_ws.jsp?feature=club_champs

Even squeezing it down more let's look at the records since the Free Agent era started, an era the Reds stood up publicly against, an era that blew the doors off their stance when Marge cut the organization off at the knees by whittling away the reason the Reds had felt so confident that free agency would not effect them.

Two arrogant moves in the face of a changing game and they still have managed to make the top ten, but linger around .500 kinda of like where they were last year as a team.

Having lived in the Bay Area with the A's and the Giants I'll say that they went through equally miserable moments as the Reds and equally nice (sans a Giant WS win) and they are right there in the thick of it as well. But I remeber cockiness and despair from their fan base on an almost daily basis as well, in both good and bad times.


CAREER
1977-2006

LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WINNING PERCENTAGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WINS W L PCT
1 Yankees 2673 2057 .565
2 Red Sox 2556 2179 .540
3 Dodgers 2495 2245 .526
4 Braves 2483 2244 .525
5 Cardinals 2479 2251 .524
6 Astros 2475 2269 .522
7 A's 2426 2313 .512
8 White Sox 2425 2302 .513
9 Giants 2422 2319 .511
10 Reds 2387 2350 .504
11 Orioles 2380 2346 .504
12 Angels 2379 2362 .502
13 Phillies 2366 2371 .499
14 Nationals 2353 2381 .497
T15 Mets 2345 2385 .496
T15 Blue Jays 2345 2390 .495
17 Indians 2328 2397 .493
18 Rangers 2326 2407 .491
19 Twins 2299 2436 .486
20 Royals 2293 2437 .485
21 Brewers 2289 2446 .483
22 Padres 2283 2460 .481
23 Pirates 2272 2455 .481
24 Tigers 2266 2471 .478
25 Cubs 2256 2472 .477
26 Mariners 2227 2508 .470
27 Marlins 1041 1160 .473
28 Rockies 1025 1180 .465
29 Diamondbacks 728 730 .499
30 Devil Rays 579 876 .398

vaticanplum
12-30-2006, 12:40 PM
Even squeezing it down more let's look at the records since the Free Agent era started, an era the Reds stood up publicly against, an era that blew the doors off their stance when Marge cut the organization off at the knees by whittling away the reason the Reds had felt so confident that free agency would not effect them.

Wow. Bingo. I never really thought of the whole thing in such simplistic form before, but that's a nail on the head right there. A huge change was made in the whole organization of baseball, the Reds refused to adjust according to this change NOR did they bother to come up with any creative alternatives, and they've been paying for it ever since. Now, they're going to have to make some drastic moves even to come close to catching up. Krivsky has been anything but dormant, but all of the moves he's made might have been much more helpful on a team with a solid foundation. With this one, they're still drops in the buckets.

The world changes so fast; business even faster. Would it have been at all acceptable if the Reds had refused to stop keeping individual stats, refused the use of computers? At one time they were a downright progressive organization, but it's amazing how just a few years of refusal to change can mess things up for a long time. An aversion to change on principle is one of the worst things in the world, I think. It will always come back to bite you somehow.

redsmetz
12-30-2006, 01:43 PM
Even squeezing it down more let's look at the records since the Free Agent era started, an era the Reds stood up publicly against, an era that blew the doors off their stance when Marge cut the organization off at the knees by whittling away the reason the Reds had felt so confident that free agency would not effect them.

Two arrogant moves in the face of a changing game and they still have managed to make the top ten, but linger around .500 kinda of like where they were last year as a team.

Having lived in the Bay Area with the A's and the Giants I'll say that they went through equally miserable moments as the Reds and equally nice (sans a Giant WS win) and they are right there in the thick of it as well. But I remember cockiness and despair from their fan base on an almost daily basis as well, in both good and bad times.

WOY, thanks for the further clarity on the question. I know the one thing Marge did was cut the scouting staff, but I can't think of what the other is (marketing?).

gonelong
12-31-2006, 12:29 AM
I apologize then GL, because I wasn't attempting to put words in your mouth. I have way too much respect for you then that. I was just disagreeing with your illustration (or attempt) to place a monetary value on watching/following the Reds, and using that as a defense for being "heavily invested", and therefore feeling that position gives one a right to say how the Reds should run their organization.

No apologies neccessary, I'm not a daisy! :)

You made a big old leap with that one! Who'd listen to me? :laugh:

Maybe I'll show them my math and demand season tickets for the next 10 years or so. ;)

GL

GAC
12-31-2006, 06:31 AM
Wow. Bingo. I never really thought of the whole thing in such simplistic form before, but that's a nail on the head right there. A huge change was made in the whole organization of baseball, the Reds refused to adjust according to this change NOR did they bother to come up with any creative alternatives, and they've been paying for it ever since.

It couldn't be said better. That is basically what I have been trying to say, but just not as simplistic as you and woy have just expressed.

In 1993, the Reds had the second largest payroll in MLB at 42.8 Mil. But when one looks at the below list, one thing that stands out most to me is that there really isn't too much disparity (gap) in payroll between most of the teams.




Team Total payroll

Toronto Blue Jays $ 45,747,666
Cincinnati Reds $ 42,851,167
New York Yankees $ 41,305,000
Kansas City Royals $ 40,102,666
New York Mets $ 38,350,167
Chicago Cubs $ 38,303,166
Atlanta Braves $ 38,131,000
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 37,833,000
Boston Red Sox $ 37,108,583
Detroit Tigers $ 36,548,166
Texas Rangers $ 35,641,959
Oakland Athletics $ 35,565,834
Chicago White Sox $ 34,598,166
San Francisco Giants $ 34,567,500
Seattle Mariners $ 31,616,333
Houston Astros $ 28,854,500
Minnesota Twins $ 27,284,933
Los Angeles Angels $ 27,230,334
Baltimore Orioles $ 26,914,000
Philadelphia Phillies $ 26,812,334
San Diego Padres $ 24,557,333
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 23,565,667
Milwaukee Brewers $ 22,948,834
St. Louis Cardinals $ 22,615,334
Florida Marlins $ 18,196,545
Cleveland Indians $ 15,717,667
Washington Nationals $ 14,881,334
Colorado Rockies $ 8,829,000

What has happened since the mid-90s that has created this huge payroll gap and "classes" of haves and have-nots?

Is it simply those other teams, such as the Reds, and their refusal to spend at the same levels as the NYs, Bostons, and LAs? Or does their financial situation (market) simply prevent them from spending at the same levels?

I believe the latter is true; but that should not be used as an excuse when I see other organizations similar to the Reds in market size/budget consciousness overcoming that (A's, Twins).

Even teams with large amounts of money invested in their payrolls have struggled to compete/win....Baltimore and even the Mets (for a period). They spent stupid IMO.

Yeah, it makes your job a whole lot easier when you have the bucks to spend. I understand that. But you still have to spend it wisely. An organization like Boston (Theo), and even a St Louis, illustrates that.

The Cincinnati Reds have piddled around in the last decade using excuses, when they should have been opening their eyes to what was going on around them and taking stock of how teams like the A's and Twins have been able to adapt to the market.... not use the market as an excuse.

And woy brought up a good point that some seem to overlook, and I too have always held this position..... Marge Schott was a terrible business person. She knew how to do PR and be popular with the fans; but when it came to having any business "sense" and/or how to run an organization from top to bottom. She poo-poo'd at such areas as scouting and the farm system, and let them slip into disrepair, while throwing monies at FAs like Dave Parker, which was visual, high profile, attention-getting to the fans. She had no "eye" for the future, and what was going on in the world of baseball around her.

The bottom line is that baseball is still a game about stats, and not simply spending. They go hand-in-hand regardless of your yearly payroll.

Now is Wayne Krivsky attempting to implement such as system with the Reds, which, regardless if some want to acknowledge it or not, does take time? That is yet to be seen. 10 months on the job is not a telling sign IMHO.

GAC
12-31-2006, 06:35 AM
Maybe I'll show them my math and demand season tickets for the next 10 years or so. ;)

GL

I'm sure that will go a long way with "bean counter" John Allen. You better leave well enough alone. He may end up sending YOU a bill for what he thinks you still owe! :evil:


You made a big old leap with that one! Who'd listen to me? :lol:

The deserve or owed comment was mainly a generalization that I have had fans throw out a lot of times.

I look at it this warped way....

If you buy your wife a new mink coat and diamond earrings, you may feel you deserve something in return. ;)

Though you better not say that to her, because her thinking to begin with is she deserved those items based on having to put up with you and the kids.

Meanwhile, you're standing there holding your Johnson wondering what just took place, and this wasn't the type of screwing you had in mind. :evil:

Next time buy the season tickets instead. Yeah, you may still be getting screwed, but at least it's with a beer in your hand.

wheels
12-31-2006, 08:13 PM
I'm sure that will go a long way with "bean counter" John Allen. You better leave well enough alone. He may end up sending YOU a bill for what he thinks you still owe! :evil:



The deserve or owed comment was mainly a generalization that I have had fans throw out a lot of times.

I look at it this warped way....

If you buy your wife a new mink coat and diamond earrings, you may feel you deserve something in return. ;)

Though you better not say that to her, because her thinking to begin with is she deserved those items based on having to put up with you and the kids.

Meanwhile, you're standing there holding your Johnson wondering what just took place, and this wasn't the time of screwing you had in mind. :evil:

Next time buy the season tickets instead. Yeah, you may still be getting screwed, but at least it's with a beer in your hand.


That.

Was.

Brilliant.

Good on ya.:beerme:

redsandrails
12-31-2006, 10:06 PM
Well, back on topic.. I wish the Reds went after Aubrey Huff. 20m/3 years for him (as was reported) is a steal. Huff, when he's on, can be a solid .300, 30, 100, .900 OPS kinda guy and actually has been better than that. While 2005 was a little rough even when he's struggling he's still a potent bat. While not a perfect match with the Reds, he could have played RF for some games and spent a lot of time at 1B, occasionally filling in at 3B too. He's at least a big enough bat that the Reds could make room for him somehow.

redsmetz
01-01-2007, 09:29 AM
Well, back on topic.. I wish the Reds went after Aubrey Huff. 20m/3 years for him (as was reported) is a steal. Huff, when he's on, can be a solid .300, 30, 100, .900 OPS kinda guy and actually has been better than that. While 2005 was a little rough even when he's struggling he's still a potent bat. While not a perfect match with the Reds, he could have played RF for some games and spent a lot of time at 1B, occasionally filling in at 3B too. He's at least a big enough bat that the Reds could make room for him somehow.

But we don't know that they didn't go after him and were rebuffed. We forget when we see these other signings that we don't know what the Front Office did or didn't do.

Spring~Fields
01-01-2007, 10:24 AM
Well, back on topic.. I wish the Reds went after Aubrey Huff. 20m/3 years for him (as was reported) is a steal. Huff, when he's on, can be a solid .300, 30, 100, .900 OPS kinda guy and actually has been better than that. While 2005 was a little rough even when he's struggling he's still a potent bat. While not a perfect match with the Reds, he could have played RF for some games and spent a lot of time at 1B, occasionally filling in at 3B too. He's at least a big enough bat that the Reds could make room for him somehow.

:thumbup:
Welcome to the Pro-Fans club.

Who are the true optimist and always hoping for an upgrade.


.300, 30, 100, .900 OPS

Wonder what his numbers would be at the GABP.