PDA

View Full Version : Does Anticipation (or lack thereof) Matter to Castellini?



membengal
01-02-2007, 05:00 PM
I have been posting infrequently of late, and apologize if this has been covered in the last few months, if it has, please take the weedwhacker to it mods. Basically, this is a tangent on all of the threads on the off-season moves to date.

To sum up, the Reds are now owners, for better or worse, of Alex Gonzalez, Jeff Conine, Chad Moeller and a host of aged relievers. Whether or not those moves do anything to help the club down the road we can all perhaps agree to disagree on, but it seems pretty evident that they have had zero impact on the club's profile in terms of fan excitment for 2007. Other than the natural hope that will accompany the coming of spring training, given how they struggled down the stretch in 2006, there isn't a whole lot to get fired up about in terms of the team. I live in Memphis now, transplanted from Cincy for a decade now, and am not the best measuring stick for game to game attendance decisions, but am at least not at this moment budgeting for my annual sojourn to Cincy for a weekend set of games. That loss of eight game tickets won't exactly ruin the club financially, I would suspect, but I wonder how many around Cincy who go more frequently feel the same way. There just isn't a lot to get the blood boiling about the team right now as they retool the minors and set off on whatever plan it is that WK is putting into effect.

To the extent I am accurately summing up the ennui that surrounds the fanbase of the team right now (and I think ennui may be arguably a correct term), does that matter to Castellini? If it doesn't, should it? If it does, will we be more likely to see Homer Bailey rushed to Cincy out of Sarasota if he has a good spring, just to give people something to get excited about?

Frankly, the current juncture of the franchise is a huge concern at the moment. Sitting out the insane free agent market is defensible, and, perhaps, really, the right move. I was one of the ones who tried in vain to hope good stuff out of Eric Milton, and freely admit that his signing was awful for the team. Getting nothing is better than taking on another Milton-bad contract and the performance that has gone with that contract given the prices that decent players have commanded in this market. But what we are left with as a fanbase, then, is more of the same. A same that has worn thin over the years. None of that is Castellini's fault, of course, but it is his inherited problem.

It's going to be a tough sell this year, when the most interesting thing to happen to this team in the off-season involves Jeff Brantley and Thom Brennamen.

Ltlabner
01-02-2007, 05:55 PM
There just isn't a lot to get the blood boiling about the team right now as they retool the minors and set off on whatever plan it is that WK is putting into effect.

To the extent I am accurately summing up the ennui that surrounds the fanbase of the team right now (and I think ennui may be arguably a correct term), does that matter to Castellini? If it doesn't, should it? .

I'd be shocked if it didn't matter at all to BCast that the Reds are just one of a myrid of entertinament choices in Cincy and they really aren't a "premier" entertainment choices. If it doesn't matter to him he's not a very smart business person...something that would fly in the face of his successfull track record.

I think it will take more than dangling Homer Bailey to really excite the fans and boost attendence in the long run. That will take winning...and winning over a period of time. That is the only way to erase 15+ years of doldrums and boost the Reds from one of the the choices for entertainment to "the" choice for entertainment.

Because Krivsky seems to be a fan of small, less than exciting moves for building his team, it will put a lot of pressure on the marketing and promotions department to whip up some level of buzz until the team is a consistant winner. While some might find it distastefull, I think BCast would benefit from the Donald Trump aproach to sell promotion to offset Wayne's understated and unexciting team building methods.

RedsManRick
01-02-2007, 06:22 PM
I get the feeling that Castellini is more worried about fixing the franchise than looking good in the short term. If his time in St Louis taught him anything, it should be that it takes a sustained winner to truly build a fan base. You can spur the base by some flashy short term investments, but the best way to build a base is to win and he seemingly has given WK a significantly leash to do that.

Aside from building a winner, I think he wants to position the team as more community friendly and involved. I get the feeling he wants the buzz to be based on a more solid base than a flashy free agent pickup or gimmick.

Unassisted
01-02-2007, 06:54 PM
I have trouble understanding the perception that the door is closed on additional signings or trades. It's not like the calendar has passed the July trade deadline and a door is closed. There are still over two months before spring training begins.

Honestly, I think we'd have a lot more to fear as fans if the Reds had an owner with reactive sentiments that flapped in the breeze outside of baseball season. ("Sports columnists and message board posters are underwhelmed by the Stanton and Conine signings, Wayne. We need to sign someone, ANYONE, now!") That's not a recipe for success.

The off-season, just like the season, is a marathon, not a sprint.

membengal
01-02-2007, 07:35 PM
I am not closing the door on a trade (by this thread, anyway), but it may take something substantial to stir the pot on fan interest at this point. As it stands now, ltl is dead on, the marketing department will have to work overtime.

I don't see anything left in the free agent pool that would stimulate genuine interest outside of the rabid part of the fanbase (that would be, of course, those in here for certain) and really am not advocating that they have dipped into the crazed market as we have seen it develop. But it leaves this team between a rock and hard place in the short term, with as unanticipated a season as I can remember in some time...

GAC
01-02-2007, 09:10 PM
I get the feeling that Castellini is more worried about fixing the franchise than looking good in the short term. If his time in St Louis taught him anything, it should be that it takes a sustained winner to truly build a fan base. You can spur the base by some flashy short term investments, but the best way to build a base is to win and he seemingly has given WK a significantly leash to do that.

Aside from building a winner, I think he wants to position the team as more community friendly and involved. I get the feeling he wants the buzz to be based on a more solid base than a flashy free agent pickup or gimmick.

Good post. And I hope you're right. He came in as a new owner and went immediately into a very tough (and ridiculous) FA market. Now is it going to get any better? No. But that doesn't mean I still throw huge sums of money at marginal players that also would have little impact at helping this team, and more importantly, are not long term solutions at fixing this franchise.

Crosby and Moellers are not impact players. Krvisky knows this too. They were acquired to be possibly backups (with low risk involved). You can easily cut ties with these types of players . It's hard to do with a player like a Lily, Suppan, or a position player like a Gary Matthews once you commit to that multi-year deal with guaranteed money.

Now is it a risk waiting (hoping) on a young player(s) like a Bailey, Votto, or Bruce? Sure. But again, I'd take that path then the other option.

RedsManRick
01-02-2007, 09:40 PM
Exactly GAC. Thought one might argue that WK has made a lot of missteps, most of them have been pretty small. It's easier to recover from a lack of good moves than it is to correct the damage of a few really bad ones. Outside of "the trade", which saw the team exchange overall talent for money and better talent balance on the 25 man, there haven't been any moves which stunt us. A Gary Matthews or Gil Meche deal has the chance to do WAY more damage than the lack of positive moves we've seen this offseason. WK might not be penny-wise, be at least hasn't shown himself to be pound foolish.

Falls City Beer
01-02-2007, 09:50 PM
Exactly GAC. Thought one might argue that WK has made a lot of missteps, most of them have been pretty small. It's easier to recover from a lack of good moves than it is to correct the damage of a few really bad ones.

Really, nothing is worse than doing nothing. Whether it's aggressively pimping your minor league arms or shuffling in players of need through trades, it's ultra-important to keep the moving parts clean. Wayne's not made a single move since the Pena deal that's struck right at the heart of the Reds biggest needs--starters and big time bats. He's merely danced around the issue, and seems sufficiently moved to wait on "the arrivals" from the minors, the tiniest sliver of a percentage of whom will actually make the big leagues. That's the absence of a plan, and a chickenheartedness in the face of really big issues facing this ballclub. Meanwhile, the fan base isn't getting bigger nor is it particularly looking towards trending that way for several years, if the current philosophy remains in place.

Teams have survived and will survive bad contracts--what teams NEVER get over is being run like the Pirates, Brewers, Royals, Expos/Nationals.

membengal
01-03-2007, 06:16 AM
That's the absence of a plan, and a chickenheartedness in the face of really big issues facing this ballclub. Meanwhile, the fan base isn't getting bigger nor is it particularly looking towards trending that way for several years, if the current philosophy remains in place.

Teams have survived and will survive bad contracts--what teams NEVER get over is being run like the Pirates, Brewers, Royals, Expos/Nationals.

As usual, someone here says it better and says it in much fewer words. This off-season feels to me like the ones they have experienced in those places that FCB mentions for more than a decade now. And, a quick glance at those formerly proud franchises (and formerly proud and vocal fanbases) tells me that Castellini has a real REAL problem if that is the slope the team is on. I am friends with a few genuine Pirates fans, and beaten down doesn't begin to describe them. I would assume it's the same way for Royals fans too.

Like I said, rock and hard place. Getting into this market didn't make a ton of sense, but then again, sitting it out and rolling largely with what got you to 80 wins doesn't feel like a great option either.

In the meantime, while we all wait for the alleged cavalry to get here (something by no means a guarantee as we all know), it is a fairly bleak present. And, what if the cavalry gets waylaid by the normal forces (injury, reality, etc.) between there and here? Do we look up in 2009 and wonder where the help is coming from then? Years can slip into a decade or more of losing pretty easily. What are the Reds on, seven straight years of losing records at this point? Heck, not even the arrival of a genuine pitching stud in Milwaukee (Sheets) stemmed their bleeding.

Again, tough spot for Castellini. Just saying you want your team to be successful on a lower budget a la the A's is easier said than done. There is no Hudson/Mulder/Zito triumvarate to build on here like Beane walked into.

If I am Castellini, I am concerned as all get out by the current posture of the organization in today's game. At this point, I cannot even conceive of a theme for the marketing department to center on for 2007.

remdog
01-03-2007, 07:45 AM
Part of the problem is that the Reds have not simply done nothing---they have jumped into the market to the tune of $23M+! I'd like to know any one of those purchases that excite anyone. Names please!

We often hear from the 'DOW' (Defenders of Wayne) that Krivsky doesn't owe anyone an explanation of what his plan is. Yet, to me, even a minimal explanation falls under the category of marketing. Something as simple as saying that your plan is to bring in players to make a short-term impact while trying to revive the farm system is a marketing statement that helps fans get behind the team. Under the Lindner group we often heard complaints about their marketing ability. But in the area of giving the fans a 'vision' of what the team is trying to do the Castellini/Krivsky group comes up short of their predecessors, IMO.

Rem

GAC
01-03-2007, 08:47 AM
Really, nothing is worse than doing nothing. Whether it's aggressively pimping your minor league arms or shuffling in players of need through trades, it's ultra-important to keep the moving parts clean. Wayne's not made a single move since the Pena deal that's struck right at the heart of the Reds biggest needs--starters and big time bats.

How do you address the issue of starters, which we all agree the Reds need, and I'm referring to a quality starter that could not only be effective but also a long term solution, when the market isn't offering any?

To me.... doing nothing is not worse then giving out a contract to a Suppan, Lily, or Marquis type. Explain how that would move this team forward or improve it?

Last week you said that teams like the Reds, in order to improve, don't need to play the FA market. Especially one as ridiculous as this current one.

Now should Krivsky be out there "scanning the field" and trying to make deals/acquire young arms to restock/bring through the system? Yes he should, and he had done that to some extent. But even those organizations, if they have a talented arm, are not going to be so quick to deal it. The Reds aren't too quick to offer a Homer Bailey to those who have inquired, and rightfully so. They, just as other interested teams, know what they have.

And I've seen a few of the deals/packages you say you'd offer Homer Bailey up for, and most simply shake their heads in disbelief. And that's even if the deal were even feasible to begin with.


Teams have survived and will survive bad contracts--what teams NEVER get over is being run like the Pirates, Brewers, Royals, Expos/Nationals.

The Brewers, Pirates, and Royals have just given out some bad contracts. So I guess they'll survive some how. ;)

We're still trying to "survive" some of the bad contracts we've handed out over the last few years. You're in denial if you don't think bad contracts don't hurt smaller market teams far worse then the larger ones.

There is a smaller "window" of error.

You obviously don't subscribe to the fact that some teams do possess limited revenue, and can't afford to make mistakes when it comes to handing out multi-year, high dollar contracts to marginal players.

And using your line of reasoning, you obviously feel that the Milton contract wasn't a bad investment at all either, or that it should be learned from.... "Go out and do it again. You'll survive."

I'd have been really peeved and shaking my head if they had come home with that Lily or Suppan contract. That is thrwoing money away needlessly IMO. Poor management.

Can we at least get out from under a couple of these bad ones before we hand out any more bad ones? :mooner:

Falls City Beer
01-03-2007, 09:13 AM
Part of the problem is that the Reds have not simply done nothing---they have jumped into the market to the tune of $23M+! I'd like to know any one of those purchases that excite anyone. Names please!

We often hear from the 'DOW' (Defenders of Wayne) that Krivsky doesn't owe anyone an explanation of what his plan is. Yet, to me, even a minimal explanation falls under the category of marketing. Something as simple as saying that your plan is to bring in players to make a short-term impact while trying to revive the farm system is a marketing statement that helps fans get behind the team. Under the Lindner group we often heard complaints about their marketing ability. But in the area of giving the fans a 'vision' of what the team is trying to do the Castellini/Krivsky group comes up short of their predecessors, IMO.

Rem

I guess it's semantics--yes, he's spent payroll, that's true. But we're not a whit better for it. I guess that's my point.

RedsManRick
01-03-2007, 09:21 AM
FCB, but the payroll he's spent isn't going to prevent us from spending payroll useful players in the future. 3 years from now, when Gil Meche has put up 3 seasons of a 5.50 ERA, he's still going to be costing the Royals 12MM a year and preventing them from being more active in the market.

Are the Reds significantly better in 2007 for the additions of Mike Stanton and Chad Moeller? No way. However, would we be significantly better if he had signed Gil Meche, Juan Pierre, or Gary Matthews Jr.? Nope. We'd just be poorer and locked in to salaries that wouldn't be helping.

I'm not saying I'm an advocate of his approach to the 2007 season. But I'm glad he's not making splashes simply for the sake of looking like he's trying to win and to drum up interest. I don't know what WK's "plan" is and from what I've seen from him, I don't think I want to know. But there's MUCH worse he could've done than nothing. He may not have made the team better for 2007, but there are GMs out there paying a lot of money to make their team's worse.

Ltlabner
01-03-2007, 10:56 AM
FCB, but the payroll he's spent isn't going to prevent us from spending payroll useful players in the future. 3 years from now, when Gil Meche has put up 3 seasons of a 5.50 ERA, he's still going to be costing the Royals 12MM a year and preventing them from being more active in the market.

And there is a big difference between not wanting to spend rediculas amounts of money to get a mediocre player versus saying "we just don't have the money to spend". Most of the comments from BCast and WK, I remember from the press deal more with not wanting to spend money in a stupid market rather than saying they don't want to spend money period.

Since we (1) don't know what pitchers WK has gone after (2) what those other teams asked for in return (3) if teams are even willing to part with their pitchers I don't think it makes any sense to leap to the conclusion that they just don't want to make big impact moves.

I've not been too happy with the "fill in" type moves they have made thus far for position players (except Gonzo). The moves for pitching have been blah at best, but I'm not sure just throwing out anybody at AAA would produce any sort of better result.

But as far as the imact moves go, I'll trust they are doing their due-dilligence until proven otherwise.

Johnny Footstool
01-03-2007, 11:40 AM
The market won't get any less stupid. Ever.

Wringing your hands and begging out is ridiculously short-sighted, especially when you have an influx of cable-contract cash and a team as close to contention as the Reds.

And GAC, I don't lump Ted Lilly in with Jeff Suppan and Jason Marquis. Totally different pitchers. I think Lilly will excel in the NL and will have a positive impact for the Cubs.

Ltlabner
01-03-2007, 11:46 AM
The market won't get any less stupid. Ever.

Wringing your hands and begging out is ridiculously short-sighted, especially when you have an influx of cable-contract cash and a team as close to contention as the Reds.

I don't think you can say the market woln't get any less stupid "ever". There are so many variables that could change over the comming years that effect the "prices" of players that no one could accuratley predict how the market will be.

And just because you suddenly have cash doesn't mean it's the best move to go out an spend it within the first 2 weeks of it being depoisted in your checking account.

I'd say anchoring this team with another Milton-esque contract would be the text book definition of "short-sighted" rather than being cautious.

RANDY IN INDY
01-03-2007, 11:48 AM
The market won't get any less stupid. Ever.

Yeah, but there might be some better talent to spend it on.

Falls City Beer
01-03-2007, 11:53 AM
FCB, but the payroll he's spent isn't going to prevent us from spending payroll useful players in the future. 3 years from now, when Gil Meche has put up 3 seasons of a 5.50 ERA, he's still going to be costing the Royals 12MM a year and preventing them from being more active in the market.

Are the Reds significantly better in 2007 for the additions of Mike Stanton and Chad Moeller? No way. However, would we be significantly better if he had signed Gil Meche, Juan Pierre, or Gary Matthews Jr.? Nope. We'd just be poorer and locked in to salaries that wouldn't be helping.

I'm not saying I'm an advocate of his approach to the 2007 season. But I'm glad he's not making splashes simply for the sake of looking like he's trying to win and to drum up interest. I don't know what WK's "plan" is and from what I've seen from him, I don't think I want to know. But there's MUCH worse he could've done than nothing. He may not have made the team better for 2007, but there are GMs out there paying a lot of money to make their team's worse.

How many times do I have to say that the options aren't solely: spend tons of money on crappy free agents or do nothing.

I would have given up Bailey for Jennings/relief candidate; most on here wouldn't have. Bully for them.

What that means to me--not actively seeking a #2 level starter--is that the Reds are punting 2007, for some misty, imaginary hope that something will jell in 09 or 10. Yippee.

Ltlabner
01-03-2007, 12:11 PM
What that means to me--not actively seeking a #2 level starter--is that the Reds are punting 2007, for some misty, imaginary hope that something will jell in 09 or 10. Yippee.

Or waiting to see what #2 starters are available later in the winter/spring training.

Or waiting to see what #2 are available via trade.

Or waiting to see what #2 are available for trade closer to the deadline.

Or waiting to see if better options are available towards the end of the 2008 season when teams are making deals prior to the post-season.

Or waiting to see what #2 starters are available next year at a better "price" that wouldn't burden the Reds with a horrible contract.

As you said, there are many options. Not just "spend now" and "wait for the misty hope in 2010".

RedsManRick
01-03-2007, 12:12 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again FCB, it's not fair to judge the level of inactivity of WK and BobC based on the "history" of Reds management. Sure, it's been the same team/organization to us for decades. But WK and Castellini have had less than a year to build their organization. I too am frustrated by the fact that the Reds have been rebuilding for 5 years now.

But we can't use Bowden/Lindner's failure to build a consistent, sustainable winning organization as our justification for wanting the current management to act more quickly. Yes, they should be sensitive to the fan base and this year's batch of signings don't exactly inspire. However, I think the "average" fan was excited by the signing of Eric Milton, the biggest FA acquisition since Greg Vaughn, and that didn't exactly help us win.

The 2007 Reds aren't any better for the moves of the last few months. However, we're not so loaded with bad contracts that we're unable to improve when the opportunity arises. I know it doesn't inspire that warm fuzzy feeling now, particularly in light of the Dan O'Brien Sit-On-Your-Hands-And-Pray-For-Prospects method, but sometimes slow playing your hand is the way to go.

I'll be the first to jump on WK when I feel like he's making bad decisions. I'm sure you've already seen my diatribe on why now is the time to trade Arroyo. I still think we would be a better team with Phillips at SS and having traded Freel for Marcus Giles to play 2B. However, I'm not going to fault WK for not signing Gil Meche (5/55), Ted Lilly (4/40), Juan Pierre (5/44), Adam Eaton (3/24.5), Shea Hillenbrand (1/6.5), or Jeff Suppan (4/42). The simple fact is that there weren't players out in FA who significantly inproved the 2007 product WITHOUT significantly hindering the ability to build the product beyond 2007.

Do you want him to give Jason Schmidt 15MM or Barry Zito 18MM only to watch Harang walk because we can't extend him? Maybe we should've pursued JD Drew at the expense of Adam Dunn in 2008. I agree there are ways he could play this market differently, but if you want to make the argument that his activity over the last 3 months indicate the lack of a plan, I'll have to disagree. I say the jury is still out and I'm not going to hang WK for the Crimes of O'Brien & Bowden.

RedsManRick
01-03-2007, 12:59 PM
As for the trading of Bailey for Jennings, I guess I'm not the kind who gets excited over my franchise winning 84 games instead of 78. While you don't want to be in constant state of rebuilding, you also can't be in constant state of "going for it", sacrificing the future to win today. Sure, if you have the core and you think a Jason Jennings for Homer Bailey deal (or series of deals) takes you from 87 wins to 95 wins, by all means, go for it. But I'm of the opinion that this team isn't 5 or 6 wins from a playoff berth -- expecting an 83 game winner division champ isn't a way to build a roster. Sacrificing talent for the future simply to take the 2007 squad from 74-76 wins (where I think they currently project) to 80-82 wins doesn't seem like a good choice to me. To take this team to a legitimate playoff contender, you'd need to move so much young talent as to cripple an already shallow system. If 2007 does work out, then what? Back to square one and a new GM who promises a winner. Except now, you have even less patience than you did the last go-round.

Make your run when the time is right, but now is not that time. I wish it was and it's certainly overdue as promised by previous GMs. But you have to deal reality and to me, reality suggests we're not a Jason Jennings away -- not at the cost of maxing out and killing all flexibility in the payroll or our top prospect(s).

Johnny Footstool
01-03-2007, 01:05 PM
I don't think you can say the market woln't get any less stupid "ever". There are so many variables that could change over the comming years that effect the "prices" of players that no one could accuratley predict how the market will be.

When was the last "market correction" that made free agents affordable?


And just because you suddenly have cash doesn't mean it's the best move to go out an spend it within the first 2 weeks of it being depoisted in your checking account.

Krivsky spent millions of dollars on junk this offseason. The difference is he spread it around to a whole bunch of players with extremely limited upside instead of taking a chance on one or two players who could actually be difference-makers.

It's not like he was being frugal or spending wisely. He went on a shopping spree at Dollar General Store.


I'd say anchoring this team with another Milton-esque contract would be the text book definition of "short-sighted" rather than being cautious.

Trading from the team's limited talent pool would be more short-sighted. Money is easily replaced. And when a team is in a position like the Reds are in now (two or three holes to fill; a 2-year window to compete; a couple of good prospects who are more than 2 years away from really contributing), it makes sense to spend the cash to fill holes.

BTW - does anyone really believe the Eric Milton contract prevented the Reds from signing free agent talent?


Yeah, but there might be some better talent to spend it on.

Better talent will cost more.



Make your run when the time is right, but now is not that time. I wish it was and it's certainly overdue as promised by previous GMs. But you have to deal reality and to me, reality suggests we're not a Jason Jennings away -- not at the cost of maxing out and killing all flexibility in the payroll or our top prospect(s).

The thing is, I think the time is right. The core players (Arroyo, Harang, Dunn, and Griffey) are here for two more years. The prospects everyone seems to be counting on aren't really going to contribute during that timeframe.

I'm not suggesting that a Bailey for Jennings deal would be good. In fact, I don't think the Reds have any talent they can afford to trade unless they decide to rebuild and deal the core players and Ryan Freel. But the do have cash (at least they did before Wayne went crazy and bought 40 pounds of stale Halloween candy at the Dollar General Store).

westofyou
01-03-2007, 01:09 PM
Better talent will cost more.

Better then paying for mediocre talent.

remdog
01-03-2007, 01:11 PM
I guess it's semantics--yes, he's spent payroll, that's true. But we're not a whit better for it. I guess that's my point.

And that was my point also.

Rem

RedsManRick
01-03-2007, 01:11 PM
The cost of some of these contracts we're seeing this offseason isn't so much in dollars as it is in years. I don't like the Stanton signing. I don't like the Alex Gonzalez signing. But they're 2 and 3 years respectively. We could have Gil Meche or Juan Pierre for 5 years. After 2007, if we see that guy who IS worth 5 years and 50 million bucks, we won't have already committed it to the guy who happened to be the best of the crap pile in 2006.

WK didn't see the players out there needed to make significant improvements. So he's doing the best he can to fill needs in the short term without precluding us from making the right bigger move down the road. Do I agree with his specific short term choices? Not at all. But, to my comment to FCB earlier, by not locking us in to Pierre type contracts, he'll still be able to make a big move when he finds the right one to make.

The oustanding question is, will he ever make that move. If this is honestly his way of improving the team, I'm unhappy too. That's why O'Brien need to go -- he never could make "that" move. But WK still deserves the benefit of the doubt that his significant move(s) are yet to be made. Kudos for not caving in to fan pressure to make that move NOW.

remdog
01-03-2007, 01:14 PM
Better then paying for mediocre talent.

Which is exactly what the Reds have done so far. Although the term 'mediocre' would seem to be generous for many of those that were signed.

Johnny's post is right on the money. (pun intended) :)

Rem

Johnny Footstool
01-03-2007, 01:28 PM
Better then paying for mediocre talent.

Agreed.

But then we get into a debate about degrees of mediocrity, upside, and who is actually worth overpaying for.

RedsManRick
01-03-2007, 01:43 PM
Johnny, just because the way the team is structure now means our window is 2007-08, doesn't mean that the window is really big enough for us to take advantage of. Yes, we stand to lose a number of players after 2008, implying that we better win now while we have those players. However, that fact doesn't mean we're actually ABLE to build a playoff team around the current core. It's sad, but I think it's true. The only way to win with this core was to spend about $25-30MM in 2007 salaries alone on a legitimate #3 starter and middle of the line up bat -- let's call them Ted Lilly and Carlos Lee. Those kinds of deal tie us in to those players, at that price, for the next 4+ years. How many guys did you see in FA that you wanted to tie your cart to for the next 4+ years? Otherwise, we just don't have the talent to win 90+ games with this core. I think it has been accepted that we don't have the resources to up our payroll to the $90-95MM range it would take to do that. Outside of that, it would require emptying our minor league system via trades to acquire that kind of talent. We obviously didn't (and likely won't) do the first option and I don't think the second one is very smart approach for a mid-market team to achieve sustainable success.

It is possible to win now and build a winning franchise at the same time. The A's & Twins are there. But you have grow the level of talent in the organization to a point much higher than it is now. You get there by developing the talent that will comprise that next core and by trading your current "core" for guys to supplement that process. You think Twins fans were happy that they traded away their starting catcher for 3 prospects? My family lived in MN -- I can tell you fans were upset. Think they like having Nathan, Liriano, and Bonser now? Ask A's fans if they were happy that they traded away Mulder & Hudson.

Thus, we need to say, what we can we do to create a new window for 08-09 and beyond which not only is sufficient to compete in that time frame but is sustainable. Given that, you see all the points I've made in the Arroyo thread. I think we need to re-establish a window that jives with long term sustainability and then work towards that goal. If we can sign Dunn, Harang, and Arroyo to be part of that, great. If not, well, maximize their value to the organization.

westofyou
01-03-2007, 01:56 PM
Which is exactly what the Reds have done so far. Although the term 'mediocre' would seem to be generous for many of those that were signed.

Johnny's post is right on the money. (pun intended) :)

Rem

Short term cost over long term stupidity, I know where I bet my money in that scenario.

remdog
01-03-2007, 03:17 PM
Short term cost over long term stupidity, I know where I bet my money in that scenario.

How about short-term smarts coupled with long-term smarts. My pair beats your pair. ;)

Rem

Johnny Footstool
01-03-2007, 03:29 PM
Johnny, just because the way the team is structure now means our window is 2007-08, doesn't mean that the window is really big enough for us to take advantage of. Yes, we stand to lose a number of players after 2008, implying that we better win now while we have those players. However, that fact doesn't mean we're actually ABLE to build a playoff team around the current core. It's sad, but I think it's true. The only way to win with this core was to spend about $25-30MM in 2007 salaries alone on a legitimate #3 starter and middle of the line up bat -- let's call them Ted Lilly and Carlos Lee. Those kinds of deal tie us in to those players, at that price, for the next 4+ years. How many guys did you see in FA that you wanted to tie your cart to for the next 4+ years? Otherwise, we just don't have the talent to win 90+ games with this core. I think it has been accepted that we don't have the resources to up our payroll to the $90-95MM range it would take to do that. Outside of that, it would require emptying our minor league system via trades to acquire that kind of talent. We obviously didn't (and likely won't) do the first option and I don't think the second one is very smart approach for a mid-market team to achieve sustainable success.

It is possible to win now and build a winning franchise at the same time. The A's & Twins are there. But you have grow the level of talent in the organization to a point much higher than it is now. You get there by developing the talent that will comprise that next core and by trading your current "core" for guys to supplement that process. You think Twins fans were happy that they traded away their starting catcher for 3 prospects? My family lived in MN -- I can tell you fans were upset. Think they like having Nathan, Liriano, and Bonser now? Ask A's fans if they were happy that they traded away Mulder & Hudson.

Thus, we need to say, what we can we do to create a new window for 08-09 and beyond which not only is sufficient to compete in that time frame but is sustainable. Given that, you see all the points I've made in the Arroyo thread. I think we need to re-establish a window that jives with long term sustainability and then work towards that goal. If we can sign Dunn, Harang, and Arroyo to be part of that, great. If not, well, maximize their value to the organization.

I disagree. Looking around the NL, I think the Reds are a #3 starter, a power bullpen arm, and maybe a RH bat away from competing for the wild card. I think Ted Lilly, Octavio Dotel (the Royals signed him to a 1-year deal -- how's that for long term stupidity, woy?), and Craig Wilson would have been ideal fits and wouldn't have cost much more than the Reds spent on junk this off-season.

But that ship has sailed.

As for building a cheap winner, remember that Oakland and Minnesota both spent about 5 years wallowing in last place while they developed their current system. OTOH, The Reds are trying to walk a fine line between competing and rebuilding. Personally, I don't think that can be done effectively. I think when you get close (like the Reds are), you pull out the stops and use cash to fill holes, or you sell off your talent for a king's ransome and rebuild.

Johnny Footstool
01-03-2007, 03:32 PM
Short term cost over long term stupidity, I know where I bet my money in that scenario.

Short term cost for little or no return. You're playing penny slots.

membengal
01-03-2007, 03:55 PM
I disagree. Looking around the NL, I think the Reds are a #3 starter, a power bullpen arm, and maybe a RH bat away from competing for the wild card. I think Ted Lilly, Octavio Dotel (the Royals signed him to a 1-year deal -- how's that for long term stupidity, woy?), and Craig Wilson would have been ideal fits and wouldn't have cost much more than the Reds spent on junk this off-season.

But that ship has sailed.

As for building a cheap winner, remember that Oakland and Minnesota both spent about 5 years wallowing in last place while they developed their current system. OTOH, The Reds are trying to walk a fine line between competing and rebuilding. Personally, I don't think that can be done effectively. I think when you get close (like the Reds are), you pull out the stops and use cash to fill holes, or you sell off your talent for a king's ransome and rebuild.

Exactly. If they had done one or the other, at least we would have some idea of the direction, and something to get excited (or hopeful) for. Something to hang the rooting hat on for 2007. What we have instead is a rather mushy middle course that at present seems to augur, at best, at BEST, a run at .500. In fact, I wouldn't mind the short term pain of a Marlins stlye makeover, if dealing what assets the Reds do have would bring in the kind of talent Florida was able to. Then again, the Reds at present don't have pieces close in their own system to match what Florida did.

westofyou
01-03-2007, 04:02 PM
I think Ted Lilly, Octavio Dotel (the Royals signed him to a 1-year deal -- how's that for long term stupidity, woy?), and Craig Wilson would have been ideal fits and wouldn't have cost much more than the Reds spent on junk this off-season.

Lily and Dotel together will make 14-16.5 million themselves this year, not to mention that Lily has 3 years aside from just "this year" and Dotel has thrown 25 innings the past 2 seasons combined. I'd love to see a power arm, but 5 million for a 32 year old off 2 years of hardly any work.

No thanks.


Ted Lilly p
4 years/$40M (2007-10)

* signed as a free agent 12/06
* $4M signing bonus (paid 1/07)
* 07:$5M, 08:$7M, 09:$12M, 10:$12M

Octavio Dotel p
1 year/$5M (2007), plus $2.5M in incentives

Johnny Footstool
01-03-2007, 04:53 PM
Lily and Dotel together will make 14-16.5 million themselves this year

So?

I think they represent a vast improvement at their respective positions, possibly enough to push the Reds into the playoff race. If they do, then it's money well spent. If they don't, well, Dotel becomes a FA after this season and Lilly's contract stops looking bad as the years tick by and the market continues to blossom. Maybe the Reds pay some of the cash and move him to a contender as part of a deadline deal.

I'd much rather take chances on those two than deal with the ugly alternatives Krivsky spent cash on.


not to mention that Lily has 3 years aside from just "this year" and Dotel has thrown 25 innings the past 2 seasons combined. I'd love to see a power arm, but 5 million for a 32 year old off 2 years of hardly any work

No thanks..

So you're not willing to take a chance on Dotel or three years of Lilly. Fair enough.

Personally, I'd love to see the Reds risk a replaceable commodity (cash) for a chance at a playoff run.

Johnny Footstool
01-03-2007, 05:00 PM
BTW - the Red Sox are rumored to be close to signing Joel Piniero to a 1 year/ $4 million deal as a closer. Krivsky remains patient and continues to leave messages with Jeff Reardon's agent.

Ltlabner
01-03-2007, 05:00 PM
Personally, I'd love to see the Reds risk a replaceable commodity (cash) for a chance at a playoff run.

Is the influx of cash from the new cable deal a one time windfall or will it be an ongoing income stream?

westofyou
01-03-2007, 05:05 PM
BTW - the Red Sox are rumored to be close to signing Joel Piniero to a 1 year/ $4 million deal as a closer. Krivsky remains patient and continues to leave messages with Jeff Reardon's agent.

Willy Wonka had a chocolate river, we all wish we could have a chocolate river too.

BRM
01-03-2007, 05:08 PM
BTW - the Red Sox are rumored to be close to signing Joel Piniero to a 1 year/ $4 million deal as a closer. Krivsky remains patient and continues to leave messages with Jeff Reardon's agent.

:laugh:

I shouldn't laugh but I just can't help it. Nice one JF.

Redsland
01-03-2007, 05:09 PM
I too am frustrated by the fact that the Reds have been rebuilding for 5 years now.
Me too. Especially since I'd say the Reds have actually been rebuilding for 12 years.

westofyou
01-03-2007, 05:13 PM
BTW - the Red Sox are rumored to be close to signing Joel Piniero to a 1 year/ $4 million deal as a closer. Krivsky remains patient and continues to leave messages with Jeff Reardon's agent.

BTW The Reds already have a project like Joel, his acquisition was a Krivskey tether ball as well.


YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA
2000 XXXXXXXX 21 1 0 1.000 8 1 0 0 5 19.1 25 13 12 13 10 5.59 -2
2001 XXXXXXXX 22 6 2 .750 17 11 0 0 1 75.1 50 24 17 21 56 2.03 18
2002 XXXXXXXX 23 14 7 .667 37 28 2 0 4 194.1 189 75 70 54 136 3.24 19
2003 XXXXXXXX 24 16 11 .593 32 32 3 0 0 211.2 192 94 89 76 151 3.78 15
2004 XXXXXXXX 25 6 11 .353 21 21 1 0 0 140.2 144 77 73 43 111 4.67 -7
2005 XXXXXXXX 26 7 11 .389 30 30 2 0 0 189 224 118 118 56 107 5.62 -28
2006 XXXXXXXX 27 8 13 .381 40 25 1 1 6 165.2 209 123 117 64 87 6.36 -38
TOTALS 58 55 .513 185 148 9 1 16 996 1033 524 496 327 658 4.48 -23
LG AVERAGE 56 56 .502 6 4 996 1032 542 499 354 695 4.51 0

YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL
2000 XXXXXXXX 3 11.64 17.69 4.66 6.05 0.77 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 1
2001 XXXXXXXX 2 5.97 8.84 6.69 2.51 2.67 0 2 0 3 289 0 6 2
2002 XXXXXXXX 24 8.75 11.58 6.30 2.50 2.52 1 8 1 7 812 0 13 8
2003 XXXXXXXX 19 8.16 11.65 6.42 3.23 1.99 2 5 3 6 890 0 15 12
2004 XXXXXXXX 21 9.21 12.22 7.10 2.75 2.58 0 4 1 4 596 0 8 9
2005 XXXXXXXX 23 10.67 13.62 5.10 2.67 1.91 0 7 4 6 822 1 7 11
2006 XXXXXXXX 23 11.35 15.37 4.73 3.48 1.36 0 4 13 10 753 1 7 14
TOTALS 115 9.33 12.61 5.95 2.95 2.01 3 30 22 36 4256 2 56 57
LG AVERAGE 123 9.33 12.91 6.28 3.20 1.96 2 36 25 42 4313 4




YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA
2001 XXXXX 22 4 7 .364 19 16 0 0 2 90.1 102 60 57 29 64 5.68 -12
2002 XXXXX 23 13 8 .619 32 31 1 0 0 180.2 181 92 85 70 124 4.23 3
2003 XXXXX 24 14 11 .560 33 33 2 0 0 201 211 107 103 45 130 4.61 0
2004 XXXXX 25 9 13 .409 35 34 1 0 1 194 240 128 115 76 111 5.34 -13
2005 XXXXX 26 9 13 .409 31 30 0 0 1 178.2 211 85 83 44 86 4.18 4
2006 XXXXX 27 2 5 .286 22 8 0 0 5 63.2 80 50 50 25 46 7.07 -18
XXXXX 27 3 5 .375 12 11 0 0 1 63 70 33 32 19 51 4.57 2
TOTALS 5 10 .333 34 19 0 0 6 126.2 150 83 82 44 97 5.83 -16
TOTALS 54 62 .466 184 163 4 0 10 971.1 1095 555 525 308 612 4.86 -34
LG AVERAGE 54 54 .500 7 3 971.1 1004 528 486 347 681 4.50 0

YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL
2001 XXXXX 16 10.16 13.85 6.38 2.89 2.21 0 5 0 8 402 0 4 7
2002 XXXXX 26 9.02 12.95 6.18 3.49 1.77 1 8 2 9 783 0 11 10
2003 XXXXX 28 9.45 11.69 5.82 2.01 2.89 1 10 1 5 850 1 13 12
2004 XXXXX 28 11.13 14.98 5.15 3.53 1.46 1 6 5 7 883 0 10 12
2005 XXXXX 22 10.63 13.30 4.33 2.22 1.95 0 4 5 9 769 1 12 10
2006 XXXXX 8 11.31 15.69 6.50 3.53 1.84 0 1 2 6 295 1 2 5
XXXXX 7 10.00 12.71 7.29 2.71 2.68 0 2 2 0 272 0 4 4
TOTALS 15 10.66 14.21 6.89 3.13 2.20 0 3 4 6 567 1 6 9
TOTALS 135 10.15 13.41 5.67 2.85 1.99 3 36 17 44 4254 3 56 60
LG AVERAGE 120 9.30 12.90 6.31 3.21 1.96 2 35 25 42 4207 4

registerthis
01-03-2007, 05:14 PM
What that means to me--not actively seeking a #2 level starter--is that the Reds are punting 2007, for some misty, imaginary hope that something will jell in 09 or 10. Yippee.

Which could be said of practically every season going back to the mid 90s. When is the last time this team actually "went for it"? When is the last time this team entered a season NOT talking about the culmination of some multi-year planning effort at some point in the next few years? It seems like the Reds have spent the better part of the last decade chasing the elusive carrot, and the results haven't amounted to more than a hill of beans.

westofyou
01-03-2007, 05:22 PM
When is the last time this team actually "went for it"?

Teams that have a loaded cannon in the minors can come out every year and go for it, that or revenue.

When was the last time either of those aspects were hand and hand in Cincinnati?

RedsManRick
01-03-2007, 05:36 PM
I take it that's Kyle Lohse?

Johnny Footstool
01-03-2007, 05:37 PM
Willy Wonka had a chocolate river, we all wish we could have a chocolate river too.

And some of us are happy to feast on that year's supply of Kraft Mac and Cheese Krivsky just spent a bundle on.


Teams that have a loaded cannon in the minors can come out every year and go for it, that or revenue.

When was the last time either of those aspects were hand and hand in Cincinnati?

The question is, when is the next time either of those things will happen?

The Reds are closer to contention now than they have been in recent memory, and that window is closing fast. The fact that they aren't going all-out now bodes very poorly for the future.

RedsManRick
01-03-2007, 05:37 PM
Me too. Especially since I'd say the Reds have actually been rebuilding for 12 years.

I guess I wasn't counting '99 as a rebuilding year. Perhaps the more accurate statement, in the Free Agent ERA, the Reds have never built a team capable of sustained success. Marge had one going in the late 80's but it sort of fell apart with Davis' departure/injuries and Rijo's injuries. She maintained the success by spending dough and decimated the scouting department. Now that we can't keep up with the Joneses, we only win through a combination youthful contributions and veteran sucecss.

'99 team had: Graves, Williamson, Casey, Larkin, Vaughn, Cameron, Harnisch, Tomko, Parris. Good mix of old and young.

Falls City Beer
01-03-2007, 05:43 PM
As for the trading of Bailey for Jennings, I guess I'm not the kind who gets excited over my franchise winning 84 games instead of 78. While you don't want to be in constant state of rebuilding, you also can't be in constant state of "going for it", sacrificing the future to win today. Sure, if you have the core and you think a Jason Jennings for Homer Bailey deal (or series of deals) takes you from 87 wins to 95 wins, by all means, go for it. But I'm of the opinion that this team isn't 5 or 6 wins from a playoff berth -- expecting an 83 game winner division champ isn't a way to build a roster. Sacrificing talent for the future simply to take the 2007 squad from 74-76 wins (where I think they currently project) to 80-82 wins doesn't seem like a good choice to me. To take this team to a legitimate playoff contender, you'd need to move so much young talent as to cripple an already shallow system. If 2007 does work out, then what? Back to square one and a new GM who promises a winner. Except now, you have even less patience than you did the last go-round.

Make your run when the time is right, but now is not that time. I wish it was and it's certainly overdue as promised by previous GMs. But you have to deal reality and to me, reality suggests we're not a Jason Jennings away -- not at the cost of maxing out and killing all flexibility in the payroll or our top prospect(s).

84 wins last season gets you a division crown. And here's the thing about acquiring Jennings--not only would the Reds get the benefit of his logging a big ole bunch of quality innings, but they'd prevent Houston from benefitting from those same innings.

Zero sum game and all that jazz.

westofyou
01-03-2007, 05:53 PM
I guess I wasn't counting '99 as a rebuilding year.

It was a "gamble" year. I have the Enquirer season insert from Opening Day right here on my desk, was reading it earlier.

Article Titles:

Vaughn and Neagle. Just passing through?

Bitter Labor war looms on horizon for baseball,

Cornerstones already in big leagues (about Reds who will usher in GAB) Boone/Reese/Casey/Cameron/Young

Burden of Proof (about how the Infield was unproven)

Armed but Dangerous - On Reds starters being volatile, but good.


And some of us are happy to feast on that year's supply of Kraft Mac and Cheese Krivsky just spent a bundle on.

Huge bundle eh? Probably handcuffs the team for the next decade I bet.

Falls City Beer
01-03-2007, 05:56 PM
Teams that have a loaded cannon in the minors can come out every year and go for it, that or revenue.

When was the last time either of those aspects were hand and hand in Cincinnati?

Last year's draft ain't gonna speed that plow down on the farm much.

westofyou
01-03-2007, 06:02 PM
Last year's draft ain't gonna speed that plow down on the farm much.

Weak year all around, but you knew that too.

Johnny Footstool
01-03-2007, 06:14 PM
Huge bundle eh? Probably handcuffs the team for the next decade I bet.

So you're fine with the Reds spending $23 million spread out over the next 2-3 seasons and not getting any better? Baffling.

True, Krivsky won't be handcuffed by Weathers' and Stanton's salaries in two years' time (unless he picks up Stanton's option). And think of all the cash the Reds will save when Dunn, Arroyo, and Harang leave for free agency that same year! That will allow a freewheeling, unfettered Krivsky to throw money at an entirely different group of stinkpile relievers and no-upside 38 year olds. Yay, oatmeal.

westofyou
01-03-2007, 06:21 PM
So you're fine with the Reds spending $23 million spread out over the next 2-3 seasons and not getting any better? Baffling.

They won't get any better?

15 million of that is for a defensive shortstop, something I have no problem with that at all. If 23 million bucks spread over 4 players kills the Reds then they best find another business to play Monopoly in.

I see 10 million spent this year since the off season, if you reserve the right to not worry about giving a short lefty starter who walks 4 guys a game and has never topped 200 IP over 31 million bucks the next three years (like the Cubs are giving Lilly) then I guess I'll reserve the right not to worry about 23 million bucks for middle relief and a shortstop who might bring his glove to the game everyday.

Ltlabner
01-03-2007, 06:29 PM
15 million of that is for a defensive shortstop, something I have no problem with that at all. If 23 million bucks spread over 4 players kills the Reds then they best find another business to play Monopoly in.

One thing that suprises me is that people crapped all over Wayne for bringing in Royce as a "defensive" shortstop (and rightfully so, Royce sucked). "Does he even know what real defense is?" was the question being repeated over and over.

But then he turns around and brings in a recognized and "real deal" defenseive short stop in Gonzo.....and people crap all over that. And Wayne signed him to a very reasonable and manageable contract so he'll be around more than 1 year without being an anchor.

Some of his other moves have left me wanting this off season, but how securing a real defensive SS for a very reasonable contract (in light of todays crazy FA market) is not an "improvement" is beyond me.

Cyclone792
01-03-2007, 06:35 PM
Cornerstones already in big leagues (about Reds who will usher in GAB) Boone/Reese/Casey/Cameron/Young

What's sad about that list is the only cornerstone who actually proved to be a cornerstone was the one guy who was traded after the 1999 season, Mike Cameron. Aaron Boone held on to be similarly productive each season through 2003, but he was dealt midseason and hasn't been the same since his offseason basketball injury.

Sean Casey forgot how to hit for power, Pokey Reese never did learn how to take a walk, and Dmitri Young was traded for Juan "Mr. Swing at Everything" Encarnacion after the 2001 season.

Life wasn't all that bad during the 1999-2000 seasons. The bullpen was outstanding - fans don't realize how valuable a Scott Sullivan type reliever is until he's gone - and those cornerstones listed above were all already in the big leagues, or in Cameron's case, shipped out for a future Hall of Famer.

And then how quickly it all went downhill.

RedsManRick
01-03-2007, 07:25 PM
84 wins last season gets you a division crown. And here's the thing about acquiring Jennings--not only would the Reds get the benefit of his logging a big ole bunch of quality innings, but they'd prevent Houston from benefitting from those same innings.

Zero sum game and all that jazz.

Wanna bet on how many times in the next 20 years 84 wins puts you in the playoffs? I'll put the over under at 0.5 of the 160 play teams in that time frame.

Good to know that you'd trade the best pitching prospect in baseball for 1 year of a guy that makes virtually no difference in your chance of making the playoffs.

I'm not worried about stopping the Astros from getting Jennings. They could've traded that package for Freddy Garcia instead. Zero sum game and all that jazz.

remdog
01-03-2007, 08:02 PM
....15 million of that is for a defensive shortstop.....

I see 10 million spent this year since the off season...

Following is the list of spending on '07 contracts, courtesy of 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"


Plus, the $3M sent to KC brings the money spent to about $27M spent for '07.

Sorry WOY, but I don't follow your numbers there. Not taking a shot at you just trying to follow what you're trying to say.

Rem

pedro
01-03-2007, 08:19 PM
Following is the list of spending on '07 contracts, courtesy of 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"


Plus, the $3M sent to KC brings the money spent to about $27M spent for '07.

Sorry WOY, but I don't follow your numbers there. Not taking a shot at you just trying to follow what you're trying to say.

Rem

I believe he was talking about players added to the roster.

Falls City Beer
01-03-2007, 08:35 PM
Wanna bet on how many times in the next 20 years 84 wins puts you in the playoffs? I'll put the over under at 0.5 of the 160 play teams in that time frame.

Good to know that you'd trade the best pitching prospect in baseball for 1 year of a guy that makes virtually no difference in your chance of making the playoffs.

I'm not worried about stopping the Astros from getting Jennings. They could've traded that package for Freddy Garcia instead. Zero sum game and all that jazz.

Freddy Garcia is in his death throes as a pitcher. Jennings is a far superior pitcher at this point in their careers.

And seriously, which team in this division, the NL Central, is going to win more than 90 games?

I don't see a single team, barring an exceptional trade being made between now and the start of the season.

The division is there for the taking, and having three stable, innings-eaters in our rotation would go a heck of a long way in putting the team in the thick of this division.

Bailey might help in 2010, so that's something....

remdog
01-03-2007, 08:35 PM
OK. If that's the case, thanks.

Rem

Falls City Beer
01-03-2007, 08:37 PM
Weak year all around, but you knew that too.

Keep repeating that mantra, and sure enough, the draft class of 2006 will produce All-Star players.

Happens all the bloody time.

Can't wait to read the excuses when Wayne picks this year's Stubbs over this year's Lincecum.

westofyou
01-03-2007, 09:04 PM
Keep repeating that mantra, and sure enough, the draft class of 2006 will produce All-Star players.

Happens all the bloody time.

Can't wait to read the excuses when Wayne picks this year's Stubbs over this year's Lincecum.

You realize you're complaining about a draft class from 6 months ago don't you?

You don't know what's going to happen with the class or the Reds draft, so why pretend you do?

westofyou
01-03-2007, 09:05 PM
Following is the list of spending on '07 contracts, courtesy of 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"


Plus, the $3M sent to KC brings the money spent to about $27M spent for '07.

Sorry WOY, but I don't follow your numbers there. Not taking a shot at you just trying to follow what you're trying to say.

Rem

Since seasons end. Only on next years ledger.


Alex L. Gonzalez ss
* 07:$3.5M,

David Weathers
# 07:$2.25M,

Jeff Conine of-1b
* 07: $2M

Mike Stanton p
* 07:$2M

Chad Moeller c
* 07:$375K

Bubba Crosby of
* 07:$350K

Falls City Beer
01-03-2007, 09:11 PM
You don't know what's going to happen with the class or the Reds draft, so why pretend you do?

You were the one calling the draft class "weak," Kreskin.

Falls City Beer
01-03-2007, 09:15 PM
Short term cost for little or no return. You're playing penny slots.


They're playing penny slots with the only remaining meal money they have.

Falls City Beer
01-03-2007, 09:17 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again FCB, it's not fair to judge the level of inactivity of WK and BobC based on the "history" of Reds management. Sure, it's been the same team/organization to us for decades. But WK and Castellini have had less than a year to build their organization. I too am frustrated by the fact that the Reds have been rebuilding for 5 years now.

But we can't use Bowden/Lindner's failure to build a consistent, sustainable winning organization as our justification for wanting the current management to act more quickly. Yes, they should be sensitive to the fan base and this year's batch of signings don't exactly inspire. However, I think the "average" fan was excited by the signing of Eric Milton, the biggest FA acquisition since Greg Vaughn, and that didn't exactly help us win.

The 2007 Reds aren't any better for the moves of the last few months. However, we're not so loaded with bad contracts that we're unable to improve when the opportunity arises. I know it doesn't inspire that warm fuzzy feeling now, particularly in light of the Dan O'Brien Sit-On-Your-Hands-And-Pray-For-Prospects method, but sometimes slow playing your hand is the way to go.

I'll be the first to jump on WK when I feel like he's making bad decisions. I'm sure you've already seen my diatribe on why now is the time to trade Arroyo. I still think we would be a better team with Phillips at SS and having traded Freel for Marcus Giles to play 2B. However, I'm not going to fault WK for not signing Gil Meche (5/55), Ted Lilly (4/40), Juan Pierre (5/44), Adam Eaton (3/24.5), Shea Hillenbrand (1/6.5), or Jeff Suppan (4/42). The simple fact is that there weren't players out in FA who significantly inproved the 2007 product WITHOUT significantly hindering the ability to build the product beyond 2007.

Do you want him to give Jason Schmidt 15MM or Barry Zito 18MM only to watch Harang walk because we can't extend him? Maybe we should've pursued JD Drew at the expense of Adam Dunn in 2008. I agree there are ways he could play this market differently, but if you want to make the argument that his activity over the last 3 months indicate the lack of a plan, I'll have to disagree. I say the jury is still out and I'm not going to hang WK for the Crimes of O'Brien & Bowden.


If this offseason hasn't been a Dan O'Brien Special, then I didn't witness the 2004-2005 seasons. They were a total mirage, apparently.

RedsManRick
01-03-2007, 09:45 PM
Freddie Garcia, 31, sucked to the tune of a 4.53 ERA and 1.276 WHIP in a hitter's park in the AL - the worst season of his career.

Jason Jennings, 28, dominated with a career best 3.78 and 1.37 WHIP in a hitter's park in the NL - the best season of his career.

I guess most pitchers tank after they turn 30.

Homer Bailey dominated AA last year. He could be ready to be a full time major league starter by the 2nd half of 2007. He might be ready to be a full time major league starter by the 2nd of 2008. He should be ready to be a full time major league starter by the start of 2009.

I don't know which team will be the 90 game winner, but I'd happily bet you $100 that some non-Reds team from the NL Central will win 88 games or more in 2007.

- I currently project the Reds to about 720 RS and 760 RA -- which comes out to about 77 wins in the standard pythag.
- Let's say the Reds acquire Jason Jennings and he throws 200 IP at a 3.50 ERA, replacing the 200 IP at a 6.00 ERA we'd get from scrubs. That's a difference of 56 runs.
- So, 720 RS, 704 RA - about 83 wins.
- Absolute best case scenario, Jennings buys us 6 wins over where we are now. I think that's a stretch, but I'll go with it.

If you think we're currently a .500 team, trading for Jennings to make a run makes sense. If everything went right for him (GABP played tougher than Coors BTW), we're looking at a team winning 86-88 games and competing for a playoff race. I hope we make it. Because if Jennings does that, he's gonna cost a metric crapload in FA in 2008. Bye bye Mr. Jennings.

If I go for it - I go for it. I don't let 86-88 wins be our best case scenario and hope nobody else is better than that. I certainly don't do that for a 1 year guy at the expense of a guy who could contribute for 6+ years at an equal or higher level, for less money, as early as late this year.

RedsManRick
01-03-2007, 09:46 PM
If this offseason hasn't been a Dan O'Brien Special, then I didn't witness the 2004-2005 seasons. They were a total mirage, apparently.

You know what. It hasn't been a Dan O'Brien special. We have signed this year's Eric Milton yet. Thank God -- and thank you FCB for making my point.

westofyou
01-03-2007, 10:06 PM
You were the one calling the draft class "weak," Kreskin.
I was the one who probably read the pre-draft reports that telegraphed that fact quite clearly too Edgar.

Falls City Beer
01-03-2007, 10:24 PM
You know what. It hasn't been a Dan O'Brien special. We have signed this year's Eric Milton yet. Thank God -- and thank you FCB for making my point.

Sorry, should have been more clear--DanO circa 2004 offseason (Jon VanderWal, et al).

Though Wayne did bid against himself for the services of one Alex Gonzalez, like DanO with Milton.

Johnny Footstool
01-04-2007, 12:25 AM
They won't get any better?

15 million of that is for a defensive shortstop, something I have no problem with that at all. If 23 million bucks spread over 4 players kills the Reds then they best find another business to play Monopoly in.

I see 10 million spent this year since the off season, if you reserve the right to not worry about giving a short lefty starter who walks 4 guys a game and has never topped 200 IP over 31 million bucks the next three years (like the Cubs are giving Lilly) then I guess I'll reserve the right not to worry about 23 million bucks for middle relief and a shortstop who might bring his glove to the game everyday.

Lord knows he won't bring his bat.

You do realize Gonzalez is a plus defender, but not an elite defender, right? And his bat is a severe liability. And he's going to be 32 and not quite so spry in the final year of his contract.

Hey, I liked the Gonzo signing back when I thought it was the precursor to Krivsky filling all the holes on the roster. As it turns out, that was his biggest move of the offseason, and he didn't fill any other holes. As a showcase transaction, the Gonzo signing is pretty lame.

GAC
01-04-2007, 08:09 AM
And GAC, I don't lump Ted Lilly in with Jeff Suppan and Jason Marquis.

Maybe not, but other then his ERA, his career stats are very Miltonesque. Now put him at GABP. ;)

4 yrs @ 10 mil/yr.... no thanks.


I think Lilly will excel in the NL and will have a positive impact for the Cubs.

That may very well be the one advantage going for him - the fact he has primarily been an AL pitcher.

Johnny Footstool
01-04-2007, 09:38 AM
Maybe not, but other then his ERA, his career stats are very Miltonesque. Now put him at GABP. ;)

Lilly's career K/9 is well over 7 (almost 8 last season) and he's a *slight* flyball pitcher (GB/FB ratio close to 0.9 in the last 4 seasons).

Milton's career K/9 is 6.4 (under 6 the last 2 seasons) and he's a more extreme flyball pitcher (a consistent 0.6 ratio).

They're not all that similar.

Redsland
01-04-2007, 10:23 AM
Since seasons end. Only on next years ledger.


Alex L. Gonzalez ss
* 07:$3.5M,

David Weathers
# 07:$2.25M,

Jeff Conine of-1b
* 07: $2M

Mike Stanton p
* 07:$2M

Chad Moeller c
* 07:$375K

Bubba Crosby of
* 07:$350K

Please excuse the typo that preceeds my list. The names and contract amounts I provided are not for '08, as indicated. They are for '07.

Those contracts are either on the books for next year, or will be (in the case of Loshe). The only wildcards are the Rule V guys (Hamilton, Burton). They may or may not be here. If they are, they'll get something close to the minimum, which is now $380,000. (Note that your list above has several salaries listed below this amount.)

Together those guys will make just under $24 million ($23.875MM, assuming everyone sticks for the year). And all of those contracts were either signed or extended since the trade deadline.

westofyou
01-04-2007, 10:30 AM
You do realize Gonzalez is a plus defender, but not an elite defender, right? And his bat is a severe liability. And he's going to be 32 and not quite so spry in the final year of his contract.

Yes, I do. I also realize that the Reds have had some of the worst IF defense in my lifetime the last couple of years and no amount of love I have for hitting in a hitting era is going to fix that. The game has a million different variables, not everyone of them runs out of the end of a bat.

vaticanplum
01-04-2007, 06:54 PM
Re: the original point. As others have noted, Wayne K does not appear to be one seduceable by big names. I actually think he could afford to be a bit more seduced, actually (I'm afraid that he discounts any name just because it's a name), but for the most part I'm fine with that. None of his moves have been for big names -- Arroyo was the biggest -- and there have been some spectacular failures but there have also been some great successes as well, and some negligible ones too given the money or prospects changing hands. I get the impression that his philosophy is somewhat based on a willingness to take chances as long as the chances aren't too expensive. I suspect he'd rather be Billy Beane than Brian Cashman. He's NOT Billy Beane, but I mean this in terms of philosphy.

So it doesn't seem likely that Krivsky is ever going to be the type to go after big names. The original quesion dealt with whether this hurt the fanbase. My take on that? It's kind of painful to say, but I think anyone who worries about that is seriously overestimating the current Cincinnati market. There are freaks like us who will pay attention no matter what, and there are people who are bored to tears by baseball and will never care no matter what. The vast majority of the Reds' potential fanbase is in the middle of that. Fair-weather, if you will, and I don't mean that negatively.

The weather around Cincinnati baseball has been horrendous for about six years now. Junior is still popular not just because of who he is/was, but because he's literally the only current Red that many Cincinnatians even recognize. Some people are concerned that Alex Gonzalez is not a recognizable name. I'm telling you people, for an awful lot of Cincinnatians, Lilly, Jennings, Suppan, Meche, Freddy Garcia -- in some cases, even Zito -- are not recognizable names. I'm not sure that this organization COULD build up its fanbase via flashy names. Again, Arroyo was the biggest name the Reds have gotten since -- God, Griffey? And the majority of fans in that middle bracket freaked out because of the loss of Wily Mo.

This is a fanbase that has not seen winning baseball in a long time. It's also a fanbase that, in my opinion, was more affected by the strike than many other cities, less forgiving of it even eleven years on. this is a very conservative city, and baseball players moving completely out of the working class did not sit well with the fans. Names alone will not bring them back; even marketing can only go so far. the absolute only way to appease the fanbase is by building a winning team (which is how it should be -- I'm not one who's charmed by cubs fans). And I do believe that this is what Krivsky is trying to do, build a better team without concern for names. How good he is at that is another debate, but I respect the tack he's taken in that regard.

Ltlabner
01-04-2007, 06:55 PM
One area where BCast and Krivsky may be boosting "payroll" (that is, investments in off-field tallent and infrastructure) that woln't show dividends for some time, would be pumping more money into the front office staff, training facilities, scounting department, etc.

BCast could be quietly investing the "cable contract money" into rebuilding the infrastructure of the team that has been in dissrepair since the Reagan Admistration. Which would help the team more in the long run, investing $15 in a FA who might garner an extra 3 or 4 wins a season for a 75 win team (if all goes well), or plowing some of that money into less sexy and less known areas of the support structure of the team?

I could see using up a large sum of money hiring scouts, advance scouts, player development, trainers, FO staff, etc. Throw in refurbishing training areas, spring training facilities, investment in
scouting reports/information systems, new technologies such as computerized gizmos to do various diagnostic works, etc. Add to that pay raises for the staff that have shown some level of excellence.

You may not spend $15,000,000 doing all of that, but you could use up a big chunk of it. Try to make do and scratch out some wins now while investing in the infrastructure that will produces lots of wins down the road.

I have no idea if they are doing all that. If they are, it'd be pretty politically savy to hear about it from BCast. Imagine if he came out and said they were going to try to do what they could now but were investing scads and scads of money into all these different areas to improve for the future. Frankly, I think that would create some serrious buzz about the franchise. Probably more so than signing a player that most casual fans don't even recognize.

RedsManRick
01-04-2007, 07:02 PM
Good post VP. I would add that the best way to give fans big names to cheer for is to make their names big in Cincy. I'm sure there are fans in Cincy who know Sean Casey and Aaron Boone but are clueless about Barry Zito and Bobby Abreu. We could sign Zito and they'd still not care. However, Arroyo is on his way because of what he's done here.

GAC
01-04-2007, 08:37 PM
Milton's career K/9 is 6.4 (under 6 the last 2 seasons) and he's a more extreme flyball pitcher (a consistent 0.6 ratio).

They're not all that similar.

Where were the last two seasons pitched at? Did pitching at GABP contribute to that decline?

Prior to coming to the NL in 2004, Milton had a career ERA of 4.46 over 6 seasons. After three years in the NL.... 5.47.

So I am not so sure that Lilly will have that much success in the NL. Possible? Yes. But one heck of a 40 Million dollar gamble IMHO.

Milton and Lilly's career numbers....


#P/PA #P/IP #P/GS K/9 K/BB AVG OBP SLG OPS WIN %

Milton 3.82 16.4 96.7 6.42 2.49 .265 .317 .464 .779 .521

Lilly 3.77 16.4 92.7 7.68 2.09 .250 .326 .431 .755 .504

pedro
01-04-2007, 09:14 PM
Where were the last two seasons pitched at? Did pitching at GABP contribute to that decline?

Prior to coming to the NL in 2004, Milton had a career ERA of 4.46 over 6 seasons. After three years in the NL.... 5.47.

So I am not so sure that Lilly will have that much success in the NL. Possible? Yes. But one heck of a 40 Million dollar gamble IMHO.

Milton and Lilly's career numbers....


#P/PA #P/IP #P/GS K/9 K/BB AVG OBP SLG OPS WIN %

Milton 3.82 16.4 96.7 6.42 2.49 .265 .317 .464 .779 .521

Lilly 3.77 16.4 92.7 7.68 2.09 .250 .326 .431 .755 .504


GAC, do those numbers for Milton include the last two seasons?

If so, Lilly is even worse than I thought.

GAC
01-04-2007, 09:22 PM
GAC, do those numbers for Milton include the last two seasons?

If so, Lilly is even worse than I thought.

Yes. Those are current career numbers for both pedro.

Johnny Footstool
01-05-2007, 10:56 AM
GAC, do those numbers for Milton include the last two seasons?

If so, Lilly is even worse than I thought.



Milton
SEASON TEAM W% K/9 K/BB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2004 Phi .700 7.21 2.15 .255 .321 .493 .810
2005 Cin .348 5.94 2.37 .302 .349 .543 .890
2006 Cin .500 5.31 2.14 .269 .320 .477 .794

Lilly
SEASON TEAM W% K/9 K/BB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2004 Tor .545 7.66 1.89 .230 .316 .394 .709
2005 Tor .476 6.84 1.66 .272 .348 .467 .813
2006 Tor .536 7.93 1.98 .254 .333 .431 .762

Lilly puts up significantly better numbers than Milton while pitching his entire career in the AL. Yet the comparison makes you think Lilly is *bad*? I don't get it.

GAC
01-05-2007, 11:42 AM
Milton
SEASON TEAM W% K/9 K/BB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2004 Phi .700 7.21 2.15 .255 .321 .493 .810
2005 Cin .348 5.94 2.37 .302 .349 .543 .890
2006 Cin .500 5.31 2.14 .269 .320 .477 .794

Lilly
SEASON TEAM W% K/9 K/BB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2004 Tor .545 7.66 1.89 .230 .316 .394 .709
2005 Tor .476 6.84 1.66 .272 .348 .467 .813
2006 Tor .536 7.93 1.98 .254 .333 .431 .762 Lilly puts up significantly better numbers than Milton while pitching his entire career in the AL. Yet the comparison makes you think Lilly is *bad*? I don't get it.

I simply posted their career numbers, not just a selected section of years. And from what you're posting above, there sure are alot of similarities in their respective 2006 performance.

And how do respective park factors play into it? I'm not one who delves in much detail in park factors. Both are considered hitters parks. I guess Milton could be considered a league average pitcher, or somewhere around there, prior to coming to Cincy.

His 2 years pitching at GABP have either not been kind to him OR simply exposed him. That is what I am wearing of with a Lilly. He gets exposed possibly?


Runs HR H 2B 3B BB

Toronto 1.067 1.272 1.031 1.016 2.000 0.954 7th in MLB
Cincinnati 1.153 1.275 1.026 0.929 0.400 1.065 1st in MLB

I'm just not overly impressed with Lilly. Upgrade over Milton? Ok - I'll give you that. But not at 4 yrs/40 Mil.

A majority shook their heads 2 years ago with Milton at 3 yrs/25 Mil (and we overpaid because the market wasn't any better then than it is now IMO); but now a Lilly contract is palatable?

RANDY IN INDY
01-05-2007, 11:43 AM
but now a Lilly contract is palatable?

Good question, my friend.

pedro
01-05-2007, 12:03 PM
Milton
SEASON TEAM W% K/9 K/BB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2004 Phi .700 7.21 2.15 .255 .321 .493 .810
2005 Cin .348 5.94 2.37 .302 .349 .543 .890
2006 Cin .500 5.31 2.14 .269 .320 .477 .794

Lilly
SEASON TEAM W% K/9 K/BB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2004 Tor .545 7.66 1.89 .230 .316 .394 .709
2005 Tor .476 6.84 1.66 .272 .348 .467 .813
2006 Tor .536 7.93 1.98 .254 .333 .431 .762

Lilly puts up significantly better numbers than Milton while pitching his entire career in the AL. Yet the comparison makes you think Lilly is *bad*? I don't get it.



Lilly's carreer numbers are "significantly better" than Milton's? Except for K's they're virtually the same. What that tells me is that before Milton came to Cincinnati, he looked an awful lot like Ted Lilly. Even looking at just Lilly's last 3 years they aren't worthy of the contract he got.

Ltlabner
01-05-2007, 12:13 PM
So the Reds somehow lure Lilly to Cincinnati. Then what? I doubt any causual fan even knows who Ted Lilly is, let alone would get excited about it.

Unless they bring in a grade A super-star the average baseball fan isn't going to get excited about the Reds. And maybe it is "small thinking" but I just can't fathom how spending a bazzillion dollars over 5+ years for one superstar player would really make the difference between 75-80 wins and 90 + wins and wouldn't burden the entire orginization. Something about all your eggs in one basket?

And when the team starts losing despite the superstar because the complementary pieces are missing then what? The fans new found intrest in the Reds will quickly evaporate.

It's going to take winning and building a franchise which takes time and is decidley less sexy than bringing a mid 90's Cleamons or a ARod type to GABP.

pedro
01-05-2007, 12:28 PM
Further, Ted Lilly has averaged 5 2/3 innings per start over his career.

Next.

Johnny Footstool
01-05-2007, 01:10 PM
Lilly's carreer numbers are "significantly better" than Milton's? Except for K's they're virtually the same. What that tells me is that before Milton came to Cincinnati, he looked an awful lot like Ted Lilly. Even looking at just Lilly's last 3 years they aren't worthy of the contract he got.

Virtually the same?

You don't think 1.3 Ks per 9 is a significant difference?

You don't think .130 OPS Allowed is a significant difference?

Oh, and before you go blaming GAB and that bandbox in Philly for Eric Milton's woes, please keep in mind he has averaged *worse* numbers on the road than in his home park over the past three seasons.


I simply posted their career numbers, not just a selected section of years. And from what you're posting above, there sure are alot of similarities in their respective 2006 performance.

That "selected section of years" is the last three seasons. It's more representative of the pitcher's current abilities than their career numbers -- you're not going to get the Ted Lilly OR Eric Milton of 2002 anymore.


A majority shook their heads 2 years ago with Milton at 3 yrs/25 Mil (and we overpaid because the market wasn't any better then than it is now IMO); but now a Lilly contract is palatable?

Paying Eric Milton $25 million in 2004 wasn't going to make the Reds significantly better.

Bringing in Ted Lilly now would mean complementing the 1-2 punch of Harang/Arroyo with a third quality starter. You'd be paying to turn a decent rotation into one that could make a playoff run. To me, that's what would make his contract more palatable than Milton's.

Of course, that's not going to happen, so I'm just jousting windmills here, but those are my reasons for hoping the Reds could have signed Ted Lilly.

pedro
01-05-2007, 02:02 PM
Virtually the same?

You don't think 1.3 Ks per 9 is a significant difference?

You don't think .130 OPS Allowed is a significant difference?

Oh, and before you go blaming GAB and that bandbox in Philly for Eric Milton's woes, please keep in mind he has averaged *worse* numbers on the road than in his home park over the past three seasons.



I'm talking about their career numbers, not the last three years. Other than 2004, which wasn't a good year for Milton, their numbers are eerily similar. Ted Lilly's 2005 SUCKED, last year he was OK.

What this tells me is that prior to the blood bath of the last 2 years, they've had pretty similar careers. Similar enough that it's very hard to justify paying Lilly 15 million more than Milton, which was a bad contract when it was signed too.

Lilly just isn't good enough to justify that kind of money and the next 4 years are going to prove it imo.

pedro
01-05-2007, 02:09 PM
This just isn't worth 40 million dollars, anyway you spin it.


SEASON TEAM G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO W L SV HLD BLSV ERA
1999 Mon 9 3 0 0 23.2 30 20 20 7 9 28 0 1 0 0 -- 7.61
2000 NYY 7 0 0 0 8.0 8 6 5 1 5 11 0 0 0 0 -- 5.63
2001 NYY 26 21 0 0 120.2 126 81 72 20 51 112 5 6 0 0 -- 5.37
2002 NYY 16 11 2 1 76.2 57 31 29 10 24 59 3 6 0 0 -- 3.40
2002 Oak 6 5 0 0 23.1 23 12 12 5 7 18 2 1 0 0 -- 4.63
2002 -- 22 16 2 1 100.0 80 43 41 15 31 77 5 7 0 0 -- 3.69
2003 Oak 32 31 0 0 178.1 179 92 86 24 58 147 12 10 0 0 -- 4.34
2004 Tor 32 32 2 1 197.1 171 92 89 26 89 168 12 10 0 0 -- 4.06
2005 Tor 25 25 0 0 126.1 135 79 78 23 58 96 10 11 0 0 -- 5.56
2006 Tor 32 32 0 0 181.2 179 98 87 28 81 160 15 13 0 0 -- 4.31
Total -- 185 160 4 2 936.0 908 511 478 144 382 799 59 58 0 0 -- 4.60

Johnny Footstool
01-05-2007, 03:02 PM
I'm talking about their career numbers, not the last three years. Other than 2004, which wasn't a good year for Milton, their numbers are eerily similar. Ted Lilly's 2005 SUCKED, last year he was OK.

As I explained in the previous post, you're not getting Lilly's or Milton's early career numbers. The pitcher you're getting is a lot closer to the last three years, in which Lilly has been significantly better than Milton.


What this tells me is that prior to the blood bath of the last 2 years, they've had pretty similar careers.

Similar in that A) they both pitch left-handed, and B) neither one has ever been in my kitchen. Beyond that, the "similarities" just aren't that similar.


Similar enough that it's very hard to justify paying Lilly 15 million more than Milton, which was a bad contract when it was signed too.

I explained why I would have paid Lilly that money in my previous post.


Lilly just isn't good enough to justify that kind of money and the next 4 years are going to prove it imo.

I guess we'll see.

pedro
01-05-2007, 04:07 PM
As I explained in the previous post, you're not getting Lilly's or Milton's early career numbers. The pitcher you're getting is a lot closer to the last three years, in which Lilly has been significantly better than Milton.



Similar in that A) they both pitch left-handed, and B) neither one has ever been in my kitchen. Beyond that, the "similarities" just aren't that similar.



I explained why I would have paid Lilly that money in my previous post.



I guess we'll see.

If you actually think Lilly's last 3 years warrant a 40 million contract then I can't help you.

Johnny Footstool
01-05-2007, 04:34 PM
If you actually think Lilly's last 3 years warrant a 40 million contract then I can't help you.

I didn't ask for you help.

I would have liked the Reds to invest $40 million into solidifying the rotation, and I think Ted Lilly would have done it quickly, effectively, and without costing the team any talent.

180 innings of 4.00 ERA would go a long way towards earning a playoff spot. I think Lilly would have provided at least that. *That's* what's worth $40 million to me.

RedsManRick
01-05-2007, 05:40 PM
I didn't ask for you help.

I would have liked the Reds to invest $40 million into solidifying the rotation, and I think Ted Lilly would have done it quickly, effectively, and without costing the team any talent.

180 innings of 4.00 ERA would go a long way towards earning a playoff spot. I think Lilly would have provided at least that. *That's* what's worth $40 million to me.

That $40 million only doesn't cost us talent if it's money we wouldn't have spent otherwise. If it's $40 million or nothing, sure, the investment is worth it. But what if giving Lilly $40 million this year means not giving Harang $40 million next year? You can't really look at free agent signings in a bubble where the choice is spend money or don't spend money. Spending money carries with it an opportunity cost.

Johnny Footstool
01-05-2007, 05:56 PM
That $40 million only doesn't cost us talent if it's money we wouldn't have spent otherwise. If it's $40 million or nothing, sure, the investment is worth it. But what if giving Lilly $40 million this year means not giving Harang $40 million next year? You can't really look at free agent signings in a bubble where the choice is spend money or don't spend money. Spending money carries with it an opportunity cost.

So does not spending money.

You can play the "What If" game a number of ways. What if Harang refuses to sign with the Reds because he wants to pitch for a big-market team? What if the market continues it's current trends to the point where $10 million a year for Ted Lilly seems cheap? Those things represent missed opportunity.

You have to pick your time to spend. I look at the current Reds roster and see a team with some core talent that will only be together for a short time (2 years). I also see a cash influx that could be put to immediate use to improve the team during that short timeframe.

I think the Reds had a golden opportunity to contend for a playoff spot by signing Lilly and solidifying the rotation. I think they missed that opportunity.

Falls City Beer
01-05-2007, 05:56 PM
That $40 million only doesn't cost us talent if it's money we wouldn't have spent otherwise. If it's $40 million or nothing, sure, the investment is worth it. But what if giving Lilly $40 million this year means not giving Harang $40 million next year? You can't really look at free agent signings in a bubble where the choice is spend money or don't spend money. Spending money carries with it an opportunity cost.

I'm a big believer that at some point, in some way, and to some degree, the Reds are going to have to pay well for the pitching that wins them a division. Not an entire rotation of expensive pitchers, but at least two spots filled with expensive arms, be they Harang and Jennings, Harang and Zito, Harang and Lily (though I have no desire to pick him up). At some juncture the Reds are going to have to pay to*preserve* a window in the rotation--which will mean paying not only for Harang, but paying for someone else. Otherwise, the Reds are going to have to wait for a miracle that will never, ever arrive: all or even most of the rotation slots filled dirt-cheaply from within the minor league system. I think you know that that will never happen in the Reds' system--that there will be some miraculous confluence of arms like Zito, Hudson, Mulder ripening all at once to hold open the contention window for the Reds for 5 years or more.

pedro
01-05-2007, 05:58 PM
I didn't ask for you help.

I would have liked the Reds to invest $40 million into solidifying the rotation, and I think Ted Lilly would have done it quickly, effectively, and without costing the team any talent.

180 innings of 4.00 ERA would go a long way towards earning a playoff spot. I think Lilly would have provided at least that. *That's* what's worth $40 million to me.

Let me rephrase. Then there is nothing else to talk about.

RedsManRick
01-05-2007, 06:26 PM
I'm a big believer that at some point, in some way, and to some degree, the Reds are going to have to pay well for the pitching that wins them a division. Not an entire rotation of expensive pitchers, but at least two spots filled with expensive arms, be they Harang and Jennings, Harang and Zito, Harang and Lily (though I have no desire to pick him up). At some juncture the Reds are going to have to pay to*preserve* a window in the rotation--which will mean paying not only for Harang, but paying for someone else. Otherwise, the Reds are going to have to wait for a miracle that will never, ever arrive: all or even most of the rotation slots filled dirt-cheaply from within the minor league system. I think you know that that will never happen in the Reds' system--that there will be some miraculous confluence of arms like Zito, Hudson, Mulder ripening all at once to hold open the contention window for the Reds for 5 years or more.

I agree FCB. A winning rotation won't come entirely on the cheap. I just don't think that that guy was out there this off-season and I don't think the addition of Ted Lilly or Jason Jennings puts us in the playoff hunt in 2007, as I've shown before. The addition of a real #3 starter simply makes us a .500 team. Now, Ted Lilly and the 2007 version of Carlos Lee? That would probably get us real close, but you can't get the 2007 Carlos Lee without the 2011 Carlos Lee and I don't give 4 years and 40 Million to a pitcher who, at 31, has never pitched 200 innings.

If I could get Ted Lilly at 1 year and 10-12 million, or even 2 years and 25 million I'd advocate that move in a heartbeat. Unfortunately that wasn't an option. The "spend 30 million in 2007 salaries to compete in 2007" ship has already sailed.

GAC
01-06-2007, 05:36 AM
I just don't see how a Lilly would solidy this rotation.

You're taking a pitcher who was slightly above .500 for a team, that was far superior to the Reds from an offensive perspective, and who got run support, and then putting him in GABP for half his games.

I think he would struggle with the Reds to be a .500 pitcher.

2006 numbers with ML ranking in parentheses.....



TB RUNS OB% BA RBIs

Reds 2385(16) 749(22) .336(16) .257(28) 718(20)
BJs 2590(3) 809(12) .348(5) .284(3) 778(10)



I agree FCB. A winning rotation won't come entirely on the cheap. I just don't think that that guy was out there this off-season and I don't think the addition of Ted Lilly or Jason Jennings puts us in the playoff hunt in 2007, as I've shown before.

I thoroughly agree. Take the money we do have and lock up a guy like Harang NOW. Don't let him go through arbitration when you know what you have. And looking at this market, and what pitchers are getting signed and for what. I'd be having serious talks with Arroyo too, before it is too late.

Spend, but spend wisely.

I think you brought it up earlier, and it was a good point - you sign a Lilly at 4 yrs/40 Mil, and you just set a standard (sent a message to superior pitchers such as Harang and Arroyo) of what they can demand. And you may not have the money to retain them.

Money talks. Get Aaron signed, and then, towards the end of the '07 season, get serious with Arroyo. But if he is serious about wanting to go back to Boston, and I really don't know how reliable those rumors are, then get something solid in return.

And why not look at Bailey as a late '07 call-up if he continues to show the improvement/maturity?

And I may be wrong, but I think that is the difference in thinking between two groups of people on here. And that is some are saying (basically) "We need to take our shot NOW, in '07, while we still have guys like Harang, Arroyo, and Dunn, because they are going to be gone."

It's a type of Florida Marlins approach...buy...take that shot...sell off because you won't be able to afford/retain them...rebuild

Versus those that want a more consistent, stable, long term plan (system) implemented (aka the A's and Twins).

Chip R
01-07-2007, 03:09 PM
I have been posting infrequently of late, and apologize if this has been covered in the last few months, if it has, please take the weedwhacker to it mods. Basically, this is a tangent on all of the threads on the off-season moves to date.

To sum up, the Reds are now owners, for better or worse, of Alex Gonzalez, Jeff Conine, Chad Moeller and a host of aged relievers. Whether or not those moves do anything to help the club down the road we can all perhaps agree to disagree on, but it seems pretty evident that they have had zero impact on the club's profile in terms of fan excitment for 2007. Other than the natural hope that will accompany the coming of spring training, given how they struggled down the stretch in 2006, there isn't a whole lot to get fired up about in terms of the team. I live in Memphis now, transplanted from Cincy for a decade now, and am not the best measuring stick for game to game attendance decisions, but am at least not at this moment budgeting for my annual sojourn to Cincy for a weekend set of games. That loss of eight game tickets won't exactly ruin the club financially, I would suspect, but I wonder how many around Cincy who go more frequently feel the same way. There just isn't a lot to get the blood boiling about the team right now as they retool the minors and set off on whatever plan it is that WK is putting into effect.

To the extent I am accurately summing up the ennui that surrounds the fanbase of the team right now (and I think ennui may be arguably a correct term), does that matter to Castellini? If it doesn't, should it? If it does, will we be more likely to see Homer Bailey rushed to Cincy out of Sarasota if he has a good spring, just to give people something to get excited about?

Frankly, the current juncture of the franchise is a huge concern at the moment. Sitting out the insane free agent market is defensible, and, perhaps, really, the right move. I was one of the ones who tried in vain to hope good stuff out of Eric Milton, and freely admit that his signing was awful for the team. Getting nothing is better than taking on another Milton-bad contract and the performance that has gone with that contract given the prices that decent players have commanded in this market. But what we are left with as a fanbase, then, is more of the same. A same that has worn thin over the years. None of that is Castellini's fault, of course, but it is his inherited problem.

It's going to be a tough sell this year, when the most interesting thing to happen to this team in the off-season involves Jeff Brantley and Thom Brennamen.


I'm not really sure what Castellini has to do with all this unless Wayne is telling him we have to sign a Ted Lilly to a deal like the Cubs gave him and Bob is telling him that he's too expensive. Wayne makes the deals, not Bob.

redsfanmia
01-07-2007, 03:52 PM
I'm not really sure what Castellini has to do with all this unless Wayne is telling him we have to sign a Ted Lilly to a deal like the Cubs gave him and Bob is telling him that he's too expensive. Wayne makes the deals, not Bob.

Who sets the budget?

Chip R
01-07-2007, 04:18 PM
Who sets the budget?


Bob does, of course. But Bob has said time and again that Wayne runs the baseball side of operations. Most of this thread has criticized or praised what the Reds have done so far. And these actions have been Wayne's doing, not Bob's. Even if Bob raised the budget to $80-100M and we still didn't get Zito and we still didn't get Lilly and we still didn't get Schmidt, that's still not Bob's problem.

membengal's original post said that because of the action take and/or lack of action taken, that Bob isn't doing his part to get the right players here so the Reds win and attendance will increase. And that also intimates that if Bob had opened up the checkbook and signed someone, anyone, attendance would have risen.

History tells us otherwise. Time and again it has been proven that Reds fans will not come out in droves to see them uness they are conviced that they are for real. And it may take until the next year to see that. No matter who they sign, they are going to take the attitude of "show me" until there is a winning team out there.

If Wayne wants to spend big on a player, he can. He doesn't have to pay Lohse $6M a year or whatever he will command. He might be able to trade Eric Milton for an A baller and that's another $9M freed up. He certainly doesn't have to pay Gonzo $5M a year to play SS when he could put Phillips there or Olmedo there at a fraction of the price. He didn't have to re-sign Cormier, Castro, or Weathers. He didn't have to sign Stanton or trade for Conine.

Bob sets the budget. How Wayne lives within that budget is up to him.