PDA

View Full Version : Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"



Red Leader
01-05-2007, 03:23 PM
I must admit. I had one foot off the wagon.

When Wayne Krivsky was hired last year, I was excited. I thought he was a good choice, the best choice of those that they were considering actually. Then came the WMP trade that landed Bronson Arroyo. The Brandon Phillips trade that I was so glad was made. Tony Womack set free early on, another move I was happy about. The momentum was picking up. We stayed in contention. Then, "the trade" happened. Austin Kearns, gone. Felipe Lopez, gone. Ryan Wagner, gone. I thought to myself...what is he doing? What does he know that I don't? How is this going to work? It didn't. We lost Guardado, our closer for a brief time. Welcome Rheal Cormier, Scott Schoeneweis, Ryan Franklin, et al. What is he doing now? We started losing games and falling out of contention. "Well, that didn't work out," was my thinking. "Everybody who takes risks runs the risk of making a bad decision," I thought to myself still drinking the lemonade. The season ended. We finished 80-82, 3.5 games out of 1st place. The offseason comes. I'm excited to see Wayne Krivsky shape the Reds in his mold. "What's he going to do." Alex Gonzalez, signed to be the SS (Ok....). David Weathers resigned (ok, understandable...). Mike Stanton signed (uh, ok....). Jason LaRue traded (good job, a little salary relief, no more 3rd catcher). Chad Moeller signed (so much for that no more 3rd catcher thing and why?). Josh Hamilton traded for in the Rule V (good choice). We still need a RH bat to platoon with Hatteberg. Big hopes. Then, Jeff Conine. My mojo hit the floor. What? Jeff Conine?. All hope was drained. There would be no "big move" this offseason. The "big move" I had hoped for. The F.A. pitcher, the trade for an above average arm to stick in our rotation. I had one foot off of the wagon.

Then, today, reading through the posts here on Redszone, I had a thought. What if Wayne Krivsky's plan is in motion, but we're just not looking through the clouds to see it? Hey, wait, there is some hope. The Hatteberg / Conine tandem at 1B is only signed though 2007. Joey Votto should be ready to take over full time in 2008, and he has no one blocking him. Brandon Phillips had a pretty darned good year last year. He's still young, and he's got 2B to himself. Alex Gonzalez is a pretty darn good defensive player. Your SS should be a leader by example on the field. He's signed there for 3 years. There's no one in the minors that could challenge him for at least 1/2 of that contract. Edwin Encarnacion had a pretty good 1st year last year. There's no one blocking him either, not really anyone behind him forcing him to move either. Adam Dunn wasn't traded. He's still here. We're going to need him this year for sure. Griffey in CF worries me, but he's still here as well, and if they move him to RF, things start to look better. Ryan Freel and Chris Denorfia in RF (maybe switching to CF). Not bad. A David Ross / Javier Valentin platoon behind the plate isn't the worst thing ever (although I still can't defend the Moeller signing, it is pretty temporary, and there's nothing stopping us from DFA'ing him). As for the pitching. Harang and Arroyo are great. I don't like Milton, Lohse, or any candidates for the 5th spot, except Homer Bailey. Milton and Lohse are likely gone after this year, and Homer will be ready to step in as the #3 in 2008. The bullpen is a little better, if not older. Many of those names will likely change over the next couple years as well. We've got some talent in the minors to replace them.

The thing that jumped out to me, though, is that we let several F.A.'s go this year. Aurilia, Schoeneweis, Clayton, Franklin, and Jason Johnson to name some. I'm fairly convinced that DanO would have tried to retain some of those players, Krivsky let them walk. As a result, we picked up some draft picks as compensation. Maybe Krivsky had the foresight to let those guys walk knowing that it would be a waste of money to retain them. Maybe he knew that they wouldn't be able to pull a big name in free agency. Maybe his "plan" is to actually acquire talent in the upcoming amateur draft to continue to restock the farm system. Maybe we'll actually draft players in those slots that should have been drafted earlier, but weren't because of signability concerns. Maybe that's where Wayne Krivsky is deciding to spend his money? If it is, I think that's a smart move. We have a lot of high picks in the upcoming draft. If we'd be able to use each of those picks to choose 1st round type talent, our farm system could instantly become one of the better systems in baseball. We have Bailey and Bruce as nearly "sure things" not far away. We have Votto, who should be an above average regular in the near future. We have some bullpen arms and talent at the lower levels. If Krivsky spends the money on the draft and improves the minor league system, rather that frivilously spending money on F.A's to improve the major league team for "next year," we could be in pretty good shape in the near future. Krivsky also has the opportunity to move several of the "older" or "average" players we have on our current roster. Weathers, Cormier, Lohse, Milton, Valentin, Conine, Hatteberg, Freel, Denorfia, Stanton, all those guys will have a market most likely come trade deadline 2007. That could help replenish the farm system as well.

So, my "hope" for the Reds is back. I'm back on board the Wayne-wagon. I'll give Wayne a pass until the draft to see who he picks. After that, I'll wait to see what he does at the deadline. If we end up taking a real good player with our first pick and then take 4-5th round talent with our next 2 picks early on, I'll know I was misled. If we're out of it and he sells some of our marketable players for a bag of balls, I'll know I've been duped. And then, I'll jump off the wagon and go post on jmmclain's "firejerrynarron.com" and "firewaynekrivsky.com" sites.

RedsManRick
01-05-2007, 03:41 PM
Good post Red Leader. If I can summarize your take on WK's plan:

(not in any order of importance)
1.) Don't block prospects with inferior major leaguers signed long term.
2.) Keep the team as competitive as possible in the short term with low risk veterans filling out the roster.
3.) Continue to improve the overall talent level of the minor league system.

To me, that still leaves a number of questions:
- Is there a next phase which includes significant FA signings?
- At what point do we transition to that phase?
- Does Jr. slide over to RF?
- Where are Arroyo, Harang, and Dunn in 2009?
- Will the payroll expand as the talent level at the major league level expands?

I get the feeling that WK can keep us above 70 wins while he restocks the minor leagues. My concern is that he may not be bold enough to convert that prospect core in to a 90+ game winner. His ability to supplement the existing roster with the correct pieces still concerns me.

Falls City Beer
01-05-2007, 03:47 PM
Good post Red Leader. If I can summarize your take on WK's plan:

(not in any order of importance)
1.) Don't block prospects with inferior major leaguers signed long term.
2.) Keep the team as competitive as possible in the short term with low risk veterans filling out the roster.
3.) Continue to improve the overall talent level of the minor league system.

To me, that still leaves a number of questions:
- Is there a next phase which includes significant FA signings?
- At what point do we transition to that phase?
- Does Jr. slide over to RF?
- Where are Arroyo, Harang, and Dunn in 2009?
- Will the payroll expand as the talent level at the major league level expands?

I get the feeling that WK can keep us above 70 wins while he restocks the minor leagues. My concern is that he may not be bold enough to convert that prospect core in to a 90+ game winner. His ability to supplement the existing roster with the correct pieces still concerns me.

Another question: does he plan on getting far more aggressive in acquiring high-end minor league talent? How?

David Cubbedge
01-05-2007, 03:56 PM
To me, that still leaves a number of questions:
- Is there a next phase which includes significant FA signings?
- At what point do we transition to that phase?
- Does Jr. slide over to RF?
- Where are Arroyo, Harang, and Dunn in 2009?
- Will the payroll expand as the talent level at the major league level expands?

- Nope, seriously why should we have an ounce of faith in this phase ever coming to fruition? We were misled this offseason and it will continue.
- Never will happen
- Nope, we all know Narron will not move him.
- Arroyo is a BoSock, Harang gets a 3-year extension, Dunn is a FA and signs with Houston. Bruce fills in at RF and Freel moves over to LF.
- This is the biggest question of all. Will Castelinni go with the current flow or will he sell out?

edabbs44
01-05-2007, 04:03 PM
I had this same thought process a little while back.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53039

Red Leader
01-05-2007, 04:08 PM
To me, that still leaves a number of questions:
- Is there a next phase which includes significant FA signings?
- At what point do we transition to that phase?
- Does Jr. slide over to RF?
- Where are Arroyo, Harang, and Dunn in 2009?
- Will the payroll expand as the talent level at the major league level expands?

I get the feeling that WK can keep us above 70 wins while he restocks the minor leagues. My concern is that he may not be bold enough to convert that prospect core in to a 90+ game winner. His ability to supplement the existing roster with the correct pieces still concerns me.

I don't know the answer to those questions. We're going to have to wait to find out. I would hope that Griffey moving to RF would be the first answer we see. As far as the significant F.A. signings, not sure that will ever happen, and I think Krivsky know that, to some extent. That's probably why he decided to go this route--there is no "quick fix." As far as Arroyo, Harang, and Dunn, I think that depends on the continued developement of our current prospects. If Bailey takes the 5th spot in this year's rotation and performs well, maybe we'll see Harang or Arroyo traded for a core of good prospects which would further bolster the farm system. If Bruce continues to tear up the minor leagues, maybe we'll see a trade of Adam Dunn for a good package of players. Personally, if it was me, I'd look to sign Harang long term and then trade Arroyo and Dunn down the road. Trading those two could bring us a good haul of talent. Krivsky identifying good prospects to get in return scares me somewhat, though. He's got to win me over on a "larger scale" trade before I'll truly believe he can do it. Last year's "Exhibit A" was a nightmare.

DannyB
01-05-2007, 04:40 PM
I fell thru the floorboard of the Wayne Wagon when Juan came back

dfs
01-05-2007, 04:51 PM
- Does Jr. slide over to RF?
That's going to tell me everything I need to know. If Junior is taking a goodly share of his spring training innings in center....


I fell thru the floorboard of the Wayne Wagon when Juan came back
I can squint crosseyed at his moves and say..."well, Ok, it's not what I would have done, but it's a direction" till I get to the Conine move. That's just wacked. Giving warm bodies up for waiver bait is moving backwords.

Puffy
01-05-2007, 04:52 PM
I've never been on the Wayne bandwagon - was one of the few who didn't want him hired to begin with. And he's done nothing to make me change my mind. Arroyo and phillips notwithstanding.

If his plan is as you say and if it works I will eat my crow with some hot sauce, but i've said from the beginning the Twins model only works if you have a Johan Santana at the front end (before that they won because they were in a putrid division and were never a threat in the playoffs - just a tuneup for whoever was lucky enough to face them in round one) and a joe nathan at the back end.

MartyFan
01-05-2007, 05:12 PM
I'm still drinking the KoolAide...I like SPECIAL K but I do question some of the moves, THE TRADE not being one of them.

M2
01-05-2007, 05:18 PM
I'd like to think Wayne's goal is to put together a younger, more dynamic team. Yet to do that the Reds need a lot more young talent than what they've got on hand. If the Reds had spent this offseason bringing in young players rather than geezers, I'd be able to buy into the notion that a sensible rebuild is underway.

Unfortunately, I don't see the new twentysomethings who'd justify that sort of outlook.

jmac
01-05-2007, 06:31 PM
but i've said from the beginning the Twins model only works if you have a Johan Santana at the front end (before that they won because they were in a putrid division and were never a threat in the playoffs - just a tuneup for whoever was lucky enough to face them in round one) and a joe nathan at the back end.
When people talk of the Twins and A's style of ball....as you said , they have had the pitching. Just think of some of the guys the A's have run out there over the last few years.....hudson..zito..mulder...lilly..harden..ha ran..blanton etc.
Maybe not all #1's yet each one gave you a legitimate chance to win.The reds definitely arent there this year but who knows about the wood's and cueto's of the world.
The bullpen situation is the one that really bothers me about this current team. Last season we needed a closer so bad we went out and got one but now we are relying on a guy who we didnt have enough confidence in "last year" as a closer. So it appears the problem is still there.
Maybe WK is banking on a youngster or two excelling in ST.

One more point on the pitching aspect:
I think the reds would be dangerous in a short series with Harang and BA.
It's getting enough wins from the 3-5 that will tell the tale.

Ltlabner
01-05-2007, 06:51 PM
I'd like to think Wayne's goal is to put together a younger, more dynamic team. Yet to do that the Reds need a lot more young talent than what they've got on hand. If the Reds had spent this offseason bringing in young players rather than geezers, I'd be able to buy into the notion that a sensible rebuild is underway.

Unfortunately, I don't see the new twentysomethings who'd justify that sort of outlook.

I think Reds Leader makes an interesting point that by collecting FA's like mad gives us two things. Short term use on the playing field (the quality of that play can be debated) along with draft picks for the long term.

It's the middle ground between burn it down and spend aditional $80,000,000 on payroll.

How much we can get in trade for the Mike Stanton's of the team is debatable. We could probably get a prospect for him assuming he's not injured. The quality of that prospect is also debatable.

geniusMoment
01-05-2007, 06:54 PM
I have a mole in the Reds office, here was a plan on Wayne's white board last summer:

Step 1. Collect Underpants
Step 2. ????????
Step 3. World Series.......and then total world domination

Will M
01-05-2007, 07:00 PM
His plan is to:

improve the defense

improve the pitching

try to pick up value on the cheap ( ie Phillips, Ross, Gill, Lohse )

don't trade the stud prospects

fill in the holes on the current roster with vets signed to short contracts

I am ok with this plan. I don't agree with all the moves ( castro? ) but I bet even the best GM in history can't find someone who agrees with every move he makes.

wheels
01-05-2007, 07:05 PM
I'd like to see a couple of the geezers have Type A free agent seasons so Wayne can let 'em walk for more draft picks.

That's something WaynO seems to understand, and it's a useful long term tactic.

WaynO's not all bad, but his flaws are frustrating, maddening ones.

jojo
01-05-2007, 07:09 PM
I say this without any value judgement whatsoever about what they're doing....

It may seem like a grand plan obscured by the clouds but after the sun burns off the fog, it'll mostly resemble making do without raising payroll.....

Basically, this isn't going to be a quick fix. It's most likely going to be stop gaps and rabbit's feet until the farm system develops into a pipeline. Or perhaps a better characterization is a long series of many small moves that hopefully collectively payoff until the cavalry comes. Developing prospects is a high risk endeavor, however, so the cavalry may never come via that route...

To me the plan isn't that profound-payroll is going to be X, 30% of it is wasted on turds (Griffey/Larue/Milton) so they'll do what they can to lessen the dead weight (jettison Larue's final year of a bad contract) without committing any of X to blocking cheaper alternatives they are trying to develop---basically its ride out the storm and hope for the best....


Alright now for a value judgement: Having a FO that at least shows signs of looking at the long haul (and thus has a plan) is a good thing even if their decision making hasn't bore the test of time yet.... '07 might be brutal but I don't think there is sufficient reason to jump off the bandwagon.

jmac
01-05-2007, 07:18 PM
How much we can get in trade for the Mike Stanton's of the team is debatable. We could probably get a prospect for him assuming he's not injured. The quality of that prospect is also debatable.

Many times the quality of the prospect is not all that impressive.
People say we can trade a "weathers/stanton/randa/conine/" etc. for prospects.
The result being the " chick's,machado's" etc of the world.
Personally i would hope for some quality pitching from stanton because i doubt our return on those type of guys including loshe, cormier, and conine would be much other than maybe help for louisville.
Now i am not speaking of our other guys like a Freel or someone like that who may bring you a Harang type as guillen did a few years ago.
I just dont think the older men will get you anything to speak of !

Falls City Beer
01-05-2007, 07:35 PM
I say this without any value judgement whatsoever about what they're doing....

It may seem like a grand plan obscured by the clouds but after the sun burns off the fog, it'll mostly resemble making do without raising payroll.....

Basically, this isn't going to be a quick fix. It's most likely going to be stop gaps and rabbit's feet until the farm system develops into a pipeline. Or perhaps a better characterization is a long series of many small moves that hopefully collectively payoff until the cavalry comes. Developing prospects is a high risk endeavor, however, so the cavalry may never come via that route...

To me the plan isn't that profound-payroll is going to be X, 30% of it is wasted on turds (Griffey/Larue/Milton) so they'll do what they can to lessen the dead weight (jettison Larue's final year of a bad contract) without committing any of X to blocking cheaper alternatives they are trying to develop---basically its ride out the storm and hope for the best....


Alright now for a value judgement: Having a FO that at least shows signs of looking at the long haul (and thus has a plan) is a good thing even if their decision making hasn't bore the test of time yet.... '07 might be brutal but I don't think there is sufficient reason to jump off the bandwagon.


You might be on to something if they were acting on the things they have near total control over: moving Griffey out of center, dumping Milton (paying half his salary), locking Harang up to a decent contract. Unfortunately, I agree with the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph: "basically it's ride out the storm and hope for the best," which, of course, is no plan at all. Seriously, that's just throwing your hands up and hoping for the best. And if there is one truism in baseball, it's that no matter how good you think your prospects are, only a minute percentage will actually contribute--most of the heavy lifting of building a team is done through trades.

RedsManRick
01-05-2007, 07:59 PM
You might be on to something if they were acting on the things they have near total control over: moving Griffey out of center, dumping Milton (paying half his salary), locking Harang up to a decent contract. Unfortunately, I agree with the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph: "basically it's ride out the storm and hope for the best," which, of course, is no plan at all. Seriously, that's just throwing your hands up and hoping for the best. And if there is one truism in baseball, it's that no matter how good you think your prospects are, only a minute percentage will actually contribute--most of the heavy lifting of building a team is done through trades.

Position: Player - How Acquired (proven = established level of performance, prospect = unproven youth)

Oakland A's

C: Kendall - Trade (proven)
1B: Johnson - Drafted by A's
2B: Ellis - Trade (prospect)
SS: Crosby - Drafted by A's
3B: Chavez - Drafted by A's
LF: Swisher - Drafted by A's
CF: Kotsay - Trade (proven)
RF: Bradley - Trade (proven)
DH: Piazza - FA signee
SP: Harden - Drafted by A's
SP: Blanton - Drafted by A's
SP: Loaiza - FA signee
SP: Haren - Trade (prospect)
SP: Kennedy - Trade (proven)
CL: Street - Drafted by A's


Minnesota Twins:

C: Mauer - Drafted by Twins
1B: Morneau - Drafted by Twins
2B: Castillo - Trade (proven)
SS: Bartlett - Trade (prospect)
3B: Punto - Trade (prospect)
LF: Kubel - Drafted by Twins
CF: Hunter - Drafted by Twins
RF: Cuddyer - Drafted by Twins
DH: White - FA signee
SP: Santana - Rule V
SP: Bonser - Trade (prospect)
SP: Silva - Trade (prospect)
SP: Garza - Drafted by Twins
SP: Baker - Drafted by Twins
(SP: Liriano - Trade (prospect))
CL: Nathan - Trade (prospect)

So here are two teams we most often like to use as representatives for this model. A few observations:

- The "heavy lifting" in both clubs is done a by a combination of prospects drafted and developed by the team and players who were traded for before they established themselves as legitimate major leaguers.
- Veteran players on both teams are the guys who round out the roster -- not the "core"
- In order to acquire the prospects who turned in to core guys, those teams had to part with proven veteran talent which still had value at the time of the trade (Mulder, Pierzynski)
- Harang could be our Brad Radke, but we still need a Liriano/Harden and we can't afford to buy that guy
- Adam Dunn can be our Eric Chavez, or Torii Hunter (good talent paid well for his services), but we still need Mauer, Morneau, and Swisher.

Falls City Beer
01-05-2007, 08:04 PM
Position: Player - How Acquired (proven = established level of performance, prospect = unproven youth)

Oakland A's

C: Kendall - Trade (proven)
1B: Johnson - Drafted by A's
2B: Ellis - Trade (prospect)
SS: Crosby - Drafted by A's
3B: Chavez - Drafted by A's
LF: Swisher - Drafted by A's
CF: Kotsay - Trade (proven)
RF: Bradley - Trade (proven)
DH: Piazza - FA signee
SP: Harden - Drafted by A's
SP: Blanton - Drafted by A's
SP: Loaiza - FA signee
SP: Haren - Trade (prospect)
SP: Kennedy - Trade (proven)
CL: Street - Drafted by A's


Minnesota Twins:

C: Mauer - Drafted by Twins
1B: Morneau - Drafted by Twins
2B: Castillo - Trade (proven)
SS: Bartlett - Trade (prospect)
3B: Punto - Trade (prospect)
LF: Kubel - Drafted by Twins
CF: Hunter - Drafted by Twins
RF: Cuddyer - Drafted by Twins
DH: White - FA signee
SP: Santana - Rule V
SP: Bonser - Trade (prospect)
SP: Silva - Trade (prospect)
SP: Garza - Drafted by Twins
SP: Baker - Drafted by Twins
(SP: Liriano - Trade (prospect))
CL: Nathan - Trade (prospect)

So here are two teams we most often like to use as representatives for this model. A few observations:

- The "heavy lifting" in both clubs is done a by a combination of prospects drafted and developed by the team and players who were traded for before they established themselves as legitimate major leaguers.
- Veteran players on both teams are the guys who round out the roster -- not the "core"
- In order to acquire the prospects who turned in to core guys, those teams had to part with proven veteran talent which still had value at the time of the trade (Mulder, Pierzynski)
- Harang could be our Brad Radke, but we still need a Liriano/Harden and we can't afford to buy that guy


We're in agreement. In no way do I think that this team shouldn't trade for young unproven talent. My only objection is to counting on the farm itself to provide the core consistently. It simply can't. There has to be heavy rotation to find the right mix; activity on the trade front should be a near-constant.

RedsManRick
01-05-2007, 08:15 PM
True FCB. You cannot count on your own talent to provide the entire base. However, you also have to be willing to turn your current major league "core" in to prospects occasionally. Only a small number of your core guys can cost market value prices and, arguably, with Milton, Griffey, and Dunn, the Reds are at their current quota.

Redsland
01-05-2007, 09:40 PM
His plan is to:

improve the defense

improve the pitching

try to pick up value on the cheap ( ie Phillips, Ross, Gill, Lohse )

don't trade the stud prospects

fill in the holes on the current roster with vets signed to short contracts
If that weak list of obvious tactics constitutes "the plan," then Wayne isn't bringing anything to the party, because he's simply doing what every other team in baseball is doing.

How is that plan different than the Pirates'? Or the Royals'? Or the Brewers'? Or (shudder) his predecessor's?

"The plan" better be a whole lot more inventive than that.

fearofpopvol1
01-05-2007, 10:36 PM
His plan is to:

improve the defense

improve the pitching

try to pick up value on the cheap ( ie Phillips, Ross, Gill, Lohse )

don't trade the stud prospects

fill in the holes on the current roster with vets signed to short contracts

I am ok with this plan. I don't agree with all the moves ( castro? ) but I bet even the best GM in history can't find someone who agrees with every move he makes.

Great post and I agree 100%.

jojo
01-06-2007, 07:25 AM
His plan is to:

improve the defense

improve the pitching

try to pick up value on the cheap ( ie Phillips, Ross, Gill, Lohse )

don't trade the stud prospects

fill in the holes on the current roster with vets signed to short contracts

I am ok with this plan. I don't agree with all the moves ( castro? ) but I bet even the best GM in history can't find someone who agrees with every move he makes.


That's kind of like saying, "I'm going to cure cancer by orally administering something that targets the DNA of cancerous cells".... The devil is in the details though....

Newman4
01-06-2007, 09:41 AM
My concern is that sometimes WK's plan is:

1. Find a target that appears to fill a positional need (All the relievers, Lohse, Conine, etc.)
2. Do whatever it takes to get them, unfortunately including signing longer contracts than conventional wisdom says they need or for more money (Cormier, Stanton), trading prospects when you may not have to (Conine, others as well, my memory fails me) or overpay (Do I have to type it? :D)

This kind of "win now, screw later" reckless abandon is what troubles me. I like the fact that he makes moves (minus huge FA signings), but I wonder if his competative nature takes over sometimes and he's just "gotta have" player X and opinion and pride starts to outweigh logic and reality.

redsmetz
01-06-2007, 03:06 PM
My concern is that sometimes WK's plan is:

1. Find a target that appears to fill a positional need (All the relievers, Lohse, Conine, etc.)
2. Do whatever it takes to get them, unfortunately including signing longer contracts than conventional wisdom says they need or for more money (Cormier, Stanton), trading prospects when you may not have to (Conine, others as well, my memory fails me) or overpay (Do I have to type it? :D)

This kind of "win now, screw later" reckless abandon is what troubles me. I like the fact that he makes moves (minus huge FA signings), but I wonder if his competative nature takes over sometimes and he's just "gotta have" player X and opinion and pride starts to outweigh logic and reality.

In fact, I would disagree with your assessment. I saw the Cormier additional signing as doing what was needed to get the player they wanted at that time. I still suspect Cormier may be traded this offseason. As for Stanton, I think the two years was what the market was requiring.

Most people agree that the players we sent to Philadelphia probably weren't in our long term plans. How do we define "prospect". I'm not sure, at this point, who WK has overpaid, but I'm typing on the rush.

Red Leader
01-06-2007, 03:49 PM
I think what Wayne is doing now (collecting the older guys on short contracts) is meant to further bolster the farm. Think of it this way. Conine / Hatteberg and others like them. The Reds play mediocre ball in 2007, but not in serious contention. They can trade these players if there is a market for younger, cheaper prospects. If they can't be traded, we keep them and at the end of the season they are offered arbitration (most) which are them turned into draft picks. Either way, we're getting younger, cheaper players out of them and since each is signed to a 1 year contract or so, Wayne is hoping he'll catch some of those "playing for a contract years" out of them.

M2
01-06-2007, 04:17 PM
It's the middle ground between burn it down and spend aditional $80,000,000 on payroll.

It's also the same infertile middle ground the Reds have been plowing for the past six years.


His plan is to:

improve the defense

improve the pitching

try to pick up value on the cheap ( ie Phillips, Ross, Gill, Lohse )

don't trade the stud prospects

fill in the holes on the current roster with vets signed to short contracts

If that's his plan, then he's ignoring steps two and three. Dependent on whether Jr. plays CF this year, he might be ignoring a big part of step one as well. Mostly what I see is not trading prospects and filling holes with short-term veterans. If that's all it amounts to, then it's doomed to failure. The parts of any plans you might want to dream up that aren't getting attention are the parts that make the team significantly better or that bring in compelling young players -- aka the meaningful stuff.

RL, I don't really buy into the notion that veterans today = kids tomorrow. We've been hearing that for years and I don't see the kids. If Krivsky wants young talent then he could be trading for it today with the vets he's already got.

pedro
01-06-2007, 04:22 PM
The way things are currently, I get the feeling that the Reds are merely planning to tread water in 2006 capitalizing on a week division to give the average fan the impression that they are competitive; enough to not suffer a huge attendance drop while position themselves to really compete in 2008. Whether this will work or not is anybody's guess but the Reds certainly will have to acquire some significant pieces between now and 2008 if that is to become a reality.

M2
01-06-2007, 04:31 PM
The way things are currently, I get the feeling that the Reds are merely planning to tread water in 2006 capitalizing on a week division to give the average fan the impression that they are competitive; enough to not suffer a huge attendance drop while position themselves to really compete in 2008. Whether this will work or not is anybody's guess but the Reds certainly will have to acquire some significant pieces between now and 2008 if that is to become a reality.

It seems like that's the plan every year: tread water and then maybe something good will happen the next season. It's got a glaring fatal flaw in it though, namely that if you don't add meaningful talent you won't be getting better now or in the future.

So I don't think it's much of a guess as to whether this will work. It won't.

pedro
01-06-2007, 05:00 PM
It seems like that's the plan every year: tread water and then maybe something good will happen the next season. It's got a glaring fatal flaw in it though, namely that if you don't add meaningful talent you won't be getting better now or in the future.

So I don't think it's much of a guess as to whether this will work. It won't.

With the free agent market for pitching being what it is and being stuck with a fragile Griffey, who makes a trade of Freel for pitching risky, I'm just not sure what the Reds really could do, aside from burning the whole thing down or trading the few good prospects they have to try and complete next year. I really think the Reds should have picked up another OF on the FA market and packaged Freel with some prospects to try and land a starter. In the end I think this is where not having Kearns really hurts the Reds. Whether they'll be able to compete in 2008 really is going to hinge on whether Bailey, Votto, & Bruce are able to contribute, which is obviously a longshot.

M2
01-06-2007, 05:15 PM
With the free agent market for pitching being what it is and being stuck with a fragile Griffey, who makes a trade of Freel for pitching risky, I'm just not sure what the Reds really could do, aside from burning the whole thing down or trading the few good prospects they have to try and complete next year. I really think the Reds should have picked up another OF on the FA market and packaged Freel with some prospects to try and land a starter. In the end I think this is where not having Kearns really hurts the Reds. Whether they'll be able to compete in 2008 really is going to hinge on whether Bailey, Votto, & Bruce are able to contribute, which is obviously a longshot.

I agree with you about putting Freel on the block, why it hurts not having Kearns (and Lopez) to deal at this moment and the enormity of the 2008 longshot.

I'm surprised the team didn't shop Jr. Now that he's got the broken wrist, he's not going anywhere. I doubt they'll treat Weathers like a sign and trade, but that's what I'd recommend. Perhaps Hatteberg or Ross would have had a market.

We could spin maybes all day. My general point though is theory doesn't matter. They haven't found compelling players for now or compelling youngsters for later. I could get behind either of those things. I could even get behind a mix of both. I just can't get behind neither.

I agree they're in tough spot, but I'm fresh out of sympathy for it. I'd rather watch them strive and fail than continue this numbing slide into obliviion.

paulrichjr
01-06-2007, 05:44 PM
WayneK's plan was about winning now and if I am not mistaking his belief that the Reds could win now was one of the reasons that Cast liked him so much. Changing strategy from DanO's plan (to win long-term by building a farm) was short-sighted and has doomed this team for many more years of losing. I'm not saying that DanO was a good GM because he wasn't but I did like the strategy of building the farm. JimBo made dumb trades to try and win when we couldn't instead of breaking the team down and going for it long-term. DanO wouldn't pull the trigger on a tear down and that has hurt us long-term. WayneK actually deserves credit for believing that this team could "win now." He was right but then doomed us with a trade that hurt us last year and is continuing to do so this offseason because we don't have any depth anywhere. (except old relievers)

I personally hope that if we don't win this year or at least stay in the race all season we crash quickly and leave no doubt about what needs to be done. I am frankly tired of losing and I believe that trying to be competitive instead of trying to win the world series is killing us. Build a winner not a "competitive" team!

Will M
01-06-2007, 06:04 PM
It's also the same infertile middle ground the Reds have been plowing for the past six years.



If that's his plan, then he's ignoring steps two and three. Dependent on whether Jr. plays CF this year, he might be ignoring a big part of step one as well. Mostly what I see is not trading prospects and filling holes with short-term veterans. If that's all it amounts to, then it's doomed to failure. The parts of any plans you might want to dream up that aren't getting attention are the parts that make the team significantly better or that bring in compelling young players -- aka the meaningful stuff.

RL, I don't really buy into the notion that veterans today = kids tomorrow. We've been hearing that for years and I don't see the kids. If Krivsky wants young talent then he could be trading for it today with the vets he's already got.

1.

Pitching staff one year ago ( from memory )-
Harang
Milton
Dave Williams
Claussen
Paul Wilson

Weathers
Rick White
Hammond
Coffey
Belisle

Pitching staff now -
Harang
Arroyo
Lohse
Milton
EZ / Belisle / Bailey waiting in the wings

Weathers
Stanton
Bray
Majik
Coffey
Cormier

This 2007 staff is MUCH better than the 2006 version

2. How many every day major leagurers do you think are hanging around in AAA or pitching long relief? To say Krisky is failing at trying to find value on the cheap is an odd opinion.

mth123
01-06-2007, 08:35 PM
1.

Pitching staff one year ago ( from memory )-
Harang
Milton
Dave Williams
Claussen
Paul Wilson

Weathers
Rick White
Hammond
Coffey
Belisle

Pitching staff now -
Harang
Arroyo
Lohse
Milton
EZ / Belisle / Bailey waiting in the wings

Weathers
Stanton
Bray
Majik
Coffey
Cormier

This 2007 staff is MUCH better than the 2006 version

2. How many every day major leagurers do you think are hanging around in AAA or pitching long relief? To say Krisky is failing at trying to find value on the cheap is an odd opinion.

1. The Reds pitching other than Arroyo really isn't much better. Bailey, Ramirez and Belisle were already here and Wk didn't do anything to get them. Lohse is going to be a very expensive guy who really has no track record of success. As for the pen, WK has overpaid in $ or talent or both for Cormier, Stanton, Weathers, Majik and Bray. Is the pitching improved? Yes. At the cost should it be improved? Yes, it should be improved a lot more than it actually is IMO.


2. There are a number of pitchers in baseball who I think are undervalued languishing in long relief or mop-up type duty (similar to the Arroyo situation last spring) who would be better options than the Lohse, Milton, Ramirez contingent (though I'm ok giving Ramirez another shot and well Milton is basically already paid for). Without looking at all the rosters I can name Wil Ledezma, Kevin Correia, Ryan Madson, Aaron Heilman, Carlos Marmol and whoever the odd man out in Fla is.

Similarly there are some bullpen candidates in the same boat who IMO were preferable to signing Weathers and hanging on to Cormier. Some names include Geoff Geary, Brian Bruney, Mike Wuertz, Frank Francisco, Manny DelCarmen and the Reds own Brad Salmon, Jon Coutlangus, Brian Shackelford, Calvin Medlock and David Shafer.

As for the RH 1B, WK passed on Josh Phelps, JR House, Jayson Werth and the more expensive options like Aubrey Huff and Craig Wilson. Chris Shelton is a guy who could be available in trade. All whom I would prefer to Conine.

No one is asking for the Reds to Trade Freel for Brandon Webb or Carlos Zambrano or to dump Milton and get Delmon Young back. But department store prices for well used stuff that you should be getting at goodwill not only is no more thrifty than spending big money on the questionable starting pitchers in this year's market, but it still leaves you with an unsettled situation even if these guys do ok temporarily for a year or so.

Will M
01-06-2007, 09:28 PM
mth -

1. i know you wish Krisky had gone after some of these pitchers rather than
Stanton/Weathers/etc but the 2007 staff is clearly better than the staff Krisky inherited.

2. Honestly relief pitching and finding a 5th starter who can keep an ERA under 5.00 is often a crapshoot.

Geoff Geary, Brian Bruney, Mike Wuertz, Frank Francisco, Manny DelCarmen , Brad Salmon, Jon Coutlangus, Brain Shackelford, Calvin Medlock, David Shafer,
Wil Ledezma, Kevin Correia, Ryan Madson, Aaron Heilman, Carlos Marmol,
EZ, Belsile,Stanton,Weathers,Cormier,etc,etc,etc are all candidates for someone's 5th starter slot or middle relief.

3. The fact that Wayne didn't acquire Bailey is irrelevant in deciding whether or not the current Reds pitching staff is an improvement over the one Wayne inherited

4. I predict Lohse will have a very good year then get a big free agent contract ( hopefully not from the Reds ). The guy will magically get his act together then cash in for $30M plus. He will be worth the $6M the Reds will pay him this year. I really don't understand the hatred for Lohse on Redszone.
He will likely only be here for 2007.

5. " As for the RH 1B, WK passed on Josh Phelps, JR House, Jayson Werth and the more expensive options like Aubrey Huff and Craig Wilson. Chris Shelton is a guy who could be available in trade. All whom I would prefer to Conine. "

Votto is 1/2 season or less away.
I actually prefer Conine to all of your choices other than Wilson ( and Wilson who is a free agent has shown no interest in coming to the Reds or accepting a part time role ).

6. " No one is asking for the Reds to Trade Freel for Brandon Webb or Carlos Zambrano or to dump Milton and get Delmon Young back. But department store prices for well used stuff that you should be getting at goodwill not only is no more thrifty than spending big money on the questionable starting pitchers in this year's market, but it still leaves you with an unsettled situation even if these guys do ok temporarily for a year or so."

Actually I think Wayne did an ok job shopping in the Sax 5th Ave style free agent market this year. All the pitchers got 2 year deals and AG got 3 years.
Beats the you know what out of the Zito/Soriano/Suppan/etc contracts.

The only contracts i saw and said 'man i wish the Reds had got him' were Justin Speier and Jason Schmidt. Again, these guys were free to sign with any team and didn't want to play for the Reds.

mth123
01-06-2007, 09:52 PM
mth -

1. i know you wish Krisky had gone after some of these pitchers rather than
Stanton/Weathers/etc but the 2007 staff is clearly better than the staff Krisky inherited.

2. Honestly relief pitching and finding a 5th starter who can keep an ERA under 5.00 is often a crapshoot.

Geoff Geary, Brian Bruney, Mike Wuertz, Frank Francisco, Manny DelCarmen , Brad Salmon, Jon Coutlangus, Brain Shackelford, Calvin Medlock, David Shafer,
Wil Ledezma, Kevin Correia, Ryan Madson, Aaron Heilman, Carlos Marmol,
EZ, Belsile,Stanton,Weathers,Cormier,etc,etc,etc are all candidates for someone's 5th starter slot or middle relief.

3. The fact that Wayne didn't acquire Bailey is irrelevant in deciding whether or not the current Reds pitching staff is an improvement over the one Wayne inherited

4. I predict Lohse will have a very good year then get a big free agent contract ( hopefully not from the Reds ). The guy will magically get his act together then cash in for $30M plus. He will be worth the $6M the Reds will pay him this year. I really don't understand the hatred for Lohse on Redszone.
He will likely only be here for 2007.

5. " As for the RH 1B, WK passed on Josh Phelps, JR House, Jayson Werth and the more expensive options like Aubrey Huff and Craig Wilson. Chris Shelton is a guy who could be available in trade. All whom I would prefer to Conine. "

Votto is 1/2 season or less away.
I actually prefer Conine to all of your choices other than Wilson ( and Wilson who is a free agent has shown no interest in coming to the Reds or accepting a part time role ).

6. " No one is asking for the Reds to Trade Freel for Brandon Webb or Carlos Zambrano or to dump Milton and get Delmon Young back. But department store prices for well used stuff that you should be getting at goodwill not only is no more thrifty than spending big money on the questionable starting pitchers in this year's market, but it still leaves you with an unsettled situation even if these guys do ok temporarily for a year or so."

Actually I think Wayne did an ok job shopping in the Sax 5th Ave style free agent market this year. All the pitchers got 2 year deals and AG got 3 years.
Beats the you know what out of the Zito/Soriano/Suppan/etc contracts.

The only contracts i saw and said 'man i wish the Reds had got him' were Justin Speier and Jason Schmidt. Again, these guys were free to sign with any team and didn't want to play for the Reds.

1. Again the 2007 staff is better, but that is like saying driving an unreliable junker is better than walking. While its true, it isn't an endorsement of the plan if new car prices were paid for that junker.

2. But WK isn't going after guys who could be acquired and turn into answers for below market value for multiple years. He's content with Lohse, Weathers, Cormier, and Stanton who are overpriced, likely to suck, and only temporary band aids anyway. I thought this thread was an evaluation of Wayne's plan. Seems to me that the plan to use Lohse is no answer even if he pitches well.

3. Again, this is about Wayne's plan. The fact that WK didn't acquire Bailey is very much pertinent to evaluating WK's plan. He gets no credit for Bailey.

4. The hatred for Lohse is due to the fact that he has been a major league starter for 5 years and generally has not been very good. He's a guy to take a flyer on with a minor league contract or signed for the minimum. Paying him $6 Million with his track record while telling the fan base that nothing will be done to address the rotation because the cost is too high doesn't sit well.

5. I agree that Votto is the answer long term. But he will need a RH partner for at least the first couple years and Conine doesn't hit LH any better than Hatteberg. Take a shot with a young guy who could be an asset. If he fails you still have Votto and Hat and will be no worse off than with Conine and you'd save money.

6. He has wasted $25 Million on Junk.

Falls City Beer
01-06-2007, 09:54 PM
1. Again the 2007 staff is better, but that is like saying driving an unrreliable junker is better than walking. While its true, it isn't an endorsement of the plan if new car prices were paid for that junker.

2. But WK isn't going after guys who could be acquired and turn into answers for below market value for multiple years. He's content with Lohse, Weathers, Cormier, and Stanton who are overpriced, likely to suck, and only temporary band aids anyway. I thought this thread was an evaluation of Wayne's plan. Seems to me that the plan to use Lohse is no answer even if he pitches well.

3. Again, this is about Wayne's plan. The fact that WK didn't acquire Bailey is very much pertinent to evaluating WK's plan. He gets no credit for Bailey.

4. The hatred for Lohse is due to the fact that he has been a major league starter for 5 years and generally has not been very good. He's a guy to take a flyer on with a minor league contract or siged for the minimum. Paying him $6 Million with his track record while telling the fan base that nothing will be done to address the rotation doesn't sit well.


Good responses. Don't you love the bait and switch?

Newman4
01-06-2007, 10:06 PM
As for the pen, WK has overpaid in $ or talent or both for Cormier, Stanton, Weathers, Majik and Bray. Is the pitching improved? Yes. At the cost should it be improved? Yes, it should be improved a lot more than it actually is IMO.

Very good point. I'm thinking if WK had a mulligan he would use it on "The Trade"

Also, a team full of overpaid, old timers as stop gaps has been the Pittsburg Pirates/Kansas City Royals plan of recent years and you see where that gets you.

GOREDSGO32
01-07-2007, 02:04 AM
"The Trade" has been beaten to death - and so far, and possibly for any possible scenerio, it looks like we've been screwed plain and simple. Kearns and Lopez, if they had to be traded, could have been traded for more by any team I think - and even right now, if they stayed in the offseason right now - they could have gotten us a very solid starter or two. It's just bad all around.

But this post breaks it down simply: Krivsky is donig a good job of changing the formula of this team, that has been like this for YEARS. Terrible pitching, league leaders in bad fundamentals: strikeouts, batting average, and worst fielding percentage. Say what you want - we definately could have gotten more for those two players, Kearns and Lopez, and probably wouldn't have fared worse with them in the lineup. But not having them to strikeout and have horrible errors is a way of changing the chemistry of the team. Old Royce Clayton added nothing to the team, he is slow and probably not even as good as fielder as Lopez in his old age with range and stuff, but the fact that he is a known veteran great infielder over his career showed that Krivsky is trying to change the makeup of this team.

Kearns/Lopez are players, plain and simple. So are Bray/Majeski. They are all just PLAYERS. At the end of this coming year, or the next coming year, one or both these guys, Kearns/Lopez would have been up for free agency and gone anyway. That's not the end of the world that they are gone - sure we could have got SOMETHING better I'm sure, but any trade would be mostly short term players. The bigger fish to fry is drafting talent, building up the minor leagues well, getting plenty of picks and young talent to make this a consistent team. It's been a horrible trade so far, but it does accomplish one thing: changing the makeup of the team for the long run. A small market team like the Reds simply CAN NOT be a winner and consistent when things like batting average, strikeouts, and fielding percentage are all among the worst in baseball - not to mention ERA in years past. The strategy has to change, and I applaud Krivsky for doing that, even if the trade was terrible, I think he is doing that.

Ltlabner
01-07-2007, 07:44 AM
"The Trade" has been beaten to death - and so far, and possibly for any possible scenerio, it looks like we've been screwed plain and simple. Kearns and Lopez, if they had to be traded, could have been traded for more by any team I think - and even right now, if they stayed in the offseason right now - they could have gotten us a very solid starter or two. It's just bad all around.

I really don't want to get into "the trade v.765" discussions, but since the cost of starting pitching (and pitching in general) has continued to rise the concept that we could could trade Lopez and Kearns for two "solid" starters if we had only waited is laughable.

I'm thinking you'd have to give up both of them and perhaps a quality prospect to convience any team right now to trade one true stud starter, let alone two. And what team out there has so many stud starters laying around that they'd be willing to trade one?

So we could trade them for a less than stud starter who *projects* to be good one day (read: prospect). And if we traded the both of them for a "could be good one day" pitcher (or even two "could be good one day" pitchers) don't see that as any different whatsoever than trading them for 2 middle relievers and misc. component pieces.

Newman4
01-07-2007, 08:37 AM
I'm thinking you'd have to give up both of them and perhaps a quality prospect to convience any team right now to trade one true stud starter, let alone two.

I agree you couldn't get a "stud" starter for Lopez/Kearns, but I don't think a #3 type is out of the question.

Ltlabner
01-07-2007, 08:58 AM
I agree you couldn't get a "stud" starter for Lopez/Kearns, but I don't think a #3 type is out of the question.

A typical #3 pitcher has a ERA in the 4's. (see Redsmanricks research in the thread in ORG).

Would this board melt down if we traded two position players for 1 starting pitcher with an ERA in the 4's? That's an honest question, I don't know the answer (although, it certinaly did over trading those same two position players for two reliefe pitchers and 3 misc. parts.).

Here's a blurb from RMR's research...


- 4 teams had a sub-3.00 ERA out of their #1 starter (FLA, HOU, LAA, MIN)
- 2 teams had a sub-3.50 ERA out of their #2 starter (FLA, HOU)
- 4 teams had sub-4.00 ERA out of their #3 starter (DET, FLA, LAA)
- 3 teams had a sub-4.50 ERA out of their #4 starter (DET, LAA, SD)
- 1 team had a sub-5.00 ERA out of their #5 starter (DET)

Newman4
01-07-2007, 09:09 AM
Would this board melt down if we traded two position players for 1 starting pitcher with an ERA in the 4's? That's an honest question, I don't know the answer (although, it certinaly did over trading those same two position players for two reliefe pitchers and 3 misc. parts.)

Some on the board would have the melt down in question regardless if Kearns was traded because of the hometown factor and you're probably right about fit being thrown over a trade of both for a #3. But, I think at this point most people would be much more happy with the results of the trade.

mth123
01-07-2007, 09:34 AM
Numbers I can't get past:

Seasons since 2000 that Jeff Conine had a slugging % above .450 - 2003.

Seasons since 2000 that Jeff Conine had an On Base % above .350 - 2001, 2005

David Weathers HR/9 in 2006 - 1.47

David Weathers BB/9 in 2006 - 4.15

David Weathers BABIP in 2006 - .236

Rheal Cormier ERA in 2005 - 5.89

Rheal Cormier HR/9 in 2005 - 1.71

Rheal Cormier WHIP in 2005 - 1.52

Rheal Cormier BABIP in 2005 - .322

Rheal Cormier ERA when he was acquired in 2006 - 1.59

Rheal Cormier WHIP when he was acquired in 2006 - 1.18

Rheal Cormier BABIP when he was acquired in 2006 - .238

Alex Gonzalez OPS per year since 2000 - .548, .680, .621, .756, .689, .687, .696

Chad Moeller OPS per year since 2000 - .534, .627, .852, .770, .568, .624, .507

Juan Castro OPS per year since 2000 - ..649, .563, .607, .678, .655, .665, .632

Kyle Lohse HR/9 as a Twin by year starting in 2001 - 1.59, 1.30, 1.25, 1.30, 1.11, 1.13

Kyle Lohse WHIP as a Twin by year starting in 2001 - 1.45, 1.39, 1.27, 1.63, 1.43, 1.65

Kyle Lohse BABIP as a Twin by year starting in 2001 - .308, .283, .291, .327, .316, .350

Estimated Reds Payroll 2007 - $75 Million

Estimated 2007 Salary Jeff Conine - $2 Million (2.7% of Total)

Estimated 2007 Salary David Weathers - $2.5 Million (3.3% of Total)

Estimated 2007 Salary Rheal Cormier - $2.25 Million (3% of Total)

Estimated 2007 Salary Alex Gonzalez - $3 Million (4% of Total)

Estimated 2007 Salary Chad Moeller - $.75 Million (1% of Total)

Estimated 2007 Salary Juan Castro - $.91 Million (1.2% of Total)

Estimated 2007 Salary Kyle Lohse - $6 Million (8% of Total)

Estimated 2007 Salary of these players - $17.41 Million (23.2% of Total)

Yet some seem to be applauding WK for not going out and tying up a large % of his payroll in questionable talent. This "plan" is worse than doing nothing IMO.

Will M
01-07-2007, 01:28 PM
mth -

$17M doesn't buy what it used to, especially when the big ( and not so big ) free agents don't want to play for the Reds.

Do you really want a repeat of 2006 when we couldn't find a 5th starter or a reliever with an ERA under 7?
Stanton/Weathers/etc aren't great but they sure are better than Mays/White/Hammond.

If Stanton/Weathers/Cormier can keep their ERAs under 4.5 at GABP then they will be worth their salaries.

Fans will come out if they feel the Reds are trying to win.
Conine/Stanton/etal will be worth their salaries in that regard.
Fans won't get excited about Geoff Geary, Brian Bruney, Mike Wuertz, Frank Francisco, Manny DelCarmen , etc. They would look at guys like this and think ' here we go again - Joe Mays, Brian Reith, etc '

If Lohse pitches 200 innings with an ERA under 5 he will be worth $6M for 2007. Did you see what free agents got this winter?

Falls City Beer
01-07-2007, 01:36 PM
mth -

$17M doesn't buy what it used to, especially when the big ( and not so big ) free agents don't want to play for the Reds.

Do you really want a repeat of 2006 when we couldn't find a 5th starter or a reliever with an ERA under 7?
Stanton/Weathers/etc aren't great but they sure are better than Mays/White/Hammond.

If Stanton/Weathers/Cormier can keep their ERAs under 4.5 at GABP then they will be worth their salaries.

Fans will come out if they feel the Reds are trying to win.
Conine/Stanton/etal will be worth their salaries in that regard.
Fans won't get excited about Geoff Geary, Brian Bruney, Mike Wuertz, Frank Francisco, Manny DelCarmen , etc. They would look at guys like this and think ' here we go again - Joe Mays, Brian Reith, etc '

If Lohse pitches 200 innings with an ERA under 5 he will be worth $6M for 2007. Did you see what free agents got this winter?


Lohse has thrown 200 innings only once in his career: 2003. I'm not saying it can't happen again, I'm just saying be careful making that a hope.

Ltlabner
01-07-2007, 02:10 PM
Fans will come out if they feel the Reds are trying to win.

Unfortunatley, the fans will not return in significant numbers unless and untill the Reds win and do so consistantly. After so many horrible years since the late 1970's (with the exception of one) the Reds are mearly one of an ocean of entertainment choices in Cincinnati. Mearly "trying" will not get their attention at this point.

Redhook
01-07-2007, 02:25 PM
mth -


Fans will come out if they feel the Reds are trying to win.


Are you convinced the Reds are doing everything they can to win? I'm sure not. This patchwork assemblage of a team has shown me they have no idea how to win.

I predict the fans will only come out this year after Homer Bailey arrives, whether they're winning or losing. This team has no hype, the interest in Griffey has waned, and hasn't had a player in atleast a few years that people "talk" about. Homer could/will do that.

RANDY IN INDY
01-07-2007, 02:42 PM
If Krivsky, indeed, does have a plan, I would hope the major focus is beyond this season and foolhardy spending.

RedsManRick
01-07-2007, 02:45 PM
Here's my biggest problem. Over the past few years:

- The FA price for star talent has increased
- The FA price for mediocre talent has skyrocketed
- The FA price for replacement level talent skyrocketed
- The price of players making the major league minimum has gone up by a $100K

More so than ever, the optimal use of money is giving a ton of money to a select core of players who you simply must have, in terms of talent, in order to compete -- and to get the rest of your production from guys making very little money. Sure, it would be great if we could get star production from underpaid youth. However, if you can get average player production from your underpaid youth, you can afford to pay star players star prices.

When you start filling out the middle of your roster (talent wise) with market priced players, you no longer have the money to pay market prices to the star talent. This means that your only option is developing that star talent. I'd much rather pay 4 star players star money and focus on developing a decent team around them than pay 15 decent guys their market prices and worry about developing 4 start players myself.

The "risk" in going this route is that if you misidentify your star players, you're in big trouble. You can't afford to pay a Zito $17 Mil to be your "ace". However, the risk in spending your money on mostly "decent" players is two fold: 1.) you have to develop those stars to compete, and 2.) if you do develop decent players, you have no where to play them.

If you pay stars and happen to develop more stars, well, good for you - you're now the best team in the league. (see St Louis 2 & 3 years ago) If you pay stars and develop mediocre talent, well, you're still competitive (see St. Louis last year). If you pay for mediocre talent and fail to develop stars, or develop them and can't pay them because you're paying the mediocre talent (see KC), well, then you suck.

In 1999, the Reds had 4 players making more than 3MM per:

Greg Vaughn: $ 5,615,428
Barry Larkin: $ 5,300,000
Denny Neagle: $ 4,750,000
Pete Harnisch: $ 3,000,000

They paid for legit talent and won because they got great production from a lot of "underpaid" young players like Casey, Graves, Williamson, Reese, and Cameron. The problem is that moving in to the 2000s, we decided to replace Vaughn with Junior (good choice, bad luck), Larkin with an older more expensive and less productive Larkin, give Bichette star money (pure folly), and as the next few years progressed, decide that the decidedly mediocre support cast (Casey, Graves, Boone) star money.

I think WK is on the right path. He has yet to give star money to mediocre talent. The question is how he approaches the supporting cast. If he continues to pay the replaceable Alex Gonzalez's (Phillips at SS, Freel at 2B for the short term) and Mike Stanton's (Salmon) of the world decent dough that, combined, could buy another star, we're going to remain dependent on developing the top end talent -- and god knows we don't exactly have a good track record of being able to do that. I'd much rather count on my minor league system for 8 average players than 2 stars.

redsmetz
01-07-2007, 03:23 PM
Are you convinced the Reds are doing everything they can to win? I'm sure not. This patchwork assemblage of a team has shown me they have no idea how to win.

I predict the fans will only come out this year after Homer Bailey arrives, whether they're winning or losing. This team has no hype, the interest in Griffey has waned, and hasn't had a player in atleast a few years that people "talk" about. Homer could/will do that.

I've said this repeatedly and want to add my voice on this excellent thread (with lots of divergent discussion) that I believe the plan is to put a team which is nominally competitive on the field this year without sacrificing what little talent we have in the minor league system.

Elsewhere we have three threads going about what will happen if the Reds finishing the same, with a losing record or a winning record. I'm fully expecting them to do about the same as last year, but with the eye to the future. We've heard that before, but we've not had anyone willing to rebuild this organization. That's what I believe is being attempted. Yes, we need to stock more prospects, but that will come, I believe, in time. I don't see what little action there has been as "more of the same".

GOREDSGO32
01-07-2007, 04:48 PM
I really don't want to get into "the trade v.765" discussions, but since the cost of starting pitching (and pitching in general) has continued to rise the concept that we could could trade Lopez and Kearns for two "solid" starters if we had only waited is laughable.

I'm thinking you'd have to give up both of them and perhaps a quality prospect to convience any team right now to trade one true stud starter, let alone two. And what team out there has so many stud starters laying around that they'd be willing to trade one?

So we could trade them for a less than stud starter who *projects* to be good one day (read: prospect). And if we traded the both of them for a "could be good one day" pitcher (or even two "could be good one day" pitchers) don't see that as any different whatsoever than trading them for 2 middle relievers and misc. component pieces.


You don't wanna get into it but you argue semantics over a line in my post? By solid starters, I mean an under the radar type player that could come through with a Jimmy Haynes, Pete Harnisch, Jose Acevado type year. Or strike on another Bronson Arroyo - a cheap guy on the odd end out of a rotation that has had solid career numbers. Remember we only traded Wily Mo Pena for him, and he was an early Cy Young candidate.

By solid I mean a guy that is probably around Eric Milton range, except has had good career numbers and marred by injuries recently and hoping to cash in on a "solid" year. There's no pretending you trade these players for an All Star pitcher, you do that by building up the team like my post was about. And whatever the trade was, chances are the Reds could have gotten more in the offseason, but its over and done with regardless.

mth123
01-07-2007, 05:33 PM
mth -

$17M doesn't buy what it used to, especially when the big ( and not so big ) free agents don't want to play for the Reds.

Do you really want a repeat of 2006 when we couldn't find a 5th starter or a reliever with an ERA under 7?
Stanton/Weathers/etc aren't great but they sure are better than Mays/White/Hammond.

If Stanton/Weathers/Cormier can keep their ERAs under 4.5 at GABP then they will be worth their salaries.

Fans will come out if they feel the Reds are trying to win.
Conine/Stanton/etal will be worth their salaries in that regard.
Fans won't get excited about Geoff Geary, Brian Bruney, Mike Wuertz, Frank Francisco, Manny DelCarmen , etc. They would look at guys like this and think ' here we go again - Joe Mays, Brian Reith, etc '

If Lohse pitches 200 innings with an ERA under 5 he will be worth $6M for 2007. Did you see what free agents got this winter?

We just disagree on expectations from these guys I guess.

- I think Cormier/Weathers will be the 2007 version of Hammond/White with the only difference being that Chris Hammond is a better pitcher than Rheal Cormier.

- I see nothing in Kyle Lohse history that leads me to believe that he is capable of 200 Innings at below 5 ERA. 160 Innings at 5.50 is more likely IMO. Remember that he was significantly aided by first time around the league numbers in 2006.

I personally do/did not want to see the Reds go long term on questionable guys. But if 2007 isn't an option then use this money on Harang and Dunn to keep them around and give the Bailey/Votto/Bruce era a chance to have an actual core to build on.

Spending $17 Million doesn't seem to be about 2007, it seems like it hurts the future as well from where I sit.

D-Man
01-07-2007, 06:06 PM
If that's his plan, then he's ignoring steps two and three. Dependent on whether Jr. plays CF this year, he might be ignoring a big part of step one as well. Mostly what I see is not trading prospects and filling holes with short-term veterans. If that's all it amounts to, then it's doomed to failure. The parts of any plans you might want to dream up that aren't getting attention are the parts that make the team significantly better or that bring in compelling young players -- aka the meaningful stuff.

The defense and pitching were light years better in 2006 than they were in 2005. For the first time since Pokey left, the Reds defense had two plus infield defenders. And while the offseason pickup of Gonzalez has considerable risk, it probably adds a third plus defender to the infield--Gonzalez is an average defender, at worst. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Reds end up with the best defensive infield in the NL in 2007. (St. Louis' middle infielders are notably weak, even though they have Gold Glovers on either corner.)

Of course, the OF defense is a problem, but I think Griffey's hand injury should help to bring an easy resolution to this problem in the near term.

When you look at the win shares for the defense and pitching, it is pretty astounding at the huge strides that were made in Wayne's first season as GM. The 2004-2005 defenders and pitchers were historically pathetic, putrid, woeful, atrocious, etc.




2004 2005 2006
Hitting WS 151.6 149.5 106.1
Fielding WS 26.6 26.6 42.2
Pitching WS 50.0 42.6 94.0

Average Age 28.4 28.6 29.6

Even though the club was slightly older in 2006 than it was in 2005, I think it was somewhat irrelevant. Coming into 2006, the club kept a young core in place, went older at 1B, and went younger at 2B and C.

In 2007, the return to a peak-age SS is a positive trend. Conine and Moeller are part-time chaff, and I don't anticipate that either of them will get more than platoon-like playing time in 2007. Nearly all of the key players are in their twenties or early thirties.

M2
01-07-2007, 06:22 PM
1.

Pitching staff one year ago ( from memory )-
Harang
Milton
Dave Williams
Claussen
Paul Wilson

Weathers
Rick White
Hammond
Coffey
Belisle

Pitching staff now -
Harang
Arroyo
Lohse
Milton
EZ / Belisle / Bailey waiting in the wings

Weathers
Stanton
Bray
Majik
Coffey
Cormier

This 2007 staff is MUCH better than the 2006 version

2. How many every day major leagurers do you think are hanging around in AAA or pitching long relief? To say Krisky is failing at trying to find value on the cheap is an odd opinion.

1. So he's added Bronson Arroyo. Praised him for it when he did it. Impact pitchers other than Bronson Arroyo added to the mix? Oh yeah, that would be exactly no one.

2. I think there's roughly two dozen unproven guys in big league rotations or bullpens or in the high minors who'll have some sort of impact in the majors over the next two years. That's perpetually that case. In fact that figure, if anything, is conservative.

Krivsky hasn't added a single guy who fits that profile, not one. I find it an odd opinion that there aren't any hard throwers out there who might take off with a bullpen conversion or kids who struggled when they got advanced too rapidly, but who'll do better now that they've got some experience. There most certainly are and the Reds most certainly haven't brought in a single one of them this offseason.

IslandRed
01-07-2007, 06:38 PM
The question is how he approaches the supporting cast. ... I'd much rather count on my minor league system for 8 average players than 2 stars.

First of all, kudos for yet another excellent post.

I think we can all agree that we need to build a productive farm system. We're never going to be able to sustain success without it; like you said, it's not just about producing stars but also the solid contributors and the role players, so we don't have to overpay for non-stars and stars alike.

The problem is, what to do when there are a lot of holes to fill and the farm system isn't yet producing those guys? A GM can spread a little money around for actual major leaguers, or commit to fishing the fringe talent pool and cross his fingers for luck. (I'm talking about the basic philosophy for filling short-term holes. A GM should never stop trying to upgrade the organization's overall talent base any way he can.)

I'm OK with churning replacement-level guys when it comes to the end of the bench or bullpen. I'm less comfortable with it for guys who will get significant playing time. Replacement level is an important concept but it's easy to confuse it with the notion that a certain level of performance is instantly obtainable at will, and that's not the case. Teams can, and do, get sub-replacement performances all the time. Especially when it comes to the starting rotation, a team can easily spend all year trying and failing to stop the bleeding.

Now, I can go for the notion that we're not really going to compete in 2007 so it would have been better to save the money and get an impact player who would still be here in 2008+, and if we take on water from half a dozen roster spots all year, big deal. Good luck selling that to Castellini, though.

M2
01-07-2007, 07:13 PM
The defense and pitching were light years better in 2006 than they were in 2005. For the first time since Pokey left, the Reds defense had two plus infield defenders. And while the offseason pickup of Gonzalez has considerable risk, it probably adds a third plus defender to the infield--Gonzalez is an average defender, at worst. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Reds end up with the best defensive infield in the NL in 2007. (St. Louis' middle infielders are notably weak, even though they have Gold Glovers on either corner.)

Of course, the OF defense is a problem, but I think Griffey's hand injury should help to bring an easy resolution to this problem in the near term.

Well, the DER was up slightly from 2005, but it was still below where it was in 2002-2006. Gonzalez hopefully can drag it back up the .700 region. We'll see if the CF situation gets addressed. If it doesn't that leaves the defense in limbo. Certainly it makes a return to the robust Pokey-era defense of 1999 (.731) and 2000 (.710) an impossible dream.


When you look at the win shares for the defense and pitching, it is pretty astounding at the huge strides that were made in Wayne's first season as GM. The 2004-2005 defenders and pitchers were historically pathetic, putrid, woeful, atrocious, etc.




2004 2005 2006
Hitting WS 151.6 149.5 106.1
Fielding WS 26.6 26.6 42.2
Pitching WS 50.0 42.6 94.0

Average Age 28.4 28.6 29.6

The pitching Win Shares gain mostly can be attributed to two things - Bronson Arroyo and cutting out guys who had negative Win Shares (-10 in 2005, -1 in 2006). The total Win Shares swing on that latter part, once you figure in the positive Win Shares given to mediocre, instead of horrific, pitchers probably comes out to around 20.

Well, you only make the jump from horrific to mediocre once. It's made and, far as I can tell, the jump from mediocre to good isn't in the cards with the pitchers the Reds have on hand. Mind you, the greatest single driver in that leap was Arroyo, who had a career year. Chances are he won't be quite as good in 2007. Harang might not be either. They could both fall back to 15 WS and still be fine pitchers, but who's joining them? Do the Reds have another pitcher who's going to get more than 10 WS in 2007, let alone something in the mid-teens?

Lohse got 10 in 2005, 10 in 2003 and 11 2002. So maybe him. Milton hasn't done better than 8 in a season since 2001. So where does the plan move from here? The addition of Mike Stanton isn't going to mean much in the grand scheme. We've basically been treated to a winter of stagnation. Joy.


Even though the club was slightly older in 2006 than it was in 2005, I think it was somewhat irrelevant. Coming into 2006, the club kept a young core in place, went older at 1B, and went younger at 2B and C.

In 2007, the return to a peak-age SS is a positive trend. Conine and Moeller are part-time chaff, and I don't anticipate that either of them will get more than platoon-like playing time in 2007. Nearly all of the key players are in their twenties or early thirties.

And three notables could be gone in two years. Honestly, I'm at a loss as to what the "core" of this team is. Arroyo and Harang are the pitching staff. Dunn's a core bat. Are EdE and Phillips core? I'd like to think they can be, but they might just be Kearns/Lopez level guys (two young guys who were shed during 2006). People seem to think Bailey, Votto and Bruce are right around the corner (desperation reflex, IMO -- I mean, imagine if they're not, that would be scary). My take is Bailey's 21, Votto's as close as Ben Broussard was in 2001 and Bruce isn't making any impact until at least 2009.

Gonzalez is at the tail end of his prime. That's the kind of guy you add in a go-for-it situation. I'm fine with going for it, but right now Alex Gonzalez, Mike Stanton and Jeff Conine constitute the push. You'll excuse me for yawning.

Unassisted
01-07-2007, 07:27 PM
Maybe "Wayne's Plan" was short-circuited by "Bob's Plan," which might have been "acquire some bullpen help and see if we can win in 2006?" If that's the case, then it was "Bob's Plan" led to "the trade" in May.

If Wayne's Plan was actually Bob's Plan, I don't want a change in ownership. It would also explain why there wouldn't be any public second-guessing of the "trade" coming from the offices in GABP, unless it came from Bob himself.

Ltlabner
01-07-2007, 08:05 PM
You don't wanna get into it but you argue semantics over a line in my post? By solid starters, I mean an under the radar type player that could come through with a Jimmy Haynes, Pete Harnisch, Jose Acevado type year. Or strike on another Bronson Arroyo - a cheap guy on the odd end out of a rotation that has had solid career numbers. Remember we only traded Wily Mo Pena for him, and he was an early Cy Young candidate.

Again I ask, if we traded Lopez and Kearns this offseason for an "under the radar" guy or even two guys who might come out of nowhere to pitch well, would this board melt down? My guess is it would. The complaint about the trade is we didn't get enough in return. Somehow it strikes me that trading them for one or two "maybe, might be, could be" starting pitchers would recieve the same scorn as the actual trade did.

And don't forget Boston had a surplus of pitching when BA was acquired. That early Cy Young canidate was slated for the bullpen so it wasn't like it was going to take much to pry him away. And the market for pitching reliefe and starting both, has done nothing but go up since.

I don't have a problem with trying to get an under-the-radar pitcher, in fact I think that's the route they should take (or have taken). My only point was that even had we hung on to them we'd still be having to overpay in cash/trade to get what we need. You either overpay then, or overpay now.

dsmith421
01-07-2007, 10:20 PM
Again I ask, if we traded Lopez and Kearns this offseason for an "under the radar" guy or even two guys who might come out of nowhere to pitch well, would this board melt down? My guess is it would.

Who cares if this board melts down? I could care less. I would love to have a full-scale head-exploding fit over a trade and get proven wrong by the players acquired being worldbeaters. This particular turd was a disaster on paper at the time of the transaction and that impression has been reinforced by literally everything that's happened since.

redsmetz
01-07-2007, 10:32 PM
Who cares if this board melts down? I could care less. I would love to have a full-scale head-exploding fit over a trade and get proven wrong by the players acquired being worldbeaters. This particular turd was a disaster on paper at the time of the transaction and that impression has been reinforced by literally everything that's happened since.

Only three playing months after the trade - I still say it's way too early to state this "particular turd was a disaster". Of course, I've forgotten, now that Kearns and Lopez are no longer with the Reds, they're not going to regress. And, of course, because Bray and Majewski are with the Reds, they will regress.

Perhaps two or three years from now we can see if, in fact, it was a disaster. I'll allow it doesn't look good yet, but time has to play out before we see if it's as bad as so many folks here cry. We're really not talking Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas.

Patpacillosjock
01-07-2007, 10:42 PM
Only three playing months after the trade - I still say it's way too early to state this "particular turd was a disaster". Of course, I've forgotten, now that Kearns and Lopez are no longer with the Reds, they're not going to regress. And, of course, because Bray and Majewski are with the Reds, they will regress.

Perhaps two or three years from now we can see if, in fact, it was a disaster. I'll allow it doesn't look good yet, but time has to play out before we see if it's as bad as so many folks here cry. We're really not talking Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas.

The trade was made for IMMMEDIATE bullpen help to carry us into the playoffs. thats why we overpaid right? Well our bullpen ended up sucking worse, we didnt get into the playoffs and Lopez/Kearns both had a pretty good 2006 season.

Therefore, the trade WAS a DISASTER because the whole point was for us to make the playoffs this year not next year.

If we were planning ahead, we wouldve kept either kearns or lopez or both and STILL could have gotten bullpen help this offseason and go into 2007 shooting for the playoffs.

Now, our bullpen is worse, older, and everybody and their grandmotehr has been complaining all off season about us finding bats when we had two perfect good ones in lopez and kearns (and SB's with lopez)

tripleaaaron
01-07-2007, 10:54 PM
Now, our bullpen is worse, older, and everybody and their grandmotehr has been complaining all off season about us finding bats when we had two perfect good ones in lopez and kearns (and SB's with lopez)

I dont agree, our bullpen is much better than it was when Krivsky started, without a doubt. The only thing worse than our bullpen before then, would have been me and you pitching. As for the trade itself, yes we did overpay, but lopez and kearns were not our answer. Lopez was an error prone SS that is due a pay-day at the end of this coming season. Kearns seams to be one of those J.D. Drew types, with great potential, but bad work ethic. I didn't like the trade either, but these players were not the long-term answers, I say with much regret.

Redhook
01-07-2007, 10:59 PM
Only three playing months after the trade - I still say it's way too early to state this "particular turd was a disaster".

I'll allow it doesn't look good yet, but time has to play out before we see if it's as bad as so many folks here cry.

I just don't see how you're still reasonably optimistic about the trade. It failed in every which way. It didn't help us last year, it's not helping us now, and it hurt us for the future.

This team would've been a good #3 pitcher and a few bullpen arms from being a serious contender in 2007. Now, they have virtually no chance in 2007 and it looks rather dim beyond that.

M2
01-07-2007, 11:26 PM
Again I ask, if we traded Lopez and Kearns this offseason for an "under the radar" guy or even two guys who might come out of nowhere to pitch well, would this board melt down? My guess is it would. The complaint about the trade is we didn't get enough in return. Somehow it strikes me that trading them for one or two "maybe, might be, could be" starting pitchers would recieve the same scorn as the actual trade did.

It always depends on the starting pitchers, but the board didn't melt down with Jose Guillen was traded for Harang or when Wily Mo Pena was traded for Arroyo. Not everyone liked those deals, but plenty did. Anyway, the larger point is do I think Kearns and Lopez, who are better players than Pena and Guillen, should have fetched more than what they did? You bet your keister I do.

redsmetz
01-08-2007, 07:34 AM
I just don't see how you're still reasonably optimistic about the trade. It failed in every which way. It didn't help us last year, it's not helping us now, and it hurt us for the future.

This team would've been a good #3 pitcher and a few bullpen arms from being a serious contender in 2007. Now, they have virtually no chance in 2007 and it looks rather dim beyond that.

I can't say I'm optimistic, I'm just saying it's still too early to say how it actually will play out. If Bray and Majewski don't step up and be the pitchers management believed they would be, then, yes, it might be a disaster. Of course, that assumes that Lopez and Kearns star in DC, which isn't a given either. And I won't disagree that it might have helped to have had both Lopez and Kearns in the offseason as chips, but I agree with those who say neither would have brought a front line pitcher. You are correct they probably would have fetched a #3.

WK acknowledged at the time of the trade that he might have overpaid. In fact, I would say he did overpay, but then again, looking at the market now, it's possible he didn't overpay much. In fact, the offense didn't take the hit everyone says as we played some pretty decent ball immediately after the trade. The collective funk that was the final six weeks of the season was due to the loss of Kearns and Lopez. We still had some pretty fair bats in our order, they just didn't get the job done.

I continue to say this trade is too recent to declare it a disaster. And while you didn't make the comment, someone else suggested in response to my response that our bullpen is worse than last year.

Last year everyone said our ballclub was going to fight it out for last place. They're saying it again. We'll see.

Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 12:01 PM
Who cares if this board melts down?

The point was people pitched a fit over trading them for 2 reliefe pitchers and 3 complementary parts because of the poor return, but cling to the idea that if only had them now we'd be raking in all the players we need. "We don't have any trading chips" is the mantra.

The price of pitching has continued to go up, whether by trade or cash. I don't think it follows that we could trade Lopez and Kearns this offseason and get much more than a "might possibly be ok" type #3 guy.

I'm not arguing whether we got all we should in return for the trade, mearly pointing out that I don't think if we had them now that we'd be able to get much more in return.

M2
01-08-2007, 01:42 PM
I'm not arguing whether we got all we should in return for the trade, mearly pointing out that I don't think if we had them now that we'd be able to get much more in return.

And yet Guillen landed Harang and Pena landed Arroyo. Kearns and Lopez are better players and they're positive steals compared to what teams have paid for on the free agent market.

Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 01:48 PM
And yet Guillen landed Harang and Pena landed Arroyo. Kearns and Lopez are better players and they're positive steals compared to what teams have paid for on the free agent market.

Yes, we got those returns, in the past.

And Arroyo was a pretty established pitcher when we traded for him. I don't think there are currently any teams who are pitching rich and would let go a proven #3 or better pitcher for only Kearns or Lopez by themselves (maybe Kearns but I doubt it) now.

M2
01-08-2007, 01:56 PM
Yes, we got those returns, in the past.

And Arroyo was a pretty established pitcher when we traded for him. I don't think there are currently any teams who are pitching rich and would let go a proven #3 or better pitcher for only Kearns or Lopez by themselves (maybe Kearns but I doubt it) now.

I don't subscribe to the notion that things that were done in the recent past can't be duplicated. Frankly, there's no reason why more compelling returns couldn't have been had for those two players. All we can really say of the situation is that more compelling returns weren't had, which means that the team didn't manage to replicate the two trades which have elevated the pitching staff. I find that unfortunate and I see no reason to make excuses for how unfortunate it is.

Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 02:01 PM
I don't subscribe to the notion that things that were done in the recent past can't be duplicated. Frankly, there's no reason why more compelling returns couldn't have been had for those two players. All we can really say of the situation is that more compelling returns weren't had, which means that the team didn't manage to replicate the two trades which have elevated the pitching staff. I find that unfortunate and I see no reason to make excuses for how unfortunate it is.

And again, I'm not commenting on the return from the trade at all, only on what their trade value might be now.

I don't think it's reasonable to say that the market now is the same as the market at this time in 2006. Especially in light of the wild FA spending. As spring training winds down you might see more reasonable trade activity as teams scrable for last minute shopping before the season starts.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a WMP/Arroyo trade could be put together again now....assuming there is a trading partner with a surplus of starting pitching and a shortage of a specific player type that we just so happen to have and can live without.

Not sure what you mean about making excuses. I'm not even taking about the trade itself so I'm not sure how I could be making any excuses about it.

jojo
01-08-2007, 02:09 PM
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a WMP/Arroyo trade could be put together again now....assuming there is a trading partner with a surplus of starting pitching and a shortage of a specific player type that we just so happen to have and can live without.


One thing that should be remembered about that Wily Mo trade is that the BoSox thought they were trading a middle reliever/back end guy for Pena....

M2
01-08-2007, 02:10 PM
I'm not even taking about the trade itself so I'm not sure how I could be making any excuses about it.

"I'm not arguing whether we got all we should in return for the trade, mearly pointing out that I don't think if we had them now that we'd be able to get much more in return."

To me that's an excuse. Juan Pierre's worth a king's ransom and Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez wouldn't be able to fetch more than two middle relievers in trade? I'm not buying that.

I know what the Reds needed to get. I know they didn't get it. I know that, as a result, they still need to figure out a way to get it.

M2
01-08-2007, 02:15 PM
One thing that should be remembered about that Wily Mo trade is that the BoSox thought they were trading a middle reliever/back end guy for Pena....

That's the thing, you need to figure who's undervalued. Instead of getting an undervalued starter for one of Kearns or Lopez, the Reds overvalued two relievers for both of them. It's, like, doing the opposite of what was needed.

RedsManRick
01-08-2007, 02:23 PM
In fact, the offense didn't take the hit everyone says as we played some pretty decent ball immediately after the trade

Blame who you will, but the Reds had a team OPS of .793 before The Trade and .737 afterwards. Is that all due to the loss of Lopez and Kearns? Of course not. Dunn had a .777 OPS, Jr. .764, Hatteberg .721, Phillips .702, and Freel .690 after the break. But
all of those guys might have hit a bit better with some more protection in the lineup and relevant bats around them.

Clayton sucked out loud and Hollandsworth was predictably bleh. Kearns had an .810 OPS in Washington. Lopez's power vanished in 2006, but his OBP was solid and his speed was top notch. He posted a .362 OBP and 21/27 SB in Washington.

Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 02:26 PM
"I'm not arguing whether we got all we should in return for the trade, mearly pointing out that I don't think if we had them now that we'd be able to get much more in return."

To me that's an excuse. Juan Pierre's worth a king's ransom and Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez wouldn't be able to fetch more than two middle relievers in trade? I'm not buying that.

I know what the Reds needed to get. I know they didn't get it. I know that, as a result, they still need to figure out a way to get it.

I'm not suggesting that because the potential trade value of both of those players may be low now that it somehow means it's ok to get less than their market value in the past. I'm only talking about their potential trade value in the present market.

I don't know how many ways to say/type it. I'm not talking about the trade, what we got in return, Waynes reasoning for it or why Jimbo gives me the willies or anything else to do with or related to the trade.

M2
01-08-2007, 02:34 PM
I'm not suggesting that because the potential trade value of both of those players may be low now that it somehow means it's ok to get less than their market value in the past. I'm only talking about their potential trade value in the present market.

I don't know how many ways to say/type it. I'm not talking about the trade, what we got in return, Waynes reasoning for it or why Jimbo gives me the willies or anything else to do with or related to the trade.

No, you're just creating a false construct that the team couldn't do better now. I say they could and I say they need to with the guys they've still got on the roster.

Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 02:38 PM
No, you're just creating a false construct that the team couldn't do better now. I say they could and I say they need to with the guys they've still got on the roster.

You honestly think that right now Felipe Lopez would return an established quality #3 pitcher all by himself? Not a "could possibly might be" but an established one? I just don't see it.

And Kearns? He might be a better shot at pulling one in all by himself but I still find it unlikely.

BTW - here's is part of responce #61. "I don't have a problem with trying to get an under-the-radar pitcher, in fact I think that's the route they should take (or have taken).". So we are both in agreement that they should be scouring the earth for any reasonable starting pitching deal.

M2
01-08-2007, 03:08 PM
You honestly think that right now Felipe Lopez would return an established quality #3 pitcher all by himself? Not a "could possibly might be" but an established one? I just don't see it.

And Kearns? He might be a better shot at pulling one in all by himself but I still find it unlikely.

I think either one could pull an undervalued starting pitcher. Established #3 starter? As jojo noted, Arroyo certainly wasn't an established #3 guy when the Reds got him.

This "established" thing you've got going is your own invention, not mine. I'd be fine with landing someone unestablished. I'm even all right with gambling one of Kearns or Lopez on Bray's potential upside (though he doesn't strike me as closer material, not enough fastball). Again, it's gets back to overvaluing two relievers when the goal should have been finding an undervalued starter.

The Reds still need to find an undervalued starter. That wraps me all the way back to the theme of this thread. Until Krivsky lands a potentially undervalued starter or two, I'm not sure you can call what he's doing a working plan.

flyer85
01-08-2007, 03:13 PM
Or at least Felo could possibly have been dealt to a team that seems to have a surplus of under-appreciated arms(like the Cubs). Heck I would Guzman, Ryu, Marmol, etc. (or Wuertz of course).

Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 03:15 PM
I think either one could pull an undervalued starting pitcher. Established #3 starter? As jojo noted, Arroyo certainly wasn't an established #3 guy when the Reds got him.

This "established" thing you've got going is your own invention, not mine. I'd be fine with landing someone unestablished. I'm even all right with gambling one of Kearns or Lopez on Bray's potential upside (though he doesn't strike me as closer material, not enough fastball). Again, it's gets back to overvaluing two relievers when the goal should have been finding an undervalued starter.

The Reds still need to find an undervalued starter. That wraps me all the way back to the theme of this thread. Until Krivsky lands a potentially undervalued starter or two, I'm not sure you can call what he's doing a working plan.

I agree totally that the Reds need to find starting pitching, established, unestablished, under-valued, unappreicated or unkempt.

I guess I'm just suprised that you didn't like the return of the trade, but you'd be willing now, if given the opportunity, to trade one of them for essentially what amounts to a prospect.

M2
01-08-2007, 03:38 PM
I agree totally that the Reds need to find starting pitching, established, unestablished, under-valued, unappreicated or unkempt.

I guess I'm just suprised that you didn't like the return of the trade, but you'd be willing now, if given the opportunity, to trade one of them for essentially what amounts to a prospect.

I don't see what's so surprising about wanting to trade for another Harang or Arroyo.

Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 03:48 PM
I don't see what's so surprising about wanting to trade for another Harang or Arroyo.

That's what we all want. But since we'd mostly likely have to target a pitcher who is "underappreciated" or "unestablished" or whatever label you want to use, that means we're basically rolling the dice on a glorified prospect.

I'd submit that with the wild FA action teams are going to want to hold onto any starting pitcher with a heartbeat for use as tradebait later on, or actual use on the playing field. Thus, any established (which is why I kept bringing that up) pitcher who could step in and make a difference would likely not be let go for AK or FL by themselves.

I can't wrap my head around why the return for the trade was considered abymsimal but trading them now for prospects would be acceptable.

M2
01-08-2007, 04:09 PM
That's what we all want. But since we'd mostly likely have to target a pitcher who is "underappreciated" or "unestablished" or whatever label you want to use, that means we're basically rolling the dice on a glorified prospect.

I'd submit that with the wild FA action teams are going to want to hold onto any starting pitcher with a heartbeat for use as tradebait later on, or actual use on the playing field. Thus, any established (which is why I kept bringing that up) pitcher who could step in and make a difference would likely not be let go for AK or FL by themselves.

I can't wrap my head around why the return for the trade was abymsimal but trading them now for prospects would be acceptable.

I can't wrap my head around not being able to differentiate between an undervalued starter and overpaying for two relievers, one with an exceptionally low ceiling.

You're acting like we're talking about apples to apples here. That Majewski some equals a starting pitcher with unrealized upside. He doesn't. He's not anywhere close.

As for the other stuff, that's just a pile of rationalization. Given the wild FA action, teams are also going to want to hold onto comparitively cheap, productive bats. Other teams aren't putting players like Kearns and Lopez onto the market, the Nats certainly aren't. If the Reds were still in possession of those two, they'd be one of the few teams willing to move that kind of talent. Do I think a somewhat proven bat could fetch an undervalued (and that word doesn't mean "hot prospect," it means "guy who's better than his current organization realizes") pitcher? Yep.

Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 04:18 PM
As for the other stuff, that's just a pile of rationalization. Given the wild FA action, teams are also going to want to hold onto comparitively cheap, productive bats. Other teams aren't putting players like Kearns and Lopez onto the market, the Nats certainly aren't. If the Reds were still in possession of those two, they'd be one of the few teams willing to move that kind of talent. Do I think a somewhat proven bat could fetch an undervalued (and that word doesn't mean "hot prospect," it means "guy who's better than his current organization realizes") pitcher? Yep.

Yet the Jays have been dangling Alex Rios, who has .302BA, .349OBP and .865 OPS line from last year, in an attempt to swing a trade for starting pitching and have come up with bubkis. "So far any attempts at upgrading the rotation by dangling assets such as right fielder Alex Rios have been a bust. Simply put, teams aren't willing to give up a quality starter at any cost. " Source (http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MLB/Toronto/2007/01/08/3235781-sun.html)

I'd certinally call his line from last year a "somewhat proven bat" wouldn't you?

Certinally this one story doesn't define all the avilable trades that could be out there. But it's evidence of where the market may be right now. This is a young, inexpensive and tallented kid and he brought back nothing in return. It's an indicator.

M2
01-08-2007, 04:59 PM
Yet the Jays have been dangling Alex Rios, who has .302BA, .349OBP and .865 OPS line from last year, in an attempt to swing a trade for starting pitching and have come up with bubkis. "So far any attempts at upgrading the rotation by dangling assets such as right fielder Alex Rios have been a bust. Simply put, teams aren't willing to give up a quality starter at any cost. " Source (http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MLB/Toronto/2007/01/08/3235781-sun.html)

I'd certinally call his line from last year a "somewhat proven bat" wouldn't you?

And from that article it sounds like Ricciardi's also looking for a proven starter, which is a completley different animal than what I've been talking about (all I can do is keep typing the words "undervalued starting pitcher"). Are you done with the bait switch or do we have to keep plowing over this?

Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 05:13 PM
And from that article it sounds like Ricciardi's also looking for a proven starter, which is a completley different animal than what I've been talking about (all I can do is keep typing the words "undervalued starting pitcher"). Are you done with the bait switch or do we have to keep plowing over this?


Well, the article actually says "quality" starting pitching, not "proven starter" so no bait and switch has taken place. You can read into the article whatever you wish.

Oh well we can argue over the "what if" potential of AK and FL all day long. What is really important is what the Reds are able to do in the here and now. I think the chances of finding this "undervalued" (who wasn't so good that the price was too high but just good enough that he'd be able to walk in and make a difference) pitcher, and we are able to pull off a trade are slim to none in this market, but hopefully Wayne will prove me wrong.

Roy Tucker
01-08-2007, 05:17 PM
We want a pitcher, not a belly itcher.

RedsManRick
01-08-2007, 05:19 PM
Gary Majewski was a proven reliever. Just sayin'...

M2
01-08-2007, 05:23 PM
Well, the article actually says "quality" starting pitching, not "proven starter" so no bait and switch has taken place. You can read into the article whatever you wish.

Quite a leap I took from "quality" to "proven" there.


Oh well we can argue over the "what if" potential of AK and FL all day long. What is really important is what the Reds are able to do in the here and now. I think the chances of finding this "undervalued" pitcher, and we are able to pull off a trade (no matter what player(s) we might offer) are slim to none in this market, but hopefully Wayne will prove me wrong.

Well, Wayne hasn't done it. It, however, remains his job and until he does something like it, then what you've got is a lot of backfill in place of an actual plan.

Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 05:24 PM
Well, Wayne hasn't done it. It, however, remains his job and until he does something like it, then what you've got is a lot of backfill in place of an actual plan.

Well, there is something we can definatley agree on.

Handofdeath
01-08-2007, 06:13 PM
Gary Majewski was a proven reliever. Just sayin'...

Absolutely, his 2005 season was fantastic. 86 IP and an ERA under 3.00. And he did it in his 1st full season in the Bigs at age 25. The Reds got him when he was hurt was the problem. And Bray? 23 years old and two years after being a 1st round draft pick he pitches in 48 games and comes out with an ERA just barely over 4.00. When healthy, these two guys are top quality relievers who've got good potential. What's going to happen when Bailey is ready to pitch in the Majors? Who's going to pitch in the late innings? Say what you will about the trade but if Majewski gets healthy the Reds have 2 quality relievers who are young and cheap and will be Reds for a while. I don't always agree with what WK does but I do think he has a plan. The problem is even before the trade he doesn't have a huge amount to work with. He's got almost 10 million a year going to a batting practice machine. He's got more than that going to a guy who hasn't played a full season since 2000 so who is pretty much untradeable especially at 37. The one potential superstar who could be bringing in a boatload of talent has regressed the last two seasons and is nearing the end of his contract. Except for one great prospect the minor league system is pretty barren. He's a mid-market GM watching KC talent getting NY contracts in Free Agency. He's fighting an uphill battle here and people need to cut him some slack. In his one season he took a team that was supposed to be lucky not to lose 100 games and was able to keep them contending for most of the season. It's not like the Reds were contenders before he got there. They won 80 games last season. They hadn't done that since 2000. The man deserves to be let alone. Honestly, and I know no one wants to hear this, you can't really judge him properly until after the 2008 season.

redsmetz
01-09-2007, 09:12 AM
Absolutely, his 2005 season was fantastic. 86 IP and an ERA under 3.00. And he did it in his 1st full season in the Bigs at age 25. The Reds got him when he was hurt was the problem. And Bray? 23 years old and two years after being a 1st round draft pick he pitches in 48 games and comes out with an ERA just barely over 4.00. When healthy, these two guys are top quality relievers who've got good potential. What's going to happen when Bailey is ready to pitch in the Majors? Who's going to pitch in the late innings? Say what you will about the trade but if Majewski gets healthy the Reds have 2 quality relievers who are young and cheap and will be Reds for a while. I don't always agree with what WK does but I do think he has a plan. The problem is even before the trade he doesn't have a huge amount to work with. He's got almost 10 million a year going to a batting practice machine. He's got more than that going to a guy who hasn't played a full season since 2000 so who is pretty much untradeable especially at 37. The one potential superstar who could be bringing in a boatload of talent has regressed the last two seasons and is nearing the end of his contract. Except for one great prospect the minor league system is pretty barren. He's a mid-market GM watching KC talent getting NY contracts in Free Agency. He's fighting an uphill battle here and people need to cut him some slack. In his one season he took a team that was supposed to be lucky not to lose 100 games and was able to keep them contending for most of the season. It's not like the Reds were contenders before he got there. They won 80 games last season. They hadn't done that since 2000. The man deserves to be let alone. Honestly, and I know no one wants to hear this, you can't really judge him properly until after the 2008 season.

I went back and look at Majewski's stats on Baseball Cube and he looked pretty good in the minors and I hadn't seen his 2004 season before (never really bothered). I have to agree, if Majewski's healthy and if Bray develops, both of these pitchers can have a bright future for the Reds. They both bringing down the average age in the bullpen and can be strengths, something few here on Redzone seem to believe.