PDA

View Full Version : Dan O'Brien or Wayne Krivsky



AdamDunn
02-05-2007, 03:04 PM
Dan did a good job in drafting the farm system (ex. Jay Bruce, Homer Bailey, Travis Wood), but didn't seem to do so well with the majors (see Milton). Nor was his piggy-back pitching system a fan favorite

Wayne has done a pretty good job in trades (ex. Phillips, Arroyo, and Ross) and while the verdict is still out there in terms of the way he works the farm system, things aren't looking so well for Stubbs and Watson. Also, some would argue that this offseason has been a bust.

Which one would you rather have running the team right now?

flyer85
02-05-2007, 03:09 PM
Is a 3rd option available?

BRM
02-05-2007, 03:12 PM
Is a 3rd option available?

Jim Beattie?

harangatang
02-05-2007, 03:12 PM
Krivsky has made some bad trades and his draft was terrible and DanO made some good draft choices but the key word there is some. DanO's fault lied in the fact that he did too little and this hurt the ballclub in comparison with Krivsky's fault which is to do way too much. Truthfully I think they both suck and my choice would be neither.

paulrichjr
02-05-2007, 03:14 PM
None of the above...My vote is John Schuerholz

I think many on here have stated, "at least give Wayne a full year...He at least has a plan...He is much better than DanO..." We are almost at that year mark and I am not sure we are any better today then we would have been with DanO as the GM.

durl
02-05-2007, 03:15 PM
Krivsky.

The man's been on the job less than a year, folks.

reds44
02-05-2007, 03:17 PM
Krivsky, by far.

Hoosier Red
02-05-2007, 03:18 PM
Dan did a good job in drafting the farm system (ex. Jay Bruce, Homer Bailey, Travis Wood), but didn't seem to do so well with the majors (see Milton). Nor was his piggy-back pitching system a fan favorite

Wayne has done a pretty good job in trades (ex. Phillips, Arroyo, and Ross) and while the verdict is still out there in terms of the way he works the farm system, things aren't looking so well for Stubbs and Watson. Also, some would argue that this offseason has been a bust.

Which one would you rather have running the team right now?

I know Stubbs didn't look great last year(though he was picking things up at the end.) But what's the issue with Watson?

KronoRed
02-05-2007, 03:19 PM
Punt.

M2
02-05-2007, 03:25 PM
Krivsky, despite the trade and a lackluster offseason, is still leaps and bounds ahead of O'Brien, who was about as bad a GM as you'll ever see. DanO didn't draft well either. His legacy on that front is already down to three guys, barring any out-of-left-field surprises.

dougdirt
02-05-2007, 03:42 PM
Krivsky, despite the trade and a lackluster offseason, is still leaps and bounds ahead of O'Brien, who was about as bad a GM as you'll ever see. DanO didn't draft well either. His legacy on that front is already down to three guys, barring any out-of-left-field surprises.

I am going to disagree. While I will assume you are referring to Bailey, Bruce and Wood as the three, Dano still has Lecure, Milton Loo and Carlos Fisher on the pitching side. He also took Paul Janish, Cody Strait and Drew Anderson as positional players. Then there were Ward and Roberts who were both traded away peices that he drafted that have some future prospects still.

2005 looks better than 2004 draft wise, but for now they both still have prospects alive from them.

Danny Serafini
02-05-2007, 03:52 PM
Krivsky, and it's not even close.

Matt700wlw
02-05-2007, 03:55 PM
Jury's still out....

guttle11
02-05-2007, 03:59 PM
Jury's still out....

No, no it's not.

It may be out deciding Krivsky's true worth, but he's a better GM than DanO. Krivsky took DanO's team and with the help of a few good moves, made them a playoff contender for the vast majority of the season.

dougdirt
02-05-2007, 04:05 PM
No, no it's not.

It may be out deciding Krivsky's true worth, but he's a better GM than DanO. Krivsky took DanO's team and with the help of a few good moves, made them a playoff contender for the vast majority of the season.

Playoff contender only becuase the rest of the league was atrocious. If you took the 80-82 record and put it in either of Danos years the Reds would have finished 20 back (05) and 25 back (04) of the division, and 11 back in 04 of the WC and 9 back in 05.

Johnny Footstool
02-05-2007, 04:06 PM
Is a 3rd option available?

Swift kick to the groin?

flyer85
02-05-2007, 04:09 PM
Swift kick to the groin?there seems to be enough of those(Cormier, Stanton, Conine, Moeller to go around.

Heath
02-05-2007, 04:13 PM
None of the above...My vote is John Schuerholz

I think many on here have stated, "at least give Wayne a full year...He at least has a plan...He is much better than DanO..." We are almost at that year mark and I am not sure we are any better today then we would have been with DanO as the GM.

Yeah, sure, every club would like to have John Schuerholz as a GM. :rolleyes:

Heck, there were people at chopnation.com ready to ax him after season.

Goodness sakes - give Krivsky a break. And comparing him to Dan O'Brien is ludicrious. At least let him finish the offseason.

dfs
02-05-2007, 04:13 PM
Krivksi has a plan and is executing it. I don't know that I buy into the plan, but I can look at his offseason moves and go..."that's what he was trying to do here." I could never do that with O'Brien. At the major league level Dan O'Brien was paralyzed, absolutely afraid that he might make a mistake.


The single biggest job a GM has is to identify and use major league talent (or at least listen to the people who can identify such talent). I'm not convinced that is a strength of either of these guys.

If the reds crater this season and the ax falls on Jerry Narron, I will be very interested in seeing the direction the talent on this roster takes. If Narron is axed and they deal all the 34+ year olds for ptbnl and bring in somebody who will play the kids.....this could be a fun franchise to watch. If they keep all the old guys even after Narron is fired....that will hurt.

Matt700wlw
02-05-2007, 04:14 PM
No, no it's not.

It may be out deciding Krivsky's true worth, but he's a better GM than DanO. Krivsky took DanO's team and with the help of a few good moves, made them a playoff contender for the vast majority of the season.

That wasn't a shot, it's just too soon to evaluate the overall job.

I think he WILL be better than Dan O'brien, but don't know yet.

Kc61
02-05-2007, 04:20 PM
No, no it's not.

It may be out deciding Krivsky's true worth, but he's a better GM than DanO. Krivsky took DanO's team and with the help of a few good moves, made them a playoff contender for the vast majority of the season.

I'm not ready to comment on Wayne K as a big league GM. I'd like to give him one more year on that. I felt DanO was not sufficiently aggressive in re-making the major league team.

In terms of the draft, however, DanO gets credit for some top-tier prospects, which the Reds sorely needed.

Krivsky gets credit because, unlike most Reds GMs in recent years, he seems to be stockpiling draft choices. He signed a whole slew of his picks last year, including some guys we weren't sure were signable. He maneuvered with Aurilia and Shoenweis to get the Reds additional high picks for 2007 -- they now have six choices within the first three rounds. Unsure how the draftees will do, still too early, but he is very aggressive in getting and signing draft choices, which is key for a small market club.

I think Kriv has a good vision for the team and is being very active in implementing it. There are constraints, both financial and public relations (Griffey situation). But I am disappointed that he didn't do more to solidify the major league pitching rotation and bullpen this off-season. So far, I disagree when he says the "pitching and defense are better." I don't see the pitching being better.

Always Red
02-05-2007, 04:24 PM
this will be a fair question (and a good one)...in two more years.

flyer85
02-05-2007, 04:26 PM
this will be a fair question (and a good one)...in two more years.if that is true, it will be a sad day. :help:

paulrichjr
02-05-2007, 04:34 PM
Krivksi has a plan and is executing it. I don't know that I buy into the plan, but I can look at his offseason moves and go..."that's what he was trying to do here." I could never do that with O'Brien. At the major league level Dan O'Brien was paralyzed, absolutely afraid that he might make a mistake.


The single biggest job a GM has is to identify and use major league talent (or at least listen to the people who can identify such talent). I'm not convinced that is a strength of either of these guys.

If the reds crater this season and the ax falls on Jerry Narron, I will be very interested in seeing the direction the talent on this roster takes. If Narron is axed and they deal all the 34+ year olds for ptbnl and bring in somebody who will play the kids.....this could be a fun franchise to watch. If they keep all the old guys even after Narron is fired....that will hurt.



I totally 100% disagree with people that say that DanO did not have a plan. He had a plan and to be honest I think his biggest downfall was his desire to stick to his plan no matter what. DanO's plan was to build for the future and not for the present. His goal was to win over the longhaul by building the farm system. I don't care what anyone says this man drafted better than anyone has for the Reds in a long time. We are about to see the first of his draft choices joining the Reds this season and they could be the conrnerstone for this organization for years to come. I despise DanO as a GM but he sold Carl on the idea of building the farm and playing for 2007 and beyond. He stuck with that plan even though the team could have used 2 starters a couple of times and possibly went to the playoffs. WayneK on the other hand appears to have less ability to stick with a plan. In fact I believe a couple of disgruntled employees left for that reason.

Tom Servo
02-05-2007, 04:52 PM
There's no doubt in my mind Krivsky's better, but I'm not so sure WayneK's the guy I want running the Reds for years to come. DanO had the 2004 and 2005 seasons, while Krivsky's only had the 2006 season. I want to atleast see what Krivsky does in 2007, especially if we're losing and executing an everything must go firesale. If everything falls into place and the squad we have right now manages 80+ wins I'll never question WayneK again.

Kc61
02-05-2007, 04:56 PM
I totally 100% disagree with people that say that DanO did not have a plan. He had a plan and to be honest I think his biggest downfall was his desire to stick to his plan no matter what. DanO's plan was to build for the future and not for the present. His goal was to win over the longhaul by building the farm system.

WayneK on the other hand appears to have less ability to stick with a plan. In fact I believe a couple of disgruntled employees left for that reason.


Wayne doesn't have "less ability to stick with a plan." He just has a different plan. He is trying to re-make the major league team while also building up the farm. I give him a lot of credit for finally trying to change a team built largely on offensive power. You can disagree, as I do, with some of his moves but, without spending a fortune, Krivsky is turning over the roster to emphasize different types of players.

If DanO's plan was, as you say, singly based on building the farm system, I'm glad he was replaced. I don't think you can have such a one-dimensional approach in today's pro sports.

flyer85
02-05-2007, 04:56 PM
There's no doubt in my mind Krivsky's better, but I'm not so sure WayneK's the guy I want running the Reds for years to come. DanO had the 2004 and 2005 seasons, while Krivsky's only had the 2006 season. I want to atleast see what Krivsky does in 2007, especially if we're losing and executing an everything must go firesale. If everything falls into place and the squad we have right now manages 80+ wins I'll never question WayneK again.I want a GM who is willing to do what is necessary to make the Reds a year in and year out playoff contender. So what if the 2007 Reds win 80+ games, it will be a fluke. It sure seems like WK has spent a lot of time and money scrounging for at best, a few marginal wins, which will have no impact on building for the future.

I want to see the Reds in the playoffs. There are only two finishes, in the playoffs and out of the playoffs.

Kc61
02-05-2007, 05:00 PM
I want a GM who is willing to do what is necessary to make the Reds a year in and year out playoff contender. So what if the 2007 Reds win 80+ games, it will be a fluke. It sure seems like WK has spent a lot of time and money scrounging for at best, a few marginal wins, which will have no impact on building for the future.

I want to see the Reds in the playoffs. There are only two finishes, in the playoffs and out of the playoffs.

I think Wayne was trying to get some short-term results last year because of the weak division. That's why he was "scrounging for a few marginal wins."

Longer term, the test for Wayne -- and for this ownership -- will be their willingness to spend to bring in a few key top players to put the Reds "over the top." Obviously they didn't think this off-season was the time to do that. I am happy to see them build with youth, try to get good bargains, and improve defense and pitching. But eventually they will have to spend some more to compete.

flyer85
02-05-2007, 05:07 PM
I think Wayne was trying to get some short-term results last year because of the weak division. That's why he was "scrounging for a few marginal wins."bringing in or keeping the likes of Castro/Conine/Cormier/Stanton/Weathers is just repeating it all over again. Last year they were named White/Hammonds/Mays/McCracken/Clayton.

These kind of guys are not about building anything, they are about getting to 77 wins(if things work out) instead of 75.

The emperor is not wearing any clothes.

M2
02-05-2007, 05:09 PM
I am going to disagree. While I will assume you are referring to Bailey, Bruce and Wood as the three, Dano still has Lecure, Milton Loo and Carlos Fisher on the pitching side. He also took Paul Janish, Cody Strait and Drew Anderson as positional players. Then there were Ward and Roberts who were both traded away peices that he drafted that have some future prospects still.

Any of those guys better than a C prospect? Possibly Loo, but DanO never managed to sign Loo. No way of knowing if DanO would have gotten him into the fold.

I know there's still guys "alive" from those drafts, but right now the number of guys thriving is frighteningly low. Certainly not one pick outside the first two rounds 2004 or 2005 has gained serious prospect status yet. There's still time for some guys to surprise, but let's call that for what it is. If a 2004/5 guy outside of Bailey, Bruce or Wood were to break out he'd be considered a surprise. I'm all for pleasant surprises, mind you.

durl
02-05-2007, 05:10 PM
I want a GM who is willing to do what is necessary to make the Reds a year in and year out playoff contender. So what if the 2007 Reds win 80+ games, it will be a fluke. It sure seems like WK has spent a lot of time and money scrounging for at best, a few marginal wins, which will have no impact on building for the future.

I want to see the Reds in the playoffs. There are only two finishes, in the playoffs and out of the playoffs.


Perennial contenders simply aren't made in a year. Krivsky may NOT be the man to put together a winner for Cincinnati but we should at least give him a few seasons to see what he can do.

I find it odd that many seem to be writing him off before he's even seen a 2nd Spring Training.

flyer85
02-05-2007, 05:13 PM
Perennial contenders simply aren't made in a year. Krivsky may NOT be the man to put together a winner for Cincinnati but we should at least give him a few seasons to see what he can do.

I find it odd that many seem to be writing him off before he's even seen a 2nd Spring Training.Bringing in the over-the-hill gang is NOT building for any future. It is simply overpaying for the past.

Do like Schuerholz did, get an idiot like Bavasi to deal you Soriano for a broken down soft tossing lefty with less upside than Elizardo.

NC Reds
02-05-2007, 05:20 PM
I think Krivsky is a disaster. His plan, if that is what it can be called, seems to be to collect aging veterans. I fear we will devolve into the KC Royals and Dunn will be our Carlos Beltran (jettisoned rather than built around). I hope I am wrong. I am still bitter that he got so thoroughly hosed trading Kearns and Lopez (admittedly two players I liked a lot).

DanO was horrible, but he did not deplete the young talent on the 40 man roster.

flyer85
02-05-2007, 05:25 PM
I think Krivsky is a disaster. His plan, if that is what it can be called, seems to be to collect aging veterans. I fear we will devolve into the KC Royals and Dunn will be our Carlos Beltran (jettisoned rather than built around). The Reds are certainly not any better positioned for the future than when DanO left and are likely worse off. They won a few more games last year and likely will the next few years but WK has nothing to position this team for winning down the road.

I'll be honest, a lot of the blame has to fall on Castellini. It seems like DanO was fired for having no plan to "win now" and Krivsky was brought with the task of "win now".

dfs
02-05-2007, 05:25 PM
I totally 100% disagree with people that say that DanO did not have a plan. He had a plan and to be honest I think his biggest downfall was his desire to stick to his plan no matter what. DanO's plan was to build for the future and not for the present.

Then he needed to cash in his major league players in order to actually build a farm system. He didn't do that because he didn't have a plan.

dougdirt
02-05-2007, 05:30 PM
Any of those guys better than a C prospect? Possibly Loo, but DanO never managed to sign Loo. No way of knowing if DanO would have gotten him into the fold.

I know there's still guys "alive" from those drafts, but right now the number of guys thriving is frighteningly low. Certainly not one pick outside the first two rounds 2004 or 2005 has gained serious prospect status yet. There's still time for some guys to surprise, but let's call that for what it is. If a 2004/5 guy outside of Bailey, Bruce or Wood were to break out he'd be considered a surprise. I'm all for pleasant surprises, mind you.

I would rate Loo and Lecure as at least B- prospects right now, with next year having the ability to bump them up, especially Loo. I would imagine that Dano would have brought Loo in considering he drafted him several times and Loo signed for about what was offered to him the previous year. If say Lecure were to come along and be a solid #4 pitcher, I dont think that would be a surprise at all.

dougdirt
02-05-2007, 05:38 PM
Then he needed to cash in his major league players in order to actually build a farm system. He didn't do that because he didn't have a plan.

I disagree. He cashed in Cory Lidle for a guy who pitched very well for the Reds last year outside his last 14 innings of the season in Elizardo Ramirez, and he also got Javon Moran in that deal. Moran was recently traded away, but all Moran did was hit .330 for the Reds farm system since 2004. He drafted several players who also led to other trades in Zach Ward (who got Lohse) and Brandon Roberts (who got Castro). The system was recently ranked 12th in baseball by Baseball America, and if it still had Ward and Roberts it may have ranked higher. Of the Reds top 15 prospects, he is responsible for 10 of them, 1 from Leatherpants and 4 from Krivsky.

Kc61
02-05-2007, 05:39 PM
I think Krivsky is a disaster. His plan, if that is what it can be called, seems to be to collect aging veterans. I fear we will devolve into the KC Royals and Dunn will be our Carlos Beltran (jettisoned rather than built around). I hope I am wrong. I am still bitter that he got so thoroughly hosed trading Kearns and Lopez (admittedly two players I liked a lot).

DanO was horrible, but he did not deplete the young talent on the 40 man roster.

The aging veterans are stop gaps, inexpensive players for mostly backup roles, usually on a one or two year contract. Krivsky knows these guys aren't the future, but he would rather play them than rush minor league kids who aren't ready.

Anyone who thinks Krivsky simply likes older players is underselling his ability.

As for Kearns and Lopez, I would guess that WK does not share your view of their talent. I don't excuse the failure to ascertain Majewski's health. But I think Krivsky didn't view the trade as "depleting young talent" but rather cutting loose guys who didn't fit what he is trying to build.

dfs
02-05-2007, 06:01 PM
I disagree. He cashed in Cory Lidle for a guy who pitched very well for the Reds last year outside his last 14 innings of the season in Elizardo Ramirez, and he also got Javon Moran in that deal. Moran was recently traded away, but all Moran did was hit .330 for the Reds farm system since 2004. He drafted several players who also led to other trades in Zach Ward (who got Lohse) and Brandon Roberts (who got Castro). The system was recently ranked 12th in baseball by Baseball America, and if it still had Ward and Roberts it may have ranked higher. Of the Reds top 15 prospects, he is responsible for 10 of them, 1 from Leatherpants and 4 from Krivsky.

heh. I Think we'll just have to disagree about this one.
I don't find it too shocking that the bulk of the valuable minor leaguer in your system were aquired by the gm who was running the show 2-4 years ago. If Bowden's prospects were still very valuable...well, that would be an anomaly. Likewise, Krivki has had one year to stock the store.

I think the big think I can't forgive Dan O for was his inability to solve the four headed outfield monster. He had four outfielders that could have/should have played full time. He never was able to swing a deal for one any one of them. As a fan (and as a gm watcher) that was maddening. He also did a terrible job of working the edge of his 40 man roster, the reds pretty consistantly had 3 or 4 guys on the 40 man roster that really had no buisness being there. Notice the market for Olmedo and Bergola and Gosling and...well, there where a LOT of those guys.

That's not to excuse Krivsky's collection of roster waste, it's just that Dan O's was even worse.

Puffy
02-05-2007, 06:18 PM
The emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Yup, and unfortunely the emperor is not Pam Anderson but rather Louie Anderson.

RichRed
02-05-2007, 06:20 PM
Krivsky's better than DanO but talk about faint praise...

If next year, Krivsky is still "building" the team with the 2008 versions of Conine, Cormier, Castro, et al, then it's really time to worry.

And I agree with those who say Krivsky has a plan. I'm just not convinced he's capable of identifying the right players to execute that plan.

Definitely better than DanO but we'll have to see if that translates to a winning team.

M2
02-05-2007, 06:50 PM
I would rate Loo and Lecure as at least B- prospects right now, with next year having the ability to bump them up, especially Loo. I would imagine that Dano would have brought Loo in considering he drafted him several times and Loo signed for about what was offered to him the previous year. If say Lecure were to come along and be a solid #4 pitcher, I dont think that would be a surprise at all.

...

I disagree. He cashed in Cory Lidle for a guy who pitched very well for the Reds last year outside his last 14 innings of the season in Elizardo Ramirez, and he also got Javon Moran in that deal. Moran was recently traded away, but all Moran did was hit .330 for the Reds farm system since 2004. He drafted several players who also led to other trades in Zach Ward (who got Lohse) and Brandon Roberts (who got Castro). The system was recently ranked 12th in baseball by Baseball America, and if it still had Ward and Roberts it may have ranked higher. Of the Reds top 15 prospects, he is responsible for 10 of them, 1 from Leatherpants and 4 from Krivsky.

A) That's pretty optimistic take on Lecure. BA ranked him 12th while admitting the Reds have a thin system. That's C prospect territory. I hope he does well, but I haven't seen him highly touted by any scouting pub/site.

B) Never assume Dan O'Brien would have successfully done anything. Two-plus years of watching him be a rolling disaster should have taught us all that lesson.

C) Elizardo Ramirez was always an inch away from a brutal beating and he finally got it. Javon Moran does nothing for me, no power, no arm, supposedly poor defensive instincts, won't take a walk. Chris Dickerson can hit just about .100 lower and still get on base more often, with some pop and defense to boot.

D) Points to Krivsky to being willing to trade his fringe prospects, but let's be honest, the Twins were dumping Lohse and Castro and Krivsky's ties there probably made those deals more than the "quality" of the prospects involved.

E) In which system wouldn't you expect the bulk of the top prospects to be from the 2004 and 2005 drafts? I suppose one with a lot of AAA and AA talents, but that's not the Reds. Also, BA holds on the overall farm system rankings until March and I'll be surprised if the Reds crack the top 15. The ranking you're referring to encapsulates the majors and the organization as well.

paulrichjr
02-05-2007, 06:57 PM
If (and that is a big IF) WayneK pulls off any trades that come close to what he did with Arroyo, Phillips and Ross last year, I will look past the Kearns/Lopez blunder and give him one of those once in a while. You don't have to win every trade but you should never just get obviously hosed the next day. WayneK did that.

I think you have to look at each part of the Reds and say, "Is it better today than it was the day that Wayne was hired?"

Offense - No
Defense - Maybe - hopefully but not sure
Bullpen- Maybe - hopefully but not sure
Starting - Yes
Farm System - I personally think it is not.
Overall - Maybe but not sure - The team overall doesn't appear to be a lot better which is odd when you realize that the Reds have made something like 1000 transactions in less than 1 year.

reds44
02-05-2007, 07:01 PM
Offense- No
Defense- Yes
Bullpen- Yes
Starting- Yes
Farm System- Ehh I'm not sure if it's that much better, but it's not worse.
Overall- Yes

Falls City Beer
02-05-2007, 07:06 PM
Any of those guys better than a C prospect? Possibly Loo, but DanO never managed to sign Loo. No way of knowing if DanO would have gotten him into the fold.

I know there's still guys "alive" from those drafts, but right now the number of guys thriving is frighteningly low. Certainly not one pick outside the first two rounds 2004 or 2005 has gained serious prospect status yet. There's still time for some guys to surprise, but let's call that for what it is. If a 2004/5 guy outside of Bailey, Bruce or Wood were to break out he'd be considered a surprise. I'm all for pleasant surprises, mind you.

I'll agree that DanO wasn't a particularly good drafter, but that argument also means that Wayne is an atrocious drafter.

forfreelin04
02-05-2007, 07:12 PM
I want a GM who is willing to do what is necessary to make the Reds a year in and year out playoff contender. So what if the 2007 Reds win 80+ games, it will be a fluke. It sure seems like WK has spent a lot of time and money scrounging for at best, a few marginal wins, which will have no impact on building for the future.

I want to see the Reds in the playoffs. There are only two finishes, in the playoffs and out of the playoffs.

I don't understand you want them to win "now" in this instance then two posts later you say you want to see them put into a position to win "later."

It sounds like you just want it all and you want it now. :beerme:

The fact of the matter is Wayne K got us Bronson for the Red Sox's now fourth outfielder. DanO got us Bubba Bong and Dave Williams for Sean Casey. Nuff said.

Eric_Davis
02-05-2007, 07:17 PM
Pete Rose or Buddy Bell?

forfreelin04
02-05-2007, 07:17 PM
I may be mistaken but wasn't Wayne aboard when we almost won the division last year? His second season hasnt even started yet. Everyone wants to complain about the old guys.... who else is gonna play here? If you dont have money to spend you can't overpay for top notch free agents. (CUBS) Plus, if you have players that no one wants, you can't trade for young prospects.

guttle11
02-05-2007, 07:17 PM
That wasn't a shot, it's just too soon to evaluate the overall job.

I think he WILL be better than Dan O'brien, but don't know yet.

Definitely, but I took the question to mean right now, through the first year. I've seen a team improve the bottom line (wins) regardless of how anyone feels about the process of doing so.

Just taking year 1 of both, I really see no comparison.

Obviously, O'Brien did pretty well at the top of the drafts, but that's only part of the job.

guttle11
02-05-2007, 07:22 PM
Playoff contender only becuase the rest of the league was atrocious. If you took the 80-82 record and put it in either of Danos years the Reds would have finished 20 back (05) and 25 back (04) of the division, and 11 back in 04 of the WC and 9 back in 05.

Oh, I realize that, but it really doesn't matter to me. This team improved in the last year, and there is a case to be made that the Cardinals won a few less games in part because the Reds were better.

I feel safe in saying that if DanO was still here, Ross, Phillips, and Arroyo would not. I also feel safe in saying Kearns, Wily Mo, and LaRue would be here, and I'll take the former.

MrCinatit
02-05-2007, 07:32 PM
I think Krivsky is a disaster. His plan, if that is what it can be called, seems to be to collect aging veterans. I fear we will devolve into the KC Royals and Dunn will be our Carlos Beltran (jettisoned rather than built around). I hope I am wrong. I am still bitter that he got so thoroughly hosed trading Kearns and Lopez (admittedly two players I liked a lot).
DanO was horrible, but he did not deplete the young talent on the 40 man roster.

Actually, I disagree with this point.
In 2004, we were graced with the likes of Castro, Cruz and White - along with such greats as Darren Bragg, John Vander Wal, Corky Miller, Jermaine Clark, Jason Romano, Cory Lidle, Phil Norton, Todd Jones, Todd Van Poppel, Mike Mathews, Jung Bong, Jimmy Haynes, Jesus Sanchez, Juan Padilla, and Aaron Myette. These were just the vets, discounting the likes of Hummel, Riedling, et al who were much younger - but still struggled.
2005? Try Aurillia, Joe Randa, Jacob Cruz, Aaron Holbert, Luis Lopez, Kenny Kelly, Ramon Ortiz, Randy Keisler, Jason Standridge, Rickey Stone, Ben Weber, Allan Simpson, and Chris Booker.
Does that make Wayne better with the likes of Clayton, Castro, Hollandsworth, White, Franklyn, Williams (oops, bought in by Dan) and a billion others in a cast of characters? No - but it seems that with our budget, the roster is always going to be filled with such veteran fodder. However, I am sure the same is true for all teams.
Would I take Wayne over Dan0? I would for now. For now.

jojo
02-05-2007, 07:52 PM
Wayne or Dan-O doesn't seem like a fair choice.... I wonder what Dan-o would look like without Allen/Lindner pulling the strings....

RedEye
02-05-2007, 08:06 PM
None of the above...My vote is John Schuerholz

I think many on here have stated, "at least give Wayne a full year...He at least has a plan...He is much better than DanO..." We are almost at that year mark and I am not sure we are any better today then we would have been with DanO as the GM.

The only real upgrade Wayne's managed, IMO, is Arroyo. Phillips is decent, but we already had a good 2B in Lopez and we just didn't realize it. Ross has made Wayne look good, but I'm not sure how long that's going to last.

Compared with DanO, I say it's a dead heat in at least a few areas:

Both had a serious blunder (Milton, 'The Trade') that will hamstring the team for several offseasons. Both were roundly ridiculed by the league (and reviled on this site) for that blunder.

Both had some sort of success in the draft, but not overall success. That is, DanO did well with the high profile picks (Bailey, Bruce, Wood) but didn't ever acquire much depth; Wayne has been the opposite with poor high picks (Stubbs, Watson) and some surprisingly good results from the lower rounds (Valaika, Loo). Granted, it's actually a bit early to assess the drafts for either GM since we're so few years out.

Their main differences lie in management style.

DanO was a 'slow-paced, don't rock the boat' type and Wayne seems like a 'my way or the highway' type. I'm not sure that either of these is what the Reds really need. 'Slow-paced, don't rock the boat' guys don't get much done (except be Yes men for stingy owners) and 'my way or the highway' types tend to piss people off (Barton, Almaraz) and burn bridges.

The thing that is especially bad about Wayne (and potentially more damaging than any quality DanO had) is that he seems to lack discipline and foresight. If you are a 'my way or the highway' GM--and some of the best (Beane comes to mind) are definitely that--than you have to also really be a calculating, measured, savvy kind of player. Wayne supposedly is 'hard-working' but he also seems to be impatient and reckless, which is not something that a club with limited resources can afford.

Wayne's way might be more exciting, but it's also potentially more damaging.

dougdirt
02-05-2007, 08:07 PM
A) That's pretty optimistic take on Lecure. BA ranked him 12th while admitting the Reds have a thin system. That's C prospect territory. I hope he does well, but I haven't seen him highly touted by any scouting pub/site.

Baseball America also had James Avery ranked 14th in our system.... While I like what they do for the most part, sometimes they completely baffle me when they do things like that. Lecure throws 88-91 with his FB, has a pretty good slider and a decent change up. He is a control guy, but he will star the season at 22 (turns 23 in May) at AA after a season where he held opposing hitters to a .667 OPS against.


B) Never assume Dan O'Brien would have successfully done anything. Two-plus years of watching him be a rolling disaster should have taught us all that lesson. While I can almost agree with that, Loo signed for I believe $15,000 more than he was offered last season. In such a weak year for a draft, I would imagine they would pony up the money for someone like Loo.


C) Elizardo Ramirez was always an inch away from a brutal beating and he finally got it. Javon Moran does nothing for me, no power, no arm, supposedly poor defensive instincts, won't take a walk. Chris Dickerson can hit just about .100 lower and still get on base more often, with some pop and defense to boot.

Ramirez pitched fine for a while. He was 23 last season and had an ERA under 4.50 into August. Say what you want about him, but he was quite effective and valuable for the Reds last season.


D) Points to Krivsky to being willing to trade his fringe prospects, but let's be honest, the Twins were dumping Lohse and Castro and Krivsky's ties there probably made those deals more than the "quality" of the prospects involved.

Im not saying the two were premiere prospects, although I do like what Ward brings to the table quite a bit, they surely would have helped bolster the system as far as depth and talent goes.


E) In which system wouldn't you expect the bulk of the top prospects to be from the 2004 and 2005 drafts? I suppose one with a lot of AAA and AA talents, but that's not the Reds. Also, BA holds on the overall farm system rankings until March and I'll be surprised if the Reds crack the top 15. The ranking you're referring to encapsulates the majors and the organization as well.
I see your point here, but I also think saying Dano had bad drafts is not completely accurate. I think he has more than just "the big three" to hang his hat on still.

dougdirt
02-05-2007, 08:09 PM
Both had some sort of success in the draft, but not overall success. That is, DanO did well with the high profile picks (Bailey, Bruce, Wood) but didn't ever acquire much depth; Wayne has been the opposite with poor high picks (Stubbs, Watson) and some surprisingly good results from the lower rounds (Valaika, Loo). Granted, it's actually a bit early to assess the drafts for either GM since we're so few years out.


Milton Loo was a Dan Obrien draft pick from both 2004 and 2005. He was a draft and follow pick, and the Reds signed him after Obrien left, but only had the rights to him due to Obrien.

RedEye
02-05-2007, 08:18 PM
Milton Loo was a Dan Obrien draft pick from both 2004 and 2005. He was a draft and follow pick, and the Reds signed him after Obrien left, but only had the rights to him due to Obrien.

Thanks for the correction.

pedro
02-05-2007, 10:15 PM
but we already had a good 2B in Lopez and we just didn't realize it. .

that remains to be seen. it would have been worth giving it a shot before dumping him though.

Matt700wlw
02-05-2007, 10:22 PM
Definitely, but I took the question to mean right now, through the first year. I've seen a team improve the bottom line (wins) regardless of how anyone feels about the process of doing so.

Just taking year 1 of both, I really see no comparison.

Obviously, O'Brien did pretty well at the top of the drafts, but that's only part of the job.

If that's the case, then I would say overall, right now, Krivsky has done better.

jmcclain19
02-05-2007, 10:50 PM
Dan O'Brien getting credit for a solid draft in 2004 just makes my stomach churn.

2004 was a disaster - and I've posted before that the Brewers likely saved the Reds from themselves and took Mark Rogers instead of Bailey. The next six picks after Bailey have been total bombs (outside the slim hope that Paul Janish turns into a late inning defensive replacement some day). Bailey's success will make everyone try to shine up that turd into a DanO back pat. But that was luck. Plain & simple.

paulrichjr
02-05-2007, 11:17 PM
Dan O'Brien getting credit for a solid draft in 2004 just makes my stomach churn.

2004 was a disaster - and I've posted before that the Brewers likely saved the Reds from themselves and took Mark Rogers instead of Bailey. The next six picks after Bailey have been total bombs (outside the slim hope that Paul Janish turns into a late inning defensive replacement some day). Bailey's success will make everyone try to shine up that turd into a DanO back pat. But that was luck. Plain & simple.

I don't disagree with the last part but from what I have seen from past drafts (all teams) if you can get one really good pick right every year you are doing really really well. It looks like DanO did that.

jmcclain19
02-06-2007, 12:19 AM
I don't disagree with the last part but from what I have seen from past drafts (all teams) if you can get one really good pick right every year you are doing really really well. It looks like DanO did that.

Point well taken. But I would say the credit in Bailey's case, should go to the Scouting Director, in this case Terry Reynolds, rather than Dan O'Brien.

AdamDunn
02-06-2007, 11:48 AM
If (and that is a big IF) WayneK pulls off any trades that come close to what he did with Arroyo, Phillips and Ross last year, I will look past the Kearns/Lopez blunder and give him one of those once in a while. You don't have to win every trade but you should never just get obviously hosed the next day. WayneK did that.

I think you have to look at each part of the Reds and say, "Is it better today than it was the day that Wayne was hired?"

Offense - No
Defense - Maybe - hopefully but not sure
Bullpen- Maybe - hopefully but not sure
Starting - Yes
Farm System - I personally think it is not.
Overall - Maybe but not sure - The team overall doesn't appear to be a lot better which is odd when you realize that the Reds have made something like 1000 transactions in less than 1 year.

Offense- No
Defense- Yes
Bullpen- Yes
Starting- Yes
Farm System- Absolutely not
Overall- No, the offense is atrocious (see last month of the 2006 season) and the drafting wasn't all that hot either.

also... someone commented long time ago about what's wrong with Watson... I refer to his stat numbers so far, including his last College season...

Tennessee
4-3 4.61 41.0 innings, 42 hits allowed, 23 runs, 21 earned runs, 7 home runs allowed, 17 walks, 47 SO

Dayton
1-2 8.59 14.2 innings, 22 hits allowed, 14 runs, 14 earned runs, 2 home runs allowed, 5 walks, 16 SO

those are pretty ugly numbers for a guy drafted in the second round. I don't care what the scouting report says, his numbers at Tennessee don' warrant a second round pick, not to mention a early one.

Doc. Scott
02-06-2007, 01:04 PM
I'll agree that DanO wasn't a particularly good drafter, but that argument also means that Wayne is an atrocious drafter.

That's one thing you absolutely can't judge yet: Wayne's drafting.

Krivsky and Chris Buckley had a plan: offensive tools plus underworked, projectable college arms. (This is something Buckley had practiced in Toronto with David Bush as a prime example.) Will it work? Early returns were a little troubling; the top picks had their issues, although the class as a whole dominated the Pioneer League (while that's not an endorsement, it beats getting one's ass kicked in the Pioneer League). What worries me, especially with the pitchers, is that it takes strong instruction to do all these conversions. The Twins system was well-known for it, and the Reds' system... wasn't. Are the right people in place? I don't know.

Also, I don't think picking Homer Bailey and Jay Bruce means DanO (or Terry Reynolds) was a great drafter per se. Those players were projected to go right when they did. Bailey was the consensus best HS arm in the 2004 draft. The kids have succeeded quite nicely to this point and the system hasn't screwed them up. What makes a great drafter is finding major-leaguers below the first round or two. We won't know for another two years or so, although DanO projects to be no better than adequate at that.

This is a case where I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between Doug and his rose-colored glasses and FCB/M2 Alley.

flyer85
02-06-2007, 01:05 PM
that remains to be seen. it would have been worth giving it a shot before dumping him though.especially seeing as how much PECOTA loves him(especially in comparison to Phillips) over the next few years.

pedro
02-06-2007, 01:08 PM
especially seeing as how much PECOTA loves him(especially in comparison to Phillips) over the next few years.

Pecota is still rating him as a SS though so I think those numbers are skewed. I think they'll be a lot closer in value than pecota suggests. Phillips will never get on base the way that Lopez does, but I'm not at all convinced that Lopez will be adequate at 2B and if he's not, he'll have nothing to hang his hat on other than being a somewhat weak hitting 3rd baseman which will further drive those numbers down.