PDA

View Full Version : Why Are Reds Fans So Negative About The Reds?



Krusty
02-06-2007, 10:25 AM
Maybe it is me but the club did make strides by going 80-82 last season. And this club was in contention till the end of August when injuries to Guardado and Griffey pretty much sealed its fate.

And while the offseason additions don't seem spectacular, I remember Krivsky saying it is the sum of all the parts that matter. But no matter what Krivsky does or doesn't do, he is slammed by Reds fans probably more than stand pat Dan O'Brien.

So is it all the losing seasons that festers this negative attitude towards the Reds?

flyer85
02-06-2007, 10:27 AM
I fail to see an upgrade in talent that would allow them to contend outside of another fluky year like th last one. The Reds go in to 2007 and look to be below average in offense, defense and pitching.

Krusty
02-06-2007, 10:32 AM
I fail to see an upgrade in talent that would allow them to contend outside of another fluky year like th last one. The Reds go in to 2007 and look to be below average in offense, defense and pitching.


What would you have done in free agency? Overpay for medicore talent? Pay 24 million for Adam Eaton? Pay 6 million for Eric Gagne not knowing if he will be healthy?

In the trade market, who do you got to trade? Dunn's trade value is low. Trade either Harang and Arroyo and you're going backwards instead of going forward.

kbrake
02-06-2007, 10:34 AM
I think you confuse negativity with reality. I know there are some people on here that go out of their way to be negative and just try to stir the pot a bit. But, for the most part, I dont think Reds fans are negative. I think most the people on here understand that it is unlikely Ross and Phillips will have similiar seasons to last year. Most realize Griffey, even when healthy, isnt even close the player he once was. Most find it discouraging when Jerry Narron holds this team back. When you are short in talent you can not afford to hit Royce Clayton second and play Junior in center. So I really dont think Reds fans are negative, and I promise you that we all want the Reds to win just as badly as anyone else we just dont see it as something that is likely to happen.

HumnHilghtFreel
02-06-2007, 10:34 AM
I know what you mean Krusty. I think a lot of Reds fans are also just fans of pessimism.

MrCinatit
02-06-2007, 10:35 AM
Guess we got a little spoiled by that 130 game winning streak in '69 and '70. Been downhill since then.

durl
02-06-2007, 10:38 AM
I agree, Krusty. While I am disappointed that the Reds haven't made the postseason in quite some time, the constant pessimism only makes worse.

The Reds were competitive until September last year when no one gave us a chance, yet those 5 months are called a "fluke." I see it as a reason to hope for a good year in 2007.

Johnny Footstool
02-06-2007, 10:38 AM
Disappointment.

IMO, they were on the verge of being a serious contender. They had 3 big needs to fill this offseason: a #3 starter, a quality RH bat, and a closer. They could have filled all of those needs in free agency by spending some cash. Instead, they went cheap and filled exactly none of those needs. Very disappointing.

Then Krivsky spent millions of dollars on ancient bullpen arms. Even more disappointing.

I'd be less disappointed if some of Krivsky's acquisitions had some reasonable upside. They don't. It's a longshot to hope that Saarloos and Lohse will somehow become effective pitchers. It's a longshot to hope that Cormier, Stanton, and Weathers have anything left in the tank. Sure, the chips could somehow magically fall into place like they did with Arroyo, but it's not something I would count on.

Always Red
02-06-2007, 10:40 AM
realism, frustration, history, impatience.

But mostly because everyone here wants, very very badly, for the Reds to win again. And we disagree on how to get there.

flyer85
02-06-2007, 10:48 AM
I agree, Krusty. While I am disappointed that the Reds haven't made the postseason in quite some time, the constant pessimism only makes worse.What you see as pessimism is more likely realism. It takes and overly optimistic view to look at the 2007 Reds and see them as a contender outside a convergence of good luck and another strange season.

What could the Reds have done in the off-season to make them a contender? Likely nothing, WK used his surplus resources last July and got little to nothing in return. Now its time to pay the piper.

However, WKs insistence on blowing millions on over-the-hill players to plug significant holes is ludicrous.

HBP
02-06-2007, 11:18 AM
My view on this team right now is a more apathetic stance than pessimistic. Maybe that makes me a bad fan, I don't know. I still believe this team is a non-contender because of the late Bowden year drafts. And I'm not saying it's completely Bowden and Linders fault either, freak injuries happend. But, the chioces they made in some of those drafts created a huge talent gap starting from when Dunn & Kearns came up until now with Bailey, Votto (they did get him), Bruce, etc.

So that brings us to todays team that has only three players that are true products of the farm system (Dunn, Deno, and Coffey). Not until a continuous crop of young talent populates this system will this team be able to be actual contenders.

AdamDunn
02-06-2007, 11:30 AM
we like to call it not making the playoffs since 1990

M2
02-06-2007, 11:32 AM
Johnny covered most of it. This offseason has sucked the high hard one.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
02-06-2007, 11:33 AM
"YOU ROTTEN MOBS! YOU OVERPAID WEENIES! MILD THING! YOU MAKE MY BUTT STING! I DETEST YOU! YOU'RE ALL GARBAGE! ALL OF YOU! BACK UP THE TRUCK! BACK IT UP!" :laugh:

Heath
02-06-2007, 11:36 AM
I think most of us have been a part of possibly the most successful 25 years of this franchise (1970-1995). When you have that history, combined with the small-town atmosphere of Cincinnati, the Reds become more than the local baseball team. They become life.

Since 1995, baseball finances have changed, and Cincinnati, with the limited resources, were left behind. Bad drafts, bad management, bad trades, etc sent this proud franchise into a spiral. There have been a few bright spots like 1999, the first half of 2004, and remarkably last year until September.

Most people, by nature, are pessimistic. It's just human nature. When you add bad performance with pessimisim, it's never gonna bloom.

HBP
02-06-2007, 11:37 AM
we like to call it not making the playoffs since 1990

Don't ask Reggie Sanders, but 1995 did happen.

Heath
02-06-2007, 11:38 AM
Johnny covered most of it. This offseason has sucked the high hard one.

Yeah, so it has in 20 other markets too.

redsmetz
02-06-2007, 11:39 AM
Call it pessimsim, negativity, realism, whatever. It's getting to be a bummer to read some of the posts. The Reds never do anything right, the front office is full of idiots. Jerry's a dope. Wayne's a dope. Bob C. lied, etc. etc. etc.

No Reds player can, or will, improve, unless they go to another team and then they've got nothing but upside. Euclidean geometry predicts doom and gloom. Jeanne Dixon doesn't see it in her crystal ball and on and on and on.

The team's not perfect. It will take time to dig out of this hole from the last two administrations.

I'm ready for the sons of guns to open camp and start playing ball. To heck with the rest of the calculations. Play ball!

flyer85
02-06-2007, 11:40 AM
Yeah, so it has in 20 other markets too.which does nothing for the Reds fans. However, once again Schuerholz demonstrates the ability to accomplish what he set out to accomplish without giving up much.

George Anderson
02-06-2007, 11:41 AM
we like to call it not making the playoffs since 1990

The Reds played in the 1995 NLCS.

redsmetz
02-06-2007, 11:43 AM
The Reds played in the 1995 NLCS.

Not to mention the leaders in the Central Division in the strike shortened 1994season.

bomarl1969
02-06-2007, 11:45 AM
The Reds played in the 1995 NLCS.

oh lord, please don't bring that up! Couldn't we say they won the 1995 NLDS by sweeping the Dodgers? and Barry Larkin won the year's MVP...please don't haunt me again with that HORRIBLE performance in the 95 NLCS! :bang:

Ltlabner
02-06-2007, 11:47 AM
It all gets back to what about baseball people enjoy. If you love the game and just want to spend time at the park no matter what happens on the field, then all of the offseason/front office hijinks aren't such a big deal.

If your enjoyment from baseball comes from winning, then all of the macinations of the front office, player moves, and off-season take on a differnet level of importance. In light of the past 6 years especially, I can understand why people would be frustrated.

Neither camp is "wrong" or "right", just different.

UK Reds Fan
02-06-2007, 11:50 AM
It is lame for some on here that are continually negative while all data suggests in certain instances...there is little to nothing to be negative about.

1. Aurillia has been nearly 80% negative comments in his 2 years. I think the guy did a fine job for hardly any $$$ that is cost the reds.
2. Weathers...has been mostly negative. Put up an ERA in the 3's last year and if you take out the 2 week stretch of injuries with the arthritis issues...he was that much better. But most on here are so down on bringing him back just because he isn't under 30 years of age.
3. Hatteburg..nearly all are calling 1B a gaping hole. The guy posted a 400+OBP for 3/4 of the season...maybe he is likely to digress a bit...but I don't think it will be to a gaping hole. Again, another guy that isn't under 30, but holding the fort for not a ton of $$ while Votto is being groomed.
4. Sarloos has been called another crap pitcher by many. Just because he doesn't have great k/9, whip, percota...etc..but his ERA, which is his main responsibility of a pitcher by the way, is mid 4's in the american league. I think we'd give our left arm for a starter to follow Harang/Arroyo for 200 IP that will give us an era in the low to mid 4's every 5th day for just over 1 Million bucks would we not?

I'll concede it is hard to get positive for Moeller, to a large degree Cormier, Milton, etc....but some go out of the way to get negative unless we dish it out for a lineup like the Yankees, or Mets, etc...

bomarl1969
02-06-2007, 11:52 AM
Even though I love the game of baseball and I love the Cincinnati Reds I must say that for me for get 100% enjoyment out of a baseball season then the Reds must be winning. Whoever said it doesn't matter if you win or lose was a moron. I hate losing, and this franchise is doing nothing, NOTHING to field a winner. Look at the damn Tigers, they lost over 100 games a few years back and they were in the series. Look at what the Cubs are doing? This is embarrassing. Its sad when I was bragging the other day to few a my buddies about the Reds of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. When am I going to get bragging rights for this century...it just ain't fair.

Watching the Reds in those three decades made me expect a winner every year. and why not? We deserve it, the city deserves, THE FRANCHISE DESERVES IT! I loathe what ownership has done to our beloved franchise since the 90s.

Caveman Techie
02-06-2007, 11:54 AM
Well I for one am ready for the season to begin, so I can be told why the Reds will fall off after the All-Star break (if they're in contention). Or why they'll fall off in August, or September. Or why they're going to lose the next series.

George Anderson
02-06-2007, 11:57 AM
Not to mention the leaders in the Central Division in the strike shortened 1994season.

While we are at it then how bout the 1999 wild card playoff game.

gonelong
02-06-2007, 11:59 AM
It all gets back to what about baseball people enjoy. If you love the game and just want to spend time at the park no matter what happens on the field, then all of the offseason/front office hijinks aren't such a big deal.

If your enjoyment from baseball comes from winning, then all of the macinations of the front office, player moves, and off-season take on a differnet level of importance. In light of the past 6 years especially, I can understand why people would be frustrated.

Neither camp is "wrong" or "right", just different.

I think this M2 post (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=631072&postcount=134) sums it up nicely.

For the last 5 years or so someone has started a post as to why the forum was so "negative" when the Reds clearly had some things going their way.

2006 NL Cent 80-82 (.494)
2005 NL Cent 73-89 (.451)
2004 NL Cent 76-86 (.469)
2003 NL Cent 69-93 (.426)
2002 NL Cent 78-84 (.481)

GL

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
02-06-2007, 12:00 PM
I think most of us have been a part of possibly the most successful 25 years of this franchise (1970-1995). When you have that history, combined with the small-town atmosphere of Cincinnati, the Reds become more than the local baseball team. They become life.

Since 1995, baseball finances have changed, and Cincinnati, with the limited resources, were left behind. Bad drafts, bad management, bad trades, etc sent this proud franchise into a spiral. There have been a few bright spots like 1999, the first half of 2004, and remarkably last year until September.

Most people, by nature, are pessimistic. It's just human nature. When you add bad performance with pessimisim, it's never gonna bloom.
Lets face it, MLB left us behind. All of the bad trades, management, drafts would be an afterthought if some sort of salary cap would have been put in place before this all got out of control. Those who can afford to blow money will and those who can't won't. They say you gotta spend money to make money. You also have to have the money to spend and in this small market town it's just not there.

George Anderson
02-06-2007, 12:02 PM
Lets face it, MLB left us behind. All of the bad trades, management, drafts would be an afterthought if some sort of salary cap would have been put in place before this all got out of control. Those who can afford to blow money will and those who can't won't. They say you gotta spend money to make money. You also have to have the money to spend and in this small market town it's just not there.

Sad to say but you are 100% correct!! Unfortunately we wont see a salary cap any time soon if ever.

gonelong
02-06-2007, 12:03 PM
It is lame for some on here that are continually negative while all data suggests in certain instances...there is little to nothing to be negative about.

1. Aurillia has been nearly 80% negative comments in his 2 years. I think the guy did a fine job for hardly any $$$ that is cost the reds.

The main beef with Aurillia was that he was going to take playing time away from Lopez, which he did.

Lopez had the possibility of being a long-term answer at SS/2B while RA was an obvious stopgap. With the team floundering it made more sense to see what you had in Lopez than try to win 80 games with Aurillia.

GL

M2
02-06-2007, 12:08 PM
It all gets back to what about baseball people enjoy. If you love the game and just want to spend time at the park no matter what happens on the field, then all of the offseason/front office hijinks aren't such a big deal.

If your enjoyment from baseball comes from winning, then all of the macinations of the front office, player moves, and off-season take on a differnet level of importance. In light of the past 6 years especially, I can understand why people would be frustrated.

Neither camp is "wrong" or "right", just different.

Over the years I've found that folks who put a smiley face on all the offseason moves tend to be angrier/more apathetic if the club doesn't play well.

Meanwhile, a lot of the people who turn a critical eye to the offseason tend to less concerned about winning and losing once the games start. Those are the people who tend to be around in the game threads at the end of a tough season, still able to find some enjoyment in the games themselves.

For the former group, it seems performance is the sole focus. They don't dig into direction and take the view that all they care about is if it works out on the field. Yet when performance goes south, they take it hard.

For the latter group, they generally view performance as the result of direction. So when the individual games happen it becomes a matter of "I like baseball" and losses don't seem to linger with them.

At least that's been the zeitgeist around here during the 21st century.

Always Red
02-06-2007, 12:13 PM
The main beef with Aurillia was that he was going to take playing time away from Lopez, which he did.

Lopez had the possibility of being a long-term answer at SS/2B while RA was an obvious stopgap. With the team floundering it made more sense to see what you had in Lopez than try to win 80 games with Aurillia.

GL

True enough, but a manager like Narron is playing to win 80, in order to save (keep) his job, which is pretty much year to year. To be fair to Narron, he cannot take the same long view that the FO must take. IMHO, that's why Jerry loves the vets- they know enough ways to win to keep him near .500 (OK, just under .500 ;) ). Playing the kids means more mistakes, and perhaps more losses in the early years. If a manager is more established, has a LTC, he will be more willing to let the kids learn and lose at the same time.

I can't blame Narron for that- I'd have to blame the FO for not giving him a clearer plan of attack.

M2
02-06-2007, 12:13 PM
For the last 5 years or so someone has started a post as to why the forum was so "negative" when the Reds clearly had some things going their way.

2006 NL Cent 80-82 (.494)
2005 NL Cent 73-89 (.451)
2004 NL Cent 76-86 (.469)
2003 NL Cent 69-93 (.426)
2002 NL Cent 78-84 (.481)

GL

Excellent point. This is a lather, rinse, repeat subject.

flyer85
02-06-2007, 12:18 PM
I can't blame Narron for that- I'd have to blame the FO for not giving him a clearer plan of attack.without a doubt. A manager operating on short term deals has to try and win as many games as possible. If the FO didn't like the "playing the vets" approach they would simply remove the temptation. Instead they bring in even more.

Heath
02-06-2007, 12:21 PM
which does nothing for the Reds fans. However, once again Schuerholz demonstrates the ability to accomplish what he set out to accomplish without giving up much.

One in 30 is not real high odds. What did Walt Jocketty improve on an 83-79 team that won a World Series?

Will M
02-06-2007, 12:27 PM
I for one am optomistic about the future.
I think the Reds have the 2nd best team in the division ( Brewers being #1 ) but even if 2007 doesn't work out the future is bright.

The Reds have some real talent ( Harang, Arroyo, EE, Phillips ) & some real prospects ( Bailey, Votto, Bruce, Cueto ). Also Milton & Jr's contracts are gone soon.

Doc. Scott
02-06-2007, 12:31 PM
Over the years I've found that folks who put a smiley face on all the offseason moves tend to be angrier/more apathetic if the club doesn't play well.

Meanwhile, a lot of the people who turn a critical eye to the offseason tend to less concerned about winning and losing once the games start. Those are the people who tend to be around in the game threads at the end of a tough season, still able to find some enjoyment in the games themselves.

For the former group, it seems performance is the sole focus. They don't dig into direction and take the view that all they care about is if it works out on the field. Yet when performance goes south, they take it hard.

For the latter group, they generally view performance as the result of direction. So when the individual games happen it becomes a matter of "I like baseball" and losses don't seem to linger with them.

At least that's been the zeitgeist around here during the 21st century.


Well put. I wonder if the changing face of baseball thought has had something to do with the rise of the latter viewpoint?

membengal
02-06-2007, 12:36 PM
Call it pessimsim, negativity, realism, whatever. It's getting to be a bummer to read some of the posts. The Reds never do anything right, the front office is full of idiots. Jerry's a dope. Wayne's a dope. Bob C. lied, etc. etc. etc.

You have to take the bad with the good. For instance, I pretty consistently sang WK's praises for the flyer on Phillips, and, of course, for the results. At the same time, I have been one of the many hugely disappointed with "the trade". And the off-season "ennui". I refuse to try and spin my disappointment to anything other than what it is. I similarly am pleased with moves that made sense at the time and have worked out. I love EE and his future, and have been vocal on that. At the same time, I will always distrust Narron because of how he handled EE last year. Others disagree that I should distrust Narron. Such is the fodder for message board conversation amongst passionate fans. I don't see why it is should be a "bummer". No team is perfect (this one certainly is not), and fans, being fans, will chew over the moves the team makes, from the front office on down. I wouldn't want it any other way.

M2
02-06-2007, 12:40 PM
Well put. I wonder if the changing face of baseball thought has had something to do with the rise of the latter viewpoint?

Possibly. Many of us are Information Age fans. Certainly the more information you absorb about the game the less magical it seems.

It doesn't seem to make people enjoy the game any less, but it does seem to make them watch it differently. It'll be interesting to see how the relationship of fans to the game develops over the next 20 years.

westofyou
02-06-2007, 12:42 PM
One in 30 is not real high odds. What did Walt Jocketty improve on an 83-79 team that won a World Series?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5846&PHPSESSID=833803633d9ff96fd2b8a07c9cf1e3d3#SLN


Summary: It wasn't a brilliant winter, and a lot of things didn't work out the way the Cardinals wanted, but rather than pout about it, Jocketty has resorted to some adequate temporary fixes. Even so, the team increasingly resembles a disjointed collection of compromises and place-holding solutions, instead of a concerted effort to give Albert and Carpenter a top-shelf supporting cast. The trophy's nice, but this team might not match last season's 83 wins, and the rest of the division didn't sit still.

top6
02-06-2007, 12:44 PM
I totally agree that fans should be pessimistic and negative, given the performance of the team over the last 6 years. And I am both of those things.

However, I don't see how you can expect fans to be positive when your team's primary spokesman - Marty Brennaman - exudes bitterness and negativity towards the team he is covering - even the young players who could be part of a more positive future.

For example, I just read an interview where he says he is "pretty close to giving up" on Adam Dunn. Great. I'm sure some casual fans will read that and "give up" on him as well. That means less jerseys sold, less tickets sold, and less money for the Reds. Nice work, Marty.

Again, I'm not even saying get rid of Marty B. (although I personally would be thrilled); just pointing out that any negative attitude towards the Reds might just start in their radio booth.

(Link to that interview: http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=28715&format=html.) (linked to and discussed on many blogs)

flyer85
02-06-2007, 12:44 PM
The Reds have some real talent ( Harang, Arroyo, EE, Phillips ) & some real prospects ( Bailey, Votto, Bruce, Cueto ). Also Milton & Jr's contracts are gone soon.The Reds will have to flip Arroyo after this year and there really isn't any evidence that Phillips is a talent. His minor league numbers don't portend future success and he really struggled the 2nd half of the season once pitchers figured out you don't have to challenge him with fastballs. Phillips was more than happy to get himself out chasing breaking pitches away. Post AS BP has .287OBP and a 700OPS, which only looks good in comparision to somebody like Castro.

RANDY IN INDY
02-06-2007, 12:45 PM
True enough, but a manager like Narron is playing to win 80, in order to save (keep) his job, which is pretty much year to year. To be fair to Narron, he cannot take the same long view that the FO must take. IMHO, that's why Jerry loves the vets- they know enough ways to win to keep him near .500 (OK, just under .500 ;) ). Playing the kids means more mistakes, and perhaps more losses in the early years. If a manager is more established, has a LTC, he will be more willing to let the kids learn and lose at the same time.

I can't blame Narron for that- I'd have to blame the FO for not giving him a clearer plan of attack.

Nice, "real" post! :beerme:

Always Red
02-06-2007, 12:49 PM
Disappointment.

IMO, they were on the verge of being a serious contender. They had 3 big needs to fill this offseason: a #3 starter, a quality RH bat, and a closer. They could have filled all of those needs in free agency by spending some cash. Instead, they went cheap and filled exactly none of those needs. Very disappointing.



:clap: :clap: :clap:

I think you nailed it, Johnny.

bounty37h
02-06-2007, 12:51 PM
Lets face it, MLB left us behind. All of the bad trades, management, drafts would be an afterthought if some sort of salary cap would have been put in place before this all got out of control. Those who can afford to blow money will and those who can't won't. They say you gotta spend money to make money. You also have to have the money to spend and in this small market town it's just not there.

I fully, 100% agree baseball needs a salary cap for the sake of the game, all teams, fairness, etc. That said, its also on the owners to spend money, not just pocket it.

flyer85
02-06-2007, 12:55 PM
I fully, 100% agree baseball needs a salary cap for the sake of the game, all teams, fairness, etc. That said... it will never happen because two factions(the big market owners and the players union) have ZERO interest in it. This is not the NFL with limited local revenue streams.

durl
02-06-2007, 01:00 PM
IMO, they were on the verge of being a serious contender. They had 3 big needs to fill this offseason: a #3 starter, a quality RH bat, and a closer. They could have filled all of those needs in free agency by spending some cash. Instead, they went cheap and filled exactly none of those needs. Very disappointing.

I think rather than "spending some cash," it's more accurate to say "spending a WHOLE lot of cash" given this year's free market.

M2
02-06-2007, 01:02 PM
All a salary cap would do is allow rich teams to horde young talent and international players (to extremes rivaling the 1930s). Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs and Dodgers are going to put all that cash to work somewhere.

The A's and Twins do plenty well for themselves. St. Louis has a small market in terms of population. Florida operates like a small market. In fact, the game's extremely competitive these days.

So I'm not blaming anyone but the Reds if the Reds can't get their act in order. The best way to stop being a doormat is to stop lying down so others can walk all over you.

Joseph
02-06-2007, 01:06 PM
So I'm not blaming any but the Reds if the Reds can't get their act in order. The best way to stop being a doormat is to stop lying down so others can walk all over you.

Absolutely perfect assessment. Market size is a crutch for those who don't do things the right way. Some teams can buy their ways out of mistakes and the Reds can't, but thats no excuse for poor drafts, poor development, and poor major league management of rosters.

flyer85
02-06-2007, 01:07 PM
Absolutely perfect assessment. Market size is a crutch for those who don't do things the right way.Certainly Oakland and Minnesota have been playing with less chips than the Reds.

dsmith421
02-06-2007, 01:14 PM
Lets face it, MLB left us behind. All of the bad trades, management, drafts would be an afterthought if some sort of salary cap would have been put in place before this all got out of control. Those who can afford to blow money will and those who can't won't. They say you gotta spend money to make money. You also have to have the money to spend and in this small market town it's just not there.

That may be true, but the Reds have contributed to their own hopelessness by showing absolutely no aptitude to adapt to the changing conditions of the baseball marketplace. Whether it be Schott's disdain for scouts, the franchise as a whole's ludicrous refusal to enter the free agent market, Bowden's awful drafts, O'Brien's pants-pissing fear of doing anything, or Krivsky's...well...whatever it is he's doing, this franchise has failed to find the winning formula.

I think we're all well aware that the Reds won't ever be able to compete with the Yankees' payroll, at least in the foreseeable future. However, there are abundant examples of teams with lower payrolls who use either innovative new strategies or have excellent baseball people and are still successful. The Reds have neither, and show no signs of changing any time soon.

Complaining about the salary gulf between the Reds and the top tier is like complaining about the sun rising. It's reality. Smart franchises find a way to surmount such obstacles. The Reds, well, not so much.

Heath
02-06-2007, 02:07 PM
Certainly Oakland and Minnesota have been playing with less chips than the Reds.

I'll disagree with that because both have used creative thinking to combat financial shortfalls.

The Reds have been playing 1970's baseball economics with 2005 baseball players.

flyer85
02-06-2007, 02:11 PM
I'll disagree with that because both have used creative thinking to combat financial shortfalls. The fact that both have nasty old stadiums has given the Reds a superior financial position, just because the Reds have not been smart enough to take advantage of it doesn't change the fact that they have been operating with more financial resources.

westofyou
02-06-2007, 02:21 PM
The fact that both have nasty old stadiums has given the Reds a superior financial position, just because the Reds have not been smart enough to take advantage of it doesn't change the fact that they have been operating with more financial resources.

Oakland ain't nasty, and still to this day is a nice park, for years it was better then what the Reds had to offer. Bu then again they dealt with their purge and rebuild in the post Charlie O years. About the same time Marge was clear cutting the prior two decades of work the Reds had built up.

But it wasn't always pretty in Oakland, on the field and in the front office and managers office as well.

Krusty
02-06-2007, 02:34 PM
The Reds will have to flip Arroyo after this year and there really isn't any evidence that Phillips is a talent. His minor league numbers don't portend future success and he really struggled the 2nd half of the season once pitchers figured out you don't have to challenge him with fastballs. Phillips was more than happy to get himself out chasing breaking pitches away. Post AS BP has .287OBP and a 700OPS, which only looks good in comparision to somebody like Castro.

Why trade Arroyo? Just maybe he will sign a contract extension. And if he doesn't, I would rather have Arroyo in his walk year looking to put up the numbers than trade him away for prospects.

Your analogy about Phillips has no merit. So I guess last season was fluke in your eyes?

Always Red
02-06-2007, 02:46 PM
Why trade Arroyo? Just maybe he will sign a contract extension. And if he doesn't, I would rather have Arroyo in his walk year looking to put up the numbers than trade him away for prospects.

Your analogy about Phillips has no merit. So I guess last season was fluke in your eyes?

Krusty, what did the Nationals get in return for Soriano, when they let him just walk, rather than get some value in return? I'm surprised Bowden still has his job after bungling that one, and then not being able to sign him to a deal.

Sure, I'd love to have Arroyo sign an extension and be here, posting the same numbers he did last year, for the next 4 years or so.

If he doesn't want to be here (ie- if he wants to go back to the big stage in the AL East), then he'll go, and we should trade him while we can still get value in return.

Moves like today, signing Harang to a LTC, will hopefully help Arroyo to want to be here. If the Reds are a winner, guys will want to play here, if not, they want to move on.

Now, WK needs to add some offense....:)

remdog
02-06-2007, 02:52 PM
Why trade Arroyo? Just maybe he will sign a contract extension. And if he doesn't, I would rather have Arroyo in his walk year looking to put up the numbers than trade him away for prospects.

Your analogy about Phillips has no merit. So I guess last season was fluke in your eyes?

Not to answer for 85 but from my viewpoint I'd trade Arroyo for a couple of reasons:

1. I'm not sold on him being as good as he pitched last year. I would take a flyer on him early this year and see how well he and the team perform. If either Arroyo or the team falter in the first half I'd look to move him by the trading deadline because:

2. He continues to give out signals that he will walk when his contract is up. Until that tune changes I' not buying any tickets to his concerts.

As for Phillips he is one of Krivsky's moves that I think will work out. The guy is very athletic, was highly rated in his minor league days and I'm of the mind (or hope) that the lighbulb has finally switched to 'on' and he will become a solid player for the next 5-8 years. Contrast this to someone like David Ross who is/was none of those things and I think you'll see my point.

Rem

Eric_Davis
02-06-2007, 06:29 PM
I agree, Krusty. While I am disappointed that the Reds haven't made the postseason in quite some time, the constant pessimism only makes worse.

The Reds were competitive until September last year when no one gave us a chance, yet those 5 months are called a "fluke." I see it as a reason to hope for a good year in 2007.

That was 5 months, and six if you add in March, which was full of optimism after the signing of Arroyo, that hasn't been seen by REDS' but once in the last decade, and not since '99.

What's really great about this year, is that the least of the expectations is a .500 season for this year and hopefully 90 wins. Trying to do enough to get the ball to bounce our way to the tune of an extra two wins per month will get us there. We could be talking about small things, not major ones.

vaticanplum
02-06-2007, 06:32 PM
That may be true, but the Reds have contributed to their own hopelessness by showing absolutely no aptitude to adapt to the changing conditions of the baseball marketplace. Whether it be Schott's disdain for scouts, the franchise as a whole's ludicrous refusal to enter the free agent market, Bowden's awful drafts, O'Brien's pants-pissing fear of doing anything, or Krivsky's...well...whatever it is he's doing, this franchise has failed to find the winning formula.

I think we're all well aware that the Reds won't ever be able to compete with the Yankees' payroll, at least in the foreseeable future. However, there are abundant examples of teams with lower payrolls who use either innovative new strategies or have excellent baseball people and are still successful. The Reds have neither, and show no signs of changing any time soon.

Complaining about the salary gulf between the Reds and the top tier is like complaining about the sun rising. It's reality. Smart franchises find a way to surmount such obstacles. The Reds, well, not so much.

Bingo. Great post all-around. heath summed it up well too.

MLB didn't leave the Reds behind. The Reds chose not to move forward. The team has been run with a lack of creativity, intelligence, inspiration and passion for a very long time now.

And the fact that people are willing to put the blame for that anywhere but at the feet of the Reds themselves is the ONLY thing that makes me pessimistic. Because that shows not only a misplaced resentment for the past, but no hope for the future as well. As long as the Reds refuse to acknowledge their role in their own demise and blame the larger organization of baseball for their failings, nothing will change, as that shows that they find no fault with their own way of doing things.

Thankfully, I now see this attitude largely in a certain group of fans, not within the organization itself. For all of the questionable moves this team has made in the last year, I do believe that the powers that be have a firm grasp on reality, on the Reds' place within baseball, and on what the team needs to do to advance on a bigger scale. Their larger perspective is strong, I think. The smaller moves can be more questionable. But regardless, that's a huge difference for me.

UK Reds Fan
02-06-2007, 06:34 PM
The Reds will have to flip Arroyo after this year and there really isn't any evidence that Phillips is a talent. His minor league numbers don't portend future success and he really struggled the 2nd half of the season once pitchers figured out you don't have to challenge him with fastballs. Phillips was more than happy to get himself out chasing breaking pitches away. Post AS BP has .287OBP and a 700OPS, which only looks good in comparision to somebody like Castro.

You're a prime example of a constant negative with no reason.

So we have to flip our 2nd best pitcher and Phillips is a fluke? You conveintently pick up only those stats that back your argument. Maybe his full year is more a predictor of his future than 1/2 of it? Regardless, Phillips plays insane defense and is a nice player.

But you use him as an example of why we'll lose instead of win...:rolleyes:

DannyB
02-06-2007, 07:01 PM
Lets face it, MLB left us behind. All of the bad trades, management, drafts would be an afterthought if some sort of salary cap would have been put in place before this all got out of control. Those who can afford to blow money will and those who can't won't. They say you gotta spend money to make money. You also have to have the money to spend and in this small market town it's just not there.

At some point in The Big Red Machine days the Reds had the highest payroll in baseball. I can remember Marty welcoming so and so radio to the Reds Radio Network on a daily basis.My point is-its not really that small of a market,just that Reds Management has let it shrink.

top6
02-06-2007, 07:03 PM
Maybe his full year is more a predictor of his future than 1/2 of it? Regardless, Phillips plays insane defense and is a nice player.I think flyer85 may have been basing his argument both on his post-All Star break numbers AND on the entire rest of his career, when he put up similarly poor numbers and struggled to stay out of the minors.

flyer85
02-06-2007, 08:15 PM
You're a prime example of a constant negative with no reason.

So we have to flip our 2nd best pitcher and Phillips is a fluke? You conveintently pick up only those stats that back your argument. Maybe his full year is more a predictor of his future than 1/2 of it? Regardless, Phillips plays insane defense and is a nice player.

But you use him as an example of why we'll lose instead of win...:rolleyes:quite often the truth hurts. BP may become a a very good player but his minor league career and his post ASB numbers tell an entirely different story. Baseball is littered with half season wonders.

And the defensive numbers suggest he was only average to slightly above defensively.

PECOTA certainly doesn't see him as anything but average.

RedEye
02-06-2007, 08:21 PM
Because they haven't had a winning season in recent memory. At least not my recent memory.

Where am I?

redsmetz
02-06-2007, 08:26 PM
PECOTA certainly doesn't see him as anything but average.

Ever so sage, PECOTA says...

http://images.scotsman.com/2006/09/25/2006-09-25T120307Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKOE-UK-CHINA-CONFUCIUS.jpg

Caveman Techie
02-06-2007, 09:45 PM
If Pecota is so smart, why do they play the season? Just adorn the World Series winner now based off of projections.

Oh thats right because there is this little thing called humans playing the game. I'd be curious to see what the projections were for Brandon Phillips, David Ross, or even Bronson Arroyo were last year before the season began. And that is a serious question where did those players end up compared to what Pecota projected?

UK Reds Fan
02-07-2007, 04:58 AM
Phillips ranked 10th for all 2B in terms of OPS. The vaunted Felipe Lopez finished 14th if you put him as a 2B next year. Defensive stats are hard to measure. By most counts Phillips was an average 2B in terms of Feilding percentage, zone factor, etc.. but these same stats have Biggio as a plus defender at 2B...which I am not buying for a second.

Post AS Break OPS..Garciaparra 694, Vidro 704, Khalil Greene 693, Biggio 648, Eckstein 601, Izturis 575, Lugo 545...Phillips OPS was higher than all of these guys, some of whom many on Redszone are wanting to add to Reds roster as Middle infield.

Maybe it was an aberation, but I saw a young player (that failed with consistent PT 4 years ago) find his niche and did an outstanding job. Quick bat, good pop, will steal some bases...does concern me that he doesn't take more walks but all in all what I see as a solid foundation piece you see as a guy we should not have. I'd call that going out of your way to be negative.

End of day, the season rides on Dunn being "the man" for us...which appears not likely to occur. EdE becoming the bigtime RH threat at plate on a more consistent basis. Griffey having a 2005 season at the plate..which is not as likely either. Narron making the hard decision to move Griffey to RF and out of the 3 spot. We have invested bulk of $$$ in Griff/Dunn in heart of our order and they don't always produce like other teams heart of order. And finally 2 of Milton, Sarloos, Lohse and Ramirez being atleast mediocre seasons behind Arroyo/Harang.

Guys like Phillips, Ross, Hatteburg, Weathers, Stanton, Conine (I will grant you this is one spot that is worth being negative about), Deno/Freel, etc..aren't the issues with this club but for some reason we hammer them when other options to these guys aren't any better if not worse.

Ron Madden
02-07-2007, 05:52 AM
I think that I love the Reds as much or more than the next Fan. I have a very real interest in evreything they do and every move they make.

I'm very happy anytime moves are made that help the Reds chances of winning. :)

It upsets me when moves are made that hurt the chances of winning. :(

Why do I have these mood swings? Because I care. I really do. ;)

bianchiveloce
02-07-2007, 06:30 AM
We are tired of losing.

We all yearn to the days of The Big Red Machine or the 1990 Nasty Boys. Our standard of measure is winning baseball and championships.

Is the glass half full or half empty? I tend to look at it as being half full. The future is bright with the likes of Bailey, Bruce, Votto, et al. But, it will take time to recover from the O'Brien era. You have to have bridges such as Saarloos and Hatteberg to get to the other side of the future.

The Detroit Tigers, Oakland A's, and Minnesota Twins did not turn things around overnight. It took time. It took patience. It took smart moves.

Give Mr. Castellini and Wayne Krivsky a little more rope than just a single year. Give them two to three years before you begin to string them up in Fountain Square.

I know it is hard to be patient when you are so passionate about a sports team such as our Reds. It is easy to see the doom and gloom of stormy skies when you are used to losing. But, I tell you this, there will come a day soon when the Reds Nation will rise and rule the baseball world as we did in the past.

RANDY IN INDY
02-07-2007, 09:02 AM
Ever so sage, PECOTA says...

http://images.scotsman.com/2006/09/25/2006-09-25T120307Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKOE-UK-CHINA-CONFUCIUS.jpg

I always wondered what that "Pecota" guy looked like. He doesn't look much like a baseball fan to me, although I did notice that he had a bat tucked under his left arm. I think Jeff Bagwell would be proud of that facial hair, as well. Maybe he's Bill Pecota's father.

RedFanAlways1966
02-07-2007, 09:07 AM
I always wondered what that "Pecota" guy looked like. He doesn't look much like a baseball fan to me, although I did notice that he had a bat tucked under his left arm. I think Jeff Bagwell would be proud of that facial hair, as well. Maybe he's Bill Pecota's father.

:laugh:

RANDY IN INDY
02-07-2007, 09:43 AM
When I said he didn't look much like a baseball fan, maybe I underestimated ol' Pecota. From the looks of that "uni" I think he's probably a huge Padres fan. :D

SunDeck
02-07-2007, 12:31 PM
Even the BRM had complainers- the pitching staff got a lot of grief as I remember it, Johnny Bench got grief for not batting .290 every year and for his inability to hit to the opposite field.

Is this a Cincinnati thing or is it just what baseball fans do? Can't answer that because I've only been a Reds fan. However, it has occurred to me that Cincinnatians in general are a pretty negative bunch. Everybody who lives in the suburbs thinks the city sucks, the west side and the east side are like alien planets to one another, and according to almost everyone no public dollar has been spent wisely in the last ten years (well, maybe that one has some truth to it).
I don't know if I'm totally right about that, and I'm not saying the city is full of misanthropes. But after living away from Cincinnati for 10 of the last 14 years, I can say that there are towns that have a more optimistic outlook, in general. So maybe complaining about the hometown team is just more normal to Cincinnatians. It doesn't mean they don't love them.

vaticanplum
02-07-2007, 08:57 PM
Even the BRM had complainers- the pitching staff got a lot of grief as I remember it, Johnny Bench got grief for not batting .290 every year and for his inability to hit to the opposite field.

Is this a Cincinnati thing or is it just what baseball fans do? Can't answer that because I've only been a Reds fan. However, it has occurred to me that Cincinnatians in general are a pretty negative bunch. Everybody who lives in the suburbs thinks the city sucks, the west side and the east side are like alien planets to one another, and according to almost everyone no public dollar has been spent wisely in the last ten years (well, maybe that one has some truth to it).
I don't know if I'm totally right about that, and I'm not saying the city is full of misanthropes. But after living away from Cincinnati for 10 of the last 14 years, I can say that there are towns that have a more optimistic outlook, in general. So maybe complaining about the hometown team is just more normal to Cincinnatians. It doesn't mean they don't love them.

I don't think Cincinnati fans are too out of the ordinary in my experience, at least among hard-core fans. There is one notable idiosincracy to me in that Reds fans seem to have a tradition of overvaluing average players and undervaluing great ones. I'm sure that's partly influenced by my own opinions, but I do know that my friends who are hard-core fans of other teams (thus impartial to the Reds) are very often baffled by the hometown favorites of the Reds, and the fans' tendency to blur the line between "favorite" and "great".

Ron Madden
02-08-2007, 02:48 AM
We are tired of losing.

We all yearn to the days of The Big Red Machine or the 1990 Nasty Boys. Our standard of measure is winning baseball and championships.

Is the glass half full or half empty? I tend to look at it as being half full. The future is bright with the likes of Bailey, Bruce, Votto, et al. But, it will take time to recover from the O'Brien era. You have to have bridges such as Saarloos and Hatteberg to get to the other side of the future.

The Detroit Tigers, Oakland A's, and Minnesota Twins did not turn things around overnight. It took time. It took patience. It took smart moves.

Give Mr. Castellini and Wayne Krivsky a little more rope than just a single year. Give them two to three years before you begin to string them up in Fountain Square.

I know it is hard to be patient when you are so passionate about a sports team such as our Reds. It is easy to see the doom and gloom of stormy skies when you are used to losing. But, I tell you this, there will come a day soon when the Reds Nation will rise and rule the baseball world as we did in the past.

I've yet to see any of the supposed "WK Bashers" make a single post criticizing Wayne or Bob for not building another Big Red Machine in less than a years time.

Bad trades are bad trades and should be called bad trades. We do that here.Good moves are good moves and WK is praised for those. We do that here.

Facts are facts we should always try our very best to do that here.

pedro
02-08-2007, 03:00 AM
I always wondered what that "Pecota" guy looked like. He doesn't look much like a baseball fan to me, although I did notice that he had a bat tucked under his left arm. I think Jeff Bagwell would be proud of that facial hair, as well. Maybe he's Bill Pecota's father.

you mean Pecota's not Bill Pecota? All this time "Pecota this" and "Pecota that" and it's some other guy? Man, i've got to get out more. :)

Caveman Techie
02-08-2007, 10:08 AM
Bad trades are bad trades and should be called bad trades. We do that here.Good moves are good moves and WK is praised for those. We do that here.

Facts are facts we should always try our very best to do that here.

Bad trades in your OPINIONS, that right there is the difference. All the WK bashers want to give their OPINONS as facts and they're not. I personally don't see anything wrong with the Trade(s), especially after this off-season and seeing some of the insane contracts being given out.

Now did WK forsee this scenario and went ahead and got his bullpen help last year via trade, or did WK set the table for this insane off-season? I don't know for sure, but one thing I do know is that all the WK bashers keep forgetting is that the players we traded for last year are still here. If they would have been half season hired guns, then yes I would be calling them complete failures. But Bray is young, cheap, and under the Reds control for several years. The same can be said for Maj but I think Bray has the brighter future.

Now before all the bashers come on with their "it was sold as a win now trade, and it failed" argument. I remember WK on an interview with Lance right after the trade and he said part of the deciding factor was that they were young, and that they would be under the Reds control for many years (paraphrasing from memory). So that means it wasn't a win now ONLY trade.

In the long run the Trade may turn out bad for the Reds, or it may turn out good. We don't know right now all we have are opinions and you know what can be said for those.

SunDeck
02-08-2007, 10:57 AM
I always thought Bill Peterson's article about trades should be required reading:

http://www.citybeat.com/2000-06-22/sports.shtml

The Frank Robinson trade WAS awful. But, Howsam used it to build a better team that eventually became the BRM. WK's trade with the Nats last year looks like a loser to me, but he also just locked up Aaron Harang for a price that looks to me like it's pretty reasonable, given the market. And I think that particular move is going to be more important to the Reds than the Kearns/Felo trade. That trade still looks bad, but I'm just trying to keep my judgement of WK balanced. If the Reds have a rotation in July that is giving them a solid chance to win every series, I'll be happy.

westofyou
02-08-2007, 11:10 AM
The Frank Robinson trade WAS awful. But, Howsam used it to build a better team that eventually became the BRM.

Well, DeWitt gets the responsibility for trading Frank, but he like Howsam was a Rickey guy and they all did things the same when a guy hits the other side of 30 (Howsam traded Pinson.. no one squeaked... but then again that deal worked out) as for the Robby trade, it looked worse because the other 2 guys aside from Pappas tanked as well.

Dick Simpson was a big CF prospect coming off a batting title in the PCL and Pinson was getting along in years. The Middle Relief guy was a a lot like the type Howsam collected the rest of the time he was GM , a 100 inning workhorse who made a living in middle relief. he however ended up being done.

Howsam then turned Pappas into Carrol and Tony C and Simpson helped get Alex Johnson who got McGlothlin and Borbon.

So the Reds got two guys with over 800 IP in relief out of it eventually.

Johnny Footstool
02-08-2007, 11:48 AM
Well, DeWitt gets the responsibility for trading Frank, but he like Howsam was a Rickey guy and they all did things the same when a guy hits the other side of 30 (Howsam traded Pinson.. no one squeaked... but then again that deal worked out) as for the Robby trade, it looked worse because the other 2 guys aside from Pappas tanked as well.

Dick Simpson was a big CF prospect coming off a batting title in the PCL and Pinson was getting along in years. The Middle Relief guy was a a lot like the type Howsam collected the rest of the time he was GM , a 100 inning workhorse who made a living in middle relief. he however ended up being done.

Howsam then turned Pappas into Carrol and Tony C and Simpson helped get Alex Johnson who got McGlothlin and Borbon.

So the Reds got two guys with over 800 IP in relief out of it eventually.

This brings to mind a question: how far down the chain should you take a trade? Should you play "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", or should you just look at the immediate impact of a deal?

In this example, woy cites that Howsam "turned Pappas into Carrol and Tony C and Simpson helped get Alex Johnson who got McGlothlin and Borbon." Do we assume that those subsequent deals wouldn't have happened without the Robinson deal? Or do we assume that the Reds would have found another way to acquire Carrol, McGlothlin, and Borbon?

Is there a direct cause-and-effect relationship, a single path that leads to the desired outcome? Or are there many ways that the desired outcome can be achieved?

Personally, I don't really subscribe to the Butterfly Effect theory that every move starts a chain reaction with lasting repercussions. Some do, of course, but not every trade is an elaborate Rube Goldberg contraption leading to a single possible outcome.

westofyou
02-08-2007, 11:54 AM
Do we assume that those subsequent deals wouldn't have happened without the Robinson deal?

One of the drivers of the Robinson trade was Frank's personality mixed with southern bred and old school Bill DeWitt's personality. Another driver of the Pappas trade to Atlanta was his personality and clubhouse union involvement. One of the drivers of the Johnson trade was his behavior and inability to get along with the rest of the team.

Talent isn't the only driver in baseball trades, it's a major one. But it's not the only gear that's turning when deals come down.

Ron Madden
02-09-2007, 04:34 AM
Bad trades in your OPINIONS, that right there is the difference. All the WK bashers want to give their OPINONS as facts and they're not. I personally don't see anything wrong with the Trade(s), especially after this off-season and seeing some of the insane contracts being given out.

Now did WK forsee this scenario and went ahead and got his bullpen help last year via trade, or did WK set the table for this insane off-season? I don't know for sure, but one thing I do know is that all the WK bashers keep forgetting is that the players we traded for last year are still here. If they would have been half season hired guns, then yes I would be calling them complete failures. But Bray is young, cheap, and under the Reds control for several years. The same can be said for Maj but I think Bray has the brighter future.

Now before all the bashers come on with their "it was sold as a win now trade, and it failed" argument. I remember WK on an interview with Lance right after the trade and he said part of the deciding factor was that they were young, and that they would be under the Reds control for many years (paraphrasing from memory). So that means it wasn't a win now ONLY trade.

In the long run the Trade may turn out bad for the Reds, or it may turn out good. We don't know right now all we have are opinions and you know what can be said for those.

Aint it Great! You have an opinion and so do I. I'm thankful for the right to express my opinion, and to listen to yours.

Our first and worst mistake is to lable folks and paint them with a broad brush when our opinions differ.

The terms "bashers and "haters" are used far too often around here lately.

Ltlabner
02-09-2007, 08:38 AM
The terms "bashers and "haters" are used far too often around here lately.

No more so than "sunshine blowers" , "pixie dust sniffers" and other swipes at being optimistic from "the trade" till the end of the season.

But you are 100% correct. Name calling, and broad generalizations like these are wrong. From both sides of the prisim.

RANDY IN INDY
02-09-2007, 08:41 AM
No more so than "sunshine blowers" , "pixie dust sniffers" and other swipes at being optimistic from "the trade" till the end of the season.

But you are 100% correct. Name calling, and broad generalizations like these are wrong. From both sides of the prisim.

You are absolutely correct.