PDA

View Full Version : Resisting the impulse to be optimistic.......



Spike
03-07-2007, 10:28 PM
Everybody talks about Arroyo, Harang, Dunn, etc., but I watched the Yankee game tonight and it was fun to see marginal prospects performing.

Votto (not really a marginal player, but an afterthought for this year) hit a clutch Homerun; Bubba Crosby made an unbelievable catch to save a late inning; Ramirez pitched himself out of a loss (I am not sure he should be our 5th starter, and he does not have overpowering stuff, but he proved he knows how to pitch!); and Shearn (did you see that moonball? He struck out two with that-amazing!)

Most of these guys are not in the "plan", but there seems to be something about the Reds this year that is special. Anyone else think so?

Topcat
03-08-2007, 03:35 AM
Everybody talks about Arroyo, Harang, Dunn, etc., but I watched the Yankee game tonight and it was fun to see marginal prospects performing.

Votto (not really a marginal player, but an afterthought for this year) hit a clutch Homerun; Bubba Crosby made an unbelievable catch to save a late inning; Ramirez pitched himself out of a loss (I am not sure he should be our 5th starter, and he does not have overpowering stuff, but he proved he knows how to pitch!); and Shearn (did you see that moonball? He struck out two with that-amazing!)

Most of these guys are not in the "plan", but there seems to be something about the Reds this year that is special. Anyone else think so?

To early to tell but isn't it nice to see young talent on the coming horizon? The one thing that I keep jumbling in my mind is they as in the Red's should consider is looking to deal some of that "vet bullpen" and take chances with the Salmon's and Shearn's of the system there is another guy named counta errrrrr can't say his last name as I think it may be a violation of services ;)

membengal
03-08-2007, 10:53 PM
It's a darn site better place I find myself with regard to this team than I was two years ago...

Not saying a winning season is at hand, just that there is legitimate stuff to look forward to. It's a significant step in the right direction.

Falls City Beer
03-08-2007, 10:56 PM
I can't wait till this team resists the impulse to suck.

paulrichjr
03-09-2007, 12:11 AM
The biggest fear I have is that the offense of August and September might reappear sometime soon. I can't see a lot different in the April 2007 Reds and the August 2006 Reds. I am also fighting this optimism...hope I am wrong....Man that Hamilton kid can sure hit...Dunn seems to be really working at improving...EdE is looking great...Phillips is...Man, I think the Reds are going all the way!

KoryMac5
03-09-2007, 11:13 PM
The biggest fear I have is that the offense of August and September might reappear sometime soon. I can't see a lot different in the April 2007 Reds and the August 2006 Reds. I am also fighting this optimism...hope I am wrong....Man that Hamilton kid can sure hit...Dunn seems to be really working at improving...EdE is looking great...Phillips is...Man, I think the Reds are going all the way!

That offense has started to slow a little the last few games. I think the offense as a whole this year will be very inconsistent, scoring 5 or 6 one game and than 1 or 2 the next. I just don't have faith in guys like Ross and Gonzo to put up decent numbers.

Spike
03-12-2007, 07:14 PM
I can't wait till this team resists the impulse to suck.

Falls City: I started a thread a while back and asked who on Redszone do we most relate to. I picked three and you were one of them. I said I either totally agreed with you, or just the opposite.

Man you got up on the wrong side of the bed on this one! This is a type of post the other half of Redzone would post. Usually if you post, (and even if I don't agree, you at least have a logical point.) Where is the logic on this response? I admire you dude. Don't disappoint with responses like this!

Falls City Beer
03-12-2007, 07:18 PM
Falls City: I started a thread a while back and asked who on Redszone do we most relate to. I picked three and you were one of them. I said I either totally agreed with you, or just the opposite.

Man you got up on the wrong side of the bed on this one! This is a type of post the other half of Redzone would post. Usually if you post, (and even if I don't agree, you at least have a logical point.) Where is the logic on this response? I admire you dude. Don't disappoint with responses like this!

Seven seasons of suck. When they stop sucking (nay, when they resist the impulse to suck) will be when the Reds' fortune changes. Until then--

REDREAD
03-13-2007, 02:06 PM
I can't wait till this team resists the impulse to suck.

I'm afraid we're going to have to wait for WayneK to get canned for that to happen.

In a couple years, we're going to look at all the cash Wayne wasted this offseason as part of his "Grand Plan" and shake our heads.

He may have spent more unwisely than DanO did when he was handed 20 million. Consider that Gonzales + one of those vet relievers make roughly what Milton makes.

That's the tradegy, Wayne had enough money to get some players that could've actually made a difference. I'd rather overpay a few million for a good player than to hand Gonzales all that money. And Wayne doesn't get a free pass on Gonzales because he "had" to get a SS this winter. Wayne created that hole himself, ignored the possiblity of shifting Phillips to SS, and ignored the option of getting a younger, better option.

The only moves I like this offseason was getting Sarloos and getting Burton in Rule V (even if he doesn't stick).

I'm rooting for Hamilton, but let's face it, Hamilton is just a side show to take our minds off how bad this team is.

mbgrayson
03-13-2007, 02:50 PM
Consider that Gonzales + one of those vet relievers make roughly what Milton makes.


Lets see...last I saw, Alex Gonzales 2007 salary is $3.5 million (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2669701).

Wayne K has signed the following 'old relievers':

Dustin Hemanson 2007 salary= $.5 million (if he makes team)
Mike Stanton 2007 salary= $2 million
Rheal Cormier 2007 salary is $2.25 million
Kerry Lightenberg 2007 salary is abt $.5 million (if he makes team)


Eric Milton is getting $9 million this year.

So by my calculations, Wayne K got Alex Gonzales and FOUR of the 'old relievers' for a little LESS than what Eric Milton makes.

I'm not saying these are all great signings....but Milton's was really bad.

Moosie52
03-13-2007, 03:15 PM
All this team needs to excel is Adam Dunn hitting .500 the rest of the year.:laugh:

flyer85
03-13-2007, 03:17 PM
shouldn't be that hard.

This team, especially with the absence of Jr, still looks like they will struggle to score runs.

As much as the focus has been on pitching, I think the offense is the real problem. The pitching has some depth(maybe lacking in quality) but the offense has neither. If the guys here now don't perform there is really nowhere to turn.

PuffyPig
03-13-2007, 03:29 PM
I think the offense as a whole this year will be very inconsistent, scoring 5 or 6 one game and than 1 or 2 the next.

That probably describes every team in the majors.

Good pitching will always have it's way with hitters, even teams with many good hitters.

remdog
03-13-2007, 03:49 PM
So Redread is back. See, that wasn't so tough. Did you bring the chair? :laugh:

BTW, you are echoing my (and many others') off-season sentiments.

Rem

pedro
03-13-2007, 03:58 PM
It's a darn site better place I find myself with regard to this team than I was two years ago...

Not saying a winning season is at hand, just that there is legitimate stuff to look forward to. It's a significant step in the right direction.

That's how I feel. Despite "the trade" I think Krivsky is doing a pretty solid job so far.

Johnny Footstool
03-13-2007, 04:28 PM
That's how I feel. Despite "the trade" I think Krivsky is doing a pretty solid job so far.

His low-risk moves have generally paid off, or at least they haven't really hurt the club too badly.

I'm still baffled at the blind dedication to ancient relievers and the general lack of strikeout pitchers in the bullpen. And Wayne's propensity for stocking up on cheap stinkpile leftovers (Conine, Moeller, Hermanson) in lieu of real talent is troubling.

pedro
03-13-2007, 04:39 PM
His low-risk moves have generally paid off, or at least they haven't really hurt the club too badly.

I'm still baffled at the blind dedication to ancient relievers and the general lack of strikeout pitchers in the bullpen. And Wayne's propensity for stocking up on cheap stinkpile leftovers (Conine, Moeller, Hermanson) in lieu of real talent is troubling.

I'll admit that it seems a bit baffling on the surface but I think a lot of it has to do with the utter lack of depth that Reds have in their system. I think what he's doing is overpaying for the guarantee of marginal performance as he is apparently not convinced he is even going to get that from players already within the organization. The real test IMO will how willing he is to cut bait on some of these guys if they are not performing and reasonable alternatives can be had within the system. I know a lot of folks would rather that they Reds didn't spend that money and just took a chance on some of their minor leaguers (such as Brad Salmon) but what if those guys flame out? Where to turn then?

Sea Ray
03-13-2007, 05:31 PM
That offense has started to slow a little the last few games. I think the offense as a whole this year will be very inconsistent, scoring 5 or 6 one game and than 1 or 2 the next. I just don't have faith in guys like Ross and Gonzo to put up decent numbers.


Even the pre-Washington trade Reds had a lot of low scoring games. They'd hammer mediocre pitching but struggled against crafty pitchers.

I don't see this as a high scoring team but I'm not worried about a late 2006 type offense either. That O had no Griffey, an awful Dunn and two unjured players trying to gut it out, Phillips and Freel. Add to that, the lack of depth which really ran down EE and Ross. I doubt all those things will happen the same month this year. It's another reason why Narron should juggle his lineup and use his depth early in the year so folks aren't so run down in Sept.

REDREAD
03-13-2007, 07:43 PM
Lets see...last I saw, Alex Gonzales 2007 salary is $3.5 million (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2669701).

Wayne K has signed the following 'old relievers':

Dustin Hemanson 2007 salary= $.5 million (if he makes team)
Mike Stanton 2007 salary= $2 million
Rheal Cormier 2007 salary is $2.25 million
Kerry Lightenberg 2007 salary is abt $.5 million (if he makes team)


Eric Milton is getting $9 million this year.

So by my calculations, Wayne K got Alex Gonzales and FOUR of the 'old relievers' for a little LESS than what Eric Milton makes.

I'm not saying these are all great signings....but Milton's was really bad.


Eric Milton 3 years at 25.5 million.. average of 8.5 million year.

Gonzales.. 3 years at 14 million.. average of 4.6 million per year
Weathers... average 2.5 million per year
Stanton ... average 2.75 million per year
Cormier .. about 2 million year.

Gonzales + Stanton = 7.35 million.. almost what Milton averages per year.. Throw in Cormier or Weathers, and now you've exceeded what Milton averages per year.

Or if you like Gonzales, the total for those 3 old relievers is 7.25 million

That was my point.. Gonzales plus one of those old relievers is almost as much as Milton makes per year. Sad as it is, Milton might be more valuable than that assortment of junk. Yeah, maybe not, but it will be close.

I was thinking in terms of average salary per year when I made that statement. Obviously Milton was still bad in his first year even though his salary was slightly backloaded to this year.

Ltlabner
03-13-2007, 08:22 PM
That was my point.. Gonzales plus one of those old relievers is almost as much as Milton makes per year. Sad as it is, Milton might be more valuable than that assortment of junk. Yeah, maybe not, but it will be close..

Let me get this right...

Taking the defense at the position that sees the vast majority of plays on the field from hideous to Good is junk? There's no value there at all? None?

His offense is weak, at best. No doubt there, but with the GABP boost he ought to contriubute something. But his strength, and value to the team far ballences that out.

I can't argue with you much over the folks in the bull pen, but I totally disgree that bringing in someone generally agreed to provide good, solid, defence at a position that is so critical is a bad thing, let alone throwing the hyperblea of "junk" around.

WMR
03-13-2007, 08:46 PM
Bottom line on the putrid geriatric pitching brought in by Krivsky is that the Reds would've been much better off handing the jobs to available, cheaper, younger--with better upside potential--in-house options.

Pool that cash and get 1 or 2 pieces which are actually valuable and, better yet, project to make a positive contribution to the club.

membengal
03-13-2007, 08:57 PM
Hamilton is currently making it hard to be a pessimist...

pedro
03-13-2007, 09:07 PM
Bottom line on the putrid geriatric pitching brought in by Krivsky is that the Reds would've been much better off handing the jobs to available, cheaper, younger--with better upside potential--in-house options.

Pool that cash and get 1 or 2 pieces which are actually valuable and, better yet, project to make a positive contribution to the club.


sorry, but with the possible exception of Brad Salmon, those in-house options you speak of don't exist. (although to be fair, David Shafer might have qualified had he not been traded)

WMR
03-13-2007, 09:21 PM
Spot # Majors AAA AA A+ A-
1 Aaron Harang Homer Bailey Johnny Cueto Travis Wood Josh Ravin
2 Bronson Arroyo Tom Shearn Sam Lecure Carlos Fisher Jordan Smith
3 Kyle Lohse Phil Dumatrait Camilo Vazquez Phil Valiquette Daniel Guerrero/Jamie Arneson
4 Eric Milton Bob Livingston James Avery Daryl Thompson Anthony Gressick/Misael Dejesus
5 Eliz. Ramirez Tyler Pelland Eric Junge Francisco Mateo Brandon Rice
6 Matt Belisle Steve Kelly Richie Gardner Chris Gruler Rafael Gonzalez


Pen Spot
1 Mike Stanton David Schafer Sean Watson Robert Manual Derrick Lutz
2 David Weathers Jon Coutlangus C Bohorquez Damien Ursin Brandon Camardese
3 Todd Coffey Calvin Medlock Nick Moran R. Haltiwanger Lee Tabor
4 Bill Bray Carlos Guevera James Paduch Logan Ondrusek
5 Rheal Cormier Wes Wilkerson Brock Till Jon George
6 Gary Majewski Brad Salmon



You don't see anything in that list you like over some of our AARP bullpenners?

Falls City Beer
03-13-2007, 09:24 PM
Spot # Majors AAA AA A+ A-
1 Aaron Harang Homer Bailey Johnny Cueto Travis Wood Josh Ravin
2 Bronson Arroyo Tom Shearn Sam Lecure Carlos Fisher Jordan Smith
3 Kyle Lohse Phil Dumatrait Camilo Vazquez Phil Valiquette Daniel Guerrero/Jamie Arneson
4 Eric Milton Bob Livingston James Avery Daryl Thompson Anthony Gressick/Misael Dejesus
5 Eliz. Ramirez Tyler Pelland Eric Junge Francisco Mateo Brandon Rice
6 Matt Belisle Steve Kelly Richie Gardner Chris Gruler Rafael Gonzalez


Pen Spot
1 Mike Stanton David Schafer Sean Watson Robert Manual Derrick Lutz
2 David Weathers Jon Coutlangus C Bohorquez Damien Ursin Brandon Camardese
3 Todd Coffey Calvin Medlock Nick Moran R. Haltiwanger Lee Tabor
4 Bill Bray Carlos Guevera James Paduch Logan Ondrusek
5 Rheal Cormier Wes Wilkerson Brock Till Jon George
6 Gary Majewski Brad Salmon



You don't see anything in that list you like over some of our AARP bullpenners?

It pretty much all sucks on the bullpen side of things, no matter how you slice it. (Aside from Coffey).

WMR
03-13-2007, 09:26 PM
Subtract Stanton and Cormier... insert Salmon and one of the other AAA guys... not sure which is the best: Dumatrait? Schafer? Coutlangus?

Stanton and Cormier were awful signings, IMO.

pedro
03-13-2007, 09:27 PM
Spot # Majors AAA AA A+ A-
1 Aaron Harang Homer Bailey Johnny Cueto Travis Wood Josh Ravin
2 Bronson Arroyo Tom Shearn Sam Lecure Carlos Fisher Jordan Smith
3 Kyle Lohse Phil Dumatrait Camilo Vazquez Phil Valiquette Daniel Guerrero/Jamie Arneson
4 Eric Milton Bob Livingston James Avery Daryl Thompson Anthony Gressick/Misael Dejesus
5 Eliz. Ramirez Tyler Pelland Eric Junge Francisco Mateo Brandon Rice
6 Matt Belisle Steve Kelly Richie Gardner Chris Gruler Rafael Gonzalez


Pen Spot
1 Mike Stanton David Schafer Sean Watson Robert Manual Derrick Lutz
2 David Weathers Jon Coutlangus C Bohorquez Damien Ursin Brandon Camardese
3 Todd Coffey Calvin Medlock Nick Moran R. Haltiwanger Lee Tabor
4 Bill Bray Carlos Guevera James Paduch Logan Ondrusek
5 Rheal Cormier Wes Wilkerson Brock Till Jon George
6 Gary Majewski Brad Salmon



You don't see anything in that list you like over some of our AARP bullpenners?

Like I said. Brad Salmon and maybe David Shafer. There's not another guy on that list who is ready to pitch in the big leagues. And most of them never will. You may not like marginal performance from over the hill pitchers (hey.. who does) but there's a reason why all those "geriatric" pitchers you disdain so much have actually had careers in the majors and isn't because they suck.

pedro
03-13-2007, 09:29 PM
Besides, with the exception Shafer, all those guys are still in the system and can be called up if the reds cut bait on one of the older guys.

WMR
03-13-2007, 09:33 PM
It's just that 2 million here... 2.5 million there... 500k...500k...it adds up pretty quick and all of a sudden you've got a handful of players that don't really improve the club but add up to enough dollars wherein a truly valuable piece could have been added. Are in-house options really going to be worse than these guys at this point in their careers when adding in the unseen benefit of the piece that is never added?

pedro
03-13-2007, 09:42 PM
It's just that 2 million here... 2.5 million there... 500k...500k...it adds up pretty quick and all of a sudden you've got a handful of players that don't really improve the club but add up to enough dollars wherein a truly valuable piece could have been added. Are in-house options really going to be worse than these guys at this point in their careers when adding in the unseen benefit of the piece that is never added?

Yeah, they probably would be worse. Quite possibly a lot. Plus there wasn't much available on the FA market this year anyway. What truly valuable piece was out there to be had?

When you're pitching has been as historically bad as the Reds pitching has, and don't kid yourself, the Reds pitching over the last 5 years may be the worst 5 year run in team history, just getting back to plain old crappy is a leap forward.

Falls City Beer
03-13-2007, 10:07 PM
And I'd say if you're limiting the pool to crap like Stanton and Weathers or crap from the Reds' minors, you're missing the point.

Get a nice pickup like Burton, trade a hot/overvalued bat for a reliever with decent stuff and raw skills. There were and are other options.

REDREAD
03-13-2007, 10:09 PM
Let me get this right...

Taking the defense at the position that sees the vast majority of plays on the field from hideous to Good is junk? There's no value there at all? None?



It's junk because you are overpaying for a bad player. Just like it was bad to overpay for Milton. Milton at 2 million/year isn't a horrible signing. It's still bad, but it's more palatable.






His offense is weak, at best. No doubt there, but with the GABP boost he ought to contriubute something. But his strength, and value to the team far ballences that out.


That's my point. He's a horrible offensive player. His chief asset is defense, which will decline with age. It's debatable how great a defensive guy he is. If all we were looking for was a glove at SS, we could've done it much cheaper, particularly if we were willing to accept an offensive hole.





I can't argue with you much over the folks in the bull pen, but I totally disgree that bringing in someone generally agreed to provide good, solid, defence at a position that is so critical is a bad thing, let alone throwing the hyperblea of "junk" around.

Gonzales was wasted money. Why not take the Gonzales money along with the money we paid for some or all of those old relievers and buy something that would actually help? Someone else pointed out that WayneK spent a lot of money (IIRC, in excess of 30 million) this season. DanO only spent around 20 million during his drunken spending spree, IIRC, and at least scored some useful players at decent prices like Randa, Mercker, and a younger Weathers.

If the Reds had decent scouting, they'd be able to find a cheap SS that could make the plays and hit at the Mendoza level. That's the problem. In a way, we went from one extreme (DanO = overanalytical) to another (WayneK = impulse buyer). Why did he panic and trade for Cormier and Conine, both of whom cost about 2 million a piece? He actually agreed to pick up Cormier's option to make that trade. Word is going to get around the league that the Reds are a dumping ground for all misfit toys.

pedro
03-13-2007, 10:13 PM
And I'd say if you're limiting the pool to crap like Stanton and Weathers or crap from the Reds' minors, you're missing the point.

Get a nice pickup like Burton, trade a hot/overvalued bat for a reliever with decent stuff and raw skills. There were and are other options.

I agree that there were other ways to go about it, but the idea that there were a bunch of FA guys on the market that the Reds could have signed instead is a fallacy. Personally I think what Krivsky has done is fairly reasonable as it doesn't cost the Reds anything but money, and a negligible amount at that.

The Reds are going to have a ton of extra money in the budget come 2008-2009 and should be positioned well at that point IMO. As for this season I don't think there was anything they could have done that would have vaulted them to elite status.

REDREAD
03-13-2007, 10:14 PM
You don't see anything in that list you like over some of our AARP bullpenners?

Unless I missed it, you forgot to add Rule V pick Burton.. Using him over an over the hill guy saves 2 million.. Waiting for the spring to add a vet pinch hitter instead of panicing and trading for Conine would've saved a million or two.

It really doesn't make sense for a team like the Reds to have all 12 slots on their pitching staff basically locked up before spring training even starts. That gives the Reds no breathing room if someone (like Burton) actually earns a spot on the roster.

Maybe we could pawn off Frenchie Cormier, but I kind of doubt it. Who else would want him?

pedro
03-13-2007, 10:17 PM
Lindner's gone folks. I just don't think the Reds are going to hang onto a player that isn't cutting it just b/c they make 2 million dollars. So at worst, they have some depth to choose from now.

Falls City Beer
03-13-2007, 10:17 PM
I agree that there were other ways to go about it, but the idea that there were a bunch of FA guys on the market that the Reds could have signed instead is a fallacy. Personally I think what Krivsky has done is fairly reasonable as it doesn't cost the Reds anything but money, and a negligible amount at that.

The Reds are going to have a ton of extra money in the budget come 2008-2009 and should be positioned well at that point IMO. As for this season I don't think there was anything they could have done that would have vaulted them to elite status.

I say the same thing about Billy Beane every year: surely he won't put together a great team from that scrap-pile of offense and that middling starting rotation.

And yet...every year.

And while one might counter that Beane has a great farm to work with, I'd counter that with, yeah, but the Reds have about $20 million more in payroll to work with.

Others may be asking for "elite," but I'm just asking for respectable, which this bullpen is nowhere near.

pedro
03-13-2007, 10:20 PM
I say the same thing about Billy Beane every year: surely he won't put together a great team from that scrap-pile of offense and that middling starting rotation.

And yet...every year.

And while one might counter that Beane has a great farm to work with, I'd counter that with, yeah, but the Reds have about $20 million more in payroll to work with.

Others may be asking for "elite," but I'm just asking for respectable, which this bullpen is nowhere near.

oakland's payroll was 2 mill more than the Reds last year.

http://www.onestopbaseball.com/TeamPayroll.asp

not sure what it'll be this year.

and well, Wayne K's no Billy Beane. I won't argue with that.

pedro
03-13-2007, 10:24 PM
This site says that the A's payroll will be 72 mil this year.

http://thepastime.net/2007/01/23/as-2007-payroll/

my guess is that the reds will clock in under 70 mill. but I don't know for sure.

Falls City Beer
03-13-2007, 10:30 PM
This site says that the A's payroll will be 72 mil this year.

http://thepastime.net/2007/01/23/as-2007-payroll/

my guess is that the reds will clock in under 70 mill. but I don't know for sure.


Not sure where the A's have added 10 mill in salary part. after Zito's departure.

Okay, fair enough. Still, Beane frequently starts the season from ground zero and builds a skyscraper by June 1st. I'd be happy if Wayne erected a Taco Bell by July 31st.

pedro
03-13-2007, 10:33 PM
Not sure where the A's have added 10 mill in salary part. after Zito's departure.

Okay, fair enough. Still, Beane frequently starts the season from ground zero and builds a skyscraper by June 1st. I'd be happy if Wayne erected a Taco Bell by July 31st.


Piazza. (8.5 Million) plus some healthy raises for some other guys.

Falls City Beer
03-13-2007, 10:35 PM
Piazza. (8.5 Million) plus some healthy raises for some other guys.

Yeah, it's weird. Beane's got a ton of jack tied up in some crummy players: Kotsay, Piazza, Kendall.

But again, somehow, he'll come out smelling like a rose.

pedro
03-13-2007, 10:43 PM
Yeah, it's weird. Beane's got a ton of jack tied up in some crummy players: Kotsay, Piazza, Kendall.

But again, somehow, he'll come out smelling like a rose.

he's great GM. No doubt about it.

Sea Ray
03-13-2007, 11:48 PM
Besides, with the exception Shafer, all those guys are still in the system and can be called up if the reds cut bait on one of the older guys.

Is Chris Gruler and Richie Gardner still in the system?

This from 2-11-07:


The Reds released Gruler, their first round pick in 2002, the Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

pedro
03-13-2007, 11:55 PM
Is Chris Gruler and Richie Gardner still in the system?

This from 2-11-07:

Gruler's not and I'm not sure about Gardner. But if they were cut then they certainly couldn't have been considered reasonable alternatives either.

Johnny Footstool
03-14-2007, 10:40 AM
Yeah, it's weird. Beane's got a ton of jack tied up in some crummy players: Kotsay, Piazza, Kendall.

But again, somehow, he'll come out smelling like a rose.

Kotsay is being paid for the excellent CF defense he provided in 2004 and 2005. His back injury limited him last season and this coming season, too.

Piazza can still hit, and will be an excellent DH.

Kendall's contract is ridiculously bad -- the AL hasn't been kind to him at all. But he was shockingly good on defense last season.

Falls City Beer
03-14-2007, 10:42 AM
Kotsay is being paid for the excellent CF defense he provided in 2004 and 2005. His back injury limited him last season and this coming season, too.

Piazza can still hit, and will be an excellent DH.

Kendall's contract is ridiculously bad -- the AL hasn't been kind to him at all. But he was shockingly good on defense last season.


If I were a GM, my one cardinal sin would be overpaying for defense.

pedro
03-14-2007, 11:14 AM
If I were a GM, my one cardinal sin would be overpaying for defense.


Actually from what I've read defense is Billy Beane's new OBP in his search for undervalued assets.

pedro
03-14-2007, 11:15 AM
Kotsay is being paid for the excellent CF defense he provided in 2004 and 2005. His back injury limited him last season and this coming season, too.

Piazza can still hit, and will be an excellent DH.

Kendall's contract is ridiculously bad -- the AL hasn't been kind to him at all. But he was shockingly good on defense last season.


Not to mention that Kendall's OPB was still .367

westofyou
03-14-2007, 11:17 AM
Not to mention that Kendall's OPB was still .367

The Pirates are also paying 3 million of his salary.

Johnny Footstool
03-14-2007, 12:24 PM
Not to mention that Kendall's OPB was still .367

That's a nice bonus. He also works the count like a champ. Unfortunately, his OPB has been higher than his SLG for the past three seasons. If he slugged over .400, he'd be worth the money. As it is, he's got some nice skills, but they're paying way too much for them.

Cooper
03-14-2007, 12:36 PM
Used to be that the park in Oakland depressed offensive numbers in a pretty big way (lots of foul ball territory)....so those low numbers may increase in value at a neutral BP.

Too lazy to look up their park factor.

pedro
03-14-2007, 12:36 PM
That's a nice bonus. He also works the count like a champ. Unfortunately, his OPB has been higher than his SLG for the past three seasons. If he slugged over .400, he'd be worth the money. As it is, he's got some nice skills, but they're paying way too much for them.

you don't see that a lot do you?

westofyou
03-14-2007, 12:40 PM
Used to be that the park in Oakland depressed offensive numbers in a pretty big way (lots of foul ball territory)....so those low numbers may increase in value at a neutral BP.

Too lazy to look up their park factor.

Still does, 2004-2006 RH BA - 96 RH Power 90

LH 105 - 106

Kendall is a RH hitter too.

westofyou
03-14-2007, 12:42 PM
you don't see that a lot do you?

Not from catchers


Just in the post lock out era


SEASON
1995-2006
SLG < .400
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

OBA YEAR OBA SLG RC/G
1 Luis Castillo 2000 .418 .388 0.87
2 Rickey Henderson 1996 .410 .344 0.70
3 Tony Phillips 1996 .404 .399 0.73
4 Walt Weiss 1995 .403 .321 0.21
5 Rickey Henderson 1997 .400 .342 0.71
6 Jason Kendall 2004 .399 .390 0.71
7 Rafael Furcal 2000 .394 .382 0.54
8 Tony Phillips 1997 .392 .391 0.44
9 Luis Castillo 2005 .391 .374 0.19
10 Jose Offerman 1995 .389 .375 0.29
11 Wade Boggs 1996 .389 .389 0.26
12 Mark McLemore 1996 .389 .379 -.08
13 Luis Castillo 1999 .384 .366 0.14
14 Quilvio Veras 1995 .384 .373 0.39
15 Bill Mueller 1998 .383 .395 0.51
16 Luis Castillo 2003 .381 .397 0.31
17 Walt Weiss 1996 .381 .375 0.38
18 Mickey Morandini 1998 .380 .385 0.49
19 Fernando Vina 2000 .380 .398 0.23
20 Tom Goodwin 1998 .378 .338 -.24
21 Omar Vizquel 2000 .377 .375 -.24
22 Brett Butler 1995 .377 .376 0.65
23 Otis Nixon 1996 .377 .327 -.54
24 Rickey Henderson 1998 .376 .347 0.38
25 Ryan Freel 2004 .375 .368 0.14

41 Jason Kendall 2006 .367 .342 -.75

Johnny Footstool
03-14-2007, 12:56 PM
you don't see that a lot do you?

No, and when you do, as WOY pointed out, it's usually from 5' 8" middle infielders and guys who steal 30+ bases per year.

Marc D
03-14-2007, 01:17 PM
If I were a GM, my one cardinal sin would be overpaying for defense.


Wasn't there some talk of Oakland doing some serious work on actually quantifying defense a while back? Maybe I'm way behind but it would make sense if he had an insight into the value of defense that no one else had.

Falls City Beer
03-14-2007, 04:23 PM
Wasn't there some talk of Oakland doing some serious work on actually quantifying defense a while back? Maybe I'm way behind but it would make sense if he had an insight into the value of defense that no one else had.

Perhaps they are. But I thought part of the idea was to get said component of the game on the cheap because others weren't aware of its value. Doesn't really jibe with paying Kotsay and Kendall $8 and $9 million respectively. That's paying market value and then some.

Still, having minor payroll millstones like that hasn't prevented Beane from getting done for the most part what he's wanted to get done. That's been my point all along: Beane works brilliantly within parameters just as tight as the ones Wayne's working under. So turning the Reds into a team that could challenge for the Central title this season is far from impossible. But it'll take brilliant and tireless execution.

pedro
03-14-2007, 04:34 PM
Perhaps they are. But I thought part of the idea was to get said component of the game on the cheap because others weren't aware of its value. Doesn't really jibe with paying Kotsay and Kendall $8 and $9 million respectively. That's paying market value and then some.

Still, having minor payroll millstones like that hasn't prevented Beane from getting done for the most part what he's wanted to get done. That's been my point all along: Beane works brilliantly within parameters just as tight as the ones Wayne's working under. So turning the Reds into a team that could challenge for the Central title this season is far from impossible. But it'll take brilliant and tireless execution.

And yet it took 3 years for Beane to get the A's to a winning record and 4 to get them to the playoffs and Beane was following up Sandy Alderson who was pretty damn competent.

Wayne apparently doesn't get the same latitude.

Falls City Beer
03-14-2007, 04:43 PM
And yet it took 3 years for Beane to get the A's to a winning record and 4 to get them to the playoffs and Beane was following up Sandy Alderson who was pretty damn competent.

Wayne apparently doesn't get the same latitude.

I agree that Beane inherited a better situation than what Wayne inherited. But what I'm saying is that all things being equal (and I think Beane's started seasons behind an eight ball as big as the one Wayne faces this season), Beane's shown he can get it done. Maybe Wayne can this year. Ultimately, the pity-party for Wayne's effectiveness has to stop at some point; at a certain juncture this is Wayne's team, and he should be held responsible for what it does or doesn't do on his watch.

pedro
03-14-2007, 04:45 PM
I agree that Beane inherited a better situation than what Wayne inherited. But what I'm saying is that all things being equal (and I think Beane's started seasons behind an eight ball as big as the one Wayne faces this season), Beane's shown he can get it done. Maybe Wayne can this year. Ultimately, the pity-party for Wayne's effectiveness has to stop at some point; at a certain juncture this is Wayne's team, and he should be held responsible for what it does or doesn't do on his watch.

Well, they improved last year from the year before and I think they'll be better again this year. It's a process.

FWIW, Jason Stark tabbed them to be the surprise team in the NL this year.

He also called Aaron Harang baseball's "best kept secret" which was nice to hear.

Ltlabner
03-14-2007, 05:10 PM
It's junk because you are overpaying for a bad player.

He's a horrible offensive player.

Gonzales was wasted money.

Gonzo is projected out to be around .735 OPS in 2007, which is only slightly less than what his predicessor was doing before he left (Lopez in Cincy, 2006 = .738 OPS). When Lopez leaves town it's the end of the offensive world. When Gonzo comes to town he's complete crap. Yet they were seperated by .003 OPS points.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not comparing the overall offensive prowess of Lopez and Gonzo. But let's have some realistic discussion rather than just repeating the mantra of the Reds suck over and over and over and over. Especially when the facts show that what we are expected to get in 2007 is on par with what apparently everybody thought was hunky dory in the first half of 2006.

By the way, do you value defense at all? Or is it only what a player does behind the plate that matters? Serriously. I'm no math wiz, but I roughly calcualte that in the NL players spend about 1/2 the time in the field running, catching and throwing the ball. To me, being recoginized to be good (not fantastic, but good) at the most important spot on the field is worth something? Isn't it?

Falls City Beer
03-14-2007, 05:28 PM
Well, they improved last year from the year before and I think they'll be better again this year. It's a process.

FWIW, Jason Stark tabbed them to be the surprise team in the NL this year.

He also called Aaron Harang baseball's "best kept secret" which was nice to hear.

Obviously, I'd love for them to surprise. But the problem with surprise teams is that they're typically regarded as "poor" by the majority of opinions for a reason--otherwise, no "surprise."

Playing the pessimist, I'd still love to know who's going to protect those one-run leads in the 8th and 9th innings; cuz it ain't anybody currently on the roster. My magic eight-ball sees a bunch of "surprise" walk-off homers being hit---against our bullpen.

pedro
03-14-2007, 05:37 PM
Obviously, I'd love for them to surprise. But the problem with surprise teams is that they're typically regarded as "poor" by the majority of opinions for a reason--otherwise, no "surprise."

Playing the pessimist, I'd still love to know who's going to protect those one-run leads in the 8th and 9th innings; cuz it ain't anybody currently on the roster. My magic eight-ball sees a bunch of "surprise" walk-off homers being hit---against our bullpen.


We'll see. They could certainly use another guy besides Coffey who can throw some gas.

The BP is still much better than it was last year IMO.

Falls City Beer
03-14-2007, 05:38 PM
The BP is still much better than it was last year IMO.

Why? It looks like a spitting image to me.

pedro
03-14-2007, 05:42 PM
Why? It looks like a spitting image to me.

Last year's BP to start the season featured Rick White, Chris Hammond, Jason Standridge and Brian Shackelford. The guys they have replaced them with aren't world beaters but they are an improvement.

westofyou
03-14-2007, 05:47 PM
Why? It looks like a spitting image to me.

2006

Arroyo, Belisle, Burns, Claussen, Coffey, Hammond, Harang, Mercker, Milton, Weathers, White, Williams

2007

Harang, Arroyo, Milton, Lohse, Saarloos, Weathers, Coffey, Bray, Cormier, Stanton, Belise, ?

Falls City Beer
03-14-2007, 05:50 PM
2006

Arroyo, Belisle, Burns, Claussen, Coffey, Hammond, Harang, Mercker, Milton, Weathers, White, Williams

2007

Harang, Arroyo, Milton, Lohse, Saarloos, Weathers, Coffey, Bray, Cormier, Stanton, Belise, ?

I did stipulate that I felt it was the bullpen that looked like a spitting image, not necessarily the whole rotation--though, now that you look at them, they aren't substantively better either.

pedro
03-14-2007, 05:51 PM
I did stipulate that I felt it was the bullpen that looked like a spitting image, not necessarily the whole rotation--though, now that you look at them, they aren't substantively better either.


I don't know. 4 (maybe 5) of those guys probably won't even pitch in the majors this year.

WMR
03-14-2007, 05:52 PM
LTL:

In Re Lopez: First off, I think you know that you're comparing him with Gonzo at his offensive low-point. Career-wise and projection-wise, he's going to give you a hell of a lot better production than that .730 OPS.

Secondly, he was being mis-used.

He should have been installed as the second-sacker the DAY Phillips joined the club while Phillips was inserted into the position at which he played the majority of his amateur and professional career: Shortstop.

I said it before and I'll say it again: I take BPhil and Lopez over Gonzo/Bphil every day of the week and it's not even close.

pedro
03-14-2007, 05:57 PM
LTL:

In Re Lopez: First off, I think you know that you're comparing him with Gonzo at his offensive low-point. Career-wise and projection-wise, he's going to give you a hell of a lot better production than that .730 OPS.

Secondly, he was being mis-used.

He should have been installed as the second-sacker the DAY Phillips joined the club while Phillips was inserted into the position at which he played the majority of his amateur and professional career: Shortstop.

I said it before and I'll say it again: I take BPhil and Lopez over Gonzo/Bphil every day of the week and it's not even close.

It was probably worth a shot but no guarantees that Phillips and Lopez would have cut it defensively.

Phillips is a pretty good second baseman but nothing about his play last year led me to believe he'd be a plus defender at SS.

As for Lopez how do we know that his 2005 offense wasn't a fluke? or that he can even cut it at second? that remains to be seen. He does get on base though, which is nice.

WMR
03-14-2007, 06:01 PM
Pedro: Phillips rose through the Indians organization as a SS and all reports I've read say that he's an absolute gem over there.

pedro
03-14-2007, 06:08 PM
Pedro: Phillips rose through the Indians organization as a SS and all reports I've read say that he's an absolute gem over there.

I know he was a SS in the minors. I also know that while he was fairly solid at second last year, he was not spectacular. Plus, he was finally having a taste of success in the majors and I don't think the Reds wanted to disrupt that.

WMR
03-14-2007, 06:14 PM
I know he was a SS in the minors. I also know that while he was fairly solid at second last year, he was not spectacular. Plus, he was finally having a taste of success in the majors and I don't think the Reds wanted to disrupt that.

Necessity is the mother of invention?

Character + Struggle = Success?

I totally understand and see your viewpoint, though, just wish they'd at least tried it for a week or two, or hell, a game or two! It could have been an epiphany. We'll never know.

Ltlabner
03-14-2007, 07:11 PM
He should have been installed as the second-sacker the DAY Phillips joined the club while Phillips was inserted into the position at which he played the majority of his amateur and professional career: Shortstop. .

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened with a Philips at SS and Lopez as 2B combo.

But the fact is Lopez is gone. That is the cold, hard reality.

So they had to replace him somehow. Are there any other SS options in house? Is Janish ready for prime time? Or are there any other 2B options in house so Philips could slide over? Was there some SS FA we overlooked? 2b FA that would have let Philips slide over to SS (Giles perhaps?)?

Fact is, Lopez is gone, Clayton (thank the lord in heaven) is gone. We have to have someone play SS. Gonzo isn't a horrible choice to fill that role, especially considering where the defense at that position has been lately.

remdog
03-14-2007, 11:09 PM
By LtlAbner:

"Gonzo is projected....."
".....cold, hard reality"


So what is it for you Abe, reality or fantasy? You argue out of both sides of your mouth depending on what is convenient for you. Daisy Mae must be proud.

The reality is that the Reds didn't have to dump dollars on Gonzo with Phillips around. Move BP to short and install Freel at 2nd. OR, play Castro at SS---you've already wated $2M bucks there---get your money's worth out of him.

Take the $5M spent on Gonzo, plus the $2M on Conine, plus the various amounts wasted on guys like Stanton, Moeller, Cormier, Crosby, etc. and go out and buy a legitimate #3 starter instead of hopeing that Lohse or Livingston or someother longshot can give you that. That, is cold hard reality.

Rem

reds44
03-14-2007, 11:11 PM
By LtlAbner:

"Gonzo is projected....."
".....cold, hard reality"


So what is it for you Abe, reality or fantasy? You argue out of both sides of your mouth depending on what is convenient for you. Daisy Mae must be proud.

The reality is that the Reds didn't have to dump dollars on Gonzo with Phillips around. Move BP to short and install Freel at 2nd. OR, play Castro at SS---you've already wated $2M bucks there---get your money's worth out of him.

Take the $5M spent on Gonzo, plus the $2M on Conine, plus the various amounts wasted on guys like Stanton, Moeller, Cormier, Crosby, etc. and go out and buy a legitimate #3 starter instead of hopeing that Lohse or Livingston or someother longshot can give you that. That, is cold hard reality.

Rem
Or the $20 million you are spending on Griffey and Milton.

"WHOOPS"

WMR
03-15-2007, 12:41 AM
Or the $20 million you are spending on Griffey and Milton.

"WHOOPS"

The responsibility and blame for those decisions rests upon the shoulders of the previous administration and is totally unrelated to the issue at hand.

Ltlabner
03-15-2007, 06:45 AM
By LtlAbner:

"Gonzo is projected....."
".....cold, hard reality"


So what is it for you Abe, reality or fantasy? You argue out of both sides of your mouth depending on what is convenient for you. Daisy Mae must be proud.

The reality is that the Reds didn't have to dump dollars on Gonzo with Phillips around. Move BP to short and install Freel at 2nd. OR, play Castro at SS---you've already wated $2M bucks there---get your money's worth out of him.

Take the $5M spent on Gonzo, plus the $2M on Conine, plus the various amounts wasted on guys like Stanton, Moeller, Cormier, Crosby, etc. and go out and buy a legitimate #3 starter instead of hopeing that Lohse or Livingston or someother longshot can give you that. That, is cold hard reality.

Rem


Castro at SS?!?!?!? Good god, RZ would melt down if that decision was made. Stellar idea there. Heck, we could have brought Rich Aurlia back to play SS for that matter.

And Wayne's made it pretty clear he's not going to move Philips, so while it would have been interesting to see him at SS he's apparently not going anywhere.

My only point is Lopez is gone. Someone has to play at SS. I'd hardly call Gonzo junk because he doesn't fit someone's vision of what an offensive superstar should be. The value of a ball player still includes defense last I checked.

And I'm not sure where you made up the talking out of both sides of my mouth bit. The "gonzo is projected' part refers to what Gonzo might do at the plate this year. The 'cold, hard reality' part refers to the fact the trade is a done deal and we ain't getting Lopez back. Someone has to play at SS and I don't consider Gonzo the worst choice in the world (or worse than any other current inhouse options). Those two blurbs you quoted really have little to do with eachother so I'm not even sure what you are talking about.

By the way, the name is Ltlabner. Not Abe.

REDREAD
03-16-2007, 11:19 AM
Personally I think what Krivsky has done is fairly reasonable as it doesn't cost the Reds anything but money, and a negligible amount at that.
.

Wayne had over 30 million in funds to allocate for this upcoming season.
I'm not critical of every signing he did, but for once we didn't have a negligible amount of money to spend.

We had enough money to absorb a talented but overpaid player in a trade from a team looking to dump salary. For example, LA was shopping Penny (supposedly). That's one example. It's usually pretty easy to make a trade if you are willing to absorb salary in the deal.

REDREAD
03-16-2007, 11:29 AM
Gonzo is projected out to be around .735 OPS in 2007, which is only slightly less than what his predicessor was doing before he left (Lopez in Cincy, 2006 = .738 OPS). When Lopez leaves town it's the end of the offensive world. When Gonzo comes to town he's complete crap. Yet they were seperated by .003 OPS points.

That's not valid to compare what Felipe did last year with what Gonzo is "projected" to do this year. If you want to talk last year.. Gonzo had a 299 OBP and a 397 SLG in Fenway. Lopez had a better year. Gonzo is 30 and is likely to decline, not get better. Lopez still has upside. Lopez is a basestealer, Gonzo isn't.

Frankly, it's a joke to say Gonzo and Lopez are anywhere near the same offensively. I can see the argument that Lopez was a poor fielding SS, but he was a good bat that still had upside.




Don't get me wrong. I'm not comparing the overall offensive prowess of Lopez and Gonzo.

Seems like you were. :confused:



But let's have some realistic discussion rather than just repeating the mantra of the Reds suck over and over and over and over. Especially when the facts show that what we are expected to get in 2007 is on par with what apparently everybody thought was hunky dory in the first half of 2006.


I thought all through 2006 that we had a .500 team that was only in contention because the rest of the division sucked. That's not hunky dory with me.




By the way, do you value defense at all? Or is it only what a player does behind the plate that matters?

A smart GM could get Alex Gonzales defense a lot cheaper, and without the risk of a 3 year deal.

REDREAD
03-16-2007, 11:34 AM
2006

Arroyo, Belisle, Burns, Claussen, Coffey, Hammond, Harang, Mercker, Milton, Weathers, White, Williams

2007

Harang, Arroyo, Milton, Lohse, Saarloos, Weathers, Coffey, Bray, Cormier, Stanton, Belise, ?


I agree with Falls City, even though he meant just the pen.

What's changed?

Rotation: Sarloos added. Potentially good, but not a sure thing.

Bullpen: Seems to be hinging on Maj and Bray rebounding and Coffey continuing to grow. The vets are likely to be worse than last year's vets.
Weathers/Cormier/Stanton is a disaster waiting to happen, although maybe
Weathers can eek out one more good year. Good easily be just the same as last years (or worse).

REDREAD
03-16-2007, 11:37 AM
The responsibility and blame for those decisions rests upon the shoulders of the previous administration and is totally unrelated to the issue at hand.


I agree, but a good GM could've moved Milton this offseason.

Wayne didn't want to. If he wanted Milton out of town as bad as he wanted Larue out of town, Milton would be gone.

REDREAD
03-16-2007, 11:42 AM
Castro at SS?!?!?!? Good god, RZ would melt down if that decision was made. Stellar idea there. Heck, we could have brought Rich Aurlia back to play SS for that matter.
.

It depends on what you are planning to do. Most of us agree that 2007 is not "the year" for the Reds to contend, yet Wayne made a bunch of decisions as if it was. He's locked us into Gonzales for 3 years. He's locked us into Stanton and Weathers for 2 years.

He's eliminated flexiblity. Now if a good young SS becomes available, we'll have to deal with unloading Gonzo.

I would've rather Wayne just grabbed one year stopgaps and continued to look for a long term solution. As of now, Gonzo is our long term solution, and that's not acceptable.

And there are choices beyond Castro or Gonzo.. But if there wasn't, I could live with Casto if that 14 million spent on Gonzo was used wisely. Think about it, is Gonzo really that much better than Castro? Only marginally.

vaticanplum
03-16-2007, 11:58 AM
He's eliminated flexiblity. Now if a good young SS becomes available, we'll have to deal with unloading Gonzo.

I agree with you to a degree, but I think that running a team on if's is a pretty big gamble. This case in point: good young shortstops don't exactly become available very often, and when they do, they don't usually have a minimal number of teams chasing after them.

Sometimes you gamble, sometimes you look at the options available right now and pick the best one. A good GM, to me, makes a mix of these decisions, and the trick is knowing when to go in which direction.

pedro
03-16-2007, 12:00 PM
A lot folks around here think every player on the roster needs to be an all star.

mth123
03-16-2007, 12:39 PM
A lot folks around here think every player on the roster needs to be an all star.

Its not a matter of him being an All Star. Guys who can play decent defense at SS while being a black hole on offense are a dime a dozen. The Reds have 3 in camp who will be cut soon in Gil, Janish and Machado. Rey Olmedo who was given away is a 4th.

If the team really thinks that Gonzalez is a plus plus run saver at SS (I'm not convinced but admit I need more time to see for myself) and they wanted to pay for it, then ok. But that move requires a corresponding move to make-up for the lost offense and Jeff Conine isn't it.

And if Gonzo isn't the plus, plus run saver that would justify a 3 year $14 Million deal, then RedRead is right.

pedro
03-16-2007, 01:08 PM
Its not a matter of him being an All Star. Guys who can play decent defense at SS while being a black hole on offense are a dime a dozen. The Reds have 3 in camp who will be cut soon in Gil, Janish and Machado. Rey Olmedo who was given away is a 4th.

If the team really thinks that Gonzalez is a plus plus run saver at SS (I'm not convinced but admit I need more time to see for myself) and they wanted to pay for it, then ok. But that move requires a corresponding move to make-up for the lost offense and Jeff Conine isn't it.

And if Gonzo isn't the plus, plus run saver that would justify a 3 year $14 Million deal, then RedRead is right.

I know Gonzalez is not a good hitter but he'll still out OPS all of those guys by a long shot IMO and play better defense than all of them with the possible exception of Janish. Olmedo is dog food IMO. He's can't hit and he's not a good SS.

Ltlabner
03-16-2007, 02:26 PM
Frankly, it's a joke to say Gonzo and Lopez are anywhere near the same offensively. I can see the argument that Lopez was a poor fielding SS, but he was a good bat that still had upside.

I didn't say they were anywhere near the same. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't comparing their OVERALL offensive skills.

The only point was that in the 1st half of 2006 Lopez put up numbers statistically equivlent to what we are likely to see from Gonzo in 2007. People didn't seem to mind the "offensive black hole" Lopez was creating at the time. He wasn't called junk (even through his glove did little to offset his stick at the time) by yourself (at least, not that I remember). People were not gnashing their teath that he was draging the team down offensivley to the level you have over Gonzo in the comming years. And that doesn't even factor in Lopez's glove, which only made him more of a drag on the team.

I still don't understand the total disregard for defense and over emphasis on offence. Do they not have to catch and throw the ball anymore?

Ltlabner
03-16-2007, 02:35 PM
Think about it, is Gonzo really that much better than Castro? Only marginally.



VORP SLG
Gonzo 12.3 .426
Castro .07 .359

I guess if you consider 12.23 points of VORP and .67 points of slugging "marginal" your answer would be yes. And that doesn't touch on defensive differences (age, range, etc).

Cedric
03-16-2007, 02:38 PM
Lopez isn't even a SS. He has nothing to do with this discussion. The Reds made the right decision in not paying that kind of cash for a corner OF. The supposed value he had was always overvalued on this board, he's a decent corner OF at best.

Comparing Castro and Gonzo is another weird one to me. It's just not valid in any way.

REDREAD
03-16-2007, 05:51 PM
He [Lopez] wasn't called junk (even through his glove did little to offset his stick at the time)

until after he was traded. ;) Just kidding around, I did take that out of context.
But seriously, there's no question that Lopez had a lot more offensive upside. That's why he wasn't called junk. Also, as I recall, the Reds were tinkering with him, trying to boost his OBP instead of having him swing with power.




I still don't understand the total disregard for defense and over emphasis on offence. Do they not have to catch and throw the ball anymore?

As Mth123 said above, Gonzales has to be an amazing glove to be worth what he's being paid. Good glove SS that can't hit are a dime a dozen.
I'd mind it less if the Reds only gave him a 1 year deal. But now we're locked into him for 3 years.

GAC
03-18-2007, 08:16 PM
Good glove SS that can't hit are a dime a dozen.

Where are they then? Are were there any available in this current market?


I'd mind it less if the Reds only gave him a 1 year deal. But now we're locked into him for 3 years.

I tend to agree, and don't like it any more then you do; but after seeing what mediocre to average players are getting (see Gary Mathews), this is the standard the market is dictating.