PDA

View Full Version : Will the Reds avoid 100 losses? If so, how?



REDREAD
06-25-2007, 10:32 PM
Right now, the Reds are on pace to lose 100 games.

We might be able to avoid 100 losses if Jr and Dunn aren't traded, and Arroyo somehow finds himself. Actually, I think Coffey has upside as well, even though management has lost confidence in him. Last year, Coffey rebounded in the second half and helped improve the pen.

Other than that, I don't see much upside at all. I don't think Freel's return is going to make much of an impact.

I'm not saying Wayne's mission should be to avoid 100 losses, just trying to picture a scenerio where they could improve.

Well, I totally screwed up and made this a hidden poll.. So I will say we will hit 100 losses.
I expect Jr to be traded and Dunn to stay.. Jr's loss will be big.

jesusfan
06-25-2007, 10:42 PM
I say trade Griffey/Dunn only if we get a "GREAT" package in return, however trade Hatteberg, Conine, Weathers, Lohse, whatever else you can for prospects and in the offseason pick up key pieces to WIN, not compete, but to WIN, we will more than likely have a top 3 pick in the draft and we'll go from there...

Marc D
06-25-2007, 10:51 PM
I don't see how they can avoid it.

If they stand pat they'll lose 100 because WK has built such a god awful team that he lets Narron make even worse on a nightly basis.

If WK tries to make moves and follows his pattern thus far he'll make a miseribly bad team even worse. Oh yeah and Narron will still be the manager.

Mario-Rijo
06-25-2007, 10:52 PM
90 losses but not quite 100.

Unless we deal Griffey, Dunn and the vets. But I don't see it happening, in fact I think we keep them both now.

However Hatteberg, Weathers and the like should be in for a nice 2nd half of the season on a winner somewhere.

HumnHilghtFreel
06-25-2007, 11:16 PM
I think that they stand a pretty good shot to avoid the 100 loss mark, but it could very easily go south if trades are made.

They're currently 29-47 with 86 games remaining.

A record of 34-52 from here on out would leave them with 99 losses. I think they can pull that off.

Edit: I just did a calculation of how many games we'd win over the next 86 at the current win rate and it came out to 33, which would put them at exactly 100.

WVRedsFan
06-25-2007, 11:30 PM
I think that they stand a pretty good shot to avoid the 100 loss mark, but it could very easily go south if trades are made.

They're currently 29-47 with 86 games remaining.

A record of 34-52 from here on out would leave them with 99 losses. I think they can pull that off.

Good point, but if they trade Griffey or Dunn (which I expect), that will get us to 100 losses in a hurry. And if Hopper replaces whichever is traded (and I don't expect both to go), watch us tumble and free-fall.

marcshoe
06-25-2007, 11:58 PM
I don't expect 100 losses. However, this has been the most...hope-free?...season in some time. If the team loses 100 games, that would be, practically speaking, insignificant, except for whatever role it plays in getting a higher draft pick or waking up the powers that be.

I've always been highly critical of the lose-more-games-so-we-can-get-a-higher-pick crowd, but this season, there is no hope for anything significant. There will be no overall progress. The signs of better things come with Homer Bailey's appearances, the beginnings of promise for Josh Hamilton, the possibility of Joey Votto's debut, and one or two other things. It's starting to look like Dunn's not here long-term (hey, why would you want to keep a 27-year-old left-handed 40+ HR guy in a home-run park with a short right field fence?). Junior's resurgence is fun, but will only make a long-term difference for the team if Krivsky does the painful thing.

So, I don't expect 100 wins. Things will even out a bit, even if the team gets gutted. But in the long run, if it happens, it won't change the way I feel about this season.

WVRedsFan
06-26-2007, 12:34 AM
I don't expect 100 losses. However, this has been the most...hope-free?...season in some time. If the team loses 100 games, that would be, practically speaking, insignificant, except for whatever role it plays in getting a higher draft pick or waking up the powers that be.

I've always been highly critical of the lose-more-games-so-we-can-get-a-higher-pick crowd, but this season, there is no hope for anything significant. There will be no overall progress. The signs of better things come with Homer Bailey's appearances, the beginnings of promise for Josh Hamilton, the possibility of Joey Votto's debut, and one or two other things. It's starting to look like Dunn's not here long-term (hey, why would you want to keep a 27-year-old left-handed 40+ HR guy in a home-run park with a short right field fence?). Junior's resurgence is fun, but will only make a long-term difference for the team if Krivsky does the painful thing.

So, I don't expect 100 wins. Things will even out a bit, even if the team gets gutted. But in the long run, if it happens, it won't change the way I feel about this season.

I don't remember what I predicted the Reds would finish, but I think it was 79-83. In order for the Reds to do this, they'd have to end up 50-36, which is daggone near impossible. I remember MWM said 69 wins and that may be the winner.

Anyway, I don't see any way for this team to rebound to winning form. I saw it early on when Narron insisted on batting Phillips 2nd--a low OBP guy in the 2 hole? A free swinger at that. Freel was no leadoff man and never will be. He continued tok bat Dunn low in the order and Griffey all over the place. So your outfield consisted of two leftys who hit HRs and a CF who not only wasn't a CF, but fragile and was a banjo hitter. The infield was worse. As much as I admire the Scott Hattebergs of the world, they're never going to do much for a team. Slow of foot and streaky. Great bench material. Same for Gonzalez. Good field, streaky, low OBP hitter. The fact that Narron had him hitting cleanup for awhile was laughable. Playing with Encarnacion didn't help either, since he was the best RH batter in the lineup when he played. Catcher was and is a mess with three who would be backups anywhere else. The starters consisted of two pretty good pitchers and three unknowns. The two pretty good pitchers turned into one thanks to overwork. The other three are up and down. And the bullpen, for all the money and time invested in it is horrible. That's your 2007 Reds.

What to do? Fire sale. Get rid of the backups and let them be backups for someone else, Bring up the kids (Votto, Bruce, etc) and the young promising pitchers and do anything you have to do to get rid of Stanton, Majewski, and a couple others. Get what you can out of David Weathers. Keep Dunn and Griffey for fannies in the seats and see what happens. Get a manager who doesn't resemble Gene Mauch and who might have a clue about winning.

That and $5 might get you a latte at Starbucks. Keep that in mind.

KronoRed
06-26-2007, 12:46 AM
They will avoid it...just barely, we play in a bad division

Ltlabner
06-26-2007, 06:13 AM
They will avoid it...just barely, we play in a bad division

Good point. BTW, anybody know how many inter-divisional games we have left to play this year? We haven't played the Brews, Cubs and Cards a whole bunch this year IIRC.

HumnHilghtFreel
06-26-2007, 06:20 AM
Good point. BTW, anybody know how many inter-divisional games we have left to play this year? We haven't played the Brews, Cubs and Cards a whole bunch this year IIRC.

42

bucksfan2
06-26-2007, 08:26 AM
If losing 100 games means they get ride of Hatty, Conine, Weathers, Santos, and maybe Dunn and go with younger versions then I am fine with that. I would much rather lose with the likes of McBeth, Burton, Count, and Salmon pitching in relief (I am not sold on Coffey and probably never will be). I want to see and infield of Votto, Phillips, Gonzo and Encarnacion play every day the rest of the year. I want to see Narron fired and bring in a young fiery manager who has something to prove. If 100 loses lead to a better team next year and the year after than I am all for it. What I do not want to happen is the reds to finish off the year about 10 games over .500, save Narron's job and put the thought in management's mind that this team can compete next season.

Dan
06-26-2007, 08:34 AM
I say less, because once Eddie Guadardo and Bill Bray are back, things are going to turn around for this team.

:bang:

Marc D
06-26-2007, 11:15 PM
Well after tonights loss there are 85 games left.

The Reds only have to go 34-51 (.400) to avoid 100 losses.

How sad is it that we question if they can even play .400 ball for half a year?

LoganBuck
06-26-2007, 11:47 PM
Bring it on baby, bring it on!

Maybe I am dillusional but I want it. Give me 100 losses and the offseason to chew on it. I want Castellini good and angry. I want the first pick in the draft, and I want changes.

Anything that is not the status quo.

harangatang
06-27-2007, 12:37 AM
Bring it on baby, bring it on!

Maybe I am dillusional but I want it. Give me 100 losses and the offseason to chew on it. I want Castellini good and angry. I want the first pick in the draft, and I want changes.

Anything that is not the status quo.I'm not sure at this point in the season, but I do know that coming into the season that the Reds led the majors in the number of transactions since Krivsky took over. With all of these changes it appears the Reds aren't any better if not a little worse than they were last year. I want changes to the ballclub but I want changes that going to make the ballclub better. If it takes Dunn to get a couple of impact players then so be it IMO. But given all the moves and the lack of success I wonder if Krivsky needs to go before any major changes are made.

LoganBuck
06-27-2007, 01:04 AM
I'm not sure at this point in the season, but I do know that coming into the season that the Reds led the majors in the number of transactions since Krivsky took over. With all of these changes it appears the Reds aren't any better if not a little worse than they were last year. I want changes to the ballclub but I want changes that going to make the ballclub better. If it takes Dunn to get a couple of impact players then so be it IMO. But given all the moves and the lack of success I wonder if Krivsky needs to go before any major changes are made.

By changes I mean:
1. Manager
2. Identifying good talent and signing it. This means less Juan Castro/Rick White/Mike Stanton more Scott Hatteburg/Brandon Phillips/Josh Hamilton. Heck Jeff Conine has been very good in the role in which he was cast. No more revolving door bullpen, and no more geriatric guys being depended on for anything more than bats off the bench.
3. Bring in one solid starting pitcher, 1 RH power bat, 2 good bullpen arms. Continue to nourish the farm system
4. Identify a direction, establish a plan, act on said plan. Current plan: steal underpants, , profit.
5. Leadership. Castellini has been doing a Lindner impersonation recently and this club needs start moving. Castellini must step in and demand change, or else nothing has been accomplished since he took control, other then buying new letterhead.
6. Decide what to do with Adam Dunn and JR, either build around them or trade one or both, but do something.

WVRedsFan
06-27-2007, 01:05 AM
I'm not sure at this point in the season, but I do know that coming into the season that the Reds led the majors in the number of transactions since Krivsky took over. With all of these changes it appears the Reds aren't any better if not a little worse than they were last year. I want changes to the ballclub but I want changes that going to make the ballclub better. If it takes Dunn to get a couple of impact players then so be it IMO. But given all the moves and the lack of success I wonder if Krivsky needs to go before any major changes are made.

I've been saying the same thing since about a year ago, but I keep getting this stuff about "giving a GM more time" and "changing GM's so often just puts you farther behind" or the like.

We hired a rookie GM from a franchise that valued under-valued players and castoff pitchers. They had a farm system that was some help. He came here and tried to emulate the Minnesota Twins (all he know) and has made the club worse. If he were an experienced GM with some track record of success, i'd agree to give him more time. Since he is not, and has proven nothing but creating a disaster, I say it's time to get someone who can do the job.

Since I'm sure the usual will come out to call me crazy (and I don't doubt that fact), just give them time. They'll be doing the same soon enough.

cincrazy
06-27-2007, 01:38 AM
I don't think Dunn or Griffey will be traded, which is a change of heart from what I felt WK would do earlier in the season, but I don't think it matters. This team doesn't believe it can win, and that's the most important thing. I think they'll lose 100, but if they don't, then it'll be very close. I know we're in a bad division, but I don't see things evening out, to be quite honest. We're just an awful baseball team, plain and simple.

Unassisted
06-27-2007, 12:29 PM
100 losses sends the message that changes are needed in a way that 90 losses does not. I'd rather see a 100-loss season than a bunch of half-baked tweaks that lead to a 10-game improvement in '07 and 3 more years of sub .500 mediocrity.

KronoRed
06-27-2007, 12:56 PM
If they do reach 100 losses then I hope they get to 102, why not set a new record? ;)

Reds1
06-27-2007, 03:38 PM
This team has been very competative and in a ton of games. I don't think they'll have the same amount of errors, base running mistakes - and I think the pen will be better. That's my reasoning. I still say this team has too much talent in the rotation and and can score. Also, Ross won't be as bad!

Redmachine2003
06-27-2007, 06:29 PM
This team is too laid back and takes each lose in stride. So I say they will lose more than 100. There is no urgency to win shown by the ownership and players and this team was never really constructed very well to begin with. There are no real leaders in the clubhouse and has manager that doesn't know how to rally anything or anybody. I had hoped with BCast this team had an owner who took action but he has shown to be the opposite not only with this team but with the bank project in Cincy, which he is one of the leaders.

Highlifeman21
06-27-2007, 08:41 PM
I had em for 90 losses, IIRC, in my preseason prediction.

So far, they're exceeding my expectations.

harangatang
06-28-2007, 04:06 PM
If they do reach 100 losses then I hope they get to 102, why not set a new record? ;)That's not far enough, how about going to 119 losses. That way the Reds can play Kool and the Gang's "Celebration" like the Tigers did in 2003 when they avoided the modern record of 120 losses set by the '62 Mets.

oneupper
06-28-2007, 05:23 PM
Losing 100 isn't that easy, particularly in such a weak division.