PDA

View Full Version : Hatteberg Rumor



Matt700wlw
06-26-2007, 02:34 PM
NY Daily New

The Yankees had inquired about Reds first baseman Scott Hatteberg (.286 average, seven homers, 23 RBI) and were told earlier that the Reds didn't want to trade. That could change, however, because Cincinnati is in sixth place and Hatteberg is 37 and unlikely to return.

puca
06-26-2007, 02:39 PM
Hopefully Krivsky just playing hardball. If Hatte is seriously 'untouchable' then this organization is entirely whacked.

Aronchis
06-26-2007, 02:40 PM
Considering the source, this isn't even a rumor.

KronoRed
06-26-2007, 02:41 PM
Hat isn't a one of a kind guy, playing hardball concerning a player like that is a good way to end up with nothing.

Sounds like malarky

registerthis
06-26-2007, 02:42 PM
There's a difference between not wanting to trade, and simply having too high an asking price.

If it's the latter, that sounds like Wayne playing hardball. If it's the former, it doesn't make an iota of sense.

puca
06-26-2007, 02:43 PM
Well we'd still have Hatte, at least for the rest of the year. And if the Yankees are offering junk, I'd rather stand pat with Hatte.

Matt700wlw
06-26-2007, 02:45 PM
Well we'd still have Hatte, at least for the rest of the year. And if the Yankees are offering junk, I'd rather stand pat with Hatte.

I'd rather get Votto's feet wet, and get a prospect or two for Hatteberg....if the Reds still had a chance, then I'd feel differently.

Same with Conine, if there's a market for him

KronoRed
06-26-2007, 02:46 PM
Well we'd still have Hatte, at least for the rest of the year. And if the Yankees are offering junk, I'd rather stand pat with Hatte.

I'd take the best offer even if it was some so so prospects, get Votto up here now.

membengal
06-26-2007, 02:46 PM
It's the "didn't want to trade" line that puzzles, as register has point out. IF that is actually accurate, it induces a big roll of the eyes...

RichRed
06-26-2007, 03:01 PM
The Yankees had inquired about Reds first baseman Scott Hatteberg (.286 average, seven homers, 23 RBI) and were told earlier that the Reds didn't want to trade.

Depends on when the Yankees "had acquired" and when "earlier" was. If it was in May, then ok. If it was yesterday, not so ok.

membengal
06-26-2007, 03:09 PM
Rich, precisely.

I am generally uncomfortable with the concept of "untouchables" on rosters, and am pretty certain that Mr. Hatte should not be in any such category regardless.

I will assume the Daily News is a day late and ten dollars short with regard to this news item, otherwise, yeesh...

PuffyPig
06-26-2007, 03:28 PM
"Hatteberg is unlikley to return"?

The Reds have an option on him for next year. He'll return if they say so.

The Reds don't have to trade him this year. They can always exercise their option and trade him next winter.

dfs
06-26-2007, 03:35 PM
I'm just curious why would Hatteberg be more valuable in the off season than now?

PuffyPig
06-26-2007, 03:51 PM
I'm just curious why would Hatteberg be more valuable in the off season than now?

He might not be, but he might be.....

In the off season, someone may have a need for a full time platoon firstbaseman or DH that they don't have now. It might be from a non-contender who has little nned now, but might want him before the season starts. We could keep him as insurance now to make sure Votto can cut it.

We don't need to give him away. He's worth a decent propsect;otherwise, he still has some value to us.

flyer85
06-26-2007, 03:59 PM
The Yankees had inquired about Reds first baseman Scott Hatteberg (.286 average, seven homers, 23 RBI) and were told earlier that the Reds didn't want to trade. if that is true and the GM means it then his real name has to be Lloyd Christmas.

BRM
06-26-2007, 04:03 PM
From John Fay.



"No, we're not ready to throw in the towel," Krivsky said. "We've got to keep playing hard and trying to get better."

flyer85
06-26-2007, 04:06 PM
No, we're not ready to throw in the towel," Krivsky said. "We've got to keep playing hard and trying to get better."I guess WK is worried about his job if the Reds don't turn it around.

BRM
06-26-2007, 04:07 PM
Playing for '09 may not be an option for Wayne.

Aronchis
06-26-2007, 04:07 PM
From John Fay.

He can quote all he wants, it means little. The Reds are dead, they know it and we know it. It is how the FO deals with it by September 1st that is the key. The wave deadline has just as much impact as the non-wave deadline. Long time to go.

NJReds
06-26-2007, 04:10 PM
The question is ... would you give Hatteburg away for 'minor league chaff' as we're so fond of saying. He's not expensive and he's a solid major leaguer. If the Yanks want him...need him for a playoff run, then they should pay up with a top prospect. That'd be my stance.

Aronchis
06-26-2007, 04:10 PM
Playing for '09 may not be an option for Wayne.

I agree, Cast's words are the important ones and where the franchise is headed. He could fire Krivsky but that may not mean anything good.

Matt700wlw
06-26-2007, 04:11 PM
Wayne would look more competent if he just came out and said it's time to let the young guys play, evaluate them, and build for next year....and then bring them up.

But that would look like giving up, wouldn't it?

Falls City Beer
06-26-2007, 04:17 PM
I have no idea what direction this club is going in. I feel like I'm on a Sit n' Spin inside a turbine.

traderumor
06-26-2007, 04:19 PM
I guess WK is worried about his job if the Reds don't turn it around.I'd say more about losing his existing players. It would be unprofessional for your GM to come out in the paper and say "put a fork in us, we're done." It is a long season and you do not want to instill an attitude in the organization of giving up when things get tough, even if reality is that the current team is not going anywhere.

BRM
06-26-2007, 04:20 PM
I have no idea what direction this club is going in. I feel like I'm on a Sit n' Spin inside a turbine.

How about the wrong direction?

membengal
06-26-2007, 04:20 PM
But that would look like giving up, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't.

This team owns one of the worst records in baseball. Staying the course would arguably be more "giving up".

I know a ton of voices on this board (led, memorably, by a phenomenal Stormy post) have called for a youth movement for some time now. I know I have been. I don't see why turning this roster over a bit, dealing some capable vets for younger talent, and pushing forward necessarily means "giving up." Wins can be had, even with youth.

Falls City Beer
06-26-2007, 04:22 PM
No, it wouldn't.

This team owns one of the worst records in baseball. Staying the course would arguably be more "giving up".

I know a ton of voices on this board (led, memorably, by a phenomenal Stormy post) have called for a youth movement for some time now. I know I have been. I don't see why turning this roster over a bit, dealing some capable vets for younger talent, and pushing forward necessarily means "giving up." Wins can be had, even with youth.

I agree. One thing that being the worst team affords you is the luxury of being honest with your fans. No one is fooled that this team is going to contend, and no fewer people are going to attend games because Wayne says "We'll explore all options to get better" rather than "We're staying the course."

traderumor
06-26-2007, 04:22 PM
No, it wouldn't.

This team owns one of the worst records in baseball. Staying the course would arguably be more "giving up".

I know a ton of voices on this board (led, memorably, by a phenomenal Stormy post) have called for a youth movement for some time now. I know I have been. I don't see why turning this roster over a bit, dealing some capable vets for younger talent, and pushing forward necessarily means "giving up." Wins can be had, even with youth.

The moves wouldn't, but you're making judgments based on a media quote.

membengal
06-26-2007, 04:24 PM
All I can go by is what WK says. I don't have much more than that to judge him by. I am left to try and suss out what he means by "throwing in the towel", and it seems to me the most likely definition is "youth movement". If that's what he means, I disagree that entails "throwing in the towel"...

Then again, I value Votto at 1b for the right now perhaps a bit more than WK does, and in the end, WK's opinion matters more. But WK will be judged on his opinions, so that will have to be enough.

I'm just saying, Votto is good enough to play and help this team now, and if WK were to deal Hatte for something decent in terms of minor league talent, that is NOT, to me anyway, "throwing in the towel"...

traderumor
06-26-2007, 04:25 PM
How does one get "stay the course" from that quote? Its GM speak 101. :confused:

37red
06-26-2007, 04:26 PM
Maybe Hatteberg doesn't want to go to the loser Yankees. Ya know, they're under .500 and such a tough city for baseball players to hang out. Cincy is a really comfortable city compared to NY, but of course the restaurants aren't quite as nice.

traderumor
06-26-2007, 04:27 PM
All I can go by is what WK says. I don't have much more than that to judge him by.Sure you do. Look at this board. There is a biopsy of each and every spin in his chair since he took over. I know you have more depth than that, mem. You know that is just GM BS.

BRM
06-26-2007, 04:28 PM
Maybe Hatteberg doesn't want to go to the loser Yankees. Ya know, they're under .500 and such a tough city for baseball players to hang out. Cincy is a really comfortable city compared to NY, but of course the restaurants aren't quite as nice.

It's not up to him. He doesn't have a no trade clause.

membengal
06-26-2007, 04:33 PM
Sure you do. Look at this board. There is a biopsy of each and every spin in his chair since he took over. I know you have more depth than that, mem. You know that is just GM BS.

I don't know any such thing, tr. I have WK's moves, and his words. The moves give me concern, more often than not, and his words have been too infrequent to give me any reason to be optimistic. I had hoped for more from WK than GM "bs", because if that is all he has to offer, it is disheartening. I'm not saying any of this to crack on WK per se, just fervantly hoping the Daily News is wrong, that Hatte is gettable in the right deal, and that WK is listening to all offers.

I just don't understand the concept of a "throwing in the towel" statement as it applies to this team currently...

Spitball
06-26-2007, 04:33 PM
I would have to believe the Yankees would be looking for more impact than Hatteberg could provide at first base in order to get back into the race.

traderumor
06-26-2007, 04:34 PM
I don't know any such thing, tr. I have WK's moves, and his words. The moves give me concern, more often than not, and his words have been too infrequent to give me any reason to be optimistic. I had hoped for more from WK than GM "bs", because if that is all he has to offer, it is disheartening. I'm not saying any of this to crack on WK per se, just fervantly hoping the Daily News is wrong, that Hatte is gettable in the right deal, and that WK is listening to all offers.

I just don't understand the concept of a "throwing in the towel" statement as it applies to this team currently...First, I'm not aware that the quote is in the context of this rumor. Is that what you're saying, and why?

membengal
06-26-2007, 04:41 PM
That's not what I am saying. They are seperate issues, but I am responding to both since both have been raised in this thread.

I don't like that quote period. I don't want the team "throwing in the towel", ever. Absent some definition from WK as to what he means by that phrase, I am left only to hazard guesses based on what people have meant in the past by such a phrase. And, generally, that phrase in the past has meant, not uncommonly, "youth movement". Well, for a long time on this board, there have been a bunch of folks advocating some move toward youth, and advocate such not because of giving up, but because it is possible to play better and win, even with youth. Talent is what matters, above all else. And there is some talent available to the Reds that WK hasn't tapped yet. And he can tap that talent without "throwing in the towel".

That's seperate from the Daily News piece. But, IF there were substance to the Daily News piece, it would give me pause given my views on what I would want for this team from WK from here to the end of the season. The Reds do have some assets, and I think those assets should be be shopped to maxmize return and get in some talent in return. Young talent in return. Interestingly enough, were they to do so, I wouldn't consider that "throwing in the towel", to borrow WK's phrase of the day. Not when the team, as constituted, has put up the kind of record it already has. I would consider it prudent and responsible GM-ing. Which is why I hope, and believe, contrary to the Daily News report, that WK is indeed listening to all offers, reasonable or otherwise. If he is not, for whatever reason, for any player (and that includes Mr. Hatte), I would have a problem with that. For what it's worth.

Chip R
06-26-2007, 04:43 PM
Wayne would look more competent if he just came out and said it's time to let the young guys play, evaluate them, and build for next year....and then bring them up.

But that would look like giving up, wouldn't it?


Seems like they put quite a premium on attendance - such as it is. Can't trade Jr. otherwise attendance would drop and you can't bring up the young players because it would look like you are giving up and attendance would drop. Plus you bring up the #1 pitching prospect when he's still somewhat raw.

I understand a smaller revenue producing team's bread and butter is their attendance but it's not like they are drawing 35K every night.

Always Red
06-26-2007, 04:50 PM
I would have to believe the Yankees would be looking for more impact than Hatteberg could provide at first base in order to get back into the race.

Well, the Yanks certainly do not want to add payroll, and they have Mientkiewicz at first, who doesn't hit. Hatteberg knows how to get on base, and the Bombers have enough punch in nearly every other position. In fact the more I think about it, Hatte would be a great fit in that lineup.

If he could only pitch....well, then, the Reds would keep him, too, eh?

Hatte is a great complimentary player to have on your team. It's only when and if you overpay him that you get diminishing returns.

Cyclone792
06-26-2007, 04:57 PM
Seems like they put quite a premium on attendance - such as it is. Can't trade Jr. otherwise attendance would drop and you can't bring up the young players because it would look like you are giving up and attendance would drop. Plus you bring up the #1 pitching prospect when he's still somewhat raw.

I understand a smaller revenue producing team's bread and butter is their attendance but it's not like they are drawing 35K every night.

Sounds like you may be right, Chip.

The way I see it, the Reds have exactly one more homestand where they'll be likely to draw good-sized Reds fan attendance. They'll bring in fans this weekend for the Cardinals, Bonds will bring in some fans next week, and then they'll bring in some fans next weekend against Arizona. It'll be a holiday week with presumably nice weather, it's before the all-star break, and it's before the trading deadline.

But after that, I see the ticket sales to Reds fans drying up a bit. The Reds have a four game set in late July against the Brewers on a Monday-Thursday, and I doubt that will get people excited. Other than the bobblehead night, those games are asking for less than 20k per. The Cubs come to town during that weekend, and GABP will only be full thanks to a large Cubs contingent. By the time the Dodgers and Padres roll to GABP in early August, even casual fans who rarely pay attention to the Reds will realize that the 2007 season was the year the Reds got their teeth kicked in. The only thing that may add a few fans during the season's final two months will be if Griffey is still on the team and closing in on HR #600.

traderumor
06-26-2007, 05:13 PM
That's not what I am saying. They are seperate issues, but I am responding to both since both have been raised in this thread.

I don't like that quote period. I don't want the team "throwing in the towel", ever. Absent some definition from WK as to what he means by that phrase, I am left only to hazard guesses based on what people have meant in the past by such a phrase. And, generally, that phrase in the past has meant, not uncommonly, "youth movement". Well, for a long time on this board, there have been a bunch of folks advocating some move toward youth, and advocate such not because of giving up, but because it is possible to play better and win, even with youth. Talent is what matters, above all else. And there is some talent available to the Reds that WK hasn't tapped yet. And he can tap that talent without "throwing in the towel".

That's seperate from the Daily News piece. But, IF there were substance to the Daily News piece, it would give me pause given my views on what I would want for this team from WK from here to the end of the season. The Reds do have some assets, and I think those assets should be be shopped to maxmize return and get in some talent in return. Young talent in return. Interestingly enough, were they to do so, I wouldn't consider that "throwing in the towel", to borrow WK's phrase of the day. Not when the team, as constituted, has put up the kind of record it already has. I would consider it prudent and responsible GM-ing. Which is why I hope, and believe, contrary to the Daily News report, that WK is indeed listening to all offers, reasonable or otherwise. If he is not, for whatever reason, for any player (and that includes Mr. Hatte), I would have a problem with that. For what it's worth.

Ok, really all I hear with a statement like that is "no fire sale, here, boys, quit looking." It is easy to be a fan and just quit watching, or maybe not tuning in until late in the game, but he has young guys on the team who do need to know that they are "not throwing in the towel" and "we need to keep getting better." I think that kinda statement is made to let the deckhands know that the captain of the ship is not in a lifeboat while they remain on the sinking ship.

puca
06-26-2007, 05:26 PM
I expect that Wayne is focused in on making the Reds better in 2008. Even as a caddy to Votto and as the top LH pinch hitter Hatte has value to the Reds next season. Assuming that Conine is indeed retiring and that Javy will not be back, the Reds will need to fill both roles anyhow. No reason to give him away for minor league chaff.

wheels
06-26-2007, 05:26 PM
What's wrong with a fire sale?

I always hear that a fire sale is a bad thing.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with burning the whole thing down and starting over. Especially when your team stinks on ice.

Not having a fire sale is giving up.

MikeS21
06-26-2007, 06:52 PM
What's wrong with a fire sale?

I always hear that a fire sale is a bad thing.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with burning the whole thing down and starting over. Especially when your team stinks on ice.

Not having a fire sale is giving up.
I agree on principle with what you are saying ... BUT WK has to choose his words wisely because one misquote can drive the market return down. If every GM in baseball knows there is a firesale going on, their offers aren't going to be near as good as if WK came out and said, "We don't HAVE to trade anybody." It's like buying a car. If the dealer senses you HAVE to buy, then you will not get near as good of a deal than if you can convince him you really don't need to buy from him or anyone else. There's nothing wrong with playing the little game whereby the Yankees need to "convince" WK that he needs to make a deal. And all it takes is a little rumor to float back to the Yankees that another team is asking about Hatte and suddenly a bidding war begins.

And a whole different take is that perhaps WK is in talks with another GM about Hatte, and then this article comes out where WK turns down the Yankees. WK can say to this GM, "Look, I've got other teams interested, but I'm giving you first dibs. Give me your best offer."

I'm not sure many of us truly understand or appreciate the horse trading, posturing, and games these GM's get into when they negotiate a trade.

puca
06-26-2007, 06:52 PM
A fire sale that doesn't bring back quality in return is pointless. A fire sale only works if there is demand for what you are selling.

OnBaseMachine
06-26-2007, 06:56 PM
From John Fay.

Way to go Wayne. Hang on to 'em too long and let them lose trade value (Lohse or Weathers) or get injured (Griffey).

pedro
06-26-2007, 07:00 PM
Way to go Wayne. Hang on to 'em too long and let them lose trade value (Lohse or Weathers) or get injured (Griffey).

now we're whining about quotes from the NY daily news ? kill me.

westofyou
06-26-2007, 07:08 PM
now we're whining about quotes from the NY daily news ? kill me.

Wait... didn't Wayne sell too fast last summer?

OnBaseMachine
06-26-2007, 07:09 PM
I'm not whining. Hatteberg needs to be traded very soon before he starts his second half swoon, plus Joey Votto is tearing up AAA pitching and needs to be called up.

I would've traded Lohse two weeks ago when his ERA was down to 4.24, instead he's still here and his ERA has bloomed to over 5.00.

MartyFan
06-26-2007, 07:16 PM
I know it is simply human nature but all this second guessing is annoying...I know as fans it is our right and a time honored tradition of teams everywhere BUT, I still dislike it.

I would have done this, done that Krivsky should do this, do that if, If he was worth his weight in ____ he would have done this...thing is, we can second guess but the only thing we can second guess is what is in front of us here and we have no idea of ANYTHING that is happening behind the scenes.

The one thing I really like about Special K is that he does not throw everything out into the media the way Pants does...also, maybe this team is doing exactly what is expected of them by the FO and the push will come next year? They did over perform last year, ya know?

Patrick Bateman
06-26-2007, 07:17 PM
I'm not whining. Hatteberg needs to be traded very soon before he starts his second half swoon, plus Joey Votto is tearing up AAA pitching and needs to be called up.

I would've traded Lohse two weeks ago when his ERA was down to 4.24, instead he's still here and his ERA has bloomed to over 5.00.

Well we don't even know the offers. Theoretically that would have been the time to trade him, but if nobody is desperate enough yet, then that option doesn't exist.

It's difficult to critique some of these things when hardly any actual information is present.

westofyou
06-26-2007, 07:20 PM
I would've traded Lohse two weeks ago when his ERA was down to 4.24, instead he's still here and his ERA has bloomed to over 5.00.

And I would have driven the lunar module over to the dark side of the moon to see what all the fuss was about.

But I wasn't offered the opportunity.

Strikes Out Looking
06-26-2007, 07:33 PM
Fire sale or no Fire sale, the Reds will continue to lose as long as the current manager is at the helm. He could have Honus Wagner and Mike Schmidt on the left side of the infield and he'd find a way to get Castro at bats. So I don't think it really matters who is on the 25 or 40 man roster until there is someone competent in the dugout.

pedro
06-26-2007, 07:48 PM
And I would have driven the lunar module over to the dark side of the moon to see what all the fuss was about.

But I wasn't offered the opportunity.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the
most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

mth123
06-26-2007, 08:02 PM
Hatte has a 2008 option for $1.8 Million and Votto has been playing LF...

... Maybe the plan is to keep Hatte next year.

Just a thought.

GAC
06-26-2007, 08:06 PM
I agree on principle with what you are saying ... BUT WK has to choose his words wisely because one misquote can drive the market return down. If every GM in baseball knows there is a firesale going on, their offers aren't going to be near as good as if WK came out and said, "We don't HAVE to trade anybody." It's like buying a car. If the dealer senses you HAVE to buy, then you will not get near as good of a deal than if you can convince him you really don't need to buy from him or anyone else. There's nothing wrong with playing the little game whereby the Yankees need to "convince" WK that he needs to make a deal. And a whole different take is that perhaps WK is in talks with another GM about Hatte, and then this article comes out where WK turns down the Yankees. WK can say to this GM, "Look, I've got other teams interested, but I'm giving you first dibs. Give me your best offer."

I'm not sure many of us truly understand or appreciate the horse trading, posturing, and games these GM's get into when they negotiate a trade.

Exactly Mike. Good post. I simply love the way people spend several pages on innuendo based on one statement made. You don't buy the first car you look at, or take the first deal offered you. What you do do though is use it (posture) to possibly sweeten the pot.

Now is that what Krivsky is doing? I have no idea. But I think the guy has been around long enough to understand what horse trading is all about.

GAC
06-26-2007, 08:07 PM
Hatte has a 2008 option for $1.8 Million and Votto has been playing LF...

... Maybe the plan is to keep Hatte next year.

Just a thought.

Hatte may be here next year; but with Votto learning LF I think Dunn won't be. ;)

mth123
06-26-2007, 08:09 PM
Hatte may be here next year; but with Votto learning LF I think Dunn won't be. ;)

I'm starting to think that too. I don't like it one bit.

Rojo
06-26-2007, 08:15 PM
"We're basically toast," Krivsky said, "we'll take anything we can get for our vets."

KronoRed
06-26-2007, 08:18 PM
Votto in LF would be a defensive nightmare, better to put Hat out there.

GAC
06-26-2007, 08:34 PM
I'm starting to think that too. I don't like it one bit.

I like Dunn, but there has to be some changes made to this ballclub and I look at what "capital" we have. The bottomline is we aren't winning, and something needs to be done. Changes have to be made.

Can it be accomplished without losing an Adam Dunn? Possibly. But at season's end we can free up almost 30 Mil in just five players.... Milton (10.3), Dunn (13), Lohse (4.2), Conine (2), Moeller (.7).

That is some serious jack. And after '08 you got Jr gone with a 4 Mil buyout.

Now it is obvious that losing guys like a Dunn and Jr will hurt us offensively (but not defensively), and it has to be replaced. Either that, or this FO had better do something to vastly improve the pitching (runs allowed/defense). or else hpe that youngsters like EE, Hamilton, Votto, and Bruce will be that offensive catalyst in '09.

Which approach/direction is Krivksy going? I don't know at this point. But it's the only reason why I have held back from railing on Krivsky at this early stage. He's been on the job 1.5 years. Not enough time IMHO when one looks at the state this ballclub was in. That's not saying he hasn't made some questionable moves. But he is abut to enter that "crossroads" as far as I'm concerned.

GAC
06-26-2007, 08:36 PM
Votto in LF would be a defensive nightmare, better to put Hat out there.

But we wouldn't be paying him 13 Mil like the defensive nighmare currently out there. ;)

Big Klu
06-26-2007, 08:47 PM
...

KronoRed
06-26-2007, 08:55 PM
But we wouldn't be paying him 13 Mil like the defensive nighmare currently out there. ;)

Rather have Votto and Dunn, everybody wins.

traderumor
06-26-2007, 10:07 PM
What's wrong with a fire sale?

I always hear that a fire sale is a bad thing.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with burning the whole thing down and starting over. Especially when your team stinks on ice.

Not having a fire sale is giving up.

Well, let's see, selling stuff that was not completely destroyed at depressed prices because it smells like smoke or is partially destroyed by water from trying to put out the fire. Great for the buyer, the seller is obviously desparate and is trying to get anything he can for his damaged goods. That is a fire sale. That is not the position you want to find yourself in. A true fire sale is selling at scrap prices.

The Reds do not have to hold a fire sale, they can still get near market prices for their best assets, assuming they can find a willing buyer (an assumption that is often ignored in much of the hand wringing on the board about what they would do in Wayne's position, I might add). And they do have some valuable assets that can help them reorganize, which is really the position they are in.

Kc61
06-26-2007, 10:12 PM
Funny thing about all this -- if Joey Votto turns out to have the same career as Scott Hatteberg, he will have accomplished something. Votto is obviously the future and Hatteberg isn't. But don't assume Votto is an upgrade. He may not be.

GAC
06-27-2007, 08:48 AM
Rather have Votto and Dunn, everybody wins.

Not if they are both defensive liabilities and more importantly - you still don't have the pitching.

smith288
06-27-2007, 09:02 AM
I agree on principle with what you are saying ... BUT WK has to choose his words wisely because one misquote can drive the market return down.


Any GM who doesnt see right through Wayne is a worse GM than Wayne. They all know what the Reds know, the Reds stink. Pieces are for sale. What he says in the media is for the fan's consumption, not the GMs.

BuckWoody
06-27-2007, 09:04 AM
I wasn't sure where to post this but this looks like as good a spot as any. From Lance's page today:


Things heard
Hal McCoy, Dayton Daily News on with Tim Lewis this morning:
"I expect something (trade) to happen soon....GM Wayne Krivsky has let it be know that he is ready to start dumping big salaries."

Dunn? Junior? Lohse? All? None? Looks like we may find out soon if you trust in what Hal has to say.

flyer85
06-27-2007, 09:17 AM
GM Wayne Krivsky has let it be know that he is ready to start dumping big salaries."the amusing part is that the big salaries are not the problem. It's all the below replacement level guys that litter the roster.

puca
06-27-2007, 09:29 AM
the amusing part is that the big salaries are not the problem. It's all the below replacement level guys that litter the roster.

I still maintain the real problem is that the roster is ill-constructed and so the whole appears to be much less than the sum of the pieces. However that may be simply a matter of us fans overvaluing the players. However you are right that the Reds are getting performance from their highest salaried players (Milton and Arroyo not withstanding) but are getting killed by many of the midranged and low salaried guys performing well below replacement level.

Heath
06-27-2007, 09:32 AM
the amusing part is that the big salaries are not the problem. It's all the below replacement level guys that litter the roster.

Below replacement level players with bad salaries. I agree with flyer.

With agreeing with flyer now for the second time in as many weeks, I'm asking for medical leave from work so I can go to therapy.

:D

Heath
06-27-2007, 09:33 AM
Funny thing about all this -- if Joey Votto turns out to have the same career as Scott Hatteberg, he will have accomplished something. Votto is obviously the future and Hatteberg isn't. But don't assume Votto is an upgrade. He may not be.

I haven't decided if Votto will be like Casey, Morris, Hatteburg, or some guy like Carlos Pena.

Kc61
06-27-2007, 10:00 AM
the amusing part is that the big salaries are not the problem. It's all the below replacement level guys that litter the roster.

Well, many people apparently feel this way. I don't. I blame the big salaries mostly.

I would consider Arroyo, Milton and Lohse big salaries. They have started one-half of the Reds games. They are a combined 5-23.

Dunn and Griffey have had good offensive years. But some people think their failure to cover outfield ground makes the pitchers even worse.

As for the replacement level argument, well some have flamed out. But don't you wonder why every single reliever (other than Weathers) louses up when he becomes a Red? Guys like Saarloos, Stanton and Majewski were ok relievers elsewhere. Could it be the way they are used?
(Notably Weathers, as the closer, gets used in a steady, appropriate manner -- maybe this is why he retains effectiveness.)

The Reds have replacement level guys like all teams do. They seem to perform worse here -- particularly the relievers. To make the more extreme argument, if you watch the deterioration of Coffey and Coutlangus, the usage pattern may be severely hindering the careers of these relievers.

So this argument that Krivsky signs the wrong role players, I'm not sure it holds up. I saw Embree shut down the Reds last week. If Krivsky had picked him up, wouldn't he be in AAA or on the DL by now?

flyer85
06-27-2007, 10:29 AM
Arroyo and Lohse make around $4M this year. Arroyo's salary takes off in 2009.

On this team the big salaries are Dunn, Jr and Milton.

Jr and Dunn are having excellent seasons and Milton isn't pitching(a bonus) and thus isn't contributing to the demise.


Dunn and Griffey have had good offensive years. But some people think their failure to cover outfield ground makes the pitchers even worse.After visiting THT last week and checking their defensive stats, Jr and Dunn while not great as not as bad as perceived around here. Its the average or less defense at a defensive position(SS, C, SS, CF) that really hurts.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=fielding&linesToDisplay=50&orderBy=zone_rating&direction=DESC&qual_filter=1&season_filter%5B%5D=2007&league_filter%5B%5D=All&pos_filter%5B%5D=9&Submit=Submit

Kc61
06-27-2007, 10:50 AM
Arroyo and Lohse make around $4M this year. Arroyo's salary takes off in 2009.

On this team the big salaries are Dunn, Jr and Milton.

Jr and Dunn are having excellent seasons and Milton isn't pitching(a bonus) and thus isn't contributing to the demise.

After visiting THT last week and checking their defensive stats, Jr and Dunn while not great as not as bad as perceived around here. Its the average or less defense at a defensive position(SS, C, SS, CF) that really hurts.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=fielding&linesToDisplay=50&orderBy=zone_rating&direction=DESC&qual_filter=1&season_filter%5B%5D=2007&league_filter%5B%5D=All&pos_filter%5B%5D=9&Submit=Submit

Well, Lohse and Arroyo are certainly not the "below replacement level" players you referred to as being responsible for the Reds demise.
On this team, I think Arroyo, Lohse and Milton all fall in with the higher salaried guys and have performed terribly this year.

Very hard for me to agree that David Ross is the defensive culprit on this team. Gonzo has made some errors but at least he competently covers his position. Hamilton should be in a corner.

But I have seen other zone ratings showing Griffey and Dunn as being at the very bottom of the league, Dunn almost the very bottom. If you think they adequately cover left and right field, we will never agree on that.

I don't accept the premise that the Reds demise is caused by role players who aren't even in the game that much. I think it is caused by the starting rotation, the lack of late inning relievers, and poor usage of the pitching staff.

Some better outfield defense would help too, although that is not first on the list.

traderumor
06-27-2007, 02:03 PM
the amusing part is that the big salaries are not the problem. It's all the below replacement level guys that litter the roster.you can't keep track of this one without a scorecard. Folks are generally calling for a big sale because the team stinks, but the big salary players are not the problem.

So, help me out here, it seems that if the guys making the comparatively big $ (in the context of the Reds) are at least performing to their contracts, then they should get fair returns in the marketplace and would help maximize return on a reorg. plus save money to get more bang for the buck in filling out the rest of the roster. The junk is not performing and will not net much anyhow and you simply let them play out their contracts to field a team or DFA them for the final year in the case of the two year guys.

membengal
06-27-2007, 02:12 PM
Stormy's post here:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1364017&postcount=18

remains pretty on point for this kind of discussion, from my perspective.

flyer85
06-27-2007, 02:27 PM
... it is caused by the starting rotation, the lack of late inning relievers, and poor usage of the pitching staff.exactly. Which has little to do with Dunn/Jr as LF and RF just are not important defensive positions. Between the two positions it is generally less than 5 outs a game.

The problem is the pitching and throwing more money at it is not the solution(the post 2004 free agent starters illustrate that). WK spent the last year chasing his tail with the bullpen, maybe now he has finally realized that.

WK may move "big salaries" but that of itself will do nothing to solve the problem and may actually make the overall situation worse.

Team Clark
06-27-2007, 02:55 PM
WK may move "big salaries" but that of itself will do nothing to solve the problem and may actually make the overall situation worse.

At least he was smart enough to stay away from Jason Schmidt!

Kc61
06-27-2007, 03:38 PM
exactly. Which has little to do with Dunn/Jr as LF and RF just are not important defensive positions. Between the two positions it is generally less than 5 outs a game.

The problem is the pitching and throwing more money at it is not the solution(the post 2004 free agent starters illustrate that). WK spent the last year chasing his tail with the bullpen, maybe now he has finally realized that.

WK may move "big salaries" but that of itself will do nothing to solve the problem and may actually make the overall situation worse.

Dunn and Griffey may only account for 5 outs a game. But if Hamilton played one of those spots, with a real centerfielder, it could substantially improve the outfield defense. Again, this is a secondary consideration with the pitching so bad.

I still say, however, that it is bizarre that this group of Reds pitchers should do so poorly. Other than Cormier, I don't think the opening day bullpen personnel was that bad. I think some of these "marginal" signings everyone complains of could have worked out ok -- and would have worked out ok with other teams.

Part of it is GABP and the need for certain kinds of pitchers. But also, the constant use of guys pitching to one or two hitters. Coffey and Coutlangus were just burned up in the early days of the season. Saarloos -- a starter/long man -- suddenly used as a short reliever day after day.

You have to wonder why every guy who goes to St. Louis -- like Franklin, for instance -- suddenly does ok, while the same guys fail with the Reds.

flyer85
06-27-2007, 03:48 PM
worrying about RF and LF defense with the Reds pitching staff is akin to plugging a small leak in the dyke as the entire structure collapses. Could the defense in the corner OF spots be better? Yep. Could the offense from the corner OF spots be worse? decidedly much worse.

Bad pitchers are the problem, not bad OFs.

Relief pitching performance is EXTREMELY volatile from year to year outside of a few top performers. if you are looking for less volatile performance, the first place to look is for guys who miss bats (the exact opposite tack that WK took).

Always Red
06-27-2007, 04:17 PM
You have to wonder why every guy who goes to St. Louis -- like Franklin, for instance -- suddenly does ok, while the same guys fail with the Reds.

I've been wondering that all year.

Guys pitch fine in relief elsewhere, come here and blow a gasket, go elsewhere and pitch to the back of their baseball card again.

I think the both the handling and coaching of pitching in this organization is dreadful. Has been, for some time, obviously. I'd clean house, starting with Narron, Hume and Pole. Find someone who knows Dave Duncan's secret. :)

Mazzone lost his guru status when he went to Baltimore and the pitching there did not improve appreciably (though it is league-average, to be fair). I wonder if he'd be available?

traderumor
06-27-2007, 04:36 PM
worrying about RF and LF defense with the Reds pitching staff is akin to plugging a small leak in the dyke as the entire structure collapses. Could the defense in the corner OF spots be better? Yep. Could the offense from the corner OF spots be worse? decidedly much worse.

Bad pitchers are the problem, not bad OFs.

Relief pitching performance is EXTREMELY volatile from year to year outside of a few top performers. if you are looking for less volatile performance, the first place to look is for guys who miss bats (the exact opposite tack that WK took).of course you look for guys that miss bats--along with everyone else in the league--there's that vaccuum again

flyer85
06-27-2007, 04:47 PM
of course you look for guys that miss bats--along with everyone else in the league--there's that vaccuum againWK has seemed to put together groups that have been decidedly not bat-missers.

37red
06-27-2007, 05:23 PM
Kc61 says "I still say, however, that it is bizarre that this group of Reds pitchers should do so poorly. Other than Cormier, I don't think the opening day bullpen personnel was that bad. I think some of these "marginal" signings everyone complains of could have worked out ok -- and would have worked out ok with other teams.

Part of it is GABP and the need for certain kinds of pitchers. But also, the constant use of guys pitching to one or two hitters. Coffey and Coutlangus were just burned up in the early days of the season."

What Kc61 says above is true. Narron obviously misused the relief pitching that he gained this year as much as he misused the even worse pitching he had the year before. I wonder how comfortable it is in the pitcher's locker room these days. One pitcher starts out OK and then Narron pops in a relief guy to pitch to one batter... the game explodes, boom.

Remember in the first of the year Arroyo would pitch a good game and the offense would not show up. Then the relief squad would come in and pitch when they didn't need to, batting practice, several victories lost, not something a high profile pitcher needs on his back. He would have had a decent record last year if the offense had produced on his watch, I think everyone knows that. This year he started out the same way and so did the offense, it must have played on him mentally to feel the same wave of nonsupport and an undeserved bad record following him around. Eventually he would pitch some bad games and I knew everyone would melt down forgetting the beginning of the year. Consequently he began not being able to focus on his game... and he ends up where he is now.

Then the pressure builds on the bull pen and every time they take the field they lose focus on their game, they're wondering oh man, what is going to happen to me if I let one guy get on??? The infield begins to look disappointed and hang their heads every time Narron pulls their starter and the melt down begins, remnants of last year. Narron has had marginal pitching to choose from but his choices aren't what they should be and that hurts everyone on the field. As moral falls so do the expectations and the reserve energy. They fall 8 games back and the road ahead looks long and winding, which it has become.

Eventually it's a general collapse that now looks like beer ball and no one has the Freel energy to go flying across the field for no other reason than just to win. The best beer ball draws great teams which are looking to win, not expect to get beat up, of course there really isn't a bull pen.

If they weren't as down as they are right now I think they would be winning a higher percentage of games don't you? I think this becomes a managing issue at about 8 games back, the locker room praise followed by the kick in the butt.

Keeping moral up is one of the most important things a manager needs to do, Narron doesn't keep anyone interested in the game. WK does need to spread the money around until he gets strong pitching as in STRONG, balanced hitting from eager fielders.

Keep moral up, spread the money around and build, spend the biggest bucks for pitchers, then eager fielders with some punch.

GAC
06-27-2007, 07:53 PM
the amusing part is that the big salaries are not the problem. It's all the below replacement level guys that litter the roster.

There is some truth there; but the problem is still this terrible pitching staff. Who, other then Harang, can we depend on? Nobody.

Overall, IMHO, it's not so much the offense as it is this putrid staff. And in order to correct the pitching you can do one of two things.....

scout, develop (grow your own) - which takes time, and you have to have the right people knowing what they are doing.

free agency. Which is quite expensive for a team like the Reds, and is why they would most likely have to rid themselves of high priced position player contracts. Priorities.

This offense, at the pace it's going, will score 741 Runs (749 in '06). The pitching staff will allow 842 (801 in '06). That's not good.

With the exception of a contract or two (Cormier, Stanton), most of the low-level contracts by the Reds aren't a financial burden to us and can easily be dumped or not renewed (and should) after the '07 season.

You can dump a Castro, Conine, Moeller - admit it didn't work out or were bad moves - and go on from there without it having hurt us big time financially.

traderumor
06-27-2007, 10:23 PM
WK has seemed to put together groups that have been decidedly not bat-missers.But you assume it is by choice. I question that assumption. Power bullpen arms are at a premium and those that have them are holding on to them until they blow up.