PDA

View Full Version : What would a sweep of the Brewers do?



icehole3
07-22-2007, 08:06 AM
What kind of repercussions would a sweep do for the Reds? Would winning four straight cause the Reds to hold their cards? You would be 9 back with around 60 games left? This is a hypothetical question of course.

mth123
07-22-2007, 09:03 AM
I'm not sure it matters anymore. I'm not sure that the Reds are going to cut deeply enough in a "fire sale" and I don't believe that the guys they will trade will bring back anything to help the future. I suppose getting out from under Stanton's 2008 contract might be the best thing that happens. A Dunn trade will probably hurt more than it helps. I don't see Griffey, Weathers or Hatte being dealt. Lohse probably gets nothing more than a Ben Juckich type return at this point. Conine even less if he goes. I've gotten fairly pessimistic on the idea after reading the last few days. I hope I'm wrong.

Assuming the Reds do sweep the Brewers, I hope it doesn't change anything. That 9 Games back just may be for 2nd place with the way the Cubs are playing and no way should a team 9 games back at the end of July with 2 teams to catch entertain any notions IMO. Especially not one as flawed as the Reds are. It might be different if this was a clear contender chasing a couple of fast starts coming back to the pack, but that's not the situation.

redsmetz
07-22-2007, 09:29 AM
I'm not sure it matters anymore. I'm not sure that the Reds are going to cut deeply enough in a "fire sale" and I don't believe that the guys they will trade will bring back anything to help the future. I suppose getting out from under Stanton's 2008 contract might be the best thing that happens. A Dunn trade will probably hurt more than it helps. I don't see Griffey, Weathers or Hatte being dealt. Lohse probably gets nothing more than a Ben Juckich type return at this point. Conine even less if he goes. I've gotten fairly pessimistic on the idea after reading the last few days. I hope I'm wrong.

Assuming the Reds do sweep the Brewers, I hope it doesn't change anything. That 9 Games back just may be for 2nd place with the way the Cubs are playing and no way should a team 9 games back at the end of July with 2 teams to catch entertain any notions IMO. Especially not one as flawed as the Reds are. It might be different if this was a clear contender chasing a couple of fast starts coming back to the pack, but that's not the situation.

I wouldn't suggest that the Reds have any notion of catching the top club, but being that far back and winning is not unprecedented. The Cubs in 1935 and 1938 were back nine games in July and August, as were the 1951 Giants. As I said, that would be an enormously tall order for the Reds, but it has been done.

That said, I'm not terribly worried about a possible sweep of the Brewers giving the Reds any false hopes. I'm not a fan of the "blow it up" theory, but I don't think such a series win would stop the club from making some moves. Again, though, I don't discount our players the way others here seem to.

We'll see how it all plays out.

icehole3
07-22-2007, 09:36 AM
Didnt the Twins catch somebody just a few years ago in the same manner, Im sure Bob Cast is thinkng the same thing, everytime I see him he's about as intense on winning as anyone Ive ever seen.

redsmetz
07-22-2007, 09:39 AM
Didnt the Twins catch somebody just a few years ago in the same manner, Im sure Bob Cast is thinkng the same thing, everytime I see him he's about as intense on winning as anyone Ive ever seen.

Last year, the Twins were nine games back on August 12th in 3rd place. They won the division, but did lose in the playoffs.

icehole3
07-22-2007, 09:44 AM
Last year, the Twins were nine games back on August 12th in 3rd place. They won the division, but did lose in the playoffs.

If they sweep cant you see Castellini telling Krivsky "I wanna win this thing."

GAC
07-22-2007, 09:46 AM
status quo...false hope..... maybe this team is headed in the right direction.

And that is not what we need. Not that I wouldn't want a sweep. It would be nice (I still have the tail end of the '99 season in the back of my mind). ;)

redsmetz
07-22-2007, 10:49 AM
status quo...false hope..... maybe this team is headed in the right direction.

And that is not what we need. Not that I wouldn't want a sweep. It would be nice (I still have the tail end of the '99 season in the back of my mind). ;)

This is the Catch 22 of a baseball season. No one wants a losing team; a losing season. I think I'm with those who believe this team isn't real far off from contending; protestations here to the contrary. That's why I'm no fan of the "blow it up" school. I like our core and there's any number of teams who would like some of our starting players. They're not the bums some seem to think they are.

Gotta run.

RFS62
07-22-2007, 11:00 AM
I'm still convinced that last year we tried to "serve two masters" and we're still feeling the repercussions.

Forget about contending this year and deal for the future.

We can't afford to do both.

The bullpen is an anchor that will take us to the bottom of the sea until it's fixed, no matter what short term success we may have.

flyer85
07-22-2007, 11:03 AM
help out the Cubs

edabbs44
07-22-2007, 11:21 AM
Trying to win now just because of the overall weakness of the NL Central is, in my mind, short-sighted. Would anyone be overly excited for an NL Central win with 84 wins, and then a guaranteed first round ousting? I would rather build a good team in relation to the rest of baseball than build a good team in relation to the rest of the division.

KronoRed
07-22-2007, 11:38 AM
help out the Cubs

Yep, though I fully expect the Reds to hold their cards and "see what happens" the rest of the year.

GAC
07-22-2007, 11:40 AM
This is the Catch 22 of a baseball season. No one wants a losing team; a losing season. I think I'm with those who believe this team isn't real far off from contending; protestations here to the contrary. That's why I'm no fan of the "blow it up" school. I like our core and there's any number of teams who would like some of our starting players. They're not the bums some seem to think they are.

I fully agree and have stated that before. The problem still lies with the pitching. It has been killing us. Arroyo has been a huge disapointment; but has pitched better as of late. But Harang is the only one we can really rely on.

The bullpen? We all already now about them guys.... they're a bunch of chokers! :mooner:

But can it be fixed without blowing it up? I believe it can.

GAC
07-22-2007, 11:47 AM
Trying to win now just because of the overall weakness of the NL Central is, in my mind, short-sighted. Would anyone be overly excited for an NL Central win with 84 wins, and then a guaranteed first round ousting? I would rather build a good team in relation to the rest of baseball than build a good team in relation to the rest of the division.

While I understand what you are saying, and tend to agree - last year's WS winners was the Cardinals, who were 83-78. Anything can happen once you get into the post-season.

But there is no way, IMHO, the Reds will come even close this year. Their only hope is to try and finish with some sort of "respectability" - if that is even possible in this division - and play for the sake of their pride (if they have any).

Should they be playing like they can get back into this thing? Absolutely! But from a FO's perspective, even if this team recovers somewhat, they need to realize that much is needed to be done, and not allow any "success" they may have in this second half to dissuade them otherwise. Don't allow themselves to be deceived.

edabbs44
07-22-2007, 11:48 AM
I fully agree and have stated that before. The problem still lies with the pitching. It has been killing us. Arroyo has been a huge disapointment; but has pitched better as of late. But Harang is the only one we can really rely on.

The bullpen? We all already now about them guys.... they're a bunch of chokers! :mooner:

But can it be fixed without blowing it up? I believe it can.

But it would cost a lot of money to do "fix it" without blowing it up. How much does an effective bullpen cost? Not a few pieces, but the whole thing? They would need at least one other effective starter and a power RH batter.

That's a large investment.

edabbs44
07-22-2007, 11:50 AM
While I understand what you are saying, and tend to agree - last year's WS winners was the Cardinals, who were 83-78. Anything can happen once you get into the post-season.

But there is no way, IMHO, the Reds will come even close this year. Their only hope is to try and finish with some sort of "respectability" - if that is even possible in this division - and play for the sake of their pride (if they have any).

Should they be playing like they can get back into this thing? Absolutely! But from a FO's perspective, even if this team recovers somewhat, they need to realize that much is needed to be done, and not allow any "success" they may have in this second half to dissuade them otherwise. Don't allow themselves to be deceived.

True about the Cards. But as we see this year, they aren't what they looked like last year. Instead of trying to catch lightning in a bottle for that one magical season I'd rather try to build a talented team. Luck might get you through one season, but talent gets you through more.

GAC
07-22-2007, 11:58 AM
But it would cost a lot of money to do "fix it" without blowing it up. How much does an effective bullpen cost? Not a few pieces, but the whole thing? They would need at least one other effective starter and a power RH batter.

That's a large investment.

Not really. Why would it cost alot of money to right this bullpen?

The Mets are paying Wagner 10.5 mil/yr and he has one more save (20) then Weathers (19).

How much is Brandon Phillips costing us? $470,000/year. What are we paying Hatteberg, who, regardless of his age, has been producing. What about a Josh Hamilton?

For the most part, and IMHO, our BP has sucked, other then a guy like Stanton, because of youth and inexperience. Some of these guys have yet to learn how to pitch at the ML level.

It simply boils down to having the right people doing the scouting, player evaluation, and development. The mindset of simply spending tons of money as the only way to build a contending team is simply wrong.

If so, then how is MIlwaukee now in 1st place? Their 2007 payroll is 19th at 71 mil. We're right behind them at 20th (69 Mil).

It's HOW you allocate/spend it IMO.

GAC
07-22-2007, 12:07 PM
True about the Cards. But as we see this year, they aren't what they looked like last year. Instead of trying to catch lightning in a bottle for that one magical season I'd rather try to build a talented team. Luck might get you through one season, but talent gets you through more.

I thoroughly agree. The problem is that once you build that team that can compete for several years, whether it's the Indians of the 90s, the A's, or even the current Milwaukee team - you then have the difficult task of trying to hold them together. And financial constraints, player salary demands, make that very difficult on smaller market teams.

You have to be more astute (wiser) then those bigger market teams because you can't afford to make mistakes. A team like the Yankees or Boston can "absorb" most mistakes and bounce back more quickly. Teams like the Reds, and some others, cannot. We're in the "waiting" mode right now, trying to get out from under 20 Mil of bad contracts in just two players (Milton/Jr).

edabbs44
07-22-2007, 12:09 PM
Not really. Why would it cost alot of money to right this bullpen?

The Mets are paying Wagner 10.5 mil/yr and he has one more save (20) then Weathers (19).

How much is Brandon Phillips costing us? $470,000/year. What are we paying Hatteberg, who, regardless of his age, has been producing. What abut Hamilton?

For the most part, and IMHO, our BP has sucked, other then a guy like Stanton, because of youth and inexperience. Some of these guys have yet to learn how to pitch at the ML level.

It simply boils down to having the right people doing the scouting, player evaluation, and development. The mindset of simply spending tons of money as the only way to build a contending team is simply wrong.

If so, then how is MIlwaukee now in 1st place? Their 2007 payroll is 19th at 71 mil. We're right behind them at 20th (69 Mil).

It's HOW you allocate/spend it IMO.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. To take the current team and add players to it to make it competitive, then it will make the overall payroll rise to levels that I doubt Cast will want to carry. To add an entire bullpen to the current payroll, along with a mid-tier starter and a power RH bat, what will that cost? $25 million per year, at least? The bullpen is more than just the closer.