PDA

View Full Version : Brad Kullman or Wayne Krivsky?



fearofpopvol1
07-24-2007, 01:25 PM
Since it seems that Wayne catches a lot of flack around here, do you think Brad Kullman would've made a better GM (since he did interview for the position)? He made some really solid trades (acquiring Harang most notably).

The jury is still out for me on Wayne. Overall, I've been satisfied with the trades he's made (even if "the trade" didn't work out as expected). I've been somewhat underwhelmed with his drafts. However, how he handles this trade deadline and the bigger names (Griff & Dunn) is what will make or break his legacy in Cincinnati in my eyes.

Even though we don't know a ton about Kullman, would he have been a better fit?

TOBTTReds
07-24-2007, 01:41 PM
I think there was a lack of trust in Kullman in the organization. IIRC, he kind of walked into a baseball ops job when one opened up. He wasn't working in baseball ops and wasn't much of a baseball guy, and it seemed the Reds went busch league and just hired the computer guy down the hall.

That being said, the Harang deal has saved the Reds some respectability, whether it was intentional or not. But honestly, I would choose WK. Although I don't think he manages the 25 man roster well, I think he handles the organization extremely well.

Red Leader
07-24-2007, 01:41 PM
I liked Brad Kullman when he was the internim GM. I don't know a ton about him, but for the brief time he was the interim GM, I think he did a great job.

Also, IIRC, he was a co-GM with someone else, he didn't have the job to himself, so it's hard to say what that other person's involvement was.

gm
07-24-2007, 01:41 PM
Since it seems that Wayne catches a lot of flack around here, do you think Brad Kullman would've made a better GM (since he did interview for the position)? He made some really solid trades (acquiring Harang most notably).

The jury is still out for me on Wayne. Overall, I've been satisfied with the trades he's made (even if "the trade" didn't work out as expected). I've been somewhat underwhelmed with his drafts. However, how he handles this trade deadline and the bigger names (Griff & Dunn) is what will make or break his legacy in Cincinnati in my eyes.

Even though we don't know a ton about Kullman, would he have been a better fit?

The Harang trade that Kullman and Maddux pulled off trumps everything that Krivsky has done, thus far.

princeton
07-24-2007, 01:43 PM
at last look, we won "the trade"

Unassisted
07-24-2007, 01:45 PM
Kullman made some good trades under duress. There's a lot more to the job than that. We like what we know about, but IMO it's what we don't know that is the key to whether we'd like him better than Krivsky.

gonelong
07-24-2007, 02:10 PM
He was never going to be the pick, IMO.

GL

bucksfan2
07-24-2007, 02:36 PM
How many big league players did Kullman trade that year? Wasn't it Williamson, Guillen, Boone, etc. I cant remember the reds but the reds traded a good deal and 4 years later they have one major leaguer to show for it. Granted the Harang trade was a great trade I just dont think that Kullman was that good of GM.

Team Clark
07-24-2007, 02:58 PM
He was never going to be the pick, IMO.

GL

There was nothing else Brad could do. The decision had already been made IIRC. I saw an article earlier this year about Kullman. I'm not sure he is even in baseball anymore.

osuceltic
07-24-2007, 03:03 PM
The Harang trade that Kullman and Maddux pulled off trumps everything that Krivsky has done, thus far.

Arroyo for WMP?

Phillips for nothing?

Hamilton for nothing?

The Harang trade was a great deal, but your statement was hyperbole.

Krivsky's critics have selective memories -- oh, I forgot ... those moves are just lucky.

Wheelhouse
07-24-2007, 03:22 PM
Since it seems that Wayne catches a lot of flack around here, do you think Brad Kullman would've made a better GM (since he did interview for the position)? He made some really solid trades (acquiring Harang most notably).

The jury is still out for me on Wayne. Overall, I've been satisfied with the trades he's made (even if "the trade" didn't work out as expected). I've been somewhat underwhelmed with his drafts. However, how he handles this trade deadline and the bigger names (Griff & Dunn) is what will make or break his legacy in Cincinnati in my eyes.

Even though we don't know a ton about Kullman, would he have been a better fit?

Kullman was disliked by some for his behavior--then again, who can be judged under the light of the Bowden reign-of-terror. I remember some posts detailing some incident where he treated another team's scout poorly.

I think the thing to remember about Krivsky is that he got Brandon Phillips, Josh Hamilton, and David Ross FOR VIRTUALLY NOTHING. That there is simply Krivsky's acumen adding value to the club. He also inherited a hideous baseball culture in Cincinnati, and those things take a while to turn around. Case in point, when the Reds obtain relief pitchers they almost always get worse. For my grade, I think Krivsky has proven himself a good GM in the category of trades, contracts, and improving the minors. I'm waiting to see how his drafts turn out and I want to see if he has the guts to hire a big name manager. That will mean he has to give up a little power, which GMs are loathe to do. It's nice Castellini will be involved, which might force Krivsky's hand.

gm
07-24-2007, 03:22 PM
Arroyo for WMP?

Phillips for nothing?

Hamilton for nothing?

The Harang trade was a great deal, but your statement was hyperbole.

Krivsky's critics have selective memories -- oh, I forgot ... those moves are just lucky.

As the Cowboy would say...I stand by my statement, firmly.

#1 starting pitcher > 2nd baseman and outfielder. (Try trading Philips/Hamilton for Harang...)

Falls City Beer
07-24-2007, 03:26 PM
Kullman was disliked by some for his behavior--then again, who can be judged under the light of the Bowden reign-of-terror. I remember some posts detailing some incident where he treated another team's scout poorly.

I think the thing to remember about Krivsky is that he got Brandon Phillips, Josh Hamilton, and David Ross FOR VIRTUALLY NOTHING. That there is simply Krivsky's acumen adding value to the club. He also inherited a hideous baseball culture in Cincinnati, and those things take a while to turn around. Case in point, when the Reds obtain relief pitchers they almost always get worse. For my grade, I think Krivsky has proven himself a good GM in the category of trades, contracts, and improving the minors. I'm waiting to see how his drafts turn out and I want to see if he has the guts to hire a big name manager. That will mean he has to give up a little power, which GMs are loathe to do. It's nice Castellini will be involved, which might force Krivsky's hand.

Krivsky's Jim Bowden with slightly better impulse control. I like to hang out with guys who find cool things in junk shops, too; but they're the last kind of people I'm going to consult on a mortgage.

Wheelhouse
07-24-2007, 03:29 PM
Arroyo for WMP?

Phillips for nothing?

Hamilton for nothing?

The Harang trade was a great deal, but your statement was hyperbole.

Krivsky's critics have selective memories -- oh, I forgot ... those moves are just lucky.

Don't forget, he got rid of Kearns and Lopez who would have commanded huge dollars and based on their subsequent performances, would have been a huge and un-tradeable waste of resources. That money saved, if they can trade Dunn and Griffey, would put the Reds in the most financially flexible position in the league (except for possibly Philadelphia).

Wheelhouse
07-24-2007, 03:35 PM
As the Cowboy would say...I stand by my statement, firmly.

#1 starting pitcher > 2nd baseman and outfielder. (Try trading Philips/Hamilton for Harang...)

It all depends on the needs of a club, contracts, and who's available on the market. A weak hitting, pitching rich club would trade Harang for Phillips, especially since you don't have to pay Brandon nearly as much. Phillips is the best second baseman in the league next to Utley, and could overtake him next year.

PuffyPig
07-24-2007, 03:47 PM
It all depends on the needs of a club, contracts, and who's available on the market. A weak hitting, pitching rich club would trade Harang for Phillips, especially since you don't have to pay Brandon nearly as much. Phillips is the best second baseman in the league next to Utley, and could overtake him next year.

You could never get a Harang for a Phillips.

At least not the Harang I know (one of the major's best starters).

Johnny Footstool
07-24-2007, 03:49 PM
at last look, we won "the trade"

We lost it in the short term, which was the primary goal of the trade. As for the long term, the jury is still out.

fearofpopvol1
07-24-2007, 04:09 PM
How many big league players did Kullman trade that year? Wasn't it Williamson, Guillen, Boone, etc. I cant remember the reds but the reds traded a good deal and 4 years later they have one major leaguer to show for it. Granted the Harang trade was a great trade I just dont think that Kullman was that good of GM.

Kullman also got Belisle.

princeton
07-24-2007, 04:11 PM
We lost it in the short term, which was the primary goal of the trade. As for the long term, the jury is still out.

even the ice queen is melting

gm
07-24-2007, 04:52 PM
It all depends on the needs of a club, contracts, and who's available on the market. A weak hitting, pitching rich club would trade Harang for Phillips, especially since you don't have to pay Brandon nearly as much. Phillips is the best second baseman in the league next to Utley, and could overtake him next year.

Then I'd have the cell ph# of that team's GM on speed dial

Johnny Footstool
07-24-2007, 04:56 PM
even the ice queen is melting

Hey, Bray and Maj could still help the Reds at some point in the future. Not bloody likely, but possible.

That still doesn't mitigate the utter failure of the primary goal of the trade.

traderumor
07-24-2007, 05:06 PM
You could never get a Harang for a Phillips.

At least not the Harang I know (one of the major's best starters).

Harang has exceeded projections. When we picked him up, he was viewed as a middle of the rotation guy. He got in and stayed in shape since the first offseason we had him and has turned himself into a front end guy.

princeton
07-24-2007, 05:09 PM
Hey, Bray and Maj could still help the Reds at some point in the future. .

I was just sticking a wet finger in the wind.

Fair weather is returning. :beerme:

PuffyPig
07-24-2007, 05:11 PM
Hey, Bray and Maj could still help the Reds at some point in the future. Not bloody likely, but possible.



I disagree with respect to Bray.

At this stage, he would have more trade value than any other of our relievers, majors or minors.

I think it likely that he will produce for the Reds in the future.

nate
07-24-2007, 05:28 PM
You could never get a Harang for a Phillips.

At least not the Harang I know (one of the major's best starters).

Best starter?

He wasn't even an all-star this year! How many Cy Young votes did he receive last year?

That's just crazy talk if you ask me.

(these are jokes)

gm
07-24-2007, 06:14 PM
Harang has exceeded projections. When we picked him up, he was viewed as a middle of the rotation guy. He got in and stayed in shape since the first offseason we had him and has turned himself into a front end guy.

You could say that about any transaction that turns out rosey. If the A's knew that Harang would become what he is now, they wouldn't have traded him for Guillen. Same with the Tribe and Phillips, etc.

I'm not saying Kullman > Krivsky, but Brad and Leland caught the "minnow" deal that has turned into the large-mouth bass that won the 'ol fishing derby

Eric_Davis
07-24-2007, 06:16 PM
Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Casey Stengel, Willie Mays, and Steve Carlton would get flack around here.

There are a lot of inept G.M.'s out there. Half or most of them are so afraid of being judged not by the good trades they made, but by the bad trades they made. An example is the G.M. who called the Brewers last year and offered a AAA player for Prince Fielder. Those are the kind of people you want to kick out of your fantasy league for being so stupid or for trying to see if someone else is that stupid, and then be willing to take advantage of it if they were. It's worse in the NBA and the NFL. That's why new guys, who are excited and "willing" to make trades to the best like Kevin Pritchard of the TrailBlazers (aquiring in one day through trades, Brandon Roy, LeMarcus Aldridge, and Sergio Rodriguez).

Wayne Krivsky, though in my opinion should have removed Narron much sooner than he did, and totally misjudged the talents of Jusin Germano and Brendan Harris, has been one of the best G.M.'s in the league with the large number of positive things he has done:

Getting rid of Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez and for not drinking the Kool-Aid of Cincinnati REDS fans who thought they were the second coming of Christ or something and were in fact the poor players that they continue to exhibit that they are. Unbelievably, he sold high, at the peak of their careers, but no one here wants to admit that. His scouts and doctors failed him miserably by not seeing the damage in Majewski, and Bray's woes were unforeseeable.

Wayne acquired a #2 starting pitcher who pitched like a #1 last year for a DH that still isn't good enough to earn even a platoon role on a team.

Wayne acquired for nothing, the 2nd best 2nd baseman in the National League who will be cheap for another 3 years.

Wayne, by taking chances on younger players like Burton, Coutlangus, Hamilton, McBeth, and others like them is having excellent success in this area, where one, Hamilton, looks like he has All-Star potential.

Most G.M.'s just sit there and do nothing. You don't want anyone like that. You don't want someone who jettisons the prospects either. Wayne has only traded away players that won't do well anywhere while acquiring at least one All-Star (Arroyo), one who should have been an All-Star this year (Phillips), and one who may be a future All-Star in Hamilton.

And for those of you who call that luck, go jump off a bridge and take your negative attitude with you.

Krivsky's done well.

Falls City Beer
07-24-2007, 06:22 PM
Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Casey Stengel, Willie Mays, and Steve Carlton would get flack around here.

There are a lot of inept G.M.'s out there. Half or most of them are so afraid of being judged not by the good trades they made, but by the bad trades they made. An example is the G.M. who called the Brewers last year and offered a AAA player for Prince Fielder. Those are the kind of people you want to kick out of your fantasy league for being so stupid or for trying to see if someone else is that stupid, and then be willing to take advantage of it if they were. It's worse in the NBA and the NFL. That's why new guys, who are excited and "willing" to make trades to the best like Kevin Pritchard of the TrailBlazers (aquiring in one day through trades, Brandon Roy, LeMarcus Aldridge, and Sergio Rodriguez).

Wayne Krivsky, though in my opinion should have removed Narron much sooner than he did, and totally misjudged the talents of Jusin Germano and Brendan Harris, has been one of the best G.M.'s in the league with the large number of positive things he has done:

Getting rid of Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez and for not drinking the Kool-Aid of Cincinnati REDS fans who thought they were the second coming of Christ or something and were in fact the poor players that they continue to exhibit that they are. Unbelievably, he sold high, at the peak of their careers, but no one here wants to admit that. His scouts and doctors failed him miserably by not seeing the damage in Majewski, and Bray's woes were unforeseeable.

Wayne acquired a #2 starting pitcher who pitched like a #1 last year for a DH that still isn't good enough to earn even a platoon role on a team.

Wayne acquired for nothing, the 2nd best 2nd baseman in the National League who will be cheap for another 3 years.

Wayne, by taking chances on younger players like Burton, Coutlangus, Hamilton, McBeth, and others like them is having excellent success in this area, where one, Hamilton, looks like he has All-Star potential.

Most G.M.'s just sit there and do nothing. You don't want anyone like that. You don't want someone who jettisons the prospects either. Wayne has only traded away players that won't do well anywhere while acquiring at least one All-Star (Arroyo), one who should have been an All-Star this year (Phillips), and one who may be a future All-Star in Hamilton.

And for those of you who call that luck, go jump off a bridge and take your negative attitude with you.

Krivsky's done well.

Are you sure you're not in politics? The editing of history books?

gm
07-24-2007, 06:22 PM
That's why new guys, who are excited and "willing" to make trades to the best like Kevin Pritchard of the TrailBlazers (aquiring in one day through trades, Brandon Roy, LeMarcus Aldridge, and Sergio Rodriguez).

Hey Kevin, are you familiar with the term "Pritch-slapped"? ;)

(as in "Danny Ainge, you have officially been Pritch-slapped!")

REDREAD
07-24-2007, 09:41 PM
How many big league players did Kullman trade that year? Wasn't it Williamson, Guillen, Boone, etc. I cant remember the reds but the reds traded a good deal and 4 years later they have one major leaguer to show for it. Granted the Harang trade was a great trade I just dont think that Kullman was that good of GM.


I agree. I'm not going to nominate Wayne for Sainthood any time soon, but he's superior to Kulman. Kulman got lucky with Harang, who was projected to be a #5, but simply worked himself into an ace. I even remember when the trade was made, most folks were more excited about Valentine.

Every other trade Kulman/Maddox made was a pure stinker. I guess Belisle is kind of a toss up, not a stinker, but nothing to really brag about either.

Getting nothing for a nice LH reliever, and letting the Yanks have him for free in a pennant race (Heredia) is worse than "the trade" IMO. The Sullivan giveaway was a crime as well. The Reds chose to maximize cash instead of talent in many trades. Heck, we really don't have anything to show for Boone or Williamson. Kulman set the team way back, despite lucking into Harang.
Sure, he had Allen ordering him to trade everyone possible making over the minimum, but he still made poor trades.

harangatang
07-24-2007, 11:29 PM
Arroyo for WMP?

Phillips for nothing?

Hamilton for nothing?

The Harang trade was a great deal, but your statement was hyperbole.

Krivsky's critics have selective memories -- oh, I forgot ... those moves are just lucky.And Krivsky's defenders have a selective memory as well. DanO got the Reds Homer, Bowden could find offensive players, Kullman got the Reds Harang, and Krivsky can pull players out of the bargain bin. Who cares, none brought any long-term success to the Reds. Bowden=Kullman=DanO=Krivsky They all had their strengths but their weaknesses showed none of them should be running all the operations of a ballclub as ther GM. :deadhorse

Marc D
07-24-2007, 11:48 PM
Arroyo for WMP?

Phillips for nothing?

Hamilton for nothing?

The Harang trade was a great deal, but your statement was hyperbole.

Krivsky's critics have selective memories -- oh, I forgot ... those moves are just lucky.

Speaking of selective memory, did you notice the part where WK made multiple moves and spent more money to make the bullpen worse?

How about the Narron extension?

The Trade?

Juan Castro?

His first #1 draft pick?

Every move WK's made since his arrival has screamed "win now" so if that's been his intent I'd say its pretty obvious he's been a failure. I personally wouldn't judge him by W's and L's if he hadn't made it so obvious that was his goal from jump street.

No one knows if its BC or WK's fault but the window that was open to rebuild in '06 was missed and missed badly. I still havn't gotten past that as my major complaint regarding this regime.

WK's dumpster diving is to be commended.

WVRedsFan
07-25-2007, 12:25 AM
The telling statistic (as I posted in the game thread) is the deterioration of the club since 2005. In 2005, the opponents outscored the Reds 889-802 (5.44-5.03 per game). Thus far in 2007, the opponents have outscored the Reds 521-470 (5.15-4.65 per game). That means we were losing team by an average of .41 runs per game in 2005 and in 2007, we're losing by an average of .50 runs per game.

If moves made by all those GM's were intended to improve the club, they've really missed their target. I say out with all of 'em. Of course, there's only one more to go. And if it means no continuity, more continuity like this is just what we don't need.

Of course, Bowden might have screwed up the GM position so bad than no one can play it. :eek:

MartyFan
07-25-2007, 01:11 AM
As the Cowboy would say...I stand by my statement, firmly.

#1 starting pitcher > 2nd baseman and outfielder. (Try trading Philips/Hamilton for Harang...)

Undoubtedly Harang is a better deal than any single deal Special K has done in Cincy...Lets look at what Hamilton and Phillips are doing a couple years down the line too.

I like Special K but I have always said since his first draft that Dan O was a better evaluator of amateur talent...if there was a way to get Dan O to come run the drafts and oversee our farm system and keep Special K in the GM slot, I would jump up and down.

Special K has done an excellent job since he has been here. Not every deal is going to be a landslide winner but overall, he has won more than he has lost...by a wide margin if I recall some stats that were floating around here not long ago...and at th end of the day you don't need to win EVERY game you just need to win the series...so far, he has done that.

Kullman...one GREAT deal...but could he do it again? Also, how much did Maddox have to do with that deal?

BCubb2003
07-25-2007, 01:30 AM
Metrics for GMs:

How many years should a GM get to put together a winning team? A postseason appearance?

How do you know a GM is so bad that you can't give him the years you promised him?

How do you measure whether a GM is rebuilding the organization?

What amount of progress in the organization justifies how much losing at the major league level?

WVRedsFan
07-25-2007, 01:54 AM
Metrics for GMs:

How many years should a GM get to put together a winning team? A postseason appearance?

How do you know a GM is so bad that you can't give him the years you promised him?

How do you measure whether a GM is rebuilding the organization?

What amount of progress in the organization justifies how much losing at the major league level?

IMHO, it amounts to philosophy. And the GM's ideas on this has to jive with what the owner wants. Apparently, and vocally, Castellini wants a winner no matter what. He hires Krivsky and Krivksy goes about the business of "fixing" the present club to win. He fails miserably (or at least on paper he does). He makes some moves that are good (Arroyo, Phillips, Hatteberg, etc.) and makes some horrible moves (not mentioned). The team gets worse. He's been a disciple of Terry Ryan at Minnesota (success with scrap and a good farm system), so he goes the only direction he knows. It's not working.

The Reds' overabundance of good outfielders is gone in the name of relief pitching. A mess when Wayne got here and a mess now. By emphasizing relief, the offense went away (and I really have no idea why).

That said, if the team is improving, you give him more time. Trouble is, the ream is not improving. He gives out multi-year deals like they're candy and he extends folks who really haven't had time to prove they are worthy of the extension.

The old teacher in me sees the grade book and it doesn't look good. Castellini is an impatient owner and that's not good for Wayne. I look for a change, if not in the off season, then mid year in 2008.

Improvement is the key and it's not happening. In fact, it's worse. Not a good sign for the GM.

fearofpopvol1
07-25-2007, 02:18 AM
IMHO, it amounts to philosophy. And the GM's ideas on this has to jive with what the owner wants. Apparently, and vocally, Castellini wants a winner no matter what. He hires Krivsky and Krivksy goes about the business of "fixing" the present club to win. He fails miserably (or at least on paper he does). He makes some moves that are good (Arroyo, Phillips, Hatteberg, etc.) and makes some horrible moves (not mentioned). The team gets worse. He's been a disciple of Terry Ryan at Minnesota (success with scrap and a good farm system), so he goes the only direction he knows. It's not working.

The Reds' overabundance of good outfielders is gone in the name of relief pitching. A mess when Wayne got here and a mess now. By emphasizing relief, the offense went away (and I really have no idea why).

That said, if the team is improving, you give him more time. Trouble is, the ream is not improving. He gives out multi-year deals like they're candy and he extends folks who really haven't had time to prove they are worthy of the extension.

The old teacher in me sees the grade book and it doesn't look good. Castellini is an impatient owner and that's not good for Wayne. I look for a change, if not in the off season, then mid year in 2008.

Improvement is the key and it's not happening. In fact, it's worse. Not a good sign for the GM.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The team was in putrid shape when Wayne took over, he made some moves and last year ended up being a mirage. I don't think anyone expected the team this year to be this bad, but they are. The bottome line is if BCast wants to win so badly now, then he needs to up the payroll. If Bob doesn't want to up the payroll, then he's going to have to be patient and wait for the farm to come through. Sure, Krivsky may find some diamonds in the rough as he's done before, but those are far and few between and they don't come along often.

And as far as the multi-year deals he's given out, sure some have been bad, but don't forget about the multi-year deals he gave out to Harang and Arroyo (for very reasonable money).

I think Wayne has made enough sound deals that he deserves more time. But as I said earlier, what will make or break his legacy to me is what happens via the way of Griff or Dunn.

WVRedsFan
07-25-2007, 02:25 AM
I'm not sure I agree with this. The team was in putrid shape when Wayne took over, he made some moves and last year ended up being a mirage. I don't think anyone expected the team this year to be this bad, but they are. The bottome line is if BCast wants to win so badly now, then he needs to up the payroll. If Bob doesn't want to up the payroll, then he's going to have to be patient and wait for the farm to come through. Sure, Krivsky may find some diamonds in the rough as he's done before, but those are far and few between and they don't come along often.

And as far as the multi-year deals he's given out, sure some have been bad, but don't forget about the multi-year deals he gave out to Harang and Arroyo (for very reasonable money).

I think Wayne has made enough sound deals that he deserves more time. But as I said earlier, what will make or break his legacy to me is what happens via the way of Griff or Dunn.

Yes, the team was horrible, but it's now worse. And maybe the jury's out, but the proof is in the pudding. Unless this team is significantly better soon, Wayne will be looking for a job and maybe rightly so.

RFS62
07-25-2007, 07:25 AM
Kullman had some interesting ideas. His "brain typing" project may have hurt him more than it helped him if he is trying to stay in baseball. It's not the type of thing that is easily accepted by the old school owners, I would think.

nate
07-25-2007, 07:44 AM
The telling statistic (as I posted in the game thread) is the deterioration of the club since 2005. In 2005, the opponents outscored the Reds 889-802 (5.44-5.03 per game). Thus far in 2007, the opponents have outscored the Reds 521-470 (5.15-4.65 per game). That means we were losing team by an average of .41 runs per game in 2005 and in 2007, we're losing by an average of .50 runs per game.

If moves made by all those GM's were intended to improve the club, they've really missed their target. I say out with all of 'em. Of course, there's only one more to go. And if it means no continuity, more continuity like this is just what we don't need.

Of course, Bowden might have screwed up the GM position so bad than no one can play it. :eek:

That statistic tells me that no matter how good one's offense is, it can't continuously make up for bad pitching. Maybe we can hire Steve Ballmer to sweat and say repeatedly, (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6304687408656696643) "relief pitching".

edabbs44
07-25-2007, 07:52 AM
Undoubtedly Harang is a better deal than any single deal Special K has done in Cincy...Lets look at what Hamilton and Phillips are doing a couple years down the line too.

I like Special K but I have always said since his first draft that Dan O was a better evaluator of amateur talent...if there was a way to get Dan O to come run the drafts and oversee our farm system and keep Special K in the GM slot, I would jump up and down.

Special K has done an excellent job since he has been here. Not every deal is going to be a landslide winner but overall, he has won more than he has lost...by a wide margin if I recall some stats that were floating around here not long ago...and at th end of the day you don't need to win EVERY game you just need to win the series...so far, he has done that.

Kullman...one GREAT deal...but could he do it again? Also, how much did Maddox have to do with that deal?

I'm sorry, but WK has done an excellent job since becoming GM? Are you serious? Everyone likes to pick out these "victories" of Wayne's (i.e. Phillips, Arroyo and Hamilton) but that's like your child telling you that it isn't a big deal failing his entire Biology course when he passed 3 of the 25 pop quizzes throughout the year. And last time I checked, Arroyo wasn't exactly challenging for the Cy Young award this season and Hamilton has had all of 208 ABs in the majors. David Ross also had an exciting first 200 ABs in the majors. He used to be one of Wayne's job justifiers until he completely collapsed. A GM cannot be judged on an acquisition after 200 ABs. That's ridiculous.

Bottom line is that he hasn't done a good job as GM so far. He has spent a significant amount of time and money on the bullpen and it is (at least) just as bad as the days of Rick White, Chris Hammond and Mike Burns. While he was playing This Old Bullpen, the lineup and starting rotation were somewhat neglected. Because of this there isn't really an aspect of this team anyone can get really excited about. Especially since the only big trading chips they currently have (Dunn and Griffey) are the only reasons why the offense has its head above the water.

This next week is THE defining time for the future of this franchise. Is it time to start from scratch or does Wayne still believe this team is a few players away from contending and, if so, does he have a legitimate chance at acquiring those players? I have one eye closed.

RFS62
07-25-2007, 07:59 AM
Krivsky is coming on XM in the next hour.

WVRedsFan
07-25-2007, 08:44 AM
That statistic tells me that no matter how good one's offense is, it can't continuously make up for bad pitching. Maybe we can hire Steve Ballmer to sweat and say repeatedly, (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6304687408656696643) "relief pitching".

Nah, we've got Wayne to say that over and over.

GAC
07-25-2007, 08:55 AM
You could never get a Harang for a Phillips.

At least not the Harang I know (one of the major's best starters).

I don't know. Not NOW we couldn't obviously. But Harang wasn't an established pitcher THEN, but a 24 yr old "unknown". And we traded away Jose Guillen, who was one of the hottest (and in demand) OFers at the time of the trade. Yet he is where now?

That's what this organization needs to do more of.... young pitchers that are "under the radar" and surrounded with uncertainty due to their youth/inexperience. You then dangle something that that organization is in dire need of.

And I will also add that the 4 year contract Krivsky signed Harang to this past February was nothing short of a spectacular move IMO. A 4-year contract, with a 5th year as a club option. A total value, not including the option year, of $36.5 million, which works out to $9.1 million a year.

Chip R
07-25-2007, 09:21 AM
And I will also add that the 4 year contract Krivsky signed Harang to this past February was nothing short of a spectacular move IMO. A 4-year contract, with a 5th year as a club option. A total value, not including the option year, of $36.5 million, which works out to $9.1 million a year.


Wayne has said himself in the past that his forte was negotiating contracts. He enjoys that sort of thing. And it looks like he's pretty good at it too. Now, whether that's a sort of skill that can translate into becoming a top notch GM is another story.

bucksfan2
07-25-2007, 09:26 AM
I'm sorry, but WK has done an excellent job since becoming GM? Are you serious? Everyone likes to pick out these "victories" of Wayne's (i.e. Phillips, Arroyo and Hamilton) but that's like your child telling you that it isn't a big deal failing his entire Biology course when he passed 3 of the 25 pop quizzes throughout the year. And last time I checked, Arroyo wasn't exactly challenging for the Cy Young award this season and Hamilton has had all of 208 ABs in the majors. David Ross also had an exciting first 200 ABs in the majors. He used to be one of Wayne's job justifiers until he completely collapsed. A GM cannot be judged on an acquisition after 200 ABs. That's ridiculous.

Bottom line is that he hasn't done a good job as GM so far. He has spent a significant amount of time and money on the bullpen and it is (at least) just as bad as the days of Rick White, Chris Hammond and Mike Burns. While he was playing This Old Bullpen, the lineup and starting rotation were somewhat neglected. Because of this there isn't really an aspect of this team anyone can get really excited about. Especially since the only big trading chips they currently have (Dunn and Griffey) are the only reasons why the offense has its head above the water.

This next week is THE defining time for the future of this franchise. Is it time to start from scratch or does Wayne still believe this team is a few players away from contending and, if so, does he have a legitimate chance at acquiring those players? I have one eye closed.

I disagree and think he has done a good job so far. How long do you give a guy to turn around a club with a bottom half payroll? 1.5 years? There have been some moves that I disagreed with (Coffey and Freel extentions) and other moves that I disagreed with at the time but have come to appreciate them now. Here is my view of the some of the most debatable moves Krivsky has done.

The Trade - I didn't like the move at first but now I like it. I find it funny that a lot of people say pitching and defence win games and then complain when they recieve two young arms for 2 major leaguers. Lets get this straight. Kearns has never lived up to his lofty expectations. He has failed to produce at more than a 3rd outfielder. If the guy weren't a local guy he wouldn't be missed that much except for the fact that some people like to remind RZ whenever a former red is having any deal of success. Lopez on the other hand has regressed in talent and his stick isn't what it once was. Granted Maj has been hurt but he was effective in Washington and Bray who was the conrner stone in the deal comes with a great deal of potential. About 1 year after the trade you can also see this was a way to get out of some bad contracts that both Kearns and Lopez were going to recieve.

Gonzales - Lets get this straight, Phillips isnt a SS. He is a below average SS but an above average 2b, you chose. Gonzales isn't going to break the bank and he is having a bad defensive year. I give him a pass becasue of his child.

Ross - He isn't going to hit for average but is going to crack 25-30 hrs a year and play great defense. Every player on the team isn't going to hit good but I am willing to take a pass on Ross because of his defense and power.

C.Ross/Harris/Germano - These guys wern't going to start with the reds. They have found other teams that they are starting on and two are having good years. I dont care about Germano because he was traded, released and then passed up by more than half the league until San Diego picked him up. If you want to give Krivsky a hard time you have to give every other GM who passed on him a hard time. With Gonzo and Phillips Harris wasn't going to start or play much. Who knows how well he would have done as a bench player.

Castro - It was a defensive move for a poor defensive team. He isn't going to make mistakes in the field so I was ok with that last year. Who knows what kind of clubhouse presence he has had for a guy like Edwin and maybe that is the reason he continues to hang around.

Frenchie - Made sense at the time. Was leading the league in bullpen ERA for a team with a horrid pen. There are a lot of relief pitchers who succeed into their 40's and the only way frenchie was coming to the reds was if he was given a contract extention. He was cut so no big deal.

osuceltic
07-25-2007, 09:34 AM
I just think his hits (Arroyo, Phillips, Hamilton, the Harang extension, improved player development) have been much bigger than his misses (yes, the bullpen is a mess -- but it has been a cheap mess). He doesn't have any terrible mistakes, but he has a few big-time successes. And he's just over a year into the job.

Holding up a Mike Stanton as a counter to a Bronson Arroyo/Brandon Phillips just doesn't make sense. Stanton is a blip. Arroyo and Phillips are anchors.

Anyway, Krivsky's legacy will be written in the deals he makes for Dunn, Encarnacion, Griffey (maybe), etc., and/or the signings he makes with the money saved from those players. So far he has added some very nice pieces, has avoided any significant damaging deals (either trades or free agency), and has the table set for the real reshaping of the team. We'll know if he's a success or a failure after this all plays out.

Falls City Beer
07-25-2007, 09:43 AM
Wayne has said himself in the past that his forte was negotiating contracts. He enjoys that sort of thing. And it looks like he's pretty good at it too. Now, whether that's a sort of skill that can translate into becoming a top notch GM is another story.

That's definitely not something to gloat about after signing Stanton and Cormier to multi-year deals.

Chip R
07-25-2007, 09:56 AM
That's definitely not something to gloat about after signing Stanton and Cormier to multi-year deals.

Or Juan Castro for that matter. But that's small potatoes. You can fault his judgement in who he signed but the contracts haven't been unreasonable. But Mussolini made the trains run on time too. ;)

edabbs44
07-25-2007, 10:16 AM
I just think his hits (Arroyo, Phillips, Hamilton, the Harang extension, improved player development) have been much bigger than his misses (yes, the bullpen is a mess -- but it has been a cheap mess). He doesn't have any terrible mistakes, but he has a few big-time successes. And he's just over a year into the job.

Holding up a Mike Stanton as a counter to a Bronson Arroyo/Brandon Phillips just doesn't make sense. Stanton is a blip. Arroyo and Phillips are anchors.

Anyway, Krivsky's legacy will be written in the deals he makes for Dunn, Encarnacion, Griffey (maybe), etc., and/or the signings he makes with the money saved from those players. So far he has added some very nice pieces, has avoided any significant damaging deals (either trades or free agency), and has the table set for the real reshaping of the team. We'll know if he's a success or a failure after this all plays out.

Most of Arroyo's perceived value has been derived from his career year of 2006. That acquisition, while still a positive one, has not seemed as shiny as it did last year. I can't consider him an "anchor" right now.

Redsland
07-25-2007, 10:17 AM
Every move WK's made since his arrival has screamed "win now" so if that's been his intent I'd say its pretty obvious he's been a failure.
Well said.

edabbs44
07-25-2007, 10:19 AM
I disagree and think he has done a good job so far. How long do you give a guy to turn around a club with a bottom half payroll? 1.5 years? There have been some moves that I disagreed with (Coffey and Freel extentions) and other moves that I disagreed with at the time but have come to appreciate them now. Here is my view of the some of the most debatable moves Krivsky has done.

The Trade - I didn't like the move at first but now I like it. I find it funny that a lot of people say pitching and defence win games and then complain when they recieve two young arms for 2 major leaguers. Lets get this straight. Kearns has never lived up to his lofty expectations. He has failed to produce at more than a 3rd outfielder. If the guy weren't a local guy he wouldn't be missed that much except for the fact that some people like to remind RZ whenever a former red is having any deal of success. Lopez on the other hand has regressed in talent and his stick isn't what it once was. Granted Maj has been hurt but he was effective in Washington and Bray who was the conrner stone in the deal comes with a great deal of potential. About 1 year after the trade you can also see this was a way to get out of some bad contracts that both Kearns and Lopez were going to recieve.

Gonzales - Lets get this straight, Phillips isnt a SS. He is a below average SS but an above average 2b, you chose. Gonzales isn't going to break the bank and he is having a bad defensive year. I give him a pass becasue of his child.

Ross - He isn't going to hit for average but is going to crack 25-30 hrs a year and play great defense. Every player on the team isn't going to hit good but I am willing to take a pass on Ross because of his defense and power.

C.Ross/Harris/Germano - These guys wern't going to start with the reds. They have found other teams that they are starting on and two are having good years. I dont care about Germano because he was traded, released and then passed up by more than half the league until San Diego picked him up. If you want to give Krivsky a hard time you have to give every other GM who passed on him a hard time. With Gonzo and Phillips Harris wasn't going to start or play much. Who knows how well he would have done as a bench player.

Castro - It was a defensive move for a poor defensive team. He isn't going to make mistakes in the field so I was ok with that last year. Who knows what kind of clubhouse presence he has had for a guy like Edwin and maybe that is the reason he continues to hang around.

Frenchie - Made sense at the time. Was leading the league in bullpen ERA for a team with a horrid pen. There are a lot of relief pitchers who succeed into their 40's and the only way frenchie was coming to the reds was if he was given a contract extention. He was cut so no big deal.

I haven't expected this team to be making a run at the WS right now, but I also didn't expect them to be duking it out with TB for the #1 pick next season. How a GM can be considered doing a "good job" while producing a team with one of the worst records in baseball is beyond me. The only way that would fly is if there was a complete fire sale last year. And since this team added and didn't subtract over the last year, their record this year is inexcusable.

Redsland
07-25-2007, 10:28 AM
Metrics for GMs:

How many years should a GM get to put together a winning team?
In an era of free agency? Five, max. (And personally, I think three years is a reasonable amount of time for a qualified evaluator of talent to find people who can go 82-80 in this division.)

A postseason appearance?
Just win; the postseason berths will come in due course.

How do you know a GM is so bad that you can't give him the years you promised him?
When he either fails to deliver demonstrable improvement or fails to articulate an actionable plan that will deliver demonstrable improvement within the allotted time frame.

How do you measure whether a GM is rebuilding the organization?By the talent he acquires and the results those talents achieve on the field.

What amount of progress in the organization justifies how much losing at the major league level?
The presence of hope for the near future permits any amount of losing.

Puffy
07-25-2007, 10:31 AM
Wow, Krivsky is one of the top GM's in the game who is doing an excellent job. I would hate to see the Reds record if he wasn't such a fine GM - they might then be battling for the first pick in the amatuer draft.

nate
07-25-2007, 10:54 AM
Most of Arroyo's perceived value has been derived from his career year of 2006. That acquisition, while still a positive one, has not seemed as shiny as it did last year. I can't consider him an "anchor" right now.

Since giving up 7 vs. Texas, he's allowed 3 runs or less in each of his 5 starts. If the offense gives him his _average_ run support of nearly 4 runs, he gets 5 wins.

Actually, he hit a rough stretch from the end of May to the end June, other than that month, he's been pretty good...which, on the Reds, is great!

bucksfan2
07-25-2007, 10:58 AM
I haven't expected this team to be making a run at the WS right now, but I also didn't expect them to be duking it out with TB for the #1 pick next season. How a GM can be considered doing a "good job" while producing a team with one of the worst records in baseball is beyond me. The only way that would fly is if there was a complete fire sale last year. And since this team added and didn't subtract over the last year, their record this year is inexcusable.

Dave Dombrowski was hired as the Tigers GM in 2002. There records were as follows
2002 52-109
2003 43-119 If you remember this was the year they had pitchers lose 21, 19, and 17 games.
2004 72-90
2005 71-91
2006 95-67 They lost in the world series here.

Dombrowski took over a horriable franchise and it looked like he made it worse. Heck one year they only won 43 games. He was given time to develop his plan. Of the three high loss pitchersin 2003 two of them were named Morath and Bonderman. During that time he brought in guys like Ordonez and Pudge to help his club. When he felt that the team had a chance of winning he brought in a fiery manager named Leyland to manage the club. In this past draft they were able to draft late in the first round the #1 high school pitcher and pay him what he wanted. I am sure many loyal Tiger fans were calling for his head on a platter during his first 5 years. I am sure many fans were saying this team isn't good enought to have so much salary invested in 2 players (Pudge and Ordonez). They were probably as upset about the state of the club as we reds fans are. Their owner didn't probably didn't listen to the fans and let his GM follow the plan he had set. When a new GM takes over the plan isn't always evident on the field of play. There are normally setbacks the come with the plan. But if you allow to see a GM's play run its self out you will be in better shape than if you make snap decisions and hire and fire gm's every 3 years.

BCubb2003
07-25-2007, 11:07 AM
The presence of hope for the near future permits any amount of losing.

Is there a metric for hope? (Just trying to nail this down.)

SteelSD
07-25-2007, 11:42 AM
Wow, Krivsky is one of the top GM's in the game who is doing an excellent job. I would hate to see the Reds record if he wasn't such a fine GM - they might then be battling for the first pick in the amatuer draft.

I like how well he's done on the pitching and defense side of things. His focus on those areas has produced the third worst team DER in baseball and the Reds have given up more Runs than any other NL team this season. That latter is, of course, partly due to the excellent job he's done fixing the bullpen.

I'm sure that's all part of a "suck hard" plan implemented under a "win now" mandate. If carried out properly, maybe the Reds can draft Chris Gruler again.

BCubb2003
07-25-2007, 11:49 AM
How do we know he's in a "win now" plan? Few GMs would say in they're in a "lose now" mode. All we have to go in is Castellini's expressions of impatience. What moves has Krivsky made that suggest "win now"?

SteelSD
07-25-2007, 11:55 AM
How do we know he's in a "win now" plan? Few GMs would say in they're in a "lose now" mode. All we have to go in is Castellini's expressions of impatience. What moves has Krivsky made that suggest "win now"?

If you're not working under a "win now" mandate, do you work "the trade", pick up Cormier and extend him, chase Jeff Conine and Mike Stanton? Do you call up Homer Bailey while hoping beyond hope he'll provide some kind of spark to pull you out of a tailspin? Do you fire your manager mid-season citing the team's record as the cause? Nope.

edabbs44
07-25-2007, 11:59 AM
Dave Dombrowski was hired as the Tigers GM in 2002. There records were as follows
2002 52-109
2003 43-119 If you remember this was the year they had pitchers lose 21, 19, and 17 games.
2004 72-90
2005 71-91
2006 95-67 They lost in the world series here.

Dombrowski took over a horriable franchise and it looked like he made it worse. Heck one year they only won 43 games. He was given time to develop his plan. Of the three high loss pitchersin 2003 two of them were named Morath and Bonderman. During that time he brought in guys like Ordonez and Pudge to help his club. When he felt that the team had a chance of winning he brought in a fiery manager named Leyland to manage the club. In this past draft they were able to draft late in the first round the #1 high school pitcher and pay him what he wanted. I am sure many loyal Tiger fans were calling for his head on a platter during his first 5 years. I am sure many fans were saying this team isn't good enought to have so much salary invested in 2 players (Pudge and Ordonez). They were probably as upset about the state of the club as we reds fans are. Their owner didn't probably didn't listen to the fans and let his GM follow the plan he had set. When a new GM takes over the plan isn't always evident on the field of play. There are normally setbacks the come with the plan. But if you allow to see a GM's play run its self out you will be in better shape than if you make snap decisions and hire and fire gm's every 3 years.

Everything you are saying is correct, but there are two things you have to keep in mind:

1) In 2002, Detroit traded their #1 pitcher at the deadline for prospects. When you do that and are in that mode, you are expecting to have a rough couple of years. Cincy went out this season and spent some money...to no avail.

2) You could be making the same argument if Wayne went out and traded Harang and Dunn for peanuts. The issue isn't that he hasn't had enough time, because he hasn't had enough time to turn this team into a legit contender right now. The question is, however, are you are confortable with giving him a few more years? It's a crapshoot...he could either pull a Dombrowski or he could set this team back 10 years. Right now, my comfort level isn't that high.

This next week will tell a lot.

BCubb2003
07-25-2007, 12:08 PM
If you're not working under a "win now" mandate, do you work "the trade", pick up Cormier and extend him, chase Jeff Conine and Mike Stanton? Do you call up Homer Bailey while hoping beyond hope he'll provide some kind of spark to pull you out of a tailspin? Do you fire your manager mid-season citing the team's record as the cause? Nope.

I think of "the trade" and moves like Cormier, and even the manager firing as attempts to keep a major league team on the field as promised while a winning team develops under the surface. I don't see him trading key prospects for Greg Vaughn types or buying big free agents.

RFS62
07-25-2007, 12:09 PM
I think of "the trade" and moves like Cormier, and even the manager firing as attempts to keep a major league team on the field as promised while a winning team develops under the surface. I don't see him trading key prospects for Greg Vaughn types or buying big free agents.



Yep, I agree.

He was trying to do both.

BCubb2003
07-25-2007, 12:31 PM
After all, you can't just close down for the rest of the season, or two, like the Cleveland Exiles, and you might be accused of fraud if you don't put a semblance of a major league team on the field. Somebody has to take the mound for tomorrow night's game. You could drop the payroll to $20 million, but losing 120 games a season for the next few years is not necessarily the best way to rebuild, either.

There's win now, like the Cubs always try to do (but now never comes). And there's the burn-it-down mode like the Marlins do, for 10,000 fans a game until they get to the World Series. In between there's ... make the organization better while trying not to lose.

The lose-for-five-years-until-you-get-good plan would be OK if the Reds didn't start a new one every two years.

gm
07-25-2007, 01:14 PM
And Krivsky's defenders have a selective memory as well. DanO got the Reds Homer, Bowden could find offensive players, Kullman got the Reds Harang, and Krivsky can pull players out of the bargain bin. Who cares, none brought any long-term success to the Reds. Bowden=Kullman=DanO=Krivsky They all had their strengths but their weaknesses showed none of them should be running all the operations of a ballclub as ther GM. :deadhorse

For all of JimBo's faults--and there were many--he was able to stock the 'pen with quality relievers, while in Cincy. Let's face it, Red's fans were spoiled with the likes of Franco, Murphy, Shaw, Graves (the early years) Sullivan, et al. It's only when the bullpen "talent" is gone that you realize how hard it is to win without it...

Caveat Emperor
07-25-2007, 01:21 PM
Yep, I agree.

He was trying to do both.

Which has been the plan forever and, not surprisingly, never seems to work.

Redsland
07-25-2007, 01:38 PM
Is there a metric for hope? (Just trying to nail this down.)
Hope is like love: you know when it's in the air.

I doubt there's a metric for it, other than the measurements of individual and collective success throughout an organization. For example, if there's reason to believe that a number of individuals in the minors are likely to soon translate their obvious success to a major league team, that might give its fans hope. Or if some major league players were either acquired or removed as part of an obvious effort to shore up areas of need, then that might cause hope. Lacking those things, a team can assert that tomorrow will be better, but attentive fans not bound to take the team at its word without some evidence that makes the claim more believable this time versus the others times the team has claimed the same thing.

Team Clark
07-25-2007, 01:53 PM
Press Release::: For immediate release!

The Cincinnati Reds have announced that all future comments in regards to a "Win Now" philosophy will be replaced with a "Win pretty soon" mandate. Thank you for your continued support and unwavering patience. :p:

B. Castellini

BCubb2003
07-25-2007, 02:36 PM
So, is the organization better or worse now than before?

Caveat Emperor
07-25-2007, 02:48 PM
So, is the organization better or worse now than before?

Fans anticipating a firesale in July and clamoring for young kids to be called up from the minors?

I'd say we're about par for the course.

MartyFan
07-25-2007, 05:28 PM
I'm sorry, but WK has done an excellent job since becoming GM? Are you serious? Everyone likes to pick out these "victories" of Wayne's (i.e. Phillips, Arroyo and Hamilton) but that's like your child telling you that it isn't a big deal failing his entire Biology course when he passed 3 of the 25 pop quizzes throughout the year. And last time I checked, Arroyo wasn't exactly challenging for the Cy Young award this season and Hamilton has had all of 208 ABs in the majors. David Ross also had an exciting first 200 ABs in the majors. He used to be one of Wayne's job justifiers until he completely collapsed. A GM cannot be judged on an acquisition after 200 ABs. That's ridiculous.

Bottom line is that he hasn't done a good job as GM so far. He has spent a significant amount of time and money on the bullpen and it is (at least) just as bad as the days of Rick White, Chris Hammond and Mike Burns. While he was playing This Old Bullpen, the lineup and starting rotation were somewhat neglected. Because of this there isn't really an aspect of this team anyone can get really excited about. Especially since the only big trading chips they currently have (Dunn and Griffey) are the only reasons why the offense has its head above the water.

This next week is THE defining time for the future of this franchise. Is it time to start from scratch or does Wayne still believe this team is a few players away from contending and, if so, does he have a legitimate chance at acquiring those players? I have one eye closed.

The franchise has been in the crapper for several years...his turning the titanic around is a pretty UP HILL battle...he doesn't value the same things that the previous two GM's valued and is changing the look of the team...I think next year is the telling tale of this GM.

SteelSD
07-25-2007, 11:47 PM
I think of "the trade" and moves like Cormier, and even the manager firing as attempts to keep a major league team on the field as promised while a winning team develops under the surface. I don't see him trading key prospects for Greg Vaughn types or buying big free agents.

Not buying big free agents isn't an indication that Krivsky hasn't been trying to win now. It's an indication that he thought the Reds could challenge for the division as-is coming into 2007 and his mechanizations in 2006 definitely supportthat. Had he not been trying to win at the time of "the trade" there was no reason not to hold onto those chips until the offseason when he'd have most likely seen a larger market. The fact that Krivsky hasn't traded "key prospects" is more about the Reds having very very few prospect chips than it is about Wayne Krivsky not wanting to move kids.

You don't spend milions to acquire and/or sign Alex Gonzalez, Mike Stanton, Jeff Conine, Kyle Lohse, and extend Ryan Freel, Adam Dunn, Bronson Arroyo, and Aaron Harang because you think those guys will just help the team be "competitive". You do that because you think you have a winner on your hands right now. The money Krivsky's spent on new players has been an excercise in a GM thinking he only needed a few last pieces to win now, and the result certainly isn't a "competive" team in any way, shape, or form.

To me, the Mackanin press conference was pretty darn telling. Wayne Krivsky behaved as if he was a guy who had no earthly idea how his plan went all wrong. From the beginning of his tenure, the guy has talked about things he hasn't done- improving the defense, pitching, and bullpen. When you've told us that you're going to do certain things and then completely fail to do those things, I really don't have any sympathy.

To this point, if we're grading, Krivsky deserves an "F" for moving the MLB team backwards while overseeing bad drafts. That grade could be revised if he somehow figures out that the Reds have a real 2008-2009 window of opportunity and acts accordingly.

pedro
07-26-2007, 12:14 AM
You don't spend milions to acquire and/or sign Alex Gonzalez, Mike Stanton, Jeff Conine, Kyle Lohse, and extend Ryan Freel, Adam Dunn, Bronson Arroyo, and Aaron Harang because you think those guys will just help the team be "competitive".

If you think it'll get 2.2 million fans in the door I think you do. The Reds to me have always been, and probably always will be, very bottom line oriented. The first priority is to turn a profit. As such we get this half measure stuff where they won't completely burn it down, and they won't spend big bucks on free agents, but they will back fill until they've reached their budget and hope that it works out well enough. I really don't think they thought they could win the division this year, I think they thought they could 80 some games and be moderately competitive in what they viewed as a weak division. Well, that ship has sailed and we'll see shortly whether the team will continue to drift or whether they'll make a bold move one way or the other. TMBS, I'm not so sure I'd count on anything bold.

WVRedsFan
07-26-2007, 02:31 AM
AT this point, it's a matter of philosophy. Krivsky perfers pitching and defnese. Unfortunately, the club he inherited was a power hitting club with poor defense and worse pitching. Castellini prefers winning. I don't see anyway this will be a successful marriage and I think Castellini sees it, too. Krivsky will have to overhaul the whole team which means a long time of losing and he hasn't proved to be the most shrewd GM.

So what do we have? A GM who wants to remold the team in another image and an impatient owner who wants to win today, not tomorrow, but today.

I see disaster. I see giving away Dunn, Eddie E, and Griffey for relief pitching, much like he did FeLo and Kearns last year (not that I coveted them). I also see him gun shy after that traded. I don't see getting any value out of those players in return and little for Lohse and Conine/Hatteberg. I see not only a disaster, but a mess. I see Krivsky having a short tenure as GM. And maybe rightly so, but that doesn't make the Reds any better. Larussa and Jockety? Worth a try. Anything's worth a try at this point in time.

nate
07-26-2007, 08:14 AM
I see disaster. I see giving away Dunn, Eddie E, and Griffey for relief pitching, much like he did FeLo and Kearns last year (not that I coveted them). I also see him gun shy after that traded. I don't see getting any value out of those players in return and little for Lohse and Conine/Hatteberg. I see not only a disaster, but a mess. I see Krivsky having a short tenure as GM. And maybe rightly so, but that doesn't make the Reds any better. Larussa and Jockety? Worth a try. Anything's worth a try at this point in time.

I don't see Dunn, EE or Griffey moving. However, if one of them does move, why _shouldn't_ it be for relief pitching? Isn't that pretty much the biggest deficiency right now?

And that you don't see him get any value out of those guys might be an indication that a lot of GMs _also_ aren't willing to trade. It takes two to tango.