PDA

View Full Version : Not looking like a big makeover is coming.



REDREAD
07-27-2007, 11:39 AM
I was hoping to see most of Stanton, Lohse, Conine, and Hat dealt by now, so Wayne could focus on potentially bigger deals in the last few days (such as Weathers/Dunn).

My prediction is that we will see only 1 or 2 trades. Wayne will drag them out, and then we'll get nothing for some guys that should've been moved for the best offer.
Sure, there's always the non-waiver deadline, but I'd rather just move them now. I think he'll get even less after the non-waiver deadline.

RedsManRick
07-27-2007, 11:48 AM
Given this market, the biggest non-trade would be that of Kyle Lohse. While I actually wouldn't mind keeping him around at $4M or so, as a Boras client, the asking price will be that of a legit #3 starter (3 years, $30M). As Cyclone has shown, he will not get us compensation picks, so letting him walking gives us nothing.

I get the feeling that Castellini, in his gut, is afraid that auctioning guys off makes it look like we're "giving up" to the casual fan and that's not what he wants to portray. Like we see over and over in the failing organizations, they underestimate the fan's ability to understand how progress is actually made and so they try to save face, undercutting their ability to actually build a winner.

I don't care if we get 10 cents on the dollar for Kyle Lohse. 10 cents is more than 0 cents, which is what I fear we're going to end up with. I'm trying to ignore the possibility that we try to "build" on our "success" and resign Lohse, Hatteberg, etc. for more money...

M2
07-27-2007, 11:49 AM
REDREAD, I suspect you're right. These are dull days to be sure.

RedLegSuperStar
07-27-2007, 11:50 AM
I was hoping to see most of Stanton, Lohse, Conine, and Hat dealt by now, so Wayne could focus on potentially bigger deals in the last few days (such as Weathers/Dunn).

My prediction is that we will see only 1 or 2 trades. Wayne will drag them out, and then we'll get nothing for some guys that should've been moved for the best offer.
Sure, there's always the non-waiver deadline, but I'd rather just move them now. I think he'll get even less after the non-waiver deadline.

I totally agree. I don't even know if will see 2 trades the way things are going.

Now one would think with Bray, Guardado, Hamilton, Gonzalez, and possibly Bailey coming back by early to mid August that some house cleaning would be made to make room for them.

Also you have Votto (.307 w/ 14 Homeruns and 61 RBI's) waiting in the wings to emerge from Louisville. Also how far off is Jay Bruce? .280 w/ 4 HR's and 9 RBI's in just 14 games. This season for Bruce: .320 w/ 19 HR's and 73 RBI's between SAR, CHA, & LOU.

Stormy
07-27-2007, 12:02 PM
Treading water has been the modus operandi of every Reds' 'administration' for most of the past decade (excepting Bowden's flourishes of major attempted improvement prior to the 1999 and 2000 seasons). Avoid making the painful decisions, don't part with the fan favorites regardless of production issues, trust that the temporary boost after an interim management change is the real deal, try to simultaneously compete while rebuilding.

Nevermind that the Reds' definition of 'competing' or 'contending' during the span of the past 3 regimes vastly differs from those of franchises which actually 'contend' in the real baseball world. The result of this process is the equivalent of changing the window dressing on a condemned shanty and calling it repaired, otherwise known as 7 consecutive losing seasons (nearly halfway to the Pirates).

Wayne Krivsky has apparently once again convinced himself that the Reds 13-8 record in Pete's 21 games is indicative that he has a real contender on his hands for 2008 if he can just make a few tweaks. Of course, this is utter nonsense, and this team's inherent flaws left unaddressed will soon re-emerge to completely eclipse the improvements we've seen over the past 20+ games. The pieces don't fit will together, whether you're looking at the style of the offense, the construction of the bench, the design of much of the bullpen, or the production of the back 3/5 of the rotation.

How far does this team fall the moment Lohse returns to form, the next time Griffey goes down to injury, as soon as father time reasserts dominion over Weathers resurrgence? This team doesn't need a complete demolition, but it does need a serious renovation which removes the wheat from the chaffe, and which serves to stockpile some talented, inexpensive youth in place of overpriced, aging, long-term risks. We can't just trade a spare part or two, maintain the status quo, and think that Wayne can transform us into contenders with his 2008 version of signings Stanton, Gonzo, Conine etc...

That is a recipe for finding ourselves in the same place in July 2008, as we did in early July 2007, only this time it will be Wayne's dismissal that we'll be witnessing. Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing. ;) Identify your future nucleus, as well as the pieces which must be translated into future commodities via trade (Lohse, Weathers, Hattenine etc...) and rebuild accordingly.

flyer85
07-27-2007, 12:04 PM
I have no idea what WK may or may not do and trying to guess is really a waste of effort. I guess we will have to wait and see.

redsmetz
07-27-2007, 12:16 PM
Treading water has been the modus operandi of every Reds' 'administration' for most of the past decade (excepting Bowden's flourishes of major attempted improvement prior to the 1999 and 2000 seasons). Avoid making the painful decisions, don't part with the fan favorites regardless of production issues, trust that the temporary boost after an interim management change is the real deal, try to simultaneously compete while rebuilding.

Nevermind that the Reds' definition of 'competing' or 'contending' during the span of the past 3 regimes vastly differs from those of franchises which actually 'contend' in the real baseball world. The result of this process is the equivalent of changing the window dressing on a condemned shanty and calling it repaired, otherwise known as 7 consecutive losing seasons (nearly halfway to the Pirates).

Wayne Krivsky has apparently once again convinced himself that the Reds 13-8 record in Pete's 21 games is indicative that he has a real contender on his hands for 2008 if he can just make a few tweaks. Of course, this is utter nonsense, and this team's inherent flaws left unaddressed will soon re-emerge to completely eclipse the improvements we've seen over the past 20+ games. The pieces don't fit will together, whether you're looking at the style of the offense, the construction of the bench, the design of much of the bullpen, or the production of the back 3/5 of the rotation.

How far does this team fall the moment Lohse returns to form, the next time Griffey goes down to injury, as soon as father time reasserts dominion over Weathers resurrgence? This team doesn't need a complete demolition, but it does need a serious renovation which removes the wheat from the chaffe, and which serves to stockpile some talented, inexpensive youth in place of overpriced, aging, long-term risks. We can't just trade a spare part or two, maintain the status quo, and think that Wayne can transform us into contenders with his 2008 version of signings Stanton, Gonzo, Conine etc...

That is a recipe for finding ourselves in the same place in July 2008, as we did in early July 2007, only this time it will be Wayne's dismissal that we'll be witnessing. Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing. ;) Identify your future nucleus, as well as the pieces which must be translated into future commodities via trade (Lohse, Weathers, Hattenine etc...) and rebuild accordingly.

And then the wheel keeps turning; another GM, another manager and on and on and on.

How is it that we're so able to deduce the mind of Wayne Krivsky on Redszone? You wrote


Wayne Krivsky has apparently once again convinced himself that the Reds 13-8 record in Pete's 21 games is indicative that he has a real contender on his hands for 2008 if he can just make a few tweaks.

While you've qualified your statement with "apparently", but what are you basing this on? That no trades have happened as of yet? Folks here screamed bloody murder last year when WK jumped the gun with "The Trade" and now folks are chomping at the bit to get something done early.

I would prefer a methodical approach that gives the Reds top value for their pieces. It's hard not to recognize the flaws in this team (bullpen, the bottom of the rotation, etc.), but the overall nucleus of this team isn't too bad. Now can it be improved? Absolutely! But I don't want to make trades just to be making trades - I want to solidify the team. And I certainly don't read inaction thus far to indicate nothing is happening. Remember, it takes two to tango.

M2
07-27-2007, 12:18 PM
Remember, it takes two to tango.

But only one to lead.

BCubb2003
07-27-2007, 12:30 PM
We're looking at the team as a zero-sum process. To get a decent middle reliever, we have to give up a 40-home run hitter. There are teams that take the best of what they have and add to that.

Stormy
07-27-2007, 12:51 PM
How is it that we're so able to deduce the mind of Wayne Krivsky on Redszone? While you've qualified your statement with "apparently", but what are you basing this on? That no trades have happened as of yet? Folks here screamed bloody murder last year when WK jumped the gun with "The Trade" and now folks are chomping at the bit to get something done early.

I had hoped that the use of 'apparently' indicated the necessity of speculation. When you have a Front Office which refuses to reveal it's intent or designs, one is left to judge their intentions based upon their actions. To that end, I think your allusion to 'the trade' actually helps emphasize the premise that Wayne has difficulty reading the tea leaves accurately.

Is it safe to say that Wayne's decision to 'buy' last deadline, indicated that he thought we were a Maj and Bray away from contending? That he thought our fast start April-May was the reality, and that our @20 game under .500 June-September was the mirage? Nevermind who he targetted, and how abysmally they failed.

Is it safe to say that an offseason in which none of our primary trading chips were moved, in which he acquired and/or extended extensive veteran pitching help, and added Gonzo/Conine indicative of the fact that he again thought we were ready to contend 'as is' for the NL Central again in 2008? The trend towards utilizing any youth at all, came only as the veteran dregs imploded throughout the BP, bench, rotation, and as we slowly slouched towards last place and a managerial change.

And now we approach yet another crossroads, as a last place team (with a paucity of youthful impact players on the immediate horizon, and a dearth of young pitching talent) approaching the trading deadline. It's a year in which we are getting unprecedented production out of veterans like Griffey and Weathers, coveted production clips from guys who aren't part of our future like Hatte, Conine and Lohse, and perhaps our last chance to maximize Adam Dunn's trade value (if we're not going to extend him).

What direction are we headed? If there is little-to-no movement, then it appears that Wayne might think our recent flourish is indicative that he should keep this group intact to try to make a quick fix run at the volatile NL Central again next year. I've seen that movie twice during Wayne's tenure, and it has a real disappointing ending.

Since we are an organization which refuses to divulge anything of substance about our designs for the future, I would love for a cohesive, coherent well formulated design to make itself present through our actions (as opposed to the mixed messages, stop gaps and half measures which our transactions often depict). Are we going to rebuild in the Indians model, are we going to renovate by keeping the core intact and trying to *seriously* upgrade areas of need via trade and F.A., or are we going to 'keep on keeping on' and hope that a few tweaks to Wayne's pet BP and defense pojects is all that's needed to turn this cellar dwelling team into contenders in 2008 and beyond?


I would prefer a methodical approach that gives the Reds top value for their pieces. It's hard not to recognize the flaws in this team (bullpen, the bottom of the rotation, etc.), but the overall nucleus of this team isn't too bad. Now can it be improved? Absolutely! But I don't want to make trades just to be making trades - I want to solidify the team. And I certainly don't read inaction thus far to indicate nothing is happening. Remember, it takes two to tango.

I can agree with everything except the last 2 sentences of that, but I have to believe there is a good market for guys like Weathers, Lohse, Hatteberg given their performances (or recent performances in Lohse's case), and a secondary but strong market for a star slugger like Dunn (or Griffey)... but is there any will and vision from the Reds' leadership to radically transform the status quo?

cumberlandreds
07-27-2007, 12:57 PM
Most trading isn't done until the day of the trading deadline or at most the day before. I would be patient and see what happens. I don't think anything major will happen but I think a deal or two involving Lohse,Hatteburg and/or Weathers will happen.

westofyou
07-27-2007, 12:58 PM
Even Baseball Weekly in all its diluted meanderings has pointed out that the market is the slowest it has been in years at this time.

No one wants to part with cheap talent.. or potential cheap talent.

M2
07-27-2007, 12:59 PM
Even Baseball Weekly in all its diluted meanderings has pointed out that the market is the slowest it has been in years at this time.

No one wants to part with cheap talent.. or potential cheap talent.

If I were the fan of a contending team that needed to fill some holes, I'd be livid.

pedro
07-27-2007, 01:01 PM
If I were the fan of a contending team that needed to fill some holes, I'd be livid.

If it wasn't you saying that M2 I'd probably respond by saying "how could you tell the difference? (except by the Reds W/L record)

nate
07-27-2007, 01:04 PM
If I were the fan of a contending team that needed to fill some holes, I'd be livid.

Like the Reds, 2006?

westofyou
07-27-2007, 01:06 PM
If I were the fan of a contending team that needed to fill some holes, I'd be livid.

I think the Reds will trade some guys, it's just going to be the Conine's and Lohse's and not the Griffey's and Dunn's.

However the payback will likely be like the Linebrick return ML bodies for a weak organization.

Roy Tucker
07-27-2007, 01:07 PM
Even Baseball Weekly in all its diluted meanderings has pointed out that the market is the slowest it has been in years at this time.

No one wants to part with cheap talent.. or potential cheap talent.

Bad luck for the Reds. They have some non-critical but valuable parts that, in other years, could be exchanged for younger cheaper parts.

It will be interesting to see what WK can accomplish between now and 7/31. I'm not holding my breath though.

Crash Davis
07-27-2007, 01:11 PM
If I were the fan of a contending team that needed to fill some holes, I'd be livid.

Absolutely. It seems like the trend has been heading this way for a few years though. There aren't many GM's who want to give up young talent on the chance that it comes back to bite them. But championship banners fly forever. That's why they're playing this game, right?

I would love to be an aggressive GM in this market. You could thrive just by doing your due diligence, targeting the players you need/want, and striking with confidence.

On the other hand, if I'm sitting in the Reds position, and I've seen the way the market has gone at the deadline the last few years, I'm not giving my players away for peanuts just because it's expected of me. You want something, you're going to pay a fair price to get it, especially if it's players like Griffey & Dunn where I'm not just giving up talent and production for the rest of '07 and all of '08. I'm also giving up the chance to compete, and that's worth a hell of a lot.

Ltlabner
07-27-2007, 01:22 PM
So is the big question then, assuming the market is really that slow, is that a black on on Kriv for not moving the pieces, or just plain bad luck?

Crash Davis
07-27-2007, 01:32 PM
So is the big question then, assuming the market is really that slow, is that a black on on Kriv for not moving the pieces, or just plain bad luck?

After seeing the return for Linebrink, you could use that as proof in an argument that the market is not really slow.

However, I see Linebrink as an outlier. He's received so much publicity as a "future closer" over the past few years that I believe his value was artificially inflated. I don't believe David Weathers would bring close to that kind of return in a trade.

I don't think Krivsky should be making trades just to appease fans. If you're not getting anything of value in return why make the deal?

Lohse and Conine should go unquestionably as neither of them will be here next year, and Conine deserves a chance to contribute to a contender if any want him. Stanton should go with the Reds paying a good chunk of his salary if anybody would agree to that.

But guys like Hatteberg & Weathers should bring a fair return. Both are Reds property for '08, and both have played key roles. We should deal them for the right price, but we shouldn't feel any pressure to do so if the return is underwhelming.

bucksfan2
07-27-2007, 01:56 PM
What happens if Krivsky is doing the right thing? If you have one trading partner and only one club interested in a certain player then the return isn't going to be as much. If you have multiple of trading partners then your return increases. The later the season goes and the more desparate teams get the bigger return you will get for certain players. The Reds can't give up Dunn and get noting in return. They need a good return in order to move Dunn especially when you have him basically under contract for next year.

M2
07-27-2007, 02:11 PM
The Reds can't give up Dunn and get noting in return.

True. If the Reds trade him, it has to be a deal they can't refuse.

They can be more flexible with Lohse, Conine and Weathers. There should be appealing deals out there for those guys.

Jr.'s the real interesting trading chip, at least to me. He's having a fine year, he's still a huge name and he's got a year and two months left on his contract. Somebody's got to want that guy.

pedro
07-27-2007, 02:23 PM
True. If the Reds trade him, it has to be a deal they can't refuse.

They can be more flexible with Lohse, Conine and Weathers. There should be appealing deals out there for those guys.

Jr.'s the real interesting trading chip, at least to me. He's having a fine year, he's still a huge name and he's got a year and two months left on his contract. Somebody's got to want that guy.


I disagree somewhat about Weathers. While I don't want Weathers to be the closer next year I have doubts as to whether they can bring someone better in for the money he's slotted next year.

I'm OK with trading him, I just want a good return.

M2
07-27-2007, 02:28 PM
I disagree somewhat about Weathers. While I don't want Weathers to be the closer next year I have doubts as to whether they can bring someone better in for the money he's slotted next year.

I'm OK with trading him, I just want a good return.

I'd want a good return too, but a good return might look something like Aaron Harang in 2003. It doesn't have to be a blue chip prospect.

In general my take on Weathers is it's probably better to trade him a year too early. I'd be surprised if none of the contending would be willing to pony up a return for Weathers that could pique the Reds' interest.

Caveat Emperor
07-27-2007, 02:28 PM
I'm OK with trading him, I just want a good return.

"Good Return" is exactly the problem -- the lists of "untouchable" players to ask for in trades seems to get longer every year for teams. When the conversation starts with a guy you really don't want and ends with another guy you don't really want, whats the point of talking at all?

mbgrayson
07-27-2007, 02:32 PM
From today's Baseball Prospectus (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/):
"The Reds have decided not to trade center fielder Ken Griffey Jr., while no team has been willing to meet their high asking price for left fielder Adam Dunn."

The article discusses how Mark Texiera is the most sought after 'big bat'. I think it is wise to wait till Texiera is traded. Dunn is one of the next biggest options, and interest in him may go way up among the teams that don't land Texiera. Of course, if a Texiera deal goes down to the wire, there might not be enough time left to put anyhting good together. It is likely that the pace will pick up, and once everyone knows where a couple of the bigger names are going, there will be a scramble to pick up the remaining players like Conine, Stanton, Lohse, etc.

Johnny Footstool
07-27-2007, 02:40 PM
I disagree somewhat about Weathers. While I don't want Weathers to be the closer next year I have doubts as to whether they can bring someone better in for the money he's slotted next year.

I'm OK with trading him, I just want a good return.

Weathers will have to be replaced the same way he was acquired, just like Todd Jones. Both were circling the drain when the Reds got them, and both managed to find new life in the November of their careers.

In other words, the Reds will have to get very lucky. A third time.

Of course, why bother keeping him around to save 25-30 games if the team is only going to win 70?

pedro
07-27-2007, 02:48 PM
Weathers will have to be replaced the same way he was acquired, just like Todd Jones. Both were circling the drain when the Reds got them, and both managed to find new life in the November of their careers.

In other words, the Reds will have to get very lucky. A third time.

Of course, why bother keeping him around to save 25-30 games if the team is only going to win 70?

If this team only wins 70 games next year you can be pretty sure it isn't going to be because of Weathers. They have enough issues that unless they get a great return for him I'd rather they keep him.

nate
07-27-2007, 02:50 PM
Weathers will have to be replaced the same way he was acquired, just like Todd Jones. Both were circling the drain when the Reds got them, and both managed to find new life in the November of their careers.

In other words, the Reds will have to get very lucky. A third time.

Of course, why bother keeping him around to save 25-30 games if the team is only going to win 70?

So we don't lose 120?

Ltlabner
07-27-2007, 02:53 PM
Of course, why bother keeping him around to save 25-30 games if the team is only going to win 70?

Because without him, in your scenario, we'd only win 45 or 50 games.

I've never understood the idea that unless we are going to go to the world series some players are not "worth it". Even in the years you likely aren't going to be much of a team, you still have to go out and play the games and someone has to take the mound. Even though you might not be WS bound, why not make a good show of it and do the best you can?

Don't get me wrong, if they can get a good return for Weathers, I'd trade him in a heartbeat. I'd much rather some other team worry about whether he'll recreate the magic in 2008 or fall apart. But I wouldn't unload him simply because we might not be a world-class team in 2008.

IslandRed
07-27-2007, 02:58 PM
Absolutely. It seems like the trend has been heading this way for a few years though. There aren't many GM's who want to give up young talent on the chance that it comes back to bite them.

There just seems to be a self-perpetuating cycle going on. It's very expensive to sign free agents, especially pitchers. Teams are uncertain of their ability to fill holes via free agency as a result. So they try to extend young players before they hit free agency and keep their cheap young talent, minimizing the amount of free-agent shopping that needs to be done. And thus, fewer coveted players end up as free agents. When there's money but not much to spend it on, prices go up, and suddenly free agents are even more expensive. Which makes it even more imperative to lock up your own players. And around and around we go.

But there's a good argument made in this thread that it's about time for someone to break out of the groupthink and make that big deal.

Johnny Footstool
07-27-2007, 03:09 PM
Because without him, in your scenario, we'd only win 45 or 50 games.

Nah. Some other guy would step up an convert 80% of his save chances. That's how Weathers ended up with the job in the first place.


So we don't lose 120?

It might take a painful shock like that to finally convince Castellini to make some meaningful changes. If the Reds keep chugging along at 70-75 wins, Cast will be content to just buy new windshield wipers instead of fixing the problems in the engine.

traderumor
07-27-2007, 03:18 PM
ESPN has convinced everyone that the annual rite of buying by the haves and selling by the have nots must occur. They have a show to make exciting coming up in a few days. I'm really bummed that I'm going to miss it.

It really isn't surprising that a team obviously going nowhere like the Reds is not making trades. There are a lot of teams going nowhere not making trades. We have Linebrink for 3 minor leaguers, Kenny Lofton to the Indians, and Izturis to the Pirates. Last year's big deadline deal was Carlos Lee for Cordero and Mench.

I would love to see some movement, but as everyone has pointed out, if the offers are poor, do not make deals just for activity.

flyer85
07-27-2007, 03:21 PM
Last year's big deadline deal was Carlos Lee for Cordero and Mench.Which interestingly enough was made between basically non-contenders.

Texas unloaded salary(both Mench and Cordero were expensive) and got a bat they could not sign.

Ltlabner
07-27-2007, 03:32 PM
Nah. Some other guy would step up an convert 80% of his save chances. That's how Weathers ended up with the job in the first place.

It might take a painful shock like that to finally convince Castellini to make some meaningful changes. If the Reds keep chugging along at 70-75 wins, Cast will be content to just buy new windshield wipers instead of fixing the problems in the engine.

Good point on your first thought.

A big ole "huh?" to your last sentence. What "proof" other than wild speculation do you have that Cast would do that? Other than trying to connect some random and imagined dots Cast has done nothing to show that all he wants is a 70-75 win team with a few tweaks here and there.

Johnny Footstool
07-27-2007, 03:38 PM
Good point on your first thought.

A big ole "huh?" to your last sentence. What "proof" other than wild speculation do you have that Cast would do that? Other than trying to connect some random and imagined dots Cast has done nothing to show that all he wants is a 70-75 win team with a few tweaks here and there.

I don't think Cast is content with 75 wins at all. I think he's content with making tweaks to a 75 win team and trying to squeeze out an extra 12-15 wins somewhere along the line. Unfortunately, I think the current Reds team is already being squeezed so hard that it's ears are about to pop.

Aronchis
07-27-2007, 03:59 PM
You have to remember the deadline isn't July 31st but Augest 30th.

dabvu2498
07-27-2007, 04:01 PM
You have to remember the deadline isn't July 31st but Augest 30th.

Good point. I keep thinking that some of the Conine types might be moved after the first deadline.

RedsManRick
07-27-2007, 04:07 PM
I think Cast thinks Krivsky can tweak 70 to 95 and has no real clue on what it would take to create sustainable 90+ game winner.

IslandRed
07-27-2007, 04:09 PM
That's true, but players have to pass through the revocable waivers after July 31. If a player is a known trade target and he doesn't have a lot of money coming due, odds are decent he'll be blocked.

Ltlabner
07-27-2007, 04:10 PM
I wonder if the general reaction of the baseball world to all of the wacky contracts given out over the offseason (ie, Mathews Jr, Pierre, Mench, et al) is factoring into so many GM's unwillingness to go hog wild this trade deadline?

redsmetz
07-27-2007, 04:23 PM
I think Cast thinks Krivsky can tweak 70 to 95 and has no real clue on what it would take to create sustainable 90+ game winner.

I know this is an ongoing question, but you know this how?

Johnny Footstool
07-27-2007, 04:27 PM
I know this is an ongoing question, but you know this how?

It's an opinion, just like everything else on this board. RedsManRick even prefaced it with "I think..."

No one is claiming to have "The Truth" here. We're all just sharing opinions. That's understood.

RedsManRick
07-27-2007, 04:36 PM
I know this is an ongoing question, but you know this how?

Posting on a message board is like writing a paper. You don't have to keep stating that something if your opinion, or your perspective. You can work on the assumption that we don't actually KNOW what Reds officials/players are thinking. Just read every post as if there's a "It is my opinion that..." in front of it, unless somebody clear indicates that they have some special knowledge.

Ltlabner
07-27-2007, 04:38 PM
Posting on a message board is like writing a paper. You don't have to keep stating that something if your opinion, or your perspective. You can work on the assumption that we don't actually KNOW what Reds officials/players are thinking. Just read every post as if there's a "It is my opinion that..." in front of it, unless somebody clear indicates that they have some special knowledge.

And you base your opinion that BCast is clueless on what? 18 months of ownership and we aren't in the world series?

All isn't perfect in Redsland by any strech of the imgaine, but it's a little early to damn the ownership and FO to "utter imcomptence" because they haven't unraveled years long tangle of rot and neglect.

RedsManRick
07-27-2007, 04:44 PM
And you base your opinion that BCast is clueless on what? 18 months of ownership and we aren't in the world series?

All isn't perfect in Redsland by any strech of the imgaine, but it's a little early to damn the ownership and FO to "utter imcomptence" because they haven't unraveled years long tangle of rot and neglect.

I base it on quotes where says he's impatient about winning and thinks that this club can compete quickly. I say it based on how disappointed he was in this year's failure when every reasonable projection showed this team as a 70-74 win team.

Yes, "clueless" is probably hyperbole. However, I do think that it is likely that he seriously underestimates just how far the Reds organization is from being comparable to ones like Cleveland, Oakland, and Minnesota.

nate
07-27-2007, 05:00 PM
I base it on quotes where says he's impatient about winning and thinks that this club can compete quickly. I say it based on how disappointed he was in this year's failure when every reasonable projection showed this team as a 70-74 win team.

Yes, "clueless" is probably hyperbole. However, I do think that it is likely that he seriously underestimates just how far the Reds organization is from being comparable to ones like Cleveland, Oakland, and Minnesota.

Right, because we're only now assessing how big a hole we were in and figuring the best way out. Ropes are cheap, but they break; ladders are more expensive and sometimes tip over and the hovercraft is freaking expensive.

Aronchis
07-27-2007, 05:10 PM
Essentially Cast has messed around for 1.5 years now. He needs to clean up his act if he wants a up and comer GM to rebuild the Reds.

redsmetz
07-27-2007, 05:16 PM
Essentially Cast has messed around for 1.5 years now. He needs to clean up his act if he wants a up and comer GM to rebuild the Reds.

Therein lies the rub. Many of us have said over and over and over again, that these things take time. And yet there are folks ready to remake the manage, remake the GM, declare the owner incompetent simply because we don't see significant moves being made.

I pointed out earlier that Detroit over the last four to five years made many moves similar to what Krivsky has done in the last year and a half. They only last year finally crawled out of the .265 record they had in 2003 (a 43-119 record!). And yet every Conine move or Gonzalez move or not cutting this guy or that is proof of piddling around, etc. etc. etc.

I know it's opinion, but few bandy that around; they treat it as fact.

The reality of it is, these things take time; it's a slow methodical process. Rome wasn't built in a day, etc. History could ultimately prove you all right that Castellini and Krivsky are dopes, but it's way too early to know that with any degree of certainty.

Johnny Footstool
07-27-2007, 05:32 PM
Therein lies the rub. Many of us have said over and over and over again, that these things take time. And yet there are folks ready to remake the manage, remake the GM, declare the owner incompetent simply because we don't see significant moves being made.

"These things take time" is quite different than sitting on your hands while opportunity may be passing you by. Krivsky has some decent opportunities right now. What he does or doesn't do will be very telling.


...

I pointed out earlier that Detroit over the last four to five years made many moves similar to what Krivsky has done in the last year and a half. They only last year finally crawled out of the .265 record they had in 2003 (a 43-119 record!). And yet every Conine move or Gonzalez move or not cutting this guy or that is proof of piddling around, etc. etc. etc.

I know it's opinion, but few bandy that around; they treat it as fact.

The reality of it is, these things take time; it's a slow methodical process. Rome wasn't built in a day, etc. History could ultimately prove you all right that Castellini and Krivsky are dopes, but it's way too early to know that with any degree of certainty.

The Tigers had to take historic lumps in order to approach their current state. Of course, 4-5 years of top 4 draft spots is a good way to build a farm system.

What I'm seeing from Reds fans is the desire to rebuild without having to go through that rough patch. I don't think it's going to happen. Telling yourself that the Reds are only a couple of players away is delusional, IMO.

redsmetz
07-27-2007, 07:09 PM
That I'm seeing from Reds fans is the desire to rebuild without having to go through that rough patch. I don't think it's going to happen. Telling yourself that the Reds are only a couple of players away is delusional, IMO.

This isn't a rough time? I agree that we're not "a couple of players" away, but I like our core.

REDREAD
07-29-2007, 01:24 AM
So is the big question then, assuming the market is really that slow, is that a black on on Kriv for not moving the pieces, or just plain bad luck?


Good GMs make their own luck. We've seen reports of there being a market for Lohse, Hat, and Conine. So move them for what you can. Those are three guys that clearly aren't part of the future. Take a flyer on a couple of A ball guys with tools if you have to. Just don't pick up 30 year old AAA guys.

Wayne should also aggressively try to dump Stanton for $$ relief next year. I don't care what we get back. I'd even take another bad contract if it expires at the end of the eyar.

BCubb2003
07-29-2007, 02:23 AM
For those who want rebuilding instead of a win-now approach, I still have the feeling that this is what rebuilding looks like.

I'm tempted to say, "Look at the record; you can't call that winning now," but Wayne has been accused of trying to win now, but failing.

I don't expect a new owner to go to extremes in either direction, boosting the payroll to $100 million or dropping it to $30 million.

It's more of a balancing act. And I wouldn't be surprised if Castellini is 70-30 win now and Krivsky is 60-40 rebuilding.

The Marlins have perfected the approaching of clearcutting the major league team and growing a new World Series contender in four or five years. But I'm not sure the Reds could afford four years of drawing 14,000 a game.

One thing I am sure of is that the Reds are no longer in fire sale mode. They might not go after the most expensive players, but they don't have to get rid of players to meet a certain much lower payroll figure. That's one reason Krivsky can sit back on some of these deals.

What does rebuilding look like to you? Who would be gone if the Reds were truly rebuilding in your eyes? Would you trust Krivsky to take the payroll as it is now, dump the present players and reconstruct a different roster with the same money?

It would be kind of crazy if the fans started protesting: Stop trying to win. Rebuild more, win less. The proprietor of Firemackanin.com would be interviewed on local TV and he'd call for the manager's dismissal for winning too many games. Play Anderson Macado instead of Keppinger. Play Dewayne Wise instead of Adam Dunn. Your will to win is hurting the organization ...

mth123
07-29-2007, 07:03 AM
For those who want rebuilding instead of a win-now approach, I still have the feeling that this is what rebuilding looks like.

I'm tempted to say, "Look at the record; you can't call that winning now," but Wayne has been accused of trying to win now, but failing.

What does rebuilding look like to you? Who would be gone if the Reds were truly rebuilding in your eyes? Would you trust Krivsky to take the payroll as it is now, dump the present players and reconstruct a different roster with the same money?


I think "rebuilding" involves a tear down of the core players who look like the mid-term future. In this team's case that would mean Dunn, Harang, Arroyo, Phillips, EdE and Hamilton (along with Bailey, Cueto, Bruce and Votto).

IMO "win now" means keeping the guys with no long term value to the roster. In this case that would include Griffey, Weathers, Lohse, Stanton, Conine, Hatte and supplementing with "stopgaps" in the like of Ross, Gonzalez, and IMO Freel. Adding more "stopgaps" is an indication of "Win Now" IMO.

I really am for something in the middle. This team should be playing for "Win during our Window of Opportunity" which could be as early as 2008 but more likley 2009 to 2011. There is a lot of money that is going to free up in the next couple of years. $16 Million plus of this year's payroll is going to players who are currently not on the roster, who's contracts expire and will be immediately freed-up. This is $16 Million before a single move is made involving any players in the "no long term value" or "stopgap" groups above.

I think the right approach to is sell off the "no future value guys" (including Griffey) and acquire as many young guys for the mix as possible. If some of those young guys happen to play a position currently manned by a "stopgap" all the better. That would make that particular "stopgap" a guy that could be sold off as well.

I realize that there are a number of pre-negotiated raises in effect starting in 2008 and going-up from there. That is why its so important IMO to acquire cheap role players and hopefully cheap (yet still effective) replacements for the dollar rising role players ("stopgaps") already here.

Next, use the freed-up salary space to go after some impact pitching. Free Agency has limited options, but I'd go hard for the top starter and a few of the top bull pen guys. I'd look to take on a contract from another team with with my created wiggle room and would offer up lower minors guys and even a core minor leaguer or two if need be (but not too many). I'd lock-up Dunn through 2011 (or 2012 if an extra year is required to get a deal done - Dunn will still be just 32 at the end of the 2012 season). Dunn is the only core player that the Reds don't control through the window of opportunity years.

This team has enough payroll to pay its productive players. What the team can not do is pay $16 Million to guys who aren't on the roster and it can't be paying role players and stop gaps $4 or $5 Million per year as they currently are with Lohse, and soon will be with Ross, Gonzalez and Freel. At least by my definition, it isn't a rebuild because I'd keep the core intact. But the near term defections should be moved with an eye toward replacing the stop gaps with young cheap talent to fill those roles. Use the money for impact guys.

mth123
07-29-2007, 07:05 AM
Duplicate. Sorry.

GAC
07-29-2007, 07:32 AM
Wayne Krivsky has apparently once again convinced himself that the Reds 13-8 record in Pete's 21 games is indicative that he has a real contender on his hands for 2008 if he can just make a few tweaks.

I agree with your insights a majority of the time Stormy, but disagree with this.

He came out and said that Pete is an interim manager and basically has very little chance at getting the job. Now Pete has done some tinkering/experimenting, which again, Krivksy told him to do. But just because the Reds have had a "spell" of winning under Pete, doesn't mean that Krivsky is somehow convinced they've turned the corner and that no changes need to be made.

WE all know, and so does Krivsky, what this team needs (for the most part). Pitching.

Prior to this dealine, what names of mid-to-top level pitchers have even been floated out there as being available? And at what asking price?

I've read rumors that the Sox Garland can be had, but Kenny Williams' price is sky-high. The Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Mets, and Braves all have interest. The Braves had offered not only Renteria but a top pitching prospect, and still were rejected.

KC's Dotel is available. And the Dodgers and Indians have expressed interest. But again, the asking price has been high, and he has a 5 Mil price tag for '07.

The Tigers and Yankees are interested in Eric Gagne, but he has the right to veto a deal with either team, the Dallas Morning News reports. He likely will balk at any trade that doesn't guarantee him the closer's role or full value of his contract ($11 million).

The Detroit Tigers are reportedly pursuing a deal to acquire Farnsworth from the Yankees. He makes 5.2 Mil this year, and is due 5.5 Mil in '08. But the Yanks aren't going to deal him unless they can find someone to fill that "hole".

There is a possibility that the Orioles will shop Daniel Cabrera, the Baltimore Examiner reports. Despite a 7-10 record and 5.05 ERA, could he be an interesting pickup? And again, at what cost?

IMHO, it just seems that a majority of team are looking for those high level pitching prospects (the future), rather then what they are seeing being floated around the majors.

So that brings us to the Reds....

What is Krivsky suppose to do when the commodity he is looking for in this market is thin, and every other team is out there trying to get what there is available, and more importantly.... will probably overpay/make huge sacrifices to get it.

I look at what the Brewers just gave up for a reliever. The Padres added a significant amount of organizational pitching depth, while the Brewers got a struggling reliever who has been very homer-prone this year despite pitching in a terrible home run park, and he's about to become a free agent.

Now looking at that Brewer deal, Lohse, due to this market, may fetch us something of worth. He has to be appealing to quite a few teams.

But what other trading chips do we have that teams are showing interest in? IMHO, they can inquire all they want about Harang and Arroyo, but those boys shouldn't go anywhere.

Adam Dunn? I've been following another "Dunn-like" player named Teixeria, who Texas says is available. Texas wants promising young talent in return for Teixeira. Mark makes 9 Mil this year, and is a FA after the '08 season. The Braves are considered the most likely destination, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports. A likely deal would bring catcher/first baseman Jarrod Saltalamacchia to Texas, along with a couple of prospects, perhaps a pitcher and an infielder.

The Angels were the most recent to tweak their offer. The Angels had originally offered first baseman Casey Kotchman and a choice of outfield prospects Nathan Haynes or Terry Evans. It is believed they have now added a pitcher to the mix, but the level of pitcher could vary widely from a young prospect with a high ceiling (20-year-old right-hander Nick Adenhart) to an experienced but struggling major leaguer (recently demoted Ervin Santana) to a prospect on the verge of pitching in the majors (lefty Joe Saunders).

So should we try to trade Dunn if we can get similar offers? I've read that what teams have shown interest in Dunn aren't offering much. Maybe they are thinking they can get him easily because the Reds would simply like to dump the contract, and his pending option year for 13 Mil? But any team that trades for him also realizes they are going to have to pony up the money, because he becomes a FA at the end of this season. That narrows the list of likely candidates. And again, what have they offered in return?

Is this the right time to try and trade an Adam Dunn and expect to get a solid return?

If we can trade a Weathers, Lohse, Hatteberg, and even a Stanton, and get a decent return, then I think Krivksy can (and will) do so. But they have until Tuesday. Maybe he's waiting for someone else, who is in contention and not finding what they need elsewhere, to panic and up the ante?

I'd rather see that occur with other teams then us at this point.

You're right that this team has some "inherent flaws" that need to be adressed. But at what cost?

If the deals aren't there for some of these players mentioned above, then what is this FO suppose to do?

GAC
07-29-2007, 07:41 AM
Yes, "clueless" is probably hyperbole. However, I do think that it is likely that he seriously underestimates just how far the Reds organization is from being comparable to ones like Cleveland, Oakland, and Minnesota.

Teams with solid farm systems in place. How long should Cast/Kriv be allowed to rebuild (stock) this farm system?