PDA

View Full Version : Uhhhh ohhhhhhh



DTCromer
07-28-2007, 10:57 AM
Jeff Keppinger: .326 1 HR 11 RBI's

Brendan Harris last month: .253 O HR 7 RBI's
Justin Germano last month: 27.1 IP 7.24 1.72 12 BB's 13 K's


What's going to happen now that some of the players WK let go are performing the way everyone expected and another guy he picked up is becoming a valuable partof this team?

Can any rational Reds fan actually give WK credit for these actions? I'll have a hard time believing that, but we see.

REDblooded
07-28-2007, 12:25 PM
lol. you know you're not gonna get any "i was wrong" comments out of this. You can however, have an "I was right" comment from me. Germano stinks.........in a pitchers park.

BearcatShane
07-28-2007, 12:28 PM
I was right. And I do and have always like Wayne Krivsky.

Krawhitham
07-28-2007, 12:48 PM
give Keppinger some time and his numbers will go down just like the others

Orenda
07-28-2007, 12:53 PM
Would you rather have Castro over Harris? Would you rather have Saarloos over Germano? Id still go with the younger guys, and hey they are also cheaper.

REDblooded
07-28-2007, 01:14 PM
give Keppinger some time and his numbers will go down just like the others

Big difference. Keppinger has hit .320 throughout his minor league career. There's a precedence here. He also has a career minor league 186/139 BB/K ratio. Harris on the other hand was a career .279 minor league hitter, with a 37/82 bb/k ratio.

Germano's minor league numbers were ok, but nothing to suggest he was going to continue his torrid pace that he started the season with.

IamWallaman
07-28-2007, 01:16 PM
It's the nature of the game for guys to play well for a period and stink it up now and again.

We're dealing with the same small sample size that people were using with Harris and Germano. We can't complain about some using short data to berate K and use the same amount of data to praise him. Let's stay consistant.

That said, I like Kepp. K did good to pick him up on the cheap. Unfortunately, he also sold Germano and Harris on the cheap (after aquiring them for... oh never mind :evil: )

With K, he's got some obvious losses and some obvious wins. He's not a genius by far... but he's certainly collected some interesting young talent that could take us places soon.

AtomicDumpling
07-28-2007, 01:45 PM
The proof is in the pudding.

Evaluating a GM's performance isn't best accomplished by grading each move individually and adding up the grades. The way you judge his performance is by looking at the win-loss record of the major league team. So far WK is getting a failing grade.

It is pretty hard to argue Krivsky has done a good job when the Reds have the worst record in baseball. Now that the Reds are doing better I am willing to give him a longer chance to turn things around.

So far Krivsky has made a few fantastic moves: Arroyo, Phillips, Hamilton. He deserves a lot of credit for those moves.

On the negative side he has done a terrible job of managing the Reds' limited payroll. He squandered too many millions of dollars on players that have been complete flops: Cormier, David Ross, Stanton, Coffey, Castro, Saarloos, and Santos. Gonzalez hasn't earned his money either, but at least he is decent.

Despite making it his top priority and throwing most of our assets into the effort, Krivsky has failed to improve the bullpen. We have tried a lot of different pitchers, but we are still a long way from having a decent relief corps.

My biggest concern however is the draft. Krivsky's first two drafts have me very worried. I know it is early still, but the top players in these drafts have performed very poorly in the minors so far. Being a little bit of a draft afficianado I was very disappointed with the selections the Reds made in the first few rounds of the draft the last two years.

Krivsky has been a mixed bag. Some very good and a lot of bad. As a Reds fan I am not really willing to settle for decent performance. Once a guy has proven he is not an excellent GM I would rather give a young, up-and-comer a chance to show what he can do. Decent GMs don't take their teams to the World Series very often.

REDblooded
07-28-2007, 01:54 PM
The proof is in the pudding.

Evaluating a GM's performance isn't best accomplished by grading each move individually and adding up the grades. The way you judge his performance is by looking at the win-loss record of the major league team. So far WK is getting a failing grade.

It is pretty hard to argue Krivsky has done a good job when the Reds have the worst record in baseball. Now that the Reds are doing better I am willing to give him a longer chance to turn things around.

So far Krivsky has made a few fantastic moves: Arroyo, Phillips, Hamilton. He deserves a lot of credit for those moves.

On the negative side he has done a terrible job of managing the Reds' limited payroll. He squandered too many millions of dollars on players that have been complete flops: Cormier, David Ross, Stanton, Coffey, Castro, Saarloos, and Santos. Gonzalez hasn't earned his money either, but at least he is decent.

Despite making it his top priority and throwing most of our assets into the effort, Krivsky has failed to improve the bullpen. We have tried a lot of different pitchers, but we are still a long way from having a decent relief corps.

My biggest concern however is the draft. Krivsky's first two drafts have me very worried. I know it is early still, but the top players in these drafts have performed very poorly in the minors so far. Being a little bit of a draft afficianado I was very disappointed with the selections the Reds made in the first few rounds of the draft the last two years.

Krivsky has been a mixed bag. Some very good and a lot of bad. As a Reds fan I am not really willing to settle for decent performance. Once a guy has proven he is not an excellent GM I would rather give a young, up-and-comer a chance to show what he can do. Decent GMs don't take their teams to the World Series very often.

oh goodness............... oh goodness....................

lol

:bang:

:help:
:help:
:bang:


ok......real quick. If you judge a GM by win/loss, I think you prob need to give that GM more than a year and a half to use that as your gauge.. don't you? The team Krivsky has on the field right now has nearly 50% of it's total budget tied up in 3 players that he had nothing to do with signing. 1/6th of the teams current budget is tied up in Eric Milton alone. You don't think stuff like that may factor into this teams W/L record after 1.5 years of Krivsky?

HokieRed
07-29-2007, 12:39 AM
Update on K's first 5 picks of 2006 (most recent levels only):
Stubbs .259/.365/.392/.757 112 K in 370 AB, Low-A Dayton
Watson 6.82 ERA, 31.2 inns., 11W, 31 K, .286 BA against. Sarasota
Valaika .231/.287/.319/.606 Sarasota
Reed .309/.392/.418/.810 GCL Reds
Ravin 7.11 ERA, 19 inns, 23 W, 18 K, .270 BA against. Billings.

IMHO, there's reason to be concerned about this draft.

ChatterRed
07-29-2007, 12:43 AM
A season and a half on the job and impatient idiotic Reds fans are already ready to can him.

What a hoot.

kaldaniels
07-29-2007, 12:46 AM
I'm not gonna do it (too lazy and dumb), but this is what needs to be done. Someone needs to put the full body of work of WK on a thread. Leave nothing out. Let it speak for itself. Otherwise we'll get...

"Phillips"

"The Trade"

"Hamilton"

"Stanton"

"Hatteberg"

"Cormier"

and so on :bang:

We all know the pros and cons...listing them selectively doesn't prove a point/win any arguments.

REDblooded
07-29-2007, 04:27 AM
Update on K's first 5 picks of 2006 (most recent levels only):
Stubbs .259/.365/.392/.757 112 K in 370 AB, Low-A Dayton
Watson 6.82 ERA, 31.2 inns., 11W, 31 K, .286 BA against. Sarasota
Valaika .231/.287/.319/.606 Sarasota
Reed .309/.392/.418/.810 GCL Reds
Ravin 7.11 ERA, 19 inns, 23 W, 18 K, .270 BA against. Billings.

IMHO, there's reason to be concerned about this draft.


Awesome job Hokie. I like how you only use stats at the current levels instead of the full season for guys like Watson and Valaika. Certainly lets you skew things in favor of the anti-krivsky doesn't it?

Watson 3.40 ERA/ 103.1 IP/ 116 K's/ 24 BB's/ .245 baa

Valaika .289/ .338/ .453/ .791

Topcat
07-29-2007, 07:12 AM
Factor in to this the unknown factors of castellini's edicts and budget it is truly difficult to slam Krivskys work in the time he has been the gm of the Reds. The trade is a farce he unloaded expensive crap and yes the argument can be made he could have received better crap back but whom of us truly knows what his choices where and what Cast's demands dictated?

Time will Tell. After all OB was gutted on these boards and rightly so but as a drafting Guru he was a damn homerun hitter in judging talent.

Bobcat J
07-29-2007, 11:38 AM
Factor in to this the unknown factors of castellini's edicts and budget it is truly difficult to slam Krivskys work in the time he has been the gm of the Reds.

How can you possibly factor in "unknown factors?"

HokieRed
07-29-2007, 11:54 AM
I didn't draw any strong conclusions from the data about Krivsky's top 5 picks in 2006. I was just trying to follow up Atomic Dumpling's point about his concern over Krivsky's drafts. I'm not particularly anti-Krivsky either; in fact, I'm feeling more and more positive about him all the time. I only put in the present level data for Watson and Valaika primarily because those players are now at levels they should be at---if Valaika dropped back down to Billings, I'm sure he'd put up great numbers. Would those be relevant? I've got lots of hope for all 5 players mentioned. On the other hand, it seems to me there's certainly reason for concern about how good that draft was. Somebody above has mentioned putting the whole Wayne Krivsky record up, and I think that's a good idea. I think we'd find it mixed, inconclusive.

Fil3232
07-29-2007, 11:16 PM
Jeff Keppinger is currently doing his best Chris Stynes impersonation. Captivating Cincinnati audiences with his scrapiness and wholly mediocre game over a short sample in a lost season. Oh the thrills of being a Reds fan!

improbus
07-29-2007, 11:38 PM
I'm not gonna do it (too lazy and dumb), but this is what needs to be done. Someone needs to put the full body of work of WK on a thread. Leave nothing out. Let it speak for itself. Otherwise we'll get...

"Phillips"

"The Trade"

"Hamilton"

"Stanton"

"Hatteberg"

"Cormier"

and so on :bang:

We all know the pros and cons...listing them selectively doesn't prove a point/win any arguments.
Here is a link to a table that tries to do what you are asking using VORP ratings of players coming in and going out. It doesn't list them by trade, and is a fairly rudimentary look, but I do think it is useful.

http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/05/evaluating-wayne-krivsky.html

Degenerate39
07-29-2007, 11:44 PM
I'm not gonna do it (too lazy and dumb), but this is what needs to be done. Someone needs to put the full body of work of WK on a thread. Leave nothing out. Let it speak for itself. Otherwise we'll get...

"Phillips"

"The Trade"

"Hamilton"

"Stanton"

"Hatteberg"

"Cormier"

and so on :bang:

We all know the pros and cons...listing them selectively doesn't prove a point/win any arguments.

It turns out "The Trade" should be Red. Hamilton/Gonzo are better than Kearns/Lopez. Plus we got a real good lefty in Bray from them who should be with the Reds any time now.

Bobcat J
07-30-2007, 10:17 AM
It turns out "The Trade" should be Red. Hamilton/Gonzo are better than Kearns/Lopez. Plus we got a real good lefty in Bray from them who should be with the Reds any time now.

We didn't trade Kearns and Lopez for Hamilton and Gonzalez. You have to judge the trade on the return we got for them.

By your logic, we could have simply DFA'd Kearns and Lopez and as long as we picked up Hamilton and Gonzalez letting the others go for nothing was a good move. That is not the way to judge moves.

DTCromer
07-30-2007, 12:36 PM
We didn't trade Kearns and Lopez for Hamilton and Gonzalez. You have to judge the trade on the return we got for them.

By your logic, we could have simply DFA'd Kearns and Lopez and as long as we picked up Hamilton and Gonzalez letting the others go for nothing was a good move. That is not the way to judge moves.

Can anyone agree that WK was at least half right on the trade?

ChatterRed
07-30-2007, 12:43 PM
Kearns and Lopez suck and would have cost the Reds too much for a couple of pretenders.

Glad they're gone. Glad we got Hamilton and Gonzalez, even if they weren't part of the trade. WK knew he could do better, even if he didn't have the solution at the time, he got rid of the dead weight of Kearns and Lopez. And if all he could get was Bray and Majewski, it CLEARLY SHOWS that the rest of MLB weren't interested in those two hacks either. And from insider information, Kearns was not wanted by anybody.

Get over it. The Reds clearly got the best of that deal even if they got nothing in return.

Fil3232
07-30-2007, 01:01 PM
Kearns and Lopez suck and would have cost the Reds too much for a couple of pretenders.

Glad they're gone. Glad we got Hamilton and Gonzalez, even if they weren't part of the trade. WK knew he could do better, even if he didn't have the solution at the time, he got rid of the dead weight of Kearns and Lopez. And if all he could get was Bray and Majewski, it CLEARLY SHOWS that the rest of MLB weren't interested in those two hacks either. And from insider information, Kearns was not wanted by anybody.

Get over it. The Reds clearly got the best of that deal even if they got nothing in return.

Actaully, Wayne displayed he has no idea how to target real value in a trade for real value. It was a woefully embarrassing trade for Wayne. Seems like he might be hell-bent on repeating it for Dunn too.

The Snow Chief
07-30-2007, 01:51 PM
We didn't trade Kearns and Lopez for Hamilton and Gonzalez. You have to judge the trade on the return we got for them.

By your logic, we could have simply DFA'd Kearns and Lopez and as long as we picked up Hamilton and Gonzalez letting the others go for nothing was a good move. That is not the way to judge moves.

Maybe in fantasy baseball. In the real world, trades have salary considerations that must be taken into account. Kearns and Lopez were set to make more than their production merited and the Reds and other teams knew that. That is why other teams were not beating the doors down for them. And yes, I would have rather non-tendered Kearns and Lopez than pay them what they are making for their crappy production.

Degenerate39
07-30-2007, 02:48 PM
We didn't trade Kearns and Lopez for Hamilton and Gonzalez. You have to judge the trade on the return we got for them.

By your logic, we could have simply DFA'd Kearns and Lopez and as long as we picked up Hamilton and Gonzalez letting the others go for nothing was a good move. That is not the way to judge moves.

By my logic the Reds got a good lefty out of the deal like I said. And in hindsight it was a good thing they traded away Kearns and Lopez. Not only did they get better players later on but they freed up some money. It also allowed Junior to move to Right Field.

kaldaniels
07-30-2007, 03:21 PM
See...instead of this endless discussion of the Kearns trade...lets weigh it up against other moves to see how it stands as a part of WK's body of work. We get it...some on here think Krivsky got bamboozled on that one. Fine. Name one GM who hasn't made an ill-advised trade in there career.

For instance...this is what I'm talking about. In my opinion, the Arroyo trade had a much more positive effect on this franchise than the Kearns trade had a negative. Shouldn't that count for something...however posts bashing WK for the Kearns deal outweigh posts praising him for the Bronson deal by easily 25-1. Why??? That trade was a coup for the Reds.

I'm in the school that says you give a guy sometime for his plan to work. And the only way to judge him is to evaluate him on his overall moves. Like I said in an earlier post...I don't have a list of all WK's moves so that I can really critically judge him. However this I do know. He came into an absolute mess of a franchise. The criticism/praise of WK seems almost personal to some on here. From a distance to me, he hasn't done anything to really be canned over if you ask me. Now, at the end of the year, if there are more viable GM candidates out there, sure...I hope the FO evalutes him and makes a decision then.