PDA

View Full Version : Wayne Krivsky Report Card



camisadelgolf
07-30-2007, 02:45 AM
In light of all the criticism of the Medlock-for-Cantu trade, I decided to show some stats. I've been keeping track of the players Wayne Krivsky has acquired and let go, and here are the stats of those players:

stats of players since leaving the Reds during Krivsky's tenure:
2889 at-bats
71 homeruns
49 stolen bases
.253 batting average
.320 on-base percentage
.390 slugging percentage
542 innings pitched
1 save
205 walks
321 strikeouts
4.88 ERA
1.43 WHIP

stats of players obtained while they played for the Reds during Krivsky's tenure:
3645 at-bats
136 homeruns
69 stolen bases
.265 batting average
.327 on-base percentage
.436 slugging percentage
969.3 innings pitched
14 saves
335 walks
694 strikeouts
4.45 ERA
1.43 WHIP

My conclusion is that in the end, Wayne Krivsky's getting the better end of the deals. If he contains to obtain more quality than he discards, the Reds' future is pretty bright.

GAC
07-30-2007, 09:48 AM
My kids only get a report card every 8 weeks! Why do we have to do one on Wayne every two? :lol:

WVRedsFan
07-30-2007, 10:38 AM
My kids only get a report card every 8 weeks! Why do we have to do one on Wayne every two? :lol:

I often wonder why people go overboard in supporting Krivsky. Like everyone else, he's going to have people who think he's a genius or a nice guy or whatever, but I would think performance would dictate whether or not you would give him your support. Even the hope of a good record. That performance or hope of better performance is either not there or invisible, so I remain confused when we acquire people who have never done anything anywhere else and we always point to Brandon Phillips. Lightning in a bottle folks. It may never happen again.

Ltlabner
07-30-2007, 10:59 AM
I often wonder why people go overboard in supporting Krivsky. Like everyone else, he's going to have people who think he's a genius or a nice guy or whatever, but I would think performance would dictate whether or not you would give him your support. Even the hope of a good record. That performance or hope of better performance is either not there or invisible, so I remain confused when we acquire people who have never done anything anywhere else and we always point to Brandon Phillips. Lightning in a bottle folks. It may never happen again.

Just currious...is one post that paints Kriv in a good light an example of this "going overboard to support Krivsky" ?

You continue to paint a picture that there is a legion of people on RZ who support his every move and offer zero critisim. Red herring of olympic proportions. There is a middle ground between angst ridden replies bashing every move the man makes, and glowing, rosey-tinted glasses that support his every move. There is a middle ground out there.

Here's one post. One. One post that actually shows in concrete terms that there has been some improvements made despite the mistakes and misteps and the lack of results on the bottom line.

nate
07-30-2007, 11:04 AM
I often wonder why people go overboard in supporting Krivsky. Like everyone else, he's going to have people who think he's a genius or a nice guy or whatever, but I would think performance would dictate whether or not you would give him your support. Even the hope of a good record. That performance or hope of better performance is either not there or invisible, so I remain confused when we acquire people who have never done anything anywhere else and we always point to Brandon Phillips. Lightning in a bottle folks. It may never happen again.

So you're basically making three points:

1. The Reds haven't improved nor do they look like they're improving.

2. The only person Krivsky acquired that has actually done anything is Brandon Phillips.

3. It was blind luck that Krivsky acquired Phillips and / or blind luck that Phillips actually turned out to be good.

To ritort:

1. Under Dan-O, the Reds were 149 - 178 for a cool .456 winning percentage. Under Wayne, the Reds are 125 - 143 for a .466 winning percentage.

Although its small improvement, its improvement. The starting pitching is better, the middle defense is better. The bullpen is about the same and the offense is about the same. The farm system seems to be better (and some of that is due to Dan-O's drafts but some of it also due to Wayne).

2. I think Josh Hamilton and Bronson Arroyo have been pretty good pickups.

3. Maybe. But I think he probably took a chance on a well-informed decision.

Quite honestly, what it all boils down to is that the Reds organization was in pretty poor shape. It takes a long time to turn things around. I know we want every move to be "THE BIG ONE" that puts the ship on course but it doesn't work that way. People talk about the Tigers success but they sucked REALLY BADLY for a long time.

Yeah, we all want the Reds to turn on a dime like a sportscar but baseball teams handle more like marching bands. And we all know that marching bands come after the horses.

WVRedsFan
07-30-2007, 11:34 AM
Just currious...is one post that paints Kriv in a good light an example of this "going overboard to support Krivsky" ?

You continue to paint a picture that there is a legion of people on RZ who support his every move and offer zero critisim. Red herring of olympic proportions. There is a middle ground between angst ridden replies bashing every move the man makes, and glowing, rosey-tinted glasses that support his every move. There is a middle ground out there.

Here's one post. One. One post that actually shows in concrete terms that there has been some improvements made despite the mistakes and misteps and the lack of results on the bottom line.

I really wasn't pointing at the thread starting post as an example. I'm just confused as to where the love for Krivsky comes from. Really. You can point out, as another poster has, that the team really has improved (by a whopping.010 percentage points) its winning percentage. You can (rightly as he pointed out) mention the great acquisitions of Arroyo and Hamilton, but all of that hasn't made one bit of difference in how this club performs. In fact, the offense has even gone away while the pitching, though improved, continues to flounder. Small steps?

But it's no big deal either way. Yes, there should be some middle ground, but it's tough to find. I was just curious. It's kind of like folks have really given up on this team ever being a contender again and can be satisfied with "small steps" because they know that a team with cash problems like the Reds will never, ever be world beaters again. If that's the case, so be it, but I'd hope we would have higher expectations.

Like another poster in another thread said last night, it's always wash...rinse...repeat over and over.

Ltlabner
07-30-2007, 11:40 AM
But it's no big deal either way. Yes, there should be some middle ground, but it's tough to find. I was just curious. It's kind of like folks have really given up on this team ever being a contender again and can be satisfied with "small steps" because they know that a team with cash problems like the Reds will never, ever be world beaters again. If that's the case, so be it, but I'd hope we would have higher expectations.

Ah yes.

The old "we are just happy with anything" argument.

Couldn't be that we don't expect an entire orginization to be turned from horse stall discharge to dominating juggernat in 18 months could it?

Krivsky is neither a wunderkid nor an dunce. He's made improvements (whether you wish to recoginize them or not) and he's made blunders. See, that middle ground wasn't so hard to find afterall.

WVRedsFan
07-30-2007, 12:02 PM
Ah yes.

The old "we are just happy with anything" argument.

Couldn't be that we don't expect an entire orginization to be turned from horse stall discharge to dominating juggernat in 18 months could it?

Krivsky is neither a wunderkid nor an dunce. He's made improvements (whether you wish to recoginize them or not) and he's made blunders. See, that middle ground wasn't so hard to find afterall.

Ltabner, I see your point, but my rose-colored glasses were broken in about 2002. We can do better. I just want to see progress along the way. The progress he's made has improved this club from a 73-89 (.451) record when he came to this club to 45-61 (.425). Even counting last year's abberation (80-82), the overall record is 125-143 (.466). That's not much improvement.

I wish, like you and all Reds fans, that he finds the formula and does well. but I don't see it. Today and tomorrow may go a long way toward either reaching that goal.

Ltlabner
07-30-2007, 12:04 PM
Ltabner, I see your point, but my rose-colored glasses were broken in about 2002.

Today and tomorrow may go a long way toward either reaching that goal.

Hahahaha. That first sentence got an out loud laugh.

I agree 100% with your last sentence.

nate
07-30-2007, 12:13 PM
I really wasn't pointing at the thread starting post as an example. I'm just confused as to where the love for Krivsky comes from. Really. You can point out, as another poster has, that the team really has improved (by a whopping.010 percentage points) its winning percentage. You can (rightly as he pointed out) mention the great acquisitions of Arroyo and Hamilton, but all of that hasn't made one bit of difference in how this club performs. In fact, the offense has even gone away while the pitching, though improved, continues to flounder. Small steps?

I don't think anyone's stalking Wayne with a "blue box" in their pocket. I just think that people who are, shall we say, less unsupportive of him tend to realize that it takes more than a puff of smoke and a scantily-clad Barbara Eden to turn things around.

Hey, its fine with me if you don't like Krivsky but the numbers just don't support what you're saying here:



Dan O'Brien Wayne Krivsky
2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 (projected)
RS 750 820 749 489 747
RA 907 889 801 547 836
dif. -157 -69 -52 -58 -89

Dan O's Run differential average: -113
Wayne K's Run differential average: -55 (actual) -70 (projected)



To date, Wayne's team has allowed 58 fewer runs. Worldbeating? No. But we're not looking at allowing 900 runs. Its an improvement. The offense is scoring fewer runs, yes but on par with the 2004 season. The pitching, on the other hand is allowing much fewer runs...which, really is the problem.



But it's no big deal either way. Yes, there should be some middle ground, but it's tough to find. I was just curious. It's kind of like folks have really given up on this team ever being a contender again and can be satisfied with "small steps" because they know that a team with cash problems like the Reds will never, ever be world beaters again.

OK, so tell us, how long should it take?

How long did it take, for example, Detroit?



If that's the case, so be it, but I'd hope we would have higher expectations.

My expectations are high but they're also real. I think we're seeing just how long it takes and how bad off we were.


Like another poster in another thread said last night, it's always wash...rinse...repeat over and over.

With these conversations, agreed.

flyer85
07-30-2007, 12:16 PM
all of the above just points out that no matter WK does or doesn't do at the deadline this team is still a long way from being a real contender. And that is the issue that few seem willing to admit.

nate
07-30-2007, 12:19 PM
all of the above just points out that no matter WK does or doesn't do at the deadline this team is still a long way from being a real contender. And that is the issue that few seem willing to admit.

That's precisely the point I was making.

flyer85
07-30-2007, 12:20 PM
...

bucksfan2
07-30-2007, 02:34 PM
I often wonder why people go overboard in supporting Krivsky. Like everyone else, he's going to have people who think he's a genius or a nice guy or whatever, but I would think performance would dictate whether or not you would give him your support. Even the hope of a good record. That performance or hope of better performance is either not there or invisible, so I remain confused when we acquire people who have never done anything anywhere else and we always point to Brandon Phillips. Lightning in a bottle folks. It may never happen again.

How long should a GM have to rebuild a club? Should he do it overnight? Do you give him a year? Do you give him multiple years? It wasn't like he took over a club who was one player away from being competitive. It wasn't like he took up a club with a lot of cash to spend. He took over a club saddled with a lot of bad contracts. So I ask you, what GM is going to be successful when you take into consideration that he has been on the job for 1.5 years, its a small market club, he has several bad contracts to deal with, and he has to change around an organizational culture?

sonny
07-30-2007, 02:37 PM
I often wonder why people go overboard in supporting Krivsky. Like everyone else, he's going to have people who think he's a genius or a nice guy or whatever, but I would think performance would dictate whether or not you would give him your support. Even the hope of a good record. That performance or hope of better performance is either not there or invisible, so I remain confused when we acquire people who have never done anything anywhere else and we always point to Brandon Phillips. Lightning in a bottle folks. It may never happen again.

I'm equally dumbfounded when people go overboard to bash him.

WVRedsFan
07-30-2007, 03:17 PM
I don't think anyone's stalking Wayne with a "blue box" in their pocket. I just think that people who are, shall we say, less unsupportive of him tend to realize that it takes more than a puff of smoke and a scantily-clad Barbara Eden to turn things around.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Barbara of 1966 make an appearance, but that's another thread :p:

Seriously, I know that and this is just a discussion and I'm really not making "hanging jury" statements. I really don't see an genius here. I see a guy who has spent his career with Texas and Minnesota. He's seen what Terry Ryan does and he is trying to do it here. It's not working for whatever reason. And I'll be the first to step up and eat crow if he starts making moves that make a bigger difference. I don't want to see anyone lose their job, but fans cannot be expected to wait for ten years for the plan to come together. It surely wouldn't happen anyplace else unless you're in Kansas City, Pittsburgh (and they're getting testy), or Texas.

OK, so tell us, how long should it take?

How long did it take, for example, Detroit?

I think you should see a big improvement in 18 months. And I really thought we were. I was optimistic. Then came the extsnsion of Narron's contract and some really stupid acquisitions and it all came tumbling down. Now, I haven't given up on him. But I'm sure Castellini has and that's why the Jockety rumor gets life everywhere. In this business, you show marked improvement or you find another job. Most organizations that really desire to win and contend do that. Do you see marked improvement?

nate
07-30-2007, 03:30 PM
I think you should see a big improvement in 18 months. And I really thought we were. I was optimistic. Then came the extsnsion of Narron's contract and some really stupid acquisitions and it all came tumbling down. Now, I haven't given up on him. But I'm sure Castellini has and that's why the Jockety rumor gets life everywhere. In this business, you show marked improvement or you find another job. Most organizations that really desire to win and contend do that. Do you see marked improvement?

I see gradual improvement, its about what I expected given the same payroll. There haven't really been too many opportunities for Wayne to go out and get awesome FA pickups (although, there have been a few but who's to say the Reds didn't try?) so the only way to improve your club is through the draft (which is long term) and by trades. With trades, you gotta have something someone wants and be willing to part with it to get what you want. I think there's a pretty barren market out there and GMs are keeping the prices of their talent, dear.

Johnny Footstool
07-30-2007, 03:42 PM
Any GM needs to make improvements, or else he should be out of a job. What separates the great GMs from the rest of the crop is what they do when opportunities present themselves. It's not just a matter of being patient; it's a matter of striking while the iron is hot.

In those terms, I think Wayne has been all over the place. He hit big time with Arroyo and Phillips. He missed big time with Lopez and Kearns. There were a couple of free agents like Octavio Dotel who he passed on, knowing full well that they would have filled a glaring need.

The continued crapulence of the bullpen is a huge black eye for Krivsky. It has been a weakness ever since he arrived, and there is no real hope for improvement in sight. When the GM can't manage to make an impact on the team's biggest weakness, you have to judge him harshly.

flyer85
07-30-2007, 03:44 PM
Any GM needs to make improvements, or else he should be out of a job. When he took over there was only direction to go from an organizational standpoint.

For the Reds to be successful they need an extra-ordinary GM.

bucksfan2
07-30-2007, 03:47 PM
In those terms, I think Wayne has been all over the place. He hit big time with Arroyo and Phillips. He missed big time with Lopez and Kearns. There were a couple of free agents like Octavio Dotel who he passed on, knowing full well that they would have filled a glaring need.


I dont want to get into this whole trade debate again but when you say he missed bigtime with Lopez and Kearns do you mean that he didn't get enough value? Or do you think this team would be better with Lopez and Kearns on it?

pedro
07-30-2007, 04:00 PM
Now, I haven't given up on him.

If complaining about his every move for the past 6 months is your way of showing support I'd hate to see how you'd act if you didn't like the GM.

WVRedsFan
07-30-2007, 04:06 PM
I see gradual improvement, its about what I expected given the same payroll. There haven't really been too many opportunities for Wayne to go out and get awesome FA pickups (although, there have been a few but who's to say the Reds didn't try?) so the only way to improve your club is through the draft (which is long term) and by trades. With trades, you gotta have something someone wants and be willing to part with it to get what you want. I think there's a pretty barren market out there and GMs are keeping the prices of their talent, dear.

Interesting. Every year we hear the same thing. We don't have anyone of any value on the team. I'm quite interested to know what others think. If we do not have anyone worth anything much in return, ae we still paying for the Bowden years? Or are GM's using Wayne to get a better deal. The word all along was that he was asking too much for Dunn. Does anyone think that's just a line to low ball our talent?

WVRedsFan
07-30-2007, 04:09 PM
If complaining about his every move for the past 6 months is your way of showing support I'd hate to see how you'd act if you didn't like the GM.

It's kind of like the employee you have who just screws up all the time, but one in awhile he surprises you with a brilliant move. You have reason to now give him a little more time. That's where I am with Krivsky. And yes, some of his moves deserve the complaining especially when you're fighting for last place.

Johnny Footstool
07-30-2007, 04:11 PM
I dont want to get into this whole trade debate again but when you say he missed bigtime with Lopez and Kearns do you mean that he didn't get enough value? Or do you think this team would be better with Lopez and Kearns on it?

I don't think he got enough value. I think the timing of the deal (weeks before the trade deadline) and Krivsky's own admission that he overpaid are testament to that.

nate
07-30-2007, 04:28 PM
Interesting. Every year we hear the same thing. We don't have anyone of any value on the team. I'm quite interested to know what others think.

I think we have quite a lot of value on the team. The problem is, we have an incredible deficit of talent in one part (pitching) and a surplus in the other (hitting). Any trade you make has to equalize the deficit and hopefully bring it back to (and above) normal...a tall order.


If we do not have anyone worth anything much in return, ae we still paying for the Bowden years?

I can't answer because I don't agree with the premise of your question. I think we _do_ have valuable players. But can we exchange our "strength" areas for our "growth" areas and expect a 75 point improvement of our winning percentage in the next 12 months?

I'm uncertain.


Or are GM's using Wayne to get a better deal. The word all along was that he was asking too much for Dunn. Does anyone think that's just a line to low ball our talent?

I think that's a line people use to boost their own ratings. As to what's really happening, no one knows except the peeps making the decisions.

bucksfan2
07-30-2007, 04:38 PM
I don't think he got enough value. I think the timing of the deal (weeks before the trade deadline) and Krivsky's own admission that he overpaid are testament to that.

Fair enough and I will agree with you to a point. Not to rehash the trade but I think you need to look deeper into some of Krivsky's moves in order to find what he intended to do. I think a lot of what has hurt Krivsky and his public perception is that he isn't real close with some media memebers. He isn't Bowden wispering into McCoy's ear about certain rumors. He doesn't follow the Marty Brennamin school of baseball. He keeps everything very close to the vest and doesn't let a whole lot of stuff leak. IMO that Krivsky is constantly trying to improve the over all value of the reds. I would argue that from the time Krivsky took over until now the overall value of the Reds has improved. Their record may not have improved but the overall talent of the club has improved.

IMO your average reds fan has hurt this club in recent years. The organization has listen to the fans too much and kept around fan favorites for too long and it hurt the club. I think that a good GM and a good owner need to have a certain disconnect from the fan base in order to be successful. I remember years ago when Ken Williams started a fire sale when the White Sox were right in the middle of a playoff race. Then he calls out fan favorite Frank Thomas for reasons I cant remember. Your sole focus needs to be to improve the ball club not make the fan base happy. IMO Cast and Krivsky made two bad moves this year with extentions of fan favorites whose play is lacking. Both Coffey and Freel really had no buisness recieving extentions but were given then largely based on their popularity.

If I give Krivsky a grade it is a B-/C+. IMO he has been slightly above average. The likes of Phillips, Arroyo, Hamilton, Burton, and Ross far outweight anything given up for them in return. The overall loss involved in "the trade" i think is mitigated because the players were easily replaced for quite a bit cheaper. Is this team playing better, no, but overall is the value of this club higher, yes.

Stormy
07-30-2007, 04:56 PM
A franchise is judged upon the production and performance of the product they put on the field, not by some ledger regarding how departed players have produced since leaving the fold. What product is Wayne trotting out onto the field more than halfway through the 2nd year of his tenure?

A team surrendering a near league high 5.16 Runs Per Game in a tough park for pitchers, with an offense producing a league middling 4.6 Runs Per Game despite playing in a highly favorable offensive environment (and only 2 years removed from far higher production).

The 5.16 Runs Per Game is particularly troubling, because Wayne's almost exclusive focus has been upon pitching and defense, and both have failed miserably. Our 4.76 Team ERA has translated into the much higher allowance of 5.16 RPG, due to a porous defense. Likewise, the overall pitching staff not named Harang or Weathers has mostly underperformed even it's modest expectations.

As for Wayne's primary "pet project", the bullpen into which he has funnelled a disproportionate amount of money, resources, personnel and energy... Reds 2007 Bullpen: 5.08ERA 1.53 WHIP. That's a failure of epic proportions, especially when viewed through the prism of his 2006 epic bullpen failures. Thank heavens that injuries and implosions have at least compelled Wayne to give a few bright spots youngsters a look, with some mildly favorable results.

One of the NL's 3 worst pitching staffs, a defense which compounds the atrocity of the pitching, and an offense which can't disengage itself from mediocrity despite being basically injury free, and amidst an unanticipated return to form by Griffey. That's pretty much bottom of the barrel returns for Krivsky, and I'd say that is pretty accurately reflected in our atrocious 2007 W/L record.

The irony remains that with some bold moves he could still direct this team into a visionary rebuild at their current stage, but most indications seem to indicate a willingness to mostly stay the course and think that minute tweaks can turn a near last place club into a contender. :confused:

WVRedsFan
07-30-2007, 05:03 PM
A franchise is judged upon the production and performance of the product they put on the field, not by some ledger regarding how departed players have produced since leaving the fold. What product is Wayne trotting out onto the field more than halfway through the 2nd year of his tenure?

Excellent post, Stormy. And just about how I feel.

The only questions in my mind is how long it should take a GM to show improvement in the club. My gut feeling is there already has been enough time though others disagree.

nate
07-30-2007, 05:22 PM
Ah, 2004!



Year Runs Games RPG
2007 547 106 5.16
2006 801 162 4.94
2005 889 162 5.49
2004 907 162 5.60
2003 886 162 5.47


Not great improvement by any means but improvement nevertheless.

You know, its OK if you want the Reds to be better quicker but to be quite honest, that's gonna take some jack and that's up to the owner to decide how much he wants to put out there.

camisadelgolf
07-30-2007, 08:56 PM
The statistics I posted obviously don't show that Way-K has put together a winning team. What it shows is that he had practically nothing to work with and that he has done a good job of recognizing when to part with and obtain players. The organization was in complete despair when he took over, and he's managed to turn it into something that will be a force to reckon with come 2009. Granted, you want to win now (all of us do), but when he took over right before spring training in 2006, it was completely unrealistic to think the Reds would be a first place team any time soon.

Let it be known that if the Reds are a below-.500 team in 2009, I'll eat a crow or my hat or whatever, but I really don't think that will happen. If you look at things from a wider perspective than RIGHT NOW, you'll see that he's got the most important players locked up at very reasonable prices for several years (Harang, Arroyo, Bruce, Votto, Bailey, Hamilton, Phillips, etc.), and that's not to mention that the farm system is, by far, the strongest it's been in decades (not that I'd give him 100% credit for that--but he does deserves some credit).

In 2009, Votto should be an improvement at first base. Josh Hamilton should be equal to or better than Adam Dunn in left field. Jay Bruce should be equal to or better than Ken Griffey (past his prime) in right field. The pitching and defense will be drastically improved (unless Homer Bailey is a complete bust). Meanwhile, the Reds would have about $20M available for free agents. I'm pretty excited about where this team is going, and a lot of that is due to Wayne Krivsky.

RedlegJake
07-30-2007, 10:07 PM
I'm in agreement with Camisadelgolf on the Krivsky issue. I don't think he really had jack to work with when he got here ESPECIALLY considering he wants a pitching and defense based team. That means a complete 180 from the power hitting outscore 'em squads that seemed to ignore defense completely and kept trying to build a pitching staff out of retreads and projects. I think WK has made some improvements but he's made some mistakes. He's a first time GM, he's gonna make some mistakes and considering the disarray this team was in, the pathetic shape of the farm system I think he's done a decent job. Not fantastic, but not bad, eoither. I too think its very realistic to think the Reds can be pennant contenders in 2009. Also, I do not want to jettison Krivsky for another reason. This whole organization needs stability and leadership and direction. Managerial/ownership and GM changes in the past few years keep the Reds bouncing from one philosophy to another, none of them strongly rooted before new changes came. Keep Krivsky at least through 2009 and give him a chance. Expecting quick, dramatic turnarounds and firing the top leadership when it doesn't happen is a recipe for a mess.

GAC
07-30-2007, 10:12 PM
I often wonder why people go overboard in supporting Krivsky.

No one, including myself has gone overboard in supporting Krivsky. Lets turn that around.....

I often wonder why people go overboard in bashing Krivsky? ;)


so I remain confused when we acquire people who have never done anything anywhere else and we always point to Brandon Phillips. Lightning in a bottle folks. It may never happen again.

Why only mention Phillips? That tells me you aren't even trying to be fair or objectionable at judging Krivsky's tenure.

As myself, and many others, have stated before (exhaustively).... Krivksy has made mistakes and questionable moves. It's unavoidable when you see the volume of moves he has made in the short time he has been our GM. What, about 1 1/2 year now?

You make it sound like he inherited a team that was somehow sound (top to bottom) and on the verge of something good, and he somehow has destroyed that. The season prior to his takeover (2005) the Reds finished 73-89, .451 winning %, and 27 games back in the NL Central.

What has been Krivsky's biggest "headache"? Pitching, and primarily the bullpen. Maybe you, and others, seem to think this is such an easily fixable problem?

I've stated before, and will continue to hold to the position that the Cincinnati Reds only hope of competing consistently, and in the long term, is to rebuild the farm system, and the structures that support that. In today's baseball environment and economy, that has to be a team, like the Reds, main objective and source of supply mixed with key free ageny acquisitions when the opportunity presents itself.

And the question you, and others, that love to rail on Krivsky, seem to avoid is "How long should any GM in this position, and looking at the state of this organization when he took over, be given to try and accomplish this?"

GAC
07-30-2007, 10:23 PM
all of the above just points out that no matter WK does or doesn't do at the deadline this team is still a long way from being a real contender. And that is the issue that few seem willing to admit.

Define "long way"?

I've stated before that if Cast/Kriv are the "real deal", and are able to do what needs to be done to turn this team around (top to bottom), then the earliest you're going to see, or should see, some positive steps is '09.

Why? I see acquisitions of guys like Hatteberg, Conine, and other vets, as simply "stopgap" players, filling holes, till certain younger players can develop. What else were they suppose to do in that situation when kids aren't yet ready? Kids like Votto, Bailey, and Bruce, and others, time to develop and move through the system.

We also have to get out from under bad, and untradeable contracts (Jr/Milton).

Lets say they trade away certain players prior to the deadline and acquire top level prospects. In other words, do the "rebuild". When should those prospects start making their impact on this team?

It takes time to develop those young prospects. Or should kids like Jay Bruce, who many believe he will be manning our OF, already be here?

I laugh when I hear people say we need to go young and do a rebuild, and then scream "It will be years before we see any results!"

Well "D'uh".

WVRedsFan
07-30-2007, 10:32 PM
GAC, as you probably didn't notice by my responses in this thread, I'm having a tough time with this and trying to see if my thinking on this since "the trade" is logical. I see a lot of reasons why it is. I might also point out that I have not been alone in these opinions. Some of RZ's finest have agreed with me. What I am doing now is trying to re-evaluate my position to see if I am not seeing everything. That's why I've asked so many questions in this thread.

I hate to lose. It's just part of my personna. And I hate to see an organization as proud as the Reds always have been be lowered to fighting with the Pittsburgh Pirates for next-to-last place. I don't see any improvement at this point. None. If we are truly going to improve the minors, many of us will be in our graves before the team wins again.

Now, I hope this won't happen and so I search for anyone who can tell me different, and you know what? I get venom. No rational discussion. Just basically, "go away Old Man, you're just negative." This is the new ORG? I just want proof that things are getting better at the level it should be 18-20 months into an administration.

I think I've become too bitter to be a Reds fan anymore and I think I might need a vacation from them and the New ORG. I'm not sure I can do that after 46 years. It gets in your blood.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2007, 10:40 PM
Real improvement doesn't crawl; it strides. And it comes from several quadrants.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2007, 10:43 PM
Oh, and as for Wayne having nothing to work with when he arrived, I'd say Dave Dombrowski had about half of that when he arrived in Detroit.

Team Clark
07-30-2007, 10:45 PM
Oh, and as for Wayne having nothing to work with when he arrived, I'd say Dave Dombrowski had about half of that when he arrived in Detroit.

That is an excellent point. Good work like that often goes unnoticed after you win.

paulrichjr
07-30-2007, 10:51 PM
I despised Krivs most of the first half of last year but even with this team being horrible I actually think he has made some major improvements. I have to give him a B right now for his work so far. He has made some incredible moves that he deserves credit for including: Phillips, Arroyo, and Hamilton.

On another note: Does anyone know of a situation where a guy like Jocketty is brought in to run the organization but a GM is retained? Isn't this similar to the way the D-Backs are run? I'm wondering this because I truly believe that Jocketty and LaRussa are on their way here next year. I'm just not so sure what is going to happen to Wayne in the process. I would be extremely disappointed if he were let go after less than 2 years on the job.

Ltlabner
07-30-2007, 11:20 PM
Now, I hope this won't happen and so I search for anyone who can tell me different, and you know what? I get venom. No rational discussion. Just basically, "go away Old Man, you're just negative." This is the new ORG? I just want proof that things are getting better at the level it should be 18-20 months into an administration. .

Venom? Where's the venom WVRedsFan? You asked a question and people are giving their opinions. Because people do not agree with your assement does not mean they think you should go away, or are an idiot or anything of the like. It's ok to disagree.

I see 3 pages of discussion from various view points. Some mearly subjective. Others with cold data. Some with both. There's been plenty of rational discussion.

You ask these questions a lot, but when someone answers in a manner you disagree with you then cry that people want you to shut up and everybody just loves Krivsky.

Serriously, I'm not trying to attack you, or be a jerk. But you asked the question and there's actually been some good discussion on this thread that's different than the 105 other "Grade Krivsky" threads. I guess I'm just confused as to what you expect people to say when you ask that sort of question.

Here's an excellent reply to one of your questions from Nate..


I can't answer because I don't agree with the premise of your question. I think we do have valuable players. But can we exchange our "strength" areas for our "growth" areas and expect a 75 point improvement of our winning percentage in the next 12 months?

Where's the venom or "go away old man" in that? :confused:

camisadelgolf
07-30-2007, 11:33 PM
Oh, and as for Wayne having nothing to work with when he arrived, I'd say Dave Dombrowski had about half of that when he arrived in Detroit.

I don't understand why you'd bring up Dombrowski, but I'll go ahead and compare anyway.

Dombrowski took over after 2002, and in his first two seasons as GM, the Tigers won 115 games. During Krivsky's tenure so far (which covers less than two years), the Reds have already won 125 games.

Dombrowski took over in 2002 and had four offseasons to tinker with the Tigers' roster before the Tigers won a pennant. Krivsky, for all intensive purposes, has had one. He took over right before spring training of 2006, and if he has the same success as Dombrowski, Krivsky's Reds should win a pennant in 2009 or 2010. As a side note, before Dombrowski took over, the Tigers had much earlier draft picks, which should have made it easier for them to draft better players.

And while I'm digressing, supposedly the Detroit Tigers farm system isn't looking too good right now. Although the Reds' system is middle of the pack, it's been rapidly climbing since Krivsky took over.

If Wayne Krivsky has near the success as Dave Dombrowski, I think everyone will be happy, but what Dave Dombrowski did was historic, and it would be unrealistic to expect the same from Krivsky. With that said, I don't think Wayne Krivsky's pace is too far off.

sonny
07-30-2007, 11:43 PM
Venom? Where's the venom WVRedsFan? You asked a question and people are giving their opinions. Because people do not agree with your assement does not mean they think you should go away, or are an idiot or anything of the like. It's ok to disagree.

I see 3 pages of discussion from various view points. Some mearly subjective. Others with cold data. Some with both. There's been plenty of rational discussion.

You ask these questions a lot, but when someone answers in a manner you disagree with you then cry that people want you to shut up and everybody just loves Krivsky.

Serriously, I'm not trying to attack you, or be a jerk. But you asked the question and there's actually been some good discussion on this thread that's different than the 105 other "Grade Krivsky" threads. I guess I'm just confused as to what you expect people to say when you ask that sort of question.

Here's an excellent reply to one of your questions from Nate..



Where's the venom or "go away old man" in that? :confused:

What he said. This particular thread has been a very enjoyable read. I'm enjoying the debate as well as the occasional airing of grievances. In other words: This site is the bomb.(to use today's youthful vernacular)

Stormy
07-30-2007, 11:51 PM
I think I've become too bitter to be a Reds fan anymore and I think I might need a vacation from them and the New ORG. I'm not sure I can do that after 46 years. It gets in your blood.

No way you're going anywhere, buddy! Frankly any Reds fan who doesn't have some healthy skepticism about the nature of the emperor's clothes after a decade of almost utter futility might not be the most discerning fan in the first place. We can't blur the lines between previous regimes and Krivsky's tenure, and in fairness the man deserves some time to rebuild an organization in shambles.

However, when I look at the objective criteria at hand to make some 'early return' types of judgements regarding Krivsky's designs, I tend to find 4 or 5 inconsistent or incoherent moves to offset each diamond in the rough find.

I couldn't be happier with the Arroyo trade, or the fliers taken on Phillips and Hamilton, but that's not 18 months of reconstruction (and 2 of those moves took place 16 months ago). I don't see a positive trend in Krivsky's trades, in the type of personnel he targets in F.A., in his ability to design an offense, in his ability to construct a bullpen or bench, in his evaluation of pitching talent, in his handling of a prized prospect like Bailey, in his allocation of our budget in terms of his offseason spending on Gonzo or the vets he targets for the 'pen, in his estimation of whether a team is in contention or rebuilding mode at the '06 deadline or in the '07 offseason, in his skill at actually finding the type of defense he allegedly covets, in his inability to articulate or demonstrate any type of cohesive overall organizational plan... and the list could go on.

Basically, at this juncture Krivsky's advocates stand by the fact that he a.) hasn't touched any of the farms crown jewels (by that standard DanO was a successful GM as well given his inactivity) and b.) he's really had an eye for salvage projects like BP and Hamilton. Otherwise, I'm not seeing what he's accomplished to this juncture. I'm willing to give Krivsky more time, but I expected him to be very active in remaking this team at the '07 deadline...

WVRedsFan
07-31-2007, 01:21 AM
Venom? Where's the venom WVRedsFan? You asked a question and people are giving their opinions. Because people do not agree with your assement does not mean they think you should go away, or are an idiot or anything of the like. It's ok to disagree.

I see 3 pages of discussion from various view points. Some mearly subjective. Others with cold data. Some with both. There's been plenty of rational discussion.

You ask these questions a lot, but when someone answers in a manner you disagree with you then cry that people want you to shut up and everybody just loves Krivsky.

Serriously, I'm not trying to attack you, or be a jerk. But you asked the question and there's actually been some good discussion on this thread that's different than the 105 other "Grade Krivsky" threads. I guess I'm just confused as to what you expect people to say when you ask that sort of question.

Here's an excellent reply to one of your questions from Nate..



Where's the venom or "go away old man" in that? :confused:


Nowhere. But I was not specifically talking about responses to me either. This board is split between those who want to give Krivsky a chance at another year and those who want him to just go. There are few in the middle, but not many. That's the key.

I base my evaluation only on results and others base it on how hard a job it is and is going to be. Regardless, I haven't changed my mind and neither have others, so it's not prudent to continue arguing the same points over and over, so I quit.

Let's look at this situation at Spring Training next year and see where we are. Hopefully, it will be better, but I'm not putting any money on it.

harangatang
07-31-2007, 01:41 AM
Oh, and as for Wayne having nothing to work with when he arrived, I'd say Dave Dombrowski had about half of that when he arrived in Detroit.Yep, it's hard believe that only 4 years ago a half-packed Comerica Park on the last day of the season celebrated not breaking the modern day 120 game loss record. Last year the Tigers made it the WS and are doing pretty well again this year, 60-44 and in first is nothing to be ashamed about.

Ltlabner
07-31-2007, 07:31 AM
I base my evaluation only on results and others base it on how hard a job it is and is going to be. Regardless, I haven't changed my mind and neither have others, so it's not prudent to continue arguing the same points over and over, so I quit..

Well, if you decide to quit the discussion that's your call (obviously). However, if "aruging the same points over and over" is the criterion for leaving we'd all have to leave RZ ! :laugh:

I can definatley appreicate everyone who bases their opinion of the GM strictly on results. I guess my follow up question is then, what do you define as results? Is it strictly W/L ? Is there some other concrete measuring stick?

If your measurment stick is W/L, when does a GM become deserving of being fired? Is it the first game the team loses? Is it the first losing streak greater than 3 games? Is it the first week where L outnumber W ? If it's really all about "results" (as if my side of the table isn't :rolleyes: )then when are those results not tolerable?

If your reply includes anything about how we've stunk for 7 years and you'd like to see something different then I'd respectfully ask you to consider this. What on earth did Krivsky have to do with us sucking canal water in 2002? What moves did he make that resulted in a disasterous 2004 campaign?

BuckeyeRedleg
07-31-2007, 09:26 AM
No way you're going anywhere, buddy! Frankly any Reds fan who doesn't have some healthy skepticism about the nature of the emperor's clothes after a decade of almost utter futility might not be the most discerning fan in the first place. We can't blur the lines between previous regimes and Krivsky's tenure, and in fairness the man deserves some time to rebuild an organization in shambles.

However, when I look at the objective criteria at hand to make some 'early return' types of judgements regarding Krivsky's designs, I tend to find 4 or 5 inconsistent or incoherent moves to offset each diamond in the rough find.

I couldn't be happier with the Arroyo trade, or the fliers taken on Phillips and Hamilton, but that's not 18 months of reconstruction (and 2 of those moves took place 16 months ago). I don't see a positive trend in Krivsky's trades, in the type of personnel he targets in F.A., in his ability to design an offense, in his ability to construct a bullpen or bench, in his evaluation of pitching talent, in his handling of a prized prospect like Bailey, in his allocation of our budget in terms of his offseason spending on Gonzo or the vets he targets for the 'pen, in his estimation of whether a team is in contention or rebuilding mode at the '06 deadline or in the '07 offseason, in his skill at actually finding the type of defense he allegedly covets, in his inability to articulate or demonstrate any type of cohesive overall organizational plan... and the list could go on.

Basically, at this juncture Krivsky's advocates stand by the fact that he a.) hasn't touched any of the farms crown jewels (by that standard DanO was a successful GM as well given his inactivity) and b.) he's really had an eye for salvage projects like BP and Hamilton. Otherwise, I'm not seeing what he's accomplished to this juncture. I'm willing to give Krivsky more time, but I expected him to be very active in remaking this team at the '07 deadline...

As always, what he said.

redsmetz
07-31-2007, 09:37 AM
I'm in agreement with Camisadelgolf on the Krivsky issue. I don't think he really had jack to work with when he got here ESPECIALLY considering he wants a pitching and defense based team. That means a complete 180 from the power hitting outscore 'em squads that seemed to ignore defense completely and kept trying to build a pitching staff out of retreads and projects. I think WK has made some improvements but he's made some mistakes. He's a first time GM, he's gonna make some mistakes and considering the disarray this team was in, the pathetic shape of the farm system I think he's done a decent job. Not fantastic, but not bad, eoither. I too think its very realistic to think the Reds can be pennant contenders in 2009. Also, I do not want to jettison Krivsky for another reason. This whole organization needs stability and leadership and direction. Managerial/ownership and GM changes in the past few years keep the Reds bouncing from one philosophy to another, none of them strongly rooted before new changes came. Keep Krivsky at least through 2009 and give him a chance. Expecting quick, dramatic turnarounds and firing the top leadership when it doesn't happen is a recipe for a mess.

I've been beating this drum for a while. Again, I look at the Detroit model (no, not the Edsel!) and figure that a "Tigerzone" would have thrown him overboard ages ago.

None of this is to say that Wayne is perfect; he acknowledged as much yesterday, but I think it's driving folks nuts that he's taciturn when it comes to personnel moves (and taciturn might make him too talkative :)). It's the polar opposite of the rumor spreading Jim Bowden and the loquacious Dan O'Brien, but I think it's the better course.

We'll see after today, won't we?

joe

wheels
07-31-2007, 09:54 AM
Count me as one of the fence sitters....How couldn't I be?

For every good move he makes, he makes an equally awful move. I also feel that he's got more of a chance of stumbling onto something good than did DanO.

I will say this: If he goes and makes another trade with the Nats, or trades Dunn away for more bullpen arms, or simply does nothing today, you can count me as another dissatisfied customer to be sure.

The way I see it, this is Wayne's final litmus test.

GAC
07-31-2007, 10:01 AM
Oh, and as for Wayne having nothing to work with when he arrived, I'd say Dave Dombrowski had about half of that when he arrived in Detroit.

No one, including myself, said Wayne had nothing. Those are your words, not mine.

But show us what he did have to work with, and where he somehow "tore that down"?

And what camisadelgolf just stated(below), hit the nail on the head concerning your attempted Dombrowshi/Krivsky analogy.

And I would also note that when he took over in 2002, the Tiger's payroll was 55 Mil. It is now 95 Mil. So when you have the money to spend, while also not saddled under some bad guaranteed contracts, like the Reds have been, to the tune of 20 in just two players, that does help.


I don't understand why you'd bring up Dombrowski, but I'll go ahead and compare anyway.

Dombrowski took over after 2002, and in his first two seasons as GM, the Tigers won 115 games. During Krivsky's tenure so far (which covers less than two years), the Reds have already won 125 games.

Dombrowski took over in 2002 and had four offseasons to tinker with the Tigers' roster before the Tigers won a pennant. Krivsky, for all intensive purposes, has had one. He took over right before spring training of 2006, and if he has the same success as Dombrowski, Krivsky's Reds should win a pennant in 2009 or 2010. As a side note, before Dombrowski took over, the Tigers had much earlier draft picks, which should have made it easier for them to draft better players.

And while I'm digressing, supposedly the Detroit Tigers farm system isn't looking too good right now. Although the Reds' system is middle of the pack, it's been rapidly climbing since Krivsky took over.

If Wayne Krivsky has near the success as Dave Dombrowski, I think everyone will be happy, but what Dave Dombrowski did was historic, and it would be unrealistic to expect the same from Krivsky. With that said, I don't think Wayne Krivsky's pace is too far off.

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 01:10 PM
And I would also note that when he took over in 2002, the Tiger's payroll was 55 Mil. It is now 95 Mil. So when you have the money to spend, while also not saddled under some bad guaranteed contracts, like the Reds have been, to the tune of 20 in just two players, that does help.

I'm pretty sure that you are referring to Jr's contract as one of these "bad" ones. WK better be thanking his lucky stars that Griffey is on the roster, or the team might be 40 games out.

I guess my biggest concern with the current regime is whether or not Wayne has earned the right to be in charge for another year or two. How long is enough time? We could wait another few years and wake up one day to find out we all root for the new laughingstock of baseball.

No one expected Wayne to have this team in first place at this point...but I think some of us expected this team to have a brighter future than they do now. I just don't see this team making the necessary strides to become a contender. WK talks a big game when it comes to pitching but has done almost nothing in that realm for 1.5 years. That is my worry.

RBA
08-01-2007, 01:16 PM
With only jettisoning off one mediorce pitcher by the trading deadline, I'm going to have to place the blame on BCast. I think WK has been directed who to trade and not to trade.

Cedric
08-01-2007, 01:22 PM
With only jettisoning off one mediorce pitcher by the trading deadline, I'm going to have to place the blame on BCast. I think WK has been directed who to trade and not to trade.

Well that's probably because Wayne is still selling him a bill of goods. He convinced Bob that we were close last year. The Reds "competing" last year was a terrible thing for the future of this franchise and many predicted that. Wayne couldn't go back now and admit he was terribly wrong and ask to trade anyone with ability.

wheels
08-01-2007, 01:23 PM
Well that's probably because Wayne is still selling him a bill of goods. He convinced Bob that we were close last year. The Reds "competing" last year was a terrible thing for the future of this franchise and many predicted that. Wayne couldn't go back now and admit he was terribly wrong and ask to trade anyone with ability.

I never thought of it like that.

red-in-la
08-01-2007, 02:10 PM
I ran into the guy who told me a few week ago that Dunn was a lock to be an Angel. He claims that it was Krivsky who backed out.....and that the Reds (in his humble opinion) had REALLY blown this one.

That is all I have on this.....I wish he knew what ML pitchers were supposed to come to the Reds, but he had no real clue.

I believe that trying to grade Krivsky at this point is like trying to taste a cake while the mix is still in the box.

westofyou
08-01-2007, 02:32 PM
I ran into the guy who told me a few week ago that Dunn was a lock to be an Angel.

I ran into a guy on Market Street on Monday who told me he built the Great Wall of China.

Looks like both guys were off the mark.

flyer85
08-01-2007, 02:32 PM
Who knows what was really offered for certain players.

What we do know is that the market at the deadline for the last few years has been a buyers market.

I honestly don't have a problem with WK doing nothing if the alternative was getting back mostly non-prospects. And I say that with a full realization of what dire circumstances the Reds are in moving into the future.

Red Leader
08-01-2007, 02:57 PM
My whole problem with this whole thing is that there is and never was "a plan."

Everyone on this board comes up with "plans" for the Reds to get better. Is it so much to ask that the Reds front office do the same?

We've been hearing for years "pick out your core players, and build around them while they are cheap." Heck, I remember hearing "build this team around Griffey, Dunn and Kearns." What happened? Nothing. Well, I'm not sure of nothing, but generally, nothing. They tried to speed up the process and add major league "talent" to that core as they noticed it was getting older and their window was closing. They extended Casey and added Eric Milton. It wasn't good enough and they had no more money to add other players. So they watched Adam Dunn get more expensive and dealt away Casey, FeLo and Kearns because they, too, were getting more expensive. Now, we've "outgrown" Adam Dunn. He's now "too expensive" to keep on this roster with Jr, Harang and Arroyo. We've got Bailey, Cueto, Votto and Bruce not too far away. What I think we should have done is deal the expensive guys and try to get guys back on a similar career path as Bailey, Cueto, Votto, and Bruce (ie, the "now" core). I realize there is still time to do this. We can trade Harang and Arroyo at any time since they are extended out to 2010 (2011 with options). We don't have that luxury with Adam Dunn. We have him for one more year, at best. If you take draft picks for Adam Dunn, they are behind the "now core" time frame, not adding to it. If you center your core around the Bailey, Cueto, Votto, Bruce time frame, now is the time to lock up Brandon Phillips long term. Now is the time to lock up EE to a long term deal, or trade him for and identify another 3B as your "now core" third baseman. Hamilton also fits in with the "now core". All of those guys are affordable on the time frame that the "now core" should be making an impact. Add to them. And for God's sake don't add more veterans that add nothing to that "now core." Players that aren't going to have any impact on the "now core," trade them (ie Weathers, Dunn, Jr., Ross, Stanton, Coffey, etc).

I'm just worried that in 5 years we'll have seen 5 more losing seasons. Brandon Phillips, Hamilton, Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Bailey and others will be approaching the Adam Dunn "getting too expensive to keep." And we'll still be spinning our wheels figuring out who to build around, who to keep, and why vets weren't moved to improve for the future. It seems like a viscous cycle to me. It's been this way for 4-5 years already and no improvements appear imminent. It makes me mad when I see opportunities to improve for the future (ie, adding players to that "now core" that could be helpful) and those opportunities continue to be wasted. I just want to see someone come in with an intelligent plan to put this organization back on track. So far, I've seen the same thing over and over. And it doesn't work.

red-in-la
08-01-2007, 03:07 PM
I ran into a guy on Market Street on Monday who told me he built the Great Wall of China.

Looks like both guys were off the mark.

And I don't like RZ'ers who have nothing better to do than take pot shots at other posters......

Grow up WOY and take your attacks somewhere else.....:thumbdown

pedro
08-01-2007, 03:36 PM
My whole problem with this whole thing is that there is and never was "a plan."



I don't think it's fair to say they don't have a plan just because they haven't printed it in the newspaper the way that Mark Shapiro did. Other than that I have never read a detailed plan from any team in the majors. I think you're falling prey to false expectations created by the loud clamor of RZ. Now maybe they don't have a good plan, but they have a plan, every team does. Most teams just don't share it with the public.

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 03:50 PM
I don't think it's fair to say they don't have a plan just because they haven't printed it in the newspaper the way that Mark Shapiro did. Other than that I have never read a detailed plan from any team in the majors. I think you're falling prey to false expectations created by the loud clamor of RZ. Now maybe they don't have a good plan, but they have a plan, every team does. Most teams just don't share it with the public.

I don't think anyone expects Wayne to lay out the blueprints on the table for all to see. But usually a team's "plan" is pretty evident. I just can't see what Wayne is trying to accomplish. If I didn't know any better, judging by all of his moves since he's gotten here, my guess is that Wayne actually thinks this team is close. And that's the scariest of them all, since they are nowhere near close. Since it is such an outrageous fantasy, I just don't think that it is Wayne's "plan" and, therefore, I must be wrong and there must be something else.

bucksfan2
08-01-2007, 04:17 PM
My whole problem with this whole thing is that there is and never was "a plan."

Everyone on this board comes up with "plans" for the Reds to get better. Is it so much to ask that the Reds front office do the same?

We've been hearing for years "pick out your core players, and build around them while they are cheap." Heck, I remember hearing "build this team around Griffey, Dunn and Kearns." What happened? Nothing. Well, I'm not sure of nothing, but generally, nothing. They tried to speed up the process and add major league "talent" to that core as they noticed it was getting older and their window was closing. They extended Casey and added Eric Milton. It wasn't good enough and they had no more money to add other players. So they watched Adam Dunn get more expensive and dealt away Casey, FeLo and Kearns because they, too, were getting more expensive. Now, we've "outgrown" Adam Dunn. He's now "too expensive" to keep on this roster with Jr, Harang and Arroyo. We've got Bailey, Cueto, Votto and Bruce not too far away. What I think we should have done is deal the expensive guys and try to get guys back on a similar career path as Bailey, Cueto, Votto, and Bruce (ie, the "now" core). I realize there is still time to do this. We can trade Harang and Arroyo at any time since they are extended out to 2010 (2011 with options). We don't have that luxury with Adam Dunn. We have him for one more year, at best. If you take draft picks for Adam Dunn, they are behind the "now core" time frame, not adding to it. If you center your core around the Bailey, Cueto, Votto, Bruce time frame, now is the time to lock up Brandon Phillips long term. Now is the time to lock up EE to a long term deal, or trade him for and identify another 3B as your "now core" third baseman. Hamilton also fits in with the "now core". All of those guys are affordable on the time frame that the "now core" should be making an impact. Add to them. And for God's sake don't add more veterans that add nothing to that "now core." Players that aren't going to have any impact on the "now core," trade them (ie Weathers, Dunn, Jr., Ross, Stanton, Coffey, etc).

I'm just worried that in 5 years we'll have seen 5 more losing seasons. Brandon Phillips, Hamilton, Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Bailey and others will be approaching the Adam Dunn "getting too expensive to keep." And we'll still be spinning our wheels figuring out who to build around, who to keep, and why vets weren't moved to improve for the future. It seems like a viscous cycle to me. It's been this way for 4-5 years already and no improvements appear imminent. It makes me mad when I see opportunities to improve for the future (ie, adding players to that "now core" that could be helpful) and those opportunities continue to be wasted. I just want to see someone come in with an intelligent plan to put this organization back on track. So far, I've seen the same thing over and over. And it doesn't work.

I disagree with you. I see a plan. Plans aren't implemented over night and they need time to mature. The reds did trade Casey, Lopez, and Kearns and as of now have players playing in those positions who are more productive and cheaper. I think the biggest gripe that most people have about trading those players away is that they were thought more highly of because they were fan favorites.

When I see the reds sign both Harang and Arroyo to contract extentions I see a plan. When I see a core group of people of Phillips, Edwin, and Hamlton and see the likes of Bailey, Cueto, Bruce, and Votto on the horizon I see a young core of players that should help the club. The biggest key for the current reds is not to hamstring the club financially with a poor contract. If the reds down do that they may have a competitive club late next season and into the future.

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 04:23 PM
I disagree with you. I see a plan. Plans aren't implemented over night and they need time to mature. The reds did trade Casey, Lopez, and Kearns and as of now have players playing in those positions who are more productive and cheaper. I think the biggest gripe that most people have about trading those players away is that they were thought more highly of because they were fan favorites.

When I see the reds sign both Harang and Arroyo to contract extentions I see a plan. When I see a core group of people of Phillips, Edwin, and Hamlton and see the likes of Bailey, Cueto, Bruce, and Votto on the horizon I see a young core of players that should help the club. The biggest key for the current reds is not to hamstring the club financially with a poor contract. If the reds down do that they may have a competitive club late next season and into the future.

Most of those players would still be part of "the plan", even if Krusty the Clown were the GM.

westofyou
08-01-2007, 05:24 PM
And I don't like RZ'ers who have nothing better to do than take pot shots at other posters......

Grow up WOY and take your attacks somewhere else.....:thumbdown
Get some humor... or better yet, get some better rumors.

flyer85
08-01-2007, 06:02 PM
Plans aren't implemented over night and they need time to mature. Hopefully the maturation will yield a fine wine ... instead of compost. :D

Eric_Davis
08-01-2007, 06:20 PM
Bowden a D+

O'Brien a C- (good minor league changes) Didn't get much time to see what he could ultimately achieve, good or bad.

Krivsky a C+ (not enough movement at the trade deadline for a last place team) Also, hasn't had much time yet to see what he ultimately can achieve. One year from now would be a much better time to give him a fair grade. Just like you can't really judge a college coach until the freshman class he recruited has become seniors, you need to give a G.M. at least 4 years to see what the talent he has drafted and traded for has turned into throughout the organization. ( You can fairly judge for now that Marvin Lewis is not a savior, nor is he a defensive guru, or even an average defensive coach at that, nor a good judge of talent for drafts (all the bad seeds he's drafted, and going with Chris Perry instead of Steven Jackson) as the Bengals trudge their way to another .500 season. I'd get another coach if the Bengals miss the playoffs this year. Chad Johnson turns 30 in January. The Bengals need a different coach to take them to the next level.)

WVRedsFan
08-01-2007, 06:24 PM
I disagree with you. I see a plan. Plans aren't implemented over night and they need time to mature.

I listened to two motivational speakers today who would disagree with you. I'm at a conference today in which the invitees are people sitting on boards of directors in a certain industry. Two speakers talked on strategic planning and how you can tell if there is a plan in place or not.

In both cases, the speakers said, if there was a plan in place it was evident from the beginning because of its consistency and the obvious sense of purpose of those implementing the plan. One of the speakers even mentioned the Reds and the mixed signals they have put out over the years. The conclusion was that if there was a plan there, it certainly was not evident and there was no evidence to say there was.

Red Leader
08-01-2007, 06:29 PM
Honestly, I truly think there is a plan. The problem is, I think the plan changes from week to week or month to month depending on how the major league team is playing, thus the result is, there's no plan at all.

wheels
08-01-2007, 06:37 PM
I listened to two motivational speakers today who would disagree with you. I'm at a conference today in which the invitees are people sitting on boards of directors in a certain industry. Two speakers talked on strategic planning and how you can tell if there is a plan in place or not.

In both cases, the speakers said, if there was a plan in place it was evident from the beginning because of its consistency and the obvious sense of purpose of those implementing the plan. One of the speakers even mentioned the Reds and the mixed signals they have put out over the years. The conclusion was that if there was a plan there, it certainly was not evident and there was no evidence to say there was.


Could you even think of anything other than baseball after they said that?

I know I'd be thinking and muttering and stuff.

That's what I was doing yesterday anyway....Just grumbling, and a customer had the gall to say he wished they'd have traded Dunn. The guy's a regular, and he was just trying to wind me up, but I really had to bite the 'ol tongue.

WVRedsFan
08-01-2007, 06:41 PM
Could you even think of anything other than baseball after they said that?

I know I'd be thinking and muttering and stuff.

That's what I was doing yesterday anyway....Just grumbling, and a customer had the gall to say he wished they'd have traded Dunn. The guy's a regular, and he was just trying to wind me up, but I really had to bite the 'ol tongue.

I couldn't. It was obvious that not only the members of RZ, but also most of America can't see a plan.

And like you, I had to bite my tongue a lot last night and today.

camisadelgolf
08-01-2007, 06:43 PM
I think the "plan" is to convince the Cincinnati public that the Reds are close to being contenders in an effort to keep their interest until 2009, when the Reds finally go all out and put together a real contender.

Stormy
08-01-2007, 07:17 PM
I don't think it's fair to say they don't have a plan just because they haven't printed it in the newspaper the way that Mark Shapiro did. Other than that I have never read a detailed plan from any team in the majors. I think you're falling prey to false expectations created by the loud clamor of RZ. Now maybe they don't have a good plan, but they have a plan, every team does. Most teams just don't share it with the public.



A 'demonstrated' plan is both readily apparent, and speaks volumes beyond the rare occasions where a Front Office puts a written blueprint on display (A's, Red Sox, Indians etc...). I'm not going to waste everyone's time by again reciting the innumerable examples I believe I see of Krivsky moving in conflicting, seemingly mutually exclusive directions at every turn of his tenure so far. I'm sure that the man has principles he adheres to, and a prototype for what he looks for on offense, defense, pitching, and overall roster, but that's not synonymous with having (and adhering to) a coherent, consistent overriding plan.

When I see moves designed to 'win now' on a team whose peripherals indicate they are a well below .500 club, I don't think of adherence to a well designed plan. When I see money, resources and personnel spent on veteran stragglers repeatedly in the bullpen or elsewhere, until the roof collapsing finally compels that the youngsters be given an audition (and they then outperform most of the vets), I don't see a systematic design at work. When I see the organization's crown jewel overpromoted just for the sake of distracting activity on a last place team, I don't think of a GM serving a plan in the best interest of the future of this team (even as he fails to move a 43 year old 1B to allow some ABs to a much more advanced prospect in preparation of 2008).

Can you ascertain if we're moving towards youth being served, as so many moves, and inactivity has countered any type of move towards a youthful core. Take away the fliers turned gold on Phillips and Hamilton, and Krivsky's transactions would actually be a move in the opposite direction: the collection of a group of mostly castoff veteran roster fillers with little else to show 2 seasons into the job. Where are we headed?

What is visible of Krivsky's 'plan' in terms of his F.A. targets, trades, roster construction, evaluation of pitching and defense etc... is an abysmal mess in my opinion. I could be wrong, but that's my take on Krivsky's incoherent thrashing about.

Aronchis
08-01-2007, 07:19 PM
I think the "plan" is to convince the Cincinnati public that the Reds are close to being contenders in an effort to keep their interest until 2009, when the Reds finally go all out and put together a real contender.

The problem is, they don't have a plan to "go all out". It all depends on the Bailey's,Cueto's,Bruce's,Votto's,Pelland's and Fisher's to make something happen and fill in holes.

Basically prey.

wheels
08-01-2007, 08:34 PM
I've basically given up on the guy.

While I was critical of some moves, I still held out hope that the proverbial light would click on, making him realize decisive action was needed. I was willing to accept that his plan could differ from what I think is the right course, and I felt maybe he did have something in mind that would actually, ya know, work.

Heck, short of ham handed Dunn trade, I was prepared to embrace his deadline dealings. I was confident that he would turn some of the aging vets over, even if for just some guys to fill the minor league pipeline. I am happy with his return on Lohse, for example.

But why oh why didn't he use that momentum to jettison the flotsam and jetsam?

It's inactivity at a time when action is sorely needed that I can't stomach. I really don't know how Bob Castellini can be comfortable with Wayne Krivsky at the helm right now.

pedro
08-01-2007, 09:04 PM
A 'demonstrated' plan is both readily apparent, and speaks volumes beyond the rare occasions where a Front Office puts a written blueprint on display (A's, Red Sox, Indians etc...). I'm not going to waste everyone's time by again reciting the innumerable examples I believe I see of Krivsky moving in conflicting, seemingly mutually exclusive directions at every turn of his tenure so far. I'm sure that the man has principles he adheres to, and a prototype for what he looks for on offense, defense, pitching, and overall roster, but that's not synonymous with having (and adhering to) a coherent, consistent overriding plan.

When I see moves designed to 'win now' on a team whose peripherals indicate they are a well below .500 club, I don't think of adherence to a well designed plan. When I see money, resources and personnel spent on veteran stragglers repeatedly in the bullpen or elsewhere, until the roof collapsing finally compels that the youngsters be given an audition (and they then outperform most of the vets), I don't see a systematic design at work. When I see the organization's crown jewel overpromoted just for the sake of distracting activity on a last place team, I don't think of a GM serving a plan in the best interest of the future of this team (even as he fails to move a 43 year old 1B to allow some ABs to a much more advanced prospect in preparation of 2008).

Can you ascertain if we're moving towards youth being served, as so many moves, and inactivity has countered any type of move towards a youthful core. Take away the fliers turned gold on Phillips and Hamilton, and Krivsky's transactions would actually be a move in the opposite direction: the collection of a group of mostly castoff veteran roster fillers with little else to show 2 seasons into the job. Where are we headed?

What is visible of Krivsky's 'plan' in terms of his F.A. targets, trades, roster construction, evaluation of pitching and defense etc... is an abysmal mess in my opinion. I could be wrong, but that's my take on Krivsky's incoherent thrashing about.

I think the plan was to try and be marginally competitive this year while waiting for prospects to develop and shoot for a window of 2008-2009. Many of his stop gap moves haven't panned out too well and the team has played poorly. That happens in baseball sometimes. Regardless, I fail to see what he really could have done to make the Reds all that much better than they are this year, especially when players like Encarnacion, Ross, and Freel have been so abysmal. Personally I am beginning to think that pressure from Castellini is the main impediment to any bold action taking place as it appears that he wants to win immediately and doesn't have the patience to accept that building a winning foundation takes time. I fully expect at this point for Bob to fire Wayne after the season and then just like his brethren here at RZ demand that the new guy fix the ship immediately.

Red Leader
08-01-2007, 10:25 PM
I think the plan was to try and be marginally competitive this year while waiting for prospects to develop and shoot for a window of 2008-2009. Many of his stop gap moves haven't panned out too well and the team has played poorly. That happens in baseball sometimes. Regardless, I fail to see what he really could have done to make the Reds all that much better than they are this year, especially when players like Encarnacion, Ross, and Freel have been so abysmal. Personally I am beginning to think that pressure from Castellini is the main impediment to any bold action taking place as it appears that he wants to win immediately and doesn't have the patience to accept that building a winning foundation takes time. I fully expect at this point for Bob to fire Wayne after the season and then just like his brethren here at RZ demand that the new guy fix the ship immediately.


I'm hoping the owner will hire a GM that will come in here and not be afraid to make some drastic changes almost immediately. Get it right for a change. Don't hire some ultra conservative GM that is almost scared to shake things up. Krivsky has been kind of tied on what he has to work with, I can't deny that. He's inherited Eric Milton and Ken Griffey Jr's huge contracts, and Adam Dunn's ballooning salary as well. That's not an easy situation to walk into, especially when for pretty much the whole term of his time as the GM the major contracts couldn't be moved because of injury and/or performance, and moving the other contract would make his team severely worse. He hasn't had an easy job by any stretch of the imagination. Still, drastic changes were required when he took the job. He inherited a pretty bad team. He made a couple good pickups in Arroyo, Phillips and Hamilton. What he didn't do is allow the younger players the opportunity to develop and improve and wasted a lot of resouces and time on players that had no business taking up roster spots on this team. The result of all of that is that not only has the team not gotten better, they've gotten worse. And still, drastic changes need to be made for this team to be competitive again.

Aronchis
08-01-2007, 10:33 PM
I think the plan was to try and be marginally competitive this year while waiting for prospects to develop and shoot for a window of 2008-2009. Many of his stop gap moves haven't panned out too well and the team has played poorly. That happens in baseball sometimes. Regardless, I fail to see what he really could have done to make the Reds all that much better than they are this year, especially when players like Encarnacion, Ross, and Freel have been so abysmal. Personally I am beginning to think that pressure from Castellini is the main impediment to any bold action taking place as it appears that he wants to win immediately and doesn't have the patience to accept that building a winning foundation takes time. I fully expect at this point for Bob to fire Wayne after the season and then just like his brethren here at RZ demand that the new guy fix the ship immediately.

I agree. It starts at top with Cast. Remember, he was turned down by younger more "hip" GM's before he hired Krivsky. I don't see any of them being overly attracted right now.

camisadelgolf
08-02-2007, 12:56 AM
The problem is, they don't have a plan to "go all out". It all depends on the Bailey's,Cueto's,Bruce's,Votto's,Pelland's and Fisher's to make something happen and fill in holes.

Basically prey.

If only Homer Bailey, Joey Votto, Josh Hamilton, and Jay Bruce come close to fulfilling their potential, they'll replace Belisle, Hattenine, Dunn, and Griffey for several million dollars less while losing none of the production (in fact, there's a very good chance production would be improved). With those four replacements, the Reds can keep the rest of the team intact while having about $20M available for free agency.

In other words, what I'm saying is that in 2009, you could expect the Reds to put a better-than-2007 team on the field (because a few of the prospects will have come to fruition by then) while having several million dollars available for free agents.

wheels
08-02-2007, 02:25 AM
If only Homer Bailey, Joey Votto, Josh Hamilton, and Jay Bruce come close to fulfilling their potential, they'll replace Belisle, Hattenine, Dunn, and Griffey for several million dollars less while losing none of the production (in fact, there's a very good chance production would be improved). With those four replacements, the Reds can keep the rest of the team intact while having about $20M available for free agency.

In other words, what I'm saying is that in 2009, you could expect the Reds to put a better-than-2007 team on the field (because a few of the prospects will have come to fruition by then) while having several million dollars available for free agents.

I hope you're right, and I'll add to that.

I hope they have someone in charge that can steward the team in a more prudent manner as well.

camisadelgolf
08-23-2007, 05:37 AM
REDS LINEUP INHERITED CURRENT LINEUP
2005 2007
C Jason LaRue C David Ross
1B Sean Casey 1B Scott Hatteberg
2B Rich Aurilia 2B Brandon Phillips
3B Joe Randa 3B Edwin Encarnacion
SS Felipe Lopez SS Alex Gonzalez
LF Adam Dunn LF Adam Dunn
CF Ken Griffey CF Josh Hamilton
RF Austin Kearns RF Ken Griffey

REDS ROTATION INHERITED CURRENT ROTATION
SP Aaron Harang SP Aaron Harang
SP Eric Milton SP Bronson Arroyo
SP Ramon Ortiz SP Matt Belisle
SP Brandon Claussen SP Bobby Livingston
SP Luke Hudson SP Elizardo Ramirez

REDS BULLPEN INHERITED CURRENT BULLPEN
CL David Weathers CL David Weathers
RP Kent Mercker RP Mike Stanton/Eddie Guardado
RP Todd Coffey RP Todd Coffey
RP Matt Belisle RP Bill Bray
RP Ryan Wagner RP Jared Burton
RP Brian Shackelford RP Jon Coutlangus

REDS LINEUP INHERITED CURRENT LINEUP
C Dane Sardinha C Ryan Jorgensen
1B A.J. Zapp 1B Joey Votto
2B William Bergolla 2B Aaron Herr
3B Edwin Encarnacion 3B Paul Janish
SS Jeff Bannon SS Anderson Machado
OF Chris Denorfia OF Jeff Bannon
OF Pedro Swann OF Chris Dickerson
OF Kenny Kelly OF Jay Bruce

REDS ROTATION INHERITED CURRENT ROTATION
SP Elizardo Ramirez SP Homer Bailey
SP Steve Kelly SP Matt Maloney
SP Jeriome Robertson SP Phil Dumatrait
SP Jared Fernandez SP Richie Gardner
SP Brian Rose SP Tom Shearn

REDS BULLPEN INHERITED CURRENT BULLPEN
RP Chris Booker RP Marcus McBeth
RP Allan Simpson RP Brad Salmon
RP Joe Valentine RP Ty Pelland
RP Tom Shearn RP Victor Santos/Kirk Saarloos
RP Andy Van Hekken RP Ricky Stone

redsmetz
08-23-2007, 06:41 AM
I think you meant for the bottom half to be The Bats, not the Reds again? Also shouldn't Coffey be swapped with Kirk Saarloos? Likewise Belisle down with the Bats or was he recalled?

Looks like about six players left prior to his arrival, counting Belisle and Coffey: Dunn, Griffey, Harrang, Weathers and Coffey & Belisle. That's some serious sweeping.

Hoosier Red
08-23-2007, 10:32 AM
That's a great comparison there. Of course to say he is alone responsible for the players at AAA in the young ones in the majors isn't completely accurate. He also "inherited" Votto, Bruce, Janish, Dickerson, Bailey, Dumatrait, Gardner, Ramirez, Salmon, and perhaps others.

camisadelgolf
08-23-2007, 04:14 PM
I think you meant for the bottom half to be The Bats, not the Reds again? Also shouldn't Coffey be swapped with Kirk Saarloos? Likewise Belisle down with the Bats or was he recalled?

Looks like about six players left prior to his arrival, counting Belisle and Coffey: Dunn, Griffey, Harrang, Weathers and Coffey & Belisle. That's some serious sweeping.

It was really late when I posted that, so I got kind of sloppy. To put on the Reds list, I tried to stick with whoever was in the organization and had pitched the most.

camisadelgolf
08-23-2007, 04:19 PM
That's a great comparison there. Of course to say he is alone responsible for the players at AAA in the young ones in the majors isn't completely accurate. He also "inherited" Votto, Bruce, Janish, Dickerson, Bailey, Dumatrait, Gardner, Ramirez, Salmon, and perhaps others.

You're absolutely right. However, those are players he's decided to keep around so far, so maybe he deserves a little credit.